01-25-88 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 35
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Cities of Richfield,
Bloomington, Edina and Eden Prairie (South Suburban Adaptive
Recreation Board) and Adaptive Recreation Services Agreement
between the Cities of Richfield, Eden Prairie and Edina.
Background:
For some time the cities of Richfield and Bloomington have had a
cooperative approach to providing adaptive recreation programs
and related services for disabled persons including, but not
limited to, persons who are physically disabled, hearing
impaired, chronically mentally ill, learning disabled or mentally
handicapped.
In 1987 the cities of Edina and Eden Prairie approached Richfield
and Bloomington about the possibility of joining the cooperative
venture for adaptive programming. All parties believe that
adaptive recreation programming can be provided on a more
efficient basis with programs of higher quality and with broader
participation if the cities act jointly and cooperatively. That
is not to say that sometime in the future it would be more
advantageous, efficient o;r economical to provide such programming
on an individual city basis or on some basis more or less than
the proposed four city venture.
To formally create and execute the four city venture, two
agreements have been prepared. One agreement is not necessarily
dependent on the other agreement. Copies of the two proposed
Agreements, as prepared with the assistance of the Richfield city
attorney, are attached for city council review and consideration.
The Joint and Cooperative Agreement creates a South Suburban
Adaptive Recreation Board consisting of one member from each of
the four cities. The Board would continue from year to year
unless only one city remained as part of the Agreement.
The Agreement would provide authority for the Board to: 1)
develop, coordinate and conduct adaptive recreation programs, 2)
establish registration and participation procedures and
reasonable fees and charges for the programs, 3) coordinate
planning for cooperative and joint actions including use or
properties, staff, transportation and 4) apply for and accept
gifts and grants in support of adaptive programs and related
activities. In terms of the programs to be offered, each city
would be responsible for its own facilities, staff and insurance.
0 The Adaptive Recreation Services Agreement contemplates that each
city will be responsible for providing, at its own expense, the
administrative and program personnel required to provide its
share of the staffing for the adaptive recreation programs
conducted under the Joint and Cooperative Agreement.
However, Eden Prairie and Edina do not now have administrative
personnel to supervise and direct their adaptive recreation
programs and, therefore, wish to contract with Richfield for such
services. Such services would include one full-time employee of
Richfield, and all necessary support in terms of space, supplies
and other personnel, responsible for developing, coordinating and
administrating adaptive recreation programs in behalf of Edina
and Eden Prairie in cooperation with Bloomington and Richfield.
Eden Prairie and Edina together would pay $50,000 in 1988 to
Richfield with costs for ensuing years to be on the basis of
cost-sharing on the same premise used in 1988. Because the
agreement will not be in effect for a full calendar year, some
expenses will be prorated where appropriate.
This payment would not include the insurance premium, estimated
at $720 per city, for operation of the Board created under the
Joint and Cooperative Agreement.
Unlike the Joint and Cooperative Agreement which would be in
effect until only one party remained, it is fully understood that
if one city were to withdraw from the Adaptive Recreation
Services Agreement, Richfield would no longer provide the full-
time employee or other support services for Edina and Eden
Prairie. For the duration of the time the Adaptive Recreation
Services Agreement is in effect, the Richfield full-time adaptive
recreation program employee will be considered a "project
employee", whose service would be terminated if the program is
ended.
For one or both of the proposed Agreements to become effective,
all parties appropriate to each Agreement must give their
approval. Richfield, Bloomington, Edina and Eden Prairie are all
considering the two proposed Agreements in January of 1988.
Pending approval of the Agreements, the stipulations as approved
would become effective in 1988.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the Joint and Cooperative Agreement between the Cities of
Richfield, Bloomington, Edina and Eden Prairie (South Suburban
Adaptive Recreation Board), approve the Adaptive Recreation
Services Agreement and, subject to similar approval by other
parties on the Agreements, authorize execution of the Agreements.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The city of Richfield has and wishes to continue a strong
support of adaptive recreation programming.
2. Expansion of cooperative and joint ventures in adaptive
recreation programming will be to the benefit of the parties
serviced.
3. Richfield will be fully reimbursed for services provided to
other communities.
4. The adopted 1988 operating budget for the Richfield Community
Center included the services and funding outlined in the
proposed Agreements.
5. Richfield is not aware of any hesitation on the part of
Bloomington, Edina or Eden Prairie and anticipates if
approval of the Agreements has not already been made, such
approval will be given in January of 1988.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not enter into any or do not expand existing cooperative
and joint ventures for adaptive recreation programming.
2. Approve only the Joint and Cooperative Agreement which
establishes the Board but do not approve the Adaptive
Recreation Services Agreement, leaving administrative
staffing needs to be met by the individual cities in the
joint and cooperative venture.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for the January 25, 1988 city
council meeting. It is anticipated all or most of the other
three cities included in the proposed Agreements will have
already or will shortly take action on the proposals. Approval
by all parties in January of 1988 will hopefully afford full
implementation of the Agreements within the first quarter of
1988. If another community should wish to make major changes in
either Agreement, such information would be provided to the
• Richfield city council for further consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
am 46- Prosser
Cit anager
JDP/eja
Attachments
•
1/8/88
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
CITIES OF
BLOOMINGTON, EDINA, EDEN PRAIRIE AND RICHFIELD
SOUTH SUBURBAN ADAPTIVE RECREATION BOARD
I. PARTIES:
The Parties to this Agreement
located in Hennepin County, Minnesota:
City of Bloomington
City of Edina
City of Eden Prairie
City of Richfield
II. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:
are the following cities
The Parties to this Agreement, sometimes herein referred to
0
as "Cities," desire to cooperate in providing Adaptive Recreation
Programs and related services for disabled persons including, but
not limited to, persons who are physically disabled, hearing im-
paired, chronically mentally ill, learning disabled or mentally
handicapped. The Parties believe that Adaptive Recreation
Programs for such persons can be provided on a more efficient
basis with programs of higher quality and with broader participa-
tion if the Cities act jointly and cooperatively in providing the
programs. It is the purpose of this Agreement to provide the
framework and authority for such joint and cooperative action.
This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted by
Minn. Stat. §471.59.
-, e -112 - /// ?
III. CONTRACT PROVISIONS:
In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as
herein set forth the Parties contract and agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. Definitions.
Section 1. For the purposes of this Agreement terms
defined in this article have the meanings given them.
Sec. 2. "Adaptive Recreation Programs" means recreation
programs for disabled persons coordinated and conducted under the
auspices of the South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board created
under this Agreement.
Sec. 3. "Board Member" or "Member" means a person repre-
senting a Party on the Board.
Sec. 4. "City Council" means the governing body of a
is Party.
Sec. 5. "Party" means any of the Cities which enter into
this Agreement and have not thereafter withdrawn from participa-
tion.
Sec. 6. "South Suburban Adaptive Recreation Board" or
"Board" means the joint powers organization created under this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 2. Board
Section 1. The Board shall consist of the Board Members
designated by the Parties. The Board is responsible for develop-
ing, coordinating and conducting Adaptive Recreation Programs for
disabled residents of the Cities.
Sec. 2. Each Party is entitled to one Board Member. Each
2
Member has one vote and proxy voting is not permitted. Unless
• the City Council of any Party shall designate some other person
to serve as its Member on the Board, the membership of the Board
shall be as follows: Bloomington's Member shall be its Park and
Recreation Manager; Edina's Member shall be either the Director
of its Park and Recreation Department or, if he or she declines
to serve, its Assistant Director of Park and Recreation; Eden
Prairie's Member shall be its Director of Community Services or,
if he or she declines to serve, its Recreation Supervisor; and
Richfield's Member shall be its Recreation Program Coordinator.
Sec. 3. Members serve without compensation from the Board.
Sec. 4. A quorum of the Members consists of a majority of
the Members.
is Sec. 5. A vacancy in the office of a Party's Member is
filled by the City Council whose membership on the Board is
vacant. Unless and until the Party's City Council fills the
vacancy with some other appointee, the person serving in an
acting capacity in the position named in Section 2 of this
article shall act as that Party's Member on the Board. In the
event of a vacancy in any office of the Board, the Board shall
fill the vacancy in that office.
ARTICLE 3. Officers and Board Procedures
Section 1. At the original meeting of the Board and in
February of each year thereafter, the Board shall elect from its
Members a chair, a vice chair, a secretary and other officers it
deems necessary or advisable.
•
3
Sec. 2. The Board shall adopt and it may from time to time
amend rules and regulations governing its procedures including
such matters as the time, place and frequency of its regular
meetings and the manner of calling special meetings. Such rules
and regulations shall provide for an annual organizational
meeting of the Board in February of each year.
ARTICLE 4. Board Authority
Section 1. The powers and duties of the. Board and the
limitations thereof are as set forth in this Article.
Sec. 2. It shall develop, coordinate and conduct Adaptive
Recreation Programs for disabled persons residing within the
Cities and for non-residents where practicable and desirable.
Seca 3. It may impose reasonable charges for participation
in any of its Adaptive Recreation Programs. It may make its
programs available to persons not residing in the Cities and, in
such event, it may impose reasonable participation charges upon
such non-resident participants which are greater than the charges
imposed upon residents of the Cities.
Sec. 4. It shall coordinate planning for joint and cooper-
ative action among the Parties in providing Adaptive Recreation
Programs.
Sec. 5. It may provide cooperative advertising and pro-
motion of its programs within the Cities.
Sec. 6. It shall coordinate and arrange for the use of the
facilities of the Parties, without cost to the other Parties,
whenever practicable, as locations for its programs.
4
Sec. 7. It shall coordinate and arrange for the use of
the staff personnel of the Parties to conduct its programs
without cost to any of the other Parties whenever practicable.
Sec. 8. It shall make recommendations to the Parties
concerning ways in which the Parties can assist in the providing
of personnel and facilities for the conduct of its programs. It
is agreed, however, that a Party's providing of personnel or
facilities, or both, for programs of the Board is to be voluntary
on the part of each Party.
Sec. 9. It may adopt regulations governing participation
in its programs. Such regulations may include restrictions upon
participation in its programs where deemed necessary to equalize
opportunity to participate and to avoid having residents of any
one community or place of residence preempt participation "in a
particular program.
Sec. 10. It may establish procedures for registration for
and participation in its programs. In so doing it may condition
a person's participation in a program upon the waiving of poten-
tial claims of liability against the Board, the Parties and
their officers, agents, officials and employees.
Sec. 11. It may cooperate with and make use of the person-
nel and facilities of institutions and agencies providing service
to the disabled.
Sec. 12. It may coordinate and arrange for transportation
of participants in its programs.
0
5
Sec. 13. It may create one or more advisory committees such
as a parent/professional/consumer committee to advise it in the
formulation and conduct of its programs.
Sec. 14. It is not authorized to hire employees, rent or
purchase facilities or make other expenditures in the discharge
of its responsibilities nor may it bind Parties to take any such
actions, but such actions may be taken voluntarily by any or all
of the Parties pursuant to City Council authorization.
Sec. 15. It shall make a report of its activities to the
Parties at least once each year. Such report may include rec-
ommendations for amendments to this Agreement deemed desirable
to enhance the effectiveness of the Board in accomplishing its
purposes. Its books and records shall be available and open to
examination by authorized representatives of the Parties at all
reasonable times.
Sec. 16. It may apply for and accept gifts and grants in
support of its programs and related activities.
Sec. 17. It may purchase customary liability insurance
covering its activities.
ARTICLE 5. Employer Responsibility
Each Party shall retain employer's responsibility and
liability for any of its employees who engage in the activities
of the Board and/or the conduct of its programs.
ARTICLE 6. Financial Matters
Section 1. The Parties are not expected to provide
public funds directly to the Board to carry out the purposes of
this Agreement other than for the purchase of insurance as
6
x`/3-9
provided in the foregoing Article 4, Section 18. In the event
that the Parties should decide to provide direct public funding
to the Board, funds so provided, as well as any other funds
coming to the Board (such as user fees), shall be disbursed by
the Board, as far as practicable, in accordance with the methods
provided by law for the disbursement of funds by Optional Plan B
statutory cities. Any contracts let or purchases made by the
Board shall also conform with the legal requirements applicable
to contracts and purchases of such cities. There shall be strict
accountability for all funds and a report of all receipts and
disbursements, by the Board, in the same manner as is required by
law for the accounting of funds of each of the Parties.
Sec. 2. No Member shall voluntarily have a personal
• financial interest, direct or indirect, in any purchase or
contract of the Board.
Sec. 3. Each Party assumes responsibility for its own
facilities and its staff regardless of where staff services are
provided and each Party shall have responsibility to insure
itself against liability claims arising out of or by reason of
the use of its facilities or staff in the conduct of the Board's
programs. It shall indemnify and hold harmless each of the other
Parties against any such claims or costs or expenses of defending
the same.
ARTICLE 7. Duration; Withdrawal
Section 1. The Board shall continue from year to year
unless only one Party remains.
0
7
Sec. 2. Withdrawal of a Party from the Board at the end of
January of any year may be accomplished by the Party's filing a
written notice thereof with the Board by July 31 of the preceding
year, giving notice of withdrawal as of the following January 31.
The withdrawing Party shall continue to be a Party to this
Agreement until the effective date of such notice of withdrawal.
Sec. 3. If a Party withdraws from the Board before the
termination of the Board and if the Board has any assets, the
withdrawing Party shall have no claim to any such assets. If the
Board is terminated by mutual agreement by all of the Parties,
however, any assets of the Board shall be returned to the Parties
in proportion to their respective cash contributions, if any,
after paying all costs connected with the activities of the Board
. and the termination of its affairs.
ARTICLE 8. Effectiveness of Agreement
This Agreement is effective on the date on which a fully
executed copy of this Agreement, together with a certified copy
of a City Council resolution of each of the Parties authorizing
its execution, is filed with the city clerk of the City of Rich-
field. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counter-
parts each of which may be considered an original copy.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Parties have caused this
Agreement to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of
the date duly indicated opposite their signatures.
•
8
Wi-Y-/i
0
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
0055AA01
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
0-1.
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
CITY OF EDINA
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
9
•
1/8/88
ADAPTIVE RECREATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
PARTIES:
The parties to this agreement are:
CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Richfield"), a Minnesota municipal
corporation, having its principal offices at 6700 Portland
Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423,
and
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ("Eden Prairie") , a Minnesota munici-
pal corporation, having its principal offices at 7600
Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344,
and
CITY OF EDINA ("Edina"), a Minnesota municipal corporation,
having its principal offices at 4801 W. 50th Street, Edina,
Minnesota 55424.
• BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:
The parties to this agreement, together with the City of
Bloomington, have entered into an agreement entitled "JOINT AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT/CITIES OF BLOOMINGTON, EDINA, EDEN PRAIRIE
AND RICHFIELD/SOUTH SUBURBAN ADAPTIVE RECREATION BOARD", herein-
after called "the Joint Powers Agreement". The Joint Powers
Agreement provides for the joint and cooperative development,
coordination and conduct of the recreation programs for disabled
persons in the cities which are signatories to that agreement.
The agreement contemplates that each party will be responsible
for providing, at its own expense, the administrative and program
personnel required for it to provide its share of the staffing
for the adaptive recreation programs conducted under the Joint
and Cooperative Agreement.
Eden Prairie and Edina do not now have administrative personnel
who can provide the services necessary to supervise and direct
their adaptive recreation programs. They desire to contract with
Richfield to provide such personnel subject to and in accordance
with the provisions of this agreement.
This agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59.
CONTRACT PROVISIONS:
In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements as
hereinafter set forth, the parties therefor contract and agree as
follows:
1. Eden Prairie and Edina hereby engage Richfield to
provide and Richfield agrees to provide them with adaptive
recreation program administrative services on the basis hereinaf-
ter set forth.
2. Such services shall be provided by Richfield acting as
an independent contractor by providing one full-time employee of
Richfield who shall act as adaptive recreation supervisor. The
person designated by Richfield to provide such services shall be
an employee of Richfield for all purposes including workers'
compensation, unemployment compensation, income taxation and
fringe benefits. The position shall be evaluated annually to
determine if it will be continued for the next ensuing year. The
person engaged is hereinafter referred to as the "Supervisor".
3. The Supervisor will have responsibility for conducting
a program survey and developing, coordinating and administrating
adaptive recreation programs in behalf of the Cities of Eden
Prairie and Edina, in cooperation with the appropriate staff
members of the Cities of Bloomington and Richfield. At the end
• of the year the Supervisor will provide a summary report relating
to the number of individuals served in various programs from each
community.
4. Office space, clerical support and supplies for the
Supervisor shall be provided by Richfield at the Richfield
Community Center.
5. Richfield shall keep the assigned staff persons of the
Cities of Eden Prairie and Edina advised of the Supervisor's
activities on behalf of those cities on a quarterly basis.
6. For such services provided by Richfield to Eden Prairie
and Edina during the year 1988, Eden Prairie and Edina shall pay
Richfield at an annual rate of Fifty Thousand and no/hundredths
Dollars ($50,000.00). If less than a full calendar year of
services are provided in 1988, the items of expense shall be
prorated where appropriate. One quarter of the sum payable to
Richfield shall be paid to Richfield by each of the other parties
on or before January 31, 1988, and a like sum shall be paid by
each of them on or before July 31, 1988. Such sum is based upon
the "1988 Edina/Eden Prairie Adaptive Budget" attached hereto.
7. For 1989 and subsequent years Eden Prairie and Edina
shall pay Richfield on the basis of cost-sharing to be determined
each year in the following manner:
2
• Each year, on or before August 1, commencing with the year 1988,
Richfield, in consultation with Eden Prairie and Edina, shall
make an estimate of the total costs Richfield will incur in the
ensuing year in providing adaptive recreation staff and adminis-
trative services to Eden Prairie and Edina and shall notify them
in writing of its estimate of such total annual costs for the
ensuing year. On or before September 1st of the same year Eden
Prairie and Edina shall notify Richfield in writing as to whether
or not they are agreeable to the continuation of this contract
for the ensuing calendar year at the costs estimated by
Richfield. If the parties determine to continue the contract for
the ensuing year, the payment of their respective shares of the
costs shall be made by Eden Prairie and Edina to Richfield in two
equal installments on or before January 31 and July 31 of the
ensuing calendar year.
Richfield agrees that it will provide Eden Prairie and Edina with
any documentation it has in support of its proposed annual budget
for 1989 and any subsequent year, showing the basis for any
estimates or calculations of cost.
8. This agreement shall be effective for the year 1988
upon its duly authorized execution by the parties. It shall
continue in force from year to year subject to termination by any
party. Such termination shall be effected by serving mailed
notice thereof upon the other party no later than September 1st
• of the year at the end of which such termination is to be effec-
tive.
9. Termination of the agreement by any party at the end of
the calendar year shall not affect the obligation of any party to
perform the agreement for and during the period that the agree-
ment remains in effect.
10. The recreation directors or assigned staff persons of
the parties to the agreement shall meet at least twice each year
to review the manner in which Eden Prairie and Edina are being
provided with adaptive recreation program services under this
agreement.
11. Each of the parties agrees that it will cooperate fully
and in a timely manner to facilitate and accomplish the purposes
of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this
0
3
?i3 /-? -
• agreement to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of
the date duly indicated opposite their signatures.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Date:
Date:
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Its
By
Its City Manager
CITY OF EDINA
Date:
By
Its
0
0055AA03L04
By
Its City Manager
4
?/2141_
1988
EDINA/EDEN PRAIRIE ADAPTIVE RECREATION BUDGET
(In accordance with Adaptive Recreation Services Agreement)
Edina/Eden Prairie Adaptive Programmer $23,000
Community Center Manager (10%) 3,400
ARLE Committee Advisor 1,000
Senior Clerk Typist (5$) 788
Joint Powers Board Insurance 1,430
Part Time Staff/Program Subsidies 5,000
Fringe Benefits (33%) 7,590
Office Supplies 300
Photo Copy 200
General Supplies/Staff Participation 890
Mileage 1,200
Postage 200
Printing 500
Office Rental 1,200
Transportation 600
Telephone (plus phone installation) 900
Conferences 302
Memberships 250
Office Furnishings (one-time charge) 1,250
$50,000
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 34
Agenda, January 25, 1988-
Issue Statement:
Setting a date for the 1988 Local Board of Review.
Background:
Minnesota Statute 274.01 provides that the County Assessor shall
establish a date for Local Boards of Review each year, for the
purpose of reviewing the assessment of property within each
respective city in Hennepin County. The meetings are to be held
between March 1 and May 31 and must be preceded by at least 10
days published notice before the date of the first meeting. The
Board of Review must complete its work within 20 days of the
first local Board meeting each year, unless a longer period of
time is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue. However, the
Commissioner will not issue an extension past May 31.
The County Assessor has recommended Monday, May 2, 1988, as the
date of the 1988 Local Board of Review meeting for Richfield.
The meeting will be scheduled to begin at 7:00 P.M. For the past
several years, the City of Richfield has held its Board of Review
meeting the first Monday in June. However, a change in the
Statute moved the process forward by one month, thus
• necessitating the May meeting.
Approximately a month prior to the Local Board of Review meeting,
the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin
County Assessor's office assigned to Richfield will brief Council
Members on the Board of Review process and of typical cases that
may come before the Board.
Recommended Motion:
1. It is recommended that the City Council confirm the County
Assessor's selection of Monday, May 2, 1988, at 7:00 P.M.,
for the Board of Review meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The County Assessor coordinates the scheduling of all Local
Boards of Review in Hennepin County. He has recommended
Monday, May 2, 1988.
2. The City has typically held the Local Board of Review on
the first Monday in June, but a law change now necessitates
that the meeting be held a month earlier.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City Council could select another date for the
Local Board of Review Hearing and submit the date to the
County Assessor.
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
Hennepin County must make a schedule of local Board of Review
hearings to facilitate the County Board hearings and to ensure
that needed information has been compiled prior to the Local
Board of Review Meetings. Notification to Hennepin County should
be made as soon as possible, especially if an alternate date is
requested.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/sae
r1
L..I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 33
Issue Statement:
Designation of Mayor Pro Tempore and Acting City Manager.
Background:
It is necessary to designate persons to serve as the Mayor Pro
Tempore and the Acting City Manager for those times when either
the Mayor or City Manager are absent from the city.
Past Mayor Pro Tempores' are as follows: 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986 -
Council Member Ludeman; 1985 - Council Member Sandahl; and 1987 -
Council Member Garcia.
The Director of Administrative Services is usually designated as
the Acting City Manager.
Recommended Motion:
• 1 Designate a Council Member to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore
during 1988. (2) Designate Steven Devich, Director
Administrative Services as the Acting City Manager.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. These appointments are necessary to insure continuation of
operations during the absence of either the Mayor or the City
Manager.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer the appointments to another council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter has been placed on the January 25, 1988 city council
agenda for council consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
40
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 32
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Appointment of persons to various advisory boards and commissions
Background:
The terms of members of the various boards and commissions of the
city will expire January 31, 1988. Applicants were interviewed
by the city council on January 12 and 26. Some applicants have
expressed an interest in more than one commission. The order of
their preference has been indicated for each commission. The
vacancies and applicants are as follows:
ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
There are eight appointments to be made to this board. Three
members wish to be reappointed, and there are seven applicants:
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment:
Jane Myre
Jacquelyn Lockman
Kevin Keller
New Applicants:
David Delzer (4th choice
Pamela Duffey (3rd choice)
Ralph Francis (1st choice)
Jane Koenig (only choice)
Sheila Martin (2nd choice)
Suzanne McKeever (only)
Karen Patek (third choice)
Randall Roehl (1st choice)
Susan Rosenberg (1st choice)
Suzanne Sandahl (3rd choice)
Lawrence Zielke (7th choice)
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
1/31/90
1/31/90
1/31/90
1/31/90
1/31/90
1/31/90
1/31/89
1/31/89
One appointment to be made. George Karnas seeks reappointment,
and nine persons have also applied.
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment:
George Karnas
New Applicants:
Steven Hurvitz (1st choice)
Shirley Johnson (1st choice)
Duaine Kmetz (1st choice)
Robert Lexvold (1st choice)
Bud Long (only choice)
Sheila Martin (5th choice)
Karen Patek (1st choice)
Kimberly Roden (4th choice)
Wallace Roholt (2nd choice)
Lawrence Zielke (2nd choice)
1/31/91
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
•
11
Five appointments to be made, and four members seek
reappointment:
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment:
Karen Skwira
Robert Meyer
Emily Day
Emil Shipka
New Applicants:
Lisa Buhta (1st choice)
David Delzer (1st choice)
Pamela Duffey (4th choice)
Jerry Flatergraff (3rd choice)
Steven Hurvitz (2nd choice)
Shirley Johnson (2nd choice)
Robert Lexvold (2nd choice)
Sheila Martin (4th choice)
Lorraine Prindle (2nd choice)
Kimberly Roden (2nd choice)
Susan Rosenberg (3rd choice)
Suzanne Sandahl (1st choice)
Lawrence Ziekle (3rd choice)
ENERGY AWARENESS COMMISSION
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/90
Five appointments to be made. Three members seek reappointment.
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment:
Richard Holt
Sid Sanford
Paul Peabody
New Applicants
Greg Allers
Lisa Buhta (2nd choice)
Ralph Francis (3rd choice)
Sheila Martin (6th choice)
Lawrence Zielke (4th choice)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/89
1/31/89
Four appointments to be made. One member seeks reappointment.
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment
Joel Johnson
New Applicants:
Gordon Anderson (1st choice)
Pamela Duffey (2nd choice)
Jerry Flatergraff (2nd choice)
Steve Johnson (only choice)
Robert Lexvold (3rd choice)
Sheila Martin (3rd choice)
Kimberly Roden (5th choice)
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/90
1/31/90
•
•
•
Randall Roehl (3rd choice)
Susan Rosenberg (2nd choice)
Lawrence Zielke (5th choice)
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION (Serving.seniors and disabled)
Four appointments to be made. Two members seek reappointment.
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment _
Nancy Tjornhom -
Myrna Hammer -
New Applicants _
Greg Allers
Benjamin Arriola (only choice)
Camillo DeSantis (only choice)
Jerry Flatergraff (1st choice)
Ralph Francis (2nd choice)
Shirley Johnson (3rd choice)
Luella Kolesar (only choice)
Kathleen Lagermeier (only choice)
Robert Lexvold (4th choice)
Sheila Martin (1st choice)
Joan Robinson (only choice)
Kimberly Roden (3rd choice)
Lawrence Zielke (6th choice)
PLANNING COMMISSION
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/90
Three appointments to be made, and two members seek
reappointment.
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment
Timothy Erlander
Leon Lunas
New Applicants
Gordon Anderson (2nd choice)
Robert Buescher (only choice)
David Delzer (2nd choice)
Robert Doebler (Only choice)
Steven Hurvitz (3rd choice)
Duaine Kmetz (2nd choice)
Sheila Martin (7th choice)
Robert Nelson (only choice)
Thomas Ohnesorge (only choice)
Karen Patek (2nd choice)
Lorraine Prindle (1st choice)
Kimberly Roden (1st choice)
Randall Roehl (2nd choice)
Wallace Roholt (1st choice)
Suzanne Sandahl (2nd choice)
Lawrence Zielke (1st choice)
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/91
? r
SISTER CITY INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE
! Five appointments to be made, two members seek reappointment.
Applicants:
Appointed
Term
Seeking Reappointment
Sister Charlotte Ann LeClair
Nancy Kilpeck
New Applicants
Pamela Duffey (1st choice)
Cynthia Mandl (only choice)
Sheila Martin (8th choice)
Lawrence Zielke (8th choice)
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/91
1/31/89
1/31/89
Recommended Notion:
Appoint members to fill the terms on the various boards and
advisory commissions.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Terms of members expire on January 31. In order to assure
quoruwns for February meetings, appointments should be made at
this time.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer appointments to a later date. However, this could
result in some commissions not having a quorum for February
meetings.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the January 25, 1988 council agenda
for council consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 31
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Confirmation of council liaison appointments for 1988.
Background:
Members of the City Council represent the city on a variety of
boards and commissions. A list of the liaison appointments, as
previously discussed by the council, is attached.
Recommended Motion:
Confirm the council liaison appointments for 1988 as attached to
the council letter.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. It is necessary for council members to serve in liaison
capacities.
2. Council Members have reviewed the appointments.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer the confirmation until a future council meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the January 25, 1988 for council
action.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
10
COMMISSION-LIAISON APPOINTMENTS
AGENCY
ASSOC. METRO. MUNICIPALITIES (AMM)
One representative, one alternate
Meets: Annual meeting & various times
CATV COMMISSION
Two directors, two alternates
Meets: First Wednesday, 7:30 P.M.
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES (LMC)
One representative, one alternate
Meets: Annual Meeting-June and
Various times
MASAC
Two representatives, two alternates
Meets: Fourth Tuesday, 7:30 P.M.
RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
• One delegate, one alternate
Meets: First and Third Monday, 7:00 P.M.
STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION, INC.
One liaison, one alternate
Meets: Third Tuesday, 7:30 A.M.
Every other month
SOUTH HENN. HUMAN SVCES. COUNCIL (SHHSC)
Four directors, staggered two-year terms
Meets: Fourth Wednesday, 5:00 P.M.
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
One director, one alternate
Meets: As needed
ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
One liaison, one alternate
Meets: Third Monday, 7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY COMMISSION
One liaison, one alternate
Meets: Second Tuesday, 7:00 P.M.
1987 LIAISON
John Hamilton
Martin Kirsch, Alt.
John Hamilton, Dir.
James Prosser, Dir.
Ivan Ludeman, Alt.
Steven Devich, Alt.
Ivan Ludeman, Rep.
Edwina Garcia, Alt.
Edwina Garcia, Rep.
Donald Priebe, Rep.
John Hamilton, Alt.
James Prosser, Alt.
John Hamilton, Del.
Michael Sandahl, Alt.
Edwina Garcia, Lia.
John Nelson
Myrna Hammer
Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch
Michael Sandahl, Dir.
Don Hassenstab, Alt.
Martin Kirsch, Lia.
Pat Coughlin, Alt.
Michael Sandahl, Lia.
Ivan Ludeman, Alt.
1988 LIAISON
Steve Quam
Edwina Garcia
Steve Quam
James Prosser
Ivan Ludeman
Steven Devich
Ivan Ludeman
Edwina Garcia
Edwina Garcia
Donald Priebe
Michael Sandahl
James Prosser
Steve Quam
Michael Sandahl
Steve Quam
Jack Erskine
John Nelson
Myrna Hammer
Ivan Ludeman
Martin Kirsch
Michael Sandahl
Michael Eastling
Martin Kirsch
Edwina Garcia
Michael Sandahl
Ivan Ludeman
ENERGY AWARENESS ADVISORY COMMISSION Michael Sandahl, Lia. Edwina Garcia
One liaison, one alternate Edwina Garcia, Alt. Michael Sandahl
Meets: Third Tuesday, 7:00 P.M.
.AGENCY 1987 LIAISON 1988 LIAISON
PROJECT CHARLIE ------------ Edwina Garcia
John Nelson
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Edwina Garcia, Lia. Steve Quam
One liaison, one alternate John Hamilton, Alt. Edwina Garcia
Meets: First Tuesday, 7:00 P.M.
HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Martin Kirsch, Lia. Martin Kirsch
one liaison, one alternate Ivan Ludeman, Alt. Ivan Ludeman
Meets: Second Thursday, 4:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION Martin Kirsch, Lia. Martin Kirsch
one liaison, one alternate Edwina Garcia, Alt. Edwina Garcia
Meets: Fourth Tuesday, 7:30 P.M.
SISTER CITY INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD John Hamilton, Lia. James Prosser
One liaison, one alternate James Prosser, Alt. Steve Quam
Meets: Second Thursday, 7:00 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE
DIRECTOR TO SURBURBAN AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
is hereby designated to serve as a
director of the Surburban Rate Authority, and
is hereby designated to serve as alternate director of the
Surburban Rate Authority for the year 1988 and until their
successors are appointed.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this
4
day of
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
. 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 30
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of a resolution amending the organizational
structure for the Department of Public Safety
Background:
The Department of Public Safety management team and the city
manager have completed a review of the organizational structure
of the department. The review resulted in a recommendation for
changes in the structure of the department in order to improve
efficiency and accountability.
The net result of the change is no increase in the number of
personnel within the department, and no increase in overall
salary requirements. A reorganization includes the following
changes:
1. The Administrative Division is re-titled to Support
Division.
The title change has been recommended to avoid confusion
between the Administrative Division of the Public Safety
Department and the Administrative Services Department, one
of five executive city departments.
2. The Support Division will continue to be responsible for
records and communications and will add responsibilities for
health. The health duties were previously shared by the
Fire Chief, an Administrative Aide, and the Director. This
change is recommended in order to provide better
coordination of health related issues. The reassignment
will also require additional part time clerical staff.
Funding is available for the part time clerical staff
because a vacant full-time Communications Supervisor
position will be eliminated.
3. The Support Services Division, previously headed by a police
Lieutenant, will be headed by a Captain, reassigned from the
Police Division. This change is recommended because the
expanded responsibilities of this division requires
equitable position classifications with the Police and Fire
Divisions. The increased salary requirements for this
position again will be funded by elimination of the vacant
Communications Supervisor position.
• 4. The Communications Supervisor responsibilities will be
assumed by the Administrative Sergeant on assignment from
the Police Division. The Administrative Sergeant is an
existing position within the Police Division.
d "1
•
5. The reorganization also provides for temporary assignment of
police and fire division personnel to the Support Services
Division. This temporary assignment process is consistent
with previous practices within the department.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the attached resolution establishing divisions within the
Department of Public Safety.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. To improve organizational accountability and efficiency.
If council does approve the resolution, it will be necessary
for the Civil Service Commission to undertake appropriate
testing for the modified positions.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council may elect not to approve the attached resolution
and require the Public Safety Department to operate under the
current organizational structure.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter is scheduled for action at the council meeting of
January 25, 1988.,
Respect lly submitted,
James Prosser
City nager
JDP/eja
•
RESOLUTION RELATING TO
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Section 300.03 of the Richfield City Code provides that
Divisions within the Departments shall be established from time
to time by resolution of the city council with the recommendation
of the Manager, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and desirable to act pursuant to
such authority by abiding by Divisions within the Department of
Public Safety and to define certain relationships between and
among such Divisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of
Richfield, as follows:
1. There shall be five Divisions within the Public Safety
Department, i.e., a Police Division, a Fire Division, an
Emergency Services Division, a Support Services Division and an
Inspection Division.
2. Persons in the classified service in the Police and Fire
Divisions may be assigned to positions within any of the other
• four Divisions of the Department for training and professional
development purposes. Service on any such assignment shall not
alter the status of the person so assigned, as a classified
employee of the Division from which he or she was assigned.
3. Persons in the Support Services Division may be assigned
to provide support services to any of the other three Divisions.
Support Services include secretarial services, radio dispatching,
Community Service Officer activities and the work of trainees who
are not in classified civil service positions. Services do not
include engaging in actual fire prevention and protective
services or taking actions which are required to be performed by
licensed Police Officers.
E
n
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 29
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration of an amendment to the administrative code Section
300.13, Public Safety Department, Subdivision 2. Fire Division
Background:
At the time the police and fire divisions were organized under a
Public Safety Department, the positions of Police Chief and Fire
Chief were eliminated and replaced with a Public Safety Director.
Operational responsibilities for the police and fire divisions
became the responsibility of the Police Captain and Assistant
Fire Chief respectively. The Public Safety Director retained
responsibility for the overall supervision of the department, but
day to day operations. were supervised by these positions.
Compensation for the Assistant Fire Chief position has been
equivalent to that of Fire Chiefs in other communities. One of
the major advantages in retaining the title of Assistant Fire
Chief has been the perception of a requirement by the insurance
• rating service that the city maintain a Fire Chief and an
Assistant Fire Chief. A recent review of this requirement
indicates that this is no longer the case.
Additionally, some confusion has existed in communications with
the public and other departments with the title of Assistant Fire
Chief. Many activities which would be adequately handled by the
Assistant Fire Chief position are being referred to the Director
of Public Safety.
Recommended Motion:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment eliminating the
Director of Public Safety as the Chief of the Fire Division.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Director of Public Safety will retain supervisory
responsibility for the Fire Division. In fact, there will be
no actual changes in responsibilities for these positions.
2. The change in titles will provide a clearer picture to the
public regarding responsibility for day to day operations of
the Fire Division.
3. The compensation for this position will not change now, or in
the future because of this title change. Under the
comparable worth law, the compensation for this position is
determined by the position responsibilities. These position
• responsibilities are clearly established. Therefore,
increasing compensation for a title change, not just Fire
Chief, cannot be permitted under the comparable worth system.
4. Change in the title will provide for clearer comparability in
position responsibilities, since the Assistant Fire Chief in
?/-Z/
Richfield acts in the same capacity as other Fire Chiefs do
in other communities. The titles should be the same.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council could choose not to approve the attached
ordinance.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter was scheduled for first reading on January 11, 1988
and was tabled to provide an opportunity for further review.
Since that time staff has talked to council members regarding
this matter and issues appear to have been clarified.
If acceptable by the council, this matter will be scheduled for a
public hearing and second reading on February 22, 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
n
U
i
n
U
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 300.13,
SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 300.13 Public Safety Department
Subd. 2. Fire Division. - The Fire Division is supervised by
r?t
the Director of Public Safety , he is the Gh-ref ef the
and who is assisted by a Fire Chief of that Division. There
shalt may be one or more Assistant Chief's in the Division.
8 council meeting.
0
_?t
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 28
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
1 First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment rezoning
the property located at 6636 Cedar Avenue South (old liquor store
site) and the adjoining to be vacat-Pd public right-of-way; 2)
Consider the preliminary PUD plan, Request for waiver of the
preliminary plat approval requirement; and 4) Set date of hearing
on Redevelopment Plan and TIF plan.
Background:
Lincoln Companies has made a request to the city to develop the
property located at 6636 Cedar Avenue South (old liquor store
site). The development of the site involves the construction of
a three story office building with parking facility to be used as
the corporate headquarters for Copy Duplicating Products, Inc.
The building would be constructed with precast decorative stone.
The city has previously considered at least two less intensive
commercial development proposals but the proposals did not
materialize. The present proposal is substantially more
intensive for the site than the previous proposals.
Copy Duplicating Products headquarters building is currently
located in Bloomington and is the largest distributor of copy
machines in the country. They initially would employ
approximately 240 people and the new location in Richfield
projects to house 280 employees. The office building would be
open 8 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday. The lowest two levels
of the parking facility would be secured during non-business
hours and the whole facility would be under a 24 hour
surveillance system.
The site is currently zoned C-2 General Commercial. The
applicant is requesting a rezoning to PC-2 Planned General
Commercial district.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 530, sets standards for planned unit development
districts.
2. Section 545.11, outlines the ordinance amendment procedure.
Other Ordinance Requirements:
1. Section 500, outlines the requirements for land subdivisions
and platting procedures.
2. Section 800, outlines the regulations for street excavations,
driveway and parking areas.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve the first reading of the attached ordinance and
schedule the public hearing on rezoning of the subject
property from C-2 general commercial to PC-2 planned general
commercial district for February 8, 1988 and refer the matter
to the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
2. Consider the preliminary PUD plan and refer the preliminary
PUD plan to the Planning Commission for their recommendation
and schedule the public hearing on both preliminary PUD plan
and final development plan.
3. Approve the request for waiver of the preliminary plat
approval requirement.
4. Approve the attached resolution regarding the Redevelopment
Plan and the TIF Plan and schedule the public hearing on
February 22, 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
A. Analysis of the Planned Unit Development Plan:
1. Since the project is within a redevelopment project area
the PUD ordinance is only applic able as a guideline for
the site plan revi ew. The analys is below highlights the
main area s of the proposal.
PUD Proposal IC-2 Zoning District
(Requirement
Minimum Setbacks: I
I
Front: I
North 8 feet I No Requirement
South 60 feet I No Requirement
East (Ceda r Ave.) 31 feet I 40 feet
West (18th Ave.) 18 feet I 40 feet
Maximum Height
N/A I
I 3 story/40 feet
Minimum Parking
376 spaces I
I 295 spaces
Width of Curb Cut 26 feet. I 26 feet
40 feet I
Floor Area Ratio 0.84 I N/A
The total land area including the vacated properties
would be 121,228.4 square feet (approximately 2.8 acres)
with total floor area of approximately 88,200 square
feet. The proposal deviates only in the area of the
building setbacks from 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue. The
applicant has submitted a request for a variance on the
setbacks as an interim solution prior to the effective
date of a PUD.
The number of parking spaces available on the site is in
excess of that required by 81 spaces. Experience of the
city in other projects regarding parking would indicate
that this is appropriate. The floor area ratio indicates
an intense use but one that appears to cause no adverse
effect at this location. The anticipated roadway
improvement plan for TH 77 further justifies the
intensity of the project as well as its compatibility
with existing and expected land use. The three story
structure would not have any significant shadow effect on
the abutting properties.
2. The Comprehensive Development Plan designates the site as
mixed land use and the proposed office use would be in
conformance with the city's Comprehensive Plan.
3. The site is adequately served by utilities including gas,
water, electricity and sanitary sewer service. Some of
the utilities will be relocated. Utility easements would
have to be provided to the city. A preliminary drainage
plan was submitted and approved by the City Engineer.
Most of the storm sewer will be connected to the system
on Cedar Avenue towards the northeast of the site. Storm
water would be controlled on site so that the rate of
storm water runoff would not exceed current conditions.
The existing capacity of the utilities would be adequate,
and, therefore, would not have any negative impact.
4. Access to the site would be only from Cedar Avenue.
There will be four curb cuts on Cedar Avenue. All will
meet minimum width requirements for curb cuts in a
commercial district. Traffic will enter and exit to
lower levels A and 6 from Cedar Avenue only from the curb
cut located at the southeast corner of the site. The
traffic will enter and exit the upper parking level C
from the curb cut located at the northeast corner of the
site. There would be a landscaped island with sidewalk
and ramp along Cedar Avenue in front of the building.
The five surface parking spaces shown near the island
would be available for short term parking only.
Any potential negative impact due to potential increase
in traffic on 18th Avenue will be monitored by the city
traffic control committee. Appropriate action will be
taken by the city to prevent any negative impact. The
traffic circulation system is designed properly and
should not present problems. The existing curb cuts on
67th Street will be closed and a retaining wall will be
constructed along the south line of 67th Street. Access
for the American Family Insurance office building will be
from Cedar Avenue. A new curb cut would be installed for
that site.
5. It is staff's opinion that there will
exposure and air circulation on the s
should not have any adverse effect on
properties. A 42" wall on each level
facility and the retaining wall along
facility would prevent any automobile
be adequate light
ite and that it
surrounding
of the parking
the access to the
headlights shining
on the dwellings. The parking lot lights on the upper
level C will be reflecting downward as well.
6. North of the property is the new Cedar Liquor Store,
south of 67th street is the American Family Insurance
office building and a two family dwelling. West of the
property is mostly residential. The landscape plan
indicates that there would be a retaining wall along the
south line of 67th Street and a six foot wooden fence
will be installed to provide adequate screening for the
abutting two family dwelling on 67th Street. Some
landscaping with shrubberies will also be provided along
the south line of 67th Street abutting the insurance
office building. The screening along 67th Street has
been worked out by the developer with the abutting
property owners.
The landscape plan indicates the removal of the existing
trees on the site along 18th Avenue. The city and the
developer solicited opinion of foresters separately and
determined that the life expectancy of these trees are
very minimal. The plan indicates that a three foot berm
will be constructed along 18th Avenue and seven new four
inch caliper Sugar Maples, thirty new six foot Black
Hills Spruce on the berm. This would adequately screen
• the site from abutting residential properties.
Cedar Avenue boulevard would be landscaped along with
thirteen four inch caliper Redmond Linden. The developer
has agreed to retain as many boulevard trees as possible.
The developer has also agreed to let the city remove any
mature trees not utilized as part of the landscaping for
the premises. There will be additional landscaping with
shrubberies and trees around the office structure.
7. The loading and unloading will be below grade on the
southeast corner of the building. A retaining wall will
be constructed to prevent any public view of the dock.
It is the opinion of the staff that landscaping and
screening provided on the site is adequate. Additional
plantings will be provided if necessary to prevent any
negative visual impact.
A neighborhood meeting was held on the proposal on
January 7, 1988 and was attended by approximately 12-15
people. The resident's concerns were received positively
by the applicant and are being incorporated in the
proposal.
B. Street Vacation:
The city proposes to vacate 67th Street right-of-way and 17
feet of Cedar Avenue boulevard to provide additional land to
the developer. The city does not see the need to maintain
• these rights-of-way. The proposed vacation of 67th Street
from Cedar Avenue and 18th Avenue would close access for any
traffic from the office buildings within the redevelopment
area or from Cedar Avenue via 67th Street to the residential
neighborhood. The developer agreed to build a driveway from
18th Avenue which would permit continued access to the
parking pad at the rear of the two family dwelling. The
developer would also work out an agreement with two abutting
property owners on 67th Street for use of their portion of
the vacated right-of-ways for CDP. The vacation of the
right-of-ways and sale of these properties are dealt with in
a separate letter.
NSP has indicated its desire to continue its easement on the
property. The city would also maintain utility easements on
the site.
C. Plat:
The applicant has requested a waiver of the preliminary plat
approval requirement since the site is essentially one lot
and the subdivision regulation provides for such waiver by
the council if the plat contains three lots or less. Final
plat would have to be submitted and approved simultaneously
with the final development plan.
. D. Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan:
The redevelopment would utilize tax increment financing. The
unique features of this TIF are: (1) the tax increment would
be utilized for only eight years. The first tax increment
payment from this development would be received in 1990 and
continue through 1997. (2) No bonds would be sold. CDP
would receive a total of $850,000 in equal payments each
year. Considerable savings would be achieved because there
would be no capitalized interest and no fees related to a
bond sale; (3) Approximately 31% ($73,161/year) of the tax
increment would be distributed to the taxing jurisdictions,
and an additional 20% ($47,193/year) would be distributed to
the metropolitan fiscal disparities pool. CDP would receive
approximately 45% ($106,250/year) of the increment and the
HRA/City Administration cost would be funded by approximately
4% ($9,362/year) of the increment. A detailed description of
the Redevelopment Plan and TIF plan is attached for your
review.
At their January 19, 1988 meeting, the HRA adopted a
resolution approving the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment
Financing District plan for the proposed Cedar Avenue
Business Area Redevelopment Project. The resolution also
requests the City Council to schedule a public hearing on the
plans and to approve the plan. The attached resolution calls
• for a public hearing on February 22, 1988.
Prior to adoption of the HRA resolution, the Planning
Commission adopted a resolution finding the proposed Economic
Development Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan consistent
with the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may choose to deny any one or all of the
requests made by the developer.
Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for council consideration on January 25,
1988. No public hearing is scheduled at this time. Staff will
provide legal notice for publication and also mailed notices to
the property owners within 350 feet of the site, for the public
hearing and second reading on the above mentioned items.
Respe t ully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
0
0
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX I OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix I of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
entitled "Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in
the following respect.
I. Section 3, paragraphs (50), (51), and (54) are repealed.
II. The following new paragraph (6) is added to Section 7.
(6) Lots 1 through 10, inclusive Block 1, Wexler's addition
and all that part of Cedar Avenue South described as
follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 1,
Wexler's Addition; thence Easterly on the extension of
the South line of said Lot 5 to a point 33 feet West of
the East line of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24
West, which point is referred to herein as "Point A";
thence North on a line parallel with and 33 feet West of
said East line of said Section 26 to the intersection
with the Easterly extension of the North line of Lot 1,
Block 1, Wexler's Addition, which line is referred to
herein as "Line X"; thence West along said extension of
the North line of said Lot 1 to the northeast corner of
Lot 1; thence South along the East line of Lots 1 through
5 of Block 1, Wexler's Addition to the point of
beginning, and there terminating; AND
All that part of Cedar Avenue South lying Westerly and
Northerly of the following described lines:
Beginning at "Point All described above; thence Southerly
on the extension of "Line X" described above to the
intersection with the Easterly extension of the North
line of Lot 1, Block 4, Wexler's Addition; thence West
along said extension of the North line of said Lot 1 to
the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, and there
terminating; AND
That part of East 67th Street lying between the Southerly
prolongation of the Easterly line of 18th Avenue South
and the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of
Cedar Avenue South.
0
RESOLUTION NO.
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Richfield (HRA) adopted a resolution on January 19,
1988 authorizing the preparation of a Development Program and Tax
Increment Financing Plan for the proposed Cedar Avenue Business
Area economic development district; and
WHEREAS, such Program and Plan must be presented to the City
Council of the City of Richfield for consideration and adoption
prior to undertaking any publicly financed redevelopment work
within the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Richfield as follows:
1. That a public hearing
City Hall on the 22nd
or as soon thereafter
2. That the City Clerk i
be published a notice
newspaper of the City
meeting.
be held before the City Council at
day of February, 1988, at 7:00 p.m.,
as the matter can be heard.
s authorized and directed to cause to
of said public hearing in the official
at least ten days in advance of the
3. That the City Clerk or City Attorney is authorized to
transmit a copy of the Redevelopment Plan and Program, and
Tax Increment Financing Plan along with a notice of the
public hearing to the county and school district.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
25th day of January, 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
r?
C
•
?Z?
0 ' P V ; W 111 ± - (? () N
11 N N y 1 H H ? r H H H
XERXES AVE WASHBURN
I;r_;L _? C Jam"
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDYI
RUSSELL
Queen j!
PENN AVt. 1f1 ?'"?'--?=
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN "J??I •?? Cr u?
LOOAN,;
KN071
JAMES IRVINE _I?+?.
HUMSOLOT fir-- - !?- --
---
uC
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT p
BRYANT ^oQ??l
COLFAX
I oo??
DRICH
ALDRICH
LYNDALE Ave.
GARFIELD II
HARRIET 1
GRAND 18TH AVE S
PLEASANT ;
PILLSBURY
I
wENTWORTN
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
STEVENS '
2M
3041
CLINTON
t"
Ste CEDAR AVE S
Ste '
PORTLAND AVE. ,11
OAKLAND
PARK p;
COLUMBUS
CHICAGO ?? OO
1
EILIOT I;I IO?, -L-
lot.
IS tI,
IA IA uDi
Is,II
BLOOMINGTON
Off;- ,? Os]i?
Sit,
CEDAR We. _ _
LONGFELLOW ----------??-------- ---- --_'_ "_
r v v v v
= A i ;? es? i s j -s
fll
m_
is
<r
;v
z
O - V
y 1
^
N
N
qq ,
s Y ? 4 N
? 1 H 1 1
•..,?_ ..._ _._....,,I XERXES AVE.
_ WASHBURN
-x -"` VINCENT
'J -?? - - - UPTON
-- ?? _ THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
OUEEtI
•r PENN AVE
OLIVER
NEWTON
LOGIN
KNOX
u I{ JAMES
IRVING
I' HUMBOLDT
J?'-•'"-?? ?I GIRARD
!?_ --------'-- 6
?i ----- --? F11E110NT
EMERSON
\ f
fn DUPONT
?l ^ I?
?' •^ w I J' COLFAX
^ e I??I BRYANT
r? +
?, 1?• ALDRICH
? fPQ ICI
LYNOALE AVE..
`P\dV;? ?O III GARFIELD
II HARRIET
GRAND
I
--7t' PLEASANT
III PILLSBURY
II O? 11 WENTWORTH
- ?? :'l I BLAISDELL
' NICOLLET AVE.
T
ISO
?? - - :
l-.J CLINTON
-'-? 0 i s rA
I -- StA
,.
PORTLAND AVE
OAKLAND
l_J
PARK
r I' COLUMBUS
r n
1 I CHICAGO
n = 1
EIIIOT
10 tll
a to
? Iz,A
13,1
Ia,N
O u
B100Y1NGT0N
IA to
ITtA
CEDAR AVE
-- LONGFELLOW
?- 19 to
l?r-- ;'C ] 2OtA
2101
STANDISH
23 rA
M ? W
fl-
0
r
O
n
10
O
Z
C
a P
;s V
N N N
•
•
0
a?
iAzo
Z
F
O
Z
•
E
0
? 4N
1i
Q
W
m
0
0
M
A
r
1
Z
R$g w:
i ?
•! W
vt
Q
t
Q
W
- - V
+a
O
V A6
is
.
?
? ryf
...w+.?w•?w?www?w w
{ra y?Wy?
•.?........•.. •. i• .:1:
_L •
ZONING
T
W
Q
T
7'"1
Q
65TH ST E
66TH ST E
H
ti
r
7;
W
Q
o~o
T
CD
W
Q
G
W
V
WK Comm
MMIWL-E IEII
fMR-tl
oEN.tMOUS?n
67TH ST E
N
68TH ST E
LAND USE
65TH ST E
T
H
tC
r
cn
z
H
ti
r
CO MIIERCh
QUASI PURL
66TH ST E
YZ
W
Q
H
r
DUPLEX
APARTMENT
PARK
VACANT
?L"
W
Q
Q
O
W
V
rr/? ?3
N
ria.
68TH ST E ==
r-?
67TH ST E
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 65TH ST E
66TH ST E
W
W
Q
H
T
7L
Q
H
ti
T
67TH ST E
MIXED LAND 1
MEDIUM DENS
/ BUFFER
NSTITUTIONA
PARKS AND
OPEN 9PACE
T
W
Q
S
H
T
W
Q
Q
W
V
%?p
N
68TH ST E
•
Redevelopment Plan
and
Tax Increment Financing Plan
(The Cedar Avenue Business Area
Redevelopment Project)
r?
E
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority
in and for
The City of Richfield
Redevelopment Plan for the Cedar Avenue Business Area
Redevelopment Project
(Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive)
and
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Tax Increment Economic
Development District
(Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive)
Dated: January 19, 1988
Prepared by:
The City of Richfield
• Department of Community Development
Housing and Redevelopment Division
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
•
-2-
•
MAYOR
Steven J. Qu.am
CITY COUNCIL
Martin Kirsch Edwina Garcia
Ivan Ludeman Michael Sandahl
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thomas Harms, Chair
Joan Helmberger Donald Hassenstab
Vern Luettinger Ivan Ludeman
PLANNING COMMISSION
Connie Murray, Chair
. Timothy Erlander Barbara Kritzman
Gordon Herrboldt Leon Lunas
Robert Jensen Maggi McDermott-Lindstrand
Charles Kauth Russell Kennedy
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
James Prosser
11
-3-
# 11rl
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part I. Redevelopment Plan for the Cedar Avenue
Business Area Redevelopment Project
A. Statement of Public Purpose
B. Statutory Authority
C. Description of Redevelopment Project Area
D. Statement of Goals and Objectives
E. Development Activities and Agreements
F. Proposed Land Use
G. Acquisition, Relocation and Rehabilitation
Activities
H. Environmental Considerations
I. Redevelopment Plan Modification
J. Administration and Maintenance of Redevelopment
Project
Part II. Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Tax
Increment Economic Development District
A. Statutory Authority
B. Statement of Objectives
C. Development Program
D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment
Financing District
E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing
District
F. Parcels To Be Acquired
G. Estimate of Costs
H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds
I. Sources of Revenue
J. Original Assessed Value
K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value
L. Duration of the District
M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
PAGE
-4-
N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District
0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses
P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing
Districts
Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax
Increment District Not Subject to Improvement
R. Limitation of the Use of Tax Increment
S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
T. Excess Tax Increments
U. Assessment Agreements
V. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing
District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment Account
W. Annual Disclosure Requirements
X. Assumptions
Y. Municipal Findings
Appendix A: Map 1: Redevelopment Project Boundary and Area
Appendix B: Map 2: Tax Increment District Boundary and Area
Appendix C: Estimate of Tax Increments
Appendix D: Uses of Tax Increment Revenue
Appendix E: Estimate of Total Annual Taxes
Appendix F:- Tax Increment Financing Budget
Appendix G: Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions
-5-
Part I
Redevelopment Plan
For
The Cedar Avenue Business Area
Redevelopment Project
A. Statement of Public Purpose
It is found that the public interest requires the
replanning, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of neighborhoods;
that in order to protect the overall economic stability of the
community, particularly its commercial areas, it is necessary to
redevelop and remedy conditions of underutilized land; that in
order to create an economic environment which fosters the growth
of a healthy commercial base and facilitates the redevelopment of
land, it is necessary to encourage private enterprise to engage
in redevelopment to be constructed in accordance with a
comprehensive community plan. The Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA")
and the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") have
determined that public intervention is necessary in the Cedar
Avenue Business Area Redevelopment Project in order to achieve
set goals and objectives for proper redevelopment of the area.
B. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for the undertaking of a
redevelopment project in the Cedar Avenue Business Area and the
redevelopment activities proposed in the redevelopment plan
relating thereto is conferred upon the HRA pursuant to and in
accordance with the Economic Development Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive. Specifically, Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.027 establishes the requirements for
redevelopment plan preparation by an HRA prior to undertaking
property acquisition, relocation, and redevelopment.
C. Description of the Redevelopment Project Area
In order to guide the development and redevelopment in the
Cedar Avenue Business Area, the HRA has created this
-6-
4?, ?i.
0 redevelopment plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469..002, subdivision 12, the proposed project meets the
definition of a redevelopment project, defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.002, subdivision 14, and will henceforth,
be referred to as the redevelopment project. The redevelopment
project area boundaries encompasses all that real property within
an area described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the northerly lot line of Lot
10, Block 1, Wexler's Addition and the easterly right-of-way line
of 18th Avenue South, thence in a line along said northerly lot
line as extended to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of
18th Avenue South. Thence, southerly along said westerly right-
of-way line to its intersection with the southerly right-of-way
line of 67th Street. Thence, easterly along said right-of-way
line to its intersection with the westerly lot line of Lot 1,
Block 4, Wexler's Addition. Thence, southerly along said
westerly lot line to its intersection with the southerly lot line
• of said Lot. Thence, easterly along said southerly lot line as
extended to a point 110 feet east of the center line of Cedar
Avenue. Thence northerly in a line parallel to said center line
to a point 55 feet southerly of the center line of East 66th
Street. Thence, westerly in a line parallel to said-center line
to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of Cedar
Avenue. Thence southerly and westerly along said right-of-way
line to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 1, Block
1, Wexler's Addition. Thence, westerly along said lot line as
extended to the point of beginning. (Also refer to Appendix A,
Map 1: Redevelopment Project Area)
D. Statement of Goals and Objectives
The HRA determines that it is necessary, desirable, and in
the public interest to undertake a redevelopment project in the
City of Richfield pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 469. The HRA determines that the funding of
the necessary activities and improvements in the redevelopment
. project area shall be accomplished through the use of tax
increment financing, pursuant to, Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174-469.179, inclusive.
-7-
• The following goals and objectives are intended to serve as
a basis for guiding the development redevelopment of the proposed
redevelopment project area:
1. To acquire land or space which is vacant, unused or
underused;
2. To provide land for the development of new businesses;
3. To provide adequate streets, site access, utilities,
including water and storm and sanitary sewers, in order
to enhance the area for new development;
4. To achieve a high level of design and landscaping
quality to enhance the physical environment;
5. To create effective buffers, screens, and transitions
between residential and non-residential uses to
minimize the potential blighting effects of
divergent land uses;
6. To improve the property tax base of the
City and other taxing jurisdictions,
• 7. To provide increased employment opportunities and
improve the income tax base of the state;
8. To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the
needs of the city and other local jurisdictions,
for development by private enterprise.
E. Development. Activities and Agreements
The objectives of this Redevelopment Plan will be
accomplished pursuant to the authority granted to the HRA by the
Economic Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001, et
seq
Redevelopment within the project area must be financially
feasible, marketable and compatible with long range development
plans of the City and HRA. The following redevelopment
activities are appropriate for the area which in light of current
development opportunities:
1. Land acquisition;
2. Vacation of rights-of-way;
is 3. Site clearance; and
4. Site improvements
-8-
Any and all proposals by the developer will be reviewed by
the HRA to determine conformance with the redevelopment plan and
applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this
effort, the following documents may be requested for review and
approval: site plan; construction, mechanical, and electrical
system drawings; landscaping plan; grading and storm drainage
plan; signage system plan; and any other drawings or narrative
deemed necessary by the HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with the redevelopment plan. Land acquired by the
HRA will be subject to a contract for sale upon disposition to
the developer. The general requirements to be imposed upon the
developer by the contract for sale are:
1. To redevelop the land purchased in accordance with this
redevelopment plan.
2. To commence and complete the building of improvements on
the land within specified periods of time.
3. Not to resell the land before improvements are made without
• the prior consent of the HRA.
4. Not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, creed,
or national origin on the sale, lease, transfer, or
occupancy of the land purchased from the HRA.
1. Description of Anticipated Private Development Activities
The proposal for redevelopment of the project area calls for
the construction of a new commercial, corporate office building
and related parking structure to be situated on land previously
owned by the City which was underutilized for a number of years
and is currently vacant.
The commercial office building will house the corporate
headquarters of Copy Duplicating Products (CDP) and approximate
88,000 square feet contained on four levels, one below grade and
three visible from above-grade level. The associated three-level
parking ramp will accommodate 361 vehicles for employees and
clients of CDP. A combination of buffers, screening and
landscaping will be utilized to not only increase the aesthetic
• appeal of the development, but also to protect the neighboring
residential area from any unanticipated externalities which
-9-
include but are not limited to: visibility of the structure,
lighting-, business-related traffic and loading dock area.
Construction is anticipated to commence in March of 1988 and end
October of 1988 with the more intensive construction period
extending from March, 1988 to September, 1988.
2. Description of Anticipated Public Development Activities
The proposed public development activities in the
redevelopment project area would be undertaken by the HRA and
City in order to support the private development activities and
facilitate redevelopment of the area in a manner suitable to
overall development plans. These activities include (1) the
purchase of the site by the HRA from the City and sale to the
developer for fair market value, contingent upon mutual
agreements set forth in the Contract for Redevelopment.
(2) The vacation of 67th Street between Cedar Avenue and 18th
Avenue in order to limit and contain business-related traffic as
well as eliminate and/or reduce any unforeseen conflicts between
• the residential and commercial area; (3) The vacation of the
westerly 17 feet of Cedar Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the
site; (4) Assistance to the developer with site acquisition,
site clearance and site improvements; and (5) Potential setback
variance.
F. Proposed Land Use
The current land use in the redevelopment project area is
zoned C-2, General Commercial. The proposed redevelopment
project would be consistent with permitted uses in the C-2,
General Commercial District but may require setback variances to
accommodate an 88,000 square foot office building in addition to
the 361 vehicle parking ramp.
G. Acquisition, Relocation and Rehabilitation Activities
1. Acquisition
The HRA proposes to acquire the following property
in order to assemble land for redevelopment
according to objectives set forth in this plan:
. PIN # 26-28-24-41-0063, also known as;
-10-
Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Block 1,
Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and,
the north half of the adjoining to be vacated
67th Street public right-of-way, between 18th
Avenue and Cedar Avenue; and the to be vacated west 17
feet of the Cedar Avenue right-of-way which adjoins
Lots 1 through 5, inclusive, Block 1 Wexler's
Addition to the center line of to be vacated 67th
Street
2. Relocation
The HRA accepts as binding its obligations under
provisions of federal and state law (Minnesota Statutes,
Section 117.50 through 117.56) for relocation and will
administer payment benefits to individuals and businesses
to be displaced by public action. However, no relocation
or displacement will occur as a result of the proposed
development project.
• 3. Rehabilitation Program
No rehabilitation is intended in the Redevelopment
Project Area.
H. Environmental Considerations
The proposed redevelopment project does not present any
permanent environmental problems. All municipal actions, public
improvements, and private development shall be carried out in a
manner that will enhance, rather than detract, from the natural
environment. All necessary environmental permits and clearances
will be obtained.
I. Redevelopment Plan Modification
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.029, subdivision
6, a redevelopment plan may be modified at anytime provided that
the HRA and City Council adopt such modifications upon the notice
and after the public hearing required for the original adoption
of the redevelopment plan. If the HRA determines the necessity
of changes in an approved redevelopment plan or approved
• modification thereof, which changes do not alter or affect the
exterior boundaries, or do not substantially alter or affect the
-11-
• general land uses established in such plan, then such changes
shall not constitute a modification of the redevelopment plan nor
require approval by the governing body of the political
subdivision in which the project is located.
J. Administration of Redevelopment Project
The administration of the redevelopment project area will be
by the City and HRA officials.
-12-
PART II
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR THE
TAX INCREMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
A. Statutory Authority
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City
of Richfield,'Minnesota (the "HRA") is authorized to provide
certain financial assistance for land acquisition, site
clearance and site improvements to be made with the Cedar
Avenue Business Area Redevelopment Project (the
"Redevelopment Project") located in the City of Richfield,
Minnesota (the "City"), in part, through the use of funds
which may be available to the HRA from any source, including
funds furnished to the HRA by the City, pursuant to Section
469.041(9) of the Economic Development Act, to pay all or any
part of the HRA activities authorized by Section 469.012,
Subd. 1, clause 7, of the Economic Development Act.
The Economic Development Act at Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, provides the procedure
for the establishment of tax increment financing districts
for the use of tax increment financing within the
redevelopment project. One of the following types of tax
increment financing districts may be established: (i) a
redevelopment district; (ii) a housing district; (iii) an
economic development district. The requirements for
establishing each of the above are set forth in Section
469.174, Subd. 10, 11, and 12, respectively, of the Tax
Increment Financing Section. The Tax Increment Financing
Section also designates for each of the above types of tax
increment financing districts, the limitations and
requirements that apply to activities and public improvements
which can be financed for each type of tax increment
financing district.
-13-
V??_ .?7/
• B. Statement of Objectives
The HRA andthe City determine that it is necessary,
desirable and in the public interest to designate, establish,
and develop a tax increment economic development district,
(the "Tax Increment District") in the City. The HRA and the
City Council determine that the funding of the necessary
activities and improvements in the redevelopment project
shall be accomplished through tax increment financing in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through
469.179, inclusive. The HRA and the City seek to achieve the
following objectives through this development plan:
a. Provide new commercial facilities to improve the
economy of the City and State;
b. Improve and provide opportunities for growth in the
financial base of the City;
c. Provide employment opportunities through the creation
of new jobs;
d. Provide opportunities for development of new business;
e. Provide redevelopment sites of such size and character
to assure the proper redevelopment of the area;
f. Acquire land or space which is vacant, unused, underused,
or inappropriately used;
g. Vacate rights-of-way;
h. Coordinate elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan
with these project objectives; and
i. Provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs
of the City, for development by private enterprise.
C. Development Program
1. Description of Development Activities
The tax increment district is being created for the
purpose of continuation of the improvement and
revitalization activities in the City. The proposed tax
increment district calls for the construction of a new
commercial, corporate office building and related parking
structure in accordance with the City's and HRA's overall
-14-
development plans. The HRA proposes to assist the
-;r7?O
developer with the conveyance of the land, site
clearance, and site improvements, which funding will be
part of the tax increment generated as a result of the
proposed development.
2. Development Activities Covered by Contract
Currently, the HRA is negotiating a development contact
for development activity relating to the construction of
the proposed office building and parking structure.
3. Other Development Not Under Contract Reasonably Expected
to Occur in the Project. No other development is
anticipated to occur in the redevelopment project area.
4. Also, see Section B, Statement of Goals and Objectives.
D. Description of Property in the Tax Increment Financing
District
The Tax Increment Economic Development District located
within the Cedar Avenue Business Area Redevelopment
Project includes the following properties:
PIN # 26-28-24-41-0063, also known as
Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Block 1, Wexler's Addition,
Hennepin County, Minnesota;
All of 67th Street right-of-way, between 18th Avenue and
Cedar Avenue, and the westerly 17 feet of the Cedar Avenue
right-of-way adjoining Lots 1-5, inclusive, Block 1, Wexler's
Addition, and extending to the southerly line of 67th Street
right-of-way.
E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District
The HRA in determining the need for a tax increment district
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 -
469.179, inclusive, finds that the district to be established
is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 12. The HRA finds the
proposal for development to be in the public interest because
(a) it will result in increased employment in the
municipality and (b) it will result in preservation and
• enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. Thus, the
tax increment financing district meets the statutory
-15
requirements of an economic development district and will
henceforth be referred to as a tax increment economic
development district.
F. Parcels in Acquisition
Properties identified for acquisition by the HRA
which are currently under development contract
negotiation include the following:
PIN # 26-028-24-41-0063 also known as Lots 1-10,
inclusive, Block 1, Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; The northern half of the 67th Street right-of-
way between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue;
The westerly 17 feet of the Cedar Avenue right-of-way
adjacent to Lots 1-5, inclusive, Block 1, Wexler's
Addition, extending to the center line of 67th Street.
G. Estimate of Costs
The estimate of public costs associated with the tax
increment district are outlined in the budget listed in
Appendix F, page __aa. Bonds will not be issued.
H. Estimated Amount of Obligated Funds
An estimate of the amount of the obligated funds based on the
proposed development is expected to be approximately $850,000
assuming that tax increments will be collected for a period
of 8 years a inn? with the receipt of the first tax
increment or 10 years from the approval of the plan,
whichever is less. Depending upon the interest rate and
other factors at time of closing the obligated funds will not
be greater than $924,898. In order to obtain a maximum value
for loan indebtedness, all tax increments generated from
development will be used for debt service.
I. Sources of Revenue
The primary source of revenue to be used to finance public
costs associated with the proposed development in the
redevelopment project is tax increment. Tax increment
financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes
increases in assessed valuation and the property taxes
attributed to new development to finance, or assist in the
-16-
financing of public development costs. The proposed
development is expected to generate an annual tax increment
of $235,966. In addition to the tax increment revenue, other
sources of revenue include land proceeds of $318,000; land
carrying charges (to be determined at time of closing on land
sale); site clearance reimbursements of $27,000; and
administrative reimbursements relative to site clearance of
$2,650.
J. Original Assessed Value
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision
1 and Section 469.177, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed
Value (OAV) for the tax increment district is based on the
value placed on the property by the County Assessor as of
January 2, 1988. Due to the tax exempt nature of the
property, the assessed value is $0, but is anticipated to be
$135,468 upon transfer to developer. The Office of the
County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or
decrease in the total assessed value of the tax increment
district to calculate the tax increment payable to the
Richfield Economic Development District Fund. Each year the
County auditor shall also add to the original assessed value
the value for the preceding year multiplied by the average
increase in the assessed valuation of all property included
in the economic development district during the five years
prior to certification of the district. (See Appendix C,
Estimate of Tax Increments). In any year in which there is
an increase in total assessed valuation in the tax increment
financing economic development district above the annual
percentage of annual increase, a tax increment will be
payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation
in the tax increment financing economic development district
declines below the original assessed valuation, no assessed
valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be
payable.
The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date
the Original Assessed Value was certified, the amount the OAV
has increased or decreased as a result of:
-17-
1. change in tax exempt status of property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries
of the district;
3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated
or court-ordered abatements.
4. Change in assessed value due to inflation pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 1.
K. Estimated Captured Assessed Value
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision
1 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the
average estimated Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax
increment district upon full assessment will approximate
$1,969,223. It is expected that the estimated Captured
Assessed Value will be available as a result of the
improvements to be constructed. It is also anticipated that
this amount will be captured for up to eight years. (See
Appendix C, Estimate of Tax Increments).
• L. Duration of the District
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision
1, the duration of the tax increment district within the
redevelopment project area will be 8 years from the date of
receipt of the first tax increment or 10 years from approval
of the tax increment financing plan, whichever is less. It
is estimated that assessed value will be captured beginning
in 1989 with the first tax increment collected in June, 1990
and the last tax increment, December, 1997. The HRA may, at
a future date elect to reduce this term.
M. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
Refer to Appendix G, Estimate of Impacts on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions.
N. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175,
Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic
area of the project or tax increment financing district,
is increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred,
including a determination or capitalize interest on debt if
-18-
that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to
increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be
capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed
value to be retained by the HRA, increase in total estimated,
tax increment expenditures or designation of additional
property to be acquired by the HRA shall be approved upon the
notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings
required for approval of the original plan. The geographic
area of a tax increment financing district may be reduced,
but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date
of certification of the original assessed value by the County
Auditor.
0. Limitation on Administrative Expenses
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174,
Subdivision 14, Section 469.176, Subdivision 3, no tax
increment shall be used to pay any administrative expenses
for a project which exceed ten percent of the total tax
increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment
financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures for
the project, whichever is less.
P. Limitation on Duration of Tax Increment Financing Districts
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision
1, the HRA must issue bonds, or acquire property, or
construct or cause public improvements to be constructed
within three years of the date of certification of the Tax
Increment District by the County Auditor.
Q. Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment
District Not Subject to Improvement
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, subdivision
6, "if, after four years from the date of certification of
the original assessed value of the tax increment financing
district..., no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of
property or other site preparation, including improvement of
a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility
service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced
-19-
on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district
I
• by the HRA or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with
the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment
may be taken from that parcel, and the original assessed
value of that parcel shall be excluded from the original
assessed value of the tax increment financing district. If
the HRA or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences
demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site
preparation on that parcel including improvement of a street
adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment
financing plan, the HRA shall certify to the county auditor
that the activity has commenced, and the county auditor shall
certify the assessed value there as most recently certified
by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original
assessed value of the tax increment financing district".
R. Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment
All revenues derived from tax increment shall be used in
accordance with the tax increment financing plan. The
. revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public
redevelopment costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 469.001
to 469.047, inclusive. These revenues shall not be used to
circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from
tax increment shall be used for the construction'or
renovation of a municipally owned building used primarily and
regularly for conducting the business of the municipality.
This provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived
from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a
parking structure, a commons area used as a public park or a
facility used for social, recreational or conference purposes
and not primarily for conducting the business of the
municipality.
S. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision
4, the HRA has reviewed and searched the properties to be
included in the tax increment financing economic development
district and found no properties for which building permits
have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding
approval of the tax increment financing plan by the City.
-20-
. T. Excess Tax Increments
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision
2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount
necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment
plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy
as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61,
Subdivision 3, the HRA shall use the excess amount to:
1. prepay the outstanding bonds;
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefore;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment
of such bond;
4. repay any loans including interest on these loans; or
5. return the excess to the County Auditor for
redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions
in proportion to their mill rate.
For the purpose of this Tax Increment Plan, excess tax
increment means that increment received in any year which is
• in addition to the amount needed to satisfy the HRA's current
financial obligations or commitments, as specified in
Appendix E, or which is in addition to that which is placed
in a separate account for the purpose of accummulating funds
needed to satisfy those financial obligations or commitments
in the future.
U. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision
8, the HRA may, upon entering into a development agreement
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.176, Subdivision
5, enter into an agreement in recordable form with the
developer of property within the tax increment financing
district which establishes a minimum market value of the land
and completed improvements for the duration of the tax
increment district. The assessment agreement shall be
presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans
and specifications for the improvements to be constructed,
review the market value previously assigned to the land upon
which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as
-21-
-7111/?_
• the minimum market value contained in the assessment
agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor, to be a
reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum
market value agreement.
V. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Economic
Development District and Maintenance of the Tax Increment
Account
Administration of the tax increment financing economic
development district will be the responsibility of City and
HRA officials and staff.
The tax increment received as a result of increases in the
assessed value of the tax increment district will be
maintained in a special account separate from all other
municipal accounts and expended only upon sanctioned
municipal activities identified in the finance plan.
W. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision
6, the HRA must file an annual disclosure report for all tax
• increment financing districts. The report shall be filed
with the School Board, County Board, and governing body of
the municipality, if the HRA is not the municipality, and the
State Auditor.
X. Assumptions
It was necessary to make certain assumptions regarding
income, costs and timing of the tax increment financing
district. These assumptions are based on discussions with
the HRA, City and County staff and the developer.
Y. Municipal Findings
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision
3, before or at the time of approval of the tax increment
financing plan, the municipality shall make the following
findings and shall set forth in writing the reasons and
supporting facts for each determination:
1. Tax Increment Financing District is an economic
• development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 469.174, Subdivision 12. It has been determined
-22-
. that the proposal for development consists of a
redevelopment project which the HRA finds to be in
the public interest because it will result in
increased employment in the municipality and it will
result in preservation and enhancement of the tax
base of the municipality. This will be achieved through
the construction of a commercial, corporate office
building and related parking structure on underutilized
land. Thus, the tax increment district meets the
statutory requirements of an economic development
district and will henceforth be referred to as a tax
increment economic development district.
2. The proposed development, in the opinion of the HRA,
would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax
increment financing is deemed necessary since the
proposed development requires certain necessary land
acquisitions and assembly and other improvements without
which the developer could not construct the commercial
development project; and without the use of tax
increments as a source of revenue to assist with the
financing of the land acquisition, assembly and other
public improvements, the developer would not construct
this development in the City.
3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general
plan for the development of the City as a whole as it
will result in the new construction of a commercial
structure.
4. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City
as a whole, for the development of the redevelopment
project by private enterprise as it will enable the
HRA to provide the necessary commercial development for
• the City and a suitable site for this development.
-23-
5. The City elects clause (b) of Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, Subdivision 3, relative to the assessed value
within the Tax Increment District for contribution to the
fiscal disparity pool.
-24-
I 1
APPENDICES
•
•
-25-
APPENDIX A
MAP 1: Redevelopment Project Boundary and Area
•
-26-
.CEDAR AVENUE BUSINESS AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY
65TH ST E
LEGEND
PROJECT AREA
W t?
68TH ST E
N
W
Q
H
r
66TH ST E
•
APPENDIX B
MAP 2: Tax Increment District Boundary and Area
•
•
-28-
TAX INCREMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY
65TH ST E
66TH ST E
Of In bi
PROJECT AREA
W
Q
F-
G)
T
LJ_LLL
C?
•
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATE OF TAX INCREMENTS
I. Estimate of Assessed Value of New Development
Construction Value:
Buildingl $3,625,000
+ Parking Ramp2 +1,400,000
Subtotal $5,025,000
+ Land3 + 318,000
Total Project Value $5,343,000
x Sales Ratio4 x 92%
Assessor's Market Value $4,915,560
x Assessment Ratios
28% of $60,000 $ 16,800
43% of balance $2,,087,891
Total Assessed Value $29104,691
0
---
1 ----------------------------
Based on 88,000 square feet
2 Based on 361 parking stalls
3 Land Value estimated at sale price
4 Sales Ratio of 92% reflects standard for City.
5 Assessment Ratios for taxes payable 1988, subject to
review and adjustment by County Audi tor's Office
H. Annual Adjustment Calculations for Tax Increment Financing
Economic Development Districtsi
A. Timing Assumptions
Establishment Date Feb. 1988
Base Year (estimated) Jan. 1988
OAV Certification Feb. 1988
-30-
Construction Start Mar. 1988
Construction End Oct. 1988
Full Assessment Jan. 1989
For Taxes Payable 1990
First Tax Increment Collectible 1990
with disbursements from County every June and December
Last Tax Increment Collectible 1997
B. Base Value Data on Tax Increment Parcel
Property Identification Asses sed Value
Number 19882 19803
26-028-24-41-0063 $135,468 $188,800
C. Annual Percent Increase Determinations
(a.) Establishment Date 1988
(b.) Base Year Assessment Date 1988
(c.) Base Year Assessed Value $135,468
(d.) Fifth Preceding Year Assessment Dat e 1980
(e.) Fifth Preceding Year Assessed Value $188,800
(f.) Five Year Assessed Value Increase - $ 53,332
(c.) - (e.)
(g.) Five Year Total Increase Ratio - 0.282
(f.) j (e.)
(h.) Five Year Average Increase Ratio - 0.056
(g•) 5
(i.) Annual Base Year Adjustment Factor + 0.944
(1.000) + (h.)
----------------------------------
lAccording to September 24, 1982 Department of
Revenue memorandum
to County Auditors regarding the annual adjust ment to be made to
the base year assessed value of economic devel opment tax
increment districts in order to return to the taxing
jurisdictions the historical inflation rate on the base year
assessed value.
2The Assessed Value of $135,468 represents an estimated value set
• by the local assessor to be placed on the prop erty at time of
transfer to the developer.
-31-
61 - 177e-'
3The assessed value of the parcel in 1980 was $0. The value of
$188,800 represents the estimated value placed on the parcel if
such parcel was not tax exempt.
4Subject to review and adjustment by County Auditor's office.
III. Annual Tax Increment Estimate
Total Assessed Value of Development $2,1040691
less Original Assessed Value - 135,468
Captured Assessed Value
X Mill Ratel
$1,969,223
119.827
Tax Increment2
Before FD $ 235,966
After FD3 $ 188,773
--------------------------------------
lBased on current Mill Rate
2Tax Increment collection on Economic Development Districts:
• 10 years from date of plan approval or 8 years from first
tax increment, whichever is less.
3Value adjusted 20% for contribution to fiscal disparity pool.
•
-32-
APPENDIX D
USES DF TAX INCREMENT REVENUER
(ANNUAL BASIS)
Entity Assistance % of Total
Developer $106,250 45.03
HRA $ 9,362 .3.97
Taxing Jurisdictions $ 73,161 31.00
Fiscal Disparities $ 47,193 20.00
$235,966 100.00%
---------------------------------
1Final gross annual tax increment revenue dependent upon outcome
of review and adjustment by County Auditor.
0
0
-33-
1 1-i
Dm 1
N N 1
N ct 1 D CO
N a 1 O ct O -)
N O I -0 CD '0 O
CD ct 1 H H
Cl -CO I m
1 ?'1
< H 1 O -n
0) m 1 •• O
C CD 1
CD H 1
N 1
W 1
C-. O 1 4A to D
C 1 1? N N
N ct 1 .. .. N
ct W 1 ON 1-• ED
CD X 1 OD O 0 -1
am 1 w N O
N 1 •• CD
a 0
O 1 v+ ?O
7 1 W ?? <
O 1 rn
ct
X1 1 ?
1?• 1 c
n 0) 1 =
N x 1 a
r I ?
W m
a:3 1
1-•• 0 1 G
N H 1 ?
O i T
m
:3 1 z
a
1 I••1
0 a x
z m
?* c
H D
I
r• r
Q ?o I0) ?•
c
o
c
r -4
ct D ? m a
1-» N N x
.. o v ?+ m
? N
N
O
1--•
M
N
c+
N ?
? O
N ct
•• CD
?D O
x
N
-34-
•
APPENDIX F
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING BUDGET
Land Acquisition
Site Clearance
Site Improvements
including landscaping, utility relocation,
extensions and cutoffs, curb and gutter and
earth work.
Interest ® approximately 5-1/4%
Subtotal
Administrative
$318,000
27,000
217,500
287,500
$ 850,500
74,898
Total Project Cost $ 924,898
The total cost of the project will be financed with annual tax
. increment collections a portion of which may be paid to the
developer in eight payments of $106,250. The amount of
assistance extended will not exceed $850,000 (stated as future
value dollars). Administrative costs will be based on project
costs not to exceed the statutory 10% limit.
-35-
• APPENDIX G
ESTIMATE OF IMPACTS
ON
OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS
The impact of the use of tax increment tax dollars for project
costs is estimated below for each taxing jurisdiction. This
estimate is based on the existing development proposal and does
not include possible tax increments derived from mill changes, or
inflation factors.
Total Assessed Value
Tax Increment Finance District Total $135,468
Latest Assessed Value of Each Government Body:
(1988 Payable 1989)
% of District to Total
City of Richfield $251,1510021 .054
School District #280 358,424,122 .038
Vocational School 69592,121,963 .002
• County of Hennepin 10,293,706,787 .000
Water Shed #3 2,592,540,128 .005
Miscellaneous:
Met Council 10,292,441,311 .000
Met Transit 10,096,320,432 .000
Hennepin Parks 60910,044,913 .002
Mosquito Control 10,2939706,787 .000
Park Museum 10,292,441,311 .000
Hennepin County
Regional Railroad
Authority 10,2922441,311 .000
Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that
the City, School, and County Districts will have approximately
1009 of each respective district available for normal growth of
tax base or valuation. Applying the percentage of the total mill
rate in 1988 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected
mill rate and the estimated tax increment received reveals the
annual use of tax dollars for project costs as it affects each
taxing jurisdiction. Anticipating a tax increment at build out
-36-
?? -;5-/
as described in Appendix C, "Tax Increment Estimate", and
utilizing the current mill'rarte, the estimated taxes received
would be as follows for the taxing bodies:
Average
Mill Rate Percent Tax Increment
City 23.760 19.83% $46,789
School District 56.114 46.83 1100501
Voc. Tech School 1.493 1.25 2,940
County 31.675 26.43 62,375
Watershed 0.092 0.08 181
Misc:
Met Council 0.598 0.50 19178
Met Transit 3.352 2.80 61601
Henn. Parks 1.088 0.90 2,143
Mosq. Control 0.600 0.50 1,182
Park Museum 0.350 0.29 689
• Henn. Co. Regl.
R.R. Auth. 0.705 0.59 10388
Total 119.827 100.00% $235,966
The following tables represent the additional mills that would
have to be levied to compensate for the use of tax dollars in
estimated tax increments for project costs for each taxing
jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from the projects
alluded to in the tax increment district would not be available
to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public
intervention by the HRA. The increases in assessed value due to
development will be delayed for application to the mill levy for
the duration of the tax increment financing district. This new
assessed value could eventually permit a mill levy decrease. If
it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was
available for each taxing jurisdiction, the use of tax dollars
for project costs represented as tax increments may be
determined. This determination is facilitated by estimating how
much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment
-37-
Z/-
• financing dis trict would have to be adjusted to compensate for
the temporary use of new development tax dollars in each taxing
jurisdiction.
Adjusted Total Adjusted Average
Year Assessed Value* Mills Tax Increment
City $ 251,015,553 0.1864 $46,789
School Dist. 358,288,654 0.3084 110,501
Vo. Tech 6,591,986,495 0.0004 2,940
County 10,293,571,319 0.0006 62,375
Watershed 2,592,404,660 0.0001 181
Misc.
Met Council 10,292,3059843 0.0000 1,178
Met Transit 10,096,184,964 0.0001 6,601
Henn. Parks 6,9099909,445 0.0003 21143
Mosq. Cont. 1022930571,319 0.0000 1,182
Park Museum 10,2929305,843 0.0000 689
Henn. Co.
• Regl. RR
Authority 10,2929305,843 0.0000 1,388
*Tax Increment District Assessed Value Subtracted
0
-38-
s
Pi sZ
HSIONVIS
PU ZZ
1= IZ
440Z
.4161
M0113JON01
'3nV HVa33
41 81
41 11
41 91
NOISN Iw0018
41 91
41 Isl
41 QI
41 ZI
N ? ?
I
N
? t
?D t0 t? ?p t0 1
D • -m- - -n-?
o Q
IF -7
E?QC
- E
ooo?oo?
000000 --
?oooooo?
000000
ooo?
ooo?
rc )d
ooo?
? ? ? ooo?
ooo?
41 II ?I
41 01
101113
ow?IH? I
snewnloo ,
)I uvd
QNV1XVO
'3nV GNV11HOd
419 I
a
o
• ?? ?? III
• Tue Dec 22, 1987 10:05 AN CITY OF RICHFIELD PAGE I 1
ASSESS ROS TER
cabs
•
NAME OWNERS
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
PIN
•
.I WILLIAM D BLAINE
GERALD HAGEN 6301
6311 CEDAR
CEDAR RIUMFILLU,
RICHFIELD, RW
AN 554D
55423
25-02824-22-0002
. DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS PO BO X 605 ORANGE CITY, I OWA 51041
- 25-02824-22-0003
• „
•, DONALD
MARY L DIETRICH a32
4360 CEDAR
BROOKSIDE CT APT 313 . AN 55423 -
EDINA, AN 55436 2302gZ4-T
25-02824-22-0005
MARY L DIETRICH 4360 BROOKSIDE CT APT 313 EDINA, AN 5543 6 25-02824-22-0006
GERALD & ROBERT HENZ
ARBOR CONSTRUCTION CO
8406
4921
BLOOMINGTON AVE 50
2ND AVE SO
BLOOMINGTON, A
MPLS, MN 55409
N 55420 Z5-UZ3Z4-ZZ-0UUl
25-02824-22-0008
I•• MET AIRPORTS COMM
But 6040
6313 28TH ;AVE 50
LUN5ftLLUN AV MPLS., AN 55450
RICHFIELD, MN 5?4D 25-02824-22-0009
25-02874:77-Oulu
• I ( JOHN A LENBERG ILI 6319 LONGFELLOW AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-22-0011
I. ; ROST L MOTL 6321 LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-22-0012
• :± i GLENN 6 GERALDINE KLEIST 6909 COLUMBUS AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-22-0014
JEROME PEABODY 6333 LONGFELLOW AVE SO RICHFIELD, NO 55423 25-02824-22-0015
• I„ CHARLES FUNK
EILEEN FLEMINO 63
6341
LONGFELLOW AVE
RICHFIELD,
MN
55413
25.02824-22-0017
;• THOMAS MAXWELL 6345. LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, MN 55423 15-02814-22-0018
W YN M RUS 6344 19TH AV S RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
25-02824-22-0019
00 LARRY A BOARD 6340 19TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-01824-22-0020
d CHARD KROSSIN 6336 19TH AV RICHFIELD, ON 55423 25-02824-22-0021
• -TIT
i CECELIA SZAFRANSKI 63ZB
6324 191H AV 3
19TH AV S RICHFIELD,
RICHFIELD, AN
MN b5423
55423 25-OZ824-Z2-UM
25-01814-22-0023
CHARLES M MERCER 6320 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55413 02824-22-0024
25
•„
j DON W HASS
6312
19TH AV
RICHFIELD,
AN
55423 - -
_
25-02824-22-0026
MET AIRPORTS COMM 6040 28TH AVE SO MPLS., AN 55450 25-02824.22-0027
1 ? MET AIRPORTS COMM 6040 731H AVE 50 MR 5545 0 - - -
I • -1 ?
.I
JOSEPH E CHARNOSKI
6317
19TH
.,
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
25-02824-22.0029
.; MICHAEL BAKKE 6321 19TH AVE S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-22-0030
L JOHNSON
H ELD, NO 5542
• ANDERSON
TODD 6329 19TH AV RICHFIELD, NO 55423 25-02824-22-0032
'?, .I VIRGIL E JOHNSON 6337 19TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824.22-0033
• . nl LOUIS DEGIDEO 6501 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0001
GREGORY GRIMES 6509 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0002
. :? VINCENT H WALTERS 6513 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN S5423 25-02824-23-0003
• ?• •i LUANNE N WENDLAND 6401 15TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0004
• I L BENOITJCERT RUST PROOF 6525 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-23-0005
N BLOOMINGTO N,
M
N 55431
25-OZ824-23-0006
• ?• F FRED BOYLES 1408 SO CHURCH ROCKPORT, TX 78382 25-02824-23-0007
.. F FRED BOYLES 1408 SO CHURCH ROCKPORT, TX 78382 25-02824-23-0008
• DONALD BRUESKE 6505 LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02624-23-0010
i
I HARVEY DANIELSON 6509 LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25.02824-23-0011
40 7 NOL A S 6513 LONCFELLOW AVE SO RICHFIELD, HN 55423 25-02824-23-0012
• HARVEY 0 H30RTAAS 6517 LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0013
• ELLEN TRACY 6521 LONGfEIIOW RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
25-02824-23-0014
RICHFIELD EVANG FREE CH 1856 E 66TH RICHFIELD, NO 55423 25-02824-23-0015
•• CATHERINE KEEGAN 6521 19TH AY RICHFIELD, AN 55123 25-02824.13-0021
?i K 6 8 DAOHEUANG 6520 19TH AV RICHFIELD, NO 55423 25-02824.23-0022
•
•
Tue Dec 22, 1987 10:05 AM CITY OF RICHFIELD
PAGE 1 2
ASSESS ROSTER
cabs
NAME ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP PIN
MIKE i KATHRYN WEINBERG 6508 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0025
•? ROD D TOUSSAINT 6504 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0026
• F J SCHROEPFER 6500 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0027
TERRY L BARRIGER 6501 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0018
ANTHONY 6 SUSAN LAWRENCE 6505 19TH AY RICHFIELD, AN 55123 25-02821-23-0029
RICHARD FRANKE 6509 19TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25.01824-23-0030
MARY LESNAU 6513 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0031
•'
• ROSELLA SEESZ 6517 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0032
i-i JOHN SUPPES 9101 W HWY 1101 SAVAGE, AN 55378 25-02824-23-0033
F H SCHMIDTKE 6525 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 554
23
-02824- -0034
2523
JOHN E OLSON 6529 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0035
i CRAIG i CONNIE STODOLA 6533 19TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0036
F
R 5
42 25-02824-23-0037
BX PROP C/o M WOOD 1912 E 66TH ST ICH
IELD, AN 5
3
COLOR SPECIALTIES INC 6405 CEDAR. RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0064
GERALD E i RUTH 8 HOLMAN 1006 WEST 62ND STREET MINNEAPOLIS, AN 55423 25-02824.23-0065
GERALD i RUTH HOLMAN 1006 W 62ND L ., AN 5 541 9 -02824-23-0066
25
• NC
L
M 6425 CEDAR AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0067
! IMORROW
DONALD 445
6 CEDAR AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0069
DONALD MORROW 6115 CEDAR AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0070
DONALD L MORROW 6115 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0071
JAMES N MARTIN 6401 LONGFELLOW AVE $O RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-23-0072
SALLY A CARLSON 6405 LONGFELLOW AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0073
CRAIG THARALDSON 6409 LONGFELLOW AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0074
DAVID HALVORSON 20194 CO RD 81 BIG LAKE, AN 55309 25-02824-23-0075
EVA SCHLERNITZAUER 6421 LONGFELLOW AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0076
PATRICIA VOGELPOHL 6429 LONGFELLOW AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-01824-23-0077
PATRICIA A MYERS 6433 LONGFELLOW AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0078
I- K -&P i S VIXAYVONG 6437 LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0079
•? RONNY i CARRIE MADSEN 6441 LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0080
LBERNARD LACHOWITZER 6445 LONGFELLOW AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0081
ROY A CHURCHWARD 6444 19TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-13-0082
j ! DONALD CARLSON 6440 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0083
JEROME B GRACYALNY 6436 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0084
GARY 8 JORE 6432 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0085
M GUTHMILLER 6430 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0086
i TIMOTHY P FLANERY 6428 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-13-0087
., ; MATHEW P WILMES 6424 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25.02824-23-0088
• ? JANIS L FOSS 6416 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0089
JEFFRIE i MARY MADISON 6412 19TH AVE S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0090
?• ? MARVIN L KJOS 6408 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0091
?• I MICHAEL HUTCHINSON 6404 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55413 15-02824-23-0092
•
r W SMITH i 8 JOHNSON 6400 19TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0093
i BRENT i VICKIE MCINNIS 6401 19TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0094
RUTH I WILSON 6405 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0095
RANDALL T HENDERSON 6409 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0096 _
ROGER L CARRIERE 6413 19TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0097
L RATHBURN 6417 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-13-0098
• DARRELL KARGEL 6421 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0099
MYRTLE MITCHELL 6425 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23.0100
ROBERT i PAULA HANSON 6429 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0101
RUTH ANN SMITH 6433 19TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0102
LARRY J MCPECK 1642 132ND LN NE BLAINE, AN 55434 25-02814.23-0103
0
Tue Dec 22, 1987 10:05 AM CITY OF RICHFIELD
PAGE 1 3
ASSESS ROSTER
00 ?:I caba
uencnQ
NAME ADDRE SS CITY, STATE, ZIP PIN
JAS 0 MCGINTY 1900 E 65TH ST RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02821-23-0105
• •j JOSCO MELIUS INC 6425 CEDAR AV RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02814-23-0142
°J DONALD L MORROW 6445 CEDAR AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0143
RICHFIELD EVAN FREE CH 1856 E 66TH ST RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-23-0144
• ' IRWIN KETROSER .700 M IDLAND BANK BLDG MPLS., AN 55401 25-02824-32-0001
DAVID i JULIE WRIGHT 6841 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-33-0054
DOUGLAS ELLISON 6839 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-33-0055
• CLARENCE OLSON 6833 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-01824-33-0056
E EGGLESTON 6829 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-33-0057
•; UDY ME HA 6 -
• i JOHN POND 2094 RIVERWOOD OKEMOS, MI 48864 15-02824-33-0059
•, ALFRED G JOHNSON 6813 CEDAR RICHFIELD, AN 55423 25-02824-33-0060
-
l CHFIELD MN 55423 25-02324-
Tr-Mi
• F SANDRA MILLER
FREDERIC C EWALD 6809
6801 CEDAR AV 3
CEDAR RI
,
RICHFIELD, -
AN 55423 25-02824-33-0062
i..' MINNEGASCO INC 201 S 7TH ST MPLS., AN 55402 26-02824-11-0001
H L
CITY OF RIC 6700 PORTLAND AVE RICHFIELD AN 55423
-02324-11-0002
26
• 8 E 8 8 L SCHNIZLEIN 6315 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0046
ERNST G CARLSON 6321 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0047
R G MAHON 6327 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0048
DAVID U BETH BEEBE 6333 17TH RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0049
DONALD R BURT 6339 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55413 26-02824-11-0050
R06ER D GORDON 6345 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 5542 26-02824-11-0051
• j-i RICHARD A LOWMAN 6344 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0052
CAROL M JOHNSON 6338 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0053
REIN WILLEMZE 6332 18TH AV RICHFIELD, AN 554 6-02824-11-00 4
• ?::? R DEWILDE 6326 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0055
JAMES D NUNN 6320 18TH AVE S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0056
P ANDERSON i M ECKSTEIN 6314 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0057 -
} ! ;? GA88ERT i GA88ERT CO 3510 W 70TH ST EDINA, AN 55435 16-02824-11-0058
?I NATHAN SCHWARTZ 5916 MEDICINE LK RD MPLS., AN 55422 26-02824-11-0059
. NORMAN G JENSEN INC 3006 HENNEPIN AVE SO MPLS., AN 55408 26-02824-11-0060
Z • ':. NORMAN G JENSEN INC 3006 HENNEPIN AVE MPLS., AN 55408 26-02824-11-0061
CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0062
?TRM A VENSON 6315 ISTH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-11-0063
• •.I WILLIAM COVINGTON 6311 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0064
?•.i R ECKLUND i J SCHORN 6327 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-11-0065
ARDEN TOLLEFSON 6333 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-02824-11-0066
• ..j PAUL F RESSERG 8112 ENSIGN CURVE BLOOMINGTON, AN 55438 26-01824-11-0067
?.; ROTHSCHILD DEGREE OF HONOR BLDG ST PAUL, AN 55101 26-02824-11-0075
L HFI
AN 55423
LD 26-02824-14-0020
• ,
?.
H SPLETTSTOESER
RALPH SANDERS
6500
6508
17TH AVE
17TH AVE
RIC
,
E
RICHFIELD,
AN 55423
26-02824-14-0021
?••, KENNETH 6 WENDY OLSON 6514 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-14-0022
DONALD 6 BEAL
JOHN F HAFERTEPE 6520
6526 17TH
11TH AV 3
AV S RICHFIELD,
RICHFIELD, ON
AN 55473
55423 26-075Z4-14-00Z3
26-02824-14-0014
JOHN STEDMAN 6532 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-14-0025
CHARD H NEHOTTE 6501 17TH Y RICHFIELD AN 55423 6- - -
0 , .
DAVID R DICE
l 6509 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55413 26-02824-14-0027
w GERALD E DICKEY 6515 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-01824-14-0028
?• MICHAEL A KUSNIER 6521 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 5542 26-02824-14-0029
1 5• CAROL J CARR 6527 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, AN 55413 16-01814-14-0030
• KEN P IVERSON 6533 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02814-14-0031
FRED 8 MCALEER JR 6532 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, ON 55423 26-02824-14-0032
O DONALD COOLEY 6526 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, AN 55423 26-02824-14-0033
f
4 L 1ue Dec 22, 1987 10:05 AM CITY OF RICHFIELD
PAGE 1
ASSESS ROSTER
c&ba
OWNERS
I NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE , ZIP PIN
? EDWARD Q KATHY JONES 6520 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 16-02824-14-0034
• RICHARD D DUERRE 3S1 MAPLE ISLAND RD BURNSVILLE, MN 55337 16-02824-14-0035
PHYLLIS KITTRIDGE 6508 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0036
I DONALD G SEAL 6520 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0037
INEI M JOHNSON 6401 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55113 26-02824-14-0038
AUSTIN FARLEY 6409 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 16-02824.14-0039
I • i CARL M HOLMES 6415 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 54 26-0282T-14-0040
?• ? NM T FORSTER 6421 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0041
FLOYD WILSON 6427 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0042
?.
ES A ATHMANN
6433
17TH AVE 50
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
76-02824-14-0041
I• ? CHARLES MONS 6439 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-02824-14-0044
j HELMER 0 NIELSEN 6445 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423
- 26-02824-14-0045
- ! JAMES K SMITH
D DIETZLER i K GERADS 6444
6438 18TH AV 3
18TH AVE RICHFIELD,
RICHFIELD, MN
MN 5542Y
55423 26-02824-14-0046
•
26-02824-14-0047
ROBERTA J SENNETT 6432 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55113 26-02824-14-0048
i
IRENE.3 HALLBERG
6420
18TH AV S
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423 26-02824-14-0049
26-02824-14-0050
• ? JOHN 6 JULIE WILSON 6414 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0051
- , FRANK BAKER 6408 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02821-14-0052
ROBERT L08ERG 6400 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0053
AMOCO COMPANIES 5001 W BOTH ST 1881 MPLS., MN 554 37 26-02824-14-0054
• GEORGE RONALD 2480 OLD BEACH NAY A A, MN 1 26-02824-14-0055
- i GEORGE N RONALD 2480 OLD BEACH RD WAYZATA, MN 55391 26-02824-14-0056
M S MAGNUSON 6314 STANDISH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0057
JEFFREY SAMPS N 6501 I 8TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 -02824-14-0058
26
RONALD A BENSON 6509 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0059
NM DUFFEE 6515 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02814-14-0060 ,
- ? CHARLES L SWANSON 6521 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-02824-14-0 61
5 EDWIN L PRATT 6527 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0062
. { JAS M PETERSON 6533 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0063
, •; MORRIS 6 CHRISTINE BROWN 1800 E 66TH ST RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-02824-14-0064
. ; ROBERT R KING 1298 EDGCUMBE RD ST PAUL, MN 55105 26-02824-14-0065
i
. . ROBERT P KING 1298 EDGCUMBE RD ST PAUL, MN 55105 26-02824-14-0066
'. DR YALE KANTER
? GEORGE i JOANNE WEGNER 1128
6401 TRAIL RD
18TH AV S 51 PW M
RICHFIELD, N 55
MN 118
55423 76-OZBZ4-14-0061
26-01824-14-0068
-
9
' GARY DECK
' 6409 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 006
26-02824-14
SUZANNE LANE
?. 641 18TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0070
.•? JAMES LYONS 6421 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0071
.,? R J BILLMEIER 6427 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-02824-14-0071
MICHAEL & PATRICE PEARE
.' WILBUR F CODY 6433
6439 ISTH AV 5
18TH AVE RICHFIELD,
RICHFIELD, MN
MN 55423
55423 26-02824-14-0073
26-02824-14-0074
.. JOANN S PRATT 6445 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0075
..I R JEAN RAND 1714 E 66TH ST RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0119
THEODORE P FIFFLES 1708 E 66TH ST RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0120
? JOHNSTON 47 66TR ST RICHFIELD, NN 55423 .
• CLINTON A GORST 1620 E 66TH ST RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0122
1 '4 DAVID VOGEL 1614 E 66TH ST RICHFIELD, MN 55423 16-02824-14-0123
TRIGGER L 6550 YORK AVE SO 1405 M l ., NN 554 35 26-02824-41-091
CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0002
• DAVID 0 EIDSMO 6600 171H AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-03824-41-0005
! V RASAN
O E LOUANG. 3
6608
11TH
AVE 50
RICHFIELD,
MN
55423
26-02324-41-0006
it • JOHN L DEA RA SHAY AA11 17TH AVE se RICHFIELD. MN 55423 26-02824-41-0007 ;
0 I Tue Dec 22, 1967 10:05 AM CITY OF RICHFIELD
cabs
PAGE 1 5
• NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP PIN
WILLIAM KILIAN 6620 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02524-41-0003
.• RICHARD W STEPANEK 6626 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0009
• HUD/SNGL FAR PROP DISP 220 S 2ND ST MPLS, MN 55 401 26-02824-41-0010
,
I • KENNETH F SHILHA 6638 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, NN 55423 2 6- 4-41-
40 LINDA A CHURCHILL 6644 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0012
= JAMES J HICK 6700 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0021
, . 0 IN WARNER 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 -
S •? L SZEPANSKI 6714 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02814-41-0023
ALLEN i D TUNBERG 6720 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0024
S
LESTER JACOBSON
RO81 C MOE
6726
6731
17TH
17TH
AVE 50
AVE SO
RICHFIELD,
RICHFIELD,
MN
MN
55473
55423 26-02324-41-0075
26-02824-41-0026
.? KARD 6 N SUPHAVONG 6738 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423
- 26-02824-41-0027
'
•
-i ?fITEAAE[-P-fiEKHAN
CITY OF RICHFIELD 6744
6700 17TH AVE 30
PORTLAND AVE RICHFIELD
RICHFIELD, MN
MN 55473
55423 T6-04H24-41-00
26-02624-41.0063
HOWARD ANDERSON JR 6614 18TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0066
I'I • .
_' BRENDA CASE
ALLEN W LUETH 6620
6626 18TH
18TH AV
AV RICHFIELD,
RICHFIELD, MN
MN 55423
55423 Z6-OZ874-41-0067
26-02824-41-0068
• EDWIN GMACH 6632 18TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0069
THOMAS CREMERS 6638 18TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55413 6-02824-41-0070
RANDALL J GUAM 6644 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0071
4ILLIAM 5 BARBARA SHAND 6645 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0072
r . 'DEAN S KLIEWER 663 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, NN 55423 26-02824-41-0073
! I MILTON H BROWN 6633 17TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-01824-41-0074
r GABRIEL A ICAZA 6627 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-01824-41-0075
WlU RICHFIELD, MN 55423 -
40 ? •. JAMES M HYSLOP 6615 17TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0077
RANDAL 0 CHRISTY AAGAARD 6609 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0078
g ? . RUSSELL AUGER 66 1 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0079
? .? DEBORAH HARWOOD 6700 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0080
. .
.?
VALERIE D COMMERS
6708
18TH
AV S
RICHFIELD,
MN
55123
26-02824-41-0081
GLEN R DOWN 6714 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 5541 26-02824-41-008
DANIEL 8 THURBER 6720 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02814-41-0083
WILLIAM A JOHNSON 6726 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0084
RICHARD F KELLEY 6738 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0086
? . l E PATRICK 114 WOODW IND DR THOMASVILLE, GA 31792 26-02824-41-0087
,. uunMw l LEE wl?j &1", n16 .... ----- -- -- ----
SELDEN SAUNDERS 6739 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0089
I.•; MATTHEW STOKES 6733 11TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0090
AVE 5 RI M ULD, MN »1[3 [o-u[o[r?i-uvn
.4 MRS V R GRENHAGEN 6721 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0092
L l
I' KEITH A 80GREN 6715 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, NN 55423 26-02824-41-0093
• DAN BIEVER 6701 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 16-02824-41-0095
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL IN PO BOX 7430 MADISON, NI 53783 26-02824-41-0096
PFEIFER PROPERTIES 5016 44TH S W MPLS., MN 5543 6 26-02824-41-0097
PFEIFER PROPERTIES 5016 44TH ST N MPLS., MN 55436 26-02824-41-0098
• PFEIFER PROPERTIES 5016 44TH ST N MPLS., MN 55436 16-02824-41-0099
JAMES k CINDY JOHNSON 6745 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0100
• • DANIEL BROIEN 16413 FINDLAY WAY ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 26-02824-41-0101
WARREN L HARTMAN 6733 18TH AVE $O RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0102
KENNETH J KOLB 6727 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 542 26-02824-41-0103
• THOMAS E ANDERSON 6721 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0104
•
Tue Dec 21, 1987 10:05 AM CITY OF RICHFIELD
PAGE 1 6
cah
0
C
•
OWNERS
NAME ADDRE SS CITY, STATE, ZIP PIN
LOIS BROSCOFF 6715 18TH AVE ` RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0105
BRUCE W EDLUND 14278 GOLF VIEW DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 16-01814-41-0106
JOSEPH C GARCIA 6701 -03 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0107
ARND1/ERICKSON/TESKE/WOEL 1717 E 66TH ST RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0108
DARRELL J THOMPSON 6800 CEDAR AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44.0001
DOROTHY M KINNEY 6808 CEDAR SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0002
DONALD FLACH 6814 CEDAR SO RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-02824-44-0003
R M MATTSON 6820 CEDAR SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0004
ROTHCHILD FIN CORP 85 E 7TH ST 1200 ST PAUL, MN 55101 26-02824-44-0005
HARLEY i SALLY HARMS 6832 CEDAR SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0
PJESCICH 6838 CEDAR SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 16-01824-44-0007
PHOENIX INVESTMENTS 2300 CENTRAL AVE NE MPLS., MN 55418 26-02824-44-0008
I•; CHAS D HERZOG 6845 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0009
4b I THOMAS TRUDELL 6839 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0010
MORRIS E HOLM 6833 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55413 16-02824-44-0011
i RICHARD GALLAGHER 6827 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0012
ROBERT 0 BANKS 6821 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0013
• DENNIS R MC ALLISTER 6815 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0014
-; BRUCE M FELLER 6809 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0015
I LEROY D DALLAGER 6801 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0016
j LEE ROY N SUNDEEN 6800 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0017
TIMOTHY DONOHOE 6808 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0018
FELIX i S AMPAH II 6814 18TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0019
RICHARD YOUNG, JR 10251 BERKSHIRE RD BLOOMINGTON, M N 55437 26-02824-44-0020
•
I
5
JOHN A U66LA 6826 16TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 554Z3 Z6-UNZ4-44-Ml
' THOMAS W CARLSON 6832 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55413 26-02824-44-0022
, EDWARD THOR JR 6838 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 16-02824-44-0013
I
• JEFFERY T HARDY 6844 18TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0024
.x L E BENNETT 6845 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0025
x ELIGE BROWN 6839 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0026
JULIA ANN GALE 6833 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-01824-44-0027
?j ELSIE K TEEIZEL 6827 17TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0028
?rl D D DIEPHOLZ 6821 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0029
I•o DARLENE M BENESH 6815 17TH AV RICHFIELD, MN S5423 26-02824-44-003
•I HARLAND FRETHEM 6809 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0031
•• WANG-CHING CHENG 6801 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0032
•? NAYNE i LINDA PETERSON 6800 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0033
RAYMOND E ERTZ 6808 17TH AV RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0034
I
' HENRY i BONNIE SCURRY 6814 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0035
•• KAREN TANNAHILL 6820 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0036
?•I KENNETH JOHNSON 6826 17TH AV S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0037
?• PAUL J SEIBERT 6832 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 16-02824-44-0038
DAVID A ROLLIE 6838 17TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-0282-4-44-0039
A GRINDHEIM 6844 17TH AVE S RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0040
•
0
0
Fri Jan 8, 1988 9:25 AM
NAME
CITY OF RICHFIELD
A33EI 108TE!-
ADDNCABA
- - RHIDENt9__.-_.._ _-.-
ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP
PAGE I 1
PIN
OCCUPA -6315° CEDAR-- -- RICHFIELD W- SI M- 15-01814-214063
OCCUPANT 6333 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-22-0005
OCCUPANT 6333 CEDAR RICHFIELD, NO 55423 25-02824-22-0006
-OCCUPA 411f 41-EEDWAYE 9@-$ICMFIE6il,- N1>- 66#6`1- tR24-22 °"°"
OCCUPANT 6345 CEDAR AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-22=0008
OCCUPANT 6325 LONGFELLOW RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-22-0013
-_WHA 6321 L0NGFBLL4ii--- - RICHFIEL9, MN-- 55423--25-02824-22-891' -
OCCUPANT 6529 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-23-0006
OCCUPANT 6533 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MM 55423 25-02824-23-0007
- OCCUPANT 6617 CEDAR- - RICHFIBI,O; MN- 6543-- 25-82824-N 0008
6521 19TH AV S RICHFIELD, ON 55423 25-02824-23-0033
OCCUPANT 6409 CEDAR AVE RICHFIELD, NO 55423 25-02824-23-0065
OCCUPANT 6117 renA$-Av$-80 RICNRIB6D, NIF- 44193 95-4289-4-23-0066
OCCUPANT 6417 LONGFELLOV RICHFIELD, NN 55423 25-02824-23-0075
OCCUPANT 6437 19TH AVE SO RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-23-0103
- OCCUPANT 6713- CEDAR --- RICHFIELD, MR.- 58413 - 25-92824-32-9A44 - - -
OCCUPANT 6825 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-33-0058
OCCUPANT 6821 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 25-02824-33-0059
- OCCUPANT 6288 CEDAR-- -- - RICHFIELD, MN 55423 - 26-03824-11-009'
OCCUPANT 6344 CEDAR AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-11-0058
OCCUPANT 6328 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-11-0059
= OCCUPART 6120- CROAR RICHFIELD, NN- 55433- 26-02824414968-
OCCUPANT 6300 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-11-0061
OCCUPANT 6339 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-11-0067
- BCCUPAN!? - - 6244 CBDA& AVB 88- - - RICHFIELD, MN 55423- 26-02824-11-4071
OCCUPANT 6514 18TH AV 9 RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0035
OCCUPANT 1820 EAST 66TH STR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0054
- 8£CUPAN• -6328- CEDAR RICHFIELB, MN- 56433- 26-92$24-14-9055
OCCUPANT 6520 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0056
OCCUPANT 6444 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0065
--OCCUPANT 641-2- CEDAR RICHFIELO, K#-- 66M- U-029144"066
-
CCCUPANT 6400 CEDAR AV 3 11 RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-14-0067
OCCUPANT 6607 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, NN 55423 26-02824-41-0001
- OCCUPANT 6633 -17 % AV$ 89 - RICHFIELD, NN- 65433--- 26-02824-414410 -
OCCUPANT 6744 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0087
OCCUPANT 6700 CEDAR RICHFIELD, NO 55423 26-02824-41-0096
- O£CUPAN" 6720- GD'° RICNFIBLI}-, NN- 66433- 26-06824-44404T------ ----
OCCUPANT 6730 CEDAR RICHFIELD, NO 55423 26-02824-41-0098
OCCUPANT 6744 CEDAR RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-41-0099
OPXUPANT 6734- 18T8 AVA---- RICBFIE68, MN- 55433- 26-9262441-81Qi -- - - - -
OCCUPANT 6709 11 18TH AVE RICHFIELD, NN 55423 26-02824.41-0106
OCCUPANT 6826 CEDAR AVE 30 RICHFIELD, MN 55423 26-02824-44-0005
- =UPA#? - W* CBDAI AVB 88- RICNFIR14, NM 55423- - 26-02824-44-000° - - - --
OCCUPANT 6820 18tH AVE 90 RICHFIELD, NN 55423 26-02824-44-0020
Pfieffer Proper ties 5513 Hillside Co urt, Edina, MN 55435
-(Co--vAtex--6744h _ ,-b7W-Cedar'--Av-e nue South) - -- - - -- - --
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 27
January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Second reading consideration and public hearing on the following
ordinances: a) vacating right-of-way on 67th Street between 18th
Avenue and Cedar Avenue and 17 feet of right-of-way on Cedar
Avenue; b) authorizing sale of the properties at 6636 Cedar
Avenue (old liquor store site) and the vacated rights-of-way.
Background:
Lincoln Companies has submitted a proposal to redevelop the old
city liquor store site at 6636 Cedar Avenue. The proposal
involves the construction of a three story office building with a
gross floor area of 88,200 square feet and a three story parking
facility attached to the building, a portion of which is below
grade, to accommodate 386 parking spaces.
The site would be used exclusively for the headquarters of Copy
Duplicating Products, Inc., presently located in Bloomington, MN.
The firm sells and services office copying equipment.
The site has an area of 104,400 square feet (400 ft. x 261 ft.)
or 2.4 acres approximately. The land, which is owned by the
city, would be transferred to the HRA and the developer would
purchase the land from the HRA.
The redevelopment of the site also involves vacating of 67th
Street right-of-way between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue and a
portion of Cedar Avenue right-of-way (approximately 17 feet)
along the eastern property line of the site all the way to the
south line of 67th Street right-of-way.
The property is zoned C-2, general commercial, and the proposed
use would be permitted. The developer has made an application
for setback variances and for a planned unit development, final
plat, and rezoning of the site from C-2 general commercial to PC-
2 planned general commercial.
The developer has requested tax increment financing assistance
through the HRA to offset the increased development cost of the
site because of the parking ramp.
Details of the redevelopment proposal, including the financial
package is also attached. See item #6 (PUD proposal).
On January 19, 1988 the HRA referred both the vacation of right-
of-way and sale of the properties, including the to-be-vacated
right of way, to the Planning Commission for their findings.
On January 19, 1988 the Planning Commission found the vacation of
right-of-way and the sale of properties, including the to-be-
vacated right-of-way, to be in conformance with the city's
Comprehensive plan.
Recommended Motion:
1. Approve an ordinance vacating the subject public right-of-
way.
2. Approve the ordinance regarding the sale of property
including the public rights-of-way.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The right-of-way is not required for current or foreseen
future public purposes.
2. The city has previously received alternative proposals for
sale of this property and selected Lincoln Properties as the
site developer.
3. The Planning Commission has indicated the vacation and sale
of properties to be consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
The alternative recommendation would be to consider not giving
the second reading consideration to the attached ordinances
regarding the vacation and sale of the properties.
Decision Mode:
City Council consideration of a second reading ordinance and the
public hearing on the vacation of the public right-of-ways and
• sale of the properties are scheduled for January 25, 1988.
Notice was provided to the property owners within 350 feet of the
site and legal notice of the public hearing was also published in
the Sun Newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s D. Prosser
Cit . Manager
C]
r
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A
PORTION OF CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH AND A PORTION OF EAST 67TH STREET.
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
section 1.
The following described portions of East 67th Street and Cedar
Avenue South right-of-way, all located in the Northeast Quarter
of the Southeast Quarter, section 26, Township 28 North, Range 24
West, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, are hereby vacated:
That part of Cedar Avenue South described as follows:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot S,
Block 1, Wexler's Additions thence Easterly
on the extension of the South line of said
Lot S to a point 33 feet West of the East
line of Section 26, Township 28 North, Range
24 West, which point is referred to herein as
"Point A"s thence North on a line parallel
with and 33 feet West of said East line of
said Section 26 to the intersection with the
Easterly extension of the North line of Lot
1, Block 1, Wexler's Addition, which line is
referred to herein as "Line x"f thence West
along said extension of the North line of
said Lot 1 to the Northeast corner of Lot is
thence South along the East line of Lots 1
through S of Block 1, Wexler's Addition to
the point of beginning, and there terminat-
ings AND
All that part of Cedar Avenue South lying Westerly and Northerly
of the following described lines:
Beginning at "Point A" described aboves
thence Southerly on the extension of "Line X"
described above to the intersection with the
Easterly extension of the North line of Lot
1, Block 4, Wexler's Additions thence West
along said extension of the North line of
said Lot 1 to the Northeast corner of said
Lot 1, and there terminatings AND
That part of East 67th Street lying between the Southerly prolon-
gation of the.Easterly line of 18th Avenue South and the Souther-
ly prolongation of the Westerly line of Cedar Avenue South.
Section 2.
There are currently located within said Street and Avenue
rights-of-way hereby vacated certain sanitary sewers and utili-
ties, and their respective appurtenances. Said vacation is
subject to the easements running in favor of the City of Rich-
field, for the purpose of operating, maintaining, reconstructing,
constructing and repairing any such facilities over, under,
across and through that part of the Street and Avenue
rights-of-way hereby vacated, as described as follows:
Subject to an easement for sanitary sewer
purposes in favor of the City of Richfield
evert under, access and through all of tho
above-described vacated Cedar Avenue South;
AND
Subject to an easement for utility purposes
in favor of the City of Richfield, over,
under, across and through the Southerly 36
feet of the Northerly 50 feet of the
above-described vacated Sast 67th Street.
Section 3.
The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to take all
such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of said
Cedar Avenue South as provided
• portions of zast 67th Street an 2•
in the foregoing Sections l and
Passed this _ day of , 1986 by the Richfield City
Council.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
01050dol.c58
2
22 MBITORY ORDINAMCs M0.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR
OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED LOTS
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF BENNEPIN, STATE OF
MINNESOTA (OLD CEDAR AVENUE LIQUOR STORE SITE).
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1.
The following described Lots located in the City of Richfield,
County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, are hereby authorized to
be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of, and conveyed by
the City as herein provided:
Lots 1 through 10, inclusive, Block It
Wexler's Addition, Hennepin County, Minneso-
ta, together with all that part of the North
one-half of adjoining vacated or to be
vacated East 67th Street, and together with
all that part of adjoining vacated or to be
vacated Cedar Avenue South.
Section 2.
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all
action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of
and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section
1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the
execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of convey-
ance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer,
or disposition and conveyance.
Passed this day of , 1988 by the Richfield
City Council.
ayor
ATTEST:
ty cler
0105od02.c58
O
•
•
lez
? V V J J
u a w
a
XERXES. AVE. a<nWASNBURN
VINCENT
UPTON ;I
THOMAS
r'-? r-- 1 f 7. L
SHERIDAN ?i 1001_J?;?--
RUSSELL I I !? I ?J- i
QUEEN 1 II
PENN AVE. -J`-
OLIVER U -??-??-
NEWTON
MORGAN
t l?Jll ^ ???
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
IRVIMG ?C
\?? __ F "--T?? 1ME
MUMBOLDT- _ fir
GIRARD
FREMONT
EMERSON
DUPONT
COLFAX I
BRYANT I OO??0--??D?
ALDRICH
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD Ij
HARRIET 1 O
GRAND , 18TH AVE S
PLEASANT =-T--=
PILLSBURY
wENTWOYTN
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
let
STEVENS
Z .d
Sid m
CLINTON
4th I
Srn CEDAR AVE S
'I
I
PORTLAND AVE. q
OAKLAND III
II
PARK p
COLUMBUS ryii
CHICAGO gIFF?i O?
ELItOT
1 th
I1 I th
12th II OOO?^_
13 th
14 th ?? rr
IS th
BLOOMINGTON
16th
17th
oo??
oth
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOw ---------??----
?O V ? ' ' \ ?. W N J
_ ; - -
A
.Nt ,Ni y y .N1 N1 r1
Z ;v
m..
1 In
<r
;v
Z
> -s
N
N
y
W N Z
o ?Z
2
y 1
XERXES AVE.
WASNBURN
r VINCENT
- jI. UPTON
-? THOMAS
- -?I SHERIDAN
RUSSELL
i QUEEN
3 9X PENN AVE
3 II OLIVER
1i NEWTON
MORGAN
30. LOGAN
KNOX
II JAMES
3?i19 IRVING
HUMBOLDT
I
I GIRARD
FREMONT
? gh
EMERSON
II DUPONT
II iCOLFAX
3 IIiI BRYANT
11 ALDRICH
1 LYNOALE AVE.
? I?I GARFIELD
1
J
HARRIET
II GRAND
I
t! PLEASANT
III PILLSBURY
II
lil WENTWORTH
JQ III BLAISDELL
U 1
.'COLLET AVE.
I?t
STEVENS
2nd
3rd
CLINTON
4th
5th
PORTLAND. AVE
i OAKLAND
I PARK
I' COLUMBUS
II CHICAGO
ELLIOT
10th
if IN
12 th
7 13th
14th
'5th
_ BLOOMINGTON
1616
17th
IB th
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELL.OW
19th
J 20th
21 st
22.d
STANDISH
23rd
a A
41 N
s s
r
0
N V J O O 5 m s s s
Ni N N ? .Ni ? ti ? ti
H N
.a
ui
eo
I .f l 17 7 T T I I I I ' i""I I I I I
eo
Z
N
p
p N N
N o
Q
0
D
D
HIM
?O
t0
W
m
N
Go
N
p
.? W
U
N Q =
t'3
U =
Q
INS > to
ti?
...
.
.,
,t.
'
W
...
..
.
...
•
• . •.•::•:•:':':•:'
K•:
IN
ii?iii?ir:
?O
a
:•?•: .
,.
_
0
_:?' 4-1-77
La
v
0
z
-!
li
Y
? y
;qr.
e ?f
d?
I•
0
Z
ZONING
65TH ST E
W
Q
S
1-
t0
T
71:
Q
66TH ST E
H
ti
T
67TH ST E
GEN. Comm
MMIWLE RES
GENAMYJ TRI
T
W
Q
H
00
T
V,
W
Q
Q
O
W
V
N
68TH ST E
LAND USE
65TH ST E
N
W
Q
H
t0
T
N
Q
F-
ti
T
COMMERCh
QUASI PUBL
DUPLEX
APARTMENT
PARK
VACANT
66TH ST E
T
W
Q
S
F-
00
T
68TH ST E
T
W
Q
Q
D
W
V
N
67TH ST E
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
65TH ST E
66TH ST E
T
Q
S
H
f~
T
67TH ST E
MIXED LAND I
VEDRW DENS
I BUFFER
*WrrUTIONA
PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE
m
W
Q
H
co
T
?n
W
Q
Q
W
V
N
68TH ST E
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 26
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Request for continuance of council reconsideration of the denial
of a conditional use permit at 6601 Penn Avenue
Background:
On September 14, 1987 the City Council denied a request from
Amoco Oil Company for a conditional use permit to allow the
construction of a detached accessory car wash structure at their
6601 Penn Avenue site.
Subsequent to that meeting, Amoco Oil Company requested that the
council reconsider this denial. A public hearing concerning this
matter was scheduled for the November 23, 1987 City Council
meeting and continued the hearing until January 25, 1988, at the
request of the applicant. Mailed and published notice of this
hearing has been provided to property owners in the area.
On December 29, 1988, the applicant requested staff to continue
the request for reconsideration for another 30 days. The
• continuance would allow Amoco Oil Company to evaluate the site
layout based on a resolution of a dispute over an easement along
the east property line.
There are two issues for presentation to the City Council. The
first issue is whether the City Council wishes to reconsider its
decision and, secondly, if it does wish to reconsider, then a
public hearing is necessary for the Council to receive further
information and make a determination. Since this matter has
already been continued once and notice given for the continuance,
those residents who want to be heard will be required to come
back for the continued hearings.
Recommended Motion:
The petition for reconsideration be removed from the agenda and
be placed back on the agenda at such time as applicant is ready
for Council to make a determination if it wants to reconsider.
If the Council chooses to reconsider, then a public hearing would
be set at that time.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The applicant has requested the continuance and will not be
present at the January 25, 1988 city council meeting.
2. It is appropriate not to consider the item until such time
when the applicant would provide all relevant information.
• Decision/Discussion Mode:
This item is scheduled for the January 25, 1988 city council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja D. Prosser
Ci y Manager
JDP/eja
r1
LJ
U
n S
E C NORTH STAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
3025 HARBOR LN. N. - SUITE 104 - PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
TELEPHONE (612) 559-3642
December 29, 1987
Mr. Towhid Kazi
Planning Dept, City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Planning Case #87-SUP-12, Amoco Oil Company, 6601 Penn
Avenue, Richfield.
Dear Mr. Kazi:
On behalf of Amoco Oil Company, we request a continuance of
the January 25, 1988 public hearing on the reconsideration of
the denial of a conditional use permit for the above
referenced site. We ask that the City Council consider
continuing this hearing for 30 days.
The continuance is requested to allow Amoco Oil Company to
• evaluate the site layout based on a resolution of a dispute
over an easement along the east property line. It is
anticipated that this item will be resolved in the very near
future.
If you should have any questions or need additional
information, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
NORTH AR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.
rk A. Winson, PE
roject Manager
cc: Allen Czanstkowski
??`
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 25
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Award contract for a high speed copier to the Eastman Kodak
Company.
Background:
The city maintains a high speed photocopier at city hall for use
by all departments. Based on competitive bidding, an IBM copier
w-as installed in January of 1986 and used by staff until this
past June. However, the copier did not perform according to bid
specifications and after numerous attempts by IBM to rectify the
problems, the installment purchase agreement for the copier was
terminated. Following the removal of this copier, two copiers
were rented for successive three-month trials to assist staff in
determining the minimum specifications for a new copier.
Based on our rental experience and on discussions with various
vendors, staff developed specifications and advertised for bids
for the equipment. At the bid opening on January 11, four
vendors submitted proposals for five different copier models.
The bid tabulation is attached. Three of the copiers proposed
• were reviewed. Only one copier bid met all of the
specifications. A brief analysis of the proposals is attached.
Because the terms of rental, lease and service agreements vary
from vendor to vendor, the bid tabulation provides an incomplete
analysis of total costs. Overall costs noted in the attached
analysis were computed by staff based on an average monthly
copying volume of 50,000 copies. Where more than one rental or
lease plan was offered, the lowest cost option is noted.
Recommended Motion:
That the attached resolution be approved awarding a three year
rental agreement to the Eastman Kodak Company for a model 225E
copier.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Kodak 225F is the only copier bid which meets all of the
specifications outlined in the Request for Proposals. All
other copiers proposed varied significantly from these
requirements.
2. The three year estimated costs are as follows:
Monthly Rental (includes 25,000 copies)....... $ 1,380
Additional 25,000 copies (at $ .0088 each).... $ 220
• Total Monthly Cost ............................ 1,600
Total Estimated 3 Year Cost ($1,600 x 36 months)
$57,600
0
?J
3. The average monthly cost of the IBM machine used in 1986 was
$1,173. The Xerox machine, used from 1982-1985, averaged
$2,116 monthly. Bids for both three-year rental plans and
three-year leases were requested from all vendors. Kodak
offers annual rental rates which cost less than any one of
the three leasing options they offer.
4. The monthly rental and service costs for the Kodak copier
are within the amounts budgeted for a copier in the 1988
Central Services division budget.
5. The Kodak copier has been installed at the city for nearly
three months and appears to be reliable and to meet the
city's needs.
6. The specifications against which the proposals were judged
were developed from lengthy discussions with vendors,
staff's experiences with prior copiers installed at the
city, and productivity requirements based on copying volume
and timeliness.
7. The Eastman Kodak Company has an excellent reputation in the
industry for quality, reliability, and service.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could reject all bids, modify the
specifications, and solicit bids again. Lowering the
copying speed requirement, for example, would allow vendors
with lower cost copiers to submit bids which meet
specifications. Depending on the type of rental or leasing
arrangement entered into, significant savings might be
realized. However, our experience with the Canon and IBM
copiers, both lower cost high speed copiers, is that they
break down when heavily used and they tend to slow down when
making two-sided copies and when copying multiple originals.
2. The council could reject all bids and direct staff to
continue to utilize a monthly rental of the Kodak copier,
while waiting for the introduction of a new copier into the
market. Copy Duplicating Products, one of the bidders,
feels that a copier similar to the Kodak, but less
expensive, will be available in 60 days. However, there is
no firm data, such as cost or date of availability, on any
such copier.
0
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
Action on this item is requested at the January 25, 1988 council
meeting to allow staff adequate lead time to insure uninterrupted
availability of a high speed copier. The current agreement
expires on February 28, 1988.
Respectf ly submitted,
James . Prosser
City anager
0
-1-12- /74/_ J
LJ
COPIER BIDS
Xerox 1065 This copier was bid by the Xerox Corporation.
Two different configurations of the same copier were proposed.
The machine was tested by staff who found that the first
configuration proposed could not produce two-sided copies from
two-sided originals, as required in the specifications. The
alternate configuration could not insert divider sheets into a
collated job. Neither configuration maintained the 60 copy per
minute minimum speed as required.
Configuration #1
Annual Rental Cost: $18,362 Annual Lease Cost: $14,246
Configuration #2
Annual Rental Cost: $18,602 Annual Lease Cost: $14,280
Kodak 225F This copier was proposed by the Eastman Kodak
Company. The copier meets or exceeds all of the minimum
requirements. Kodak bid the same copier that the city has been
renting on a trial basis for the last three months.
Annual Rental Cost: $19,200 Annual Lease Cost: $21,330
Konica 7090S This copier was proposed by Copy Duplicating
• Products CDP . The vendor took an exception to the operating
speed requirement in their bid. The copier runs between 35 and
70 copies per minute, depending upon the application. This is a
major deviation from the specifications and the copier was not
reviewed.
Annual Rental Cost: $11,076 Annual Lease Cost: $11,316
Savin 7065 This copier was also proposed by CDP and an
exception to the copying speed requirement was also taken by the
vendor for this model (39 to 62 copies per minute). This is a
major deviation from the specifications and the copier was not
reviewed.
Annual Rental Cost: $ 9,096 Annual Lease Cost: $ 9,211
Ricoh FT 7060 This copier was proposed by Metro Sales, Inc.
Staff reviewed the copier and found that it did not consistently
operate at the required minimum speed and could not handle the
tabbed divider sheets or paper weights required. This is the
same copier as the Savin 7065 bid by CDP.
Annual Rental Cost: $12,520 Annual Lease Cost: $11,897
0
9/- ILI ?
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
HIGH SPEED COPIER RENTAL
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for a high
speed copier, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to
law; and
WHEREAS, the City's request for proposals contained minimum
specifications for the high speed copiers proposed, and preserved
to the City the right to reject any or all bids and to disallow
exceptions to the specifications; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the bid received from
Metro Sales, Incorporated, is nonconforming for a substantial and
irremediable failure to comply with the operating speed, tab
insert, and copies specifications contained in the request for
proposals; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the bid received from the
Xerox Corporation is nonconforming for a substantial and
irremediable failure to comply with the operating speed and
• duplexing specifications contained in the request for proposals;
and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the alternate bid
received from the Xerox Corporation is nonconforming for a
substantial and irremediable failure to comply with the operating
speed and tab insert specifications contained in the request for
proposals; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the both the bid and
alternate bid received from Copy Duplicating Products contain an
exception which constitutes a substantial deviation from the
operating speed specifications contained in the request for
proposals and finds this exception not in the best interests of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the bid submitted by the
Eastman Kodak Company of Edina, Minnesota is the only responsible
bid.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the proposal dated January 10, 1988, of the Eastman
Kodak Company for providing a high speed copier is hereby accepted
for the services and equipment specified in the City's request for
proposals dated December 30, 1987;
2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into a three year rental agreement for the above-
mentioned services and equipment with the Eastman Kodak Company of
Edina, Minnesota, in the name of the City of Richfield in the
amount of $49,680.00 and $.0088 per copy over the monthly allowance
of 25,000 copies; and
3. That the bids received from Metro Sales, Incorporated,
Xerox Corporation, and Copy Duplicating Products are rejected as
nonconforming; and
5. That the city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids,
except that the deposit of the successful bidder shall be retained
until a contract has been signed.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this 25th day of January, 1988.
Steven Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
January 11, 1988
Proposals for High Speed Copier
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who
announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read
aloud, bids for proposals for High Speed Copier, as advertised in the
official newspaper on December 30, 1988.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
John Holter, Central Services Technician
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
I BID
VENDOR I SECURITY I BID TOTALS
---------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------
I 1 6-A Rental ( 6-B Lease I
XEROX I I I I
I 5% I I
I Make/Model I Bond I $42,542.00 I $25,340.48
1065 I I I
I
I I
6-A Rental 6-B Lease
XEROX Alternate Bid I I I
I I 5% I I
I Make/Model I Bond I $43,262.00 I $25,415.28
I
I 1065 I I I
I 16-A Rental 1 6-B Lease
I KODAK I I I I
I I 5% I I
I Make/Model I Bond I $61,093.00 I $47,663.20
225F I I
I I
6-B Lease 6-B Lease 6-B'Lease
I KODAK Alternate I
I Bid I 5% I $48,979.00 I $48,933.10 I $42,825.00 I
Make/Model I Bond I (Buy-out) I (Buy-out) I Outright
I 225F I I I I Purchase I
U
0 Copier Bid -2-
BID I I
VENDOR I
I I SECURITY I BID TOTALS
i
1
---------------------------
I I ------------- ------------------
1 6-A Rental -----------------
1 6-6 Lease I
I CDP Copy Duplic. Prod. I I I I
Make/Model I Cashiers I
Konica 70905 I Check i $17,100..00_ I $17,820.00
I
I 6-A Rental 6-B Lease
CDP Alternate Bid I
I Make/Model I Cashiers I
Savin 7065 I
I Check I $11,160.00
I I $112505.96
I
--------------------------
I ------------- ------------------
16-A Rental -----------------
1 6-B Lease
Metro-Sales, Inc. I I I I
I Make/Model I 5% I
Rico FT 7060 I Bond I $262743.00
I I $13,628.90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
• The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at
the January 25, 1988 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
0
? ?/
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 24
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Council affirmation of participation in Hennepin County joint
purchasing program for purchase of gasoline.
Background:
Each year the City of Richfield participates in a joint
purchasing agreement with Hennepin County and several
municipalities within the County for the purchase of certain
services and supplies. One such item is the purchase of
gasoline.
In April, 1987, a Hennepin County joint purchasing contract award
was made with Rollins Oil Co. of Roseville, Minnesota for a
three-year contract period for the purchase of gasoline.
During the normal course of operation, the City orders between
$4,500 and $6,000 of gasoline per purchase. As such, the City
staff has placed some such purchases on the agenda as a purchase
over $5,000 pursuant to City resolution. With the council action
. proposed here, purchase of gasoline at the contract rate would be
approved as a master purchase, thereby eliminating the need for
any additional council action on purchases over $5,000.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the master Hennepin County joint purchase agreement for
the purchase of gasoline.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The City uses 100,000 gallons of gasoline annually, and
several individual purchases of gasoline exceed $5,000.
2. Placing individual purchases of gasoline on the council
agenda is a very time consuming and unnecessary
administrative action.
3. The Hennepin County joint purchase agreement provides the
City with an extremely competitive price on gasoline.
4. The City currently purchases gasoline from Rollins Oil
Company on a regular basis.
Alternative Recommendation:
? 0- 1. Require that each individual purchase of gasoline over $5,000
be brought to the City Council.
. Discussion/Decision Mode:
Item is placed on the January 25, 1988 agenda to complete this
item as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
JDP:sb
n
LJ
DATE: April 30, 1987
op
28?
TO:
HENNEPIN FROM: PURCHASING DIVISION
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF CONTRACT AWARD 71tESctAr
CONTRACT NUMBER . . . . . . . . .. 7670
TITLE . . . . . . . . . Gasoline
DEPARTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . Hennepin County and Certain Instrum.
CONTRACT PERIOD . . . . . . . . . From 4-30-87 To 4-30-90
• i
PURCHASE ORDER CUT-OFF DATE . . . . . Not Applicable
COMPLETION/DELIVERY DATE . . . . . . . Not Applicable
BUYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 01 Name: Frank Gerling Phone:348-3885
CONTRACT AMOUNT . . . . . . . . . $1,177,913.00 Instrumentalities $922,306.00
VENDOR NUMBER . . . . . . . . . . 66907
VENDOR NAME . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rollins Oil Company
ADDRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2420 W. County Road C
CITY, STATE, ZIP . . . . . . . . . . . Roseville, MN 55113
CONTACT PERSON . . . . . . . . . . . . Harland Wallace Phone:636-7990
ITEMS AWARDED . . . . . . . . ... . . All Items
t
7
1
t +y
? i
DISCOUNT OFFERED FOR PROMPT PAYMENT Terms: Net 20 Days
ADD'L DISCOUNTS OFFERED . . . . . . . None
FOBD - Free on Board Destination -
Vendor Pays Freight . . . . . . .
FOBSP - Free on Board Shipping Point -
Vendor Ships and Bills Freight . . . .
OTHER INFORMATION . . . . . . . .
cc 4.
x
Cooperative Purchasing members not named
in the specifications may purchase under this
contract by obtaining the the contractors (s)
permission.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 23
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Adoption of a resolution making adjustments for 1988 in
compensation of employees covered by the Specialized Pay Plan.
Background:
The Specialized Pay Plan includes all the city's seasonal and
non-permanent part-time employees. The total number of employees
covered by this pay plan varies from month to month and time of
year. However, during the course of the summer months, several
hundred part-time employees may be paid from this pay plan.
Although the city did not conduct a compensation study using the
FOCUS system on the Specialized Pay Plan, it has taken into
consideration the results of the study as applied to the
Management and General Services Pay Plans, particularly with
respect to the clerical and female-dominated classifications.
For the most part, a number of clerical positions, such as Clerk
Typist and Licensing Clerk, have the same duties and tasks of
their counterpart permanent positions on the General Services Pay
Plan. In addition, a safary survey using twenty metropolitan
• area suburban communities and the Hennepin County Park System was
conducted to determine what the market was paying.
Both studies indicated the need to make some changes in the
placement of ceitain positions within the pay plan.
Specifically, the positions of Clerk Typist, Licensing Clerk,
Assessment Clerk, Lifeguards, Pool Supervisor and Tennis
Coordinator are recommended for such adjustments. These
positions will move up one grade in addition to the general
increase. These changes accomplish the requirements of the
comparable worth law and make the city competitive in wages for
these positions. The position of Survey Crew Person was lowered
two grades to meet the current market.
The wage study for all other non-permanent positions shows that a
general increase of 3% over 1987 wage rates for the Specialized
Pay Plan would make Richfield's compensation competitive with
other metro suburban cities.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the resolution establishing the 1988 Specialized Pay
Plan.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The results of a comparable worth analysis of the
Specialized Pay Plan.
2. Results of a compensation study conducted on non-permanent
positions in the metro area.
3. The cost of such adjustments were budgeted for 1988.
4. On August 1, 1987, the city lost its immunity to law suits
by employees claiming pay inequities based upon comparable
worth.
5. Three of the cities surveyed will adjust their temporary
pay plans by 3 to 3 1/2% in 1988. The other cities have not
determined their increases as yet.
6. The lower grades of the pay plan are in conformance with the
adjusted rate of the 1988 minimum wage provisions.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The council may take no action to implement recommended
comp worth changes or a general increase to the
Specialized Pay Plan.
2. The council could direct staff to modify the pay plans or
conduct an additional study.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The city should make adjustments in the Specialized Pay Plan to
be effective January 1, 1988.
?J
JDP/eja
Respectfully submitted,
4
James . Prosser
City Manager
0
L?
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 1988 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay
grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade, and the method of normal
progression through the pay grade be established by council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the city administration has prepared a 1988 pay plan for the
positions for which there are no essentially similar position
classifications in other regular pay plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby
does establish for the year 1988 the following pay plan, which is to be
effective on January 1, 1988, and subject to the provisions of the
personnel rules and regulations ordinance:
SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL
Comp Code A B C D E
Step 1 2 3 4 5
• SPl-E HR 3.6246 3.8058 3.9977 4.1896 4.4028
SP2-E HR 4.0297 4.2109 4.4348 4.6480 4.8825
SP3-E HR 4.3388 4.5520 4.7866 5.0211 5.2769
SP4-E HR 4.6906 4.9252 5.1810 5.4262 5.6927
SP5-E HR 5.0531 5.3089 5.5861 5.8526 6.1404
SP6-E HR 5.4688 5.7460 6.0338 6.3323 6.6522
SP7-E HR 5.9059 6.1831 6.5029 6.8334 7.1745
SP8-E HR 6.3856 6.7055 7.0253 7.3877 7.7502
SP9-E HR 6.8867 7.2278 7.5796 7.9741 8.3685
SP10-E HR 7.4410 7.8141 8.2086 8.6137 9.0508
SP11-E HR 8.0380 8.4325 8.8589 9.2960 9.7544
SP12-E HR 8.6670 9.1041 9.5518 10.0315 10.5326
Instructor's Range: $4.00 - $15.00
• R.Y.E.S. Home Service Worker: $3.35
0 Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan
Individual employees will be eligible to receive increases to the next
higher grade step based on individual performance and the following
progression:
a. Step 1 - Start
b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date
c. Step 3 - One year from last increase
d. Step 4 - One year from last increase
e. Step 5 - One year from last increase
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this
25th day of January, 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
0
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
SPECIALIZED POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
*Grade Position Titles Grade Position Titles
1 Driving Range I Assessment Clerk
Pool Attendant Center Program Supervisor
Concession Operator
2 Arena Cashier (Golf Course)
Arena Concession Worker Licensing Clerk
Field Attendant I Maintenance Laborer III
Ice Guard Naturalist I
Pool Cashier
Projectionist 7 Adaptive Team Coordinator
Construction Specialist
3 Basketball Scorer/Timer Golf Course Technician
Bike Patrol Officer Naturalist II
Concession Stand I Playground Coordinator
Driving Range II Teen Center Coordinator
Field Attendant II Tennis Coordinator
Men's Activity Night
Attendant 8 Assistant Golf Course
Pool Night Watchman Manager
Tennis Center Attendant Construction Inspector
Volleyball Attendant Greens Foreman
Warming House Attendant Winter Sports Technician
Waterslide Attendant
9 Community Development
4 Custodian I Technician
• Dance Coordinator Pool Supervisor
Lifeguard (No WSI or Cert.) Residential Energy
Maintenance Laborer I Conservation Assistant
Playground Leader
Ranger 10 Engineering Aide
Skating School Coordinator
Starter 11 None
Video Production Assistant
12 None
5 Adaptive Program Leader
Clerk Typist - Int. & Sub. Inst. Baton
Concession Stand II Belly Dancing
Custodian II Cross Country Ski
Driving Range Supervisor Figure Skating
Intern Golf Professional
Lifeguard (WSI or Cert.) Hockey
Liquor Clerk Housing & Redevelopment
Maintenance Laborer II Tech.
Playground Specialist Self Defense
Pro Shop Supervisor Slimnastics
Senior Playground Leader Sports Official
Special Events Supervisor Tap and Ballet
Substitute Naturalist Tennis I
Substitute Van Driver Tennis II
Survey Crew Person WSI
Teen Center Leader
Warming House Supervisor
Building Inspector
Winter Sports Attendant
Zamboni Operator Other Home Service Worker
6 Accounting Clerk
Adaptive Program Supervisor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 22
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of parts and accessories for #2 high service pump at
Richfield Water Plant.
Background:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the city council for consideration.
The 1988 adopted budget for water maintenance includes $20,000
for all work associated with the replacement of the #2 high
service pump and accessories. The project involves the
replacement of the pump, column, shafting and valves. The
present valve is 24 years old and parts are no longer available.
The valve acts as a check valve that opens slowly after the pump
starts and closes slowly upon pump shut down to prevent pressure
surges in the water system. A pressure surge could cause a water
main break.
Two written quotations were received:
Water Products Company $5,385
• R. E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. $6,200
Recommended Motion:
Authorize purchase of 12" electric pump control valve with
emergency quick close feature per December 4, 1987 quotation from
Water Products Company in the amount of $5,385.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. High Service Pump #2 at the Richfield Water Plant is need of
replacement.
2. The lowest quotation was submitted by Water Products Company.
3. Sufficient funding has been budgeted for this purchase and
other aspects of the project.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Direct city staff to obtain additional quotations.
2. Do not replace High Service Pump #2 at this time.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled on the consent calendar of the January 25,
1988 city council meeting agenda. Action should be taken at this
meeting as the Mooney quotation is firm for only 90 days and will
expire prior to the first council meeting in February.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 21
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Consideration to authorize staff to submit applications for
discretionary Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant program.
Background:
Hennepin County is soliciting applications for the 1988 CDBG
discretionary funds. The discretionary account contains
approximately $40,000.00 for reallocation. In the past the City
of Richfield has been successful in obtaining substantial amounts
from this discretionary account.
Two projects totaling $73,000.00 have been submitted for
discretionary funds. The two projects are housing rehabilitation
($65,000.00) and H.O.M.E. ($8,000.00). The city must compete
with other communities participating in the Urban Hennepin County
CDBG entitlement program. The city received $50,000.00 of
discretionary funds last year for housing rehabilitation loans.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the staff to submit the application for discretionary
funds for the following projects:
1. Housing Rehabilitation $65,000.00
2. H.O.M.E. $ 8,000.00
73,000.00
Basis of Recommendation
1. The basis for the suggested discretionary projects are a
continued need for housing rehabilitation loans and housing
maintenance program (H.O.M.E.) for the elderly. If the
county does not have sufficient funds to fund both projects,
the city should indicate that the housing rehabilitation
project is a higher priority.
2. The applications meet the goals of the entitlement program
priorities.
Alternative Recommendation:
None, since the time frame allowed by the County is not adequate
for putting together a different application.
Decision Mode:
The City Council needs to act on the matter at their meeting on
January 25, 1988. The deadline for discretionary funding
requests is February 5, 1988.
Respect ully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT
FUNDING PROJECT REVIEW CRITERIA/1988
The Funding Request Review Criteria represents the framework to be used by
the Citizens Advisory Committee in evaluating to what extent a specific fund-
ing request is consistent with the following Discretionary Account funding
priorities, program area priorities, and review criteria established by the
Citizens Advisory Committee within the responsibilities assigned in the Urban
Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan.
Funding Priorities
• The primary national objective, of the CDBG program is to enhance/improve
the lives and living situations of low and moderate income persons.
• The Discretionary Account represents supplemental project funds which are
available to the urban county participants. Applicants are to demonstrate
that the proposed activity represents an activity for which alternative
funding is unavailable.
• The Community Development funds are limited, the Committee offers special
support to those activities which leverage additional public or private
funds.
• The Committee does not view CDBG as an appropriate long-term funding
source for public programs, it will require that service/administration
requests demonstrate a multi-year financial plan.
Program Area Priorities
• Housing - Projects which maintain or expand the availability of housing
affordable to low/moderate income persons.
• Economic Development - Projects which assist local economic development
activities directed toward the creation of new jobs for low/moderate income
persons or commercial/industrial redevelopment efforts.
• Public Facilities and Improvements - Projects which establish and/or
maintain public facilities which directly benefit low/moderate income
persons.
Review Criteria
• Does the proposed project primarily benefit low/moderate income persons?
• To what extent does the proposed project leverage additional public or
private funds? Is there a firm commitment for the leveraged funds?
• Does the proposed project represent an expansion or continuation of a
previously funded activity? Has the applicant identified other sources
of financial support which have been pursued? Does the funding request
identify all costs and revenues, real and projected, associated with
implementation of the total project?
• For economic development projects, does the proposed project generate at
least one job which will be held by a low/moderate income person per
$5,000 of requested funds?
• Does the proposed project create additional financial requirements which
will continue into the future? If so, does the applicant state how these
costs will be met?
• Does the proposed project represent a multi-jurisdictional funding request
for a common need?
• To what extent does the funding request represent an extraordinary
community activity?
•
•
LB:tf
12/17/87
REQUEST FOR FUNDING 988 DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY
iroject Eligibility: /
itation Hennepin County ate
ER Status: /
tatus Environmental Review Specialist Date
Project Number; /
Number Financial Manager Date
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: Housing Rehabilitation
3. Contact Person: Towhid Kazi 869-7521
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Countywide Discretionary Account Grant Request $ 65.000
2. Is this request to fund an existing project? x Yes/Budget -No
• a. If yes, please indicate CDBG year started _. Project Number 556
b. Total CDBG funds programmed/expended since start of project:
$ 1,177,059 / s 1,083,065*
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $ XXx Source Ref
(To what extent does project leverage additions public or private funds/
firm commi ttment )
4. Location: Address Citywide X
(Attach map. Committee may be making site visits.
5. Description (See Attached Narrative)
Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a statement of
(1) community need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what, if any, alternative funding sources
have been considered for the project. (Refer to Review Criteria in respond-
ing). (Attach additional sheets.)
* The housing rehabilitation component has programmed $1,162,059 and expended $1,078,065.
CDBG Year XIII funds remain wherein approximately $30,353 has been committed to specific
improvements with work underway and $46,605 has been reserved for specific eligible
households. This expends all but $3,036 of all funds presently programmed for
rehabilitation.$4,000 has been programmed for Section 312 administration.
The energy conservation rehabilitation component has programmed $15,000 and expended
$5,000. O.f the $10,000 remaining,which is CDBG Year XIII funds, $3,000 is targeted to
working with a recently-developed duplex type housing program and $7,000 has been
reserved for eligible single family households. Thus, there are no single family house
doctor energy conservation funds available.
6. Identify what national objective the project is addressing:
X Needs of Low/Moderate Income
Elimination of Slums and Blight
Urgent Community Need (must be a documented public health/safety need)
7. Does the project address one of the three priority objectives? _Yes No
If so, indicate:
Economic Development
R Housing (Rehabilitation)
Public Facilities and Improvements
If not, what objective does it address?
•
8. Implementation Schedule
Identify the major project tasks to be performed during implementation and their
timing:
Task Date
(Month/Year)
9. Budget
(See Atached Project Component Schedules)
Specify total project budget by major.project component (i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service).
BUDGET SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG Other CDBG (yr)/Other (identify)
Rehabilitation-Deferred Loans 46,000 3,036 Discretionar; /CDBG Yr_ XTTI(Secured)
Rehabilitation-312 Incentive 49000 4,000 Discretionary/CDBG Yr_XTTT-312
Grants Admin (Secured)
Rehabilitation-Deferred Loan 51000 7,000 Discretionary/HRA Rpvan„PC for
Admin Admin (Secured)
Rehabilitation-Housedoctor 10,000 30.000 DIRerPtinnary/MN DTRD-Crane Grant
Grants 28,000 City Revenues for Admin
(Secured)
Project Budget
Total
OPD 1/8/88
$65,000 $ 72,036
$ 137,036
?? -?
Description (Refer to Section #5 of application,a discussion of
needs, results, and project components follows)
The project has four components:
(1)-Deferred Loans for major system repair and improvement in
lower income owner occupied housing ($46,000).
(2)-Incentive grants that are combined with Section 312
Rehabilitation loan funds secured by lower income
households ($4,000).
(3)-Deferred Loan/Incentive Grant Administration ($5,000)
(4)-Energy grants to "housedoctor" (seal air leaks, bypasses,
caulking, weatherstripping, insulation) for lower income
owner occupied housing ($10,000).
Each of these components is coordinated through Bruce Nordquist,
City of Richfield Housing Specialist, (869-7521).
(1) Deferred Loans
This component provides financial and technical
assistance to low income Richfield residents to make improvements
to their homes. These improvements include code compliance
improvements, accessibility improvements for the handicapped, and
weatherization improvements. The financial,assistance comes in
the form of a deferred loan. The technical assistance is
provided by Richfield staff. Staff determines and defines
. necessary improvements for bidding purposes by private
contractors.
The average age of the Richfield housing stock is 30 to 40 years
old, a transition age that requires a number of major
improvements to the home (i.e., furnace replacement, electrical
update, roof replacement, improved insulation, and siding and
window update). Providing deferred loans to low income Richfield
residents allows homeowners to maintain their homes and improve
the general condition of Richfield's housing stock. Assistance
to elderly homeowners allows them to continue to live
independently in the community.
The demand for the deferred loan program reflects the needs of
lower income elderly and single parent households for these
improvements. There are over 1,800 lower income owner occupied
households which may be able to benefit from deferred loan
improvements. The project was last advertised in December, 1987.
There has been a continual request for assistance. In the past,
residents have waited one to two years for funding. As nearly
all (except for $3,036) Year XIII funds have been reserved or
committed, discretionary funds would be utilized to cover Spring,
1988 home improvement requests and assist applicants waiting for
Year XIV funds not available until July, 1988. Advertising for
Spring activities will start in February, 1988.
The Discretionary Funds would be targeted to lower income elderly
and families. The families are often single parent heads of
household, with children. The elderly are usually on fixed
incomes. The deferred loan project is the only way for lower
income persons to make major repairs and, thus, help maintain the
housing stock, which of course, benefits the occupant and the
entire city. These households are unable to assume significant
monthly debt payments. The "deferred" nature of the assistance
removes the payment problem associated with the loan debt. The
"emergency loans feature of the project continues to be useful to
ensure that lower income people can resolve what seems like
impossible situations for them: collapsed sewer lines,
deteriorated roofs during the spring rains, and unreliable
furnaces during the heating season.
In early 1988, Hennepin County is (and the Richfield HRA will
follow) increasing CDBG income limits to reflect 50% of area
median income as determined by HUD.
In 1987, 50% of median income was as follows: (1988 figures to
be available shortly from HUD)
Number of Persons 50% of Area
in household Median Income
1 $13,500
2 $15,450
3 $17,350
• 4 $19,300
5 $20,850
6 $22,400
7 $23,950
8 $25,500
It is anticipated that this increase in income limit requirements
will substantially increase the number of eligible applicants for
Deferred Loans.
Approximately nine home improvement deferred loans would be
provided with $46,000 in Discretionary Funds. An evaluation of
the last three years of CDBG project delivery suggests:
-The average household income for loan recipients=$10,230
-The average loan = $5,200
-Approximately 30% of loan proceeds directed to major
weatherization (furnace replacement, insulation)
-Approximately 20% of loan proceeds directed to roofing
replacement
-Approximately 19% of loan proceeds directed to exterior
maintenance (painting, siding replacement)
-Approximately 11% of loan proceeds directed to building
code items (plumbing, electrical problems)
n
L?
- Z t ?-
(2) Incentive Grants
• This component assists the Richfield HRA in implementing a HUD
Section 312 Rehabilitation program during 1988. In 1978, the
Richfield HRA utilized an "incentive grant" to promote
rehabilitation. At that time, eligible homeowners that provided
their own revenues for home improvements, could receive a CDBG
grant to complete additional improvements. The concept becomes
useful again in 1988 for the following reasons:
-HUD has Section 312 funds available to finance major home
improvements for moderate income households at reduced
interest rates. Total code compliance is required.
-The Richfield HRA has reserved $4,000 in CDBG Year XIII
funds to pay for loan administration (the loan originating
and closing process). A independent contractor, at a cost
of approximately $1,000 per loan, would provide this
service. HRA staff would market the program, inspect
dwellings, prepare scopes of work, assist homeowners in
securing bids and qualifying for the Section 312 loan.
-HUD has a targeting requirement that Richfield must meet
before initiating the program: Section 312 funds may be
used when CDBG funds for improvements are also being spent.
Thus, $4,000 in CDBG Discretionary funds would be utilized to
provide $1,000 grants to four households that qualify for the 312
program. As a result, additional home improvement work would
• occur. Because HUD targeting requirements were met, the
Richfield HRA could participate in the Section 312 program.
Those households with incomes less than 80% of the Twin City area.
wide median, according to HUD, would be eligible. The present
income limits (subject to an increase by HUD in 1988) are:
FAMILY SIZE MAXIMUM INCOME LIMIT
1 $21,300
2 $24,300
3 $27,350
4 $30,400
5 $32,300
6 $34,200
7 $36,100
8 $38,000
The needs for home improvements are as discussed in the "deferred
loan" section. Additionally, with data available from Hennepin
County, Richfield staff has been able to identify census blocks
where more than 50% of the homeowners have incomes less than 80%
of the median income. Although Richfield does not have lower
income census tracts, there appears to be approximately 75 lower
income single family census blocks within these tracts.
0
Final approval for initiating the Section 312 program is pending
with the HUD Area Office. Utilizing incentive CDBG funds to
assist households will help to secure final authorization to
proceed. If HUD does not authorize the Section 312 program for
Richfield, the HRA would use the $4,000 within the deferred loan
program.
(3) Deferred Loan/Incentive Grant Administration
Approximately 10% ($5,000) of the program funds requested for
loans and grants ($50,000) is required to administer these
programs. Program marketing, determining qualified households,
inspections, and loan and grant processing, are the general task
areas that $5,000 in Discretionary CDBG funds covers. This is
matched with approximately $7,000 in HRA revenues for general
administration. The HRA staff is in the process of reviewing
procedures and documents that will be utilized for the incentive
grant program. During 1988, in addition to-providing home
improvement loans to homeowners, the deferred loan procedural
guide will be reviewed and updated.
(4) Energy Grants
This component provides weatherization ("Housedoctor") grants to
eligible households. Housedoctoring, funded in the past in
Richfield by CDBG and utility contributions, is a method of home
weatherization developed at Princeton University in the early
170's and piloted for Minnesota utilities by Richfield in 1984-
• 85. It consists of a thorough examination of the residence for
air infiltration, using a device called a blower door.
Practitioners test the structure for air leakage and proceed to
seal the major infiltration problem areas in the home.
The HRA through its Home Energy Check Audit Program, identifies
homes most in need of housedoctor work. Lower income audit
recipients are also identified as part of the process. The
audit, funded by NSP, is an intensive analysis of the energy
systems of the home, including a blower door test which
identifies overall leakage rates and specific leakage sites. The
average Richfield home is found to be 50% "leakier" than it needs
to be in order to maintain good indoor airquality. Lower-income
homes are often worse than the norm, due to deferred maintenance.
As of September, 1987, 153 Home Energy Checkup clients were
identified as potential House Doctor candidates on the basis of
their infiltration rates. Further, it appears that close to 50%
may be lower income households (50% of median income households)
that would be eligible for grants.
If Discretionary CDBG funds are secured, the qualifying process
would be initiated.to identify households. The $10,000 would be
distributed to approximately 24 households on a first come, first
serve basis, by contacting audit clients by mail.
0
If for some reason there were not sufficient numbers of clients
identified through this process, a second pool of clients could
be identified from a study recently completed by the HRA.
Approximately one-fourth of the city has been scanned using
infrared thermography techniques. It is estimated that
approximately 30% to 50% of the homes (575 homes) may benefit
from housedoctoring. A lessor number would be interested in and
qualified for a housedoctor grant. However, the number of
households that could benefit is considerable.
Housedoctor grants approximate $420 per household. Approximately
$10,000 in Year XIII funds is programmed for housedoctoring.
Single family eligible household are presently completing
processing for $7,000 reserved for this purpose. Sixteen
households will benefit. The remaining $3,000 is reserved for a
recently developed program to assist lower income renters in
duplex type housing situations. Approximately six households
will benefit. Plans are being finalized to contact the
approximate 80 owners of duplex property in Richfield and provide
housedoctor services to qualified renter households.
Although the Year XIII CDBG funds are not expended as yet, the
program had planned on $10,000 in 1987 and $10,000 in 1988 to be
provided by Minnegasco. These funds are not available and
several lower income housedoctor clients cannot benefit from this
service. It should be noted that both the City of Richfield
($28,000) and the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development ($30,000) are significant contributors to the
Richfield HRA's energy conservation efforts. Their contributions
are utilized to administer the energy conservation program.
Audits and housedoctoring are the primary service components.
The HRA energy initiatives are truly a community effort given the
special recognition given to them:
-Minnesota Department of Public Service "Energy Saver's
Award of Excellence", 1987
-United States Department of Energy "Award for Energy
Innovation", 1987
0
PROJECT COMPONENT
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
(Refer to Section 8 of application)
1st Quarter 1988 (January l to March 31)
(1) Deferred Loan: Serve applicants on waiting list, advertise
for program applicants, distribute applications, review completed
applications, verify income and eligibility, inspect homes,
receive bids, approve loans/grants, notify contractor to proceed
with work.
(2) Section 312 Incentive Grant: Finalize HUD authorization,
complete contract arrangements with loan administrator.
(3) Administration: ongoing
(4) Housedoctor Grant: Qualify households already identified,
initiate housedoctor work, and identify additional households as
necessary.
2nd Quarter 1988 (April 1 to June 30)
(1) Deferred Loan Continue to approve loans, notify
contractors to proceed with work, monitor and inspect work being
completed, make payments to contractors as necessary.
(2) Section 312 Incentive Grant: Initiate marketing, identify
• households, identify required improvements, process grant and
loans, approve grants and loans, notify contractors to proceed.
(3) Administration: ongoing
(4) Housedoctor Grant: Continue with housedoctor work, identify
additional households as necessary.
3rd Quarter 1988 (July 1 to September 30)
(1), (2), (3)9 (4) ongoing
4th Quarter 1988 (October 1 to December 31)
(1), (2), (3), (4) work ongoing, completion, closeout
0
REQUEST FOR FUNDING 1988 DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM:
THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY
Project Eligibility: /
Citation Hennepin County Date
ER Status:
/
Status Environmental Review Specialist Date
Project Number: /
Number Financial Manager Date
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Richfield
2. Project Name: Household & Out-gi dP Mnintpnannp for El dexly
3. Contact Person: Larry OppolA
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Countywide Discretionary Account Grant Request $ 8.000
2. Is this request to fund an existing project? x Yes/Budget $ 276,000 -No
a. If yes, please indicate CDBG year started VIII , Project Number A/A-
b. Total CDBG funds programmed/expended since start of project:
$69,205 / $59,205
ouncil of Churches, Private Donations
3. Leveraged Funds: Amount $224,000 ource n
(To what extent does project leverage additional pub is or private funds/
firm committment)
4. Location: Address Richfield Citywide
(Attach map. Committee may be making site visits.
5. Description
Describe the project in as much detail as possible. Provide a statement of
(1) community need for project; (2) how project will address the need and
the anticipated results; and (3) what, if any, alternative funding sources
have been considered for the project. (Refer to Review Criteria in respond-
ing). (Attach additional sheets.)
See Attachments A & B
0
6. 'Identify what national objective the project is addressing:
x Needs of Low/Moderate Income
Elimination of Slums and Blight
Urgent Community Need (must be a documented public health/safety need)
7. Does the project address one of the three priority objectives? Yes No
If so, indicate:
Economic Development
x Housing
Public Facilities and Improvements
If not, what objective does it address?
8. Implementation Schedule
Identify the major project tasks to be performed during implementation and their
timing:
Task Date
On-going delivery of the following services: (Honth/Year)
Maintenance - includes minor repairs in Jan. 1,88 to Dec. 31,88
the areas of carpentry, plumbing, concrete,
• electrical and painting; lawn mowing and
snow removal
Homemaking - includes window washing, Jan. 1,88 to Dec. 31,88
floor and kitchen cleaning, dusting, vacuming
9. Budget
Specify total project budget by major project component (i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service).
BUDGET SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG Other CDBG (yr)/Other (identify)
Public Service 60,000 Year XIII, XIV
249000 Hennepin County
-32-,-000 -celaReil•--eiQh?r_e?es
28,000 State of MN
19Q,099 Pr-egrram
40,000 Annual Fund/Donations
Project Budget
• Total.
$ 60.000 $ 21600 0
$ 276,000
OPD 1/8/88
Rationale for Funding
• For the past seven years H.O.M.E. has been providing Richfield
with a maintenance/homemaker program for its low and moderate
income elderly. H.O.M.E.'s purpose is to provide the opportunity for
elderly to live independently in their homes by making
homemaker, chore and maintenance services available at affordable
rates. H.O.M.E. also helps to preserve the housing stock of Richfield
through its maintenance program to low and moderate income
elderly homeowners.
Each year the program has grown in size. Requests for service
continue to increase. In 1987 H.O.M.E. provided 3,758 hours of direct
service to 136 Richfield senior households. This represents
approximately a 15% increase in service over the 1986 program year.
Richfield is currently providing $3.77 of CDBG support for each unit
of service delivered by H.O.M.E. H.O.M.E.'s cost to provide a unit of
direct service to Richfield is $17.26. These figures show that
H.O.M.E. has been very successful in leveraging other private and
public funds to pay for the program.
The majority of funding for H.O.M.E. services has been provided
from other funding sources including the County, the Greater
. Minneapolis Council of Churches, the Metropolitan Council and client
fees. In 1988 funding from these sources will not be adequate to
meet the increased caseloads of the H.O,M.E. program. Due to a
shift in priorities the Metropolitan Council grant of $25,000 will no
longer be available to support our homemaking division.
H.O.M.E. is taking new initiatives to find revenues to make up for
this funding loss. We are optimistic that the community will get
behind H.O.M.E. and help support it through an annual fund. (As
of December 31, 1987 H.O.M.E. had raised more that $13,000 from
individuals, churches, businesses and civic organizations). However,
this new revenue possibility will not be sufficient for us to continue
at our current level of service.
H.O.M.E has been a major supportive service to elderly in Richfield.
Without the support of H.O.M.E. many of these elderly would not
be able to remain in their homes. In 1988 we plan to meet the
increasing need for elderly services. As a result, we are formally
requesting an $8,000 allocation from the 1988 Discretionary Account
Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program.
0
Attachment B?
H. O. M. E.
(Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
• SUMMARY PARAGRAPH - The H.O. M. E. Program is a homemaker, :maintenance, and
chore program designed as a cost effective alternative to long, term care
for the elderly in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina and
Richfield. Disabled persons are also eligible for the services. The
project maintains a core staff of trained individuals to assure prompt,
quality service. A skills bank component is also utilized. Clients are
asked to contribute according to their ability, based on a sliding scale.
TARGET POPULATION - Consumers of H.O.M.E. services are elderly residents,
age 60+9 who live independently and who need some affordable in-home
services in order to maintain their residence or property. The H.O.M.E.
Program serves those customers who need assistance but are not financially
capable of paying the full cost of service as well as those elderly
residents who are frail, vulnerable adults and not capable of contracting
with a private vendor.
SERVICES - The philosophy of the H.O.M.E. Program is to provide homemaker,
maintenance, and chore services in order to maximize independence for
elderly and avoid premature placement in nursing homes. Customers are
asked to contribute according to their ability, based on a sliding scale.
Homemaker services include: House cleaning, food preparation, grocery
shopping, non-medical personal care, and laundry. Assessments are made
and services provided according to the specific needs of the customers for
type of service, time and frequency. Chore/home maintenance services
include: snow removal, lawn care, installation of security features,
carpentry, minor plumbing, window washing, painting, weatherization, minor
roof repair and other maintenance fobs needed to enable elderly residents
to remain in their own homes, as well as maintain their homes in an
acceptable manner.
STAFF Home maintenance and homemaker services are provided by 7.15
(full-time equivalent) workers who are trained in the necessary skill
areas and techniques for working with older persons. Skills Bank Workers
(1.6 full-time equivalent) are also utilized to provide chore services.
All staff report to the Maintenance and Homemaker/Chore Coordinators,
respectively, who are responsible for the management and supervision of
H. O. M. E. Other staff and volunteers provide administrative and clerical
support.
FACILITY - Services are provided in the homes of elderly residents of
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, and Richfield. The office for H.O.M. E.
is located at Creekside Community Center, 9301 Penn Avenue South, Room
#104 & 106, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55431.
PLACEMENT PROCEDURE - Clients gain access to the program either by a
referral from an area agency or by calling the H. 0. M. E. office and
requesting service.
FUNDING SOURCES - Hennepin County; Greater Minneapolis "Council of
Churches; the four Municipalities; State of Minnesota/Federal Government;
in-kind services from South Hennepin Human Services Council and
contributions from customers. A request for funding has been submitted to
United Way, but we have not yet received notification of grant decision.
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 20
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of three hydraulic broom sweepers.
Background:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the city council for consideration.
Beginning with the 1987/88 Winter season, the brooms used for
sweeping skating rinks were used in a experiment for removal of
light snow falls from city sidewalks. It was found the existing
brooms, which were attached by a solid, non-flexible connection
to the motorized unit, were experiencing continual breaks due to
the limited space and uneven level of the sidewalks. The
existing brooms do not allow angling of the brooms and it is
necessary to go against traffic when using this equipment to
sweep snow from sidewalks.
• The adopted 1988 budget for park maintenance includes $6,000 for
the purchase of brooms to replace the 20+ year old brooms which
were currently being used for cleaning ice rinks. To make the
brooms more versatile, it was determined a hydraulic connection
would be preferable. If the brooms are to be used for sidewalk
snow sweeping as well as cleaning of ice rinks, three brooms are
needed to give the experiment credence. Two of the brooms would
be 72" wide with primary assignment to sweeping of ice rinks.
One broom would be 60" wide with primary assignment to sweeping
snow from sidewalks.
Written quotations were obtained from two vendors for the 72"
wide brooms to be used primarily for sweeping ice rinks:
Vendor Unit Price
Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc. 3,985.00
Long Lake Ford Tractor, Inc. $42179.00
Quotations were obtained from three vendors for the 60" wide
brooms to be used primarily for sweeping sidewalks:
Vendor Unit Price
Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc. 2,500.00
Boyum Equipment Inc. $2,591.11
Long Lake Ford Tractor, Inc. $2,282.00
It should be noted the quotation from Boyum Equipment, Inc. does
not meet specifications in that it is to be attached to a loader
rather than a tractor. It should also be noted the Ruffridge-
Johnson Equipment Company, Inc. quotations are contingent of sale
of all three units.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize purchase of two 72" M-B Model HT Sweepers complete with
hydraulic lift and angle less brush core and bristles but with a
shaft to fit our brushes in the amount of $7,970 and one M-B
Model SHT hydraulic broom sweeper with 60" hydraulic lift and
turn for a total purchase price of $10,470 from Ruffridge-Johnson
Equipment Company, Inc.
Basis of Recommendation: I
1. New brooms are needed for sweeping outdoor ice rinks.
2. The city is experimenting with broom sweeping snow from city
sidewalks.
3. Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc. submitted the
lowest total quotation for both the 72" and the 60" hydraulic
brooms.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Discontinue the experiment to use brooms for sweeping snow
from city sidewalks thereby eliminating the need for the
• variety of widths in and the number of hydraulic broom
sweepers needed.
2. Direct city staff to obtain additional quotations.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled on the consent calendar of the
January 25, 1988 city council meeting. If the brooms are to be
available for the 1987/88 Winter season, orders must be placed as
soon as possible. Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc. has
indicated delivery can be made in approximately 30 days after
receipt of order.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 19
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Purchase of turf truckster utility vehicle.
Background:
The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that
when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or
construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, authority to purchase
shall be submitted to the city council for consideration.
Five Cushman Turf vehicles are presently being used for changing
cups, transporting employees and equipment and hauling materials
such as dirt, sand, topdressing, leaves, brush, garbage, water
coolers and irrigation supplies at Richfield's Rich Acres Golf
Course. Due to the high usage demands for multiple purpose
equipment, the adopted 1988 budget for the golf course includes
$6,700 for the purchase of a new, additional utility vehicle.
Four companies were contacted to submit quotations for a 1988
Cushman Model 53088 3 wheel Turf Truckster Chassis complete with
flatbed, sides and tailgate. Two vendors returned quotations:
Illinois Lawn Equipment $6,995
Cushman Motor Company, Inc. $6,224
• Recommended Motion:
Approve the purchase of 1988 Cushman Turf Truckster from Cushman
Motor Company, Inc. in the amount of $6,224.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. An addition utility vehicle is needed at the golf course.
2. Existing utility vehicles are Cushmans facilitating ease of
maintenance and interchange of parts.
3. Cushman Motor Company, Inc. submitted the lowest quotation.
4. Sufficient funding is available.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not purchase an additional vehicle although this action
would continue a shortage of vehicles and would not promote
increased efficiency.
2. Direct staff to obtain additional quotations; however, it is
anticipated the Cushman Motor Company, Inc. price will not be
bettered by another vendor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled on the consent calendar of the
January 25, 1988 city council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Prosser
Jame fanager
City
??-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 18
Agenda January 25, 1988
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for Disposal of Lime By-Product.
Background:
One of the lime sludge presses at the Dewatering Plant began
operation in November of 1987; the second press went into
operation in mid-January of this year. The dried sludge is now
dropped into trailers to be hauled away.
Bids were opened in a formal bidding process on January 19, 1988
for the hauling and disposal of approximately 3,500 cubic yards
of lime by-product and the results are listed below:
Vendor Estimated Annual Cost
Anderson Excavating and Drainage 24,150.00
Bradley and David Fredrickson $26,250.00
Severson Construction Inc. $28,875.00
L & G Rehbein, Inc. $41,545.00
Recommended Motion:
Award a contract for disposal of lime by-product to Anderson
Excavating and Drainage in the amount of $6.90 per cubic yard for
an estimated annual total of $24,150.00.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is necessary to remove the lime by-product from the
Dewatering Plant.
2. Anderson Excavating and Drainage was the lowest responsible
bidder and met specifications.
3. There is $35,000 set aside in the 1988 Water Maintenance
budget for this contract.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may reject all bids and direct staff to readvertise;
however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from
a reputable contractor.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Council may choose to delay a decision on this item, keeping in
mind that the lime by-product is currently being disposed of
under an extension of an old contract with Bradley and David
Fredrickson. Staff recommends approval at the January 25, 1988
council meeting.
Respectf lly submitted,
I? James Prosser
City anager
JDP/e j a
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
January 19, 1988
Removal of Lime By-Product
Bid No. 87-15
Pursuant.to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for removal of lime by-products, bid
no. 87-15, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 6,
1988.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR I BID I TOTAL I
SECURITY I I
I
( L & G Rehbein, Inc. I
I 5% bid I
bond ( I
41,545.00
•
Centerville, MN
I Bradley & David Fredrickson
I 5% bid
bond ( I
26,250.00 I
Zumbrota, MN
I I
I I
I I
I
I Anderson Excavating & Drainage ( 5% bid bond I 24,150.00 I
i Owatonna, MN
I I
I I
I I
I
I Severson Construction I 5% bid bond I 28,875.00 I
Cokato, MN
I I
I I
I i
I
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tab ulated and
considered at the January 25, 1988 City Council Mee ting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk