The URL can be used to link to this page

02-22-88 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 67 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Consideration of Amendments to Lease Agreement with Walser Buick. Background: The City of Richfield has previously entered into a lease agreement with Walser Corporation for the rental of property adjacent to 78th Street. The agreement provides for the rental at the rate of $5,500 per year for the property not used by the city. The first amendment to the agreement would permit renewals without requiring the business to initiate the renewal. Specifically, both the city and Walser would be permitted to cancel the lease in accordance with the agreements upon notification. The second amendment is an assignment clause which would permit the city to assign the lease if requested by the lessee. Changes in the corporate structure at Walser have indicated a need for this change, which is fairly common in this type of agreement. Recommended Motion: Approve both amendments to the lease agreement with Walser Buick. Basis for Recommendation: 10 1. Ease of administration 2. Convenience to both the city and Lessor Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city may require the Lessor to initia year. However, this is rather cumbersome and the Lessor. The assignability clause but, again, it is in the best interest of this assignment if acceptable to the city to the renewal each for both the city could be denied, the city to permit council. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented as a consent item on the agend of February 22, 1988. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP/eja 0 4?/3-i SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT This Second Amendment made and entered into as of the day of ., by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, hereinafter "Lessor," and WALSER CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter "Lessee." WITNESSETH.. WHEREAS, the parties hereto did on February 13, 1987, enter into that certain instrument entitled "Lease Agreement" which lease was subsequently amended by that certain instrument entitled "First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated , 1987, (the lease and first amendment are collectively referred hereinafter as the "Lease"); and WHEREAS, the parties are desirous of providing for an assignment of Lessee's interest in the Lease to Walser Auto Sales, Inc., a Minnesota 0 corporation, hereinafter "Walser"; and WHEREAS, this Lease does not currently provide for the assignment of Lessee's interest; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that it is necessary and proper to amend the terms of the Lease to the extent described below. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter contained, the parties hereto do hereby amend the Lease by adding the following new paragraph 12; 12. Assignment. Lessee may, upon obtaining consent from Lessor, assign its interest in the Lease to any entity which is capable of performing Lessee's obligations hereunder. The Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold or limit its consent, but may in connection with the granting of consent require that the proposed assignee of Lessee's interest be bound, by an instrument in writing, to the full and faithful performance of Lessee's obligations hereunder. lJ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment to Lease Agreement as of the day and year first above written. LESSEE: WALSER CORPORATION By Its LESSOR; CITY OF RICHFIELD By Its Mayor By Its City Manasor R7:O055LA02.E14 I• • 2 ?/? • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 66 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Consideration of a resolution to amend the offstreet parking permit at 1720 E. 66th Street. Background: On January 26, 1987, the City Council approved an offstreet parking permit providing for three parking spaces in the rear yard of the property located at 1720 E. 66th Street. The property is zoned C-2 general commercial and the use (operation of a doll museum) is permitted in the district. However, the structure is legally non conforming due to insufficient front setback. The property owner, Mr. Wallace Roholt, is now requesting an amendment to the offstreet parking permit. Mr. Roholt is proposing to pave the front yard to add four parking spaces, which would bring the total number of parking spaces on the property to seven. The council approval on January 26, 1987 stipulated that the front yard could be paved only if parking problems exist on the site or if the use changes. Staff's observation and knowledge of the site indicates neither of these conditions exist. The proposed parking plan indicates a 22 foot curb cut with a 10 foot radius on 66th Street. The original parking permit stipulates that if front yard parking were to be added, the curb cut must be 26 feet (minimum curb cut width requirement in C-2 general commercial district), with at least a 15 foot radius. The landscaping provided on the site is inadequate, especially when it abuts residential uses. The drainage plan has been approved by the City Engineer. Mrs. Rand, property owner at 1714 E. 66th Street, has raised some concerns regarding Mr. Roholt's converting his property from residential use to commercial use and the paving of the rear yard for parking purposes. Recommended Motion: Deny the request to amend the of-street parking permit at 1720 East 66th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The property owner did not provide sufficient evidence that additional parking is needed. The use of the property has not changed and a parking problem on the site is not indicated. 2. The landscaping provided is inadequate for the site to be aesthetically pleasing. The paving of the front yard without ?/2- sufficient landscaping buffer is not desirable for any • commercial property, especially when it abuts single family residential uses. 3. The width of new curb cut on 66th Street does not meet the city minimum width requirement of 26 feet in C-2 general commercial district. Alternative Recommendation: The City Council may wish to approve the offstreet parking permit amendment reflecting the attached staff recommended parking layout. This provides for two parking spaces in the front yard, and stipulates that the curb cut on 66th Street be 26 feet in width. The attached resolution would have to be adopted for such approval. Decision Mode: This item is placed on the council agenda for February 22, 1988. No public hearing is required for offstreet parking permit approval. However, Mrs. Rand has been notified of the council meeting on February 22, 1988. Respectfully submitted James Prosser JDP/dkh City anager PROPOSED OFF STREET PARKING 0 f (4_ ?0 r Existing Exi ting D r 3 ? i Existing ? NaUSE ? comME$GIAL AO*A : aH X 5H = IZq(o4Q.FL 12% 200 n (r.?{B = '1 PARANL S14 5 7 Proposed Driveway SD. A- 667-11 ST. I t i U1 W? Q ? i } 1724 EAST 66TH STREET RECOMMENDED OFF-STREET PARKING • EXISTING GARAGE N Z Y Q t t IL s to 3 K W ' I W cc W W EXISTING HOUSE I > N W -AA s ' HANDICAP RAMP r r. HC 4 S EAST 66TH STREET • TREE i i ' R'n SHRtm RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION 87-2 1720 E. 66TH STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the amended off-street parking application No. 87-3 is hereby approved subject to the following stipulations. a. That perimeter curbing be provided. 2. The necessary curb cut permit be obtained from Hennepin County on to 66th Street and the width of the curb cut should be at 26 feet and the curb cut should have at least a 15 foot radius. The accurate copy of the curb cut permit from Hennepin County should be submitted to the city. 3. That the driving isle in the parking area in front of the building be at least 5 feet beyond the parking stalls to allow turnout area to provide maneuverability space in the parking area. 4. That the responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance . of said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street lot operator in accordance with the city code. 5. The landscaped area be irrigated by the land owner. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of February, 1988. Steven J. Quam ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0 0 • 0 ZO .y1 r P ? ? yy .?1I V N± ? O O pp ? O p r ? Y ? Y ? ? ? ' ? f ! f i ? ? 9 A y y 1:? Y y ? y y y 1 y d y ? Y !? 1.41 %ER%Ei AVt, XER%ES AVE. WASHSURM WA3HBYRM VINCENT VIMCCNT YPTOM UPTON THOMAS THOMAS fMER10AN RUSSELL ' = 1 F SHERIDAN El I RUSSELL OU[[N l QUEEN PENN AVE . PENN AVE. OLIV[R NEWTON OLIVER NORTON MORGAN YORCAN LOO AN L06AN KNOX KNO% JAMES JAMES IRVINE A 1 1 IRVING HUYSOLDT ZZ Z N = I ' HUMBOLDT GIRARD GIRARO fRE1101t? FREMONT MA MASON EMERSON OUPONT IN DUPONT w*4 COLFAX BRYANT COLFAX BRYANT ALDRICH ALDRICH O LYMOAL[ AVE. LYNOAL[ AVE. GARFIELD GARFIELD HARRIET 1 NARRIfT 1 m GRAND 7T H AVE S 1 DRANO PLEASANT ?LEASANT PILLSBURY PILLSBURY WENTWORTH WENTWORTH BLAISDELL BLAISDELL RICOLLCT AVC. MICOLLET AVE. 101 lot STEVENS STEVENS 204 2A4 7q 7N CLINTON CLINTON • IA 0 " 4 4lA SIk SIR PORTLAND AVE PORTLAND AVE. OAKLAND OAKLAND ?AR COLUMBUS PARK CHICAGO CHICAGO CLLIOT fLL10T to IA 11 to 10111 II IA 12 111 12 to 17 IA 7 1 IN 14 /R 11 t l1 13 111 IS 111 SLOOMINGTON BLOOMINGTON 416 IS to ?to 17111 Is to I. 111 CEDAR AVE. CEDAR AVE. 1A116KtLLAIS LONGFELLOW 1 f 111 S = 20111 z 70 fll r 21 st n A 22 04 STANDISH i r 27 r4 4 <r ;v r 0 l? 0 LAND USE N ?l: Q H t0 ?I? 1?1?1?1?1? 111 ;11111tt1t 111 Illltltll 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 111 II 11111111 ICI ?I?t?l?l?l 11 11111 111 111111{111 111 1111111111 111 II 11111111 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 111 1111111111 1111111111 1111111111 T a H T 66TH ST E 71, W Q H co T W Q a W 0 DUPLEX VACANT APARTMENT ® COMMERCIAL lili{ OUASI-PUBLIC lllllltlllllllltl III 11 II 11 III IIIJllllllllllli 11{111 11111 Illlt 11111 1111111 111111 1{111 11111 11111 11111{; III II II II {li II 111111111111 111111 1111 11111 11111 11{111. III 11 11 II III 65TH ST E 67TH ST E ;O?/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 65 February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: First reading consideration of an ordinance amendment to the city sign regulations. Background: In August of 1987, the City Council ap, new sign regulations for the city. At that the city would continue to review with sign installers to further refine jeopardizing the legislative intent of the City Council has approved a number ordinance. 3roved an ordinance setting that time staff indicated the ordinance and work the ordinance without the ordinance. Since then of amendments to the sign At the February 8, 1988 City Council meeting, the council directed staff to prepare an amendment to ordinance section 416.07 (d) i.e., under General Commercial and Industrial District regulating, (7) Banners, Wind Devices, Promotional Display Devices and Fixed Temporary Ground Signs to allow four permits per year. Recommended Motion: Approve first reading of an amendment to Section 416.07 (d) (7) of the ordinance code and schedule the public hearing and second reading consideration for March 14, 1988. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed amendment would allow business to use Banners, Wind Devices, Promotional Display devices and Fixed Temporary Ground Signs four times a year instead of 3 times a year. This would allow business to use the above mentioned signs for a total of 28 days instead of 21 days. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to not pass the attached ordinance and continue the sign regulations in its present form. Decision Mode: This matter is scheduled for first reading consideration on February 22, 1988. No public hearing is required for first reading consideration. Staff will provide legal notice of the public hearing and will also send written notice of the hearing to the Chamber of Commerce and to licensed sign installers in the city. Respe tfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP/dkh AMENDMENT TO • SECTION 416.07 (d) (7) OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE (7) Banners, Wind Devices, Promotional Display Devices and Fixed Temporary Ground Siqns subject to the following standards: i) Fixed Temporary ground signs, banners, wind devices attached to any structure, vehicle, equipment or inventory and constructed of canvas, plastic material, cloth, rubber or other combustible material with or without framework; shall be strongly constructed and shall be securely attached to their supports. They shall be removed (including all frame- work and supports) as soon as damaged or torn. (ii) There shall not be more than one fixed temporary ground sign on any building front- age. (iii) No fixed temporary ground sign, banner, wind device, or promotional display device shall project over public property or right-of-way. (iv) No fixed temporary ground sign, banner, wind device or promotional display device shall be located in the city without first obtaining a permit therefor from the building official. The building official may impose conditions upon the granting of such permit including the size of such sign or devices. It shall be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign, banner or device for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the. permit. No such permit shall be for a period of more than 7 days. No more than--3 permits shall be issued to any business organization or institution within any calendar year. No such permit shall be granted where such fixed temporary sign, banner, or device is prohibited by other provisions of this code. Permits required by this subdivision are subject to the minimum fee contained in Appendix D. The fee required under Subsection 416.0x, subdivision 4 for the sign construction permit may be waived by the city council if the sign, banner, or device is to be erected by nonprofit civic or religious institutions or by public bodies. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 64 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Second reading consideration and public hearing on an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding the definition of "front yard" in commercial zoning districts. Background: The double front yard requirement in a commercial district under certain circumstances, was noted during staff review of the CDP project. This provision may not actually improve community appearance, but could restrict development. Consideration should be given to its effect on other commercial zoning property which is similarly situated. On January 11, 1988, the City Council gave first reading consideration to the attached ordinance amendment and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for their review. Recommended Motion: Deny second reading of an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding the definition of front yard in commercial zoning districts. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The City Council referred the matter for Planning Commission review. At their regular meeting on February 16, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the Council not consider the ordinance amendment. 2. BRW is currently studying the land use impact of 1494 corridor study on 77th Street in Richfield. Staff would be in a better position to evaluate the impact of the ordinance after the BRW study report. Therefore, it is premature at this time to amend the ordinance. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be recommend the City Council approval of the ordinance amendment. Decision Mode: This item be placed on the Council agenda for February 22nd. A public hearing must be held since the legal notice of the hearing was published in the Richfield Sun newspaper. Respect ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager 0 JDP/dkh AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V SECTION 520 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter V, Section 520 of Richfield City Code of 1987 entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is hereby amended in the following aspect: 1. By amending Subdivision 3 of Subsection 520.13 to read as follows: Front yard: Each building shall have a front yard of not less than 40 feet, and shall have a greater front yard where required under the provisions of Section 540. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk r? LJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Council Letter No. 63 Agenda of February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Request for council reconsideration of the denial of a conditional use permit to permit a car wash 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 to January 25, 1988, 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. Mailed and published notice of the January 25 hearing was provided to property owners in the area. However, the applicant was unable to be present and sought continuance of the matter. At the January 25 meeting, the City Council removed the item from the agenda and voted not to consider this item until such time as • the applicant was ready with all relevant information. The item is now placed on the agenda at the request of the applicant. The applicant has submitted a new site plan indicating a change in the location of the car wash facility. The new plan indicates that the car wash facility would be attached to the existing structure. Since the site plan has been revised, the applicant must follow the city conditional use permit procedure. As part of this procedure, the site plan needs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission before City Council action. Staff is continuing to receive letters from the abutting property owner at 6600 Penn Avenue against the Amoco proposal. Recommended Motion: Deny the petition for reconsideration of the previous conditional use permit proposal. It is also recommended that the site plan be considered as a new application for conditional use permit. Basis of.Recommendation: 1. On January 26, 1988 applicant has requested the reconsideration of the denial of the conditional use permit. 2. The applicant has submitted a new site plan which would involve Planning Commission review of the matter before the City Council could take any action. 3. A public hearing would have to be scheduled for council action and the abutting property owners would be notified of such hearing. • Decision Mode: The item is scheduled for the February 22, 1988 City Council meeting. The recommended motion would be on whether the council wishes to reconsider the applicant's request of reconsidering the previous council action on September 14, 1987 even though the site plan has changed. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit Manager JDP/dkh 0 0 n s E NORTH STAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. 3025 HARBOR LN. N. • SUITE 104 • PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-3642 January 26, 1988 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: Enclosed please find three prints of the revised site for the above referenced site. This revision shows the existing building being expanded and the new car wash being attached to the building. We request that his item be placed on the agenda of the next available City Council meeting. The four changed conditions outlined in my letter of October 26, 1987, still hold true. Sincerely, NORTH STAR ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. ark A. Winson, PE Project Manager Enc. • CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 62 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Ordinance 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 management 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 to be inconsequential. 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. The city council gave first reading of this ordinance at the January 25, 1988 city council meeting, and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for February 22. Recommended Motion: Approve an amendment to Chapter III, Section 300.13, Subd. 2 Fire Division, eliminating the Director of Public Safety as the Chief of the Fire Division. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The Director of Public Safety will retain management responsibility for the Fire Division. 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 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 item is placed on the February 22, 1988 agenda for public hearing. If the council approves the ordinance amendment it would become effective thirty days after publication in the official newspaper. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City ager • JDP/eja 0 • 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 the Director of Public Safety whe?s the Chief of the Div+sien and who is assisted by a Fire Chief of that Division. There still may be one or more Assistant Chief's in the Division. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1988. • Steven J. Quam Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 61 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Adoption of resolution approving a developer's agreement with the Lincoln Companies. Background: On February 16, 1988, the HRA adopted a resolution approving the developer's agreement and also requested the City Council to approve the agreement. The significant elements of the proposed developer's agreement are discussed below. The agreement would involve four parties; the HRA, the City, The Lincoln Companies and Mr. John Malinski, President, Copy Duplicating Products, Inc. The basic sales transaction is that the HRA would sell the property to the Lincoln Companies for a total of $345,000 which includes $318,000 for the land plus $27,000 for the cost of demolishing the old building. Interest computed at 10% annually on the $318,000 from August 5, 1988 until the date of closing would also be paid by the redeveloper. The HRA would then pay those monies to the city. M The Lincoln Companies, at the appropriate time, would transfer its interest in the property and the developer's agreement to Mr. John Malinski, who would assume the responsibilities of the redeveloper and lease the completed development to CDP. The agreement has been amended to stipulate that the transfer of interest requires specific HRA authorization. This authorization shall include specific delineation of responsibilities of both the Lincoln Properties and Mr. Malinski. The HRA would reimburse the redeveloper for costs related to the development as well as carrying costs related to the time value of the reimbursable expenses in the total amount of $850,000. The HRA would make these payments from the tax increment generated by the development beginning in 1990 at an annual rate of $106,250 over a period not to exceed eight years. However, the HRA would also have the right to pay the $850,000 in less than eight years if sufficient funds accumulated. Provisions have also been made for the HRA to be reimbursed for the total cost of administration in the first year, estimated at $74,898, rather than spreading payment over 8 years. The date of closing is scheduled for March 7, 1988, but, in any case, no later than March 31, 1988. The redeveloper has agreed to make a payment in lieu of taxes in 1988 of $5,000 (The property has been tax exempt). • Part of the agreement also includes the Assessment Agreement and Certification of Assessor setting the minimum market value of the land and improvements in the amount of $5,343,000. This figure has been used as the basis for computing the taxes. Recommendation: Adopt the resolution approving the contract for private redevelopment with the Lincoln Companies Basis of Recommendation: 1) The contract is fair and equitable. 2) No bonds are being sold to finance project activities. 3) The developer assistance will be provided in eight years or less from the tax increment cash flow. 4) Staff costs may be recovered in the first year (1990). Alternative Recommendation: 1) Modify the agreement and adopt the resolution. 2) Delay action on the resolution. 3) Refuse to take any action. Decision Mode: Action on February development process 1] JDP/eja 22, by the City Council will permit the to be on schedule. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager 0 RESOLUTION NO. Resolution Approving The Contract For Private Redevelopment With The Lincoln Companies WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") have created and established the Cedar Avenue Business Area Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment Economic Development District (Project Area) pursuant to the authority granted in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, and 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive (collectively, the "Act"); and WHEREAS, the HRA and the City have, pursuant to the Act, adopted a tax increment financing plan (TIF Plan) to finance all or a portion of the public redevelopment costs of the Project Area; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and for the TIF District and particularly to make land in the Project Area available for redevelopment by private enterprise for and in accordance with the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, the City and HRA have determined to provide aid and assistance to finance the public redevelopment costs of the Project Area; and WHEREAS, The Lincoln Companies (Developer) has proposed a development within the Project Area which the City has determined will promote and carry out the objectives for which redevelopment in the Project Area has been undertaken, and will assist in accomplishing the objectives of the TIF Plan, will be in the vital best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and is in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable state and local laws and requirements under which redevelopment in the Project Area has been undertaken and is being assisted; and WHEREAS, the City has been presented, for its consideration, with a proposed contract for the private development of lands within the Project Area by the Developer (Proposed Contract); and WHEREAS, the City has been fully informed of the terms and provisions of the Proposed Contract and approves of the same; and WHEREAS, the HRA did by resolution on February 16, 1988, approve the contract and request the approval of the City Council. L • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The City Manager and Mayor are hereby authorized and directed to execute, on behalf of the City, a document in substantial conformance with the Proposed Contract. 2. The City Manager and Mayor are hereby authorized to take all acts and do all things reasonably necessary to carry out the obligations of the City in accordance with such contract. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of February, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Thomas Ferber, City Clerk U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 60 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution approving the establishment of a Cedar Avenue Business Area tax increment economic development district and redevelopment project. Background: On January 19, 1988, the HRA adopted resolution number 316 which approved the establishment of a tax increment economic development district within a redevelopment project encompassing the old Cedar Avenue liquor store site. (See pages 27-29 in accompanying plan document for district maps). The resolution also requested the City Council to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving the projects. During the months of January and February, the City Council has taken action designed to facilitate the construction of the CDP corporate headquarters. The actions have related to the sale of the property, zoning, vacation of rights-of-way, and offstreet parking permits. The establishment of a tax increment district and redevelopment project is also a necessary part of the development facilitation process. Mr. DuFresne of The Lincoln Companies is proposing to construct a $5 million, three story and basement office facility and a parking structure. The office would contain 88,200 square feet with 376 parking spaces on site; 361 of which would be in the three story parking structure. A portion of the parking structure is below grade. Total annual gross taxes from the development would approximate $252,199 with an average tax increment of about $235,966. The project would be occupied by Copy Duplicating Products (CDP). CDP sells and services copy duplicating equipment. Initially they would employ approximately 240 people on site with that number increasing to approximately 280 in a few years. The current lease of CDP in Bloomington, MN reportedly expires on 10/31/88, thus requiring that construction start in March for timely completion. The HRA is being asked to assume a role in the redevelopment of this site because CDP is seeking tax increment assistance in the amount of $850,000. The HRA is the appropriate authority under state statute for administering this assistance in the context of a tax increment project. The attached resolution acknowledges the Planning Commissions findings, the approval of the projects by the HRA, and makes findings that redevelopment and tax increment financing are appropriate and beneficial for the site and the community. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the establishment of the Cedar Avenue Business Area tax increment redevelopment project. Basis of Recommendation: 1. In the opinion of legal counsel, the plans conform to statutory requirements. 2. The HRA has approved the plans and requested affirmative action by the City Council. 3. The plan will facilitate the redevelopment of a vacant underutilized parcel of land. 4. Additional jobs and tax revenue will be generated. 5. The response from neighbors to the development has been favorable. 6. Taxing jurisdictions could share immediately in the increased value and the developer assistance will be provided only for a maximum of 8 years. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Delay action on the resolution until a future date. 2. Not adopt the resolution now or in the future. Decision Mode: Construction must the redevelopment established. begin in March. Before construction may begin, project and tax increment district must be Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/eja 0 RESOLUTION NO. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Resolution approving the Cedar Avenue Business Area Redevelopment Project, Establishing of a Tax Increment Financing Economic Development District Located Within The Redevelopment Project; and Approving the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto Be It Resolved By the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: Section 1. Background The City finds as follows: 1.01 The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") on its own initiative has prepared a Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Cedar Avenue Business Area Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Project") in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, (the "Redevelopment Act"), and has prepared a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Plan") for the Tax Increment Economic Development District (the "Tax Increment District") located within the Redevelopment Project, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, (the "Tax Increment Financing Act"). 1.02 The Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan, dated January 19, 1988 are now on file with the City Clerk. 1.03 The Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan have been, in accordance with the Acts, referred to the City Planning Commission by which action taken on January 19, 1988, has commented on the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan and has found that they conform to and are not in conflict with the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. 1.04 The HRA the undertaking of the Tax Increment Tax Increment Plan Council for public Acts. by resolution of January 19, 1988 has approved the Redevelopment Project, establishment of District, approved the Redevelopment Plan and relating thereto, and referred them to this hearing and consideration as provided by the 1.05 This Council on the date hereof conducted the required public hearing at which the views of all interested parties were heard. Copies of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan have been forwarded to the school boards of Independent School District No. 280 and Hennepin Technical Institute (Intermediate District No. 287), and the County Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County as required by the Tax Increment Act. 1.06 This Council has fully reviewed the contents of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan. Section 2. Findings; Redevelopment Project. 2.01 It is hereby found and determined that within the Redevelopment Project: a) the public interest requires the replanning, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of neighborhoods; b) 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; and c) 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. 2.02 It is further specifically found and determined that: a) the land in the Redevelopment Project would not be made available for redevelopment without the public intervention and financial aid described in the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan; b) the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project by private enterprise; c) the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City as set forth in the comprehensive municipal plan. 2.03 The findings in this section are made in compliance with Section 469.028, Subdivision 2 of the Redevelopment Act for the purpose of showing the City's intent to exercise, in conjunction with the HRA, the powers granted to the City and the HRA by that Act in order to achieve the objectives of that Act. Section 3. Findings: Tax Increment Financing Economic Development District. 3.01. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desirable to the sound and orderly development and redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project and the City as a whole, and for the protection and preservation of the public health, safety, and general welfare, that the authority of the Tax Increment Financing Act be exercised by the HRA and the City to provide public financial assistance to the Redevelopment Project. -7?_ 3.02. It is further found and determined that the Tax Increment Financing District is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision 12. It has been determined 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. 3.03. It is further found and determined, and it is the reasoned opinion of the HRA and this Council, that the proposed development 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 increment as a source of revenue to assist with the financing of the land acquisition, assembly and other improvements, the developer would not construct this development in the City. 3.04. The proposed public improvements to be financed through tax increment financing are necessary to permit the City to realize the full potential of the Redevelopment Project in terms of development intensity, employment opportunities and tax base. 3.05. 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. The Planning Commission of the City has submitted its written comments to this Council to that effect. 3.06. 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. 3.07. 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. 3.08. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Redevelopment Project will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the 0 redevelopment of the Redevelopment Project by private interprise. Section 4. Redevelopment Project and Tax Increment District Establishment and Approval; Certification and Filing. 4.01. Redevelopment Plan relating to the Redevelopment Project is hereby approved. 4.02. The Tax Increment District located within the Redevelopment Project is hereby established. The Tax Increment Plan relating to the Tax Increment District is hereby approved. 4.03. The geographic boundaries of the Redevelopment Project and the Tax Increment District are not coterminous as each is described in the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan which document is adopted herein by reference. 4.04. The HRA is requested to transmit a certified copy of this resolution together with a copy of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan and a copy of the HRA resolution approving the Plans to the Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County with a request that the original assessed value of the property within the Tax Increment District be certified to the HRA pursuant to Section 469.177, subdivision 1 of the Tax Increment Act. The HRA is further requested to file a copy of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan with the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development as required by the Tax Increment Act. 4.05. The Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the HRA. Dated this 22nd day of February, 1988. Steven J. Quam, Mayor Thomas Ferber, City Clerk • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 59 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of on-sale and off-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Sandy's Tavern, 6612 Penn Avenue. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on-sale and off-sale 3.2 beer licenses for Sandy's Tavern. The required license fees have been paid. The organizational structure of Sandy's Tavern remains unchanged. Ms. Debra J. Erickson continues to own and manage the establishment. Ms. Erickson has no known criminal record. In addition, all general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. During the last twelve months, there were eight public safety contacts with Sandy's. This compares with three contacts for the previous year. Of these eight contacts, three were of a criminal nature and two involved "bar-type" calls. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale and off-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor licenses for Sandy's Tavern, 6612 Penn Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city code and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. 3. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. If it is continued, the council must grant a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell 3.2 beer until the license renewal is reconsidered. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of 7??J-/ the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the renewal of this license has been placed on the consent calendar for February 22, 1988. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/eja 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 58 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on-sale 3.2 beer license for Lariat Lanes. The required license fee has been paid. The organizational structure of Lariat Lanes remains unchanged from last year. Mr. Lloyd M. Freden continues to own the establishment, while Mr. Bill Kingsbury continues to be on- premises manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. In addition, all general real estate, state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. During the previous twelve months there were six public safety contacts with Lariat Lanes. This compares with two contacts for the previous year. Of the six public safety contacts only one was of a criminal and "bar-type" nature. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city code and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. 3. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. If it is continued, the council must grant a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell 3.2 beer until the license renewal is reconsidered. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the renewal of this license has been placed on the consent calendar for February 22, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Prosser Jame Tanager City JDP/eja • is CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 57 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Godfather's Pizza located at 2 West 66th Street. Background: The application and the certificate of liquor liability coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on-sale 3.2 beer license for Godfather's Pizza. The required license fee has been paid. The organizational structure of Godfather's Pizza remains unchanged from previous years. Mr. Gerald Baer continues to serve as on-premises manager of the establishment. Mr. Baer has no known criminal record. In addition, all general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. During the previous twelve months there were 3 public safety contacts with Godfather's Pizza. All three contacts were of a criminal nature and one involved a "bar-type' contact. Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Godfather's Pizza located at 2 West 66th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city code and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. 3. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. If it is continued, the council must grant a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell 3.2 beer until the license renewal is reconsidered. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of . the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public licensee has not committed any beverages and therefore, it is be revoked or suspended. Safety Department that the violation relating to alcoholic recommended that the license not Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the renewal of this license has been placed on the consent calendar for February 22, 1988. ly submitted, RespVanager Jame rosser City JDP/eja 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA is Council Letter No. 56 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of on-sale and off-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for The Frenchman's Inc., 1400 East 66th Street. Background: The application and certificate of liquor liability insurance coverage have been submitted for the renewal of the on and off- sale 3.2 beer licenses for The Frenchman's Inc. The required license fees have been paid. The corporate structure of The Frenchman's remains unchanged. Mr. William Snyder continues to own and manage the establishment. Mr. Snyder has no know criminal record. In addition, all real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. During the previous twelve months there were 10 public safety contacts with The Frenchman's. This compares with 12 contacts for the previous year. Of these 10 contacts, four were of a criminal nature and none of these involved "bar-type" contacts. Recommended Motion: • Approve the renewal of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for The Frenchman's Inc, 1400 East 66th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city code and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. 3. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. If it is continued, the council must grant a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell 3.2 beer until the license renewal is reconsidered. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. • It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the renewal of this license has been placed on the consent calendar for February 22, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City Manager JDP/eja U 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Council Letter No. 55 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Renewal of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Airport Bowl, 7711 14th Avenue. Background: The application and certification of liquor liability insurance have been submitted for the renewal of the on-sale 3.2 beer license for Airport Bowl. The organizational structure at Airport Bowl remains unchanged. The corporation consists of Doris and David White and George Riepe. Doris White also manages the establishment. None of these individuals have any known criminal record. The general real estate taxes as well as all state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. During the previous twelve months there were twelve public safety contacts with Airport Bowl. This compares with 10 contacts for the previous year. Of these twelve contacts nine were of a criminal nature and only one involved a "bar-type" call. • Recommended Motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license for Airport Bowl, 7711 14th Avenue. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both the city code and state statute pertaining to 3.2 beer licensing. 2. The applicant has demonstrated that the business is an asset to the community. 3. Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department, there appears to be no reason to deny the renewal of the licenses requested. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The council could decide to continue the license renewal. If it is continued, the council must grant a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell 3.2 beer until the license renewal is reconsidered. 2. The council could decide to suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance to alcoholic beverages. The council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the licensee has not committed any violation relating to alcoholic beverages and therefore, it is recommended that the license not be revoked or suspended. Discussion/Decision Mode: The request for the renewal of this license has been placed on the consent calendar for February 22, 1988. Respec lly submitted, James Prosser City nager JDP/eja 0 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 54 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Purchase of Well #1 Pump Replacement in Excess of $5,000. Background: The city council policy resolution on purchasing states 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. As part of an ongoing preventive maintenance program, the pumps at the well houses are replaced every five years. The pump at Well #6 was removed and replaced in 1987 by E. H. Renner and Sons at a purchase price of $8,890. The pump at Well #1, located in Nicollet Park, is due for replacement in 1988. The adopted 1988 budget for water maintenance includes $20,000 for this work. Staff received quotations from five pump companies as follows: E. H. Renner Co. $8,295 Keys Well Co. $9,150 Layne-Minnesota $11,006 Layne Western $11,890 Bergerson-Caswell $12,105 Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of a pump from E. H. Renner & Sons Company in the amount of $8,295. Basis of Recommendation: 1. E. H. Renner met all specifications and submitted the lowest quotation. 2. The approved 1988 Water Maintenance budget includes funding for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council may choose to reject all quotations and direct staff to obtain new quotes; however, staff does not believe we could obtain a better price from a reputable manufacturer. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the consent agenda for the February 22, 1988 city council meeting. submitted, ResXD.uProsser • Jam City Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 53 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Replacement of High Service Pump #2. 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. High Service Pump #2, installed when the Water Plant was built in 1964, is due to be replaced. This is one of four pumps which send water from the clear well in the Plant into the distribution system. High Service Pump #1 was removed and replaced in 1987 by E. H. Renner & Sons, Inc. for a contract price of $9,940. Staff received quotations from five pump companies for the 1988 replacement of High Service Pump #2 as follows: E. H. Renner & Sons $10,918 Layne Minnesota Co. $15,025 Bergerson-Caswell Co. $16,155 Layne-Western $16,850 Keys Well Co. $23,125 • Recommended Motion: Authorize a purchase order to E. H. Renner & Sons for the sum of $10,918. Basis of Recommendation: 1. E. H. Renner & Sons met all specifications and submitted the lowest quotation. 2. The approved 1988 Water Maintenance Budget contains $20,000 for this purpose. Alternative Recommendation: Council could reject all quotations and direct staff to seek new submittals; however, staff does not feel we could obtain a better price from a reputable manufacturer. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the consent agenda for the February 22, 1988 council meeting. Respectfully ubmitted, James D. Prosser • City Manager JDP/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 52 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the.purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the council for consideration. . Purchase oBackground:f Hydraulic Hammer in Excess of $5,000. The approved 1988 Water Maintenance Division budget includes $45,000 for purchase of a complete backhoe unit. The hydraulic hammer is an attachment to the basic backhoe and tractor unit and is needed to break through concrete and frost.. This hammer would expedite repair of water main breaks in the winter as well as reducing hazards normally associated with standard jackhammer- type operations. Staff received two quotations for the hammer. and accessories: Aspen Equipment Co. $10,295 Hayden-Murphy Equipment Co. $10,600 Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of a hydraulic hammer and accessories from Hayden-Murphy in the amount of $10,600. . Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposal submitted by Hayden-Murphy Company met staff written specifications. 2. Although the hammer to be provided by Aspen Equipment Company did meet specifications, the Hayden-Murphy hammer is heavier and would transfer less vibration to the machine. The Hayden-Murphy hammer also operates at a slower number of blows per minute., lessening wear and maintenance costs. 3. The backhoe to which this hammer would be attached is being supplied by Hayden-Murphy. Staff feels it would be less complicated to deal with one company rather than two. Alternative Recommendation: Council could reject the quotations and instruct staff to request new quotations, however, staff believes the Hayden-Murphy hammer is the best product for our needs. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent agenda for the February 22, 1988 city council meeting. Respectf ly submitted, 0 JDP/eja Ja D. Prosser Ci y Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 51 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Award of Contract for Pavement Management Program. Background: Council Memorandum No. 8, dated February 8, 1988, provided background information regarding the proposed pavement management program. The adopted 1988 budget for engineering includes $60,000 for all aspects of pavement management anticipated in 1988. This amount includes consultant(s), computerization, tests, supplies and labor. Recommended Motion: Award a contract for professional pavement management program services to Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc./Carter Associates in an amount not to exceed $36,200. Basis of Recommendation: 1. A pavement management program will assure that Richfield's streets will last as long as possible. 2. Sufficient funding is available. 3. The proposed contract includes a software program which is user friendly and tailored to a city our size and the firm(s) provide expertise and a willingness to work with other experts. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Accept a proposal offered by another company. However, after review of the proposals submitted, staff believes the recommended contractor to be best suited to our needs. 2. Direct staff to obtain additional proposals. However, to the best of our knowledge, all pavement management firms in the area were considered at this time. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar of the February 22, 1988 city council agenda. Respect lly submitted, Ja D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja 11 -; -- 1' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 50 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Issuance of Proclamation Designating March 6-13, 1988 as Volunteers of America Week in Richfield. Background: Volunteers of America, one of the largest service organizations in Minnesota and the nation, has been helping others for 92 years. Volunteers of America Week is scheduled for March 6-13, to commemorate its founding on March 8, 1896. Mr. James Hogie, Jr., President of Volunteers of America, has requested that Mayor Quam issue a proclamation designating March 6-13, 1988 as Volunteers of America Week in Richfield. Recommended Motion: Issue the proclamation designating March 6-13, 1988 as Volunteers of America Week in Richfield. Basis for Recommendation: 4a 1. During 1987 Volunteers of America provided 595,607 units of service (meals, days of care) to 13,488 persons. They are deserving of recognition. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed as the first item under the Presentation section of the February 22, 1988 council agenda. Respectf y submitted, Jam D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja ,yy Y r . -low r:z -XI ``. r. ?3t q. l 73???1%i',• °r tt •'5'4•??f?i`.'3s ` --?1?' s ?r?ii? ?s -'h i?i'` Cn fi CD CD 10 c w a w O H ? F•O 0 -b-b0 O CD tt H 1-0 O 0 -b H w ctH H 7 CD 1-•• 0 CD rt, (n cr (n rt (n CD CD H CD O `< z 14.39 1--• a 1-•• H= O O a 0= w aO a< _ z _0 z O w m O CD c-+- c W m m H (n I-r S a H H. ct 0 S =r S c << y w w o ct Ln ?• w m H •• w 1? O •• cn N• S (O O N ct S m CD CD c-r a,-< ? ct ct N "n O X =r O\ H? S N < ct Q ct ct CD ct O ? O CD CD O C ? 1--m ? H w e a C CD m << O< CD O (a 10 < a0 H a a=r CD 0 CL z f O Cn F_ CD W O w --i CD H CD c 'O O 0 H"O c m CD CD (n H ct w 3 F- 7 < O M N CD ? CD (0 1- -0 O O CD r -b Ln O ct a H CD H I- CD "0 O CD BCD 1-'•H w`< aH -bH z Tt O < ct (n a O to -1 (D 3 CD c (n a o- < 3 a m CT w w 0 w O H. 1 r• O M m H H A F-+ -b N< N 0 -b n S c 3 0 c w w (n 1-:3 = N w m o• w -b D O 0-••• O CD D H M CD a a 1-r O (n a ON O `G A CT 1-• CD CD -b O CD 1 _n 0 1 N H a 0 O c'+ H I-+ W? f 0 w ct P. 1- ww -+' w OD m o ? w CL 1-1 N C r w 1 .. OD F--+ H W 1--• w W ?0 H • 'O ct ci' =r i_.. (n co Cl) H OD 0 3 N 0 a s OJ a z W -b w H •• a CD W 0 N O CD 7 T\ CD = w ct c N N ct N• 1--? m M N 3 w Co CD 1•••• :3 CD m CD ct 3 O (u w (M 6 A = N• ? F-+ H O a m C7 Do M W H O H ct w ct 0a (cH<w m m << < '0 0 H CD w O C7 H_ w H. O w F_(D o CL (A fic ctc _b CD (n 1-'•'O a w W (n H. N CD Cr cl- O CD ::r O F- (n W H > > O ct CD n CD 1%0 Nw aCD 0 N -b 1- O 1-•• N CD O W CD a 7 •• :3 a (D -b N• c'1' 1-+ 7 ? 0 << CL f cc O H CD •• ? a (n w CD CD H a H (n O CD 7 ~k. ??'AtlA$t?ff ?l • " 'r 'i°#fAye'zff "sv: L A?4.v rH, v.t$di?A if c N F- A i 3r=1 A: tip! / ? v ? A ' 1 r• r . .•0'#N.?... ... -. t...:i.?7ef3ki.. ...?.SS!j 5f,s t.. R1v? y E., o: t _ x• F ? 6BK aG- { ? Fes' ON Tr ?.E ., 1!':., 1 2 tttt?'"?? r i 1.kk r?r442v ?f?t F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Council Letter No. 49 Agenda February 22, 1988 Issue Statement: Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting awarded by the Government Finance Officers Associations (GFOA). Background: The city was recently notified that its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1986 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for excellence in financial reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by government and its management. • • The GFOA, which is responsible for presenting the certification, is a nonprofit professional association serving 9,500 government finance professionals. The association provides a variety of technical publications in various fields of government finance and represents the public finance community in Washington, D.C. The specific Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program established by GFOA, including demonstrating a constructive spirit of full disclosure effort to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential persons and users to read the financial report. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an award of Financial Reporting Achievement is also given to the individual designated as primarily responsible for having earned the certificate. This award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been presented to Jean Mitchell, the Finance Manager. Additionally, Richfield earned the GFOA Certificate of Achievement (formerly a Certificate of Conformance) for its annual financial reporting for the years 1976, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1984 and 1985-. Thus for the City of Richfield and Finance Manager Jean Mitchell, this represents the fifth time since 1980 that the prestigious award has been attained. Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the city council present the Certificate of Achievement for financial reporting to Jean Mitchell, Finance Manager, on behalf of the Government Finance Officers Association. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The city has been notified has been attained and that would be appropriate. 2. The city council wishes to recognize achievements of by the GFOA that the certificate presentation to Jean Mitchell take such opportunities to city staff, especially at a public X02-/ forum, such as the council meeting. • Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city council could accept the financial reporting achievement and simply make no mention of it at a city council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action on this item is suggested for February 22, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Ja D. Prosser C' Manager JDP/eja • is '4 #/ CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 48 Agenda February 22, 1988 • Issue Statement: Annual Meeting of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization. Background: The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management District was formed in 1984 to coordinate our storm water management planning as mandated by the State of Minnesota. In order to maintain local control, Richfield decided to form their own Watershed Management District with Bloomington (see attached boundary map) rather than join an existing Watershed Management District. The fifth annual organizational meeting will be held on Monday, February 22, 1988 at 5:30 PM in the Bloomington City Council Chambers, 2215 West Old Shakopee Road. The agenda for the meeting is attached. It includes election of officers and discussion of the Watershed Management Plan In addition, Bloomington wishes to discuss the July 23, 1987 flood. Recommended Motion: This council letter is for informational purposes; no formal action is necessary as a city council. However, the attached agenda indicates there is some action required of the Board of Commissioners at the February 22 meeting. • Basis of Recommendation: 1. The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management District Board of Commissioners are to hold an annual meeting in January of each year at a time and placed determined by the Chairman. 2. Unless otherwise specified, all meetings are to be conducted in the Bloomington City Council chambers. 3. The meeting has been scheduled on the first available date for all parties and at a time to allow all parties to attend other meetings later in the evening. Alternative Recommendation: None. Discussion/Decision Mode: The annual meeting of the Board of Commissioners for the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization will be held at 5:30 PM, Monday, February 22, in the Bloomington City Council chambers. Respe fully submitted, Ja s D. Prosser City Manager JDP/eja AGENDA FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION - MEETING #5 6:00 P.M., February 22, 1988 Bloomington Municipal Building 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 The annual meeting of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization is scheduled for 6:00 P.M., February 22, 1988, in Bloomington. A light lunch will be served starting at 5:30 P.M. Chairman: Mark Mahon Vice-Chairman: Martin Kirsch Secretary: Neil Peterson Treasurer: Ivan Ludeman Executive Director: James Prosser Ass't Executive Director: Russ Langseth CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M. 0 1. Approval of minutes of January 26, 1987 2. Election of officers 3. Appointment of Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director 4. Update on Watershed Management Plan 5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Community/Agency Questionnaire 6. Other matters of mutual concern 7. Adjournment Attachments: Minutes of Meeting of January 26, 1987 Bylaws of the organization Mn/DNR Community/Agency Questionnaire Notice of filing of Watershed Plan Financial Statement/Audit Report Letter from Pb.illip J. RiNeness, dated February 4, 1988 A1_2 11?? RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION Unapproved Minutes 5:30 p.m. Meeting #4 January 26, 1987 Annual Meeting Richfield City Hall Call to Order The annual meeting of the Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization was called to order by Chairman Mark Mahon. Roll Call Present: Chairman Mahon, Vice Chairman Martin Kirsch, Secretary Neil Peterson, Treasurer Ivan Ludeman, Commissioners Blessum, Herbst, Lindau and Schuler of Bloomington and Commissioners Garcia, Hamilton and Sandahl of Richfield. Also present: City Engineer Mike Eastling of Richfield and Drainage Engineer Brian Borg of Bloomington. Absent: Assistant Executive Director Russell Langseth of Bloomington and Commissioner Spies of Bloomington. Approval of Minutes Motion was made by Blessum, seconded by Herbst, and all present voting aye, to approve the minutes of the annual meeting of January 27, 1986, as presented. The motion carried. Election of Officers The Chairman asked for nominations from the floor for the election of officers. Motion was made by Lindau, seconded by Ludeman, and all present voting aye, to re-elect all of the present officers, namely Chairman Mahon, Vice Chairman Kirsch, Secretary Peterson and Treasurer Ludeman. The motion carried. Nominations were opened for the position of Executive Director, which is now vacant as John Cartwright is no longer employed by the City of Richfield. Sandahl nominated Richfield City Manager James Prosser to the position of Executive Director. Motion was made by Garcia, seconded by Peterson, and all present voting aye, to close the nominations and instruct the Secretary to cast a unanimous ballot for the election of Mr. Prosser as Executive Director. The motion carried. Motion was made by Lindau, seconded by Peterson, and all present voting aye, to re-elect Public Works Director Russell Langseth of Bloomington as Assistant Executive Director. The motion carried. Water Management Richfield City Engineer Mike Eastling indicated that the Plan Watershed Management Plan has been completed and copies have been sent to officials of both RJ2.chfield and Bloomington. He said Richfield had submitted the necessary data for that community to Brian Borg, Drainage i Engineer of Bloomington, who then combined the s; h112 -el, ?f information with Bloomington's input to complete the plan. The plan was then sent to the Hennepin County Soil and Water Conservation District for their review and comment. Comments of that District concerned water quality and the method used for the hydrological analysis. Mr. Eastling said the next step would be to send the Plan to the Metropolitan Council for its review. He showed slides detailing the status of the various water management plans of communities in the metropolitan and suburban area, noting that some of the communities have already completed their plans because they were ready to go when the state legislation requiring such plans was adopted. Mr. Eastling commented that the Richfield-Bloomington. Plan is on track. He said after the review by the Metro Council, the plan will be sent to the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency and the Water Resources Board. Prior to submission to that board, all of the comments from the various agencies will be reviewed and incorporated into the plan as deemed necessary. Mahon asked the timetable that will be followed, and Mr. Borg said the Metro Council has 120 days for their review while the other agencies have 60-90 days. He said after the Water Resources Board review, public hearings must be held on the plan within 45 days. He said this deadline is established so the local agency does not have to wait for final approval. The Chairman asked if the Richfield-Bloomington Water Management Organization has authority to act in times of flooding, and if action was taken, if there would be any implied liability. Bloomington City Manager Pidgeon said he was unaware of any liability, and when the City of Bloomington was sued after several cases of flooding, the City was successful in defending itself in all of those lawsuits. General Discussion General discussion was held on the proposed plans for the Mall of America in Bloomington and traffic concerns with IH-494. Hamilton asked that Bloomington support Richfield's opposition to closing of the IH-494-Lyndale Avenue ramp, as has been suggested, because of the adverse impact he believes it would have on construction plans for property on the Richfield side of 494 at Lyndale. Lindau commented Bloomington has expressed no desire to have that ramp closed, and this suggestion has come out of the 494 study to limit the number of accesses from the freeway. He noted that plans for the Mall are being reviewed by the Bloomington Planning Commission and will be coming to the Bloomington Council in March. He said it is expected construction will begin in late May. Adjourn Meeting The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 6 p.m. i Neil W. Peterson Secretary k 11 BY LAWS of the RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS 1.1 ."Organization" - The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization 1.2 "Board" - The Board of Commissioners of the Organization 1.3 "Commissioners" - All members of the City Councils of the Cities of Richfield and Bloomington, who serve as the Board of the Organization 1.4 "Cities" The Cities of Richfield and Bloomington SECTION 2 - MEETJNGS 2.1 Annual Meeting. The Board shall hold an annual meeting in January of each year, at which time the Board shall elect its officers and conduct any other necessary business. The Chairman shall deter- mine the time and place of-the meeting and send written notification of the meeting to the Commis- sioners. 2.2 Other Meetings. All meetings other than the annual .meeting shall be held either (a) pursuant to a meeting schedule adopted by the Board, if the Board chooses to adopt such a schedule, or, (b) upon the call of the Chairman of the Board, the Vice Chairman, or any two Commissioners. When a meet- ing is called pursuant to paragraph 2.2(6), above, ten (10) days written notice of the meeting shall be provided to the Commissioners by the party(s) calling the meeting. 2.3 Location of meetings. Unless otherwise specified, all meetings shall be conducted in the Bloomington City Council chambers. 2.4 Open Meeting Law. All meetings shall be subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. 2.5 Quorum. A majority of the entire Board shall cons- titute a quorum for the purposes of Board action, but less than,a majority may adjourn a meeting. ;V e,4 ?,,,,' 2.6 Rules of Procedure. Except as may be otherwise pro- vided by the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the organization or by these by-laws, all meetings shall be conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of order. 2.7 Board Action. Each Commissioner shall have one .vote with respect to Board actions. Unless other- wise specified in the Joint Powers,Agreement or these by-laws,'substantive Board action shall be by a majority vote of the entire Board. SECTION 3 - OFFICERS 3.1 Officers. The Board shall have and elect the fol- lowing officers: Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secre- tary, Treasurer. The officers may be from either City Council, but the Chairman and Vice Chairman shall be from different City Councils. 3.2 Election.. Officers of the Board shall be elected by the Board at its annual meeting. 3.3 Term of Office. 'The term of all officers shall be for one year or until a successor is elected. .Officers may be reelected without limitation. 3.4 Vacancies.' An office vacancy will occur by reason of the officer's resignation or his-removal by vote of the Board, or at such time as the officer is no longer a member of the City Council of one'of the Cities. When an. office ..vacancy . occurs, - •the Board- shall, at the first opportunity, elect a suc- cessor who shall serve for the remainder of the term. 3.5 Duties. The officers shall have the following duties: (a) Chairman - The Chairman shall preside over all meetings of the Board and execute docu- ments on behalf of the organization. .(b) Vice Chairman - The Vice Chairman shall assist the Chairman and shall perform the Chairman's duties in the latter's absence. (c) Secretary - The Secretary shall be responsible for providing recorded minutes of organization meetings, for maintaining organization records, and for providing other clerical services re- quired by the organization. (d) Treasurer - The Treasurer shall be responsible for receiving, maintaining and investing any funds the organization may acquire, for the payment-of expenditures authorized by the organization, and for the maintenance of any necessary financial records. 3.6 Compensation. No compensation shall be provided by the Organization to Commissioners for serving as officers. SECTION 4 - STAFF ASSISTANCE 4.1 Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director.. From the staffs of the Cities, and with the ap- proval of the respective City Managers, the Board shall select and appoint an Executive Director and Assistant Executive Director. The two appointees shall be from different City staffs and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. 4.2 Duties of the Executive Director. The Executive Director shall have the following duties: (a) He shall manage and direct the day-to-day affairs of the Organization and implement the directives of the Board. (b) He shall, with the approval of the respective City Managers, select and assign staff personnel of the Cities to tasks the organization must perform. (c) He shall, with the approval of the respective City Managers, select and assign staff personnel of the Cities to assist Board officers in the performance of their duties. 4.3 Duties of the Assistant Executive Director. The Assistant Executive Director shall assist the Ex- ecutive Director and perform the latter's duties in his absence. 4.4 Compensation and Other Benefits. Personnel of the Cities which are utilized to assist the Organiza- tion and its officers shall at all times remain em- ployees of their respective Cities for purposes of compensation, insurance coverage, and all other -3- benefits. The Organization itself shall not provide any compensation of other benefits to city personnel who provide services to the Organization unless the Cities agree to that procedure. APPROVED and adopted this day of 1984. Chairman 1 Vice Chairman -4- v cil JOINT POWERS ,REEMENT BETWEEN RICHFIELD & BLOOMINGTON W !. > WU ?I. u . I. cH I- r-' 'Ir I -- ? N ISTIANI PAW( i ca wb U:. Zc? L SON PARK MINNEHAHA" CREEK WATERSHED. DISTRICT I ?767H ST. ) 4 R I C. H F.I=E D--?_,-- _ 6L• C 1 1 1 86TH S7.1 M. A. C. PROPERTY TOMINGT*O'N'? SMITH PARK ?? I 1 POND /i I 1l x • +i I-- --? 1 ? I I. N f I? ? J I l WRIGHT'S LAKE 4 ol a 90TH ST. I. NINE MILE FREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 1 1 n mil No EXISTING `-', STORM .EWE , I• II I if PROPOSED coNc i • ?i BOUNDARY ?' \ «oc•? 1 t DRAINAGE DIVIDE .o 10 • TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: February 1, 1988 John Pidgeon;-- 'p Russ Langseth:/, 1 Questionnaire from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN/DNR) Mark Mahon, Chairman of the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization, gave me.the enclosed letter from the MN/DNR. It asked questions about flooding problems mostly related to the storm of July 23, 1987. Many of the questions are a matter of opinion. I have quickly written brief answers but because some are a matter of conjecture and not of fact, I think it appropriate that staff prepare answers and then have the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization Board of Commissioners review them at their meeting of February 22, 1988. I will be meeting with the staff of the City of Richfield on Thursday, February 18 regarding the WMO meeting. • RLL/mlw encl cc: James D. Prosser, Exec. Director, RBWMO Brian Borg, Drainage Engineer J (/ A nu?s- V sS /? ,C o?W!ho . 0 STATE OF HHCEZQ)UQ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES • 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155-40 DNR INFORMATION (612) 296-6157 Richfield-Bloomington WMO Mark Mahon 8435 Portland Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55420 Dear Sir or Madame: Community/Agency Questionnaire ,dpi/ The Division of Waters is doing a follow-up study on flooding problems resulting from the unusually large storm the Twin Cities area experienced the evening of July 23, 1987. The state is required by federal law to prepare a Section 406 State Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan in response to the Presidential Disaster Declaration on August 6. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires states to prepare a hazard mitigation plan that identifies state and local actions which will be taken to reduce future flood losses in order to be eligible for future federal assistance for disasters such as the one experienced July 23. It is essential that we receive input from your organization and others so that we may adequately assess the particular problems experienced during the flood and any mitigation measures you may have already implemented or that you think may be possible to implement to prevent future flood damages. We are also sending this questionnaire to the affected municipalities and to the county boards of commissioners. It is our intention to contact you.at a later date in order to inform you of the results of our investigation and to work with you in formulating the best hazard mitigation plan. A prompt response to the following questionnaire would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to expand your answers and include any additional information you believe would be helpful in this effort. Additional blank pages have been provided for your convenience. If you have any questions, please call Bret Anderson at 297-4602. Thank you. Sincerely, DIVISION OF WATERS Ron Nargang Director • RN/BA:fw AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • The following is'a list of issues on which we are interested in receiving your thoughts and experiences. If there are others that you feel have not been mentioned but are important please expand your answers.- 1. Flood Damage Reduction and other funding ro rams. In particular, do you feel tat there is a ac o state an federal disaster mitigation funds (especially involving minor to moderate and repetitive damage)? No Do you feel expenditure of public funds is.appropriate in the case of a flood event of such rarity? Yes 2. Flood Insurance. There appeared to be many concerns about the adequacy of the National Flood Insurance Program. Are you concerned about the following: a. Type of coverage/items not covered. Yes b. Additional seepage and storm sewer back-up coverage. Yes • c. Lack of information or misinformation to property owners by agents, lenders, etc. Yes 3. Mapping. State and federal floodplain management programs have traditionally geared flood plain mapping and regulations to rivers and streams and larger lakes, wetlands and ponding areas. Local drainage problems distant from these areas may benefit from mapping and regulation: a. Do you feel the area within the mapped floodplain for state and federal regulatory and insurance purposes should be expanded? (Only 6% of applicants at the Disaster Assistance Centers were in a mapped Zone A, 100-year flood plain area). No, that should be responsibility of local government. The storm of July 23, 1987, was so rare that flood zones would not be designated for that severe storm. b. If you do not perceive an expanded state and federal role in mapping and regulating additional flood prone areas, do you perceive this as a local government planning and zoning issue? If not a local government issue, should the lead come from regional watershed management organizations? -This is a local government planning and zoning issue which can be handled by the local watershed management organifation and local municipality. IS 4. Storm Sewer Design. a. Are current practices and design standards adequate? Yes, but they are not adequate for the storm of July 23, 1987. • b. Should design standards be strictly local or determined as part of overall watershed management philosophy? Should be recommended by watershed organization but determined by agency that pays for construction. Also, it may be appropriate those agencies that provide disaster relief set up guidelines for desi n. t c. Based on this past flood is there a need fgor improved storm water management planning and management. If yes: No 1. List specific issues: This storm was so severe that planning and management chafes should not be based on that occurence. 2. Which level(s) of government should play the lead role in setting standards and criteria and implementing these measures? Municipalities - with advice from Department of Natural Resources or other competent agency. 5. Was there a lack of public awareness of the potential for flooding? If yes, what types of measures could be taken and by whom to improve awareness (e.g., disclosure on sale transactions, improved flood plain mapping, etc.)? Perhaps - however, because of the severity of the rain. people were flooded that never were before and were hithly unlikely to be flooded. 6. Ordinance Enforcement. Local (floodplain) zoning controls generally do not apply to areas not previously mapped as Zone A, 100-year flood plain or to damaged structures where the damage does not exceed 50% of the structure's market value. Considering this and the fact that repetitive type losses will continue to occur in these areas unless additional regulatory measures are encouraged: a. Should local regulatory programs be expanded and, if so, would financial incentives or other assistance be necessary? No b. Should local agencies take the initiative to extend regulation into . unmapped areas? Yes, if necessary. 'W j"11141 7. Was there adequate warning of the flood and should flood warning systems and capabilities be expanded? There was warning from radio and TV. They can always be improved; however, due to the varying amount of rain over.the area and the short time factor, it will be very difficult. Forecasting a flood in a small area served by storm ewer is much different than forecasting a flooding condition along a river or lake. 8. ather. Your assistance in clarifying these and any other related issues will be greatly appreciated. The severity of the storm has brought attention to the matter of flooding. Generally cities are well served by storm.sewer for the expected storm. C1 0 3• 0 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 90 West Plato Boulevard First floor St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In the Matter of Reviewing the Watershed NOTICE OF FILING Management Plan for the Richfield-Bloomington OF Watershed Management Organization (Minnesota WATERSHED PLAN Statutes Section 473.878, Subdivision 5) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a watershed management plan was filed with the Minnesota Board.of Water and Soil Resources (Board) by the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organization pursuant to the requirements of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. The Richfield-Bloomington WMO encompasses approximately four and one-half square miles of land in Hennepin County. The WMO includes land in the Cities of.Richfield and Bloomington. The plan includes background information on the WMO, an inventory of existing and future physical characteristics, objectives and policies, and recommended management measures. The plan proposes no Works of Improvement or Capital Improvement Program. The Board must review the plan for conformance with the requirements of the Minnesota Watershed Act (Chapter 112) and the Metropolitan Water Management Act (Sections 473.875 to 473.883). The Board may disapprove all or parts of the plan that it determines are not in conformance with state law. J-16-1 /4. y. • The Board invites written comments on the proposed plan. All comments and. information received by the Board will be considered before a decision is made on the-plan. Any-person who objects to the proposed plan may submit a written request for hearing to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. If no written requests for a hearing are received by March 25, 1988, the Board will consider all of the comments and information received and will make a decision on the plan at a regular meeting of the Board. A copy of the plan is available for inspection by any interested persons during normal business hours at the office of the Board at 90 West Plato Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55107, and.at the office of the City Engineer for the City of Bloomington at 9750 James Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (881-5811) or the office of the City- Engineer for the City of Richfield at 6700 Ppytland Avenue,` Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (869-7521). For further information, contact the Board of Water and Soil Resources at 297-4958. Dated at St. Paul, Minnesota this 8th day of February 1988. MINNESOTA BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES Dan Steward -2- .firl ,, t/i7 • City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423 City Manager Mayor Council James D. Prosser John Hamilton Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl' December 9, 1987 State of Minnesota Office Of The State Auditor Suite 400 525 Park Street St. Paul, MN 55103 Attention: E.L. Fuller, Director Governmental Information Division DEC 4: p??b?c Wad ?t><'?°o A g1as Re: Richfield/Bloomington Watershed Management Financial Statement/Audit Report Dear Mr. Fuller: • In response to your letter of December 2, 1987, requesting a financial statement or audit report of the latest fiscal year for the above referenced Watershed Management District, please be advised that there has been no financial activity or monies allocated for the Richfield/Bloomington Management District. Therefore, this letter is to provide you notice that no financial statement or audit report exists for the latest fiscal year. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerel , Jamey D. Prosser ?utive Director Richfield/Bloomington Watershed Management District JDP/sae CC: Ivan Ludeman, Treasurer, Richfield City Council Member Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director, City of Richfield Russell Langseth, Public Works Director, City of Bloomington I • telephone 869-7521 (612) An Equal Opportunity Employer Phillip J. Riveness District 40B • Hennepin County Committees: Appropriations Health and Human Services Division Agriculture Economic Development and Housing Future and Technology Rules and Legislative Administration, Vice Chairman Legislative Audit Commission Assistant Majority Leader Minnesota House of Representatives Fred C. Norton, Speaker 3 15SFebruary 4, pUbkic 'Nov, Dept 1988 Kurt Laughinghouse, Mayor City of Bloomington 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55420 Dear Kurt: Although some time has passed since the "big flood" many issues remain. I am continuing to explore ways to guarantee affordable flood insurance that actually covers flood damage. • During last fall's hearings, a number of questions were raised about Richfield storm sewer water being handled by Bloomington drainage systems and what respon- sibility or authority Metropolitan Watershed Districts have in this area. Watersheds within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area come under the jurisdiction of the "Metropolitan Surface Management Act" (MS 1986, Sec. 473.875-473.883). This law was first passed in 1982 and has been amended each year since then except 1983. Laws of Minnesota 1987, Chapter 207, added ground-water protection plans to the responsibilities of Water Management Organizations, the metro equivalent of Watershed Districts. The city of Bloomington is divided into four WMO's; our district lies within the Richfield-Bloomington WMO. The City Council members are the managers. Each organization must prepare a water management plan in cooperation with affected local units. The plan must be approved by Hennepin County, the Metro Council, DNR, PCA, the Health Department and the Board of Soil and Water Resources. The Richfield-Bloomington plan has been reviewed by the respective cities, the county and the Met Council, and is currently being considered by the state agen- cies. Mel Sinn, Board of Soil and Water Resources, stated that his review pro- cess could take up to three years because he has 40 plans to get through and only one part-time employee to help him. He maintains that he is critically short of staff and money. Mr. Brian Borg, Drainage Engineer for the city of Bloomington, has worked most closely with the development of the WMO plans. He reported that the Richfield- Bloomington WMO plan does not anticipate any district-wide improvements. Reply to: ? 445 State Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Office: (612) 296-7158 7 2209 E. Old Shakopee Rd., Bloomington. MN 55420 Home: (612) 854-3049 _ A February 4, 1988 Page 2 That is, any improvements necessary in Richfield will be paid for by the city of Richfield, and any necessary improvements in Bloomington will be paid for by the city of Bloomington. He also said that Richfield was doing a good job dealing with water problems. It appears that some storm water does flow from Richfield to Bloomington, but it is not felt to be the cause of water containment problems in our district. If capital improvements in Bloomington are necessary, the city will have to.pay for them in some way, unless the managers (City Council members) decide the problem is a district-wide concern. Each WMO plan must provide for how capital improve- ments will be financed; however, it is not likely that the Richfield-Bloomington plan will be approved and operational in the near future. The emphasis of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act is on local control. The reviewing state agencies cannot write, or rewrite, a plan for a WMO. The plan can be amended "to the extent and in the manner required by the adopted plan." Amendments must be reviewed in the same manner as the plan. I continue to believe that storm sewer upgrading must be financed at a city level or Watershed Management Organization level. I trust that any Bloomington plan will avoid assessing those persons in the low lands for the cost of needed changes. Please contact me if you have additional issues I can look into in this matter. War..m--regards, Phillip J. Riveness State Representative n U