06-27-88 agenda
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 169
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Request by Volunteer Groups for City Reimbursement of Loss of
Newspaper Revenue
Background:
The Richfield recycling program includes volunteer organization
pickup of newspapers left curbside by residents. Volunteer
organizations pick up papers from the curb and deposit them at
central locations. The newspaper is then sold to newspaper
recycling companies. Revenue from the sale of newspaper is
divided among the volunteer group organizations.
In April, 1987, Richfield Recycling Volunteers entered into a
written agreement with Cellu-Tech, Inc., a cellulose insulation
manufacturer. The agreement called for a payment of $26/ton.
Compensation was to be made no later than 18 days after the
collection date. During the months of June, July, and August,
1987, volunteers collected 230 ton of newspaper, but received no
payment from Cellu-Tech, Inc.
City staff has worked with the volunteer groups to recover
payments from Cellu-Tech, Inc. Claims against Cellu-Tech, Inc.
• were pursued in Conciliation Court and eventually District Court.
Cellu-Tech subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection and the
bank has seized all assets, equipment and inventory.
Volunteer groups have requested that the City reimburse them for
the lost revenue. City staff has stated that we do not have a
basis for making a payment to the volunteer organizations.
Recommended Motion:
The City Council should make a determination whether
reimbursement will be provided to the volunteer groups for their
lost revenue. If it is determined that reimbursement should be
provided, the amount of reimbursement should be indicated.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. In the past, volunteer groups have retained control regarding
selection of a newspaper buyer. If the City is to be liable
for lack of payment by the newspaper contractor, the City
should retain the right to select the newspaper buyer.
2. The volunteer groups had the opportunity to choose a payment
offer of a lower amount, which would have included a $1,000
performance bond. Instead, the groups chose the higher
price-per-ton payment with no security or guarantee.
•
Alternative Recommendation:
i Among the recommendations which
are the following:
0
the Council may wish to consider
1. No payment be made to volunteer groups. This alternative
recognizes that the volunteer groups chose to accept a risk
by selecting a vendor without a performance guarantee.
2. Council may reimburse the groups at the full contract rate of
$26/ton, or approximately $6,000.
3. Reimburse the groups at the market newspaper rate of $15/ton
for papers in 1987, or approximately $3,500. This option
recognizes that the actual amount paid to the groups would
have been less than $26/ton if a performance guarantee had
been provided.
4. Reimburse groups at the rate of $4/ton. This amount
represents the Metro Council tonnage payment rate disbursed
to Richfield for 1987 expenses. The $4/ton payment generally
goes to cover administrative costs of running the City's
recycling program.
5. Request groups who profited in April and May of 1987 at the
$26/ton payment to reimburse other groups who were shorted.
Funding source for these alternatives would be the recycling
budget. This item was not included in the budget.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
1988 Council agenda.
This item appears on the June 27,
Respectfully submitted,
James . Prosser
City nager
JDP/eja
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 168
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Offstreet parking permit at 1714 E. 66th Street.
Background:
Mr. and Mrs. St. Clair have requested an offstreet parking permit
for 1714 East 66th Street. The current use is a nonconforming
residence use in a C-2 general commercial district. The
applicants intend to use a portion of the building as a
chiropractic office use. The existing garage would be removed to
permit a 15 foot wide driveway to the back parking lot. The
front yard would remain landscaped with additional planting.
Approximately 700 square feet of the 1,032 square foot structure
would be utilized for the office. Professional offices are a
permitted use in C-2 district.
Recommendation:
Approve the offstreet parking permit.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. The office use would require four parking spaces. The back
yard will be blacktopped to accommodate six parking spaces.
The width of the curb cut from 66th Street would be brought
into compliance with the 26 foot City requirement.
2. The abutting properties to the north are zoned "R" and
used for single family residential use. The property
to the west is a single family home in a "C-2" commercial
district and nonconforming. The property to the east
is used for mixed residential/commercial use.
The applicants have proposed a six foot fence along
the westerly property line. The fence and landscaping in the
front yard and along the property line to the north would
screen the abutting properties.
3. The City engineer has approved the perimeter curbing and
drainage plan for the City.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designation is medium density buffer.
The proposed change in use would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Development Plan.
Alternative Recommendation:
City Council may deny the offstreet parking permit.
is
0
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for Council action at the June 27, 1988
City Council meeting.
Respect lly submitted,
James . Prosser
City anager
JDP:dkh
•
0
AI& 1
•
•
I.*.-
m a - - O O
XERXES AVE
BURN rt.4w _ ///.? _ •^i'
WASH
VINCENT
UPTON
THOMAS
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL I -? l
QUEEN '
u?(nrm-
PENN AVE. ., '
OLIVER
NEWTON I. I?-??!`• r T?rI--?1?LJj??L
MORGAN
LOGAN E===[
KNOX
JAMES
IRVING
HUMBOLDT I ®- J AICE
GIRARD
ERtSON
EM ?I•/-? ??-7 't_1'.? r.
DUPONT
CO ,-,??? I \1Q
BRYAX ANT
ALDRICH
LYNDALE AVE.
GARFIELD
RIFT
illy
HARRIET
GRAND 17TH AVE
PLEASANT Tt-.
PILLSBURY
WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL i
NICOLLET AVE. ,A .r1.:• .r.
Idl
STEVENS '''?•• •'i2'.,+.'
2nd m
3rd 1
CLINTON ` 18TH AVI
4tH 1
PORTLAND AVE.
,T7•
OAKLAND I1i1
11
PARK rl
COLUMBUS CC11 IO
CHICAGO rll???
ELLIOT II
?11 ?I?L? :? .,• .
loth
11tH Gil ?I??? •f•••j :ti:{ti•• y•
"?
1511,
15th
I
BLOOMINGTON ;II! ??i._ O?(
16 t 1, 11 '?U? O (emu L
loth I I` O??UL.?/?f
18th _
CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW ------?TL--_- --
_ av r v v a\ ?'^ N :
N .•N/ N ~ .,1,.1 ~ 1 'N? rNl
m
z C1 n
.T. "1
Zm'
•? r
2
z
D
O
N
OR V m O
?^ a O1 °F
> ? > o e z
ti 1 N
r ti ti K
^- ^'- •+-••??--?-??? XERXES AVE.
`-- WASNBURN
VINCENT
li` -- --- --J? UPTON
-= - = D. -- - '? THOMAS
- _ 7• I"? -- I SNERIDAN
_ RUSSELL
?`'-rll L,p QUEEN
- --- -I 77 PENN AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORG AN
LOGAN
KNOX
JAMES
II ^?-?`-'11 IRVING
lam- ?0??.?• HUMBOLDT
GIRARO
FREMONT
\\\\? ?, EMERSON
I it DUPONT
Ji- ? ? II COLFAX
?,F.//? ? O IIIiI BRYANT
//'? \TL' I II ALDRICH
E AVE.
?ji I; ) GARFIE GARFtELD
Ls! J0??1 HARRIET
GRAND
- ?- t' PLEASANT
II? PILLSBURY
I
?? i i 1 W TH
III BLAISDEL ISDELL
?? I 1
NICOLLET AVE.
_ lot
STEVENS
2n0
I ^? / 3rd
IJ CLINTON
o?I SIN
••L, •.••. 1
UUL I 1? PORTLAND AVE
OAKLAND
PARK
COLUMBUS
•:•>i:•ti r 1n
-• d' I CHICAGO
II ELLIOT
•: }?: I I ID th
O ? Ito
12 th
?O 13th
15 11,
11,
BLOOMINGTON
1 • ?? , 1611,
7? i O 17111,
lI?? --- 18,1,
CEDAR AVE.
T LONGFELLOW
I
20t
Cf7 ?l1rC? ?'?fCf ]ll 21 dt
22Nd
??1J STANDISH
23 rd
0 N T T a
N ' W N
P s ? ? s
N N M ? yl y q
_r
U?
m
¦ O
0
0
= o
-W*
m
z
m
,sa
Q?
\9?
St
RAMP
0
tv
S
-Ali --? f
z
i
-i N
m m
N rn
v?
o?
m
rn T
i
z
m
Cl)
rn
r
Z
LAND USE
DUPLEX
VACANT
N
N
W
a
t0
T
111 '111;111;1;
111 1111111111
111 lillllllil
111 1111111111
III illlliilll
111 1111111111
Ill 1111111111
ICI ?I?l?l?i?l
II II111
Ill 1111111111
111 1111111111
1?1 ?l?l?lii?l
11 11111
111 illllllllt
111 lllllt1111
ill ?I?I?1?1?1
II 11111
111 1111111111
III 1111111111
Ill 1111111111
L I ?I?I?1?1?1
ti
T
oo0o
o
o°o°o°o
Qo°o°C o
°oooo
a o°o°o°
°o o°o°o
66TH ST E
67TH ST E
7l,
W
a
co
T
7;
W
a
,z
WV
1111 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1''
111111 11111 11111 Illlt I1:
111111 11111 11111 11111 11'
(IIIII 11111 11111 11111 it
1111111 1111! 1111! 11111 II
1?1?1?111?1?1 I?1?1 I?1?1 1?
APARTMENT
® COMMERCIAL
QUASI-PUBLIC
11 COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL
65TH ST E
CITY MANAGER
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
PROPOSAL FOR SUITABLE USE
PROPERTY: 1714 East 66th Street
ZONED: C-2
LEGAL: Lot 2 Block 4, Iverson's 3rd Addition
CURRENT OWNER: Roberta Jean Rand
1714 East 66th Street
APPLICANTS: Dr. Judith and Mr. Milton St. Clair
3535 Bryant Avenue South, Apartment 414
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55408
(Home) 827-6092,825-7527
(Judy work) 827-2651 (Milt work) 557-5014
INTENDED USE: Chiropractic Home-Office
This proposal is made to the City Manager in preparation for
the City Council meeting on Monday, June 27, 1988 where suitable
use as a chiropractic home-office will be determined. Our pur-
chase agreement is contingent upon City approval for intended use
as a chiropractic home-office and all that that entails.
• The formal permit process will begin upon a favorable ruling
by the City Council June 27.
The attached plan covers the following major considerations:
1. Parking lot
6 spaces required
2 for owner/occupants
4 for patients
including 1 for handicapped
with handicapped ramp and entrance
2. Barrier curbing around the perimeter of the parking lot
and driveway except around the building and handicapped
ramp.
3. Drainage
Final determination to be made by the County and Mike
Eastling, City Engineer.
4. Traffic control devices
5. Major landscaping improvements developed with adjoining
neighbors.
Contact has been made with the following government offices:
1. City planning and zoning concerning parking requirements
St. Clair, p. 2
and location, setbacks, and landscaping.
• 2. City Engineer concerning barrier curbing and drainage.
3. Hennepin County engineers concerning curb cut, drainage,
and use of right-of-way.
4. City Building Inspector concerning possible major struc-
tural changes and possible garage.
All adjoining neighbors have been contacted and buffer treat-
ments reached by mutual agreement. Other nearby neighbors will be
contacted for their input on our impact on the neighborhood.
The formal permit process will begin upon a favorable ruling
by the City Council June 27.
Indications are that the seller will offer no more extensions
on our contingency of suitable use beyond June 28, 1988.
Thank you for your consideration of our proposal.
Yours truly,
Dr. Judith A. St. Clair
-'?4W e, 4-
Mr. Milton;St. Clair
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 167
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Offstreet parking permit at 1310 East 66th Street.
Background:
Mr. Forest Lovely, property owner at 1310 East 66th Street
(Carlberg Radiator Service) has requested an offstreet parking
permit. The applicant has proposed improvements in the backyard
with a treated timber retaining wall and class 5 base in the
parking area instead of blacktop.
The automotive radiator repair service is a legal nonconforming
use and, as such, no conditional use permit has been issued. The
property is zoned C-2 general commercial district and a new auto
repair business would require a conditional use permit.
Responding to a complaint from a neighbor, the public safety
department staff found that the rear yard of the site is being
utilized for parking and, because it is not paved, soil erosion
to the alley is occurring.
Recommended Motion:
Deny the offstreet parking permit request.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The offstreet parking area at the back needs to be paved
according to City ordinance.
2. The applicant does not provide perimeter curbing in the
parking area as per City ordinance.
3. No on-site drainage is provided as part of these
improvements.
4. The site does not have any landscaping in the front parking
area. The proposed improvement in the parking area at the
back is not adequate to sufficiently screen the site from the
residential property to the north.
Alternative Recommendation:
Approve the offstreet parking permit request with the following
stipulations:
1. That the parking area be paved and stripped according to City
standards.
2. Perimeter curbing be provided in the parking area both in
front and back of the building.
0 3. A drainage plan be approved by the City Engineer.
4. A detailed landscape plan be submitted for staff approval.
is
Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for Council consideration on Monday, June
27, 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
JDP:sae
0
•
•
0
P O - - C P ?' P P V a ?' N >E
n3 i a v i o o ? .. e v v s s > o ' Z
ate. r 14 t2 14 t. _. 1 !2
XERXES AVE G?--=-=-=-? -. ?•• --_?.?. - -- -'- XERXES AVE.
WASHBURN WASNBURN
VINCENT I???;? - „ // _ _ - -_-1 •-_--_ _. .?? VINCENT
UPTON I; ??• _..! -_ - - _ ?- `-^_ ---_?r UPTON
{ THOMAS Ifs-.
THOMAS
SHERIDAN - - --? _-. - - ?1 ??
SHERIDAN
RUSSELL I4, RUSSELL -197
QUEEN QUEEN
PENN AVE. PENN AVE.
OLIVER
OLIVER
NEWTON IjfN IL?; ?? -^'???d ?' ^??? ?•
NEWTON
MORGAN?; MORGAN
LOGAN
KNOX LOGAN
=
L ??t 7-7 KNO%
JAMES
JAMES
IRVING /1
AKE
HUMBOIDT ____ WE ?7-7
Il\I/1j? j ] I HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
GIRARD
EMERSON ?I FREMdiT
I
DUPONT O EMERSON
DU
COLFAX ?III`?'?"' m \ "'O\y = II PONT
COLFAX
BRYANT BRYANT
ALDRICN ALDRICH
CJ 11
IYNDALE AVE. LYNOAIE AVE.
GARFIELD I vGj ?I
?\ ;--? III GARFIELD
HARRIET , 13 T AVE. S. I J i HARRIET
GRAND I m I -?O ?I I GRAND
PLEASANT t_- PLEASANT
PILLSBURY I ---- Q? --?•- L-JL_J III PILLSBURY
I
wENTWOQTM =E1 WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL
III BLAISDEIL
I?? 1 1
NICOLIET AVE. ,A NICOIIET AVE.
lot N
I
J 161
I
STEVENS ' -7
STEVENS
2nd
2 14TH AVE. S. I!
3rN 0? 3rd
CLINTON
I .: CLINTON
4th 1j I .-. .: • L?
;?? • _ 4in
sre `J Olltltltlll'l aen
PORTLAND AVE. i ;;?--??'O?I :•.••:•?• •• ' m PORTLANO AVE-
OAKLAND ML I 'I OAKLAND
PARK iil ICI ?f L
1; I I O'._I I _?' •'t :: i PARK
COLUMBUS I I 1 I r I' COLUMBUS
CHICAGOiiJ????1 •"r'+
AI ? ?? .. • ? ?•?, •• ? I I CHICAGO
ELLIOT Ili ?;?--?'i--?I??--?-'? •? •?? •? T = I ELLIOT
7 7. 10 to I1? 1 II 101n
f, j ?I I?'?I??' ILA
1t? ?IIIJ?L?J! L?I?.-i ??. ??? •••• ??I? to
2 12 it,
13th ?J?? ???:?JI-J:_JOI••• ?U? 13 ,n
14 in 1411,
15 th
16 IS In
BLOOMINGTON
16th BLOOMINGTON
IT In IITIh
Is to loth 7-7 r-7.
..CEDAR AVE. ! _ --__-_--- ?-•? --? CEDAR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
+•? ro ?_-_ I 1 ?L?
01
_ ?? v s e - s IT ????? 191n
toT ' ° ° = ',•f•-- 11 201 n
N N N N ti y? y ? I IL +?I71 21 {t
Z /l /V c) ?.\ I'1-JIt.?JI r 22 nK
C "ll < STANDISH
C r O
? R1 T ?_1 I 23 ro
07
j
W
r i
O
0m
>. rn
rn
0-4
-; -,; z --7
13 10 E. 66TH ST.
SITE PLAN
E. 66TH ST.
•
50
Lo
a;
1 N
1 1
et
r
r
DECORATIVE ROCK
0 N
50
ALLEY
TIMBER RETAINING WALL
r
70
• a J .?y o r Z 7v
?'n O? rZ
w ? ? ?
0 70
(- m d 7d
-0
m0
'ten `0
o N
>
7 ?
> >m
0
m
Z
70 0
Z:
1310 E. 66TH ST.
• LAND USE
COMMERCIAL ? APARTMENT '!
EIQUASI PUBLIC ? PARK N
cn
w
Q
N
T
E. 65TH ST.
vi
W
a
.IT
T
E. 66TH ST.
E. 67TH ST.
C2azeXezy 'Vadiataz Service
1310 E. 66th STREET - MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55423
19 May 1988
Mr Kazi :
I think that we are both agreed that the rear portion of the
property owned by me at 1310 E. 66th Street is definitely in need
of.improvement both in beautification and utility. Although that
area is used only for employee parking and adjoins an alley, it has
some obvious problems with grading and appearance.
I have enclosed a drawing of proposed improvements including
a treated timber retaining wall and class 5 base in the parking
area. Even with my extremely limited finances I do not see any
reason why these improvements could not be completed during 1988.
The area above the treated timber retaining wall would be finished
with decorative rock which should eliminate the spontaneous growth
of unsightly scrub brush which is a problem in that area.
The roof drain from my neighbor's roof at 1306 E. 66th Street,
• would be eliminated, thus stopping the washing of dirt into the
alley. This roof drain was installed 40 years ago as part of a
'good neighbor' policy and was never a problem while the alley was
just a dirt drive. It is definitely a problem at this time and will'
be corrected.
Rather than spend the necessary money to blacktop the rear
employee parking area, it would make more sense to me as a business-
man and I would think to the City of Richfield, to spend this money
in upgrading the appearance of the front of the property which
adjoins busy 66th Street.,
It is my understanding that there is no record of a contract
for off street parking for the-above mentioned area. I would like
to complete the necessary paperwork to provide.for the parking of
four vehicles in the above area at this time.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Forrest T. Lovley, President
0
May 4, 1988
to
•
Mr. Forest Lovely
Carlberg Radiator
1310 East 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Parking Area
Dear Mr. Lovely:
When I met you on April 29, 1988, I indicated I would review the City records
for an off-street parking contract for your business. There is no permit on
file and the parking area in front of your building is a legal non-conforming
use.
City ordinances require that off-street parking areas meet certain standards.
If the area behind your building is to be used for parking, it must meet those
standards.
You should contact Towhid Kazi, Assistant City. Planner at 869-7521, X 512 to
set-up an appointment to review the parking requirements. By contacting him,
the time for compliance will be extended while you determine what options you
will pursue. .
Yours truly,
Sivert Hendrickson
Building Official ,
cc: T. Kazi
SH:lkt
c
Telephone Numbers: General City Matters: (612) 869-7521
?lil. I r'ifr;t•., Rlnn..i n'1rrnpnr" (94 h?,cl fik',111 RF,;,6-5061 nnl 17-r -!r''r h_?1..'?
;Z??
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 166
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of an offstreet parking permit for the Richfield State
Agency at 6625 Lyndale Avenue South.
Background:
Mr. Carl McBride, representing the Richfield State Agency, has
requested an additional offstreet parking permit for Richfield
Bank and Trust.
On October 28, 1985, the City Council approved a final planned
unit development plan including the following stipulation:
1. That the employee parking areas shown on the southeast corner
of the site continue to be shown on the plan, but not be
constructed until such time as the City deems the additional
parking to be necessary on the site, or until Phase II of the
development.
On November 23, 1987, the Richfield State Agency requested an
of_fstreet parking permit for a temporary employee parking area at
67th Street and Grand Avenue. This request was denied by the
City Council.
This spring, the house at 6644 Grand Avenue was utilized in a
training exercise by the Public Safety Department. The house
subsequently was razed and the site cleared. The applicant now
proposes a 22 space employee parking lot encompassing the cleared
lot and the adjacent property at 6640 Grand Avenue, under the
final approved planned unit development plan. A pedestrian
access into the employee parking area is also proposed along the
vacated alley.
Recommended Motion:
To approve an offstreet parking permit for the proposed parking
area, subject to the following stipulations:
1. That the parking area be screened from residential properties
in the area, as proposed on the landscape plan submitted, and
subject to final site inspection approval by staff.
2. Plant materials installed include a 4" or larger caliper B &
B (Ball and Burlap) replacement tree for the tree recently
removed from 6640 Grand Avenue and the evergreen trees
installed are 10' or greater in height as agreed to in the
applicant's May 25, 1988 meeting with staff.
3. That the proposed berming be continued at approximately the
same grade (137 - 138 feet) as the area north of 6636 Grand
is Avenue.
19 /-/
4. That the underground sprinkler system be installed in
IS compliance with city regulations and as agreed to in the
applicant's June 8, 1988 letter.
5. That all new lighting and signage be in compliance with the
City's ordinance and meet staff approval.
6. That the drainage plan meet the City Engineer's approval.
7. The proposed fence specification for the southerly portion of
6636 Grand Avenue property be submitted for staff review and
approval regarding the location, size, height, design and
materials. (The applicant contacted the property owner,
Eugene Lund, at 6636 Grand Avenue regarding his input on the
proposed fence. A copy of the letter with the property
owner's response is attached to this report.)
8. That the applicant continue to make a concerted effort to
purchase the property at 6636 Grand Avenue in order to
continue to construct the remaining permanent parking
improvements in accordance with the final approved planned
unit development plan.
9. Access to the garage at 6636 Grand Avenue by way of the
vacated alley continue to be provided by the applicant, until
such a time as the property at 6636 Grand Avenue is purchased
• and the house is removed.
Basis of Recommendation:
The proposed parking use, plan layout, and access are consistent
with the final approved planned unit development plan. The
addition of a pedestrian access will allow for safer pedestrian
access to the new parking areas proposed.
Alternative Recommendation:
To deny the granting of an offstreet parking permit for the
Richfield State Agency on the basis that the proposal would
create an island within the RSA parking area with the remaining
residential structure at 6644 Grand Avenue.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for City Council consideration on
June 27, 1988. Due to the nature of the public controversy over
this application in the recent past, notices have been mailed to
the property owners within 350 feet of this particular parking
area.
Resp lly submitted,
James Prosser
City anager
0 JDP:sae
•
•
U
m V N U
av a 's
a ? y u'
XERXES AVE.
WASHBURNi \?' • --fit
L
VINCENT ?I
UPTON II-??I
THOMAS ?C?fC-1I
SHERIDAN ?i •-??I`'-'?I
RUSSELL II i?
QUEEN II
PENN AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON 1IA
u??u
MORGAN
LOGANI IL 1?
KNOX - ?ni
JAMES
11
IRVING \??Q
HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
I
FREMONT ?-
EMERSON
DUPONT ?I?DO
coLFAx
BRYANT
ALDRICH 'I ®^?
LYN DALE AVE.
GARFIELD II
HARRIET
GRAND
PLEASANT '-
PILLSBURY I
WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL ?O
NICOLLET AVE.
Itl '
STEVEnd ?C
2nd J
3rd
CLINTON
1 I y?-
41A ` I J
?! 1\?
5th
I
PORTLAND AVE.
OAKLAND I?i I
PARK IiI
COLUMBUS pli?
CHICAGO
ELLI OT
10 t1
11 1. I S
12 t1
1311
14 t1 E
I
15 t1 II
II
BLOOMINGTON i1
16 r1 Ij
IT 1n I1?\J
lets _
CEDAR AVE. ____?
LONGFELLOW ------
7
V
_
m
z M y N N
m N..
ZC)A
C T!
O
2 't
<r
2
.T'
A
0
N
N
V
V V J J m m m m m m m mO
a W iN ? ? O O _b m m u a W N=
T O p - v 7 > > ? S 7 O
O =
H H y N NN.1 ti N y H H ti H N Hf
XERXES AVE.
r-?.-ter -'gin r I W45NBURN
VINCENT
UPTON
r--,r__ THOMAS
? SHERIDAN 97 RUSSELL
QUEEN
71 PENN AVE.
OLIVER
NEWTON
MORGAN
?`?????,,;??, ,?JC?! ?LOGAN
KNOX
H JAMES
IRVING
t-??I' HUMBOLDT
GIRARD
FREMONT
s Q ?-? \?? Ip EMERSON
DUPONT
J?LJ % ,ap > '__' I' COLFAX
\ m
BRY4NT
7^r \ 1I ALDRICH
luu ®?
LYNDALE AVE.
r?
???--- ?? 111?I GARFIE GARFIELD
tuu???.-J _ ?Or^I, ? 11'f`II
? HARRIET
.?J?IUU? 1 ?? i. ? I I
III GRAND
l L Il f !i _
_ ?-'_'°':°?._.- _ _._. • •?„ __ _ i PLEASANT
PILLSBURY
J??I 1' WENTWORTH
?? III BLAISDELL
1
O? NICOILET AVE.
?? •.?`., "•::: •.'•t ? --- , STEVENS
•..?•: ??? A 3rd
• CLINTON
41h
,511
N ^1 • •• ? • I PORTLAND AVE
Iq Vr -' 'J Li Ut' OAKLAND
C ••71:. L_.?
PARK
r I' COLUMBUS
r m
a m II CHICAGO
x -
z ELLIOT
::••:•:.::;: ::• :ti;:;:;: I 10 t1
Ilth
N ??? 1411
BLOOMINGTON
16 t1
IAND AVE S 0?0? i 17th
o?oo? CEDAR - ?? AR AVE.
LONGFELLOW
o. F1C- ICJ 201
21 tt
22nd
O^ STANOISM
23'd
-I
- ._a---, m ? m m m m
m iJ N a N
r
O
n
O
z
rn
r
v
rn
rn
RICHFIELD STATE
. LAND USE
COMMERCIAL
E3 MIXED LAND USE
13 UTILITY
BAPARTMENT
;'s PARK
AGENCY
IMQUASI-PUBLIC
BDUPLEX
EIVACANT
i
. A.
65TH ST W
-------------
66TH ST W
a
J
6636
T 6640
6644
I&.
N
riww w?ww w +r.?rr.s Y•M.IOr?YO.v-rwlw.?ri•
rw wr.zw?nw ?-?
-
NOLLVOOSSV 1VNOISS3:IOW
'
`
'
°---
-
?• ...
SMLA-JO iVW=aLMM
? ONI `AON3Jd 31V1S 4131-JHOilt - =?_
NVId 3M
t
co
I J a
Y
r . . LU
3nNInb .?,.T N QNttLl9 .. ,. J oI
I •? W ?•1 '`'\.EO.?C 1: v ?? W ?? <- n?? IQ II E
D_ i4-
ICI I - I 1 ?? I i Eat'
?. ?{ I •I I - s-
1
i R // • + ?„ sip l`:.. , . , c i a '' ,? ? °'1..?-'-? ?, w , !., + . ' , .
?I ??1+ / i ?- E III i \\ = i W ) m Yp .?. ¦!?jv{ e
_ t 1 ..;l r ? 1 ;? • 1• / .,I.I' Sptp :N '. _1 ,?•` N `L. ?? ? l f
£Y I .wi E ?t 'lR II \6? Y}. IL ?' XJ J .m W.. '.+'W
I . •\ ? J .. J W •i • Cf
W _ :? - r ' I to m I ¢m I; . 1 a
.? I I a# f it I r??• ' .- . .:?; ???.I ?. < • ..d : ,mf .• ? ?T I, •:;?? ? • , ?`
IA I
---? _ v
I T-
'* qiI 4 i ? I .?r ? j?`?f• !?I ..? •'.. .I`LL' ? a..?... a'w ..
J ?` a I E'Y i 14-
\I\,% -7 I.?.•-i. rQ r a
I I i'• i 1
Y ' I E W 11 ? ? ? ?` 1 ? `• +. fl1S 1 Lt } ?I 9'O')
LU
' e III E 9 a is (W
_i
1 .? "? W fftt N . •, ?3 • 1
-9 x0s?.f
OS (D9 ` N`?/•'s "'mss }?,?i ?'?l ^' .?? l r? rN a I i
aw J/H • x ?y ?4
• I' ??\ ' ti / I `wl V t? iii
NV ld DNI)IHVd `dlOS3NNlK'M3WHOld
U31SVW L 3SVHd AON3JV 31VIS a13WHOla rdl?1l? N ?/?
UnUBd 3Sn ivioBdS aNv aivadn 'a'n'd . ?'
S?
it r rr rr • O W W ;i?001e_ f •• •
ui uz I ••: :+e -- e
Y Y ? ?
00-0000 O < <O<'O ••+ • t !
0000-•• • r?r? 4?:.?iZ-J? :f r
iii iw:e w + r s -
4 4.4
mow: ww ?° ° " • i ? i°Oew? ?? ? •
e . °es we+. 1. .7
44
•• < ! 3 i i
it. a
.4 VC 4a is . c gi
ue s W Y= Oi O-Y- L O! A e•Y r
W O6? <OOV WO ?? \ i,:=+ ? '1ip+ Y <7•ty ?1I
a<W W7L =LL rJ sa Lc Lc7•i 2t-VA •r1-wj ;~••WO
°t W6W JW W= WY<•< F!r- ! Oi res
7
Q <p oiSiio s; <a' s O " o.
GIr4<'+rzz° ri .Y g 2 .+?o•?i ??i• RWrW+>?>
W ,°?aszaaos to °• F: C _?°?°? :: es? s <HO
0- 4
I tlflo
i420044 'swiz<3 ?r
LO
I r-• - - ?? ?- -- - -= -e_ ` Hin°S 73manr aNVa° _ t R co
! ? ? ? ':? ..,? ? '' •. - -i I ?' I I I I I i i.l I•le? ?,- s .a?, T.
0-lllll(1(I11111i(I1-? :. y. _
LLI
a
??I I II -I II? IIiIi III IIh =1I II?I1- '?
_ ' W 1
1- 1 W
H .
W+ I i
j : ; ., ? I• ? I I -I.1?t?l-i-•f-1-i-- - .• III 1=?° =I I?? ••? - ? ? ?: I""
I ? I ?j ? ? I ?Illllll till 11 I?'?_I? ?_ r'11'i l I?
10
1 , et?.yl = = w O
i13ii3 i I we!
, . CL
5? ? I I •= 0? °j T t
e I = V?
%
OAI
.?
avor rrv vwsrwvt nnu o
--Auto IIVHI HUNDId 11081
.p 1Sntll ONY
swit '2684.1#14
NNY8 C'MIANDitl OH ONHV
o uw
C
a ? 3 1?
a
s "8
UOC) 0
• o
d
19 1,11111
11 1gli
W
J
D
W
S
V
W
a?
Z
?r a
Cl)
Cl)
W o r
W
H
b
S ?
w
o
J
NLnos inNBnr ONYNO
W
0
a
r o
oc
CL
Telephone
(612) 861.7355
o 861.8305
COMPLETE INSURANCE SERVICES
6625 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH • RICHFIELD BANK BUILDING • RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
June 7, 1988
Eugene H. Lund
6005 Green View Drive
Oklahoma City, OK 73135
Dear Gene:
I tried to reach you by phone Tuesday, June 7, 1988'. The purpose of my
call was to bring you up-to-date on our project and answer a question
for the City.
We have removed the house on the corner, 6644 Grand, and are in the process
• of establishing a parking lot on these two lots: This normally calls for
a 6' high fence on the south side of your property at 6636 Grand; the same
style as used on the north side. The fence would run from the rear of the
lot to the.front of your house. At-the time we built the fence on the
north side, your father requested we extend the fence from the front of
the house to the property line 3' high. The City has asked me to find out
if you would like the fence extended to the property line 3' high the same
as on the north side. Please acknowledge.' If we do not hear from-you, we
will assume that this meets with your approval:
There were a number of problems with the heating system and cost to bring
the house back to compliance with the code: As a result, we elected to
remove ii: at: this time.
If you have found property in Texas as we had discussed and you would like
to establish a value and negotiate at this time on the property at 6636 Grand,
we would include it all into our parking plan.
Please call me collect, or I will try to reach you in the morning.
Sincerely,
Carl B. McBride
Vice President
CM:mt 6?8?85 - I contacted Gene at: P:1.5 this morning. I read the letter
to him. He was agreeable with the fence but not ready
to negotiate a deal on his property and indicated that
$65,000 was not enough to start negotiating.
Telephone
(61?86?1
1
00
COMPLETE INSURANCE SERVICES
6625 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH • RICHFIELD BANK BUILDING • RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
June 8, 1988
Elizabeth Morrison
Director of Planning
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms Morrison:
After reviewing the prints for the parking lot, 6640-6644 Grand Avenue,
I noticed that it does not indicate a provision for underground sprinkler
on the drawing.
I will extend the present sprinkler line to enable watering the trees and
sod on the new berm.
Sincerely,
C4 cje-p
Carl E. McBride
Vice President
CM:mt
0
-;?- /a
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 165
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of a proposed Joint Powers Agreement with Bloomington,
Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Richfield for providing for
the implementation for the 1494 Corridor Study.
Background:
The proposed agreement outlines a process for intergovernmental
cooperation in the planning, design, and traffic management for
1494. The participants in this cooperative effort include the
cities of Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and
Richfield, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, private
developers, Regional Transportation Board, and the Metropolitan
Council.
A summary of the proposed agreement is attached. The agreement
includes a onetime initiation fee. The fee for the City of
Richfield is $1,500.
• Recommended
Approve the
Agreement a
agreement.
of approval
Motion:
1494 Corridor Advisory Commission Joint Powers
nd authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the
The $1,500 initiation fee to be paid within 60 days
of the agreement.
Oasis for Recommendation:
1. On October 26, 1987 the Richfield City Council approved the
recommendation of the Richfield Ad Hoc Traffic Committee for
1494 traffic corridor study final report. The Committee's
recommendation included that Richfield work with other
corridor communities in coordinating traffic demand
management through a joint powers organization.
2. The joint powers organization will provide a tool for 1494
communities to cooperate in their efforts to manage traffic
on 1494.
3. The joint powers organization will help advance physical
improvements projects by providing a basis for common
transportation interest and solutions.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The City could elect not to participate in this joint powers
agreement. We would then not be part of intergovernmental
effort to provide traffic solutions to 1494.
11
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
The cities of Minnetonka, Eden Prairie and Edina have already
approved this agreement. The Council is requested to take action
on this matter at the earliest possible date in order that we may
proceed with the work of the joint powers organization.
Respectfu y submitted,
James . Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
•
n
Section by Section review of the Joint Powers Agreement
The preliminary statement cites the statutory authority for
cities to create joint powers organizations.
Article 1 - Purpose of the organizations is to implement the
recommendation of the I-494 Corridor Study.
Article 2 - Names the organization, the 11I494 Corridor Advisory
Commission."
Article 3 - Definitions - The one definition of note is that a
group of developers and business in the corridor have organized,
and call themselves "Improve-49411. Improve 494 is recognized as
an affiliate member of the Commission.
Article 4 - Allows other cities to join.
Article 5 - Agreement becomes effective when four cities have
signed.
Article 6 - Specifies the powers that the cities have now which
can be exercised by the Commission; such as:
-Participate in the EIS process
-Develop and recommend Travel Demand Management
• Strategies and city ordinances
-Monitor land use development and traffic volumes
-Enter into contracts less than $5,000
-Work with the Improve-494 group
-Accept gifts and grants and dispose of the money in
accordance with the terms of the gift or grant
Article 7 - Allows each city to designate two commissioners and
an alternate. Identifies the role of affiliate members such as
Improve 494.
Article 8 - Stipulated at least quarterly meetings.
Article 9 - Identifies officers and their duties.
Article 10 - Identifies the financing details
-Cost split for EIS; cities to pay 25% of cost
-Estimated total cost $900,000
-Split is based upon trip generation formula from the
I-494 Corridor Study
Bloomington 11%
Eden Prairie 5%
Edina 4%
Richfield 3%
0 Minnetonka 2%
Aim 3
-Bloomington will receive money from Improve 494 and
• transfer it to the commission.
-Other costs to be split based upon population up to
a maximum of $.10 per capita annually.
-Each city council will be given the Commission's
annual budget by August 1 of the previous year for
review and comment.
-There is a onetime initiation fee for Richfield of
$1,500.
Article 11 - A city may withdraw by notifying the commissioner by
October 1 of their intention to withdraw the following January 1.
No reimbursement is allowed for withdrawing cities.
Articles 12 & 13 - Stipulate amendment & withdrawal procedures.
F_1
L
0
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE I-494 CORRIDOR
STUDY
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council approved the
recommendation of the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee on the I-494
Traffic Corridor Study Final Report, and
WHEREAS, said recommendation was that the City of Richfield
coordinate Traffic Demand Management measures through a joint
powers organization, and
WHEREAS, the committee also recommended that Richfield
participate in the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement for the I-494 Improvements and consider a 3% share in
the cost of the EIS.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield that the Council approve the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement between the State of Minnesota and the Cities of
Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka and Richfield and
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the contract.
• Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27th day of June, 1988.
Mayor Steven J. Quam
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 164
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Authorization to administer a Section 8 Existing Rent Assistance
Program independent from the Metropolitan Council HRA (Metro
HRA).
Background:
State Statute allows the Metropolitan Council to operate housing
programs within the city if authorized by the City Council. The
Council took this action in 1975. Since then, the Richfield HRA
has contracted with Metro HRA to coadminister a rent assistance
program. Approximately 375 resident households receive rent
subsidies.
Richfield currently performs the following activities which
account for approximately 75 percent of the required program
tasks:
-take applications
-assist the applicant in locating Section 8 housing
-inspect dwelling units for suitability
-complete leasing and contracts for assistance
-review client eligibility annually and renew contracts
• The following remaining tasks are performed by Metro HRA:
-secure administrative and rent subsidy funds from the
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
-implement regional administrative and marketing plans
-verify income of new participants
-make monthly rent subsidy payments to landlords
-maintain a regional waiting list of applicants
-monitor vendor activity (13 localities)
-pay vendors for administrative expenses according to a
rate prescribed by contract
The most recent contract with Metro HRA expired in April, 1987.
Several months of staff negotiation have not resolved what are
basically financial and policy issues. The Richfield HRA
subsidized the local administration of the program by $22,000
last year because it is not being reimbursed for all expenses
incurred. Program size and continued growth demand more
resources including office space, staff time, and money.
Also, more local program control is sought. The need for Metro
HRA assistance no longer exists given Richfield's program size,
HRD staff expertise, and the Richfield HRA interest in better
managing our existing rental housing resources.
0 Three courses of action are available:
1. Initiate an independent housing assistance program to
• receive HUD funds directly.
2. Contract with Metro HRA.
3. Withdraw from administration of the program.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize the attached resolution which discontinues the Metro
HRA relationship and endorses the development of an independent
program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Metro HRA receives approximately $39.00 per unit per month
from HUD for all (Richfield and Metro) administration.
Metro HRA pays Richfield $12.00 per unit per month
and has offered $13.50 which is, in effect, 35 percent
of the revenues for 75 percent of the work.
2. It cost Richfield approximately $17.80 per unit per month
to administer the program in 1987. Because of the cost
versus reimbursement differential, Richfield spent
approximately $22,000 in 1987 from the HRA Capital Fund.
Since 1983, approximately $62,500 has been spent from
Richfield HRA mill levy or Capital Fund resources to cover
the difference between our cost and Metro reimbursement.
• 3. The Metropolitan Council makes no contribution to the
Metro HRA or Richfield HRA for Section 8 program
administration. Revenues to Metro HRA from HUD have been
sufficient to cover indirect Metropolitan Council
administrative activities outside the program and maintain
a $325,000 operating reserve. As a result, Richfield's
local contribution to expenses indirectly subsidizes the
daily administration of the Metropolitan Council.
4. In 1989, it is anticipated that HUD will increase the
amount available to Metro to cover administration. If
this increase occurs as planned, Richfield could receive
up to $14.90. This amount is still short of the amount
needed to be reimbursed for expenses.
5. Richfield has the largest vendor program in the Metro
system and has sufficient administrative experience in all
aspects of client work. A review of autonomous programs
in Bloomington, St. Louis Park, and Plymouth, have
demonstrated that independent suburban programs, all of
which are similar in size or smaller than Richfield's, can
be successfully operated within the revenues available
from HUD.
6. Outside help is available to assist staff in setting up
. the initial program and receive training in two task areas
not previously performed: the processing and disbursement
of monthly subsidy payments to landlords and the
supporting accounting services that monitor and review the
• payment process and subsequent reporting to HUD.
7. HUD has been supportive of Richfield seeking independence.
Although new units are not available to allocate to
Richfield at this time, HUD has stated they are willing to
help Richfield develop an independent program.
8. The administrative responsibility and overall budget,
including rent subsidies, will increase in size, but will
be offset by the availability of sufficient revenues from
HUD.
9. Richfield legal counsel has determined that:
a) The Richfield HRA and City Council may rescind the
1975 resolution authorizing the cooperative effort
with Metro HRA.
b) Metro HRA is prohibited from operating a Section 8
program within Richfield without City Council
authorization.
10. The Richfield HRA rescinded their 1975 actions on June 20,
1988. HRA Chairman Thomas E. Harms will be available at
the June 27th City Council meeting to discuss the HRA
• action.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not proceed with an independent program because:
-A long term cooperative effort will be discontinued,
-The time required to develop agreements with HUD and the
Metropolitan Council and subsequent start up costs of an
independent program, although researched, are estimates
and estimates cannot be guaranteed. These estimates are
based on experience of other communities.
-Metro HRA will no longer "shelter" Richfield from
program and revenue changes proposed and implemented
from HUD. This would include the ability to compete for
and receive more housing units.
-Since Metro HRA secured units on Richfield's behalf but
in Metro's name, they may be reluctant or may refuse to
release them to Richfield. HUD may be reluctant to
require Metro to do so. If this would occur, Metro
would not be able to place new subsidized renters within
Richfield.
-Negotiations with HUD and Metro may allow Richfield an
• independent program at a different, perhaps lesser
amount of administrative revenues. This would make a
• break even situation more difficult, but possible.
2. Recommend that the Richfield HRA execute a contract with
Metro HRA at $13.50.
-This action will cost Richfield approximately $20,000 to
$30,000 annually from Richfield HRA revenues.
-The Metro HRA program appears likely to grow further,
exceeding staff capacity and requiring more office
space, without more revenues except those of the
Richfield HRA.
3. Recommend to the Richfield HRA that all program
responsibility be released to Metro HRA. However, this
effectively precludes local control, oversight, and the
ability to resolve local issues and concerns that may
arise.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Following City Council consideration and authorization of a
course of action, a letter will be drafted by the City Manager
which notifies the Metropolitan Council and HUD of the Richfield
actions. Council action in support of the stated recommendation
will likely require submitting applications for fund allocations
to HUD and negotiating agreements with HUD and the Metropolitan
Council to provide program funds directly to Richfield. The
• Council will be kept informed of progress made on this matter as
it proceeds.
Respectf lly submitted
James D. Prosser
City Ma ger
JDP:eja
CJ
0!f11- /4z
• Resolution No.
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 5323
DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1975
WHEREAS, under Minn. Stat. 473.195 and 473.199, the approval
of the Richfield City Council is necessary for the Metropolitan
Council to operate a rental assistance program within the City of
Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 1975, the City of Richfield passed
Resolution No. 5323 authorizing the Metropolitan Council to apply
for federal funds to implement a program of rental assistance for
lower income families and elderly in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1980, a contract was entered into
between the Metropolitan Council and the Richfield HRA regarding
operation of the rental assistance program; and
WHEREAS, the above contract between the Richfield HRA and
the Metropolitan Council was amended on January 1, 1983, and has
since lapsed on April 15, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the above parties have been unable to renegotiate
the contract to provide adequate compensation to the Richfield
HRA for its administrative services provided on behalf of the
• Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, the Richfield HRA has the desire and capability to
contract directly with the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development to continue to provide such rental
assistance in the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1988, the Richfield HRA acted to
rescind previous action which authorized a rent assistance
program in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council, and has
requested the City Council to consider similar actions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Richfield,
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. That Resolution No. 5323 passed by City Council on
February 24, 1975, is rescinded effective 90 days from
the date of passage of this Resolution and written notice
of that action is sent to the Metropolitan Council.
2. That from and after 90 days from the date of passage of
this Resolution and written notice, the authorization
previously granted by the City of Richfield to the
Metropolitan Council to operate a program of rental
assistance is withdrawn.
• 3. That the City of Richfield endorses the development by the
Richfield HRA of a rental assistance program
independent of the Metropolitan Council.
4. Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the
Richfield HRA from recovering monies owing by the
Metropolitan Council under Section 4.A(3) of the
contract amended on January 1, 1983.
5. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed
to send immediate written notice of this action to the
Metropolitan Council.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27th day of June, 1988.
Steven Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
0
C7
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 163
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Second reading of an ordinance amendment to Section 1, subsection
100.07 to adopt by reference Minnesota Statutes, 1987 supplement
and Laws of Minnesota, 1988.
Background:
The Richfield ordinance code includes, by reference, the
Minnesota Statutes.
The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to adopt the Minnesota
Statutes 1987 supplement and Laws of Minnesota, 1988.
At the June 13, 1988 City Council meeting, the City Council gave
first reading to this ordinance amendment and scheduled the
public hearing for the June 27, 1988 Council meeting.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an ordinance amendment to Section 1, subsection 100.07 to
adopt by reference Minnesota Statutes, 1987 supplement and Laws
of Minnesota 1988.
Basis of Recommendation:
• 1. This action is necessary to incorporate the most current
State statutes and regulations into the Richfield City Code.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not approve the ordinance amendment.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The ordinance will become effective 30 days after publication in
the official newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City M ager
JDP:sae
L
1._J
AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE CITY CODE: STATUTORY
REFERENCES: AMENDING RICHFIELD
CITY CODE, SUBSECTION 100.07
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Richfield City Code, Subsection 100.07 is
amended to read:
100.07. Official statutes codes regulations, and
ordinances. References in this code to Minnesota Statutues are
to Minnesota Statutes 1986, Minnesota Statutes, 1987 supplement,
and Laws of Minnesota 199:7 1988, unless otherwise provided in
this code. References in this code to rules and regulations of
state agencies, codes, and ordinances of other municipalities
are to those documents in effect on WRe 1, 1987 July 1, 1988,
unless otherwise provided in this code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27 day of June, 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
•
Attest:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
00550R01.F16
n
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 162
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance amending the
City Code regulating transient merchants, peddlers and
solicitors.
Background:
At the February 1, 1988 Study Session, Council directed staff to
revise the Transient Merchant Ordinance. The first reading of
the revised ordinance was held on May 9, 1988. The only
substantiative change in the ordinance since the first reading is
an exemption in licensing for charitable organizations.
Two problems remain with the charitable organization exemption.
This exemption applies generally to organizations which qualify
under the State laws as charitable organizations.
Solicitation by members of some charitable organizations have
proven to be a great annoyance in other communities. Since there
is no effective way to differentiate between organizations which
may prove problemsome and those that will not, we may continue to
experience difficulty in these areas.
Second, there are some local organizations which are not
technically nonprofit organizations. This ordinance would
require that they comply with the licensing provision.
Neither of these issues may prove to be an insurmountable
problem. They are presented to alert the Council to the
potential of problems in the future.
It is also important to emphasize that charitable organizations
will not be exempted from all aspects of the ordinance, only the
requirement to be specifically licensed. Charitable
organizations will still be required to comply with the general
regulations including location and time of solicitation, signage
and other similar matters.
The staff has met with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce
regarding the ordinance. The ordinance includes several changes
recommended by the Chamber.
The proposed ordinance accomplishes the following:
- Consolidates transient merchants, peddlers, solicitors
and door to door canvassers into one ordinance for the
purpose of more efficient administration.
0 - Limits transient merchants to C-2 zoning districts.
7
• - Prohibits transient merchants from 150 feet of
intersections.
Regulates the size of the signs and requires temporary
sign permits as defined in the sign ordinance.
Provides expanded information in the application so that
Public Safety will be able to conduct a background
investigation on applicants.
- Requires that Licensee carry and produce license at all
times while conducting business.
Requires transient merchants to comply with offstreet
parking restrictions.
Limits the number of days that transient merchants may
conduct business.
- Limits the hours a transient merchant, peddler or
solicitor may conduct business.
Exempts certain organizations from licensing, including:
a. Charitable/religious organizations
• b. Political/educational organizations
c. Products of the farm, grown by the person selling
them pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. However, these
persons would have to comply with all regulation
requirements other than obtaining a license.
Newspapers are exempted from all aspects of the
ordinance.
- Provides authority for the City Manager to revoke a
license under specified conditions. The licensee would
have the ability to appeal the revocation to the
Council.
Recommended Motion:
Approve an amendment to the City Ordinance section regulating
transient merchants, peddlers and solicitors, wagon peddlers,
hawkers and canvassers.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The ordinance provides sufficient administrative and
enforcement tools which ensures tighter controls on
these types of businesses.
2. The ordinance provides for revocation procedures for
• noncompliance.
3. The ordinance consolidates several ordinances into one,
reducing confusion.
4. The Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted to
• endorse the revised ordinance.
Alternate Recommendations:
1. The Council could elect to continue with the current
ordinances regulating these activities. This would
essentially mean business as usual.
2. The Council could direct staff to:
a. Prepare an ordinance that would ban transient
merchants.
b. Restrict them to within structures only.
c. Should the Council elect any or all of these
recommendations, charitable, religious and educational
organizations need to be addressed.
Decision Mode:
If the Council approves this ordinance, at the June 27, 1988
Council meeting, the ordinance will become effective 30 days
after publication in the official newspaper.
Respectfully submitted,
r?
L
Jm . Prosser
C Manager
JDP/eja
./ °?
•
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is
hereby amended in the following respects:
I. By repealing in its entirety Section 1180 entitled
"Transient Merchants, Peddlers and Wagon Peddlers."
II. By adding thereto the following Section 1181 to read as
follows:
SECTION 1181 - Transient Merchants, Peddlers, Wagon Peddlers,
Hawkers, Canvassers and Solicitors.
0 terms defined in this subsection shall have the meanings given
1181.01. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the
them.
Subdivision 1. "Transient Merchant" means any individual or
entity which engages in temporary or transient business in the
city, from a fixed location or locations, but without the
intention of being located there for a period longer than six
months, and which hires, leases, occupies or uses any building,
structure or land to conduct such business. The term includes
not only the entity or individual on whose behalf the transient
business is being conducted, but also all individuals actually
engaged in conducting the transient business within the city.
Subdivision 2. "Transient Business" means a business
•
enterprise conducted by a transient merchant involving the
selling of goods, wares or merchandise.
S- ?
• Subdivision 3. "Peddler" or "Hawker" means a person who
goes from house-to-house, from store-to-store, or from place-to-
place conveying or transporting goods, wares or merchandise,
offering and exposing the same for sale.
Subdivision 4. "Wagon Peddler" means a person selling ice
cream, popcorn, candy, soft drinks or other similar food items
from a pushcart, wagon, self-propelled vehicle, trailer or
similar vehicle directly to the consumers.
Subdivision 5. "Solicitor" or "Canvasser" means a person
who goes from place-to-place or from street-to-street soliciting
or taking or attempting to take orders for the sale of goods,
wares, merchandise or personal services of any nature whatsoever
for future delivery or future performance whether or not such
• person carries or exposes for sale a sample of the subject of any
such order or whether or not the person is collecting advance
payments for such orders.
Subdivision 6. "Itinerant Activity" means any activity
described in subdivision 1 through 5 of this subsection.
1181.03. License. Subdivision 1. License Required. No
transient merchant, wagon peddler, peddler, canvasser, or
solicitor shall sell or offer for sale any goods, wares or
merchandise without having first obtained the appropriate class
of Itinerant Activity license for such activity from the city
manager.
Subdivision 2. Classes of License. The following are the
classes of Itinerant Activity licenses:
2
• (a) Class I - transient merchant
(b) Class II - wagon peddler
(c) Class III - peddler or hawker
(d) Class IV - canvasser or solicitor
Subdivision 3. Exception to License Requirement. No
Intinerant Activity license shall be required for the following:
(a) sales made to dealers by commercial travelers or
selling agents in the usual course of business.
(b) sales made by sheriffs, constables or other public
officials selling goods, wares or merchandise according
to law;
(c) sales made by bona-fide assignees or receivers
appointed in this state to make such sales for the
benefit of creditors;
• (d) sales of products of the farm or garden occupied and
cultivated by the person making such sales, except as
required pursuant to subsection 615.19 of this code;
(e) sales or offers for sale by peddlers or solicitors who
appear at the customer's home or place of business by
an appointment which was made prior to such appearance.
(f) the canvassing or soliciting of money, donations,
financial assistance, or information for the purposes
of any charitable, religious, political or educational
organization; or, selling or distributing literature or
merchandise for which a fee is charged or solicited on
behalf of any such organization; this exception does
not include activity which has its primary purpose
• fit f
th
pro
or
e individuals who are engaged in such
activity.
3
0 Subdivision 4. Proof of State License. In addition to the
required license, persons desiring to obtain an Itinerant
Activity license shall, at the time of application file proof of
the state license required by Minnesota Statutes, Sections
329.099 to 329.17.
Subdivision 5. Application. Application for an Itinerant
Activity license shall be made on forms supplied by the city .
Separate applications must be made for the individual or entity
on whose behalf the business is being conducted and for each
individual who will actually conduct the activity for which a
license is required. The application must contain:
(a) The applicant's name, age, address or residence. If
the applicant is a partnership, the names of all
• partners must be verified by one such
y partner. If the
applicant is a corporation, the names of all officers
must be verified by one such officer.
(b) The applicant's (i) business and residence addresses
for a period of five years prior to the application
date, (ii) a statement as to whether the applicant is
the sole owner of the business, and (iii) a statement
to the effect that no persons other than those named in
the application have any interest in the management and
control of the business.
(c) The class of Itinerant Activity license which is being
requested and a brief description of the activity.
• (d) For applications for Class I licenses, the location
where the activity is to be conducted and written
4
consent of the owner or if the parcel is under lease
•
,
the lessor of the parcel of land authorizing use to
conduct a transient business.
(e) The length of time (including the beginning and ending
dates) for which the license is desired.
(f) A photograph of the applicant taken within sixty days
of the date of application., The photograph shall be
two inches by two inches, showing the head and
shoulders of the applicant in a clear and
distinguishable manner.
(g) Information relating to any conviction of any crime by
the applicant; felony, misdemeanor or city ordinance
violation (other than traffic) the nature of the
offense and conviction date.
Subdivision 6. Fee. The license fee for the various
classes of Intinerant Activity licenses is fixed in Appendix D.
The fee shall be paid in full at the time the application is
presented.
Subdivision 7. Duration of License. Upon approval of any
license application the city manager shall specify the period for
which the license is valid. The period may not exceed six months
or the period remaining in the calendar year in which the license
is issued, whichever is less.
Subdivision 8. Issuance of License. If after review by
public safety, the city manager is satisfied that the application
and all other required submittals are complete, that the
applicant is of good character and standing, and that the
5
activity as described in the application meets the requirements
of this Section, the city manager shall issue to applicant an
Itinerant Activity license for the designated class described in
the application. If the city manager disapproves the issuance of
the license, the applicant shall be notified in writing of such
disapproval and the reasons for the decision. The notification
shall also inform the applicant of its right to appeal the
disapproval to the city council. The notification shall include
a refund of the license fee. Falsification or an incomplete
application is immediate grounds for denial.
Subdivision 9. Exhibition of License. Upon approval, the
city shall issue a license certificate to the licensee. The
license certificate shall contain the applicant's photograph and
• such other information as will appropriately describe all the
conditions upon which the license is valid. The licensee shall
have the license in his physical possession at all times during
which the licensed activity is being conducted, and shall visibly
display the same for inspection on their person in the case of an
individual, or conspicuous place in the case of a business.
1181.05. Regulation. All Itinerant Activities shall conform to
the following regulations whether or not an Itinerant Activity
license is required. .
Subdivision 1. Transient Business.
(a) the site of the transient business shall abut and have
access to an arterial roadway;
. (b) no part of any transient business may be located upon a
public right-of-way or within 150 feet of a street
intersection;
6
S
• (c) the business shall not cause undue traffic congestion
on surrounding streets;
(d) off-street parking must be adequate for both the
transient business and other uses conducted on the
parcel;
(e) the business may not generate noise, light, dust or
odors which reasonably would tend to disturb or annoy
occupants of adjacent residential properties;
(f) the transient business license shall keep the parcel
free of trash, litter and debris;
(g) A transient business may be conducted only between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
(h) no transient business may be conducted by a person who
•
has previously had an Itinerant Activity license
revoked by the City of Richfield or any other political
subdivision;
(i) no more than one transient business may operate from a
single parcel at one time;
(j) all tents, canopies, awnings or similar items and all
water, electrical and lighting facilities shall be in
compliance with applicable codes and regulations;
(k) transient businesses may be conducted only in C-2
districts of the city;
(1) no outside storage of vehicles or merchandise is
permitted unless specifically authorized by the city
. manager;
7
• (m) no transient business activity may be conducted in the
city for more than eight days during any 60-day period;
and on no more than three consecutive days;
(n) signs used to advertise the transient business may not
have a total aggregate sign face of more than six
square feet; and the licensee must obtain the necessary
temporary sign permit before utilizing any such sign
and,
(o) the transient merchant shall have in possession written
evidence of consent of the owner or leasee (whichever
is required) of the parcel to conduct the transient
business thereon.
Subdivision 2. Other Classes.
• (a) The activity shall be conducted in such a manner as not
to reasonably annoy or disturb residents of the
community;
(b) the activity may be conducted only between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; and,
(c) the activity shall not be conducted on any premises
which have been conspicuously posted by the owner for
no peddling or soliciting.
1181.07. Relationship to Other Licenses or Permits. Whenever
the particular nature of the Itinerant Activity requires the
issuance of other licenses or permits, whether from the city or
other licensing authorities, it shall be unlawful for any person
• to commence such Itinerant Activity without having obtained such
other permits or licenses.
8
-7? /--/- /i
• 1181.09. Suspension or Revocation.
Subdivision 1. Action by City Manager. If the city manager
determines that the licensee has violated any of the provisions
of this section, the city manager shall proceed as follows:
(a) If the licensee has been convicted in a court of
competent jurisdiction for a violation of the
provisions of this section which relate to the current
term of such license or permit or if the consent
described in subsection 1181.03, subdivision 5(d) has
been withdrawn, the city manager shall forthwith
suspend such license for a period of time not to exceed
the date of the next regularly scheduled city council
meeting which is at least 14 days from the first day of
• such suspension. Notice of such suspension shall be
mailed to the licensee at the address shown in the
application.
(b) If the licensee has been charged with, but has not been
convicted of a violation of the provisions of this
section which relate to the current term of such
license, the city manager shall notify the licensee in
writing at the address contained in the application of
the determination and in such notification shall also
notify the licensee that unless a cash deposit
(Deposit) is made to the city within 7 days of such
notification, the license will be automatically
suspended for the term described in subsection 1181.09,
subdivision 1(a). The Deposit shall be $500 for each
9
• charged violation, and shall serve to ensure the
faithful performance by licensee of the provisions of
this section between the date of notification and the
date on which the city council meets to consider the
matter.
(c) If no charge has been brought against the licensee, the
city manager shall notify such licensee or permittee
that the city council will consider suspension or
revocation of the license at its next regularly
scheduled council meeting at least 14 days of the date
on which such notice is mailed.
Subdivision 2. Hearing. At the hearing the licensee or
their representative shall have an opportunity to rebut any of
• the information contained in the city manager's notice; and to
offer evidence in mitigation thereof.
Subdivision 3. Determination. Following the hearing, the
council shall determine whether the evidence establishes a
violation of the provisions of this section or a withdrawal of
consent, and whether the license should be suspended or revoked.
The council may, in lieu of continued suspension or revocation
determine to place further and additional conditions upon the
license if the council concludes that such aditional conditions
will assist in the orderly conduct of the activity. The council
may also forfeit to the city or continue to hold all or part of
any Deposit if the council believes that such will reasonably
0 assure future compliance with the provisions of this section.
10
• Passed by the. City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1988.
Steven J. Quam, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
I*
•
11
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 161
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Public hearing on the final plat approval at 7234 14th Avenue
South.
Background:
Mr. Tim Gleason has requested approval of a final plat of his
property at 7234 14th Avenue South.
On May 26, 1988 the City Council approved a preliminary plat
subdividing an existing single family lot into two new single
family lots.
The approved lots would have an area of 9,142 square feet and
6,814 square feet and would meet city requirements for lot size,
depth and width.
The property is zoned single family 'R' residential and will
remain the same. A number of property owners continue to express
their opposition to the approved subdivision.
Ordinance Requirements:
Section 500.25 outlines the regulations for final plat approval.
• Recommendation:
Approve the final plat as submitted.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The City Council approved the preliminary plat. The final
plat reflects the council's previously approved subdivision.
2. The submittal meets city subdivision regulations for a final
plat.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City Council may wish to deny the final plat but a legal
basis must be found for such,denial.
Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for council hearing at 7:00 p.m. on
Monday, June 27, 1988. Appropriate notice has been mailed to
property owners within 350 feet of the property. A legal notice
was also published.
Respectfully submitted,
• Jame . Prosser
City anager
JDP:sae
o !p
> > > > . . - > > S > > > o _ ,.
u
%ERxES AVE- %ERxES AVE
*ASHBURN ?WASNBURN
VINCENTI VINCENT
UPTON _?-? 1 -- -- ---? UPTON
r- r--'i I
THOMAS - -1 THOMAS
SHERIDAN SNERIDSN
L - L
RUSSELL I? -- -- -? -- --,I RUSSELL
OUEEN -.?-
-? , OUEEN
PENN AVE. PENN AVE
OLIVER
OLIVER
NEWTON I• 1,c _-,^-' ?- NEWTON
;r
YORG AN t_ MORGAN
LOGIN Qv= LOGIN
KNOX
DAYES ?p?l II ?? =1- ,C-•--? ;--?( DAMES
IRViMG ?Q ?•7?!__ IRVING
HUMBOLDT l{? - •= = .j'I; HUMBOLDT
GIRARO `I},L?^_, GIRARD
yl? ?i a
FREMONT FREyp,/T
EMERSON C EMERSON
DUPONT DUPONT
$RYAN BRTANT
ALDRICN C._ ALORICN
LYNDIIE l7NDAtE AVE.
GARFIELD GARFIELD
?-?? ^_??____!' 1 ?•-, I(?' ?.? ?? HARRIET
GRAND
- _1: -=tPLEASANT
5TH AVE. ._._li:_:?.----.-' .il)
PILLSBURY
I' WENTWORTH
BLAISDELL
NICOLLET AVE.
• ?^ ...._..-.i? I.I
STEVENS
2.4
3,4
X__ 41
sib
_•.•.,Y _ A • I^^ I PORTLAND AVE.
BLOOMINGTON
16 11,
1711, II I• ??--\(^?.-?L?3
to th
CEDAR AVE
?__-____- 77. --______l
LON G F E L LO W ac n
_?
in ....
Z 1, ff
O In
c .? o
z m '1
<r
z
z•
I
>i
E
-1 I
ti ti ( N N
r
J
I t, OAKLAND
`_ II PARK
COLUMBUS
II CHICAGO
ELLIOT
II 10 th
?.'.
Il to
12 to
L?
13 r1,
1 r
14Ih
IS 11,
BLOOMINGTON
yl 16 to
I17 rh
191h
CEDAR AVE
i LONGFELLOW
,I 1911,
?I 20th
li
21 p
22.d
=I STANDISH
23rd
P P A P
1 H
r-
0
0
Z
?T
V
?
cmc W
W z
O Z J
Z ..? Y
? U
O m
W J
Pw?•
D W
W
?'C N ?d
U z
i ? O
H
a m
u
O
_ >
c4 d
T
H
ce)
N
N
7
••••'•' O
. ..............:.........0
.0
N\
YO
O
11
O
i
11TH AVENUE S0.
'O U3 O
?> n C
T. p
X 127H AVENUE
;tr y
AVENUE
?Y 4R
•
f
?? \
.
ti.. ??
i
V??i: .
71 j'e ' ?? G. i4?r? ;4jt
•
K
. tic:: r;..,t: .:;.? 44,a' • ri.. ?
°
L.
L
Q
15TH
z
0
16TH AVE. S.
I
13TH
BLOOMINGTON
?`
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.
60
• Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Execution of CDBG Year XIV Public Service Agreement With Greater
Minneapolis Day Care Association.
Background:
On March 14, 1988, City Council approved the CDBG Year XIV
allocation of $20,000 to Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association
for sliding fee day care program. The attached agreement is
basically the same as in prior years. The program currently
serves 13 children from eight Richfield families. Hennepin
County has requested that Richfield turn over direct
administration of the project to the County with quarterly
reports to the City.
Recommendation:
Execute the agreement with Greater Minneapolis Day Care
Association without authorizing the County to administer the
program.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The agreement implements the previously approved program.
2. Local control is better served by direct administration of
• the project. Information is more timely and directly with
the service provider. The cost of administration is
negligible.
Alternative Recommendation:
Approve the execution of the agreement. Also approve the
attached resolution authorizing Hennepin County to administer the
program.
Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled in the consent calendar. City Council
action is necessary on this item.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame fan. rosser
Cit ger
JDP:dkh
0
DATE: May 17, 1988
• TO, Cities of Brooklyn `Pa
HENNEPIN Edina, Golden Valley,
Minnetonka, New Hope,
Robbinsdale, St. Loui
•
rk, Crystal, Eden Prairie,
Hctokir s, Maple Grove,
Plymouth, Richfield,
s Park and Wayzata
FROM: Hennepin County Office of Planning and DeVe.L0FMe -L
SOB3E(--r: YEAR XIV-PUBLIC SERVICE AGUSMPr/GREATER MUMEAPOLIS
DAY CARE ASSOCIMON
Accompanying are three copies of the Year XIV Public Service Etuxbng
Agreement with Q41)CA for execution by your comunity. GOM has executed the
agreements. Please return two copies of the agreement to this office for
filing and distribution to GMDCA.
Also accampanying is a draft resolution for execution of the agreement and
requesting that Hennepin County administer the project for the mmnunity. To
accomplish this a form letter requesting Hennepin County's administration is
also included.
Should there be any questions concerning the agreement, resolution, or form
letter, please contact Iarry Blackstad at 348-5859.
LB:tf
Enclosures
cc: Jim Nirholie, G MDCA
0
RE9O=CK M.
AUTHORIZING EXE MON OF PUBLIC SERVICE AGRM04r FOR DAYCARE SERVICE'S WITH
GREATER M][NNEAPOLIS DAY CARE ASSOCIATION AND AUIHORIZING ASSICOr OF THE
AGREEMENT**S RESPONSIBILITIES TO HENNEPIN COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City of has executed a joint Powers Agreement with
Hennepin County, thereby agreeing to participate`'in a grant application under
the Urban County designation provided for in the Housing and CImmwnity Devel-
cp Tient Act of 1974; and,
M=AS, part of the authorized activity for Year XIV is the support of day-
care services through the administrative agency known as the Greater Minneapo-
lis Day Care Association; and,
MIEREAS, the Comamity Development Block Grant program as administered through
the Urban Hennepin County requires that each city funding daycare activity
with Ccarnmmity Development Block Grant monies merit enter into a Public Service
Agreement with the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association; and,
WHEREAS, the Public Service Agreement with the Greater Minneapolis Day Care
Association allows the City to authorize Hennepin County todisccharge the
• responsibilities of the City regarding the administration of the daycare.
program;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the City are authorized to
execute an Agreement with the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association for
child daycare services for Year XIV of the Urban Hennepin County Cmmanity
Development Block Grant program;
BE IT FUR`r M RESOLVED, that Hennepin County Uuv-gh its Office of Planning
and Development be requested to directly discharge the responsibilities of the
City regarding the administration of this program for Year XIV, as provided
for in the Public Service Agreement.
0
[]
•
Date
Mr. Robert Isaacson
Planning Supervisor
Office of Planning and Development
Development Planning Unit
822 South Third Street, Suite 310
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Dear Mr. Isaacson:
As reflected in the Urban Hennepin Year XIV Statement of Objectives and
Projected Use of Fbnds, the City of has allocated
for the provision of daycare assistance. To accomplish this
project, the City bas entered into a Public Service Agreement with the
Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association (G MCA). This agreement provides
the City the opportunity to assign its CD grant management (i.e., project
audit and grant fund reimbursement process) responsibilities to another
Urban Hennepin County CDBG program cooperating unit.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement with GMDCA, the City requests that
Hennepin County thrvagh its Office of Planning and Development directly
discharge the responsibilities of the City as specified in the Public
Services Agreement. It is understood that the County will provide the
City a quarterly status report indicating, as a minimum, the clients
served residing in and funded with the City's allocation for the activity
and the balance of unexpended funds.
This will substantially eliminate
inherent in the present system
to the needs of GMDCA.
Sincerely,
the duplication of effort which is
and provide for a more expeditious response
0
L.?
PUBUC SERVICES AGEOMMENT
DAYCARE
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Greater
Minneapolis Day Care, a public service agency, hereinafter referred to as the
"Agency"
WITNESS .
WHEREAS, the City is an authorized cooperating unit in the Urban
Hennepin County Cc=mity Development Block Grant program by virtue of a joint
cooperation agreement executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant
to MSA 471.59, and
WHEREAS, the City has allocated Year XIV Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds for the purpose of supporting the Child Care
Sliding Fee program administered by the Agency,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the
following terms and conditions:
I
The City agrees to provide dollars from the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant to the Agency in support of the Child Care
Sliding Fee program.
The City reserves the right to assign its administrative responsibility,
pursuant to the requirement of the Urban Hennepin Comty Conmiunity Development
Block Grant program, to any other cooperating unit.
II
The Agency agrees to provide the city or its assignee:
1. A financial statement for the past full year.
2. A statement of public revenue sources for the period June 1, 1987
through June 30, 1988.
III
The Agency agrees to award funds to eligible applicants residing in the City
on a first carne first served basis with maintenance of a waiting list of
eligible applicants.
• Public Services Agreement
Daycare
IV
Page Two
The Agency agrees to allocate funds to eligible recipients based on the State
of Minnesota Department of Public Welfare Sliding Fee Scale with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 income limits used as a
ceiling cutoff for eligibility.
V
The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with:
1. Administrative reporting requirements of the County.
2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88-352).
(Nondiscrimination in program or activities receiving federal
financial assistance.)
3. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as
amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or activity subject to
provision of the HCOA.)
4. QMB Circular A-102 Attachment O, Section 14, paragraph (h) by
assuring the grantee, federal grantor agency, the Comptroller
General of the United States or any duly authorized representative
• access to all records directly pertinent to this contract for the
purpose of making audit examination, excerpts, and transcriptions.
5. OMB Circular A-102 Attacunent C(2), and maintain all required
records for a period of three years after receiving final payment.
6. OMB Circular A-87 "Cost Principles for State and Local Government"
or OMB Circular A-122 "Cost Principles for Non Profit", as
appropriate.
VI
The Agency, prior to financial reimbursement, shall provide the city or its
assignee with:
1. Individual Data Confidentiality form.
2. Listing of clients, their addresses, and amount of assistance per
client.
VII
This Agreement is effective as of July 1, 1988, and shall continue in full
force and effect until all funds made available under this Agreement have been
expended in accordance with paragraphs I-VI, but no later than December 31,
1989.
0
0
Public Services Agent
Daycare
Page 13ree
?0
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed
their seals this day of , 19
Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding.
GREATER MMiNEAPOLIS DAY CARE CITY OF
ASSOCIATION STATE OF MINNESOTA
By ZTt&,
Its Executive Director
By
Its Mayor
and
its
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.
Agenda June 27, 1988159
Issue Statement:
Authority to submit Outdoor Recreation grant application for
development at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield (Legion Lake).
Background:
Preliminary applications must be submitted by July 8, 1988 for
fiscal year 1989 Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LAWCON) and State Outdoor Recreation grants. These grants can
be used to acquire and develop outdoor recreation facilities.
This grant program focuses on trails, boat and/or canoe accesses
and swimming beaches. Eligible support facilities include park
roads, parking areas, walkways, landscaping, site improvement,
signs, picnic shelters, restroom buildings, nature centers,
lighting, water and sewer for park buildings, fencing, drinking
fountains as well as up to 10% of the total project cost for
design and engineering.
Proposed State legislation for fiscal year 1989 provides a
$468,750 funding level for projects in the seven county
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The State portion of a
grant has these restrictions: 1) an applicant may not receive
more than one State grant per biennium (fiscal years 1988 and
• 1989) and 2) the per-project grant limit is $400,000 for the life
of a project, regardless of the number of grants awarded.
Neither of these restrictions apply to the LAWCON grants. LAWCON
funding levels are contingent on congressional action.
The Outdoor Recreation Grant program provides matching
Federal/State funds. Applicants must be able to fund at least
50% of the total project cost. The "local share" can consist of
cash; donations of materials, labor and equipment usage; in-kind
contributions; or any combination thereof. It should be stressed
that once a park facility is acquired and/or developed with
LAWCON/State grant funds, the site and any subsequent additions
are to remain and be maintained as outdoor recreation facilities
by the applicant into perpetuity.
The exact amount of the Richfield grant requests will be
determined after a review of final grant guidelines.
Recommended Motion:
Authorize submission of the preliminary grant application for
community park improvements at Veterans Memorial Park of
Richfield (Legion Lake).
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The proposed community park encompasses outdoor recreation
facilities eligible for funding under the LAWCON/State
• program.
2. The proposed community park has been identified as a priority
in Richfield's comprehensive master park plan.
3. The proposed community park has been identified in the
Recreation and Open Space Development section of the Capital
,Budget and the five year Capital Improvement Program.
Alternative Recommendation:
The City has indicated a desire to seek outside funding sources
wherever possible for the development of a community park. The
City has successfully participated in the Outdoor Recreation
Grant program in the past, there are no alternative grant
programs to suggest.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
As the preliminary application deadline is July 8, 1988, the City
Council should take action at the June 27, 1988 meeting.
Respec fully submitted,
Jams D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
0
9?
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 158
Agenda June 27, 198
Issue Statement:
Approval of Minutes and Award of Contract for Purchase of Multi-
Channel Communication Recording System.
Background:
The 1988 Public Safety Department budget (Administration Division
101-4100, Capital Outlay 1560) provides $25,000 for the
replacement of the existing 10 channel communications recorder.
The 101-4100-1560 outlay will be funded via a transfer of funds
from the Reserved Funds for Communications (Fund 602) which has
been accumulating a balance for the replacement of major
communications components in the Communications Center.
The system presently records Public Safety radio communications
and 911 and administrative phone communications which terminate
in the Richfield Communications Center. The system provides
positive documentation of time and conversation related to the
functions of the Communication Center. It is a necessary
operational tool on a daily basis and substantially reduces the
City of exposure in situations of potential liability.
The justification for replacement is as follows:
• - The present system does not have sufficient channel
capacity to record 911 phone lines that terminate at
alternate answering points out side of the Communications
Center.
The present system has been in service for 8 years and is
in need of major overhaul.
The present system is 17 year old technology and does not
provide many useful features available with current
technology.
- The present system does not allow for remote location
outside of the Communications Center.
In accordance with legal requirements, bids were opened on May
25, 1988. Three bids were received:
Magnasync/Moviola, Hollywood, CA $22,059.75
Dictaphone, Rye, NY $34,885.00
Whal & Whal Inc., Bloomington, MN $30,621.00
Recommended Motion:
. It is recommended that the city council take the following
actions:
• 1. Approve the bid minutes and award a contract in the
amount of $34,885 to Dictaphone of Rye, New York.
2. Authorize the additional transfer of funds from the
Reserve Fund for Communications (Fund 602) to 101-4100-
1560 to cover the additional system costs.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The bid specifications were written to reflect current
technology which is early in its product life-cycle and
provides functional capabilities that will serve the
Public Safety Department for many years into the
future.
2. The three (3) vendors who submitted bids represent only
two (2) unique pieces of hardware (systems) in that
Whal & Whal Inc. sell a machine which is purchased from
Magnasync/Moviola.
3. The systems bid by Whal & Whal Inc. and
Magnasync/Moviola fail to meet significant, functional
bid specifications.
4. The basis for the recommendation to reject the bids
submitted by Whal & Whal Inc. and Magnasync/Moviola is
not based on minor technical deviations from the bid
• specifications which the council has the authority to
accept, but is based on the vendors inability to
provide significant functional features required in the
bid specification.
Alternative Recommendation:
- The council could accept the deviations from
specifications in the bid submitted by Magnasync/Moviola
and award the bid to that vendor.
- The council could disallow all bids based on the fact
that no more that one vendor can meet the bid
specifications and authorize the preparation of more
generic specifications and a re-bid of the equipment.
- The council could choose not to award a contract to any
vendor at this time.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
This contract is for equipment which is subject to periodic
technological change. It is also equipment which is purchased
only infrequently by the Public Safety Department. At the
present time, there are only two (2) major manufacturers of this
type of equipment. One of those manufacturers (Dictaphone) has
more recently updated their technology and standard features then
has the other manufacturer (Magnasync/Moviola). We believe that
. it is in the best long range interest of the city to purchase
current technology and superior functionality; thus, it is the
• staff's recommendation that the bid be awarded to Dictaphone by
council action on June 27, 1988.
Respectfully submitted
James Prosser
City anager
JDP:eja
n
LJ
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
May 25, 1988
11:00 A.M.
Multi-Channel Communication Recording System
Bid No. 88-10
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Steve Devich, Acting City
Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to
receive, open and read aloud, bids for multi-channel
communication recording system, bid no. 88-10, as advertised in
the official newspaper on May 11, 1988.
Present: Steve Devich, Acting City Clerk
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
John Erskine, Public Safety Director
Todd Sandell, Police Sergeant
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
-I -- - VENDOR l
I l
( Magnasync/Moviola
( 5539 Riverton Avenue
I N. Hollywood, CA
BID L TOTAL I
SECURITY
5% Bond
$22,059.15
I
I
( Dictaphone ( 5% Bond I $34,885.00 i
i 120 Old Post Road ( ( I
I Rye, NY I I I
( Wahl & Wahl Inc. ( 5% Bond ( $30,621.00 I
( 9333 Penn Avenue South
I Bloomington, MN I I
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated
and considered at the June 13, 1988 City Council Meeting.
Steven L. Devich Acting City Clerk
A
BID COMPARISON'S
• NUMBER
2.07
2.08
2.09
2.14
2.15
2.23
• 2.24
2.25
3.01
3.07
3.13
4.01
4.08
4.10
4.11
04.12
SPECIFICATION 9000 MAG/LAN ACCEPT
Transports will be'3-motor design, Yes No No
tape drive system will use DC-Servo
speed controlled capstan motor.
In fast forward and rewind modes, Yes No No
oxide side of tape comes in contact
with only tape guides and lifters.
Adjustable dual solenoid braking Yes Yes Yes
system.
Fast forward and rewind controls Yes No Yes
capable of becoming momentary
controlls for "jogging" operations.
In fast forward and rewind modes, Yes No No
tape is totally free of any mech-
anical contact with the heads,
unless using automatic search mode.
Automatic safe scan monitoring at Yes No Yes
80Hz on all channels.
Bias level monitoring with Yes Yes Yes
malfunction detection.
Program safe scan on used channels Yes No Yes
only.
Recorder inputs at 60k OHMS. Yes No Yes
ANE circuit to improve signal-to- Yes No Yes
noise ratio.
Bias frequency at 42Khz nominal. Yes No Yes
Control module to control both Yes No Yes
transports.
Auto search function speeds of up Yes Yes Yes
to 700 to 1.
Audio search mode with allows for Yes No No
audio search on any selected
channel.
Internal battery will support memory Yes No No
and clock at a minimum of 24 hours.
Amount of remaining tape shall be Yes No No
displayed.
NUMBER SPECIFICATION 9000 MAG/LAN ACCEPT
5.02 Minimum power consumption shall be Yes Yes Yes
less than 625 watts/7.5 amps.
• 5.04 Internal battery will supply full Yes Yes Yes
system operation of a minimum of
10 minutes upon power failure.
6.04 BTU's generated by recorder will Yes Yes Yes
not exceed 1000 BTU's per hour.
7.01 Remote module will have full Yes No No
function and status of entire
system.
7.041 Activity monitor to show LED's Yes No No
activity on all channels.
7.048 12 second "window" on activity Yes Yes Yes
monitor.
? 0
•
LOGGING RECORDER COMPARISON's
Although there were three vendors who bid on the logging
recorder, two of the vendors are bidding the same recording
system. The Lanier recording system is made for Lanier by
Magnasync. According to the Lanier sales representative, the
Lanier recorder is exactly the same as Magnasync, only the name
is different, Dictaphone makes its own unique logging recorder.
So for coquison purposes, we will be comparing the Dictaphone
system to the Magnasync/Zanier system-
Magnasync/Lamer made a total of twenty-two (22) exceptions to
the written logging recorder specifications. Upon review of
these exceptions, we should recommend to the City Council that
eighteen are acceptable deviations and four are not acceptable
deviations. Following are the deviations that are not
acceptable:
2.15•
.This specification requires that the recording tape be
totally free of contact with the heads when the
recorder is in the forward and rewind modes. This
specification is necessary to prolong the life of both
the recorder heads and the recording tape. By not
• having this feature, it is felt that both the heads and
tape will wear-out faster and require more maintenance.
This feature should prove to be a major cost saver in
future years.
4.10:
This specification requires the audio search mode, which
in very basic terms, allows searching of the recording
tape by audio signal. The Magnasync/Zanier system
require's the operator to know the exact time of the
audio signal, then the system will go to this time.
Many times when searching recording tape, the operator
will not have an exact time, but a segment of time that
voice transmission is located in, i.e., 0100 to 0300
hrs. This audio search feature automatically pass's all
"dead" air time and goes directly to audio signals on
the tape. Dictaphone is the only manufacturer that
offers this feature. This is a major deviation and one
of the most important features required. This feature
could save hundreds of man-hours per year in time
required to search recording tape.
•
NOTE: When discussing this audio search feature with the
Magnasync sales representative I inquired as to why Magnasync did
not have an audio search feature. The sales representative
responded that the feature was newly introduced last February by
Dictaphone, and he expected Magnasync to offer the feature by
next November. However, the recorder we would receive would not
have audio search. Bottom line; the recorder Magnasync is
offering would be outdated by their own standards within a few
months of installation.
7.01:
This specification requires the remote module to have
full function and status of the entire recording
system. Because of space limitations in the
Communication Center, it is anticipated that the
logging recorder may have to be removed from the center
and located at another place in the building. If this
occurs, it will be necessary for operators in the
Communications Center to have full function control and
status of the system. The Magnasync recorder does
allow some function control, however does not offer
full status of the entire system.
7.04•
This specification requires an activity monitor that
allows for the operator to be able to observe channel
activity. Dictaphone allows for full channel activity
monitoring, Magnasync/Lanier has limited channel
monitoring.
With the Dictaphone, the screen on the computerized command
• center displays the number of channels available in the system, 1
to 30. In the record mode any channel that has active audio
shows clearly in reverse video. When the playback function is
selected channels that have audio present show in reverse video.
This feature is a major man-hour time saver. When recording 30
different channels, many times you will have multiple
transmissions at the same time. Without this full activity
monitor the operator has to go through a process of channel
elimination to identify the channel with the desired
transmission. The activity monitor identifies the active
channels for the operator, therefore eliminating the non-active
channels.
UNIQUE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FEATURES OF THE DICTAPHONE 9000
SECUR T TY
The Dictaphone 9000 offers three levels of security, these levels
range from no access to the system, to complete access with re-
recording capabilities. In the Richfield Communication Center
this feature becomes very important because night dispatchers are
required to handle the daily recording tape change. With the
different levels of security to the system, we would be able to
give the night dispatcher clearance to change only the tape, and
they would not have the ability to re-record or dub the tape.
Recording tape security is a key issue when the tape is used in
the criminal or civil justice system. This feature would also be
necessary if the logging recorder is physically removed from the
communication center.
-17,
0
The Magnasync/Zanier system has only one level of security, the
operator either has access to the entire system or is denied
access to the system.
CENTRAL CRT CONTROLLER
The Dictaphone 9000 has a user friendly computerized command
center that displays a series of easy to read screens. These
screens will indicate everything you will need to know about the
overall system as well as each of the transports.
The user friendly displays will
the system easier. The screens
system activity and functions,
in system operation.
make training and operation of
provide the operator with full
once again, a time saving feature
AUTO-SEARCH
The operator programs in the timedesired on the tape, and the
machine automatically goes to the exact location. This is done
by reading the date/time which is encode right on the tape.
(Auto-search is a different function then audio search)
The Magnasync/Lanier auto-search does not read time/date off of
the encoded tape, but computes the distance to the desire
location by the revolutions of the transport reel. This
technology is not believed to be as reliable.
• SYSTEM SERVICE
There is some question regarding the service Magnasync can
provide for their system. In the Minnesota area Magnasync has
one representative who serves as both the sales and service
representative. If service is required when this representative
is not available, or if the required service is beyond the
knowledge capabilities of this person, a service representative
has to be brought in from the Chicago area.
Wahl and Wahl, who is the local sales representative for the
Lanier system (which is the same as the Magnasync system), has a
full service department at their Bloomington office. The
question on the service Wahl and Wahl can provide arises from the
fact that they are very new in the logging recorder business and
to date have placed only one logging recorder in service, which
in located in Iowa.
Dictaphone has placed approximately 75% of the logging recorders
in this market. They have a full time service department to back
all of their recording systems.
0
?t??_X?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 157
• - Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement.
Approval of Richfield's participation in the I-494 Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process.
Background:
The City of Richfield is participating in a joint powers
agreement with Bloomington, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, and Edina
providing for the implementation of the I-494 corridor study.
One of the purposes of the joint powers agreement includes a
framework for cooperative funding plus participation in
developing an environment impact statement for 1494 improvements.
The State of Minnesota has prepared-an agreement between MnDOT
and the joint powers organization. The MnDot agreement reflects
the framework established in the joint powers agreement.
The attached agreement outlines the Scope of the Work and Method
of Study; Laws, Regulations and Guidelines; Furnishing of Data;
Duration of the Agreement; Compensation, and Composition of the
Board. Richfield's share of the cost for the EIS is $27,000.
Richfield will provide input to the stuudy as a member of the
project advisory board.
Recommended Motion:
• Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement on
behalf of Richfield to participate in the I-494 EIS process, and
to authorize an expenditure of $27,000 for Richfield's share of
the cost.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. This agreement assures Richfield a voice during the
preparation of the EIS.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not participate. Richfield will then not be able to
actively participate in the EIS process.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The EIS cannot proceed until the EIS Agreement is approved.
Respectfully submitted,
rosser
JameYnager
City JDP/eja
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, THE METROPOLITAN
AIRPORTS COMMISSION, HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE I-494 CORRIDOR
ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR RICHFIELD'S PARTICIPATION IN THE I-494
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) PROCESS
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council approved the
recommendation of the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee on the I-494
Traffic Corridor Study Final Report, and
WHEREAS, the committee also recommended that Richfield
participate in the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement for the I-494 Improvements and consider a 3% share in
the cost of the EIS,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield that the Council approve the MnDOT Agency Agreement
for Highway Transportation Study and authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute the agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27th day of June, 1988.
Mayor Steven J. Quam
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
0
Hennepin County Agreement No.
•
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR
HIGIWAY TRANSP7RTA'rI7N STUDY
Agreement between
The state of Minnesota,
Department of Transportation, the
Metropolitan Council, the Regional Transit Board,
the Metropolitan Airports Commission,
Hennepin County, the City of Bloomington,
the City of Eden Prairie, the City of
Richfield, the City of Edina and the
City of Minnetonka
Re: ?reparation of the EIS for the
1-494 Corridor Project
INDEX
Parties to the Agreement
Explanation and Justification
Section 1.0 - Scope of Work and Method of Study
Section 2.0 - Laws, Regulations and Guidelines
Section 3.0 - Furnishing of Data
Section 4.0 - Duration of Agreement
Section 5.0 - Compensation
section 6.0 - Composition of the Board
Signatures
MN/DOT
AGREEMENT NO.
64723
AMOUNT ENCUMB.
None
Receivable
R2CF1VF
JUN 2 3 1988
City of Richfield
PAGE
2
2
3
4
6
7
7
9
12
-1-
54723
•
THIS AGREEMENT made and entere-2 into by and between the State of Minnesota,
Deoartment of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, the Regional
Transit Board, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin County the
City of Bloomington, the City of Eden Prairie, the City of Richfield, the
City of Edina and the City of Minnetonka, hereinafter referred to as the
"Agencies
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS the Metropolitan Council in cooperation with the Agencies in the
project area did produce a Corridor Study for I-494, and
WHEREAS it has been determined by the parties hereto that the project
development process be continued by conducting the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for I-494 from the Minnesota River to the I-394
Interchange, and
WHEREAS the general objective in preparing the EIS is to help resolve
uncertainty about ultimate roadway design, allow advanced rights-of-way
acquisition consistent with Federal requirements, and position projects in
the corridor described above to be ready to use funds when they are
available, and
WHEREAS it has been determined that all of the said Agencies are a part of
or have a specific interest in the stated area, and
-2-
0
64723
0
WHEREAS the said Agencies will all benefit from the results of the EIS and
are all willing to share proportionately in the cost of the preparation and
completion of the EIS, and
WHEREAS it is the expressed interest of said Agencies to participate and
cooperate in the preparation and completion of the said EIS, and
WHEREAS all of the said Agencies are authorized by Minnesota Statute 471.59
to enter into agreements providing for the exercise of powers shared in
common.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
0 SECTION 1.4 - SCOPE OF WORK
1.10 The Environmental Impact Statement and preliminary design shall
be performed under the direction of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, in consultation and cooperation with the Project
Advisory Board, who will act in an advisory role.
1.20 The Minnesota Department of Transportation will act as the
contracting agent for engaging the sevices of an engineering
consultant to conduct the EIS work.
1.30 The Consultant Selection Committee will review the list of
interested firms, narrow the list of firms for further
consideration based upon a technical proposal and interview at
41 -3-
54723
•
least three consultant firms. The Selection Committee will
recommend the selection of one of the firms to the Commissioner
- i
of the Minnesota Department of Transportation for his approval.
1.31 The Consultant Selection Committee, chaired by Mn/DOT will be
made up of the following:
Minnesota Department of Transportation (•2 votes)
Metropolitan Airports Commission (1 vote)
Metropolitan Council (1 vote)
Regional Transit Board (1 vote)
Hennepin County (1 vote)
City of Bloomington (1 vote)
City of Eden Prairie (1 vote)
City of Richfield (1 vote)
City of Edina (1 vote)
City of Minnetonka (1 vote)
1.32 The Improve 494 group will be invited to designate a
representative for the selection committee. This person will be
a non-voting member.
SECTION 2.0 - LAWS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
2.10 In accomplishment of this work, recognition will be given to and
compliance made with the requirements of the following laws,
0 -4-
64723
regulations and guidelines related to location, public hearings,
environment and public lands. These standards, regulations or
guidelines shall be considered as minimum. Higher standards
shall be used whera it is feasible and economically sound to do
so.
2.11 Minnesota Statutes 161.171-161.177 inclusive (Municipal
Approval).
2.12 u.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Federal-Aid Program Manuals, including:
Book III, Volume 6, Chapter 2, Section 1, Subsection 1 (Design
Standards for Federal-Aid Projects)
40 Book V, Volume 7, Chapter 6, Section 3 (Landscape and Roadside
Development)
Book V, Volume 7, Chapter 7,.Section 2 (Environmental Impact and
Related Statements)
Book V, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (Noise standards and
procedures)
Book V, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 5, (Public Hearings and
Location/Design Approval)
0 -5-
64723
Book V, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 9 (Air duality guidelines)
2.13 National Environmental ?olicy Act.
2.14 Section 4(f) of Public Law S9-570.
2.15 Minnesota Statutes, Section 116n.01 et.seq. (Environmental Policy
Act of 1973)
2.16 State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, Highway Project
Development Process.
2.17 Minnesota Statute 473.181 (Metropolitan Council Approval).
SECTION 3.0 - FURNISHING OF DATA
3.10 The Agencies shall furnish to the consultant any information or
data they may have which is pertinent to the studies without
separate compensation therefor or any adjustment of any Agency's
share of the cost.
3.20 The ownership of all data collected or developed for the EIS
shall be vested with the Minnesota Department of Transportation,
subject to the right of all Agency participants to secure access
to and receive a copy of all such data. Each Agency shall be
entitled to ten (10) copies of all Reports and Environmental
Statements developed for the project and upon request, a copy Of
all other data collected or prepared in connection with the work.
0 -6-
54723
Credit shall be given to each participating agency in each
report.
SECTION 4.0 - DURATION OF AGREEMENT
4.10 This agreement will remain in full force and effect until
completion and approval of the EIS by the Agencies and the
Federal Highway Administration. Individual completion dates for
reports prepared during the process shall be determined by mutual
agreement of the participating agencies.
SECTION 5.0 - COMPENSATION
5.10 The Minnesota Department of Transportation shall enter into a
contract with a consultant firm selected by the Consultant
Selection Committee and approved by the Commissioner of the
Department of Transportation for the EIS and preliminary design.
5.20 Notice of final execution of the consultant agreements shall be
given to each agency within seven (7) days.
5.30 The consultant costs for the EIS and preliminary design work
shall be shared by the Agencies in the proportions listed
hereafter:
0 -7-
54723
0 Percent of Cost Up -to
5.31 Aaency
_ - -----------
Minnesota Department of Transportation 505$ %
5 5$4 5045,,000000..00
00
Metropolitan Airports Commission 1
% $ 90,000.00 .
Hennepin County 21? $1 g9,000.00
City of Bloomington
5% 5%
$ 000.00
4 455,
City of Eden Prairie 4% $ ,000.00
36
City of Edina 30 $ 27,000.00
City of Richfield 2$ $ 13,000.00
City of Minnetonka 100% $900,000.00
5.311 In addition, the Regional Transit Board will contribute
$10,000.00 toward the consultant costs for the EIS and
preliminary design work on this p roject.
5.32 If it appears that the consultant services required to complete
the desired work will exceed the total costs identified in
Section 5.31 it shall be the responsibility of the Minnesota
Department of Transportation to request a supplemental agreement
for the purpose of increasing the shares of the contributing
agencies.
5.33 It is recognized that the cities in the project area intend to
enter into a joint and cooperative agreement for the purposes of
implementing the recommendations in the previously completed
I-494 Corridor Study. The cities involved will be known as the
I-494 Corridor Advisory Commission. The I-494 Corridor Advisory
Commission Cities are Bloomington; Eden Prairie; Edina;
Richfield; and Minnetonka. Recognition will be given the I-494
Corridor Advisory Commission in the EIS documents.
0 -s-
64723
0
5.40 The Minnesota Department of Transportation will invoice the
participating agencies as provided by the following schedule:
5.41 One-third of the Agencies proportion of the costs at the
time of execution of the Consultant Agreement.
5.42 One-third of the Agencies proportion of the costs one year
after the Consultant agreement has been executed.
5.43 One-third of the Agencies proportion of the costs two years
after the Consultant agreement has been executed.
5.44 The agencies will make payment within 30 days of receipt of said
invoices.
5.50 Before termination of this Agreement, the State shall provide an
•
accounting of receipts and expenditures to each contributing
agency and shall refund any remaining balance to each
contributing agency in proportion to that agencies total
contribution.
SECTION 6.0 - COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
6.10 The Project Advisory Board shall be composed of not more than two
policy and/or staff personnel of each of these Agencies:
0 -9-
64723
•
Federal Highway Administration
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Council
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Regional Transit Board
Hennepin County
City of Bloomington
City of Eden Prairie
City of Edina
City of Richfield
City of Minnetonka
IMPROVE 494 Group
As well as any. other organized group deemed necessary. Each
agency/group shall inform the Department of Transportation by
letter who its representative (s) will be on the Project Advisory
Board. The Project Advisory Board will be chaired by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
6.15 The Agencies, acting through their Project Advisory Board
representatives, shall at all reasonable times during the terms
of this agreement be afforded the opportunity for review of the
work being performed. The Agencies shall also be able to obtain
copies of reports, studies and data compiled for the studies
without additional cost. It is understood that the Project
Advisory Board will act in an advisory role only.
•
-10-
64723
6.20 The Project Advisory Board may create a technical committee to
advise it on matters of a technical nature relating to the EIS.
Said technical committee shall consist of members of the
engineering, planning and related staff of the Agencies.
5.30 The Project Advisory Board shall meet as appropriate and act as a
liaison for their agencies. The Project Advisory Board may form
citizen task forces for the purposes of public involvement.
C?
-11-
•
64723
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this agreement by
their proper officers and representatives.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Department of Administration
By
Date
As to form and execution by the
Attorney General;
• By
Date
Department of Finance
By
Da to
Department of Transportation
By
Date
Title
Metropolitan Council
By ------ ---- ---
D a -
to
Title
By
Da to
Title
Metropolitan Airports Commission
By
Date
Title
By
Date
Title
Regional Transit Board
By
Da to
By
Da to
•
-12-
•
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Attest:
By - -
Deputy County Auditor Chairman County Board
Date Date --
Upon proper execution, this Recommended for approval:
agreement will be legally valid
and binding and upon date of
approval is in compliance with
all laws relating to the subject
matter hereto.
Associate County Administrator
• and County Engineer
Date
Assistant County Attorney
Date
Approved as to execution
Assistant County Attorney
Da to
64723
0 -13-
64723
•
CITY OF MINNETONKA
By - -
Mayor
By ---
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
By___ _-- _
Mayor
By
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By
Mayor
• By
CITY OF EDINA
By
Mayor
By
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Mayor
By
Date
---- -- --
Da to
Da to
Date
Da to
Da to
Da to
Da to
Date
Da to
-14-
67`
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 156
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Resolution approving a change in the Acting Pay provisions of the
labor agreement between the City and the International
Association of Firefighters Local 1215.
Background:
The City's current labor agreement with the Firefighters provides
that an employee required by the employer to accept the duties
and responsibilities of a higher classification for more than
three duty shifts shall receive compensation at a salary step for
the higher classification which provides for at least a one step
increase.
The City, through attrition, is currently reducing the number of
Line Officers in the Fire Division. The current strength of Line
Officers is four Captains and three Lieutenants. Historically,
there were four Captains and six Lieutenants. The eventual goal
will be three Captains and three Lieutenants. This will, at
times, necessitate the use of a Senior Firefighter as an Acting
Officer for short periods of time.
City staff approached the Union on opening the contract for the
• purpose of discussing shortening the length of time required to
qualify for Acting Pay.
The City's proposal to the Union was patterned after the
provisions found in eight other full-time metro area Fire
Department contracts. Three had first hour coverage. The
remainder had provision for a minimum of two hours to a maximum
of ten hours before Acting Pay would start.
The change in the Acting Pay provision provides for:
- Acting Pay effective the first hour of assignment.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the change in the labor agreement with the International
Association of Firefighters Local 1215 on Acting Pay.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Firefighter agreements in other communities currently provide
better terms for Acting Pay.
2. Firefighters should be adequately and fairly compensated for
performing the duties of an Officer.
3. The Firefighters have approved this change on June 20, 1988.
• 4. The City will likely utilize acting officers more frequently,
now that the officer positions have been reduced.
Alternative Recommendation:
Not approve the contract change, leaving the present provisions
in place. Thus, the City could still utilize acting officers,
but not pay them until the third duty shift.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
It is recommended that the City Council act on June 27, 1988 to
adopt the attached resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
•
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE IN THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR OF 1988
•
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the International Association
of Firefighters Local 1215 have reached complete agreement
concerning the requirements, terms and conditions of Acting Pay
for the year 1988, and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in
an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by Council
resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the changes to the labor agreement between the
City of Richfield and the International Association of
Firefighters Local 1215 for the year 1988 and orders the
provision on Acting Pay implemented effective June 27, 1988.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
27th day of June, 1988.
Steven J. Quam Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 155
Agenda June 27, 198
Issue Statement:
Approval of purchase of nine UHF scanning two-way radios for the
Public Safety Department.
Background:
The Richfield marked squad cars contain five pieces of general
communication equipment: police band radio, a general city band
auxiliary radio, one County band radio used in conjunction with
the County teleprinter, a scanning radio and a teleprinter. The
teleprinter radio and the City band auxiliary radio are in need
of replacement.
There are sufficient funds available within the police budget to
accomodate this purchase.
Recommended Motion:
Approval of the purchase of nine UHF radios at $722 each for a
total cost of $6,498.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The radios currently leased from the County are in need of
replacement.
2. Radios available from the County will no longer serve our
needs.
3. Newer, more compact radios are needed to accomodate police
• operations. The teleprinters currently in squads will be
replaced by mobile, digital terminals. Mobile digital
terminals (MDT) are state of the art replacement for
teleprinters used to communicate vital information regarding
police operations. Purchase of the radios will reduce the
annual rental fee by approximately $1,100 annually. The new,
more compact radio will replace two larger radios, plus one
scanner.
Alternative Recommendation:
If new radios are not purchased, police officers will not have
the capability in the following areas:
1. Communicating directly with the County for vehicle and
driver's license information.
2. Using the City auxiliary band for back-up to the general
police band.
3. Monitoring neighboring communities and airport police radio
communications.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be placed on the consent calendar portion of the
June 27, 1988 City Council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Council Letter No. 154
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Approval of bid to refurbish a fire pumper, Engine Number 82.
Background:
The Fire Division pumper, Engine Number 82, was purchased in
1979. The normal life expectancy for this equipment is
approximately 20 years. However, the body has extensive rust and
requires replacement. The chassis cab frame fire pumper is still
serviceable.
Recommendation:
As an alternative to replacement the Fire Division has
recommended the apparatus be refurbished and kept in service
until 1999. The City advertised for the refurbishing. Only one
company is known to provide this type of service. That company
Custom Fire Apparatus, Osceola, Wisconsin submitted a bid in the
amount of $76,290. The Fire Division has reviewed the bid and
recommended several deletions reducing the final amount to
$66,990. There are sufficient funds within the Vehicle
Replacement Fund to pay for this refurbishing.
• Basis of Recommendation:
1. The fire engine's body is no longer serviceable.
2. The fact that the other components of the engine are
serviceable makes refurbishing a cost-effective alternate to
total replacement.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The engine could be kept as is, using the funds from the
regular maintenance program to repair the deteriorated
components. This alternative would not leave funds for
maintaining the other Fire Division apparatus unless the
operating budget were increased. Also, this engine has
deteriorated in spite of a higher annual maintenance cost than
other Fire Division apparatus, and this alternative would not
be enough to stop the deterioration.
2. A new apparatus could be purchased. Since the engine still has
major components which are serviceable, extending its life
with refurbishing will be more cost-effective than purchasing
a new apparatus.
40
• Discussion/Decision Mode:
Custom Fire Apparatus has submitted a bid to refurbish the Fire
Division's Engine 82, with price deductions for certain deletions
agreed upon by the Fire Division. The bid is being submitted for
approval.
Respectfully submitted
rosser
Jame fanager
City JDP: sae
•
0
9?? -
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
June 8, 1988
11:00 A.M.
Rebuilding one (1) 1500 GPM Fire Pumper Truck
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive,
open and read aloud, bids for rebuilding one (1) 150.0 GPM Fire
Pumper Truck, as advertised in the official newspaper on May 18,
1988.
Present: Thomas Ferber,,City Clerk
Jack Erskine, Public Safety Director
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR I BID I TOTAL
J SECURITY I I
• I I
Custom Fire I 5% Bond I Rebuild $ 76,770 I
I Osceola, Wisconsin I (Deduct booster I
I (reel trade in - 480
I I 76,290 I
I
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the June 27, 1988 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 153
Agenda June 27, 1988
Issue Statement:
Recognition of Fire Captain Marv Iverson for achievements making
him eligible to receive the annual Richfield Optimist Award.
Background:
On April.27, 1988, the Richfield Optimist Club presented Captain
Iverson with the 111988 Firefighter Friend of Youth Award". The
award was given in recognition of Captain Iverson's long
involvement with young people in Richfield, including Cub Scouts,
Little League and softball coach, and Explorer Post leader.
Recommended Motion:
City Council recognize Captain Iverson for having received this
award.
Basis of Recommendation:
Captain Iverson's contribution to the betterment of the young
people of Richfield is a very positive reflection on Richfield
city employees, and should be commended.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
. Discussion/Decision Mode:
Captain Iverson will be present at the council meeting to be
recognized for having received this award from the Richfield
Optimist Club.
Respect ully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
is
3 ti?'? ''ei' a?r'i'•P/?1r c? ,Irlr?rll i?c ?1,
?1 Y 2 a / 11 - rl as' 7 ? )ril'11' ?'.. •1' HIl it i ?1 rll1,'?
1 'I
y a aDye ?, CD m 0 x -e M 1-+• 0 Sd?c ws
O W W N• O X O O
.' H -0 <
Q C1 c+ C7
0? -A 3 O 1-r F
i O ?'•O W W H< c+•
11 ' O B CD -b Z CD 7 CD CD B
O F.r O f., 2 .C H Q co
=
'. Z CL ;o Qm 0 m
?Iga? ^ I ' m a 00 V O m m
m
CD O 0
y 1 . CD -0 :7 _ -0 o) (n c+ N
0 H c-r 0 O "
U) CD
O (n Q O (n ly CD 0 (n c ly
c+.. c+ 0 Q 0 0
c+ Cn O Q O O CD , +o
o m 0 n CD C n
CD W o f -' 0 1-? -0
?OQ? ?? ?(no0 c7,
O 00c+m H -off m i
c 0 =r 03
a; ??°+ V 0 23 (D Cn CD W CD
1-4
to a F'• c-r"
0 ?..•? 0 3 W?0 3 = H
O CD Q 0 m CD (D 0 CD O tD a
o W ? C to (n \
s .' I-Il0 F'• 0 CD lt] H m .R
v?= CD m rn 0 0 o w ?•0 Z O ?.
00
j '... n c c to <
1 '-' °° W v Q 0) 0 C rn
D _0 CD tM (D
ti; rr c7 0• H H m o
a... o su Ww ?U, -0 mo U, ; k
1 to c W c+ t.• ID o w tD -h O N
CD CD D D
i / < CJ H C-) ~ -4 CD cr W" Z
CD O < O W 7 ID CA
e a (D C t0 W e+ ?1 rr \ 4 t
7" C C (n 0 rr W H C
:•. L1 :. CD D O W C CD CD !y B C
I-- D cmtl C) CD
CD 0
a 9» Cf 1'•
z ?r
-If Q -1 O C7 H CD =r A
• O O AD H 0 W F -1 0
c CL
N 1-' I''•
r 7 ?.. 0' O• O CD Cn c+
I-'• W Q c+ O N Ti
Cn 7 0 ct ? N?
CD :IE < O 2 W c-f (A w
7 c+O ?H O NN O
H (D 0
CD =r 0 O H C "0 " c+
a `G O c+ c+ Q W O~
1 _ 0 (n 0" =r c+ ;
i H Ir• CD 0) `< %
rt,
rt*
l< CD =r c
=r
.Y?.IIlllllr?ri • ` 111111'14 /:n 111?r'^+? q1 - 11111 ??
L?.'8A•sn+'1'- + v?nset>`. a°?'i' fs; >i?z Aea,"s aQaA°fia? .,. \
•
``a t1JY1'+rl`i11?: ^ •.k\h?;'4
? ??111r ??;? !? at.t?:a,? ?5:. :; .. ? r? tn ?" t - ?i? Sis\' a`. rt??;?t:CrS -.\
\ a?}. {i4hy (/ ' 4 S+ ttiaw •• R. Niit, ' Y /; .\?_{ : • ',.'. 1 ti by „ !ti\U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No.
Agenda June 27, 1988152
Issue Statement:
Certificate of Commendation for Community Services Employee John
Berg.
Background:
John Berg has been employed full time by the City of Richfield
for almost 22 years, and is a longtime Richfield resident. John
works in the Sewer Maintenance Division of the Community Services
Department. While on duty on Tuesday, May 9, 1988, John stopped
to help a nurse apply CPR to an apparent heart attack victim, as
the victim was lying in his yard.
Recommended Motion:
It is recommended that the City Council award a Certificate of
Commendation to John Berg for his involvement in a life-saving
effort.
Basis of Recommendation:
• John's action is to be commended; not only for his willingness to
"get involved", but because he personifies the image of the
caring city employee.
Alternative Recommendation:
None
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item appears on the June 27, 1988 City Council agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
JDP/eja
r1
U
AV
O L
Q
L 4•- a)
OL
O U
U ., I d
U H 04-)
a) O) O0H
O
C fl.
•r-1
C31 O
ca ,1 4-
C E •.-I
? -4
a U 4)
C
a) a) +
Ol C. m
)
W EM 0)
4-)
C C C
.1 Q) O
. O-
co C >.
O Co O C
O L)
•.-1
,
a) r-1
a7 L
O L
.--I
O CL >
O• A co
co
N
H N •O
H C
7 n E
a)
- 4J N
4) •,-1 ()
4
>
ca N
N L ••?
3 aJ
C
?o
N -
V
a) •rI
4
)
? -
a) r-1
Q) -O co ap
CO > q
1-4
O U cn L
4-) N
c co
N a) o\
N -1
•
> 7
c a) w
•r1
~ 4- L
? E
a? N N w
> 4-) O
C7 H H
co a3 N 0\
ca r-1
d-) O
CU co N C
L H •r1
0
C m CL) >.
N co
4-) C
O •? L 4m)
E C
4' = D N 04 0 C
O
cn S E E
O
'7 Q)
'-I U a->
O_
N
4-)
N E
N C
Cl) •
I a)
'J a) >
O L
-1
•H
W> O
E 'O •r1
) r
C H
as r
+J O
LU
>
H
c a) r-I •? +
.O U Q1
C U m
L C
co cn co •H
> •H
co
r-1 •r-1
•.'1
~
>. H
4m)
C;
C
4
;
-Y
-1 4-
•ri 3 N
•H
O1
-
H •.-I
O C
' H U
O co 3 0 m
L
c
7
O
m. E -1 _W
co 4 a)
O1 O H
I +--I O
LJ
C E CU C O L co .
C' CO 4-
L O •r1
O U 4-
L L
O 4-)
H E
>,•ri O
LL On
i
a) U
•-I
ca
N
a)
L r
H
LU a) CU
=
i m
L
N4-)? O
C ?L ?? r
=4-
L C
W 4- 4- CO W- W N ~ U L
= 00 = C m (L)
•
- •H O
W
C W CD
H W
.
4- 3;
-) a
=
3
H
C
•
?l = O
= O = .1-4
3 a
C O
C,_ o
z 0
O
-I
r
•-
N .
c
C
N U -O O_ O a)
•r1 •r-1 co Cl) >. E
> a) Cl) H 4-) E
•r4 L a) C (L) •r1 O
C1 4-) H ca ?. U U
co
co
ch
a)
C
7
n
4-
O
c0
n
04
I WJt 4' S 7,<r • i
A -111%
O
ca
f
`
' 4z
-vaa
,r
co
N
`,
ol? .,
szY fs'd?.????i3:
•
?A
iy
t ?qt?
Y
' 5
Z
O
Q
'
Z
W
Jt O
?{
1.:
LL
O
W
c?
H
W
t U
i
<r> 'ct
N
•r1
L
W
Z
O
D