Loading...
11-09-87 agenda~ /O CITY OF RICHFIELD,MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 338 November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Setting date for Amended Budget and Tax Levy Hearing. Background- The City of Richfield has received notification that part of our appeal to the tax levy limitation has been approved by the State Department of Revenue. The city had appealed the tax levy limit for three separate issues: (1) loss of Revenue Sharing, (2) cost of implementing comparable worth, and (3) additional costs incurred by the city because of flood damage. The Department of Revenue initially denied, then upon appeal, approved an increase in the tax levy limitations in the amount of $195,000 for comparable worth and additional. costs due to flood damage. Staff has reviewed the budget and the actual local cost of flood damage repairs.. It would appear that our local cost of flood damage repairs will approximate no more than $50,000, and comparable worth costs in the initial year will approximate $85,000 to $90,000. Based upon this information, the city is recommending an increase of $125,000 on the tax levy. The increase in the tax levy previously proposed as part of the 1988 budget was approximately $452,948. Recommended Motion: Set the date for considering an amended 1987/1988 budget and 1988 tax levy for November 23, 1987. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The city has been granted an amended levy limit base for 1988 by the State Commission of Revenue of up to $195,000. 2. If the city wishes to consider this amended tax levy it is necessary to hold a public hearing with notice to the public. 3. The Commissioner of Revenue and County Auditor have allowed the city up to November 24, 1987, to consider this matter and amend the levy if desired. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The City Council could decline to review an amended 1987/1988 Budget and/or 1988 tax levy limit. Discussion/Decision Mode: If the City Council wishes to consider this amended 1988 Tax Levy limit it is critical that action be taken on November 23, 1987. After that date the opportunity would be lost. JDP/sae Respe fully submitted, Jam s D. Prosser Cit Manager ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No.337 Agenda November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Reject all bids received for computer equipment and software and authorize staff to advertise for new bids. Background: On October 16, 1987, staff opened bids for computer equipment and software. The city received two bids in response to its formal Request for Proposals (RFP). Thirteen vendors had requested copies of the specifications in response to advertisements placed by the city. A copy of the bid tabulation is attached. The specifications included in the RFP described the software and hardware requirements of the city. This purchase is to expand the existing computer system. After examining the two bids received, staff concluded that both proposals were incomplete. The vendors and the shortcomings of their proposals are: Unisys (formerly Burrou hs) Unisys' proposal consists of a copy of the contract and price list they have negotiated with the State of Minnesota, from which the city is eligible to purchase. The RFP required that the vendor propose a specific configuration of equipment and hardware to satisfy the needs of the city. A price list does not satisfy this requirement. Insight Technology S stems Insight submitted a bid which proposes a configuration that does not include any of the twelve printers required by the RFP. In .addition, Insight's proposal states that they will not provide the performance bond required by the terms of the RFP. They proposed a money back guarantee instead. The nonconforming bids submitted by the vendors had not been anticipated by staff. The bidding period was open for four weeks, a bidders' conference was held to answer questions, and staff also answered vendors' questions over the phone. At no time during that period was there any indication that incomplete bids would be submitted. Staff has had discussions with the bidders subsequent to the bid opening regarding their proposals and both vendors indicated that they would welcome the opportunity to submit new bids. Minor changes in the specifications will allow Unisys to put together a complete proposal in the format requested by the city. Insight will submit a conforming bid if the city permits an alternate method of guaranteeing performance. Recommended Motion: Reject all bids for computer equipment and software and authorize staff to revise the specifications and advertise for new bids. ~/ Basis for Recommendation: 1. Neither bid submitted to the city was in conformance with the requirements of the Request for Proposals. 2. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that these deficiencies should not be waived as "informalities" and the bids should be rejected. If the city were to award the bid to Insight, for example, another vendor who did not bid because they are unable to provide a performance bond could challenge the award. Alternative Recommendation: 1. The city could purchase the equipment and software from the Unisys state contract. Such a purchase would not require .formal bidding by the city since formal bidding was used by the State to put the contract in place. This alternative would save the city the time and expense of rebidding. However, the Unisys state contract is not necessarily the best price and, more importantly, the city would have to piece together its own configuration. There are many alternative configurations available to the city, and the vendors are in the best position to propose which one will best meet the city's needs. Discussion/Decision Mode: Action is requested at the November 9, 1987 Council meeting so that bidding can proceed again without delay. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Ci y Manager ,y- ~. CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening October 16, 1987 Computer Equipment and Software 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 computer equipment and software, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 21, 1987. Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director Sally Morton, Data Processing Manager The following bids were submitted and read aloud: I I I TOTAL I TOTAL I VENDOR I BID I ONE-TIME I ANNUAL I I i SECURITY I COST ( COST I ) Insight Technologies, I ( 1 i I Inc. I Bid Check I $180,723 I $40,846 I I Wausau, Wisconsin I , I I I I I I UNISYS I Bond filed I Bid I ! 1 St. Paul, MN ( with State I State J I Contract The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the November 9, 1987 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. -36 Agenda November 9, 198 Issue Statement: Consideration of a recommendation from the Human Services Commission. Background: The Human Services Commission has requested that the following recommendation be forwarded to the city council: "The Human Services Commission serving Seniors and Disabled makes a recommendation that the City of Richfield fund an information and referral/outreach position. The Commission has. had an ongoing concern regarding residents not being aware of services available to them. Examples of isolated, elderly Richfield residents have been brought by Commission members to our meetings. The Commission wishes to reemphasize the need of an information and referral/outreach position being funded in the City of Richfield." Recommended Motion: Acknowledge receipt of the recommendation and refer the request to staff for review. Part of the review will include discussion with the South Hennepin Human Services Commission. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Need to acknowledge request from Commission. 2. Need to provide opportunity for staff review. 3. The South Hennepin Human Services Council was developed expressly to coordinate Human Services. The request from the Human Services Commission is the type of request most appropriately reviewed by this organization. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Since this request was received after the budget process was complete, it would not be appropriate to take action on the request at this point in time. Furthermore, it is necessary for staff to complete a review of this request and provide background information for the Council. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented as a consent item for the agenda of November 9, 1987. Staff will communicate results of council action to the Human Services Commission and request assistance from South Hennepin Human Services Council after that meeting. Respectfully submitted, J D. Prosser Ci Manager JDP/eja To the Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The Human Services Commission serving Seniors and Disabled makes a recommendation that the City of Richfield fund an infor-mation and referral/outreach position. The Commission has had an on-going concern regarding residents not being aware of services available to them.. Examples of isolated, elderly Richfield residents have been brought by Commission members to our meetings. The Commission wishes to .reemphasize the need of an information and referral/outreach position being funded in the City of Richfield. Tom- j CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 335 November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: 1987 Salary Adjustment for the City Manager. Background• Mayor Hamilton has requested that a resolution adjusting the salary of the City Manager be placed on the November 9, 1987 City Council agenda. The current salary of $63,000 was effective September 1, 1986 when the City Manager was appointed to the position. Attached to this letter is a copy of a resolution which would establish a yearly salary of $67,410, which is a 7~6 increase over the present rate. This increase would be effective September 1, 1987. Recommendation: None Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is placed on the November 9, 1987 agenda for council action. Respectfully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP:sb ~~% RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND JAMES D. PROSSER, CITY MANAGER NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: The following section of the Letter of Understanding between the City of Richfield, Minnesota and James D. Prosser, dated July 14, 1986, is amended as follows: Section 5, Salary: The City agrees to pay employee an annual salary at the rate of sixty seven thousand four hundred and ten dollars ($67,410) per year effective September 1, 1987, and thereafter such rate as may be from time to time fixed by the City Council. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this October 12, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk to CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA City Council Letter No. 334 November 9, 1987 Agenda .Issue Statement: Request for an offstreet parking permit at 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue South. Background: Jean and Dan Nelson have applied for an offstreet parking permit to allow the construction of three additional parking spaces at 7234-36 Lyndale Avenue. The Nelson's wish to convert the existing two family dwelling on the site into a board and care facility for elderly women. The City Council on October 12th., 1987 overturned a hearing examiner's denial of a variance to eliminate the requirement for enclosed parking spaces on the site. The Nelson's have submitted a plan which indicates there would be a total of four offstreet parking spaces provided on the site. One would be within the existing driveway and three would be within a new parking area in front of the structure. The proposed plan indicates that one of the parking stalls would be on the public right-of-way of Lyndale Avenue. The new parking area would have an asphalt surface and have perimeter curbing on the west and south sides, but would not have curbing on the east side to allow the parking area to drain onto the boulevard area. The existing shrubs on the east property line would be removed and new shrubs planted on the public right-of-way. The existing gravel parking area within the Lyndale Avenue right-of-way would be removed and the area resodded. Recommendation Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the offstreet parking layout with the following stipulations. 1. That all of the parking be located within the property and not on public right-of-way. 2. That a final drainage plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer which includes perimeter curbing and/or curb and gutter and grading to ensure that the new parking area drains to the existing driveway and then to Lyndale Avenue and not directly onto the boulevard area or onto the adjacent property. 3. That the type size and location of the shrub hedge planting material be approved by city staff. Basis of Recommendation: 1. It is staff's opinion that allowing the property owner to park on the public right of way is not appropriate, especially in light of the efforts of the city in other areas to eliminate parking on public right of way. Additionally, the provisions of landscaped area in front of parking area has a more positive impact on appearance of area, (in ~(©-/ boulevard). 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans as submitted and determined that the plans do not properly show how the new parking area drains. It is the engineer's opinion that the drainage must be controlled so that it drains onto Lyndale Avenue through the driveway and must also be controlled to ensure that it does not drain onto the adjacent property to the north. 3. The type size and variety of the planting material for the proposed hedge has not been specified in the plan. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Approve the plan as submitted with the stipulation that the property owner enter into a hold harmless agreement with the city which would require the property owner to remove the improvements in the right of way at no .cost to the city at some future date if that additional right of way became necessary for some public purpose and which holds the city harmless from other liabilities. Decision Mode• This matter is scheduled for City Council consideration on November 9, 1987. No public hearing or public notice of City Council approval of offstreet parking permits is required and none has been provided. Respectf ly submitted, James Prosser City M Hager JDP/dkh ~ ~~ r~ V 0 J H v M O ~N 8 =_xo~ ~~` ~. Y N ~~dc~o~ N ~ c ~ O v- v . N .~ _ ~ 11 i J Q -~ t = L ~ N r~ ~ r V v H Q .~ cv ~n 0 t!f N ~1-J ,~ 3 ~ to e 2 ~~ n . Q>w• v _ ~~~ 9 ~ E-- N - ~`3 a 3 :~ N 4 ~L I ~ ~ ~ 1 N W S h' ~~_ 0 ~y--~ _ ~ L V t L O V O J g x gN V L L V t ~ ~~ O n ~ } ~ ~.'c ~~dd2 vS z< o N = c M ~ s ~j J V • x e ~ ~ c~ O v ~ tir .~ cV e r N r i F- . . ~ g CLY o ~ v ~ D ~ 47 C ~ N "~ W ~O Y V ~ ~ t L~ v r ,~ ,l i y Z L '~i._ J >-Z L~QJW Q> W• D W D Z W 0 V W ~• M N ~-c~i i 3 j a 3 L d s :~_ N lt~ s ___ 0 Z ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 333 Agenda November 9, 1987 .Issue Statement: Request to rescind two stipulations on the final development plan approval for the Market Plaza Project at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Background: In July of 1985 the City Council approved an amendment to the final development plan for the Market Plaza development at 66th Street and Lyndale. As part of that approval there were a number of stipulations. E.J. Plesko and Associates and Market Plaza Commercial Limited Partnership have requested that the City Council rescind two of the stipulations of that approval. Those two stipulations are: 1. That the condominium owners be given priority for use of the apartment garage spaces not needed for apartment tenants. 2. That the condominium and apartment visitors be permitted to use the commercial parking spaces on a short term basis. This would not prohibit the applicant from enforcing reasonable restrictions to prevent long term parking which might adversely effect the commercial uses on the site. This request is being made because the center is experiencing a parking shortage for the commercial uses on the site. It is also being made because the development is no longer controlled by a single entity. The condominium structure is under separate ownership and control from the commercial -and residential rental portions of the project and it is the opinion of the applicant that it is not appropriate to give one entity rights on property controlled by another entity. The City Council on September 14, 1987 considered this request and referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the staff recommendation to not rescind the two stipulations. Recommended Motion: 1. That stipulation ~~1 above remain in place until the remaining condominium units at Woodlake Point are sold to insure that sufficient parking is available for the condominium owners or that Woodlake Point owners waive any rights related to parking that they may have hereunder. 2. That stipulation #2 remain in place. r~ ~ ~i Basis of Recommendation: 1. Although Market Plaza development (including the Woodlake Point Condominium, Market Towers Apartments and the Market Plaza commercial area) was initially a unified development, it has devolved into separate ownership and control, There is a mutual dependency among the parts of the development as noted in prior actions which may be described as somewhat akin to third party beneficiary relationships. The City should not now be placed in a position of being asked to prefer one segment of the development to the possible detriment of another without the concurrence or waiver of all parties. 2. There are 51 unsold units and 40 unsold garage parking spaces at the Woodlake Point Condominium. There has been no need or interest shown by Woodlake Point Condominium owners in renting parking spaces in the Market Towers apartment garage. Based on the experience of the units sold so far there will not be a need for condominium owners to use spaces in the apartment garage. However, the pattern could change and there may not be sufficient parking space in the condominium garage. Woodlake Point Condominium owners have not indicated any desire to waive any rights they may have. 3. The Market Plaza development was approved as a multiple family residential planned unit development. The amount of parking provided for the various uses on the site has been a concern from the beginning. During the approval process serious reservations were expressed about the limited amount of visitor parking available for Woodlake Point (17 spaces) and for Market Towers apartments (13 spaces). Concern was also. expressed about the number of spaces available to commercial tenants. Stipulation number 2 above was the compromise reached to address these concerns. Condominium and apartment visitors were allowed to use commercial spaces on a short term basis. Several condominium owners from Woodlake Point stated to the Planning Commission that they purchased units with the assurance that their guests would be allowed to. utilize the commercial spaces for parking. They are not allowed to use commercial spaces on a long term basis, however, to minimize the impact on commercial parking. It is staff's opinion that to change that arrangement now would only shift the problem from one part of the development to another and not solve the overall problem. The stipulation is still valid and is the best compromise in meeting the various parking needs on the site. Alternative Recommendation: The alternative recommendation would be to recommend removal of one or both of the stipulations. ~~~ Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter is scheduled for council consideration on November 9, 1987. Notice of council consideration of this matter has been mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the development, Market Towers apartment tenants, and commercial tenants on the site. Notice of the hearing has also been published in the Richfield Sun Newspaper. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City Hager JDP/eja u ~.~. September 3, 1987 Mr. Rick Joepke, City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Rick, E !. Plesko 6t ~sscxiates. Inc. Real Estate De~•elopment Consulting and ltana¢ement 340 Parkdalr Plaza. 1660 Suuth Hiehaav 100 Hinncnpolis. ~Unnc~ta;~416 61~•r 31-01~I This letter will serve as Market Plaza Commercial Limited Partnership's (MPCLP) formal request for the City to amend Council Letter No. 269 dated July 22, 1985, to delete item numbers one and two in their entirety. As City staff and Council are well aware, MPCLP is experiencing a parking shortage at Market Plaza largely due~to the success of Champps restaurant. The Partnership is very concerned for every parking stall that exists for our retail tenants and has hired a prtsfessional traffic consulting company to provide a solution to this growing problem. In addition, MPCLP is instituting valet parking and working with other area businesses in an attempt to secure the use of unused parking stalls for Market Plaza. Found within the body of Council Letter No. 269 are direct references to the following: i) A reduction in the number of retail parking stalls from 295 to 291. 2) Admission that under City guidelines there is a potential shortage in the number of parking stalls provided for the commercial use_ 3) The actual shortage of commercial parking stalls has increased from 60 to 93 stalls. 4) A belief that the mixed use nature of the project will reduce the amount of parking required on site. Since the project is now open and conducting business, number four above never became a reality. We are experiencing a tremendous parking shortage and can ill afford to • _ lose any parking stalls to Woodlake Point Condominiums and Market Towers Apartments. From our analysis of the situation, there is a demand for another 100 stalls at peak time for the Center, as well as another 50 for employee parking that all-must be off-site. Hence, MPCLP feels justified in it's request for deletion of items one and two of the above mentioned Council letter. We further request that this issue be on the September 14, 1987, Council agenda. If you 'should have any questions regarding this time line for a Council hearing, please contact Mike Gould at our office as soon. as possible. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter. Sincer ~ ~~ 1, E. ~PLESKO & ASSOCIATES, INC. MARKET. PLAZA COMMERCIAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP E_ J. Pleska Managing General Partner / ~~'~ October 14, 1987 N d' ~ ~ Ln ~F~+ ~ ^s c U ~ ._ ~, L ~ c d ~ ~ 0 ~ c L U ° Q' ^~ 0 ^~ O Oear Property Owner, The Richfield Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing on Tuesday, October 27, 1987 at 7:30 PM to consider a request to rescind two stipulations which were a part of the city's approval of the Market Plaza development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The two stipulations under consideration are: 1. That the condominium owners be given priority for use of the apartment garage spaces not needed for apartment tenants. 2. That the condominium and apartment visitors be permitted to use the commercial parking spaces on a short term basis. This would not prohibit the applicant from enforcing reasonable restrictions to prevent long term parking which might adversely effect the commercial uses on the site. L would encourage you to attend this hearing and make your feelings known on this matter. The hearing will be held in the council chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. If you-have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at 869-7521. Sincerely, k",v~-' Rick Jopke City Planner RJ/jls ~~~ ~~ ~ S~ ~~1-~ ~ ~ N~Lr' 6Y`C lr o5~~i/~T~ ~ jPv a4/a~j~' 6 ac/ !~F'vr'~'~`~ ~ v~ ~J telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer -~' ~ ~~'~~J~~.r1,lila~/~.~,/I' Zeds-?t~d'~~7 '~i~~ /f~b~l-~SJ//~/~ ~~~~~~~~ 1 i~ i~p~ o ~ ,fie c~iss~~~/ .s~S T~~y ~Nd ~Qes~s~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~i~~ C~7~~' .5~~~~r1 0~~~~~ ~ ~ ~1z ~l ~ o~~~ ~~ y ~ ~,~~d ~~ ~ ~k~~ h ~r~ aim s~' c~~,~r~~~ r~~-- ~~ ,~ ~1~~ ~v~~ ~~.~,~ ~~~ ~~~ l~ ~--- ~ ~ / y!c°~~i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 332 October 12, 1987 Issue Statement: Consideration of a Resolution Determining Results of the City General Election held on Tuesday November 3, 1987. Background: The City General Election was conducted on Tuesday, November 3, 1987 for the election to the positions of Mayor and Council Member At Large. Richfield City Charter Section 4.07 states that: "The council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next regular or special council meeting immediately following any regular, primary or special election but in no event later than the Monday next following, and shall make full declaration of the results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk." Recommended Motion: Approve the resolution determining the results of the City General Election held on Tuesday, November 3, 1987. Basis Of Recommendation: 1. The election judges have certified the returns of the election. 2. The city charter provides that the city council declare the results of the election. Alternative Recommendation: None Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter has been scheduled for consideration on November 9, 1987 as required by the-City Charter. Respectfully submitted, James D Prosser City Ma ger JDP/eja RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF CITY GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the council, having received and considered the tally of votes by the judges of the general election held November 3, 1987, the results are determined to be as follows: Total number of Total number of Votes cast for Mayor at L John Hamilton Steven J. Quam Write-ins ballots cast: 6,121 spoiled ballots: 36 urge: (3 year term) 2,776 3,154 6 Votes cast for Council Member at Large: (3 year term) Michael M. Sandahl 4,629 Write-ins 127 Attached Appendix A is complete tabulation results BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns of said election: Shirley Gisselquist (D) Bernice Utter (D) -- Elayne Gilhousen (R) Fern Oreck (D) Linda Bloomgren (D) Catherine Alfano (D) Jean Lofstrom (D) Phyllis Reinmuth (R) Bob Meyer (D) Viv Bennis (R) Nancy Eckstein (D) Jean Frenz (R) Emily Day (D) Audrey Winslow (R) Ilene Holen (R) Barb Cook (D) Susan Lewis (R) Larry Marks (R) Elizabeth Swanson (D) Michaeline Kvaale (R) Doris Long (R) Ralph Roberts (R) Edith Nye (R) Ellen Brandon (R) Janice Andersen (R) Bob Mack (D) Howard Mortensen (R) Marilyn .Wagner (R) Lois Karnas (R) Donna Jordahl (D) Muriel Bernstein (D) Donna Vidas (R) Pat Brenner (D) Gertie Herll (D) Marion Horning (D) Corrine Cosgrove (D) Rosemary Koelln (R) Margaret Fleming (D) Betty Halloran (R) Joanne Wilmes (D) Margaret Mortensen (R) Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of November, 1987. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk Q x . •r., -~-, M ~ O Q H N Ol ctf d O 0~ ~-1 M ~ II Jf~ m W Z H W L~ `! I = O I U Z I H I ~ \ I I li Z I O O I H I } I- I I- U I H W I U J I W I I Q I a 1 F-I I U I H I Z I ~ 6 ~ I' 11 +~ 3E 3E aE 38 3F I I C 00 '-1 ~-~I M 1~ II N II V HOMO IAN II i-1 d' M O~ II N u a. n ae u r-I ~~~ rnr` O~~ H r` II t0 I~ tr1 N N .-I d' ~O N II ~ r ~-I ~0 r•-1 r N rn •-I ~O II O N II 1- N M ~ N N ~O II II N N II ( ~ II I N O .-I '-i ~' (~ 00 ~1 00 00 II Q I~ ~ O r-I N ~-I ~ ~D II 0~ N M tl1 N N ~D Q~ II ( ~ N II 1 II N N II II 1 ~ i 1 O~'H ~.-i o~.-t o r I Q ~O ~ O~ ~-1 O •-i r-1 N I 00 N M ~' trl ul ~O d I I N I I N N I I 1 ~ I I ~O ~7 N ~O r-I 0 0 0 N .-I I Q O~ d' M '-1 O M M r-1 I I~ M ~Y ~ O~ O~ O~ .-I I I M 1 I I 1 N N I 1 ~ I 1 ~-iM0 MH MM~O ~' ~O 1 m N~ ~ r-1 n M O .-I I ~0 M N ~ N M ~O ~O I I •. N I ( I 1 N N I I I ~ I 1 o I~ O o ~O O~ 0p t` ~ N I m ~ M o ri it1 ~-I I~ o ~1 '-I N M M M 4' ~ I 1 H I I I N N 1 ~ I I~ O~ O 00 M ~ N r-1 d' r-1 Q O~ ul O H M M O~ I~ ih N M ~1 ~ ~ ~O I~ I N I 1 N N 1 ~ 1 •-I O O 00 ~O I~ O~ ~O ~O OD Q o o ~ r-I u~ N ao .-I M M ~ to d d i~ 00 I N i i N N 1 ~ 1 ~O ~O .-I ~-~I O ~O t~ M ~O I~ Q MO MN N~ri ~O N ~ M ~O ~ o O O I N I 1 N M 1 ~ I ul ~-1 r-I .-I ul (~ ~O M N I~ Q O N r-1 r-i 0p .-I O Q rl M M u1 ~[1 ~D ~O d I (V I 1 N N 1 1 I 1 E (n 1 W 1 tts ~ I C7 1 o to W I to ~ I to O +~ I- C7 1 c N Q 1 N •• C O Z 1 0 +~ J i ~-I ~ I~ N> C7 H I -N o I .C o I fa Z F- I r-I E > I- I Rf > • +~ • I-I O • • 1 •ri (0 Q 1 'o of v1 C7 h- > +~ I E o C I C C N •r-1 W O V 1 (0 d H J I c0 H ~ pl tY > I-- C I S I h•I I (n 1 N Z M aY I N N U 1 N .-I ~ J J W V O I C> .~-~ Z I N +~ Rf ¢ Q U N > I L N •.-i O I 1 •r-1 -I~ 3 I- F- tY H Q I O +~ f-~ O 1 •~ H ONO O W ~ Z l n Cn 3 U 1~ 3 I- Z I- I- 0. -~ - ~ "~_ O ~D ~D H O N M .-1 O~ N O~ a--i ~. O O .-~ C C •-I •r-I •.-1 co +~ ma O N > N "O N 7 r--i C U +.+ N C o cn •r1 F- L .~ .~ ,y ,~-~ .~ u. EL_ I I 11 ~ M II td II •i•~ 4- II O O II I~ N I I II O II II I 0) II Q cii II 0~ Q II 1 II II I I I II 1 II 1 II Q II Op II 1 II 1 II I I I it i II II Q II ~ I~ II O II I 0~ II 1 r-I II II 1 M II I II m II ~O ~ II I ~ W u I J m II 1 W Z it H W II 1 L~ .~ II I U Z II ~ N II I ~ \ I I I IL I Z I I I O O I I I H I I I >- I- I I Q ~ H W I I 1 U J I I 1 W I I 1 I J I I I 1 Q I I 1 ~ I I Q H I I M V I I 1 H I I i Z I I I ~ I I Z i t I n I Q I I I N I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ! I I Q i I II II I I t r-I I I I 1 H II II II • II to it W II H II O II ~ II •• II •F~ Z II V H II C I II •r•1 W ~ Ii V H O II ~ H ~- li a 3 ~ .-1 .--I ~-i .-! ~-I ~O r-I ~-I r-I .-1 •~ N ~O r-i I+1 .-1 N •-i N ~--I .-I ~ •-1 .-I .-1 M .--I N .-1 N ~ ~i M N r-1 r-I ~O r-I r-I N N N .-i .-I r-I •-1 N E W O C7 H L ~ +~ to Q a1 cn >, J U (A "O f-~ CNC~ E- ~ N ••-I O Q Nm'-IJC' O ~ J ~"0Q-1~~0 H H fA !-i (•1 C co 01 N co Z L 3 N C 3 O O N H'O O n2C7W W V ~' r-1 ~ .--I '-1 r-I '-1 •-I .-I r-I U .O C E N U N C O O N fA fis .Y O C H C7 1 C C •r-I U (n O L +~ ~ N +-~ N O N U •rl .-I In C fn (n C H -I--~ N r-1 f•-1 +~ U E N [L O r-i 1•-1 O N '0 •.-I N •.-I C U.1 O N H C N CO Z N N +~ •.-I C r-i L 3 3 012 `1 tLf O '-I C3 Z C r-I Y •~-I L O_ Ctf O N O h m O (0 W N OO C [rte m(n N d"0 N •ri +~ '-1 .-1 S' -1--> •.-I C(3 ••-1 > C N L 1 •--I fif U C 3 •~ O rl U U H C N H N L +~ U U •~-t 3 7 •.-1 'O N RS O •.-I CO CO H L L -1~-~ O N •r-I N L O L f-1 W `Sd~>r7~W F-U(/')n~~C~d2Ud ,-, ~ ~_ ~ x •r' a sZ 2 J W I-~ L~ 2 U N la. O } H H U I I II r-1 •-I •-i .-1 N r-i N r-I M ~ N •-i .-1 .--1 .-i N ~-i r-I .-1 .-I •-t .-1 ~--t .--1 r-I .-I .--1 r-I .-1 ~ M II ib II ~ 4-- II O O II H M II 11 1 O II II ( r-I .-I r-i ~ •--I ~--1 .--I 01 II Q (0 11 01 ~ II 1 II 1 II II II I II 1 u ct n ao n I n 1 u I u n I II I r-1 N ~-1 II Q II ~ I~ II I O II I C~ II 1 r-1 II I ~ I II I •-1 ri M II m II ~ 0.' I I I W n 1 m II I Z I I W I I I > I I I .--1 rl O I I m Z I I I!\ 1 I \ I I I I I 1 Z I 1 I O n 1 H I I I r-I r-1 .--1 '--I ri .-I F- I I Q U I I •~ W n 1 .J I I I W I I I I J I I I 1 H I I M U I I 1 H I I Z I I I ~ I I Z I I I I I 1 N .-~ N .--1 N .--1 ~-~1 I I Q I I N I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I Q I II II II I r-1 1 I 1 I I II II I ( ~ tl W I C -1-~ n ~ 1 o a~ >, o c c n ~ t rn cn ~ m cn •r-1 ~ O II Q I O •.-1 C H •-1 N '-I ~-i C~ C C +~ ~..~ N to II J I N O N cl3 O~ c17 •ri IO c0 .-I 0 0 to C +~ C C II I J U to In J 3 .--I H C tY O L W 'O +~ In O) C O N tU +~ L +-~ II I- I •r-t ~ f-I N N f-1 (A +~ (0 r-I r-i C •rl IA 1 fA O O -I-1 I I •• Q I c O N m cn m Ql ~ .I, •r-1 N •r-1 N C U c~ L r7 N +-~ II ~ 12 H U ~-I U m •r-1 `~ J> •r-I g N cn E z `S ~1-~ L 7 E L +~ II V J I O «3 r-I cts 3 O ~-I «S to O~ T N 1 H N n G N 1 cnv..n¢ C.-+~Y a~~--~ a~ cno o=rl~ ~ L-o~ a~ U o H II •r•I U 1 N cd O O) H H C Rf cU H N H 'O >, O. O J 7 U m I I V Z I E N C O).-I •~-~I C> H N N O C E C 3 C •~-1 N •.-1 >,L N L A D II O O 1 0~ c>s N H CL R OLL >,C OL L CL > H H c~ >,H E ~,>, II i-t O I L •ri > H ctf cif O cts N O O C cif L O O «S O ca (d •rl O C c0 O c0 c0 II ~ U 1 f-~ W C7~On~(.J~~¢~F-n=nO~OC7`Sn¢C~F-D~tr #y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 331 Agenda November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Purchase of Stainless Steel Bases and Light Standards. Background: The City Council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials., equipment or construction exceeds $5,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the council for consideration. A supply of 24 stainless steel light pole bases are needed to replace cracked and damaged bases. This supply has not been restocked since January of 1985 when the bases cost $135 each. Light standards are also needed to replace rusted out standards as part of an ongoing project along Lyndale Avenue. Standards, purchased in 1986 at a cost of $292 each including anchor bolts, have been replaced along Lyndale from 74th Street to 78th Street. The 12 standards requested at this time, which do not need anchor bolts as we have those in sufficient supply, are for Lyndale Avenue from 62nd to 65th Street. Because we have been using Millerbernd bases and poles, the same brand would be purchased for consistency in the street lighting system. Recommended Motion: Approve the purchase of 24 stainless steel bases at a unit price of $135 and 12 light standards without anchor bolts at a unit price of $258 for a total sum of $6,336.00 from Millerbernd Manufacturing Company. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The proposed purchase is directly from Millerbernd, the manufacturer of this equipment. Therefore, no dealer is involved and the price is the best possible. 2. The revised 1987 operating budget for street maintenance includes $8,000 for the purchase of light standards and bases. Therefore, funds are available for this purchase. Alternative Recommendation: Council could choose to order staff to investigate different brands of light standards. However, the Millerbernd equipment has served well, is compatible with the rest of our system and staff does not believe it would be economically feasible to start over with new equipment. ~-~ ~ Discussion/Decision Mode: This item is on the consent calendar of the November 9, 1987 City Council agenda. In order to avoid running low on this equipment, staff requests approval for this purchase. Respectful y submitted, James Prosser City a ager JDP/eja ~~/~• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 330 Agenda November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval to Release Off-Street-Parking Bond for Burger King, 2800 West 66th Street Background: The City of Richfield is holding a performance bond for the off- street parking contract for the Burger King at 2800 West 66th Street.. Burger King has requested release of the bond. All of the conditions of the bond have been met under the original contract except for bumper curbs, which we no longer require when adequate front-end overhang is provided. Recommended Motion: Approve release of the performance bond for the offstreet parking contract of Burger King, 2800 West 66th Street. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Except .for the bumper curbs, all of the requirements have been met under the contract. 2. Adequate front-end overhang has been provided. 3. Staff is satisfied that all of the requirements have been met. Alternative Recommendation: Council could require bumper curbs under the terms of the original contract; however, these are no longer required, and installation could cause some maintenance problems for the owner. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the consent calendar for the November 9, 1987 city council meeting. Respec lly submitted, James Prosser City Hager JDP/eja ~~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 329 November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Setting Date of Hearing for Renewal of Wine Licenses Background• The on-sale wine licenses for restaurant establishments in our community will be expiring the first of January, 1988. City ordinance provides that the city council conduct a public hearing on all wine license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule November 23, 1987, as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of the following wine licenses: Park-Inn International, Millers Fireside Pizza, Shakey's Pizza, Divanni's, and Frogi's Sandwich Shop, d/b/a Spanky's. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Scheduling the public hearings in November will provide for ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1988. Alternate Recommendation: 1. Schedule the hearings for another date. Discussion/Decision Mode: The public hearings must be scheduled far enough in advance to provide for legal publication regulations. Council consideration of this item at the November 9, 1987 city council meeting will provide the time needed to complete the licensing process prior to January 1, 1988. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City M ger JDP/eja ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No, 328. November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Setting Date of Hearing for Renewal of On-Sale Liquor Licenses Backyround- The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments in our community will be expiring the first of January, 1988. City ordinance provides that the city council conduct a public hearing to consider all liquor license renewals. Recommended Motion: Schedule December 14, 1987, as the date to hold public hearings on the renewal of the following liquor licenses: Chi Chi's, Ground Round, American Legion Post ~k435, the VFW Post ~~5555 and Champp's. Basis for Recommendation: 1. Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered. 2. The renewal process has been initiated. 3. Scheduling the public hearings in December will provide for ample time to complete the licensing process before January 1, 1988. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Schedule the hearings for another date. Discussion/Decision .Mode: The public hearings must be scheduled far enough in advance to provide for legal publication regulations. Council consideration of this item at the December 14, 1988 city council meeting will provide the time needed to complete the licensing process prior to January 1, 1988. Respectfu y submitted, James D. Prosser City Ma ager JDP/eja ~ ~/ /~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 327 Agenda November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Approval of a service contract with Brown Computer Services for computer analysis and programming. Background: The Data Processing Division currently has a list of more than forty computer programming requests., Many of the projects on this list are requests for the design and programming of new computer applications. The city's Computer Task Force, composed of the City Manager, Department Directors and other representatives, is in the process of reviewing and prioritizing this list. The 1987/88 budget recently adopted reflects a commitment to begin work on several of these projects. A full-time programmer/analyst project employee will be hired in late 1987 and funds for contract programming are allocated for both 1987 and 1988. $7,200.00 is budgeted for the fall of this year to design and program one or more new applications. The Computer Task Force has selected the Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance application as its top priority project for development. This application will track the costs and maintenance records for the city's vehicles and related equipment. The information collected will assist the management of the central garage with equipment/vehicle replacement decisions, preventative maintenance planning, and cost containment efforts. This project will be assigned to the contract programmer selected. Quotations for contract programming for this project were obtained from two local firms. Both firms have been used by the city during the past year because their rates are competitive and their personnel well qualified. They proposed the following rates: Brown Computer Services of Roseville., Minnesota .....................$30.00 per hour Cap Gemini America of Edina, Minnesota .........................$42.50 per hour Brown Computer Services has proposed the same programmer who provided programming services to the city during the conversion effort. This person is familiar with the city's computer system and has proven to be very productive. At the quoted rate of $30 per hour, the city will obtain 240 hours of service for the $7,200 budgeted for this purpose. ~y~ i Recommended Motion: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to engage the services of Brown Computer Services for an amount not to exceed $7,200. Basis for Recommendation: 1 The hourly rate proposed by Brown Computer Services is the lower of the two quotes solicited and the programmer proposed is known to be well-qualified and productive. In addition, because the programmer has worked with the city before, contract time will not have to be spent familiarizing this person with the computer system and programming languages. 2) The programming project selected is one which will be of benefit to city operations. It is an application that was highly recommended in the 1985 Needs Assessment prepared by a consultant hired by the city in to study the city's computer system. 3) No in-house staff programmer is available to perform this programming and funds have been budgeted for this purpose. 4) Because of the inter-dependence of the city's accounting system and the Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance application, purchased software will not meet the city's requirements.. Alternative Recommendation: 1 Delay approval and direct staff to seek additional price quotations for these services. However,-based on quotations obtained from other firms in the past, staff feels that the price quoted by Brown Computer Services is the best available locally for the level of experience required for this project. 2) Do not approve an expenditure for contract programming. If the Council chooses this course of action the project will be assigned to the new programmer/analyst project employee after that person is hired and trained. This would mean a further delay before the benefits of this and other high priority applications are realized. Discussion/Decision Mode: The proposed programmer is currently available, therefore action on this matter is requested at the November 9, 1987 City Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, James Prosser City anager JDP/eja ~`"" - ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 326 Agenda November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Adoption of resolution approving the plans and specifications for the demolition of the old Cedar Avenue Liquor store and authorizing advertisement for bids. Background: On September 20, 1987, the Council authorized staff to prepare plans and specifications for the demolition of the old Cedar Avenue Liquor store because of its deteriorated condition. Lincoln Companies would reimburse the city for the cost of clearance which has been estimated at $25.,000. The interim financing would be provided by the Cedar Liquor Store Project Fund. The work includes removal of the building, the footings, foundation, basement floor and well. Three light standards and a pylon sign would also be removed from the site. The site would be backfilled. The evergreen trees along 18th would be protected from damage. Appropriate personnel in Community Services and Administrative Services have reviewed the plans and specifications. The insurance and hold harmless requirements have been met. Recommended Motion: Adopt the resolution which approves the plans and specifications and authorizes advertising for bids for the demolition of the old liquor store. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The building is vacant and unsightly. 2. Lincoln Companies has agreed to reimburse the city for all costs incurred with a contractor. Alternative Recommendation: Direct staff to continue to manage the property "as is" until removed by the developer. Discussion/Decision Mode: It would be desirable to avoid further delay. It is anticipateed that the Council would be asked to award the contract in December, 1987, and the demolition would commence about January 4th and be completed within 15 working days. Re tfully submitted, J s D. Prosser Ci y Manager JDP/eja ~~-/ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DEMOLITION OF CEDAR AVENUE LIQUOR PROJECT WHEREAS, plans and specifications for demolition and clearance at the site of the old Cedar Avenue Liquor Store have been presented to the City Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved; 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for making such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The published advertisement shall specify the work to be done.., shall state that bids will be received by the clerk until 11 a,m. on Thursday,. December 3, 1987, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at 7 p.m, on December 14, 1987, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue south, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Richfield for five percent (5~) of the amount of such bid. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of November, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk ~ ~ ~-oz RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DEMOLITION OF CEDAR AVENUE LIQUOR PROJECT WHEREAS, plans and specifications for demolition and clearance at the site of the old Cedar Avenue Liquor Store have been presented to the City Council for approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved; 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for making such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The published advertisement shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the clerk until 11 a.m. on Thursday, December 3, 1987, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the Council at 7 p.m. on December 14, 1987, in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue south, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City of Richfield for five percent (5~) of the amount- of such bid. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of November, 1987. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Council Letter No. 325 Agenda November 9, 1987 Issue Statement: Issuance of proclamation designating American Education Week. Background• Steve George, of the that Mayor Hamilton November 15-21, 1987 American Legion Post 1987 council meeting Richfield American Legion, has requested issue a proclamation designating the week of as American Education Week. Members of the No. 435 will be present at the November 9, to accept this proclamation. Recommended Motion: Present a proclamation to the American Legion designating the week of November 15-21, 1987 as American Education Week. Basis for Recommendation: 1. The American Legion has requested this proclamation. 2. The City Council is supportive of the continuance of excellence in the city schools. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Recognize American Education Week in some other manner. 2. Delay the presentation to another council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the presentation section of the City Council agenda. Mr. George, and other members of the American Legion will be present at the November 9, 1987 council meeting to accept this proclamation. Respectfully submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP/eja