The URL can be used to link to this page

04-08-85 agendaE 0 Is CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 132 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: N.O.I.S.E. Council Members: Council Members Bunce and Sandahl attended the recent N.O.I.S.E. Washington, D.C. meeting held in conjunction with the National League of Cities Congressional Conference. A Richfield representative is eligible to serve on their Board of Directors. The City Council has been requested to officially designate one representative. Council Member Sandahl has expressed a willingness to serve as Richfield's representative on the N.O.I.S.E. Board of Directors. It would be appropriate for the city council to designate our representative by motion at this time. R pectf mitted, bo'ghn G. art right City Manager JGC /eja 0 40 CJ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ,.. Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 131 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Scheduling Conflict Relating to Meetings in May, 1985 Council Members: The second council meeting in May is scheduled for Monday, May 27. Monday 27, 1985, is Memorial Day, a legal holiday. Th.e, code of ordinances provides that when the regular council meeting date falls on a holiday, the meeting is held the following day. There are several scheduling conflicts with holding a council meeting on Tuesday, May 28, as follows: 1. On Tuesday, May 28, Mayor Hamilton is scheduled for his monthly Mayor's Hour between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. 2. Tuesday, May 28, is also the date for the Planning Commission. meeting. This will cause conflicts for Council Liaison Mike Sandah.l and Community Development Director Dennis Kraft. The proposed Capital Improvement Program is scheduled to be discussed at that meeting. 3. Tuesday, May 28, is the date of the scheduled MASAC meeting, causing a conflict for Council Member Don Priebe and Commnity Services Director Don. Fondrick. The council may want to re- schedule the second council meeting in May to another date, or to cancel the meeting (a special meeting, with notice, can always be scheduled on an as needed basis). This item has been placed on the April 8, 19857 city council agenda for council consideration. R ectf Y's mitted 6hn G. Cart igh City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 130 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Premium for City's Property and Casualty Insurance Package for 1985 Jump 233% Council Members: In November, 1984, the city staff secured quotations from Home Insurance Company for the entire property and casualty insurance programs. The city has been insured through the Home Insurance Company for the past several years. Each year the policy is renewable upon the option of both parties. In late December, after learning that Home Insurance Company was going to significantly increase our insurance premiums, the city requested its agent, Marsh and McLennan, to solicit premium quotations from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance trust, M as well as any other viable markets. With the dramatic premium rate increases occurring throughout the nation during the latter part of 1984, it was felt an exhaustive search for potential insurance providers was necessary. Several insurance markets were approached for quotations for placement of the city's property, general liability, dram shop and automobile coverages. In addition to approaching the few companies that are known rationally to insure municipalities, other companies that might consider providing coverage for a municipality under certain circumstances were also contacted. Of the viable markets, only Home Insurance and the League of Minnesota Cities submitted quotes. Markets that were contacted but declined to quote for various reasons include Wausau Insurance Companies, CNA, Bowes and Company, Hartford Specialty and PENCO. As can be seen from Attachments A and B, the quotations submitted reflect a drastic increase in premium rates. The approximate 233% increase in insurance premiums will have a significant impact upon the city's 1985 budget, and may well reflect the city's premiums for the next few years. Several factors contributed to the city's current unfavorable insurance situation, including the following: 11 -2- -tea n- z 1) The current insurance market place is in turmoil national level. Several insurance companies have either • eliminated municipal insurance business or have gone out business altogether. Some insurance carriers are keeping what they feel are their best risks. 11 on a of only 2) The dram shop market in Minnesota is in a critical situation. The largest provider of dram shop coverage, Ideal Mutual, has dropped all of its Minnesota business, leaving only Columbia Insurance and the Home Insurance as potential providers. However, Columbia would only offer the city $100,000 coverage, which would leave the city with at least a $400,000 gap in primary coverage. 3) The city's four -year loss ratio, which is used by underwriters to determine premiums, is very unattractive to providers. While the city has generally experienced relatively few claims, and those claims have been minor in nature, within the past two years, at least two claims have been filed against the city which have been of major proportion. One dram shop claim involving a fatality and one general liability claim involving a traffic accident which resulted in one individual being severely injured have been "reserved" by the insurance company against the city for in excess of $500,000. 4) Specialty carriers which provided the city's excess liability coverage canceled the city as of the end of the 1984 premium year for the above two referenced claims. All of the above factors combine to place the city in a very unfavorable position to retain cost effective insurance coverage. It should be noted, however, that while there exists a few major claims against the city, none of the claims have gone through the courts or have been finally settled out of court as of this time. Additionally, it is the city's position that we're not negligent in any of those claims, and feel that once the claims are resolved, the record will reflect that fact. At such time, the city's loss ratio would be adjusted accordingly and favorably impact upon our ability to once again secure reasonable insurance rates subject, of course, to the cyclical insurance market. In addition to waiting for those claims to run their course, the city is actively exploring ways to significantly increase our self - insurance program. The city's self- insurance program for Workers' Compensation has been very successful during the past five years and it is hoped that a similar program can be developed for a portion of our property /casualty package including dram shop coverage for 1986 or 1987• -3- For the 1985 premiums currently due, the General Fund is responsible for approximately $117,000 of the total cost, while • the Liquor Fund will pick up approximately $133,000. The Water and Sewer Funds will be responsible for approximately $51,000 and the Golf Course Fund will be charged roughly $54,000. The remainder of the premium will be charged against Internal Service Funds, such as the Central Garage. An exact breakdown of the property and general liability premium was not available at the time this letter was prepared, thus the allocations to the various funds is only an approximation. However, any changes which whould be anticipated after the exact figures are known should not significantly alter the approximations shown here. u is Exhibit A (or attachment A in your backup) compares the six year history for premiums paid by Richfield for insurance coverages ranging from property and general liability to employers liability. The explanation for the greatest increases follows: 1984 1985 Premium Premium Explanation 1. Property & Gen. Liability $19,146 $179,000 Two large pending claims: (a) sewer backup at the Inn Motel; and, (b) a motorcycle accident on a deadend street 2. Liquor Liab. $13,191 $ 71,000 There is at least one large claim pending involving a moped collision 3. Police Pro- $ 9,578 $ 17,834 Increase coverage fessional Liability from $500,000 to $1,000,000 4. Umbrella Liab. $ 6,800 $ 50,985 Carrier has set up $500,000 to two large reserves $5,000,000 for claims against the city. Each re- serve exceeds $500,000. Former carrier dropped city as a client. 5. Excess Liab. $5 -$25 million -4- 1984 1985 Premium Premium $ 6,500 $ 27,250 ,Ztaa -y Explanation Insurance carrier reports premium increase based on claim /reserve ex- perience. Another exhibit in your backup reviews Richfield's loss experience with premiums paid for the period 1981 to 1985. The total premiums paid were $282,565 compared to losses of $462,218. The loss ratio is 164% to premiums paid. pectf j Ubmitted, John G. Car wrig City Manager JGC:sb cc: Administrative Services Director El) U LU3 L Vl 4J r� = O co W •� r0-I E rO-i 0 r-I U it LL by ri �', •ri V3 L O O W N &-- .•� .U� b0 •r-1 O O cII d L4-) L X L W >, L -P c a b0 c0 mss, W L -0 4-1 C) -4i o r rz Q) 4-) r- r- E6 4-) W " a N cc O •rl O !0 •� L U U la H i ca r-i C.7 - -- - -- 01% - -- �W Lon 4 O> H •rl a •r-1 H E-+ � y U O c •°y. -. •ri (Q G rI O cu L L H O O A •r0-1 c cr O. N ri 1•r•i •,-i Q'i r �Q� t • • • r _:r ti Cam- !r1 c) C) N 0 (III o M lD 01 N �- a6.6 O i U N I j }j ! c0 Ln 00 1 1 Ln 00 =r r r- M 1M _ i 00 r a O ! all c0 Q' c CC) 01% r f - c o m ^ •� r-1 r (Q1 �r•• r N� I (7\ N } fA6 N co 00 o 00 .- r N -- -- -- } -- -- -- -- - - ; -- -- } -- -- -- -- i-- -- Ij- r- A L }! +o S 1 r. OLr) i0 ! t! ! ) � M 00 1 N 011 00 r- x1100 iN O Lam- r r N a w H .a C U N r f i ) 1 �O t lltl L� 7 L� r C •-I 01% 1 11 i� 1 O GG r Ir N U ;N 1 r' 11 rl coo I HH flog- LW� z �- LT m i t n! 00 t U co l�n all f N fL-- !O r N ' Lj � 's �op �(=) H C= ro O W > 1 00 i 1! 0 f O O 00 ti ! o 1 U i 11 �f El) U LU3 L Vl 4J r� = O co W •� r0-I E rO-i 0 r-I U it LL by ri �', •ri V3 L O O W N &-- .•� .U� b0 •r-1 O O cII d L4-) L X L W >, L -P c a b0 c0 mss, W L -0 4-1 C) -4i o r rz Q) 4-) r- r- E6 4-) W " a N cc O •rl O !0 •� L U U la H i ca r-i C.7 I- -- 00 - -- - -- 01% - -- �W Lon 4 O> H •rl a •r-1 H C7 LOf) N c •ri (Q G rI O cu L L H O O A •r0-1 c cr O. N ri 1•r•i I- -- 00 - -- - -- 01% - -- F -- M Lon � O> N co a ,: •ri r LOf) N c TT 1 M rI O W co GCi v] H O O A •r0-1 •,-i 00 00 00 Tr N _:r ti r --T O Lfl 10 Ln =r 110 o M lD 01 N �- a6.6 O i U N I j }j 1 c0 Ln 00 1 1 Ln 00 =r r r- M O� N •— O j N 00 L m c0 .7 fa, r r I (7\ N N co 00 o 00 .- r N r M L11 1 0\ r- A L OLr) U ON M 00 1 c0 O Lam- r � N ri fo �.7 0 a-) O -- Lr) ! t- F -- 0 Lon � O> N co 1.0 •ri r LOf) N c TT 1 M rI O W co GCi v] O A •r0-1 •,-i C4-4 0 O C4-4 V) o a a6.6 r� U O > C' 0 o�. a. ri fo �.7 0 a-) O -- Lr) -- -- �Ln -- -- F -- 0 Lon � O> N co 1.0 LOf) N ( co TT 1 M CIO I Cl 0,� ID L-0- N c'u--� 1 � 1 OO 00 1 ! n Ic M r-i N tU H O f~ m Uf1 H r � m L H cu c !Iwv) O O O Ln ? r O r O �J O r In N O N SC O Z c0 i d �! � I 0� I� .C] c9 •ri S- 0 r-1 CL 19 N U ctS L >t S- (1) 0. O S- 0 O cu 0 C13 N U cU +> > r1 L � f1, 4-- O L. to m U � CII O N N � L U 3 •� � U U H • sarsh� p ATTACHMENT B Minneapolis • St. Paul li CITY OF RICHFIELD PREMIUM COMPARISON League of Home Insurance Co. Municipalities Property $250,000 $ 73,118 Time Element Included 4,276 Crime Included 1,356 Inland Marine Included 7,812 Glass. Included 892 Care- Custody- Control Included 92 (Option) General Liability Included 75,957 Liquor Liability Ixw -luded Excluded* ($500,000 Limit) Police Professional Liability y xcluded 12 0 ,0 8 Public Official Liability Excluded 13,157 Automobile Liability 26,443 30,175 $276,443 $218,843 (Includes $92 Option) *See Notes on Page 6 • I " marsh & Minneapolis - St. Paul Coverage Police Professional Liability Employers' Liability Stop-Gap Umbrella Liability CITY OF RICHFIELD ADDITIONAL COVERAGES Company Policy Term National Casualty 1/1/85 - 1/1/86 American Insurance 1/1/85 - 1/1-/86 Northfield Insurance 1/1/85 - 1/1/86 Annual Premium $17,834 Dw 49,500 + 1,485 S.L. Tax Excess Umbrella. American Insurance 1/1/85 1/1/86 27,250 Liability Automobile - Mini-Bus Home & Automobile 1/27/85 1/27/86 — 1,709 .Insurance Total $98,628 • • • Marsh & cv n4- Minneapolis - St. Paul CITY OF RICHFIELD COVERAGE AND NOTES CONTINUED 2) The League of Municipalities can provide Police Professional Liability with limits of $600,000 CSL at a cost of $12,008. You currently have in force coverage with limits of $1,000,000 Each Person /$1,000,000 Each Occurrence /$2,000,000 Aggregate at a cost of $17,834. Excess markets require minimum limit of $1,000,000. 3) The League of Municipalities has a maximum capacity of $1,000,000 for Excess Coverage. -7- .. mars gpnna Minneapolis - St. Paul CITY OF RICHFIELD COVERAGE & NOTES 1) The League of Municipalities program excludes Liquor Liability. Coverage is included in the Home Insurance Company's program at a cost of $71,000 (limit of $500,0900 CSL). We approached the available markets for liquor liability: A) Columbia Casualty Limit - $100,000 CSL Premium - $27,500 B) Minnesota "Assigned Risk" Limits - $50,000 /$100,000 Bodily Injury $10,000 Property Damage $50,000/$100,000 Loss of Support Premium - $22,939 NOTE: Excess (Umbrella) markets will not provide coverage above limits less than $500,000 CSL. 5-11 • U-.� G marsh. ctennan Minneapolis St. Paul + © 4w RECElvf-Li j,85 Period 1981 thru 1983 1984 to 1985 1981 thru 1983 1984 to 1985 1981 thru 1983 1984 to 1985 OVERALL TOTALS CITY OF RICHFIELD LOSS RATIO JANUARY 1, 1981 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1984 Coverage Premiums Losses Package $103,269 $361,854 Package 36,531 8,948 Liquor 51,196 20,000 Liquor 13,191 50,000 Automobile, 58,026 Automobile 20,352 $282,565 17,477 3,939 $462,218 Loss Ratio 350% 24% 39% 379% 30% 19% 164% yr:.GYr. '.s. ..i .S:.- "::L "a s".3•AL�zaas�+.«..i.- s:s': -� .- :t:::�.a.� -'u�"�-'S.'S...t- 'rte'°.... S:.t"..:4B;Sr'�^Y "un""�1".�" —'._; Marsh & McLennan, Incorporated "' ! u ,:�• �J q . 1500 Northstar Center F► ;;;;� Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone 612 371 -8000 March 29, 1985 Mr. Steve Devich Assistant City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Steve: .Re: Primary Insurance Markets As you requested in our meeting of March 27, 1985, listed below are the insurance- markets that we contacted for placement of your property, general liability (including liquor legal liability), and automobile insurance coverages. We contacted not only those markets that we were certain wrote coverage for municipalities, but also those markets that might possibly consider writing municipalities given the right circumstances. The insurance markets contacted - with the reasons for their declinations - are as follows: 1. Wausau Insurance Companies: Declined due to class of business. 2. CNA: They no longer write municipalities. 3. Bowes & Company: They do not write primary coverage for municipalities. 4. Hartford Specialty (one of the Hartford Insurance Companies): They do write municipalities, but will not consider primary insurance unless premium exceeds $1,000,000. They would also require a $100,000 self - insured retention. 5. PENCO: This is a general agency that provides coverage on Hartford Insurance Company paper. They are sponsored by the National Association of Counties, and they will quote on any public entity. They declined to quote, however, because they felt a.disadvantage on quoting mid -term. This market could be a viable one in the future, especially if your loss ratio shows improvement. Marsh & Mclennan, Incorporated We, of course, have many other carriers with which we place insurance. However, due to information that we continually receive from them, and from internal Marsh & McLennan, Incorporated sources, we did not approach them because these "standard" markets do not have the capacity to insure municipalities. We did, of course, obtain quotations from the League of Municipalities and the Home Insurance Company, both of which were discussed with you yesterday. Binders of insurance are enclosed for the package policy and the automobile policy. Both of these policies will have a policy term from January 1, 1985 to January 1, 1986. Steve, if you have any questions at all on the above, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely yours, 1 Suzanne B. Britts SBB /mt encls. cc: Eric Thompson March 29, 1985 Page 2 • • • • • r� u Analysts predict large increase in businesses' insurancecosts and auto owners would be Seas af- reductions of discounts, he saW. New York, N.Y. fected. Businesses can expect large in- creases in their insurance premiums because the nation's property and casualty insurers suffered record un- derwriting losses in 1984, analysts said Wednesday. They said home The $21 billion in underwriting lasses in 1984. combined with =13.3 billion in losses in 1883, Was more than the total underwriting deficit for the previous 25 years, according to the Insurance Information Luti- tute. The 1984 losses were not offset by investment income, which was $17.3 billion, said the institute, a communi- cations organisation for the property and casualty insurance buslness. '7he last year was far Morse than anyone imagined that it would be," said Leandro Galban Jr., a security analyst for Donaldson. Lufkin & Jen- rette Securities Corp. ' Calban said his company's forecast called for about a 20 percent in- ,crease in commercial insurance pre - 'miums, a S percent to to percent Increase in personal homeowners in- surance premiums, and a 6 percent to 7 percent increase in personal auto insurance premiums in 1985. Businesses also can expect higher deductibles, limits on coverage and Herbert Goodfriend, an analyst for Prudential -Bache Securities, Inc., said his company's forecast called for about .a 13 percent increase in commercial premiums and a 5 per- cent increase in premiums for home. owners and auto owners, The biggest, losses occurred in the commercial insurance field, where competition for busing and the un- derestimation of settlement costs, Particularly in the workers compen. cation area, burl insurers, the INC_ tute said. Settlements for injuries caused by pollution in the workplace soared in 1984, it said. "'lie courts and juries have been liberal in some parts of the country in awarding damages to the disabled and the sick and people who are hurt on the job." Goodfriend said. Premium increases will not be large enough to be reflected in price in- creases for mast goods and services, although medical malpractice insur- ance rate increases could raise the cast of medical care, the analysts said. Ag. A ga it .2 JW4 0. ISO �.�_,�� I V'a .77 ow �. -it 't ao -�y • • • ILLS MPOL,4 ga it .2 JW4 0. ISO �.�_,�� I V'a .77 ow �. -it 't ao -�y • • • ;ter. ai` - s?; - ...td' �� _.as• :;� :'*x :�• +"'� _� ...� - ..� , � .may ��. ^r . � tlsia Nr&ve der We loss OK'd for s&loois in asbestm kbgabm PEn ADELPMA —A federal court judge has certified a nationwide man- datory class action for all public and virtually all private schools suing as- bestos companies for punitive dam - aps over the cost associated with re- moving asbestac from schools. U.S. District Court Judge James X Kay, however, denied a mandatory class action for school districts seeking liahility and compensatory damage Continued an nett page FMOorts V:v0M*1 r for ao F11 taAsK ermbyre bows grid fUaanclat arcaoufivaslglM a copy; $52 a pw a .off- -MO "w 1V 1 `on msurance - /� - fit cases Wyk_St NGTOW -4be Suipreme�Cossn'.t wtII'dib� ,W%ecbw dw _osedsaYrt conixinrtaanal Mail jea�gmbra Abe pro' Mee a business; sit revor4Ag isis IQ and aOre iaeti:sma a coati.. aeenaal enterprises. At issue is whetter Xrw'YeA-bo eel Ds h lhm&aeR brie �iehir>i suppiie: business credit intormatioe In I gs fs endued is the aver First Amendment guaranfte at ffreedaes of engirsion that is Is . tSes3reSrasoie`�a�°° Dunog fie Un twin, which baps wetV tae &+pre�e cllaind aiw V wtedms, : stilling platferls an ao+aod =Mier hderal Lanphoesmea i and Bar - Werkeessi' Ceis�aassoa Aar, - ;{ • State oo *Rpm 6io jare- ps6m taass� a }sE+st�sts� itWraeee Vamp lbie*i_n bdsiiie'iiimes r'a.Airlines embeliableloepsaetigervia A, Si�aeititseisrA acsidwtaraMaK. tiasaaoosdaaatiastL Im Ovyee Bearemesst Umme'llacuray see iit)oiwi +seMelris punitive dssags faces dwir ev -; -s . : - • - nils =ustrictuigora�dweliie.ittCl: ,$fifty cases an coveem"tional. _...- .. 27x0 patitra tborgh, &icbsasd Is "view'�eiil IN eseen,�, #i'g1we aypedisk owai4eekdOns act sexese fie Seem" ?pani�� maesfaeane3 DES, so drug ir■s Mary. "fie 20d tiielaidvs a (330.000 fees, swztd ap3aet Dun jc Bsad- atteet SsOp00 in oospassam)47 u nips ay.P00A0 to Dutii B� iii 6eiee eRa11 tly • TQtei ei i 1s83ieM 1ee.'t t Yfraeet eonetaucb m a Err lZiuhti� a repot 76at C:twsmos had f>Led avoiuno�� In* sae' pubusbeal lnleaessab INm D's'390deiillotiet.'tAs4ae In •prr$eaeilarbusiares ]EvesresMbad theit*r sialiovrioeaepoe• tiragtae !'kswamcastsualtrtyltT } eYYr }- :-' _� t3a Aug; 3.1976. -girt siatys aft- set the special Mistier Sots uiiliiad, Caeaeslaoe: Jaffa YSseagsn osnsaeMad i>� ! llsadstrnMCa Manchester, ir.8. mice to tadei7! that the sasasssaoawa - - msaastfo, ar" ±- �i:'a`.b i-• �•�rt:ays�.._:i 'Lc�wsi»r:S Exxon stops underwriting commercial reinsurance tlty i(ATHM d MdN M HAMILTON. Bermuda— Despite modest profits, ISaon Corp is suddenly out of the commercial reinsur- ance business after a five -year foray. The management of New York -based E= smenc- pectedly decided late last month to order its three rein- surance operations under Eseton Insurance Holdings Ise. to aexeptrng new or renewal nos- related risk iosut asses burines as of Oct 1. 'Z=on reassessed the non- related risk business and decided to wind down that activity,' said M moo. Inair- ance Holdings President Clayton P. Cormier hove his Bermuda office. — !%e decision was that it was not the right fit. It was a strategic dedaiom . based on a long- term assessment of the reinsurance indsatry.' Out of commercial reimurance underwriting are: Bermueip -head Aaron Inarance Co. SA-, the most highly capitalized mimuser la Bermuda with 5739.6 million ire capital and surplus; Anew lmivance Co. (UN-) Ltd., with 10 million posmds in capital; and the ANZX Syndicate on the New York Insurance Es- change, with $4.4 minim fa polxyboldea surpb- Ancon in Bermuda w! e�ontimue to underwrite M oson- :dated risks, which have always been the Lrg- ast source of to business, aeeountieg for 11165 of its 1983 mosdidatatl net premiums of $140.7 million. The British company and AN= which mpos 1983 net aesrmad of i7J million and $33 mullion re- y, could be sold. The three operations had consolidated gives premi- t®s of 5311 mfliion on unrelated risks in 1963 and were expected to bock slightly more In 1984. The 1964 vol- ame will be Lea without temwals, however. McLon's withdrawal from commercial teiaeuraace underwriting further :educe wedderide reinsurance capacity for the January rennwrance renewals, which already are expected to be O ieult because of previous withdrawal of rssmsisresa. And, with to largest opesadon in Bermuda. Ibotan's withdrawal from commercial teiasaaanc a is curtain to rasair sect the debate over the long-term stability of Bermuda as a eommeereW reinsurance Center and non- issuance companies' commitment to diversification into the reinmoance basins. The last major captive in Bermuda to stop under- writing --related risk business was Walton Insurance Co. Ltd., owned by Phillips Petroleum Co., which stopped susderwritirig unrelated risks in January 1983 due to big lass on the business. Exxon did not base its decision to withdraw from commercial reinsurance underwriting on the combined ratio produced by the non - related budnats, Mr. Cor- mier said. Exxon Insurance's three reiraai:arice opera- tions have made a "modest profit after urinc"mt in- come on unrelated business. Mr. Cormier said. In its 1981 annual report, E=on Insurance disclosed its experience on unrelated risk business: a 78.95 lm ratio on net premiums of $1.3 million in 197?, 110.15 on met premiums of $3.4 million to 19BP, and 8395 ore net premiums of $10 million in 196L Since 1962, however. M-son Insurance has not dis- e3ased its lam caperimce an its consolidated unrelated risk business of $19.7 million in net earned premiums in 1982 sad $24.6 million in net earned premiums in 1983. (AM= reported to the New York Insurance M z- rhange a combined ratio of 1145 in 1983 and net in- come of $16.000 after investment income. Anon (U.B.) has not closed its first year of business under the three- year method of accounting used in London.) The reported consolidated Fos ratio for all of Mloton Insurance's burins for the pet two years has been enviably low because of few loom an } ]own - related buiidwes: 29.35 in 1993 and 30S in 1981 An itioton spokesman confirmed that 'the surelated operations did yield a modest profit but, we felt a we baked at this business it was not wier to stay in it' Tax considerations &W did not motivate Z=on's de- dsion. Mr. Cormier said "We didn't get into the bud. was for tax advantages, and the withdrawal l not sax - ifven' It has ham suggested that a company whose Captive Insurer smderwran unrelated risks will be in a better position to prove b the Internal Revenue Service that Cests;sstsed on pope 4 Liability. market shrinking for public entities 1 4 M, firMa lk wi form wiseis ewasngee. birK - Seven insates that wrote pube7ic siflldale wind pdfac peodasiomal Usbility! cvvvsages It sateo a ago have left the market. And, the remaining itusaess am raking rats anywhere hoes 195 b 4005 on am Ow Usbilk y pdkiss that include endoesemmts for public ol6da�s and poiioe peea[aslonal liability eoversOa ass Ire the l so ton 130 drys. t6er: der bum a M. degree turn in thyyesa Joan" W.= atlas sses;�cint a total liability Package, a ssti- vleion of ice as beoltef and msmSLng jemr -ssi Agent In lliehmond, 9a the winds are not abating lei •a�, will be some rant weeping anQ QisehLig of ssatb In tae Months.- Fie D. llkh LiSald managing dirsdat !car Marsh k MCLAMIUM Inc, to San 1Yaarists s� ` L2�st NM f TiOdY34NtM - iy ;lit v K►c l: o ti,v X34 'I AWdofsMr 1100accutt9 rXleQ,ri►lhiyvMtzvssNll �e SSOdtr 10 4 expect 10 Moe a erootiaued worm d the public an" liabili ty insaamoe market &ro ugh the first qua: ea of AW he adds. Changes are generally being fait an the Wrist Coast now, but the wind l hbwusg toward the let _ direct insures capacity and Incresee theft costs; Vowing uader- writing loss � mp at rock -hotam rates; sad legal d ditions exposure of saamicipshdss, Sever ioseuas be" responded by pudHag an of the pssbhe affl- dels and police professional liability markets compieedy. Two yarn sege, these were about 30 teases in. California tjat would underwrite low lays.liaball1V swage for pub eatitites flaw there are fewer than aeven, Mr. Mmfirld said. In the last month, U eel Mutual larurassoe Co. of New York and Great Southwest Fin Iarsurasoe Co. of Scomdale, Aria.. have dapped undererritb4g 1*alke Drefeeskeut! sad /or pull k otbeiait lia- Ccsssierteed as pope X iQerwarTters 1FearLnpsct= Surrey shows benefit costs co - toss portfolio roposai' `�'" 'are ntinuing to r1se _1. Page a yo=u _ _lability market shrinking for public Cwtattrma %•apa9el Weitt�atb9il* balsa coverage either s acparate err And. Trasosit Casualty Co. has eambined policies or s eadorute- diMW bsaksr Gayly actin. & .area to.comprebeosire general L- m IAternatitoal lac. m'� wrtt- atat7ity ptilioea fog au polkas and public aitfid.ls li- Lass mooch, ideal Mutual can- abttlity irvorage far it, ancatdind W Wed an pollee prefasai cal UAW- Gaargt .. Bowre. thairmact and Sty pttfids n dorm with a 30•dq m�esiesaatt count l However, he said souse. Wd Daniel Z. Varona. 3Yaasit Casualty will ate consider Ideal's vp, saeretar7 acrd general amunicipality on a ste- 3rs a exodus !teen the police . Transit Cawtl>1s Lad peades000 al liabaity market is part been esdexse I by the of an oogotol sedirectim d the us- Assn. d Chiefs of Poiitti, but that suar's peaaritis, be said. The com- endorsemmt was given to Markel's paay i moviAg taut d the agency program m Sepamhar, arxordutg Chapman. Markel is also business asd concentrating on writing large, direct amen ets, he to Mt. farming a national advisory board said OU. May 21) so the topic of poiicx liability. Those yd� pro&e=iaaal Lability A surplus iAes insurer that im Jan- policies that were eancdsd, scow of O ppsd out at the nArket which also covered public i t8dals. may said its lasses in the public an- generated $3 million to $5 million lty liabr7tty matkst mvsap were is liability d the company s total 1963 peaml- last eha, throe other ums elf' ;200 million, be sold The lines, but it found it inerreadngly hots ratio for this line was generally d1f5cultto &W umnidpautis that worse than the company's 71.51 would accept Pi's written by was ratio for all its liability linas to eon- admitted insurers because 1903. Hr. vanma said such policies are not protected by About lit years ago. Ideal guaranty h-d' and an not subject changed its reinsurance arrange- to ova ran and form tgulations. went so it was training more of As a result. the insurer aatici- the risks .and, therefore. felt the losses mote, be said. moN of the police liability cover- W age was,wrioess m Waal areas. sad dsraded to drop out d Great Southwest is Jetting the the market- book non out an the vast majority The esrofia of these insurers has of the public officials sad police wade it cttremdY difficult for professional coverages it under- public risk managers to getCOmpet- writes said Eugene J. Seating Jr, itive bids on the coverage they chief operations officer. Although seed. ft is not canceling any existing.eov- sage, it is._ notifying policyholders Getting yetis bids for ex- _ CM cover tom6is eel!- insured lia- now that it a neither writing new bility and program wan i coverage. nor renewing existing m stage while evehatitl felt 1 - problem r Allen Hyuaan, risk manager Pub�iic and president of the R We just don't think we can Insysancr Management Aso. He make money on tt,' Mr. Keating queried at Jost air potential insur- ar half refused to quote said two Aim tbs spring, Campos Incur are: Can decided w close its doors a — reeves rsrpon 1 4 - Z*o yeah ago people would ands uwrnirg off its bar bw^ in- �jiuimp st tLts business; said Mr. e hding.pubiic entity business. The $Yman:'Now they are lying back. CbarskeeInes ranee Ca., which has The tide fs finally turning and it is been to voluntary rehabilitation in going to became a seller's market Tennessee since July 17, also instead at a buyers market' atatpped writing all policies this Brokers are also lsss interested in spring. including a CGL policy public amity aocounn. with special endoesemmtt for psi- David Van Dyke. a partner in Boe and public officials. That mu- wholesale broker Charter Now in aidpop package Ipmerated 6300,000 Nashville. Tenn., said that since In $350.0(!6 of Cherokee's *24.6 mil- July I m competing brokers have lion in direct written premiums in shown up to bid an amounts that be 1963. according to Billy Akin. tee- has ben interested in. Let year naor vp sssd a ebuy. there would have been seven or The loss ratio for the municipal slot otixn there, he said packagers better than the cam- Meaanhile. the Inseam remain - smY's liBX loss ratio for all pia- lit[ in the market are charging 6billisty'linss; Mr. Aktia said noes for the c vies ge washer iaanrsi- iisae� The elty of Santa Ana, Cliff a .three ,sty National Insurance Co, Cana- come uinity of few- than 220.000 disc Iadew>aity Co. and Unbad Na- about 35 miles south of Loa An. tienal Insurance Co. —have pge1lasn,, was hit this Year with a 220% Aeoppad out of the market shoe focseere in the premhtm far a CGL Bements nears Analysts Tar ateeanat tae uariaces Marcos 1,410"attaeI aaneMSraeaeas ri..ac..ti..tsw Coe caeta� +t Ant w. Oa,r,naeecrte� 4tea ms�asay _ W" bic.- ••Csnsuftnis is Caa,aetq AclrAsl Soaswes • iw arwreo.++r a ftww wriws . CAN a cat ueosrss Slesrr�e . canaeq. perarb & ra.arm.+.ss as rawerae.$-ALamtors Jarntta tans tor.. areirtasss osgsarew WMAtANCEVC111WEDIARM ItTSPSISt•rT ter /a• ors b tom. • tow r>,ra� awl Maas saga as to.apaaaiaa d aarrna tawaMr'7e01�1C! ass sus tsars /rev •Ci -ra-d r~ Ov.wsnnwM�wstw�r.twr _ aartpeava. • rw aura tnarr a-d era. - ___ aria Can't M er war tens tao+e r aw. eaara• nouns ea.a rte tag, a..as V car M oast eiM sou.KxAM -"t) X.S. su....t. C_ a.. a,._ r� salvo f daaeraa ire.. vrra tU. roses. For a0vwbakig iniornugion in the IitSL4WACE SERVICES GORE C OW= Beverly K1u:dal. 740 Rush Stoat. Cttiea9o. "Minis 00611. Tecestiwcte (312) 6466W &P-r2mt- Insurer. ds pfessio Binh ]liaed to name his Insu er. For the iiseal ysar beginning July 1, the city paid 6315,625 for >W million in Coverage. tip from jv 2W far SW mfllion in coverage thT0 lastaeralao doubled the dm A weatiea to Some increase in premium was axpactsd because two ma- police Claims were settled earlier this year tor, a total in excess of $1 million. be said. Bert, Mr. Savers said be was surprised by the An of the iaastaee sad work" a month trying to finding a better raw but was un- able to do am 'Already my concern is what wlllhappm am year,' be adds. And, when Corpus Christi did Sad excess liability cvverage. its roes woe up 35%. amid the city's broker Gerald Michalak, area vp with Arthur J. Gallagher Co. in Dallas. O 1, the Fox the yesr beginnial R city is Paying 697.750. - compared wtth $72J35 last year—for $23 ma- Jim in liability coverage above the city's salf•insuted retention of 6250,000 for all casualty cow"ages. lYr. Michalak said. Rates on comprehensive general liability Policies that include police and public -Hides coverage are up anywhere from I% to 9001. said M&Ws Mr. Enfield said The am of increase depends on the entity's )ass and bow under - he mix�eovaage was Previously. Me 'a Mr. Chiapmansays rats are going up 501 .73M for liabil- ity packages that include general lt- ability, police and public of ciah auto liability and thud -party peop- ssr;;; kaat for public offieisls and police professional liability Coverages written as separate poli- cies is in 'real distress and flux,' said gar. Eafield. polies professional coverage in particular is becoming more re- strictive and harder to Sad. adds Bob Bieber. director of client ser- V for Dams Risk Management Conotanat in New York. Among the invan" met often identified as writing t»verags� �asCGL� or separately. ate National Casualty Co, Scottsdale Insurance Co.. ln- tornatioaal Surplus Lines Insur- s,Ce Co, hmpadal Casualty & In- demnity Co, The Forum Insurance Co. and INAPRO, a CIGNA Corp. abodiary that Y the professional llahility icaderweiticy manager for CIGNA. Mr. Chapman of Markel. which 10 the managing general agency for National Casualty and Scottsdale Insurance, expects average pre- mium increases of 20% to seas for public officials coverage and 20% to 901 for police professional cover - �kel generated x135 million in premium volume for public e, in dais coverages lad $4.25 nniliiot in premium volume for pdic� peeRea- skm Coverages m 1 However, Acbert M. Bryant. vp at Specisl Risks Inc., a wholesale broker in Virginia Beach, Va, that is the managing genwal agcy for Imperial Casualty, said the national market is still competitive with in- aeeas of only 10i to 201 for po- kite professional liability coverage. In 1993, Imperial Casualty arated $3.3 million ad its $86.9m: lion is premium volume from a separately written police profes- sional polity. It yeneratad an addi- tional $2 million to $3 million in premium volume from comprehen- sive general liability policies that include endorsements for public of- ficials and police liability cover- ages, according to Mel Epstein. Im- perial Casualty's manager of prop- erty and casualty, underwriting. Forum Insurance, which gen- erated $6 million of is $54 million in direct written premiums in 1983 from separately written Public offi- cials liability policies• may not in- emu, acs that have remained the same for seven years for some poll - eyholders, while others will get in- ereaaes of tip to 301, according to Ted Padgett, assistant vp for coc - mercial underwritin& Farum did not cut, aver ra- eent ysaes to remain competitive, avers though this can the insurer UNWOS, says Mr. YadSatt Public officials coverages, which gen- eseted $8 million in premium vol- ume two or then years ago. will generate only $4 million in pre- mium volume this year, be said. Premiums also have remained stable because Forum bom pram, ums an the public entities' budgett. which have been kept down through belt tighteninga and poop° otioos to reduce taxes. Forum's loss ratio on its public atSdais coverage was worse than On 91.71 loss ratio far its liability Loss as a whole. Mr. Padgett said. Losses were grestest is indnauial states and in rotes where the acv- ereignty of public entities has been eroded by state statute. he Insurers are also tightening tm- dassrrftiag terms, •specially by in- Creasing deductibles and a df -m- sursd retentions. M&M's Mr. in- field said insurers are gradually ali- mfaating aggregate deductibles and soep4m Provisoes on Sias. entities But, the dramatilenimng tLigIV the public entity liability market is most evident in Western states and does not seem to have hit the FALt Coast and Deep South yet. F ample, arcs are currently u 101 to 201 for public entities o Rao Coast sources my. LArwise, in the Mid - and Deep South, premiums for liability pack- ages including coverage for police and public officials are up a mode r- aw 10% to 1S%. said Mr. Van Dyke of Charter House. The wholesale broker writes only regional busi- ness from offices in Kentucky. ' ennenee. Georgia and Alabama. One of the largest factors behind the tightening of the market is the . extent to which public entity liabil- ity products were underpriced. Two years ago, there was a lot of competition in the market, says Markel's Mr. Chapman. And, a lot of insurers didn't appreciate the exposures and underpriced the public officials and police profes- sional liabiity coverages, be said. These are so few who under- stand the potential exposure of the business itself,' Mr. Chapman said- 1 think they all got burned' The biggest factor is the product has been terribly underpriced and poorly underwritten by most com- panies,' agrees Jim Bliss, who is president of wholesale brokerage The Bliss Group Co. and president of the Governmental Interin- surance Exchange, a pool -like group based in Bloomington, Ill.. that includes about three dozen cities and counties. Mr. Chapman, however, says the biggest factor is the tightening of the rainatrance market '!tee rea- son the market has collapsed is the lack of reinsurance.* be says Reinsurers are lnereasing rates on the eontraen tiiey this fall and will pull out of classes of business entirely to stem their underwriting losses, which have hit historic highs this year (W. Sept 171. The. legal climate and specific court rulings also have broadened public entities liability exposure& which has produced mom claims and lases. Municipalities are a special clue among special classes when it roans to insurance. said Mr. Bliss -1be laws are unique, arcane and changing rapidly he explained. The frequency of lawsuits against public officials and law en- breement personnel is up 400% in the past five years, said Markel's Mr. ap Chmut And, the cost of defending suits is more than the insurance industry anticipated. Mr. Chapman said Out of every $4 paid out on lawsuits. $3 goes to legal costs and only $1 goes to the plaintiffs, be said. a Cities' property rates also rising its" for ptsbtie .ntitp lxopertY ..rmgni ke cover age. old D. $ti- t=ease 68% ore txt 1 to 663.125 from tessuramoe are expected to rise mote chisel Enfield managing director $34.686 for $93 million in excess. modeatdy than casualty must, ex- for broker Yarsb & McLennan Inc. per- xrurrence coverage. according cept for high -risk area subject to in San Freisciam to broker Gerald Michalak vp with and borioaee paribL He predicted a retuaa to deduct• Arthur J. Gallagher Co. in Darla+. prempu m and larger de- files squal _to '23% d the Insured Harris County. which surrounds dutibls are expected said Md value. Lately, the deductibles for Houston, suffered hurricane losses 1l�ostiN manager d property /�' elienta —those with aartb- d $700.000. and had its coverage arty tuedeseaitiny toe Imps Cos quake values for a single location d cww* d by Hartford Insurance Co. natty &Iademdq,Co,oCpmaba, lj2S nglion or woes. -were as low It then negotiated coverage with There will be a significant in- as IS of the values and frequently �U accordis utu Alvin H� mutt depends upon the individual eestseant county auditor. public antity bemuse loss esperi- The premium to insure eosin b Still an important factor. valued at $220 million rose 61% to said Dog MwLmd. R at Public $125,900 from $76.000, be said. Entities Iiationd Corp„ a Nash- The city of Houston suffered rail, Tssn, wholesaiar with a $50 nearly twice the amount of damage mull,& book d property and cow to municipal property as did Harris any Program for W� acititirw County. Yet its premium for prop- hases are expected to rise s the arty insurance for the year begin - pcgwM market hardens city July 1 rase only declined said o but them are storm clouds on the city spokesman. He declined to !or Pub entity OwAiriy provide additional details. e n�otl�tad ale Dar amotmti. Also. Tess dtis and counties air now feeling the effects d Harr time Alicia• which Lit in August 1963. Hoverer. not all government entities nee fading the same etfaet The city d Corpus Christi had little a no property damage s the seuaih d the Norm, despite its Gulf Ctsest location. lIoweves, the city. whidu Las aself- insured retention d 1100,000 for first -party property corezale, saw its premiums is.• o >, 0.0 (/� ^ _ vCi �+ - a > °.,co, U V . V C 0 V y a7 ca 'O w. D .. O C y .��. d 7 V V a rn ea O N t, L. N y .O a7 0�'0 C w rios o C . ac. y `awa7u'aa„w �cam � ° O o > ° ° yar y a INNIP ° ° CC . °yrA 'It - c.c�cW •oc��a>a CS 0 �N„Q.y Q��L'g= O «y °4?. x?`'\:._C N �.wp•. N p; C .V« -. N .r_.�.:�..w. :y _'' y CD V ° c a 4.•v- aV ; $ m `� c a 'A b a7.m_ �ea.asocaE^� -, b�� xcmyy.°w,o�.0 IV Sm cc in ..� c— °v yE °`s+ �°zc"vvcoJ°¢ aoco�'vao °O �' °x« �+ o°c:.,iu:« mac. `° 0�coo ..' . d .., « O -_ ^. 'v L•+ „Or $ i... E. C Ca C 'i= pQa N ta�,e,C C N - yV y, v d.d �0 „�" 007 �C r�iO� y�y CD cc 7 yy� R^yC - •C y�+�C,. .: �p O'y -y. y.'� y r^a 07 '•"'vim! -.y CM �.+ Rf� ca ea' y O �. a p. L+ ..�. ca y a C. �,. co C. w C C 0 ' y cn 0.0 4- ^ O ...°i .Si - ♦r N.- C b [�. Cam,,. Q = 0 C.M �J ca caaiN O asp. 3N CA O W -� C - 3- �' O r`/0i CZ U.00 . . [�-' p 'C r [ 'OG C- '� .k w ca .Rf..0 O. CIS. Ca. - as .0' Q'C (� �.. 0 -b. N Ca ° _tea M.W a;v a70 ° a °y °° LZ ca a. O c. N V C. ° � Ca V Coo d.. - - C s. .. Ca cc MIR NNW- ,mow, _« V _ O.i'S'i O G.cti. C: C.�... N 07 ,Q G 0 0 �.. Sa m " ai ^ co ° ° °° G >, - ew -o. k a eU y L a;? - a7 a7 v = o m aco. s`°,'d�oGc 43_ovv`3Vyc°c' 0.0-4) Aai.w—"�.' & V C ,., ^ z' V c0 £. �" > 07. > G ■��+^ C...y C V y.L! O'er �+ °`v >, c a �+ 3.« v c0. ' N � C E+ . Q <a C FC V.. ... Ca .� Q! IV C US .. E�0- C CCf .>'. O ��„ N V _ C/C7 0 .. aD cyC*- co °NCB,. 3 -0E �o ^ °a w .�. y Q.. ` rn � ``� �•••� N a c v �.v v.v Lip b �i x e `�£ a, % ?� a •—�� a�i a°i c c � � S � wcUm •, :Se.;. -CO i ... 07 SS .0 °fir V- 4) Ca C Ca .�. y. �• m v .O: yam. - =r o IV ca- 0 c a7 a xC. o ash s O C a 07 . C a7 w N E I—- arc >0 ;u'�a «.m.° ?v oworby�°� Va +'ai b «cam awccw.. ° :i , r� a V. . Gi. O L" , y�y�++a0 O' vp vJ to ,'iy V J. 4 �f- -.`> daa— C 0..., 9 C'. ...S.. CC. V.p�.�� Q C- -«.� Q_a ca, cr o- c � i. c 3 CJ rz '7 +-�- c o ao a vN, ° Cb C: 4 vv°a3 «�Acawcic y� C� CCQQ q� iZOO� -�c0 'v C��O ay67�0 •�Nw.. w . j .ca G�i � Fi l,. C ..Oyu Ci q ^y •' y... s # ##��. ; s, _ 3»"Q at.3 - 4 Q. p,.S7. g4 1i 7 • -4j. ;; r L ] u 11 L� 19 -1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 129 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ending 12/31/84 Council Members: The annual financial report for the period endng December 31, 1984, has been completed by the Administrative Services Department. The audited financial report is not available at this time, due to the audit provision which requires Richfield's financial reports to be audited by Cummings, Keegan and Company subsequent to April 15. As council members may be aware, the City received a reduced audit fee in turn for approval for the auditors to delay their audit work until after April 15. However, the Richfield City Charter requires the financial report to be submitted to the City Council for fiscal year -end information. by April 10 of each year. Therefore, the City staff has prepared this report on the highlights of the 1984 financial statements. General Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Transfers Increase to Fund Balance 12/31 Fund Balance 1983 Actual $7,836,248 7,651 ,921 209,219 $ 393,546 $2,787,444 1984 Budget $8,354,400 8,559,990 205,590 $2,787,444 1984 Actual $8,459,816 8,348,692 217,088 $ 328,212 $3,115, 56 As shown in the chart above, the General Fund of the City at 1984 year -end had a fund balance of $3,116,000, (all figures rounded off to nearest $1000 for discussion purposes) compared to $2,787,000 at the end of 1983. The fund balance increase of $328,000 over budget resulted from reduced expenditures in the city's operating departments and increased revenues. Total revenues for the year came in at $105,000 over budget, while expenditures came in $211,000 under budget. The fund balance is utilized to cover the temporary cash shortages in the General Fund which are experienced in May and June of each year. -2- j 9- Z Revenues in the General Fund were $105,000 over budget in • 1984, due to increases in fines and forfeitures ($51,000) and miscellaneous revenues ($61,000). Cable television franchise fees budgeted at $75,000 were not received in 1984. It is anticipated these fees will be collected in 1985. Interest income, which was budgeted in the amount of $100,000, exceeded estimates by $49,000. Expenditures in the General Fund came in under budget by $211,000. The Legislative /Executive Departmant was under budget by $28,000, mainly due to reductions in expenditures in the Mayor - Council, City Manager and Legal Divisions. The Administrative Services Department came in $81,000 under its budget of $774,000. The Public Safety Department was under its $3,956,000 budget by $6,000, while the Community Development Department budget of $350,000 was overspent by $19,000. The Community Services Department came in $116,000 under budget with reduced expenditures in virtually every division, with the majority of reductions occurring in the Street and Recreation Divisions. All of the City departments showed a continued commitment to containing the cost of operations. As a result, the City has been able to significantly enhance its fund balance position as of 1984 year end. • Water Utility Fund 1983 Actual 1984 Budget 1984 Actual Revenues $1,320,848 $1,288,000 $1,453,295 Expenditures 1,037,071 1,013,240 917,291 Net Transfers (26,275) (28,700) (28,678) Net Income $ 257,502 $ 246,060 $ 507,326 Decrease in Bond Reserve (136,198) (75,770) Net Increase in Retained Earnings 121,304 246,060 431,556 12/31 Retained Earnings $1,058,531 $1,215,809 $1,490,087 The Water Utility Fund also experienced a positive financial position at the end of 1984. Total revenues exceeded the budgeted amount by $165,000, while expenditures for 1984 were $96,000 below budget. The result was a significant increase in net income. Actual net income for 1984 was $507,000, as compared to the budgeted amount of $246,000. The Water Utility Fund has also significantly improved its year -end cash position. In 1983, the year -end cash balance was $279,000, while in 1984 the year -end cash balance was $533,000, indicating a $254,000 increase. Retained earnings of the Water Fund increased in 1984 from $1,059,000 to $1,490,000. This is is $274,000 greater than expected. As the City Council is aware, the improved financial • the City to accelerate meter replacement and go basis. C_ • Sewer Utility Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Transfers Net Income Net Increase in Retained Earnings 12/31 Retained Earnings -3- performance the Capital other needed 1983 Actual $1,130,486 940,929 (16,090) $ 173,467 173,467 $1,151,228 of the Water Improvement improvements 1984 Budget $1,254,540 1 , 156,240 ( 19,200) $ 79,100 79 , 100 $1,230,328 / 9'- 3 Fund has enabled program for water on a pay- as -you- 1984 Actual $1,176,446 991 ,494 (19,178) $ 165,774 165,774 $1,317,002 The Sewer Fund showed net income in 1984 of $166,000; significantly higher than the budgeted amount of $79,000. As a result, total retained earnings increased to $1,317,000. At the end of 1984, the fund had a $234,000 increase in cash compared to 1983, due largely to sale of property at 7300 1st Avenue, a $30,000 loan repayment by the Golf Course Fund and increased revenues. Another important factor contributing to the fund performance was the delay in constructing storm sewer projects estimated at $100,000 (66th Street, Xerxes to Upton). Accounts receivable for the Sewer Fund increased in 1984 by $8,000. It should also be noted that the Golf Course Fund owes $140,000 to the Sewer Fund. Golf Course Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Transfers Net Income Equipment Transfer Net Increase in Retained Earnings 12/31 Retained Earnings 1983 Actual $ 634,468 612,744 ( 18,478) 3,240 $ (855) 2,396 $ (67,930) 1984 Budget $ 721,630 628,810 (19,220) __. 73733 700 73,600 $ 5,670 1984 Actual $ 676,667 653,049 ( 19,213) 4,405 $(6, 1`60) ( 1 ,755) $ (69,685) The Golf Course was financially successful in 1984. Total revenues increased by 6.7% over 1983 to a 1984 total of $677,000. However, expenditures increased by 6.6% over 1983 to a 1984 total of $653,049. While net income was only $4,000, the Golf Fund made a $30,000 repayment of its loan to the Sewer Fund. The Fund Balance deficit of $68,000 at 1983 year -end was slightly increased to $70,000 in 1984. It should also be noted that continued capital improvements were made on the course throughout 1984. -4- I y Liquor Fund 1983 Actual 1984 Budget 1984 Actual Revenues $5,521,202 $5,646,200 $5,682,276 Expenditures 5,001,039 5,134,000 5,202,405 Net Transfers (461,087) (457,880) (457,533) Net Income $ 59,076 $ 54,320 $ 22,338 12/31 Retained Earnings $1,485,503 $1,539,823 $1,507,841 The Municipal Liquor Operation was also successful in 1984. Year -end sales totals for 1984 were $5,682,000 as compared to $5,521,000 for 1983. Based on comparisons with other cities which operate major municipal liquor operations, it appears that Richfield sales were unsurpassed, making Richfield number one in municipal off -sale liquor operations in the State of Minnesota. Income before operating transfers for 1984 was $480,000, which is a 7.7% decrease from the 1983 figure of $520,163. The decrease in the operations profitability can be attributed directly to 4.3% increase in the 1984 cost of sales. Cost of sales increased due to inventory adjustments and lower gross margin.. In addition, operating expenses increased from $678,92.4 in 1983 to $694,738. In the final analysis, the liquor operations significantly expanded sales in a weak economy where other municipal liquor operations have not been similarly successful. This was facilitated by loss leader features which decreased the operation's gross margin. Richfield liquor stores continue to remain competitive with surrounding stores as they strive for sales growth emphasizing friendly service, convenience and competitive prices. This financial report is a summary of the overall financial report for Richfield. A brief presentation will be made at the City Council meeting on April 8, 1985, highlighting these results. Of course, a more comprehensive review of 1984 financial operations will be made this summer when the auditor's report is complete. JGC:sb cc: Program Directors Finance Manager Respectfu y submitted, John G. Ca twr ht City Manager CITY OF R- TaiFIELD, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND FORM F COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET December 31, 1984 and 1983 1984 1983 ASSETS Cash $ 2,633 $ 5,675 Investments 3,148,194 2,785,841 Receivables: Taxes - net of uncollectibles 28,084 32,665 Special assessments 2,671 3,621 Accounts 41,385 40,066 Due from other funds: Municipal State Aid Street 9,592 Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Richfield 27,306 19,909 Due from other governments: Richfield School District #280 8,674 8,279 Hennepin County 31,788 - 34,050, State of Minnesota 12,486 10,778 .. City of Minnetonka 1,664 Federal Government 5,916 6,044 South Hennepin Human Services Council 49,702 43,498 Inventory 1,183 1,153 Total Assets $3,360,022 $3,002,835 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALAN(MV Liabilities: Vouchers payable $ 84,095 $ 88,825 Accrued salaries payable 114,321 88,078 Due to other governments: City of Bloomington 31, 4:25 29,033 City of Minneapolis 2,083 Hennepin Coup Revenue collected in advance. 3,9502 3,950 Total Liabilities 244,366 215,391 Fund Balance: Reserved for: Encumbrances 29,795 55,847 Inventory 1,183 1,153 Unreserved: Designated for cable television 6,804 44,758 Undesignated 3,077,874 2,685,686 Total Fund Balance 3,115,656 2,787,444 Total Liabilities and Fund Balance $3,360,022 $3,CO2,835 See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RiCHFIELD, MITN =TA GENERAL FUND FORM F -1 STAMNIENT OF REMRM, EXPENDITURES, AND CHAINMS IN FUND BALANCE - BUDGET AND ACTUAL For the Year Ended December 31, 1984 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1983 1984 Over Final (Under) 1983 Budget Actual Budget Actual Revenues: Taxes $2,992,250 $3,028,310 $ 36,060 $2,687,280 Cable TV franchise fee 75,000 (75,000) 71,763 Licenses and permits 235,800 257,332 21,532 246,715 intergovernmental revenue 3,986,980 4,004,925 17,945 3,734,669 Charges for services 795,820 789,331 (6,489) 789,168 Fines and forfeits 156,150 206,747. 50,59.7__..159,629 Miscellaneous revenue 112,4C0- 173,171 60,771 147,024 Total Revenues 8,354,400 8,459,877 105,417 7,83 248 Expenditures: Legislative /Executive 427,570 399,787 27,783 407,611 Administrative Services 773,890 693,141 80,749, 627,473 Public Safety 3,956,090 3,950,567 5,523 3,616,742 Community Development 350,120 369,276 (19,156) 361,724 Community Services 3,052,320 2,935,921 116,399 2,538,371 Total Expenditures 8,559,990 8,348,692 211,298 7,651,921 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues over. Expenditures 205,590 111,124 316,714. 184,327 Other Financing Sources (Uses): Transfers from (to) Other Sources: Housing and Redevelopment Authority/ Purchase of Services 242,730 253,816 11,086 221,892 Municipal Liquor Find 60,480 60,481 1 57,354 Water Utility Ftmd 23,110 23,110 22,008 Sewer Utility Fund 12,010 12,010 11,4336 Golf Course FLmd 15,750 15,750 15,000 Home Service Program (1,430) Self Insurance Fund (148 , 490) (148,079) 411 (117,041) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 205,590 217,088 11,498 209,219 Excess of Revenues and Other Sources over expenditures and Other Uses 328,212 328,312 393,546 Fund Balance - January 1 As Restated 2,787,444 2,787,444 2,393,898 ( Note 1) Fund Balance - December 31 $2,787,444 53,115,656 $328,212 $2,787,444 See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RIaiFIELD, MINNESOTA 17-7 WATER UTILITY FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHAT December 31, 1984 and 1983 ASSETS 1984 1983 Currant Assets: Cash $ 3063 $ 840 Investments 530,000 278,000 Service charges: Billed 198,782 189,888 Certified to county auditor 67,797 75,283 Unbilled services 146,446 143,580 Inventory at cost 6,094 8,055 Total Current Assets $ 952,482 695,646 Restricted Assets Cash with fiscal agent 87,075 1,822 General bond debt service: Cash 30,938 1,907 Investments 75,000 247,000 Total Restricted Assets 193,013 250,729 Deferred Assets: Ccnnection charges receivable: Edina hookups 1,215 1, 287 Deferred charges - LCGIS contract 2,815 5,631 Total Deferred Assets 4,030 6,918 Property, Plant and Equipment: Land 44,500 44,500 Buildings 1,468,519 1,4£8,519 Office equipment 5,800 11,771 Machinery and equipment 1,927,593 1,744,706 Other improvements 6,458,688 6,5419,488 9,905,100 9,8CS,984 Less accumulated depreciation 3,383,749 3,549,585 Net Property, Plant and Equipment 6,521,351 6,259,399 Total Assets See accompanying notes to financial statements • $7,670,876 $7,212,692 /I.P FORM Ktb LIABILITIES AND FUND EiUITY 1984 1983 Current Liabilities Payable from current assets): Vouchers payable $ 42,881 $ 22,230 Accrued salaries payable 6,120 5,331 Accrued vacation 22,241 25,257 Contracts - LOGIS.(due in.one year) 2,815 2,815 Due to other funds: Special assessment funds 20,000 20,000 Total Current Liabilities (Payable from current assets) 94,057 75,533 Currant Liabilities (Payable from restricted assets): natured bonds payable 85,000 1,000 Matured interest payable 2,075 822 Accrued interest payable 2,926. -- - 5,125 Bonds payable - General Obligation (due within one year) 90,000 _ 155,000 Total Current Liabilities (Payable from restricted assets) 180,001 1 1,947 Long -term Liabilities (Payable from deferred assets): Deferred revenues - connection charges: Edina hookups 1,215 1,287 Contract LCGIS (net of current portion) 2,816 Total Lang -term Liabilities (Payable from deferred assets) 1,215 4,103 Long -term Liabilities: Customer deposits 522,670 520,878 Bonds payable- General.Obligation: (Net of current-portion) Water Bonds of 1963 901CCO Total Long -term Liabilities 522, 70 10,8788 Total Liabilities 797,943 852,561 Fund Equity: Ccntri.buted capital: Property owners' (special assessments) 3,196,5CC 3,196,500 Municipality (aid in construction) 2,156,346 2,075,100 Federal grant 30,CCO 30,000 Total Contributed Capital 5,38- 2,34 5,301,5CO Retained Earnings: Reserved for revenue bond retirement 13,012 88,782 Unreserved 1,477,075 569,749 Total Retained Earnings 1,490,087 1,058,531 Total Fund Equity 6,8722,77 03,03^ ,'131 Total Liabilities and Fund Equity $7,670,876 $7,212,092 • ' CITY .OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 110-7 WATER UTILITY FUND FORM.K -10 COMPARATIVE ST_4TEM0,T OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS For the Year Ended December -31, 1984 and 1983 1984 1983 Sales: Charges for services $1,412,243 $1,307,554 Miscellaneous revenues 1,612 Total Sales $1,412,243 1,309,166 Operating Expenses: Personal services 286,693 305,701 Other services and charges 285,706 341,806 Supplies 169,478 182,830 Depreciation 164,136 187,515 Total Operating Expenses - 13 -! ,.017,852 Operating Income 506,230 291,314 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Interest 40,242 8,647 Recovery - damaged property 806 2,357 Sale of equipment 4 678 Interest expense and fiscal charges (11,278) (19,219) Total Ncno era tang Revenues (Expenses) 29,774 (7,537) Income before Operating Transfers 536,044 283,777 Operating Transfers (Out) Transfer to the General Fund ( 23,110) (22, O48 ). Transfer to Self Insurance Find (5,568) (4,267) Total Operating Transfers (Out) (28,078 X6,27 Net Income 507,326 257,502 Other Changes in Retained Earnings: Increase (Decrease) in reserve for revenue bond retirement (75,770) (136,198) Net Increase in Retained Earnings 431,556 121,304 Retained Earnings - January 1 1,058,531 937,227 Retained Earnings - December 31 $1,490,087 $1,058,531 See accompanying notes to financial statements • V&SI ZiksVj:V"7ffijWujhl►l •�i 1 SEWER UTILITY FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE S= DECEMBER 31, 1984 and 1983 ASSETS Current Assets: Cash Change fund Total Cash Investments Accounts receivable: Service charges: Billed Unbilled services Accrued interest receivable- Golf Course -Fund Due from other funds: Strom Sewer Utility Fund Metropolitan Waste, Control Commission.: _ Operating cost adjustment (1983 and 1982) Total Current Assets Deferred Assets: Deferred chard s - LCGIS contract Special assessments receivable Due from other governments: Metropolitan 'Waste Control Commission Operating cost adjustment (1984 and 1983) Reserve capacity Interceptor.acquisition contract City of Edina Total Deferred Assets Long -Term Assets: Long -term loan receivable'- Golf Course Property and Equipment: Land Buildings Office equipment Machinery and equipment Other improvements Less accumulated depreciation Net Property and Equipment Total Assets See accompanying notes to financial statements 1984 $ 36,831 500 37,331 250,000 715 123,531 2,325 2,800 • 1983 $ 289 500 789 53,000 116,433 3,000 94,444 59,063 511,146 232,285 2,815 66,070 54,591 1,550,243 150 073,87 140,CCO 9,050 479,245 1,244 64,024 95,959 649,245 238,566 410,956 $2,735,971 5,631 94,444 is 58,516 1,618,543 92 1, 777 170,000 9,050 553,066 4,093 64,890 52,620 683,719 215,521 �'M= $2,647,709 19 -I1 CITY OF RIa-iFIELD, M iPNESOTA SEWER UTILITY FUND FORM K -16 COMPARATIVE STAMHENT OF R MIJES, E TENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS For the Year Ended December 31, 1984 and 1983 1984 1983 Sales: Charges for services $1,017,573 $ 959,870 Miscellaneous revenues 22 300 Total Sales 1,017,595 960,170 Operating Expenses: Cost of services rendered: Metro Sewer chards 693,310 654,961 Personal services 181,936 175,124 Other services and charges 75,950 - 70,102_ Supplies 13,538 13,993 Depreciation 26,760 26,749 Total Operating Expenses 991,494 940,929 Operating Income 26 ,101 19 , 241 Nonoperating Revenues: Gain on sale of assets 63,344 79,086 Interest 95,507 911230 Total Nonoperating Revenues 158,851 170,316 Income Before Operating Transfers 184,952 189,557 Operating Transfers (Out) Transfer to TYm General Fund (12,010) (11,436) T�nsfer to Self Insurance Fur_d ( 7,168) (4,654) Total Operating Transfers (Out) (19,178) (16,090) Net Income 163,774 173,467 Retained Earnings - January 1 1,151,228 977,761 Retained Earnings - December 31 $1,317,002 $1,151,228 See accompanying notes to the financial statements CITY OF RICt=ELD, MINNESOTA M UCIPAL GOLF CC( RSE F JIND COMPARATIVE BAL A�NCE S=ET December 31, 1984 and 1983 ASSETS Current Assets: Cash Change fund Total Cash Accounts receivable Inventory Total Current Assets Restricted Assets: Cash - Revenue bond debt service Investments Accrued interest receivable Total Restricted Assets Property and Equipment: Land Buildings Office equipment Machinery and equipment Other improvements Less accumulated depreciation Net Property and Equipment Total Assets 1984 $ 1,250 1 , 250 793 31,006 33,049 1983 $ 850 850 43 23,941 24,834 52,219 9,717 210,CCO 243,000 4,014 106 266,233 252,823 See accompanying notes to financial statements 57,865 393,471 5,023 215,819 1,282,962 1,955,140 375,590 1,579,550 57,865 391,067 4,213 206,883 1,262,455 1,922,483 281,434 1,641,049 $1,878,832 $1,918,706 • • • • C LIABILITIES AND FUND EA UITY Current Liabilities Payable from Current Assets): Cash deficiency Vouchers payable Accrued salaries payable Accrued vacation Accrued .interest payable - Sewer Utility Fund Total Current Liabilities (payable from current assets) Current Liabilities (Payable from Restricted Assets): Accrued interest payable Bonds payable (due in one year) Total Current Liabilities (payable from restricted assets) Long -term Liabilities Bonds payable (due after one year) Loan. payable - Sewer Utility Find Total Lang -Term Liabilities Total Liabilities Fund Equity: Contributed capital Municipality Retained Earnings: Reserved for revenue bond retirement Unreserved Total Retained Earnings Total Find Equity Total Liabilities and Fund Equity 19 UP FORM K -20 1984 1983 S 42,971 2,254 2,744 6,201 2,325 56,495 9,304 11910 2,477 7,540 3,CCO 24,231 12,333- -= 12,716 40,CCO 40,000 52,333 52,716 1,120 , COO . 1 ,160, CCO 140,CCO 170,CCO 1,260,000 1,330,000 1,3 8,828 .1,4C6,947 579,689 579,689 213 , 9CO 200,107 (283,5585) (268,037) (69,685) (67,930) 511,759 $1,878,832 $1,918,7C6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI1T lZ ESOTA f 11 at 1 V MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE FUND FORM K -21 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND a i MES IN RETA= EARNINGS For the Year Ended December 31, 1984 and 1983 Sales and Cost of Sales: 1984 1983 User fees $541,408 $505,233 Sales of merchandise and concession 109,219 103,143 Less cost of sales 58,083 48,081 Gross Profit 592,544 560,295 Operating Expenses: Personal services 242,643 210,251 Other services and charges 97,292 87,960 Supplies 69,683 58,951_. -_ Depreciation 94,156 9071 Total Operating Expenses 503,774 449,533 Operating Income 88,770 110,762 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Interest 26,040 25,970 Miscellaneous 122 Interest and fiscal charges (91,192) 0'5,416) Amortization of bond interest (16,714) Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) (65,152) (89,038) Income Before Operating Transfers 23,618 21,724 Operating Transfers (Cut) Transfer to The General Fund (15,750) (15,000) Transfer to Self Insurance Fund (3,463) (3,478) Total Operating Transfers (Cut) (19,213) (18,478) Net Income 4,405 3,246 Other Changes in Retained Earnings: Equipment transfer to Central Garage (6,160) (850) Net Increase (Decrease) in Retained Earnings (1,755) 2,396 Retained Earnings - January 1 (67,930) (70,326) Retained Earnings - December 31 $(69,685) $(67,930) i.....�. See accompanying notes to the financial statements 17-A U • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS For the year Ended December 31, 1984 and 1983 Sales -and Cast of Sales Sales Cost of sales Gross Profit Operating Expenses: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income 1984 $5,595,310 4,504,071 1,091,239 1q-1.5 FORM K -5 1983 $5,461,598 4,319,051 1,142,547 406,291 402,849 223,918 212,591 21,520 20,118 43,009 -.- 43,366 -_ 694,738 678,92T 396,501 463,623 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Interest Telephone and cigarette commissions Miscellaneous revenues Miscellaneous expenses Total Ncncperating Revenues (Expenses) Income Before Operating Transfers Operating Transfers (Out) General Fund Special Revenue Fund Self Insurance Fund Total Operating Transfers (Out) Net Income Retained Earnings - January 1 Retained Earnings - December 31 See accompanying notes to financial statements 73,603 2,389 10,974 (3,596) 83,370 479,871 (60,481) (393,000) ( 4,052) 457,533 22,338 47,329 1,9Z7 10,348 (3,064) 56,540 520,163 (57,354) (400,000) (3,733) 1, 087 59,076 1,485,503 1,426,A27 $1,507,841 $1,485,503 CITY OF RICHFIELD, iIVNrOTA MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FU0 COMPARATIVE BALANCE S=T December 31, 1984 and 1983 ASSETS Current Assets: Cash Imprest cash Change funds Total Cash Investments Accounts receivable Inventory, at cost Total Current Assets Property and Equipment: Land Buildings Office equipment Machinery and equipment Other improvements Less accumulated depreciation Net Property and Equipment Total Assets LIABILITIES AND FUND SaUITY Current Liabilities: Vouchers payable Accrued salaries payable Accrued vacation Deposit Total Current Liabilities Fiend Equity: Retained Earnings: : Unreserved Total Retained Earnings Total Liabilities and Fwd Equity See accompanying notes to financial statements FORM K -4 1984 1983 $ 18,967 150 8,OCO 27,117 6CO,C00 1,134 397,119 1,025,370 454 150 8,000 8,74- 539,000 620 450,157 1,004,381 227,826 227,826 742,206 742,206 15,354 20,447 222,254 223,578 94,215 94,215 1,301 ,855 1,308,2-7f 528,404 501,775 773,451 806,497 $1,798,821 $1,810,878 $ 240,192 $ 278,332 8,360 7,042 41,703 39,276 725 725 290,980 325,375 1,507,841 1,485,503 1,507,841 1,485,503 $1,798,821 $1,810,878 • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / 9—/ Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 128 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of Signage for the McDonalds Restaurant As Part of the Richfield State Agency Project. Council Members: At the March 11, 1985, city council meeting, the city council approved, with conditions, an amendment to the planned unit development, final development plan and special use permit for the Richfield State Agency at 6625 Lyndale Avenue. One of the conditions of that approval was that the signs for the proposed McDonalds restaurant were to be submitted to the city council for approval. McDonalds and RSA proposed a total of nine signs, as follows: 1. Three signs on the north face of the building (see north elevation drawing); 2. One sign on the west face of the building (see west elevation drawing); 3. Two menu boards adjacent to the drive -up service lane; 4. The existing RSA pylon sign (time, temperature and message board) will include the "M" logo arch and the word "McDonalds "; and, 5. One entrance and one exit sign for the 66th Street driveway. The size of the proposed signs are discussed next. The "M" logo arch sign on the north wall measures 4 1/2 feet x 6 feet and is located approximately in the middle of the building above the atrium being constructed for the McDonalds restaurant. On the east and west ends of the north face there will be an • additional 4 1/2 feet X 6 feet arch and a 2 foot x 18 foot individual letter McDonalds sign. On the west wall, there will -2- :a1g- I.. be a 4 1/2 foot x 6 foot logo and a 22 foot letter McDonalds • sign. In addition to the signs on the building there will be two menu boards adjacent to the drive -up service lane. There will be three panels installed on the three sides of the existing bank pylon sign which will be approximately 3 feet X 15 feet which will include an arch and the word McDonalds, and finally there will be one entrance and one exit sign at the entrance to the site from 66th Street. The signs will be 3 feet X 3 feet and mounted at the top of single poles. All of these signs will be illuminated. The proposed signs are generally consistent with the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevelopment area Urban Design elements. The size of the signs are within design proportions with the building. The signs are placed so they relate well to other signs on the particular building and they are within appropriate sign groupings and sign. bands. Staff has some concerns about two aspects of the signage proposed. One is the asthetic impact of the panel to be added to the existing bank pylon sign. It is staff's understanding that the metal panel will match the color of the existing sign. This should be required. The second aspect is the location and design of the entrance /exit signs. Staff is concerned about the location and height of the signs. The signs could potentially present traffic visibility problems for vehicles exiting the site onto 66th. Street. It is recommended that the city council approve the signage • proposed with the following stipulations: 1. That the panel to be added to the existing bank pylon sign should be designed to visually tie in with the existing sign. Materials and colors used should relate to the existing sign with the understanding that the sign face will carry the arch logo and the word McDonalds in the traditional red and gold colors; and, 2. The location and height of the one entrance and one exit sign at the 66th Street driveway shall be subject to the approval of city staff so as to insure that the sign will not obstruct vision of vehicles exiting the site. JGC /eja 0 Respectfu / ubmitted, John G. Car wr ' .t City Manager APPROVE a DENY : City Manager Date APPROVE El DENY ❑ : Sivert Hendrickson See Planning Dept. Inspector Remarks Date 3/20/85 APPROVE a T)ENYa:_ Rink _Tnpkp _ APPROVE a DENY Sub' t to only one Planning Department City Council en a sign on 66th St.Date 3/20/85 Date '.Sup t pole should be covered with wood or brick General Signs _�V Q APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota 9 PERMITS Date 3/20/85 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No X Fee Address of Sign 66th St. / Lyndale Avenue Proprietor Name McDonald's Corp. DBA Same Sign Erector Signcrafters Address Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting 4 Wall Projecting Ent/E Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T M A F1 Post Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Red Background w /yellow on pylc Entrance /Exit;yellow letters on bldg; Red 2 4 1 9 Yellow and bronze on Menu Boards 6 Illuminated Yes No Watts ctrical Contractor Not Known Yet Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature Kay Kassinger Phone 884 -4355 Estimated Cost $30,000.00 Sign Width Height Total Square Feet (See Attached Sheets) Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? YES Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? NO Kay Kassinger - Construction Engineer - McDonald's Corp. Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date 3/20/85 Phone Number 884 -4355 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Z_I4 N0113nuiSN03 A11101S -£ M3N . 1" 'rl lljl !� I 41I t I III �� II �, II r I I I J.Z o W J N �y ! Ihl dll I ul�,i�i , ; i N} jI �i t' f I,nI41 II = 't U if I I I! Mq t!I I 2 uj "! pN n M �jra COi < o i U I , m N W Q W 6=Q W Wm W J O U W i 2° Ipl_ MI I� 4II4� N� 11L•1.. yli k .yam _. ' .. 7 4 W U L I d b° 41 ahbbk nII i -_- Y� II:I wNa IjNll hIMM Ii„� j II;II[[ Z ° F'¢~ r,-C 0 o Ow "XI ,rl lif, 1 —7 W O spa .. ��n 2 �?� ? II III I xr N. NI yt j Ih I' I�rA yllil� I I ` ,'I I Y cd W¢ N ¢ a gr k¢- CC Z 77. ��. ..._ �p c in a N W X ¢ a Z � Yn 1 d .I a t0 W X ¢ a "p 2 I U vN W _ N - =2 1- o O¢ Om m¢ ¢U F¢ I m W ay �v za O It . 1" 'rl lljl !� I 41I t I III �� II �, II pla1r1111 � ij�l`�II lilil I� u �y ! Ihl dll I ul�,i�i , ; i N} jI �i f �f I11,111% ' ..! U J 0 , m N W Q W 6=Q W Wm W J O U W i 2° ° S J H< 16 W¢ SNa' aa+mi W Z ° F'¢~ r,-C ¢N m= lVW X4 �¢ t-W 1 1 W O spa Y• ¢w ��n 2 �?� ? II I ti,, v 2 ¢ ¢¢O ¢<� cd <w is 77. ��. ..._ �p c in a N W X ¢ a Z � Yn 1 d .I a t0 W X ¢ a "p 2 I U vN W _ N - =2 1- o O¢ Om m¢ ¢U F¢ I m W ay �v za O It ,8 -y O L Q W J W° 1 W OJ Z " N I c • • U J 0 m N W Q W 6=Q W Wm W J O U W i 2° ° S J H< 16 W¢ SNa' aa+mi W Z ° F'¢~ r,-C ¢N m= lVW X4 �¢ t-W Q ¢my W O spa Y• ¢w ��n 2 �?� ? 2 ¢ ¢¢O ¢<� cd <w is k¢- CC ,8 -y O L Q W J W° 1 W OJ Z " N I c • • o o - . -_ -- - Z --_ - -_- -- . LU Vo 4' -8' X 22'-0' SIGN AREA LL - LINE OF SLOPED - _- _ _ _ —__ _ _ - GLASS -� W U BEYOND LL CONCRETE STAIR i - AND PLANTER WEST. ELEVATION (PARTIAL) -- SCALE: 1/8' -1' -0' ' o �- �s a. u� ; _ �Z a: JJANUARY 1985 , ---- ----'�A�,� ' - --- '---- --------- --- ' '-- sv r-T / f / 0 '- � ^� ' - '------------ | ----'----� | - J S341 7 A2-cm 1e C. C Logo Arch a. 4'•1/e" (126.68 cm.) b. 5' -0' /4" (153.03 cm.) i I a,Rd i Mall and Alternate'Store Front ,Sign 1 - ez�, i • Fascia Letters I r ED Ell elr i i t { tI� i } Logo Arch f �t �i a. 1' -11/4" (33.66 cm.) b. 113W (29.85 cm.) c. 8' -9" (266.70 cm.) a. 2'-6?�" (77.15 cm.) b. 2'- 113/a" (69.85 cm.) � t i is C Fascia Letters E Ana Wu Mall and Alternate Store Front Sign SERIES 200 a. 21-01A"(61.59cm.) b. V-81/4"(51.44 cm. ) c. 1$'-0"(548.64cm.) Logo Arch a. 4' -1 7/s" (126.68 cm.) b. 5' -01/+" inn (153.03 cm.) 4 84 • Iq I IV' j � it, Q LD Lu I-U UP • �J 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA'S Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 127 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise - Little Bob's Park Improvements Council Members: The 1985 Capital Budget allocates $50,000 in special revenues for the funding of park improvements at Little Bob's Park at 67th. Street and Harriet Avenue. Two neighborhood meetings were held. At the first meeting, neighbors provided suggestions to the city staff for preparation of the park plans and specifications. The neighborhood representatives at the second meeting were in unanimous agreement with the park plans. At the March 12, 1985, meeting of the Community Services Advisory Commission, the commission unanimously recommended approval to implement the park plans. Little Bob's Park is only about one- quarter acre in size. It is somewhat triangular in shape with roadways on three sides. The north side does not have vehicular access, but does have pedestrian access. One neighbor suggested at the first neighborhood meeting that the roadway on the south side of the park, Bob's Place, be closed. This was one option offered by staff at the second meeting, but was not accepted by the neighborhood. The neighborhood did request a buffer or screening from the traffic on 67th Street. This request has been incorporated into the plan. The major item in the plan is a play experience with a variety of equipment for a variety of ages. Some picnicking and trash receptacle facilities are provided. The estimated park improvement costs consist of these items: $20,000 estimate play facilities $ 9,000 estimate landscaping /forestry $ 6,000 estimate engineering, survey, staff $35,000 Total estimate -2- :t�.J ?- 2.. • If bids are received at approximately what our estimates are, the estimated savings of $15,000 will be applied to cost overruns at Memorial Park (adjacent to City Hall). A site develpment plan will be on display at the city council meeting. It is recommended the city council approve the plans and authorize advertisements as necessary for the Little Bob's Park project. JGC /eja 0 41 Re ectf ubmitted, Vt ohn G— Ca twrigh.t City Manage • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.126 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: On -sale Non- intoxicating Malt Liquor Distribution Council Members: At the city council meeting on March 11, 1985, the council indicated they only wish to hold a formal hearing, with the applicants present, for on -sale non - intoxicating malt beverages at the time of the original request for such license, or when in the opinion of the Director of Public Safety, a problem existed which the council should consider with regard to a license renewal process. As was noted in the Council Memorandum #21, the ordinance presently requires all non - intoxicating malt beverage applicants, both on -sale and off -sale, to appear before the council at any time a license or a license renewal application is to be considered. Following the directions provided by the council on March 11th, the City Attorney is proposing an ordinance amendment to reflect the stated desires of the council, as we understand them. Attached is the ordinance amendment prepared by the City Attorney with regard to this matter. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that council give first reading approval to this ordinance amendment if the proposed language accurately reflects the desire of the council in this matter. JGC /eja Re ectfu ubmitted, J hn G. ar wrig t City Manager • • A14ENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI, SECTION 11.02 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter XI, Section 11.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Sale and Dispensation of Nonintoxicating i;alt Liquors" is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 7 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 7. Investigation and Issuance. Each application may be referred to appropriate city authorities, who may investigate the applicant and make report to the council, based on their findings. The applicant for an on -sale license or the applicant's rep- resentative must be present at the meeting where the initial license application will be considered to provide such additional information as may be required by the council. Applicant or applicant's repre- sentative shall also be present when an application for renewal of a license is to be considered by the city council provided that such attendance has been requested in writing by the city's director of public safety. Failure to attend the meeting shall be grounds for denial of the application for an on -sale license." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of ATTEST: , City Cler , 1985. John N. Hamilton, Mayor 0 i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 125 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improvements. First Reading. Council Members: In September, 1984, the city council adopted the 1985 budget document. Included in that budget was the 1985 Capital Improvement budget, which includes a number of projects to be funded from the Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The following projects in the 1985 Capital budget include financing from this source: *Energy Management System at Ice Arena; triple glaze city hall windows; infra -red garage storage building. * *State Grant ** *Lincoln Field and Donaldson Park The total 1984 Special Revenue expenditures for capital improvement purposes is $350,000. Because these projects are scheduled to be implemented in 1985, it is recommended that the city council give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordinance, appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund for these projects, at the April 8, 1985, city council meeting. Respectf 1 submitted, John G. Cartw ght City Manager Special General Revenue Revenue Fund Sharing Project Projects Alloc. Alloc. Totals Energy Improvements* $ 10,000 $ -0- $ 10,000 City Hall Improvements $ 10,000 $25,000 $ 35,000 Legion Lake Park ** $248,300 $12,200 ** $260,500 Forestry $ 4,700 $25,600 $ 30,300 Little Bob's Park $ 50,000 $ -0- $ 50,000 Parking Lots /Drives * ** $ 27,000 $ -0- $ 27,000 Total $350,000 $62,800 $412,800 *Energy Management System at Ice Arena; triple glaze city hall windows; infra -red garage storage building. * *State Grant ** *Lincoln Field and Donaldson Park The total 1984 Special Revenue expenditures for capital improvement purposes is $350,000. Because these projects are scheduled to be implemented in 1985, it is recommended that the city council give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordinance, appropriating monies from the Special Revenue Fund for these projects, at the April 8, 1985, city council meeting. Respectf 1 submitted, John G. Cartw ght City Manager • • • TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section. 2 hereof, for which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subd. 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Energy Improvements $ 10,000 City Hall Improvements 10,000 Legion Lake Park 248,300 Forestry 4,700 Little Bob's Park 50,000 Parking Lots /Drives 27,000 Total $350,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1985. ATTEST: comas P. Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager xti y -/ Council Letter No. 124 • Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Related To Installers Of Limited Power Alarm Circuits Council Members: This matter is being brought before the council for consideration and is a "housekeeping" proposal to keep our ordinance code in conformance with state statutes. In the last session of the legislature, an amendment was approved exempting the installers of power limited alarm circuits from state electrical licensure. The amendment being proposed for council consideration would allow the city to issue electrical permits for the installation of power limited alarm circuits. This would preclude the requirement that such installers have state electrical licenses. We believe that this amendment will facilitate the installation of private public safety alarm systems in our community, which is a goal of the Department of Public Safety. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council give favorable consideration to this proposed amendment to our ordinance code. JGC /eja 41 Res ctfull s tted, hn G. C rtw ight City Manager Mt/ y- 2--- AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART I, SECTION 3.02 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part I, Section 3.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Adoption of Minnesota State Building Code and Uniform Housing Code" is hereby amended by amending subdivision 10 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 10. State Electrical License. There is no license fee for electrical construction and installation; provided, however, that no person shall practice or engage in the business or trade of electrical construction and installation within the city unless such person is the holder of a valid and current license from the State of Minnesota, nor shall any person engage in the business of electrical contracting within the city unless such person is the holder of a valid and current electrical contractor's license from the State of Minnesota. Such licensing requirements do not apply to installers of power limited alarm circuits who are regis- tered with the State Board of Electricity pursuant to Laws of Minnesota (1984) Chapter 470. It is unlawful for any person to perform any electrical work regulated by this Code without first having obtained a permit to do so. All fees required for permits issued pursuant to this subdivision stall be as contained in Appendix D of this Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk John N. Hamilton, Mayor • 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield If/ 3 -/ Council Letter No. 123 Agenda April 8, 1985 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Requiring Pet Vaccinations. First Reading. Council Members: At the March 11, 1985 council meeting, the City Council approved staff's recommendation to require rabies vaccinations in conjunction with pet licenses. The City of Richfield currently licenses dogs and cats as household pets or in conjunction with kennels. Licensing procedures are in place to record numbers and types of animals in Richfield, to return lost pets to their rightful owners and to assure absence of nuisance factors and cleanliness and sanitation of neighborhoods. While the city administers a thorough licensing program, we currently do not require a proof of rabies vaccination for licensure. However, a recent survey of metropolitan municipalities indicated that Richfield was one of the few communities that didn't require proof of rabies vaccination. A rabies vaccination requirement would enhance the safety and comprehensive nature of the Richfield pet licensure program. It is recommended that first reading consideration be given to the proposed ordinance amendment. Timely adoption of the proposed ordinance would allow the city to initiate the vaccination requirement for the 1985 -86 license year, which commences June 1, 1985. s ectfu ly mitted, hn G. ar Wright City Manager JGC:sb cc: Administrative Services Director City Clerk *t/3 -:�_ AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter V of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to the licensing of domestic animals is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Section 5.27, Subdivision 5 is amended by adding the follow- ing: Applicants shall provide a certificate issued by a doctor of veterinary medicine licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota showing that the animal has been vaccinated against rabies within a period of one year preceding the application for a license. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager —� Council Letter No. 122 • Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Driveway Widths. Second Reading. Council Members: On March 11, 1985, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance which revises commercial, multi - family and industrial driveway widths and scheduled the public hearing for April 8, 1985. The ordinance amendment would make several changes to the city's driveway construction requirements. The current ordinance provides that driveways serving any type of land use may not exceed 20' feet in width. This provision is badly outdated. The proposed amendment would have this 20' limitation apply only to single or two family dwellings. The proposed amendment would allow the city manager to authorize a greater driveway width for single family and two family dwellings if it could be demonstrated that it was of necessity and for the public convenience. The proposed amendment increases the width of driveways serving commercial, multi - family or industrial uses from 20' to a width of 26 to 361. Once again, for these types of uses, the city manager may authorize a greater or lesser width upon the showing of necessity and to serve the public convenience. This proposed amendment also requires that all driveways serving commercial, multi - family or industrial uses be surfaced with either concrete or bituminous concrete. This amendment would not allow gravel, crushed rock or other similar materials to be used for commercial, multi - family and industrial driveways. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and approve this ordinance amendment at the April 8, 1985 city council meeting. s ectfu ly mitted Is ohn G. -ar wrigh City Manager AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.04 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IV, Section 4.04 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield entitled "Construction of Driveways, Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter" is hereby amended by amending subdivision 8 thereof to read as follows: Subd. 8. Driveways - Special Regulations. The following regulations shall be observed in the construction of driveways: (1) No driveway from private property serving a single family dwelling or two family dwelling entering a public street may exceed 20 feet in width. Upon a showing of necessity and public convenience, the city manager may authorize a greater width. (2) No driveway from private property serving a commercial, multi- family or industrial use entering a public street may be less than 25 feet nor more than 32 fee. in width. Upon a showing of necessity and public convenience, the city manager may authorize a greater or lesser width. • +2� (3) Where a driveway is constructed over a public sidewalk, that portion of the driveway within the public street shall be paved with concrete in accordance with city specifications for sidewalk construction. {-- (4) Where an existing curb is cut for driveway construction, the curb shall be returned to the sidewalk line in accordance with city specifications for curb construction. (5) All driveways on private property within the city serving a commerical, multi - family, or industrial use shall be surfaced with either concrete or bituminous concrete. -F-'a- (b) All driveways on private property within the city serving a single family dwelling or a two family dwelling shall be surfaced with either concrete, bituminous surfacing, gravel, crushed rock or similar material which will inhibit the blowing of dust from the driveway or the erosion of soil onto public streets. • -2- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, 49 Minnesota, this day of , 1985. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Steven Devich Acting City Clerk • • J S" 0 • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield tt ll-I Council Letter No. 121 Agenda April 8, 1985 Subject: Storm Water Drainage Utility Ordinance - Second Reading Council Members: On February 11, 1985, the Richfield City Council held a study session on a proposal to establish a municipal storm water drainage utility. The needs and costs of our storm drainage system were discussed and analyzed. The Council decided that an expanded level of maintenance and the start of a $2 million dollar plus construction program was a high priority. At the close of the study session., the council directed staff to proceed with implementation of the utility. On March 11, 1985, the council approved the first reading and scheduled a public hearing for April 8, 1985. A copy of the brochure which was mailed to property owners is attached. Also attached is a copy of the capital improvements map. The establishment of a storm sewer utility gives the city a fair method to finance needed operations and maintenance to our drainage system. The utility also provides funding for the long- awaited improvements to the system. Just as sanitary sewer utility users pay for the disposal of their own sanitary waste water, they will now pay for disposal of their storm water drainage. At the March 12, 1985 regular meeting of the Community Services Commission, consideration was given to the proposed storm sewer utility. The commission recommends to the city council that there be increased maintenance and capital improvements to the storm sewer system and that financing be provided by a quarterly utility fee. -2- It / /. �� The staff recommends that the council approve the second reading of the attached ordinance establishing the storm drainage system. The ordinance will be published on April 17, 1985 and become effective May 17, 1985• The first water and sanitary sewer bills to carry the new storm sewer utility fee will be mailed during June, July and August. JGC /eja U R e4Ca bmitted, t ohn wrigh Ci ty Manager i' s i 4 it v M N T �e ~O E 2 a) 0 a) L ) ° U O t[] m m m m m m o C C «? N O c c7 •p _T cul-, 77Uyt 3 '0 Cam O ,n 3 ? v C'7 N n U A m 3 N m m N 0 m E O N i N 0 LO �N 64 6° 'a) CO a) oc v£� ��aooax m ds �L p n 0 .0 � cN 0 o v a) <ma o a -N ro E T C C j 7 i - 4: C'U C a T mN -30 °m� a�C omL� > oYoQr i N mU(D gym' �H amm doEn •O Q '0 O C 7 E = m m T a) 7 N m 0 a N c 2 c. C y 3 0 m E 7 m E° m c x$ m m m IOU O 8 0 U E 0' >.7 N Tm m F \' lb E y C L m °° m m O ftl 0�0 C OI Lo 'y N iA m E X� _a O C m 7 `n 7 EN � m 2 M a N O f m m �• o'O =m ; m._ TV '�ca 7TLQ L�3 06 �mm aTCTa N �N m C EN �3L• -wm mE mC m C NOY.Oa m a E CL N m O O) @ m U -0 co N A O co .� O .p 'a) �L, a7C. - ++ y� al °�pCasu c Emat°ioa3 a) E�' aEo= oa=Z,aI CL LL 0 `may N d� m °Nm7°>3 v'x a Em oy23 EEOOpm= X7 (D z E Nm>•0 a0O 000E a... m mmm L7 3 Z L O N c m a) m o o O C � N O E 7 C d C O L� O L L 2.c L 0- .w >.0 to 0arn2 U >-o .Q>,._o CO Ea -CDoN OaNmmc3 o > �3 00N _ Z 0000 m y EN °E c �7 T 0 m N 0 = v N 0 N � CO 0- a o=0 E O C CEaL 3 0 G,' Ny3E m y ?^Y U-°�om y� y m N QE OY i NZ� -o E O m o_p °7> 0 a a c L N c m 'a 19:2 m m T N m m C 'MO- m N c` O m 0) c O fC o)c =mma� Ea'0ca o }� m3 -0 co 86 000CCU C: Nv, C a) y N N m m 0- E C__ cu ��-m -0m �• _ '0 O J cC Y E N mN ^ i s 7 co N m t O a m r �j yE =m a o `canm m°c°�° 7 Q'7nS23: _2ra CL_ a a Cam. W t0 C CA C� C RT C E O A to y W Z 3 m N m p U C m y 7 m N C T o a OL N 3 c mLlo m0 T� (D C O• m N U = C m a E._ O C j e � N 0 0 0 2 C m 0' C 0 2 N m c m m 0� m O - �3 �� m C c vi N 7 ao E N m ca U O 'p) y m m Y °:E S c Efa c cu°aZ = mco2°o na0'c3ESaa y N 7 N 0 o- T� 2 C;C C C 50 _._ 2 m L O E O c m c a N Upa. E. m >m0C �CCmommE�:o°c°0 c m L lA _ m 7 N N 3 0 •pE _F-Oo mm T y a N E r .... i Eco dT °Q�p Om Cm m Tm m� C7 O) m m N = ca -0 D7 L OC N N N`.OS m O O N C� C a C c U C m m 3 X N C L 2 O 0--- 7 . 3>.ENE2EN- m N 3 c m mcoYao - 4) ca NN (,D 4) m E c N m= 0) C a y at c C m m'c6000U -m_ 2Eacc -Ei .L.. N L N _ O -a m O a (T6 2` y c me F m c3a a0 >'Ul' amcay o° a°i� ww ?m= o ac�'vmmmm'pm d�mcm '0 mL3 c �mrY�E Oy•O C>y m cO)mc �JZ ` ~>`L 2 LycmpUN•pcccam �mcco OCjO .oN =3m U m m N T y N� m U O m O m C W C V 7 N m U) co 'aEO Eow¢Z¢Ztwi 0 co r- 0coCM CLZ 0) a�To�2aaCCawtn a)-ao ._ m m e aci = a C > r (Min m p 0 0] O S¢ 0 3 m N N L_-L L7 cA `L .2.- C .0 W�Cn CC F- OJ y'0N 0N)0yao �m�ma� am) rQ).2;0 -F-Ww0wV o2E`oamio �cc uQQ > om • E m a> Lcm II�_ _=) a M: LL °c °�Nm m�m7 E am = m °?)ccy° aNiNymt mE °�3a.a-x?waa� 0(D0c°a- o7:�m7 toYC33 wmN =m mNam mL O� U:r O m� N m U C • • • • • • O m O a0 E c 0 Q O N a) V) y- .Lm.. m ..m..Q m c ai N N o E m N> N m T A CL cc f6Em ° C m m N C . C -U m N Nm-O' m m yNjL aY C mN'm m ca ca N wa77 am 7 C30Da`� a'= o CD mm`o E8 -66 Emc cco tec 'a- a m G as me N mm y° E 2 0 �a ° 3 8 E. In N m CD 0 C C- �p ado O N m �° -0 mo 0U p 0 �� L.N. �oY m L� �o o�� Ncai Sumo y a o 3y �. C• m a oa 3wa o 3 a 7_ E o x aE m c m 3 .--a' O 7 a) CO N o a _ V E O (C4 7 L 0 a) N C.Q C O p 0 cc m 00�� 5 E m Oc Ea o)�ma m� NY6 aim a cc�m NN`oI °30 cTO c to mLm•° - a2-2 aNE aa)i.N a. °o CCCa) C m CY ac LC L70 m O a TN am m a 0.0 MID cL a Cm W 3 a) 4) a 3 30T Cn N N a2 O N O = m m N N a aocca • • cO m 01= iYm • c • • @ c �v ~O E 2 a) 0 a) L ) ° U O t[] m m m m m m o C C «? N O c c7 •p _T cul-, 77Uyt 3 '0 Cam O ,n 3 ? v C'7 N n U A m 3 N m m N 0 m E O N i N 0 LO �N 64 6° 'a) CO a) oc v£� ��aooax m ds �L p n 0 .0 � cN 0 o v a) <ma o a -N ro E T C C j 7 i - 4: C'U C a T mN -30 °m� a�C omL� > oYoQr i N mU(D gym' �H amm doEn •O Q '0 O C 7 E = m m T a) 7 N m 0 a N c 2 c. C y 3 0 m E 7 m E° m c x$ m m m IOU O 8 0 U E 0' >.7 N Tm m F \' lb E y C L m °° m m O ftl 0�0 C OI Lo 'y N iA m E X� _a O C m 7 `n 7 EN � m 2 M a N O f m m �• o'O =m ; m._ TV '�ca 7TLQ L�3 06 �mm aTCTa N �N m C EN �3L• -wm mE mC m C NOY.Oa m a E CL N m O O) @ m U -0 co N A O co .� O .p 'a) �L, a7C. - ++ y� al °�pCasu c Emat°ioa3 a) E�' aEo= oa=Z,aI CL LL 0 `may N d� m °Nm7°>3 v'x a Em oy23 EEOOpm= X7 (D z E Nm>•0 a0O 000E a... m mmm L7 3 Z L O N c m a) m o o O C � N O E 7 C d C O L� O L L 2.c L 0- .w >.0 to 0arn2 U >-o .Q>,._o CO Ea -CDoN OaNmmc3 o > �3 00N _ Z 0000 m y EN °E c �7 T 0 m N 0 = v N 0 N � CO 0- a o=0 E O C CEaL 3 0 G,' Ny3E m y ?^Y U-°�om y� y m N QE OY i NZ� -o E O m o_p °7> 0 a a c L N c m 'a 19:2 m m T N m m C 'MO- m N c` O m 0) c O fC o)c =mma� Ea'0ca o }� m3 -0 co 86 000CCU C: Nv, C a) y N N m m 0- E C__ cu ��-m -0m �• _ '0 O J cC Y E N mN ^ i s 7 co N m t O a m r �j yE =m a o `canm m°c°�° 7 Q'7nS23: _2ra CL_ a a Cam. W t0 C CA C� C RT C E O A to y W Z 3 m N m p U C m y 7 m N C T o a OL N 3 c mLlo m0 T� (D C O• m N U = C m a E._ O C j e � N 0 0 0 2 C m 0' C 0 2 N m c m m 0� m O - �3 �� m C c vi N 7 ao E N m ca U O 'p) y m m Y °:E S c Efa c cu°aZ = mco2°o na0'c3ESaa y N 7 N 0 o- T� 2 C;C C C 50 _._ 2 m L O E O c m c a N Upa. E. m >m0C �CCmommE�:o°c°0 c m L lA _ m 7 N N 3 0 •pE _F-Oo mm T y a N E r .... i Eco dT °Q�p Om Cm m Tm m� C7 O) m m N = ca -0 D7 L OC N N N`.OS m O O N C� C a C c U C m m 3 X N C L 2 O 0--- 7 . 3>.ENE2EN- m N 3 c m mcoYao - 4) ca NN (,D 4) m E c N m= 0) C a y at c C m m'c6000U -m_ 2Eacc -Ei .L.. N L N _ O -a m O a (T6 2` y c me F m c3a a0 >'Ul' amcay o° a°i� ww ?m= o ac�'vmmmm'pm d�mcm '0 mL3 c �mrY�E Oy•O C>y m cO)mc �JZ ` ~>`L 2 LycmpUN•pcccam �mcco OCjO .oN =3m U m m N T y N� m U O m O m C W C V 7 N m U) co 'aEO Eow¢Z¢Ztwi 0 co r- 0coCM CLZ 0) a�To�2aaCCawtn a)-ao ._ m m e aci = a C > r (Min m p 0 0] O S¢ 0 3 m N N L_-L L7 cA `L .2.- C .0 W�Cn CC F- OJ y'0N 0N)0yao �m�ma� am) rQ).2;0 -F-Ww0wV o2E`oamio �cc uQQ > om • E m a> Lcm II�_ _=) a M: LL °c °�Nm m�m7 E am = m °?)ccy° aNiNymt mE °�3a.a-x?waa� 0(D0c°a- o7:�m7 toYC33 wmN =m mNam mL O� U:r O m� N m U C • • • • • • O m O a0 e "14 1 l ; l a.t 4 t'. w = *-4 =r *CO•Q :E47coND - o0M -•maD •a • O N N Q - CD o c Fvm ° o o ° ° o °o °°� m ° m` w5n D N N •J ( m N .o rD A Z N D a w . Q gN 5 69 p t•1 _ v . N CD � �3 rn aI N °° =0 o 3 N 0 D- :E ay o .� � CD a (D N wa °_ 7 O N n = `° a � Sa O ° r CO < ` m M O ¢ n 0 N O =v3 .NW 0 I = ,N Z: 00 � °� 3 a CD ° �mm o °� C �G fl. O 3mm � o w c m-�o a 3 w m -� , -d `° m� * alo O o � o m o cc a o T D m m -o :E m =� �o v c o a 3 a`m' CD O ?�° �� CD 0oaa3 ate`-.° CD �3��° gym° °ate °� Dm O• CO • O 7 C11 ° a, CD 091 (� Q ° y � CD 0 W, `d 7 N CD N CD C ,c C) .T CD fD N CD m CD m N° m�mCD ��(D 3° a�OcD rrt N o y m m �CD N o-"�° N mO DQ:C = ° °ao� �Q � 7 ° Qo ° • _' °° o n -gym IWD CL m o� c 3 a� m 5 a1 n>> c So'D _ a w m T O O N N Cn (D O CO J A7 CD D1 O CD T D '=D N - O� rF D7 N C) y CD w N :D O= T �. O 2: C) rt N 3 5 -- N CD 7 a 7 p c N O- o<° -��-° °-'x° mom°' ��a, O O 3 O- O (D N -p d CD CD. -O N O (� C �• N C O --p O.N. ^ j �- O< _. (n 0 O> := Q S o "9 O_; 7 CO n D W O O ° m ao �� 0°3 cn �� CCD N-0 ,Z CD C) pp,9 <.QO co 0v N N > < CD O O CD d < CD - SD O s CD N A .D'.. a N a c a j O_ a SD w CD a N NIN 'silOdeaUUIV4 99ZZ'ON I!wJad QIVd aftsod S'n 31VU N-ine �_ fA N y 7 C m s O O 7 M m c o� , r co ip n o fD0) CD o f!f O C to O m A G c0 O y O� � aCL �m c o Er r v n z D m r 26SZ-Sb4SS elOSaUUjjN'plal {403 . 43noS anuantl PuaIVOd 00. Plaijyoi jO Aj!: M Z 'n n z 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: March 15, 1985 TO: John Cartwright, City Manager FROM: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Community Services Commission Action March 12, 1985 related to Proposed Storm Sewer Utility Fund At the regular meeting of March 12, 1985, the Community Services Advisory Commission reviewed the proposed storm sewer utility fund. Information previously submitted to the city council was shared including the draft of a brochure to be distributed to each residence in the community, the city map noting the five priority areas being considered for improvement, the funding and budgetary information and the policies and procedures for the proposed utility fund. 40 During the discussion, comment was made that the planning commission should watch future developments, especially those with significant change from residential to commercial, for possible impact on the storm sewer system and situation(s). This would include requiring some provision related to storm sewers be part of the developers responsibility in construction. A unanimously approved Commission motion endorsed an increased maintenance and capital improvement program for the storm sewer system with funding to be derived from a storm sewer utility and recommended a monitoring system be instituted for monitoring of future developments and the effects on the storm sewer system. Perhaps the city council would be interested in the Commission action and recommendation. It is suggested a council memorandum be issued as soon as possible. is /s Donald A. Fondrick, Director Community Services Department 0- (" 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM OF THE CITY AND TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE USE AND AVAILABILITY OF THE SYSTEM CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield is amended by adding a new Part VI to Chapter VIII thereof, providing as follows: "PART VI. STORM SEWER SYSTEM. SECTION 8.40. STORM SEWER SYSTEM RATES, CHARGES AND OPERATIONS. Subdivision 1. Statutory Authority. Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075, authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer facilities ( "charges "). By this ordinance, the city elects to exercise such authority. Subd. 2. Findings and Determinations. In providing for such charges, the following findings and determinations are made: (1) In the exercise of its governmental authority and in order to promote the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, the city has constructed, operated and maintained a storm sewer system ( "the system "). This ordinance is adopted in the further exercise of such authority and for the same purposes. (2) The system, as constructed, heretofore has been financed and paid for through the imposition of special assessments and ad valorem taxes. Such financing methods were appropriate to the circumstances at the time they were used. It is now necessary and desirable to provide an alternative method of recovering some or all of the future costs of improving, maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of charges as provided in this section. (3) In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes to make them just and equitable. Taking into account the status of completion of the system, past methods of recovering system costs, the topography of the city and other relevant factors, it is determined that it would be just and equitable to assign some or all of the future costs of opera and improving the system on the basis of water runoff from the various parcels of city during a standard one -year rainfall //- responsibility for ting, maintaining the expected storm land within the event. (4) Assigning costs and making charges based upon expected typical storm water runoff cannot be done with mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within reasonable and practical limits. The provisions of this ordinance undertake to establish a reasonable and practical methodology for making such charges. Subd. 3. Use of Residential Equivalent Factor. Rates and charges for the use and availability of the system shall be determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" ( "REF "). For the purposes of this section, one (1) REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of surface water runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected to typical single- family residen- tial use within the city during a standard one -year rainfall event. Subd. 4. Determination of REF'S for Land Uses. The . REF's for the following land uses within the city and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows: LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION Cemeteries .25 1 Parks and Railroads .75 2 Two - family residential 1.00 3 Single- family residential 1.00 4 Public and private schools and institutional uses 1.25 5 Multiple - family residential uses and churches 3.00 6 Commercial, industrial and warehouse uses 5.00 7 Other land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be classified by the city manager by assigning them to the classes most nearly like the listed uses, from the standpoint -2- 1- s of probable hydrologic response. Appeals from the city manager's determination of the proper classifications may made to the city council in the same manner as other appeals from administrative determinations under this code. Subd. 5. Establishing Basic Rate. In determining charges, the council shall, from time to time, by resolution, establish a basic system rate to be charged against one acre of land having an REF of one. The charge to be made against each parcel of land shall then be determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classfication times the parcel's acreage times the basic system rate. Subd. 6. Standardized Acreage. For the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges against property used for single- family and two - family residential purposes, each of such properties shall be considered to have an acreage of one -fifth acre. Subd. 7. Adjustments of Charges. The city council may by resolution, from time to time, adopt policies pro- viding for the adjustment of charges for parcels or groups of parcels, based upon hydrologic data supplied by affected property owners, demonstrating an actual hydrologic response substantially different from the REF being used for the par - cel or parcels. Such adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of the city manager and shall not be made effective retroactively. If the adjustment would have the effect of changing the REF for all or substan- tially all of the land uses in a particular classification, however, such adjustment shall be accomplished by amending the REF table in subdivision 4 of this section. Subd. 8. Excluded Lands. No charge for system availability or service shall be made against land which is either (a) public street right -of -way or (b) vacant and unimproved with substantially all of its surface having vegetation as ground cover. Subd. 9. Supplying Information. The owner, occupant or person in charge of any premises shall supply the city with such information as the city may reasonably request related to the use, development and area of the premises. Willful failure to provide such information or to falsify it will violate this section. Subd. 10. Estimated Charges. If the owner, occupant or person in charge of any premises fails or refuses to provide the information requested, as provided in the fore- going subdivision 9, the charge for such premises shall be estimated and billed in accordance with such estimate, based upon information then available to the city. -3- /I.. i' Subd. 11. Billings and Collections. Bills for charges for the use and availability of the system shall be rendered by the finance department in accordance with usual and customary practice in rendering of water and sanitary sewer service bills. Bills shall be rendered quarterly, shall be payable at the office of the city finance department and may be rendered in conjunction with billings for water or sanitary sewer service, or both. Subd. 12. Penalties and Remedies for Delinquency or Default in Paying Billings. Penalties and remedies for late payment or non - payment of billings shall be the same as those applicable to billings rendered for water and sanitary sewer service. Subd. 13. Use of Revenues. Revenues received from charges shall be placed in a separate storm sewer system account and shall be used first to pay the normal, reasonable and current costs of operating and maintaining the system. Revenues from time to time received in excess of such costs may be used to finance improvements to and betterments of the system.- Subd. 14. System Responsibility. The construction, operation and maintenance of the system is the responsibility of the community services department." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1985. ATTEST: • City Clerk City Mayor • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 120 Agenda of April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Year XI Community Development Block Grant Program Public Hearing Council Members: A public hearing has been scheduled for the April 8, 1985, city council meeting for the following purposes: 1. To provide citizens with information about the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; 2. To obtain views of citizens on local housing and community development needs; 3. To provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin County (UHC) Statement of Objectives for 1985; 4. To provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the City of Richfield's proposed use of $206,839 of the Year XI Urban Hennepin County (UHC) Community Development Block Grant funds. A summary of the CDBG fund requests and the staff recommendation for levels of funding appears on page five of this letter. The 1981 amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 made significant changes to the CDBG program. The amended act eliminated the requirement for a formal application and considerably eased HUD's responsiblities for review and approval of the application replacement - a statement of local objectives, a projected use of funds, and certification assuring proper administration and implementation. A Statement of Objectives has been developed to provide the guidance necessary for planning and implementing the Year XI Urban Hennepin County CDBG program in a manner which meets the National Objectives. -2- .;*I- /0- 2-- These changes place almost the entire responsibility on the • Urban County for ensuring that each activity to be carried out with CDBG funds is clearly eligible, and meets the National Objectives of the Housing and Community Development Act, as amended. The National Objectives remain unchanged: developing viable urban communities; providing decent housing; providing a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities (principally for low and moderate income persons); aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or, meeting other community development needs which have a particular urgency. 0 • The Statement of Objectives has been divided into CDBG program sub - headings. A copy of the Statement of Objectives is included in the backup material. Under each sub - heading are specific objectives and procedural statements supporting how the objectives can be achieved. The following is a summary of the Statement of Objectives for Hennepin County. Program Planning and Administration Develop and implement a Housing and Community Development Program which addresses Urban County community development objectives, and meets local needs and priorities in a timely and efficient manner. Maximize benefits resulting from each activity, provide a balanced and moderate income persons program. Neighborhood Revitalization program primarily benefiting low Assure citizen involvement in the Maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods and neighborhood service centers through a program of concentrated community development activities. Housing Direct housing resources to sectors providing the greatest benefit to lower Explore all potential resources for the housing. Housing: New Construction of the housing market income persons. financing of assisted Facilitate the development of new housing, including, but not limited to, site acquisition, public improvements, assistance with front -end costs and multi- community projects. Housing: Existing Rental Maximize utilization of available rental rehabilitation and tenant assistance programs. -3- /0-3 Housing Rehabilitation Provide housing rehabilitaiton assistance to eligible households. Public Facilities and Improvements Rehabilitate existing public improvements and facilities, and assist in the development of new facilities and improvements. Emphasize activities which directly benefit low and moderate income persons. Coordinate the development of senior centers in locations suitable to the provision of other services to the elderly. Handicapped Improvements Ensure that program supported facilities and housing units are accessible to handicapped persons. Each accessibility improvement should meet a particular need, remove a specific barrier and represent a defined priority in the community. Economic Development Undertake activites to stimulate economic development consistent with local economic development strategies which provide permanent private sector jobs and job training opportunities to low and moderate income persons. • Energy Develop the urban county CDBG program in a manner sensitive to energy conservation issues. Provide assistance to low and moderate income homeowners for energy improvements. Public Services Provide funding for public services which are consistent with CDBG regulations and the program needs of Hennepin County and the participating communities. CDBG funding for public services should directly benefit low and moderate income persons. Displacement Implement the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program and Housing Assistance Plan in such a manner as to minimize the direct or indirect displacement of owners or tenants from occupied dwelling units, and business locations. The amount of funds potentially available in Year XI is $206,839. City Staff has identified or has received requests for a number of projects to be Year XI CDBG funds. These • include: -4 10 y 1. Housing Rehabilitation Loans: $110,000. • The city has allocated in previous program years a total of $840,000 to housing rehabilitation loans and grants. A total of 212 grants and loans have been provided. The average grant /loan amount has been $4,000. The average amount of loans in the last two years has been $5,800. Typical types of repair in general order of frequency have been roof replacements, weatherization improvements, furnace replacements, electrical updating, plumbing improvement, exterior painting and siding, bathroom remodeling, kitchen remodeling and window replacements. There is approximately $25,000 of unencumbered funds from previous years remaining. There currently are 26 applications on a waiting list for funding. Staff has begun processing 11 of these applications based on remaining funds and the anticipation of additional funds in Year XI. Based on the average loan amount in recent years it would require an additional $125,000 to fund the 26 applications currently on the waiting list. 2. Scattered Site Acquisition: $75,000. The city allocated approximately $467,000 of Year IX funds and $49,000 of Year X funds to the project to acquire garage homes or vacant lots to be used for the construction of new housing units or the rehabilitation of existing houses for low and moderate income persons. Community Development staff is currently working on purchases of property which will expend all of the funds allocated to this program from previous years funding. Staff has identified other properties for purchase using future year funding. 3. Public Service Projects: $42,902. This includes $20,000 for sliding fee day care to subsidized low and moderate income persons, $19,800 for the South Hennepin Human Services Council (HHSC) Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.) program, and $3,102 for city staff administration for public service project. $21,814 of Program Year IX funds and $17,800 of Program Year X funds have been allocated to the sliding fee day care assistance program. $9,985 of program Year IX funds and $7,200 of program year X funds have previously been allocated to the H.O.M.E. Program. $3,100 of Program Year X funds have been allocated to public services administration, As of the end of February 1985 there are unexpended balances of $18,900 in WO 1D-S child care subsidy funds and $8,300 H.O.M.E. Funds. There is also a balance of $3,100 of public services administration funds. No more than 15% (or $31,025) can be allocated to public service projects. 4. Recycling: $10,000. These funds are necessary to continue the intern position coordinating the city's recycling program beyond July of this year. As necessary, some of these funds may also be used to promote that program. Matching funds for recycling from Hennepin County will be sought in order to fund a half -time intern for 12 months and continue publicity efforts on a city -wide basis. A $20,000 recycling budget will also permit the city to continue its contract with Reycling Unlimited for curbside pickups. 5. General Administration: $10,000. This project involves funds to cover the city's costs in application preparation, warrant submittal and recordkeeping to insure that all CDBG program requirements and regulations are met. All previous year's funds allocated to general administration have been expended. • The total of all the projects listed above is $247,902. This exceeds the amount of funds available by $41,063. It is recommended that the city council conduct a public hearing on this matter and approve a preliminary application budget as follows. The recommended budget figures were arrived at after a series of staff discussions on the block grant program. The recommendations are: YEAR XI YEAR XI YEAR X RECOMMD REQUEST ACTUAL 1. Housing Rehabilitation Loans $ 81,124 $110,000 $ 99,156 2. Scattered Site Acquisition $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 49,294 3. Sliding Fee Day Care Subsid. $ 20,000* $ 20,000 $ 17,800 4. H.O.M.E. $ 7,923* $ 19,800 $ 7,200 ** 5. Recycling $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 6. General Administration $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 0 7. Public Service Administration $ 2,792* $ 3,102 $ 3,100 8. Senior Citizen. Ctr. /Hand. $ 0 $ 0 $ 25,000 $206,839 $247,902 $211,550 *Public Service Projects (15%) $31,025 maximum; actual recommended amount is $30,715. * *Received $5,000 supplemental appropriation from Year IX • CDBG funds, or a total allocation, for Year X of $12,200. M 10-6 A resolution to give this preliminary approval and authorize its submittal to Hennepin County is attached for your consideration. It is anticipated that all communities in Hennepin County will not utilize their entire allocations and that there will be unexpended funds available later in the year for the CDBG revisionary program. If this occurs the Community Development staff will be prepared to submit an application for additional funding for site acquisition for handicapped housing. The city manager has recommended the cutback in the HOME Program request of $19,800 to $7,200 for these reasons: The Richfield share of CDBG funds is approximately $5,000 less than last year; 2. The maximum amount of CDBG funds that can be used for public service activities is limited to 15% or $31,105. Requests total $41,063. 3. Richfield also uses CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation loans which can be used to correct housing code violations and repairs to buildings. Tom Esser of SHHSC says they use H.O.M.E. monies for major repairs. It appears we have two CDBG programs dealing at least in part with the same need - major building repairs. 4. Public service agencies certainly should express what the needs are in Richfield. However, with federal funding cutbacks, these agencies have to be given notice that Richfield unfortunately has to cutback also. 5. The reed for child care funding, in staff's opinion, has a higher priority ranking than H.O.M.E. activities although both programs are meeting important community - needs. JGC /eja 0 Respectfully submitted, John. G. Cartwr ht City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XI URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the following proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was developed consistent with program rules. 1. Housing Rehabilitation Loans: $ 81,124. 2. Scattered Site Acquisition: $ 75,000. 3. Public Service Projects: $ 30,715. 4. Recycling: $ 10,000. 5. General Administration: A. 10,000. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota approves the proposed use of Year XI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds and auth5rizeds submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for consideration by the Citizen Advisory Committee and for inclusion in the Year XI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds. ATTEST: City Clerk (seal) • Mayor • • Planning Allocation Schedule Year XI (1985) Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Chanhassen Corcoran Crystal Dayton Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Excelsior Golden Valley Greenfield Greenwood Hanover Hassan Hopkins Independence Loretto Maple Grove Maple Plain Medicine Lake Medina Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound New Hope Orono Osseo Plymouth Richfield Robbinsdale Rockford Rogers St. Anthony St. Bonifacius St. Louis Park Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Wayzata Woodland Total Hennepin County Grand Total i 2 -26 -85 $240,240 354,365 38,177 38,532 37,689 140,736 30,020 19,019 72,350 167,005 16,664 85,379 9,313 3,747 6,375 14,257 113,293 17,856 1,934 99,961 8,092 1,825 16,150 146,713 1,017 23,851 76,581 136,577 27,894 22,286 148,055 206,839 77,917 22,826 8,083 34,061 8,397 251,661 23,380 11,430 6,200 20,087 4,066 2,790,900 310,100 $3,101,000 l0- 8 low I Benefit /Compliance Requirements Year XI (1985) Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program The initiation of the Year XI program development and implementation process is an appropriate time to briefly review the key compliance requirements.. Program Benefit To be a fundable CDBG activity, the project must address one of the three HUD established program priorities: • benefit low and moderate income persons • eliminate slums and blight • address an urgent community need. For an activity to benefit low /moderate income persons, it must either: • be designed and implemented to demonstrate that at least 51 percent of those benefitting from or using the activity must reside in households with incomes which do not exceed the Section 8 income limits by household size. (This is especially important where employment is provided through an economic development activity because it must be demonstrated that the jobs actually go to low and moderate income persons); or • be undertaken in a designated low /moderate income area. Areas of the County are so designated, either by their inclusion on the eligible Census block group list or by the result of a household size /income survey of the area. HUD is required to provide a listing of Census block groups which fall within the upper quartile of Urban Hennepin County low and moderate income persons. These block groups will be eligible to receive public improve- ments under a recent correction amendment to the Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983 dealing with an exception to the low and moderate income benefit rule. They will be transmitted to all cooperating units as soon as HUD makes them available. To qualify as an activity which eliminates or prevents slums and blight, the project must be located in a locally designated renewal area, consistent with the slum and blight standards contained in state statutes, and where there is a substantial number of deteriorating or dilapidate37uildings and facilities. Urgent community need situations arise only when there is an immediate and present threat to the health and safety of community residents, i.e., water system contamination or disaster area designation following a severe storm. Although the program regulations dealing with project eligibility provide for a broad range of activities, it is essential that each funding request be supported by a specific section of the regulations. It is also necessary that consideration be given to evaluating if the proposed implementation strategy is eligible within the program regulations. DRAFT 2 -26 -85 Statement of Objectives Year XI (1985) Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program INTRODUCTION The Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives provides direction for planning and implementing the 1985 (Year XI) Urban Hennepin County CDBG program consistent with national and local objectives. The national objectives of the CDBG program are: developing viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income persons; aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and meeting other community development needs having a particular urgency. Urban Hennepin County objectives are supportive of the national objectives and detail their application specifically'to the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. Each activity carried out with CDBG funds must, of course, be eligible under program regulations (24 CFR 570) as well as meet the objectives of the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. Consistent with the 1983 amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, a minimum of 51 percent of program funds must be used for projects which directly benefit low and moderate income persons. • CDBG funds may be utilized to address a wide range of housing and com- munity development needs. The Statement of Objectives identifies Urban Hennepin County Community Development needs which should be addressed through the use of CDBG funds as well as how these funds should be pro- grammed and used. The objectives are stated under program subheadings, followed by procedural statements which illustrate how the objectives might well be achieved. PROGRAM PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION Objective: Develop and implement a Housing and Community Development program which addresses Urban Hennepin County objectives and meets local needs and priorities in a timely and efficient manner. Objective: Maximize the benefit resulting from each activity. Objective: Emphasize activities which provide for a balanced program primarily benefiting low -and moderate- income persons. Objective: Assure citizen involvement in the formulation, implemen- tation and evaluation of the CDBG Program. Objective: Facilitate mutual cooperation among participants in the development and implementation of multi - community CDBG activities to address common concerns and needs. Procedural Statements: • Establish a project specific implementation schedule not to exceed 18 months from'the grant award date. • Keep proposals for project funding to a- minimum (no more than three) generally consistent with the effective utilization of the planning allocation available to the cooperating.unit. . • Monitor the established 18 -month implementation schedule to ensure effective project implementation and /or the reallocation of assigned funds. s Monitor the performance of all cooperating units on at least a semi - annual basis to review their ability to implement Total programs. a Provide a structured opportunity for citizen participation in the development, implementation and ongoing evaluation of the COBG program. • Encourage greater citizen involvement in the CDBG program through expanded communication on program funding levels, program objec- tives and eligible activities. Assign funds for programmed activities remaining at the end of 18 months from the date of the beginning of the program year from which they were awarded to the Countywide Discretionary Account for reprogramming. s Provide monthly project status reports to all cooperating units and the Citizens Advisory Committee to assist in program evalua- tion. 9 Plan and implement activities which pool resources of several participants to meet a shared need. o Implement activities which are fully eligible under program rules and regulations and satisfy all applicable laws and special compliance requirements. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION Objective: Maintain and preserve viable neighborhoods and neighborhood service centers through concentrated community development activities. 2 /0-4 A* • 0 • Procedural Statements: • Target CDBG funds for use in conjunction with other available Federal, State and Local resources for a combination of housing and community development activities in identified neighborhoods. e Define neighborhoods geographically and /or statistically con- sistent with adopted local plans and identified needs, specifically those of low -and moderate income residents. • Upgrade identified neighborhoods cons- istent with local policies developed in consultation with residents. • Demonstrate that component activities are supportive of improve- ments in the neighborhood housing stock, physical condition and /or economic development. HOUSING Objective: Direct housing resources to sectors of the housing market providing the greatest benefit to lower income persons. Objective: Explore all potential resources for the financing of as- sisted housing and actively participate in their use to construct and /or subsidize the development and /or rehabi= litation of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. New Construction - Objective: Facilitate the development of new housing,.including, but not limited to, site acquisition, public improvements, assistance with front -end costs and multi- community projects. Procedural Statements: • Develop a priority list of communities for housing development con- sistent with priorities established in the Housing Assistance Plan. • Establish multi- community housing development projects wherever feasible based on realistic market service areas. • Utilize all available approaches to finance housing development. Existing Rental Objective: Maximize utilization of available rental rehabilitation and . tenant assistance programs. 3 ;`kk ro -13 Procedural Statements: • Participate in the rental assistance programs for existing units. o Participate in the Rental Rehabilitation program, e Utilize all available approaches to finance improvements to the existing housing stock and assure its continued availability to low -and moderate- income persons. Housing Rehabilitation Objective: Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to eligible house- holds. Procedural Statements: s Offer a variety of housing rehabilitation assistance utilizing loans and grants and affecting both owner occupied and rental units. Follow uniform Urban Hennepin County Procedural Guidelines including applicant income and asset eligibility requirements and client assistance levels. • Utilize all available housing rehabilitation /improvement programs either in conjunction with or independent of the CDBG rehabilita- tion programs (i.e., MHFA loans, TEA weatherization and repair).. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS Objective: Rehabilitate existing public improvements and facilities and assist in the development of new facilities and improve- ments. Objective: Emphasize direct.benefit activities for low -and moderate - income persons. Objective: Coordinate the development of senior centers in locations suitable for the provision of other services to the elderly. Procedural Statements: • Use the provision of public improvements to encourage targeted revitalization and new development. Utilize grant funds for the payment of special assessments for public improvements to property of low and moderate income home- owners to the extent possible. o Fund the development /improvement of senior center as multi -_ community facilities to the extent feasible.. 4 is !D•1y HANDICAPPED IMPROVEMENTS / Objective: Ensure that program supported facilities and housing units are accessible to handicapped persons. Objective: Ensure that each accessibility improvement meets a parti- cular need, removes a specific barrier and represents a defined priority in the community. Procedural Statement: • Develop a handicapped accessibility plan for improvements which identifies the barriers? to be removed, establishes needs and priorities, explains how mobility and accessibility will be im- proved and lists the facilities and programs to benefit from such action. The plan must identify non- construction options for re- moving barriers. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Objective: Undertake activities to stimulate economic development consistent with local economic development strategies. Objective: Provide additional permanent, private sector employment opportunities to low- and moderate- income persons. Objective: Provide job training opportunities, in conjunction with private sector economic development activities, to low and moderate income persons. Procedural Statements: Offer assistance to private- for - profit ventures as an integral part of economic development. • Demonstrate commitment to or interest by developers, expanded employment opportunities for low and moderate income persons and /or the elimination of existing blighting influences for economic development activities. • Undertake economic development activities only when they are.con- sistent with local plans or policies. ENERGY Objective: Develop the Urban Hennepin County COBG program in a manner sensitive to energy conservation issues. Objective: Provide assistance to low -and moderate - income homeowners 'for energy improvements. 5 Procedural Statement: • Develop energy use strategies which as a minimum emphasize local needs and include items such as those listed under eligible activities in Section 105(a)(16) of the Housing and Community Development Act as amended in 1983. PUBLIC SERVICES Objective: Provide funding for public services to the extent they are consistent with CDBG regulations and the program needs of Hennepin County and the cooperating units. Objective: Substantiate benefit to low -and moderate - income persons for public service activities. Procedural Statements: • Limit the expenditure of CDBG funds for public services to no mere than fifteen percent of the Urban Hennepin County grant. • Initial funding of public services with CDBG monies must be for new or increased levels of service. • Demonstrate that CDBG funds are the only source to maintain or increase a public service activity and that local funding is not available. • Provide public services as a program of a cooperating unit(s). DISPLACEMENT Objective: Implement the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and Housing Assistance Plan in such a manner as to minimize the direct or indirect displacement of owners or tenants from occupied dwelling units, and business locations. Procedural Statement: The displacement of families, individuals or businesses, whether they occupy their premises as owners or tenants, shall be under- taken only when: (1) the owner requests that the cooperating unit acquire the property due to a hardship situation resulting from an action by the cooperating unit; (2) the premises is found to be substandard to a point beyond repair; (3) the health and welfare of the resident is in jeopardy; or (4) acquisition /relocation is necessary to implement a physical development activity consistent with adopted local policies and /or plans. When acquisition /relocation is necessary, the process will be conducted according to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act, as amended. 0 0 • 0 • Displaced residents or businesses shall be assisted through the provision of relocation counseling and assistance in securing an alternative location. The costs of relocation payments and assistance required under Title II of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act may be paid from funds provided by the CDBG pro- gram and /or those available locally from any source. When temporary relocation is necessary to complete the rehabili- tation of a residential unit, it will be timed to minimize the period of displacement for the affected owner or tenant. Tempo rary relocation benefits will be limited to the fixed payment schedule contained in the Uniform Act, and increased rent costs will not be paid for a period exceeding 30 days. Temporary relo- cation benefits will not be provided to businesses affected by rehabilitation. Funding for relocation costs will be included in the budget for each project involving displacement and any costs not specifically required by the Unifrom Act will be paid in accordance with this policy as provided for in 24 CFR 570.606 (C) of CDBG regulations, effective November 2, 1983. Program activities involving direct or indirect displacement will be the sole responsibility of the cooperating units participating. in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. 7 to -17 REQUEST FOR FUNDING YEAR XI (1985) URBAN HENN£PIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSAL _________ _____________ THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Environmental' Review Specialist date Project Number: / number rinancial Manager date Project Eligibility: / citation Hennepin County date A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community the city of Richfield 2. Project Name: Sliding Fee Child Care Subsidy - administered by the Greater Xrmmapattz My Care ts'sactattan 3. Contact Person: Jim Nicholie - 823 -7243 3. PROJECT DATA 1. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide x Street Address NA (Attach map, if applicable) 2. Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities. Be as detailed as oossible. (Add sheet if necessary.) The project will provide child care subsidies-to low income Richfield parents. Parents will apply for assistance through the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, and, if determined eligible, an arrangement will be made with a child care provider to care for the child and accept the subsidy. The amount of subsidy will be determined by a Slidi ng Fee Scale (see attached), which indicates the amount of the cost of care the parent is to pay. GMDCA will receive monthly billings from the provider and will make payment directly to the provider. 3. Is this a multi -year project: * yes no, if yes please indicate CDBG Year Started T1 Project dumber • * Not of necessity. Application is being trade one year at a time. 10 -if? 4. Identify the local community development need that the project is intended to meet and explain how the project will make substantial improvements. The project is intended to meet the local community need of job maintenance, upward mobil on the job, jab training and economic development for working parents of young children. As the system is now, working parents lose their child care subsidy from Hennepin County if their gross pay goes over 60% of the State Median Income per family size. This means that a $10.00 &-week raise can result in tip to a $59,000.00 a year increase in direct child care costs. A sliding fee subsidy supports the parent earning slightly more and increases the parent's share of the child care payment, without jeopardizing the overall year's budget for the family's subsistence. S. State the accomplishments the project is meant to achieve in a quantifiable manner. (For example, the rehabilitation of 10 houses for low and moderate income families) Intends to serve a minimum of 13 low -to- moderate income (Section VIII eligible) working parents. These funds will enable, these parents td maintain employment and remain off AFDC or other public assistance. 6.: Implementation Schedule. Note: The Urban Herm epin County Joint Cooperation Agreement requires the expenditure of funds within eighteen months of the grant award date. a. Identify projected starting date, completion date. July 1, 1985 - Dec. 30, 1986. b. If not available, please explain. C. Major milestones, if applicable. 7. Fundability a. This project will: (check one and provide requested information) X Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special considerations you have given to benefit low and moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and how they will benefit. Loa and moderate income persons will directly benefit by having part of their child care expenses paid fora Last year 12,_ 13 families benefited. Child care providers will benefit by having the assurance that their fees will be paid, even when they are serving low- income families. 0 • n t P O "h • u O 0 N t n JJ1 `O a L � a C) o ►+ r ►.. ►+ rr M.. r r r.. r �.. F+ r r f.. r �ocacavvcnC�vlvl�rwwNN�•�p V air r�arwr�orwr�or�or�o��ooa�v�a 000 0+- +►+rrNNNN w W W W r1,11 O j� �o�otn my V v�o,v,v,r�•wwNN►+�GVO'�r oei�•o r�or.or�oi�•ac�o r oo,NJ c � O C C O ►-+ �-- r r N N N N W W W w 0 Vt �O r vON v1vOr�V1CaOW11100 wC+CA�o G��o� N N N N N✓ r r r r Y.. C+ V1 W N O= V V1 L- N O �L1 V C� A N �-+ �-• CO N O+ O A w N C% O L- m N Q% O vi .4 + N PQ NJ fQ H `�WV*"V1GbN Ot�CDNV1�0w V.-+�V O C1 111 W O r" V NQ3 W �O O V1 +-• C1 N V W CD W N r-' O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t l!{ 1 1 1 1 1 1 N f`•1 N N N N N N r r r ►.. r r �.. r r+ r W CO V V C1 111 Vi A r-• �D V CA v+ �C W v .-• 1n b N C+ O Cb N a w v ► - C V O N O %C Q 111 I-- C% N V W N ►` O N N N N CD v v+ w. VOw C+ = C% !.- w C+ 14 X N N N N N N N N N N N N� r �•+ }-• r-. r N CA V V C� Vt � A W N r �-+ O �O �C Cb V W �•'+ �O C>, V+ V Q W Q� CD ►�' L� C+ �O N A V O N � ►+ ►-r p �O WHO Q+wO V A�•- V r�-'O Vf N wV1 t-n%0 o �o v� r W •» o Ca v v+ a N •- �o ao o �0 00 v o N N N N !J N N N N N N N N �•••� r r r r r �D CA V V O� Vf A r W N .-• ►• O �O �D CD V W ►-' �O C+ N l!7 V O w C� CA ► 1� Q`' N L� V O N k q ►. ►+ O �O � N �O T w O v A 0 V A �- CD Vt N O V1 V •-.' td1 �O V co V42% ,a-, CN D N V VN o w N G W .; 7, ; NO 01 Co O tJ 4- T w O N P. CIA O a -j"w ON Z. ON 0 a z z C a r G'1 z 0 3 O !z� S r '+7 m cn F, 2 C > t' G7 O cn z H •C '*1 m cn R, z r Gi 77 O C!9 CA V 'L O V �CnO r C1 C'n � � S ao�e rot roe n '' 9 u n N r Lf to Vf to r r r Q ,+wrr •n � �S on�ivr N S � C� V co Co i- l� C7 x � J o �ee5� cn 3 �O v C% '>rf O O O Q rar:ren > r N iA Vf <Jf <A •C Q7 � r. , •"' N V O N o r o w 1 v 1 C7 IS rn r cn c C� n C21 p 'n J cc cc ^el .� Tt r+ T! n N N II II r-+ f^ W co V1 �O \ L t iJ1 0o Cv a w Cl 1 I Q f 0 O O O 10 O O W T_ C1 O O W w w w N N N N N N N N N N y .N.. N ►. � ►.. W N "+ O O CD 07 V C1 Vt i� W N N O Vt N O V O N W V1 V Q7 O ►•+ W A C1 �+ O N w N V W M O V1 0 V1 0 v1 .-. Q1 C� ►- 6'+ N Q� O A v1 V M al— u r v1 r Ca O ►- W +` vt v W v1 v �O O r 1 J l l 1 1 I, I l l l t t► 1 1 1 1 1 1 W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N �-• 1-- ►-• W . N *� O .O O Q7 V C1 l.fl L� W N N ►-. O V1 N O v. w Q\ V G O N ld C1 V W W N N N N N r-. .-. N O CD Q+ k n W r �4 V V1 W �- �p V Q\ A N N �--• v CO �Q O s L W w W W W w W W N N N N N N N N +-- ►.. a.- i!7 V C1 V1 V N ►- 0; 10 CA Gfl V Q\ lr W V 41 C+C�v V V CD CAD 1C1010 000 b- • — — N Avs V C1 N C1 10 w a O w v O w V O 1. V .• Q1 Ov1 'p, Co N r. --v10 P. 10W vN C1 C%v1r,W O I i i 1► I 1 1 I► I I► i I 1 I I t I I W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N ■"- ►-• �-. O V C% = CX1 v a v1 A U v .': •-- m Q+ C1 C1 V -4 -4 03 C7 0 14 O C O C N vt 'o N C1 �Q W -n O w C` d W V r- V1 {-' O W v ... ni O Lr .p w' N a1 NJ N4 P14 tj �- S 1 C 1 C• 4` C+ C7 O+ Q` J, Q, as 0 01 CJ+ C+ w 'al CO O 3 I G .°C N N N N ►r r .+ ON v1 t% w V Vt N �O 1 1 1J1 1d1 1 1 1 11 V1 C\ a, C1 C, CT Q1 Q\ C�1 V Cal O W 1.n N Vt C1 V '.O O '— N Z, Vt V O O N 01 - Q1 1J1 OD O W l./1 CD O 1:W W C31 O N vi V O N t 1 1 I l l l l l l l l l l i f t 1 1 1 1 W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N 1-•- h+ .-. 10 A V C1 Vt W N ►- O G p0 V C1 Vt l- w V V1 N �Q 1J1 V1 1-1 1J1 1 V1 I V1 CT a, C1 C1 Q1 C+ C1 Q1 V Cb O W 1J1 O — N W V1 C` V CO O N U 1.l1 Q1 V CAD O N CT �- CT N N i- V 10 N L� V •.O --• L� CT O r... O Q] Q1 P W W W w N N N N— r-- -- r- C1 N O CX7 C1 L� r- .p V vt W ►-• 1p V 1.1 W N .+ a%41 f., NJ -a C% 00 io - za a C z C z C7 C O o 0 0 C" CA II II II 11 a O O W N N v w o O 3 Ov N 3 u u u o .•+ v1 C1 v v1 r N to NiA W N N Q d W O V -e► O v1 v w C] f1J1 � �ornoo r .c rn rn z C C r C7 > O o 0 0 > CA II II II 11 r-+ r W N N v w o O 3 Ov ^h O �--• v W p Vt N rn c� --I vt O J% V r rn rn cl 0 r p > �e cS rn H z n 0 3 n G7 r r� ••C z p rn rn :n m r rn • n • • Z C r CA O O O p -q r iA Gf N N .0 W N N z v1 C1 v v1 --I vt O J% V r rn rn cl 0 r p > �e cS rn H z n 0 3 n G7 r r� ••C z p rn rn :n m r rn • n • • . l0•�1 Remove slums and blight Describe the blight and indicate whether your local government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to do so. Meet a Particular Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. 8. Identify which element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project addresses: Public Services: Provide funding for public services to the extent Citation: they are consjstent with .TMr regulations and the program needs of Hennepin County and the cooperating units. Substantiate benefit to low -and moderate income persons for public service activities. 9. Budget Using the following budget lines, please list the amount budgeted for each component of the project. a. Acquisition of Real Property a,. $ b. Senior Centers b. S c. Parks and Playgrounds Development c. S d. Street Improvements /Sidewalks d. S e. Streets /Sidewalks Special Assessments e. S f. 'dater and Sewer f. S g. Water /Sewer Special Assessments g. S . h. Clearance Activities h. S i. Diseased Tree Removal i. S j. Relocation Assistance j. S k. Removal of Architectural Barriers k. S 1. Rehabilitation of Private Single Family Property 1. S m. Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures m. S n. Rehabilitation of Rental Property n. S o. Planning o. S * p. Administration (general program overview) P. S_ q. Public Service q, S —20 o'OII.VO r. Contingency r. S s. Other - please explain s. S TOTAL BUDGET S 209,000.00 IsThe cost of administering a funded project is to be included within the proposed project budget and-not on line "p ". 2 -26 -85 March 22, 1985. Mr. John Cartwright, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Cartwright: i0•�.7. I am writing to report on the expenditure of Richfield's allocation of CDBG funds. for the administration of a child care sliding fee subsidy.for low -to- moderate income Richfield families from Septembor 15, 1984, through September 15, 1985• The 1984_85 allocation of $17,814 is in the process of being spent as follows. Nine children were carded over from September, 1984. Two of these children moved off the program as of December 31, 1984. A tenth child was put on the program on February 18, and an application was sent to an eleventh child on March 22. It is expected that one or two additional children will be put on during the next few weeks, making a total of 12 13 children served during the fiscal year. The parents of all these children have tended to be on the low side of the income scale. If they had been more affluent - hence able to pay a higher parent fee - , we would have been able to serve a larger total number of children. To maintain 12 - 13 child- ren for another 12 consecutive months will cost an estimated $20,000.00. (This would represent an increase not in numbers of children served,. but in months of service per child..) If some move off the program, we will end up with in increase in those served. Currently there are eighteen persons from Richfield on the State Sliding Fee. waiting list, who would very likely be eligible for funding under the CDBG guidelines. I would like to 'emphasize that a sliding fee subsidy works in favor of the economic development of low income parents, particularly single parent mothers of young children. All too often - and we hear many reports at our agency - working mothers are forced either to turn down raises which they deserve, or to fall back on welfare, in order to remain eligible for state and county - funded subsidies aimed specifically at the very poor. A sliding fee program, on the other hand, allows parents to earn more Money — and to pay more for their child care - without facing the impossible burden of paying close to 50% of their income for child care. (This can be the situation where there are several children, and the children are very young; see the attached information on median child care rates by age.) Parents earning more should pay more, but the amount should still be within their financial capacity. Parents who are encouraged to work harder and to accept raises, without being penalized through total loss of child care benefits, become more productive members of any community. I wish to thank you and your city for your generosity in the past in considering the child care needs of your low income working families. I also wish to thank you for yo13r cooperation and patience in working with our Agency. You have demonstrated that families with young children, no matter what their economic needs, are important to Richfield and to the quality of life that city represents. If I can be of any further help, or provide you with more specific information, please contact me. cc: Mr. John Hamilton, Mayor Sincerely yours, 40 Mr. Rick Jopke Helen Watkins, Suburban Developer Sue Berzeli s Gica#� ir�� its ®a Associatio..n. Dale Anderson, Executive Director . Lehmann Center a 1006 West Lake a Minneapolis, Minnesota a 55408 a (612) 823 -7243 {7n Cooperating fund Drive llll��SS=v, Organization Median child care rates, in Hennepin County, as of October, 1983: CEi1"R CARE: per day per month per year Infant: $16.90 $366.00 $4,394.00 Toddler: $13.00 $282.00 $3,380.00 Pre - School: $11.80 $256.00 $3,068.00 FAMIT Y DAY CARE: 10-13 • $217.00/ month; $2,600.001 year; may be as much as $3,000.00 for infant care. • • • Sue Berzelius 7345 Wentworth Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Mr. John Cartright, City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Cartright, : I am writing on behalf of the Richfield Child -Care Community to request that the City of Richfield increase the allocation of the Community Development Block Grant funds for the Richfield Parents Assistance fund from $17,814.00 to $20,000.00. Rick Jopke has sent a formal request to the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association; which they will be completing and submitting to you shortly. I hope you will allocate additional funding to this worthwhile project - as of February, 1985 there were approximately 17 on the waiting list.. I am planning to be at the City Council meeting when this item is discussed and if I can be of help, please do not hes- itate to call me. Sincerely yours, Sue Berzelius CC: Mr. John Hamilton, Mayor City Council Members Mr. Rick Jopke Helen Watkins, GMDCA • • 0- Ind _ March 22, 1985 Mr. Rick Jopke, City Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Rick: HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL Bloomington • Eden Prairie . Edina • Richfield Enclosed please find our completed request for C.D.B.G. funding through the City of Richfield for the period July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. As you will see, next year's request represents a substantial increase over this year's initial request for $7,200. However, based on current experience and the demographics involved, we feel that the request is based on objective data and is realistic as to the need in Richfield. It is imperative that we bring this need to the city council's attention in this request. I feel that this approach is preferable over one which would necessitate that we come back to the city for additional funding on several different occasions during the year. I' realize also that the city council may or may not concur with this preference. By way of additional information, during 1984 -85, we have utilized $13,498.14 in Fix and Paint Funds and have requested a total of $12,200 in other C.D.B.G. funds. Through January we had utilized a total for all funds amounting to $24,469.41. These funds were used for twenty -one major repair jobs, including Fix and Paint. In addition, H.O.M.E. per- formed 118 minor repair jobs for Richfield citizens which were non - C.D.B.G. funded. Once again, our C.D.B.G. allocation is almost exhausted at this point. I hope that this information provides you and the city council with a graphic representation of our involvement with and committment to Richfield's senior citizens. It is our firm belief that these services are beneficial to the city and its residents. Should you have any questions or desire additional information, please do not hesitate. to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas J. Esser Executive Director TJE:cp cc: J. Black - Richfield Board Members 9801 Penn Avenue South • Room 100 0 Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 9 (612)888 -5530 I D -fib REQUEST FOR FUNDING YEAR XI (1985) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSAL THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialist aate Project Number: / number Financial Manager date Project Eligibility: / citation Hennepin County gate A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: Richfield 2. Project Name: Household and Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) South Hennepin Human Services Council 3. Contact Person: Thomas Esser Executive Director B. PROJECT DATA 1. Location: Census-Tract /s City Wide Yes Street Address (Attach map, if applicable 2. Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities. Be as detailed as possible. (Add sheet if necessary.) The H.O.M.E. program maintenance component is designed to assist low and moderate income senior citizens in maintaining their residence in manner consistent with community standards. The'program conducts community outreach to inform seniors of available services through a variety of mechanisms including brochures,mailings, public service announcements, church bulletins, etc. Trained stalff perform the work under the supervision of an experienced, qualified tradesperson. The supervisor visits the site, prepares an estimate of costs, and schedules and supervises the work. In some instances, work requiring specialized skills may be subcontracted. Examples of work performed include house painting, exterior repairs, roof repair, window and door installation /repair, energy conservation /installation,interior painting and repair, installation of safety features, i.e.., handrails, and minor plumbing repair. 3. Is this a multi -year project: yes X no, if yes please indicate COBG Year Started Project Number Remove slums and blight R 9-AT Describe the blight and indicate whether your local government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to do so. X Meet a Particular Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated.' Maintenance of low and moderate income elderly and handicapped individuals in their own residence, avoiding or postponing higher cost placements. Maintenance and upgrading of housing stock. 8. Identify which element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives the project addresses .Citation: Housing Rehabilitation Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to eligible households. 9. Budget Using the following budget lines, please list the amount budgeted for each component of the project. a. Acquisition of Real Property b. Senior Centers c. Parks and Playgrounds Development d. Street improvements /Sidewalks e. Streets /Sidewalks Special Assessments f. 'dater and Sewer g. Water /Sewer Special Assessments h. Clearance Activities i. Diseased Tree Removal j. Relocation Assistance k. Removal of Architectural Barriers 1. Rehabilitation of Private Single Family Property m. Rehabilitation of Puolic Residential Structures n. Rehabilitation of Rental Property o. Planning * P. Administration (general program overview) q. Public Service r. Contingency s. Other - please explain TOTAL BUDGET a. S b. $ c. $ d. S e. S f. S g. S h. S i. $ j• S k. S l . 5 19,800 m. S n. $ o. $ p. S q. S r. $ s. S • * The cost of administering a funded project is to be included within the proposed project budget and-not on line "p ". 2 -26 -85 • • lD - :LS' REQUEST FOR FUNDING YEAR XI (1985) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSAL THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialist date Project Number: / numoer Financial Manager Bate Project eligibility: citation Hennepin County ante A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: RICHFIELD 2. Project Name: HOUSIMP REHABILITATION 3. Contact Person: RICK. JOPKE B. PROJECT DATA 1. Location: Census Tract /s City Wide X Street Address (Attach map, if applicable 2. Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities. Be as detailed as possible. (Add sheet if necessary.) This program involves providing financial and technical assistance to low income Richfield residents to make improvements to their homes. These improvements include code compliance.improvements, accessibility improvements for the handicapped, weatherization improvements, and repair or modifications to make homes less susceptible to flood damage. The financial assistance comes in the form of deferred loans and grants, depending upon the particular program. The technical assistance is provided by Richfield staff. Staff determines and defines necessary improvements for bidding purposes by private contactors. The project would also involve financing of rehabilitation activities at City or HRA owned properties. Properties may be rehabilitated by South Hennepin Vo -Tech or private contractors with CDBG funds,. and then sold to moderate income families. 3. Is this a multi -year project: X yes no, if yes please indicate C08G Year Started I Project dumber 556 4. Identify the local community development need that the project is intended to meet and explain how the project will Make substantial improvements. The average age of the Richfield housing stock is 30 to 1'0 years old, a transit* age that requires a number of major improvements to the home (i.e., furnace replacement, electrical: update, roof replacement, improved insulation,and siding and window update). Providing deferred loans and grants to low income Richfield' residents allows homeowners to maintain their homes and improve the general condition of Richfield's housing stock. Assistance to elderly homeowners allows them to continue to live independently in the community. 5. State the accomplishments the project is meant to achieve in a quantifiable manner. (;or example, the rehabilitation of 10 houses for low and moderate income families) -The rehabilktation of 15 houses for low income persons - Rehabilitation of one single or two -unit family home by South Hennepin Vo -Tech or a private contractor for purchase by a moderate income family. o. Implementation Schedule. Note: The Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation 'Agreement requires the expenditure of funds within eighteen months of the grant award date. a. Identify projected starting date, completion date. (Start: July 1, 1985; Complete: December 31, 1986) b. if not available, please explain. c. Major milestones, if applicable. 7. = undab i 1 i ty a. This project will:' (check one and provide requested information) X Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special considerations you have given to benefit low and moderate income persons, the number of persons directly benefiting, and how they will benefit. Approximately 15 low income homeowners will benefit by receiving Home Rehabilitation Deferred Loans or Grants. One or two moderate income families may receive the opportunity to purchase an 10 affordable rehabilitated home. • is 14) 110 30 Remove slums and blight Describe the blight and indicate whether your local government has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to do so. Meet a Particular Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need and the time at which it originated. 8. Identify which element of the Urban Hennepin County Statement. of Objectives the project addresses: Citation: Housing Rehabilitation 9. Budget Using the following budget lines, please list the amount budgeted for each component.of the project. a: Acquisition of Real Property b. Senior Centers c. Parks and Playgrounds Development d. Street improvements/ Sidewalks e. Streets /Sidewalks Special Assessnients f. 'dater and Sewer g. 'A'ater /Sewer Special ,assessments h. Clearance Activities i. Diseased Tree Removal j. Relocation Assistance k. Removal of Architectural Barriers 1. Rehabilitation of Private Single Family Property m. Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures n. Rehabilitation of Rantal Property o. Planning * p. Administration (general program overview) q. Public Service r. Contingency s. Other - please explain TOTAL BUDGET Whe cost of administering a funded project is to be project budget and-not on line "p ". 2 -25 -85 a. $ b. S c. S d. S e. S f. $ g. S h. S 1. $ j . Y k. $ 1. 110,000 n. S o. S p. $ q• $ r. S S. $ S 110,000 included within the proposed • • I REQUEST FOR FUNCiNG YEAR Xi (1?85) UR3A.;i HENNE? IN COUNTY CO3G PROGRAM PROJECT PROPOSAL THIS SECTION ` 7.LL BE COMPLETED BY COUNN7 ER Status: Status ErVironmental Review Specialist Cate Project Number: / numoer ,inanclai Manager cat. Project Eligibility: c�tat.an rennepin County oat_ A. GcNERAL INFOPIMAT :O,V 1 Ccratur,ity: RICHFIELD 2. Project Name: Scattered Site Acquisition and Preparation for Housing Development 3. Contact Person: RICK JOPKE S. ?RCJECT OAIA 1. Location: Census Tractis C1ty W1de X Street Address (Attach mk,ao, ? ao� 1 1 --ao l e 2. Oescriction Oescri6e ' ^e rroject and al necessary conCOnent activities. Be =s ' y) as DOSSt�12 (nGd s..e °_� 1 f necessary.) (see attached sheet) 3. is t1i5 3 mul :i -y °ar ,rojec.. X yes nC, 17 yes please '^Cica_a 0035 Year Star:ee II Project `;umber 270 B. PROJECT DATA 2. The scattered site project provides Richfield and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) the opportunity to acquire vacant land, sites containing substandard housing, sites with sound housing, and sites with buildings which may be converted to housing. The vacant land would be developed with housing. Substandard housing would be rehabilitated or, when rehabilitation is not practical, cleared to permit the construction of housing. Substandard non - residential structures would be evaluated for conversion to residential use. If rehabilitation and conversion were not feasibie,'the structure would be removed and housing would be developed on the site. Housing in sound condition would be maintained for continued use. The housing units made available by this project would be utilized for rental or ownership to qualifying low and moderate income persons. HUD regulations for acquisition and relocation would be followed. When appropriate, these sites will be acquired on a voluntary sale basis to reduce relocation costs which otherwise must be paid. Adequate-relocation funds are available within the project budget, Between the time acquisition and relocation occurs and housing development begins, funds are included in the project budget to cover site clearance (removal of items such as structures, driveways, walks, foundations, trees), site preparation (soil correction such as grading, filling, compaction), and public improvements (replacement and instal.lation of public improvements such as walks, curbs, drives, sewer and water connections) that are related to the housing development. After project completion, the HRA would rent the standard housing or sell the housing to qualifying low /moderate income persons. If rehabilitation or new construction is to occur, the HRA could retain ownership or sell the property to a private or non - profit developer. The developer would become responsible for subsequent sale or rental. The developer would cooperate with th& Richfield HRA in choosing low to moderate income persons utilizing Section 8 eligibility guidelines._ Another use of these funds is for the acquisition of single or two family dwellinas for rehabilitation and sale to low and moderate income persons. This is done in conjunction with the South Hennepin Vocational Technical Institute., Vo -Tech students provide labor for this project, reducing the costs of the improvements. • 10-33 ?. identify the local Cc= ....un i ty level op ent need that the project is i ntended to melt and explain how the project will 11 ,maze substant i 3 i i,mprovem2nt5. The greatest need identified is for decent safe and sanitary housing affordable to low and moderate income persons. The project will expand affordable housing opportunities and /or maintain the existing housing stock for low and moderate income persons. The project makes long term improvements when substandard housina is acquired and cleared, when buildings are acquired and rehabilitated to create additional housing, and when new housing is developed that increases the afford- able stock of housing in Richfield. Mate the "aCCOmDlishments the project is meant to achieve in a ^' e v,w3nt i f1 ab1 manner. (For example, the re, ^,aDili_3tion Of T_ ,houses 'Or IOW and T10d :re2 income families) By combining portions of funds in a multi: -year program, the HRA can acquire sin le ramlly sites and build, rehabilitate, or maintain approximately two single fami�y homes per year with Community Development Block Grant funds. A portion of the acquisition funds may also be utilized to initiate a larger multi -unit development. An existing building may be converted to housing units, existing multi -unit buildings are rehabilitated, or new multi -unit buildings are built, The multi -unit development that provides affordable housing opportunities may be as small as 2 units or have as many as 70 units. 6. ;mplementation Schedule. Note: 7,11e Urban .Hennepin County 'Joint Cooperation scree ent requires tale 0 expenditure of Ands within eighteen Tonr.,,s o7 the grant award date. a. iden_lry projected starting date, comoieticn care. (Start date: July 1, 1903; Completion Date: December 31, 1986) b. rf not available, please explain. C. Major mil es'r, -nes, if applicable. 7. Fund abii;ty a. This project will: (check one and ,rcvice requested r OrT,d.iOn; ?rinCi pail ty benefit low and ,modern t_ i.rc^vme :ersons State any special considerations you have given tO benefit lCw 3rd moderate income persons, the number of persons cirec_ly ber,efl.i. ^S, and how they wi11 benefit. Acquisition,relocation, clearance, site preparation, and public improvement activities followed by rehabilitation or construction creates affordable rental and ownership housing opportunities. Affordable ownership housing primarily benefits moderate income persons because the type of benefit (i.e., ownership) requires a moderate income level. Each year, approximately two moderate income S families could benefit by single family homes. Between 8 and 30 low-to-'moderate income families could benefit by a multi- family project. Affordable rental opportunities primarily benefit low and moderate income persons. Between 8 and 30 families and between 16 and 100 elderly could benefit by a multi -unit project. �o_3y Remove slums and blight Describe and indica._ , fe. ^er yaur kcal avernnen has of f iCl ail l,v desi cna ed :ne area as b I gh � d or when It p d0 s0. lens �o 'feet a Particular Urgent 'deed Describe the nature of the need and the 'iae a. Mich it on gi nated. Identify which eiement,af the Urban - ennerin Ocunty Sta_enent of ObJec_ ves the project addresses:' ;ita.ion: Housing Budget Using the following budget lines, Please iisz the amount budce.ed f.r e3ch corrponent of the p roe et .. a. Acquisi.ion of Real Property � . Senior 'enters C. Parks and Pl= ygr;,uhds 7eveioonen. d. Street i;,7orov em. an is /S1 dewa i Ks e. Strsats /S I dewal `` {s Spec i a1 ,..ssess :r.en *s F. °Tatar and Sewer Water/Sewer Soecial' Assessnen.s �. clearance Ac ti v4.. es Oiseasec - -en Re.^OVai Rel acd �; an C. Removal of A r_hitecltur_l Barriers 1. Rehabiii.aaon of ?riva_� Sincie =tinily Pr.Perty Ot. Rehabi l i ration of ?U t, iC :esidentiai �3tr'Sc:ures n. Rehaoilitation of Ren:ai :roper-:y a. ?Manning AdAinistration (general program over` /i=-w') q. Public Service r. C. antingency S. Other - Please explain 70TAL ivV VE'7; a. S 75,000 b. S S c. C. S f. S h. S i S 1. S o. S q. S r. S s. S S 75,000 pie .o5 o acni t 14. s-aar , n nCea fro„ e . 1 s e n i u cep. R i .m i n ,ro;°_: :uc—'r 3 "^ ^Ot on line eau. `e . • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I" f Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. 119 Agenda: April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application Of Or. -Sale 3.2 Non- Ir.toxicat- ing Malt Liquor License For Godfather's Pizza, Inc. 2 West 66th Street Council Members: On January 17, 1985, Godfather's Pizza, Incorporated, 2 West 66th Street., submitted a renewal application for their on -sale 3.2 non- intoxicating malt liquor license. The required license fee of $358 was submitted with the application. The Richfield Department of Public Safety conducted the necessary background investigation. The store manager, Mr. Gerald Lee Baer, has no known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance is current and is provided by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. The City of Richfield is listed as additional insured on the certificate. There were 31 Public Safety criminal type contacts with this establishment for the 12 month period January 1984, through January, 1985. The number of contacts creates concern by the Public Safety Department. An analysis of dates and times was conducted and clearly shows that during the spring and summer months a great many incidents involving juveniles occurred at the Godfather's Pizza establishment. Calls to the Public Safety Department fell generally into the following categories: Malicious Mischief - 11 Disorderly Conduct - 6 Theft, Vandalism & - 6 Suspicious Persons Miscellaneous - 8 Following conversation between the applicant and the Public Safety Department, calls have decreased since November, 1984. From that time to the present, there have been no contacts with the establishment. Public Safety officials have met with the manager, Mr. Baer, and learned that Godfather's Pizza now hires security personnel for anticipated busy evenings. The number of • • -2- st 9_ z. mechanical amusement devices has been reduced and they are going to remove the public telephone from the establishment. These efforts are aimed at discouraging juveniles from congregating at Godfather's Pizza. Also, they have placed "No Loitering" signs both inside and outside of the establishment. It appears the management has taken positive steps in an effort to correct the situation which led to the excessive number of Public Safety contacts last summer and early fall. The Public Safety Department will monitor operations during the remainder of 1985, and, if problems similar to last year develop, the Council will be notified. Based upon the information supplied contingent upon continued efforts by the the number of incidents involving Public it is the recommendation of the Director which I concur, that the council approve non - intoxicating malt liquor license for establishment. JGC /eja by the applicant and applicant to control Safety intervention, of Public Safety, in the renewal of the 3.2 the Godfather Pizza 7e, ectfu] y s mitted , L hn G. Cart igr City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA w Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 118 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application Of Or. /sale 3.2 Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor License For Lariat Lanes, Inc., 6320 Penn Avenue Council Members: On December 31, 1984, the city received a renewal application from Lariat Lanes, Inc., 6320 Penn Avenue South, for their on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor license. The required $358 license fee was submitted with their application. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation. The applicant, Mr. Lloyd Freden, and Mr.Mitch.ell Mackey, the designated manager, have no known criminal history that would preclude them from renewing their license. The required liquor liability insurance is current and is provided by the CNA Insurance Company of Chicago, Illinois through a local broker. The City of Richfield is named as an additional insured. Public Safety data of all contacts made with Lariat Lanes for the 12 month period January, 1984 through January, 1985, shows only one criminal type contact. Based upon the information obtained by the Department of Public Safety, there would appear to be no reason to deny the renewal of the on -sale 3.2 non - intoxicating malt liquor license requested. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council approve the license renewal application requested by Lariat Lanes, Inc. Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwr�," ght City Manager 0 JGC /eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 117 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Application Of On /sale 3.2 Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor License - Chuck E. Cheese Pizza, 2900 West 66th_ Street Council Members: On January 8, 1985, the city received a renewal application from the Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Restaurant, 2900 West 66th Street, for their on -sale non - intoxicating malt liquor license. The required $358 license fee was submitted with their application. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation and the applicant, Mr. Kelvin T. Lee, and Mr. Daniel L. Normadin, the designated restaurant manager, have no known criminal history. The required liquor liability insurance is current and is provided by the St. Paul Companies of St. Paul, Minnesota, through a local broker. The City of Richfield is named as additional insured. Public Safety data of all contacts made with the Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Restaurant for the 12 month period January, 1984 through January 1985, indicates only five criminal type contacts and none of which are of a "bar- type" nature. Based upon the information obtained by the Department of Public Safety, there would appear to be no reason to deny the renewal of the on -sale 3.2 non- intoxicating malt liquor license requested. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council approve the license renewal application requested by Chuck E. Cheese Pizza Restaurant. pect�/ y,,- submitted , John G. C rtwr g City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA .24-4/04 Office of City Manager 40 Council Letter No. 116 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at 7201 Newton Avenue South Council Members: PROPOSAL Mrs. Marjorie R. McDonald has requested that the City grant a variance to allow an addition to the existing garage at 7201 Newton Avenue. Mrs. McDonald wishes to construct a 12 foot addition to the existing 26 feet by 22 feet attached garage. A portion of the existing garage has been converted to living space and, as a result, the garage can not presently be used as a 2 car garage. The new addition would change the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12.73 feet. The existing house is on a 9,739 square foot (approximately) lot and is zoned R (residence) district. In the R (residence) district the required rear yard setback is 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to the rear yard setback requirement, to reduce the existing rear yard setback to 12.73 feet. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires that a single family dwelling in "R" residence districts have a 25 foot rear yard setback. 2. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, list the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the three conditions which must be met for a variance to be granted and found the following: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. -2- Z.. It is staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances present on this site. The site is rectangular in shape, similar in size to other corner lots within the neighborhood, and within the community as a whole. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance request would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The existing single family residential use could continue on the site if the variance is denied. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and a versely afrect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that the be detrimental to the character of the rear yard from the required 25 have any adverse impact on the hea the public. The lot is similar in community area. proposed variance would not the area. The reduction in feet to 12.73 feet would not 1th, safety, and welfare of size to other lots in the 4P STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this variance request on the grounds that the three conditions for the variance have not been met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the variance request be denied. JGC /eja • spectf/61�/ omitted, John G. /Ca twri City Manage r R REPLY-MEMO TD FROM L7) SUBJECT DATE ORIGINATOR- DO NOT WRITE BELOW T415 LINE SIGNED DEPT. LOCATION SIGNED i DATE / / LN j > 7 O *. 5-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager . Council Letter No. 115 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing, Longfellow Avenue Street Improvements, City Project No. 803 Council Members: At the February 11, 1985 study session, the Richfield City Council established a revised policy concerning the improvement of frontage roads in the City. This policy provides: 1. The City of Richfield shall be responsible for that portion of the cost to improve frontage roads along freeways which are turned back to the city by MNDOT in accordance with Richfield's street improvement standards as follows: (a) one -half the width of the street surface; and, (b) the curb and gutter cost on the property owner's side of the frontage road. 2. Property owners abutting the frontage road shall be assessed for the street improvements which are the responsibility of the city up to a maximum assessment of $8.00 a front foot or the actual cost of the improvements, whichever is less, plus individual drive- way apron construction. costs. 3. The maximum assessment to property owners on Longfellow Avenue between 68th. and 69th Streets shall be $4.00 per front foot or the actual cost of the improvements, whichever is less ( MNDOT has made an exception for this one block and has agreed to pay for all improvements except the curb and gutter on the property owner's side of the frontage road), plus the individual driveway apron construction costs. Pursuant to this policy, on February 25, 1985, the City Council accepted the preliminary engineering report and ordered a public hearing to be held on April 8, 1985, for the proposed • -2- *t. 5 • X- improvement of Longfellow Avenue by installation of permanent paving, curb and gutter and driveway aprons from 66th Street to • 69th Street and an overlay of the service road from 69th Street to 24th Avenue South. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvements is the property abutting the east side of Longfellow Avenue from 68th. to 69th Street. The remainder of the project costs will be paid by Municipal State Aid and MnDOT. The city council has previously set the assessment rate for this project for curb and gutter to be $4 per abutting foot or the actual cost, whichever is less. The estimated average cost for a driveway apron is $200. A typical assessment for a 60 -foot lot without a driveway is $240 and a 60 foot lot with a driveway is assessed $440. The assessment can be prepaid in full or payment may be spread over a 20 -year period in equal installments with interest. Partial prepayment may be made with the unpaid balance spread over a 20 -year period. A deferment may be granted to persons over 65 years of age or persons permanently and totally disabled provided that certain conditions are met. The engineer's estimate for constructing curb and gutter is $7.00 per front foot. The $4.00 per front foot cost to be assessed (not including the driveway aprons) represents 57% of the curb and gutter estimate. The estimated project cost is $256,190. The city share of the curb and gutter cost will be paid from MSA (gasoline taxes). The staff recommends that, at the close of the public hearing, the city council adopt the attached resolution ordering the project and the preparation of plans and specifications. R pectfu bmitted, CC '' ohn G. Yager r right City Ma JGC /eja 7�1 o, S-3 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS ON THE RECONSTRUCTION OF LONGFELLOW AVENUE, 66TH TO 69TH STREET AND THE OVERLAY OF HIGHWAY 77 EAST FRONTAGE ROAD, 69TH STREET TO 24TH AVENUE SOUTH - CITY PROJECT NO. 803 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 25th day of February, 1985, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of Longfellow Avenue between 66th Street and 69th. Street by reconstruction, paving, curb and gutter and driveway aprons from 66th Street to 69th Street and by overlay from 69th Street to 24th Avenue South; and WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice of the hearing and two weekly publications of the required notice was given as required by law, and the hearing was held thereon on the 8th day of April, 1985, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 25th day of February, 1985. 2. Michael Eastling, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of April, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor / 4ff RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FINANCING POLICY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF FRONTAGE ROADS TURNED BACK TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY MNDOT WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDot) has established a program to turn back certain frontage roads along freeways to municipalities when mutually agreed to; anal, WHEREAS, MNDot has a financial contribution policy for improving frontage roads at the time these frontage roads are accepted by municipalities which provides that MNDot share of the improvement cost shall be one -half of the street width plus the curb and gutter costs on the freeway side of the frontage road; and, WHEREAS, the City of Richfield from time to time may seek the turn back of freeway frontage roads provided the frontage roads are improved to the standards established for the improvement of similar streets in Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The City of Richfield shall be portion of the cost to improve freeways which are turned back in accordance with Richfield's standards as follows: responsible for that frontage roads along to the city by MNDot street improvement (a) one -half the width of the street surface; and, (b) the curb and gutter cost on the property owner's side of the frontage road. 2. Property owners abutting the frontage road shall be assessed for the street improvements which are the responsibility of the city up to a maximum assessment of $8.00 on a front foot or the actual cost of the improvements, whichever is less, plus individual driveway apron construction costs. 3. The maximum assessment to property owners on Long- fellow Avenue between 58th and 69th Streets shall be $4.00 per front foot or the actual cost of the im- provements, whichever is less (MNDot has made an exception for this one block and has agreed to pay for all improvements except the curb and gutter on the property owner's side of the frontage road), plus the individual driveway apron construction costs. rV1 J t� 5— �0 March 21, 1985 Dear Richfield Property Owner: The City of Richfield is proposing to improve a portion of Longfellow Avenue by installation of permanent paving, curb and gutter and drive aprons from 66th Street to 69th Street. An overlay is also planned to be placed on the Highway 77 east frontage road, from 69th Street to 24th Avenue South as part of this project. As required by law, the Richfield City Council will hold a public hearing to consider this improvement at its meeting on April 8, 1985, 7 p.m., Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. If the City Council approves this project, the work will occur this summer. Prior to the public hearing, a representative from the Public Safety Department and I will hold a neighborhood meeting to review the project and any other concerns you might have such as speeding, truck and bus traffic issues. All concerned residents are urged to attend. This neighborhood meeting will begin at 6 :30 p.m. in the conference room next to the council chambers at City Hall. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Richfield Engineering Division at 869 -7521. Sincerely, .A��-Zz Z-ekol Michael J. Eastling, P.E. City Engineer MJE /vp SEE LEGAL NOTICE ON OTHER SIDE telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer 4-f ®ice C� t� 5— �0 March 21, 1985 Dear Richfield Property Owner: The City of Richfield is proposing to improve a portion of Longfellow Avenue by installation of permanent paving, curb and gutter and drive aprons from 66th Street to 69th Street. An overlay is also planned to be placed on the Highway 77 east frontage road, from 69th Street to 24th Avenue South as part of this project. As required by law, the Richfield City Council will hold a public hearing to consider this improvement at its meeting on April 8, 1985, 7 p.m., Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. If the City Council approves this project, the work will occur this summer. Prior to the public hearing, a representative from the Public Safety Department and I will hold a neighborhood meeting to review the project and any other concerns you might have such as speeding, truck and bus traffic issues. All concerned residents are urged to attend. This neighborhood meeting will begin at 6 :30 p.m. in the conference room next to the council chambers at City Hall. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Richfield Engineering Division at 869 -7521. Sincerely, .A��-Zz Z-ekol Michael J. Eastling, P.E. City Engineer MJE /vp SEE LEGAL NOTICE ON OTHER SIDE telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer C� J CITY OF RICHFIELD , MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 114 Agenda: April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application For Gambling Permit - St. Richard's Catholic Church (Monte Carlo Night) Council Members: Mrs. Martha Connell, representing St. Richard's Church and Grade School Association, has submitted a request to conduct St. Richard's Annual Monte Carlo Night. This would be the third year for this organization to hold such an event. Gary Groen of St. Richard's has submitted a gambling application to the State of Minnesota. However, in order to insure the issuance of the license in time for the scheduled May 4, 1985, event, Mrs. Connell has applied to the City of Richfield for the necessary raffle permit. The Department of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background investigation on the Chairperson, Martha Connell, and the Assistant Chairperson, Geraldine Mead, and neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. The necessary bonding of the Gambling Manager is carried by the Gallagher- Bassett Insurance Service in northern Hennepin County. They supply coverage for gambling purposes for all parishes in the Archdiocese of St. Paul. Since this activity is done only once each year, St. Richards is requesting the waiver of the daily permit fee of $36.00 for the raffle daily fee as provided in Richfield City Ordinance 5.19, Subd.16, Para.(2). Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the investigation conducted, it would be appropriate to approve the daily permit and waive the permit fee as requested by the applicant. -2- tf L- 2.0 It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council approve the requested gambling permit and fee waiver for St. Richards Catholic Church in order that they may conduct their Monte Carlo Night activity. JGC /eja a spect ul; f �� submitted Z L John G. Ca nigh City Manager yK -/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 113 Agenda: April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application For Gambling Permit Rollin Tigers CB Club Council Members: On February 15, 1985, Mr. Robert Stark, representing the Rollin Tigers CB Club, inquired about obtaining a permit to conduct a raffle in conjunction with their fund raising activities for Camp Superkids. At that time, Mr. Stark was advised to file an application with the State of Minnesota for the gambling license. This he did and left a copy of the application with the Public Safety Division on February 15, 1985. The fund raiser is scheduled for April 13, 1985• This is the ninth consecutive year that the club has run this activity. The raffle will be a one time affair held at the VFW Club on April 13, 1985, from 8:00 P.M.to 12:00 A.M. On March 14, 1985, Mr. Stark said that due to the delay in the State taking over the charitable gambling functions, his organization is requesting the City to license the organization for the raffle. Since the Charitable Gambling Board had not acted upon the application, he has applied to the City of Richfield. Criminal history checks were run on the designated gambling manager and the board of the Rollin Tigers CB Club. There is no known criminal history for any of the people involved. The applicant has stated that the required bonding of the gambling manager, Mr. Wallace Lucier, is the same as it was last year when Mr. Lucier served as gambling manager. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. of Connecticut is providing the coverage. The applicant is requesting the waiver of the daily permit fee ($36.00) for this raffle, based on Richfield Ordinance 5.19 Subd.16 Para (2). Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the criminal history checks performed, there seems to be no basis for denying the request. Therefore, it is Director, in which I raffle permit for the permit fee of $36.00. JGC /eja • • _2_ I.le". Z... the recommendation of the Public Safety concur, that the City Council approve the Rollin Tigers CB Club, and waive the daily Re.s,oectfu 5hn G. Carfi ity Manager 4- +- -A • C • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 112 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Agreement with Richfield Swim Club for Use of Outdoor Swimming Pool for Two Day Swim Meet Council Members: For the past several years the city has entered into an agreement with the Richfield Swim Club providing for the Club's use of the city's outdoor municipal swimming pool facility for a two -day swim meet. The Richfield Swim Club has again requested such as agreement with the city for 1985. The proposed agreement would provide for the Richfield Swim Club to host a sanctioned swim meet for two days on Saturday, July 6 and Sunday, July 7, 1985. This agreement would provide that the city close the pool to open swimming on the two days of the Club's sponsored meet. Arrangements have been made with Edina and Bloomington which would permit use of the these pools by holders of Richfield patches for the two days of the meet. The Community Services Advisory Commission reviewed the proposed agreement at their March 12, 1985 meeting. It is the recommendation of the Commission and the staff, in which. I concur, that the city council authorize an agreement with the Richfield Swim Club providing for closing of the municipal outdoor swimming pool on July 6 and 7, 1985, to enable the Club to host a competitive swimming meet at the city pool on those dates. JGC /eja R pectfu�� mitted, ohn G. Car wrigh City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ` Council Letter No. 111 0 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Temporary Pennants, Banners and Ground Signs for Superamerica Stations Located at 826 West 66th Street, 2913 West 66th Street, 7720 Nicollet Avenue and 7500 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: Superamerica has applied for permits to erect banners, pennants, and 12 foot square portable ground signs at their four Richfield locations for the period of April 24 through May 6, 1985. Superamerica would also like to park a semi- trailer at each of these sites during this time period. In addition., Superamerica is requesting that they be permitted to place banners and pennants at these four locations during their annual Pepsi sale which runs from June 9 through June 16, 1985. Pennants, banners and portable ground signs with a maximum size of 12 square feet are permitted by city ordinances. It is also city policy that banners and pennants be permitted only once per year for a period not to exceed 30 days. The staff recommends that the city council approve the permit for banners, pennants, and portable ground signs for the period April 24 through May 6, 1985, and that the request to park a semi- trailer at the four sites be denied as special use permits for service stations do not allow the parking of semi- trailers on the site. The City Manager also recommends that the permit for banners and pennants for the period June 9 through June 16, 1985, be approved. Although this would be the second time banners and pennants would be placed at a location in one year, the total number of days for the two sale events is less than 30 days. sbectfbl Ern vG .;Ca ity Manage �submitt d, twr i gh CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 111 0 4 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Temporary Pennants, Banners and Ground Signs for Superamerica Stations Located at 826 West 66th Street, 2913 West 66th Street, 7720 Nicollet Avenue and 7500 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: Superamerica has applied for permits to erect banners, pennants, and 12 foot square portable ground signs at their four Richfield locations for the period of April 24 through May 6, 1985. Superamerica would also like to park a semi - trailer at each of these sites during this time period. In addition, Superamerica is requesting that they be permitted to place banners and pennants at these four locations during their annual Pepsi sale which runs from June 9 through June 16, 1985. Pennants, banners and portable ground signs with a maximum size of 12 square feet are permitted by city ordinances. It is also city policy that banners and pennants be permitted only once per year for a period not to exceed 30 days. The staff recommends that the city council approve the permit for banners, pennants, and portable ground signs for the period April 24 through May 6, 1985, and that the request to park a semi - trailer at the four sites be denied as special use permits for service stations do not allow the parking of semi- trailers on the site. The City Manager also recommends that the permit for banners and pennants for the period June 9 through June 16, 1985, be approved. Although this would be the second time banners and pennants would be placed at a location in one year, the total number of days for the two sale events is less than 30 days. s ctf�il submitt d, � �� (5hre G . /Ca twrigty Manage • 6�� 411110, 2.1000 1240 W.9 STREET BOMINGTON, MI NNESOTA 55431 SU PE RAJ AE R I C� 612 -887 -6100 DIVISION OF ASHLAP40 OIL. INC. March 28, 1985 Richfield City Council 7600 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Attached please find four applications for advertising permits for the following SuperAmerica stores: SA #4015, 826 West 66th Street SA 7#14186, 2913 W. 66th Street SA #4188, 7720 Nicollet Avenue South SA #4191, 7500 Lyndale Avenue South We would like these permits approved for our annual Valvoline Oil Sale which starts April 28 and runs through May 6th. We would like to have banners, pennants, a Semi - Trailer and portable lighted 3 x 4 signs at all stores. These permits also include our annual Pepsi sale which starts June 9th and runs through June 16th. We would like to have banners and pennants at all stores. We would appreciate your approval of these permits. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Nielsen, Area Manager SN /lc /uI � .9PPROVE a DENY71: City Manager Dates APPROVE DENYQ Planning Department S, f APPROVE DENY Inspecto_r'/ Date `t1 r/1'. APPROVE DENY" City Council Date /, $S� Date *90ute to above for special aa0prTovval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,. Minnesota 3 -a V 4< N �f Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes `� No Fee Address of Sign Proprietor Name �.LUr`�L�`� Y!� it DBA Sign Erector / "4e'r'A .Sr(rx% Address 0 Type of Sign flPCian TJn n f- t o r T -f _'k t 4__ Illuminated Yes No Watts- -A Contractor l'll' -��6-A / ' Address �G �� w �,9'�Phone �1dS-.�iyU v /, Property Owner or his Agent Signature J. Estimated Cost /Uy ' Sign Width Phone Height Total Square Feet Z Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises ?_a'o' Will the i structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for saf `ac ess y persons destined for or passing the subject premises? L r� Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number Al G - /'�y6 Date 3 -- -8 "� 8/83 _:_ PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight anner /Pennants Portable Frame: TM A ❑ Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors ✓ Illuminated Yes No Watts- -A Contractor l'll' -��6-A / ' Address �G �� w �,9'�Phone �1dS-.�iyU v /, Property Owner or his Agent Signature J. Estimated Cost /Uy ' Sign Width Phone Height Total Square Feet Z Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises ?_a'o' Will the i structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for saf `ac ess y persons destined for or passing the subject premises? L r� Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number Al G - /'�y6 Date 3 -- -8 "� 8/83 _:_ PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota P/ Q-r- Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes V No Fee Address of Sign 7Sd� G�j u % �� Proprietor Name d i ��1.'Y � nw"eI$BA Sign Erector ('4er Address �4 Type of Sign Design. Weather Cover Lighting Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight -Banner/Pennants Portable Frame: T Q A[] Post F/I F.PPROVE a DENY-F-1: APPROVE DENY :• ..L �" City Manager Date mac.. T Fay '1 -tn.�� Inspector Date APPROVE T)ENY❑ : o� i APPROVE ❑ DENY" Planning De'artment City Council Date Date Route to above for special approval per code General Sims APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota P/ Q-r- Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes V No Fee Address of Sign 7Sd� G�j u % �� Proprietor Name d i ��1.'Y � nw"eI$BA Sign Erector ('4er Address �4 Type of Sign Design. Weather Cover Lighting Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight -Banner/Pennants Portable Frame: T Q A[] Post If Illuminated 7 es' No Watts Electrical Contractor Z 1Z %A f /�l'4 / / AddTe Property Owner or his Agent Signature_ w Estimated Cost / GO Sign Clear Lexon Frosted Lexon Plastic Covered Shaded Neon Other Sign Colors Constant Flashing Revolving Traveling Zip Lite Other(Explain) ,s /f 11J, COf Phone -� Phone Width '� Height s Total Square Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? 2 Will th ,si structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for sa e a cess/ by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? App icant`s Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number Date 3 +� `�' 8 lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 � T�.vs o,✓ rn�� -Z�/�C�rL../ � /�� .! iG�t/ �$� Oil S.f2 E � d y ] S-1 G -1iav APPROVE a DENY City Manager Date APPROVE a DENY❑ :��.. Planning Department APPROVE V DENY ❑: �1�d - ~" Inspector Date APPROVE D DENY": City Council Date 1 435' Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PEP -MIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date Zoning Sign Erected Yes `� No Fee Address of Sign �7h/ wi�otc �f' Jr) Proprietor Name DBA Sign Erector Address Ty e of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting lluminated Yes No Watts L trical Contractor Paw —,.4 % Address : %�l �/- 't'<<� Phone q,�5 • 2190 Property Owner or his Agent Signature -' U�✓ Phone rG L "4, yC� Estimated Cost /00010 Sign Width Height Total Square Feet !-L Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign c py relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ZcS Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for said access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Ala Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date Phone Number �GL ' 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 i61 /SO�Z�1L Fa/L�7r �YIr/w� Wall Projecting Ground Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T Q A ❑ Post ❑ Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors Roof E lluminated Yes No Watts L trical Contractor Paw —,.4 % Address : %�l �/- 't'<<� Phone q,�5 • 2190 Property Owner or his Agent Signature -' U�✓ Phone rG L "4, yC� Estimated Cost /00010 Sign Width Height Total Square Feet !-L Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign c py relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? ZcS Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for said access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Ala Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date Phone Number �GL ' 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 i61 /SO�Z�1L Fa/L�7r �YIr/w� APPROVE F-1 DENY APPROVE 71f- MENY a APPROVE FX� DENY City Manager Insp� tor. Date Date 7/� APPROVE a DENY Planning Department City Council Date y It g S _ Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield,, Minnesota Date ?" �" `�' Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign a`�!% w, [�ti -�! Proprietor Name �;/. //%f'7.�ZrCs� D B A Sign Erector' ,fl�X/ Address Ty e of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting If Illuminated - Electrical Contractor No ,rn�j Property Owner or his Agent Signature.' Watts 'address Phone f' Phone Estimated Cost u� �JO � Sign Width_ `.J _Height_ � _ Total Square Feet � Z Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility ',lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises ?�S .. Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for s fe ac/es *by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? App icant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 016 J4L4: _� y > S/6 Date 3 1� FOR SIGN LOCATION SKET�H PtmEs oe' ftdww - Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants 3� Portable Frame:�� T f7 AM Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors ✓ •7 v,. If Illuminated - Electrical Contractor No ,rn�j Property Owner or his Agent Signature.' Watts 'address Phone f' Phone Estimated Cost u� �JO � Sign Width_ `.J _Height_ � _ Total Square Feet � Z Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility ',lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises ?�S .. Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for s fe ac/es *by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? App icant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number lkt 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 016 J4L4: _� y > S/6 Date 3 1� FOR SIGN LOCATION SKET�H PtmEs oe' ftdww - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 777 .� Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 110 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Permit Application to Erect a Temporary Roof Sign at Corporate Travel, 1401 West 76th Street Council Members: Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to erect a 35' x 6' single faced sign on the Corporate Travel Building roof located at 1401 West 76th Street. This will be a temporary sign, to be erected for a period not to exceed 30 days. The sign advertises space for rent and gives a telephone number to call. City ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 16, provides that city council approval is required for temporary signs., The sign was 4P been placed on the roof without a permit, but has since been removed. Subdivision 16 (2) of the sign ordinance provides that a temporary banner or sign shall not be larger than 120 square feet in area for each 20 feet of building area. The proposed sign is 210 square feet. The city manager recommends approval of this permit application with the stipulation that the sign period be limited to 30 days. Respectfu omitted, oh.n G. ar wrigh.t' City Manager JGC /eja APPROVE r` FV I DENY:_ Date APPROVE F-1 T)ENYEI : APPROVE F] DENY :F1f //44 ger Inspector i Date APPROVE 11 DENY n. 2-00 Plannin Depart ent City Council Date G Date Route to above for special approval, per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota DaterZ Zoning Sign Erected -,Yes No Fee Address of Sign /44u/' 12J %G Proprietor Name DBA Sign Type Erector �. i 4� Address of S1Q11/ 't. .�2 /�.ir.t D�4�Pn WPathor Cnvar T.iaiitina 0 Illuminated - Yes /No Watts ectrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner o his Agent Signature , /z1. _ a__4 hone Estimated Cost o� Sign Width Height CJ Total quare Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's lo4iin a re nd Title with Firm Phone Number Date Z� Ot 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Se-archlight BannerjFt:kf Por able Frame: T [] A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon J Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors,0,—p 44,1N111_C_:7 'X 0 Illuminated - Yes /No Watts ectrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner o his Agent Signature , /z1. _ a__4 hone Estimated Cost o� Sign Width Height CJ Total quare Feet Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's lo4iin a re nd Title with Firm Phone Number Date Z� Ot 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 WALL SIGN ��-- -WIDTH —i I LEGEND ROOF SIGN WIDTH LEGEND_ T c(3r3 - zZ71 ROOF 6e 1 Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH LICE /8/83 GROUND SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGN WIDTH --.— !' WIDTH ---�"{ tic -----WIDTH- LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND WALL SIGN ��-- -WIDTH —i I LEGEND ROOF SIGN WIDTH LEGEND_ T c(3r3 - zZ71 ROOF 6e 1 Indicate Distance From The Building Indicate legend on the the reverse side in Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 300 feet. DEFINITION: Minor Signs -- Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq. ft. on a common board INDICATE NORTH LICE /8/83 -N (4) The building or structure from which any such sign projects and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign. (5) All such signs shall be of non - combustible materials, or of not less than one hour fire resistive construction. Subd. 14. Roof Signs: Construction and Design. The following standards shall be maintained for all roof signs: (1) No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet from the outside wall toward which it faces, nor exceed 25 .feet in height above the roof level of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure, nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lights attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be con- sidered part of the sign structure. (2) Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open wire or open metal sign, except that such sign may have letters, figures, characters, or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches in width, and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than 25 % of the area of such sign, provided that in place of sheet metal, sub - stitution may be made of.the following materials; tempered pressed wood or other similar materials approved by the chief inspector, having equal proper- ties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance. (3) No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent free passage of persons from one part of the roof to another. (4) The building or structure upon which such sign is placed, and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign, and in such a manner as not to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed. (5) No roof sign shall be more than 65 feet in length nor shall it extend more than 25 feet above the surface of the roof of the building on which it is located. No roof sign shall extend more than 45 feet above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces. Subd. 15. Wall Signs; Construction and Design. The following standards shall - be maintained for all wall signs: (1) No wall sign shall have a projection over.a private sidewalk or an established building line of more than 12 inches. (2) The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet the same standards and requirements as roof signs. Subd. 16. Banners and Temporary Signs. The following standards shall be maintained for all banners and temporary signs: (1) Temporary signs and banners attached to any building and constructed of canvas, plastic material, cloth or other combustible material with or with- out framework; shall be strongly constructed and shall be securely attached to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framework and supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than 60 days after erection. (2) Temporary signs of combustible material shall not be larger than 120 square feet in area for each twenty feet of building frontage. There shall not be more than one temporary sign on any building frontage. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 91 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ft- // (3) No temporary sign of combustible construction shall project over public property or right -of -way, but may extend a maximum of 6 inches from the face of the building. (4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for ventilation. (5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem- porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple- residence, commercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall-be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days. No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code. Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply with the provisions of Subdivision 16. Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap- plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent- ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section. Subd. 19.. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council. Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been approved. Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill- board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any other such billboard or.sign already in existence in the interior of the same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be-issued for directional or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub- division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this part. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • 40 y 6.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 109 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign Permit, 12 East 66th Street Council Members: Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to erect a 19' x 1' 8" illuminated wall sign at Adventures in Video, located at 12 East 66th Street in the Richfield Shoppes North Shopping Center. The sign conforms to all city ordinances that pertain to signs of this nature, and it is recommended that the permit application be approved. JGC /eja Respectfu mitted, i ohn G . u arts City Manager R r DENY ,r APP a a City Manager Date Plannin De hutment Date Zl Inspector, � � d� �,. ---C_ Date APPROVE E DENYD : 2, City Council Date e to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date `3 ) Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ov No Fee Address of Sign ,C, ',�-oprietor Name N jj DBA Sign Erector ddress(W. Type of Sign Desien Weather Cover Lighting If Illuminated No trical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Watts Address Phone Signature Ln ( .N �)(5Z_Phone 3- f y� Estimated Cost 3 Sign Width Height �Total Square Feet'�j� 33' -(.0' Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date Phone Number ? � - 7 1-:1 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE ZOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon ,( 1 L L)M iNP<Tl-,O Zip Lite Other CtfiA"VFL_�S Other(Explain) Sign Colors If Illuminated No trical Contractor Property Owner or his Agent Watts Address Phone Signature Ln ( .N �)(5Z_Phone 3- f y� Estimated Cost 3 Sign Width Height �Total Square Feet'�j� 33' -(.0' Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Date Phone Number ? � - 7 1-:1 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE ZOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 • • Z 3 Z I cis . Ut (n �G II p Z. �I 1 yF- / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 108 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for An Illuminated Sign at Kinhdo Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue Council Members: Attracta Sign, Inc. has requested an advertising permit to erect a 6'x 3' single faced wall sign with constant illumination. The sign is to be located at Kinhdo Restaurant, 6345 Penn Avenue. City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19, Illuminated Sign provides that city council approval is required for illuminated signs. • The proposed sign conforms to all pertinent city ordinances and it is recommended that the city council approve this sign permit. JGC /eja • R P ectfu � y i ohn G. "Cart City Manager �h -- 0 c E, Dcny L1 City Manager Date Approve lam: Deny T�& Spector Date—.2/a/4 f ove �� Deny C 0' Approve Deny Planning Dept. Citv Council Date z,(�c{�_ pate Route to above for special _approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT (2 narts) City of Richfield, Minnesota Date 3 -11 -85 Zoning .Address of Sign 6345 Penn Ave. So. Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee 18 .00 Proprietor Name Hung Mgo DRAKinhdo Rest. Address 6417 Penn Ave, So. Richfield, MN 55423 Type of Sign Design Weather Cover LiRhtin,. X Fall � X Projecting �_ Ground i Roof ! Pedestal Changeable Temnorary rai ler Single face Double face Multi -faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: Tff_' A.C: Post Clear Lexon - X: Constant ' Frosted Lexon __. Flashing Plastic Covered _ Revolvinv — Shaded Traveling Neon Zip -lite Other Other (Fxnl.) Sign Colors Red, Black & Yellow X X - i - -- If Illuminated - Yes X No Electrical Contractor Watts Property N•ner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost 1,000.00 Sign Width 6' Position of the advertisement structure in relat curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle drawing with significant dimensions and attached defined on page 2. Address Phone Phone Height 3' Total Sq. Ft. 18' ionship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, movement lines, or Public facilities on hereto of maior signs. Minor signs as Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate the premises? YP� Will the sign, structure, fors fe access by�p(erson Applicant 's Signature and Phone Number 866 -3047 DPS 101 to solely the business, institution, or activity conducted on or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over s destined for or passing the subject premises? No Title with Firm Date 3 -11 -85 _ w s �' ''-� � � }'.''i � r� ��° �' � ` - �.,.:., z i �• �� '`j � <� Y'f� Vii- k"'t`� ��C�` { tL�.t �'rr: �,'�.` � ; �- `isr i �, �r-. t. �Trti�� •'r�'��,{�3,' {F1i�'�y�� 1- ��'.�� } ` > � -Yj�h � ?•` '��'�,r, .tom � h � f�_ � _i.'>'t.F- }.- �.y •�� }�Y� }iYi.'�Fi�'•� fi' •i - •� V � L ! � v • � t � �r )'��1• ..ter?_ ,1� �. � �,�Y �" — �, e �. z :h_� �i Y t'y�3 }�'��Yl?�-�q,Y.r. `3� .p`t } bS�AL� � � t.: J �k�� rr S_ �7 �c�,}3� -�'�?� • •'�f`y J toy a�. 'r` •C � \� {�JJf �.l�v..�...r4�*Yi...0 uJe:. �+• ...•Y.�...�:e..:.L_u}�i <.a.>. -r �...:...•u��r. _yL.��.. �2. w.L. .... .1_.....a. �....s._�%v �.�J._ _ } i.f � C''. _K• �`(„`y3.f� • � � a I rte, � C� � � � • a r C -- 1-1�, kv, i is r -L-- C CC cuf C 0 1J ro � o H 0 H �' U .,J./ 4 . - / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 107 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Rescheduling Date of Public Hearing for 1985 Alley Paving Project - City Project No. 812 Council Members: On March 11, 1985, the Richfield City Council accepted the Preliminary Report for the 1985 Alley Paving Improvements and scheduled a public hearing on the project to be held on April 8, 1985. The six alleys proposed to be improved by concrete paving are: Alley Between From To Augsburg and Garfield Avenue 70th Street 71st Street Russell and Sheridan Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenue 75th Street 76th Street Upton and Thomas Avenue 68th. Street 69th Street Xerxes and Washburn Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Queen and Penn Avenue 68th Street 69th Street The postponement of the regularly scheduled city council meeting of March 25, 1985 has resulted in a long agenda with several important public hearings for the council meeting of April 8, 1985. Therefore, staff recommends that the city council adopt the attached resolution rescheduling the date of the public hearing for the 1985 Alley Paving Project from April 8 to April 22, 1985. JGC /eja 0 Respectf C y�ubmia tted, ohn G. Car-twr City Manager , 'Z/'5 - .1.0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1985 ALLEY PAVING PROJECT - CITY PROJECT NO. 812 WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the council adopted February 25, 1985, a report has been prepared by the city engineer with reference to the improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving and this report was received by the council on March 11, 1985: Alley Between From To Augsburg and Garfield Avenue 70th Street 71st Street Russell and Sheridan Avenue 68th Street 69th. Street Blaisdell and Nicollet Avenue 75th. Street 76th Street Upton and Thomas Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Xerxes and Washburn Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Queen and Penn Avenue 68th Street 69th Street NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. A public hearing on said proposed improvement, previously scheduled for April 8, 1,985, is hereby rescheduled for April 22, 1985, commencing at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, at which time the Council will consider the improvement of these alleys in accordance with the Preliminary Report and assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429, at an estimated cost of the improvement of $127,308. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of April, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 106 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Cab and Chassis Council Members: The adopted 1985 budget includes $26,500 to replace a 1969 Chevrolet cab and chassis, fully depreciated in 1979• Some cost would be involved to remount the existing Braco brush picker on the new unit. Through a joint purchasing agreement with Hennepin County, bids were received for the cab and chassis. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of a new Ford F800 28,000 GVW cab /chassis truck, parts manual and service manual, CA extension and frame strength per Hennepin County Bid No. 5568B from Brookdale Ford, Inc. in the amount of $17,787.50. JGC /eja • Respectf mitted, ohn G. Cart City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 105 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract for 1985 Removal of Diseased Trees on Private Property Council Members: When the city forester marks a diseased tree on private property for removal, the homeowner has three alternatives: remove the tree himself; hire his own contractor to do the work; or, authorize the city to hire a contractor and assess the costs to the resident over a three -year period. Last year, 395 diseased trees were marked on private property and 136 residents chose to have the city contract for the removal. The cost for service was $51,319. The city used six contractors for these removals and each tree was bid individually. Lists of trees were let out for bids weekly. Needless to say, this was a rather cumbersome and time - consuming process. The average tree removal cost was $377.35 ($51,319 ; 136). Often there was quite a time lag between when the resident made up his mind as to who was doing the work and when the city could give a definite price. Also, the city did not have a very good means of insuring that the contracted work would be completed on time as the city was never holding very much money against any one contractor with these numerous small contracts. For these reasons, the city staff has changed to a bid system where a single contractor bids on all city assessed removals at the beginning of the year on a per inch in diameter cost basis. This should eliminate a tremendous amount of paperwork, speed up the removal process and result in a better price for the homeowners. Four neighboring cities are presently using a similar system with good results. Two bids were received for this work. Gorecki and Co. of Anoka bid $26,560 and Tri -State Tree Service Inc. of Bloomington. bid $45,000. Gorecki and Co. did work for the City of Robbinsdale and the City of Brooklyn. Center in 1984 and had good recommendations from both as far as the quality of their work. They did get behind schedule towards the end of the summer, but both cities said they had many more diseased trees than they Ma estimated in their specifications entirely Gorecki and Co.'s fault. also had good references from the • average tree removal cost is esti 129)• 40 0 yC• ;2, and did not believe it was Tri -State Tree Service Inc. City of Bloomington. The mated to be $205.89 ($26,560 The new approach to bidding tree removal work should save the "average" property owner 45 %. The 1984 tree removal costs varied according to the location of the tree on the lot and other factors of difficulty. The 1985 contractor will probably have some easy removals as well as difficult removals (backyard for instance). The contractors have had to take this factor into account when submitting a bid. The net result is the property owner benefits from lower costs in most cases. In view of the price difference between the two bids, staff recommends that Gorecki and Co. be awarded the bid for removal of diseased trees on private property for 1985. JGC /eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING MARCH 21, 1985 1985 Diseased Tree Removal - Private Property -// (f .,3 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Steven L. Devich, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the 1985 Diseased Tree Removal - Private Property, as advertised in the official newspaper. Present: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, Administrative Assistant Randy Hughes, Facilities /Project Coordinator Steven L. Devich, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID PRICE Gorecki & Co., Anoka, MN Check $1,350 $ 26,560.00 Tri State Tree Service, Inc. Bloomington Bid Bond 5% $ 45,000.00 The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 8, 1985 City Council meeting. Steven L. Devich Acting City Clerk Bid No. 85--10 BID PROPOSAL FORM 1985 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL - PRIVATE PROPERTY CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Richfield City Council 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Gentlemen: In accordance with the "Advertisement for Bids" inviting proposals for diseased tree removal and disposal as described by and in conformance with the specifications on fine, the undersigned hereby certifies that an examination has been made of the specifications and hereby proposes to furnish all necessary machinery, equipment, labor and materials iln the :Wanner and time specified. The undersigned further certifies an understanding that all quantities shown below are estimates only and that the city reserves the right to increase or decrease these quantities. The bidder /contractor is to be responsible for locating disposal site(s) and all costs thereof. DBH Class Dia. Estimated Unit Price Bid Amount (inches) Quantity (each tree) (each DBH class) 0 - 5.9 2 $ _ $ &^ 6.0 - 7.9 3 $ 4l $ ;i 8.0 - 9.9 5 $ les $ 375 10.0 - 11.9 6 90 $4e 12.0 - 13.9 8 $ 115 $ 1-0 14.0 - 15.9 10 $ Id-5 $ 14;o 16.0 - 17.9 1.5 $ S $ ZL-Z5 18.0 - 19.9 15 $ N5 $ zq z-5 20.0 - 21.9 15 $ 2z5 22.0 - 23.9 15 $ ZA-0 $ 24.0 - 25.9 10 $ Z160 $ Z. bon 26.0 - 27.9 8 $ zl�ly $ Z.7-4.0 28.0 - 29.9 6 $ $ 18 on 30.0 - 31.9 5 $ 3Z5 $ �Z5 32.0 - 33.9 3 $ 350 $ 1050 34.0 - 35.9 2 $ , q 5; $ 7 qo 36.0 & Over 1 $ $ Soo TOTAL BID PRICE $ 2.(c e YA • • • • Bid Proposal Form 1985 Diseased Tree Removal City of Richfield, Minnesota Page 2 41 e. s The undersigned agrees, that upon acceptance of this bid, he will, within ten days of such notice, execute the necessary contract forms and that he will provide the bonds and guarantees.as required. The undersigned agrees he will commence and complete the work in accordance with the specifications. Accompanying this Proposal is the Bid Security required to be furnished, the same being subject to forfeiture in event of default by the undersigned. Accompanying this Proposal is a properly executed copy of the Statement of Intent to Comply with the City of Richfield Affirmative Action Program. Accompanying this Proposal is a properly executed copy of the Affidavit of Non - Collusion. In submitting this Proposal, the bidder assures the city that the materials, equipment and labor being proposed will be in adequate supply and bid prices shall be firm for the period of the agreement. In submitting this Proposal, it is understood that the right is reserved by the city to reject andy and all bids and it is agreed that this bid may not be withdrawn for a period of 30 days from the opening thereof. If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation? If a partnership, state full name of all co- partners: FORMERLY 670(zcC.V-1 ?.onwoc;T STUMP 0'JnL Name of individual, partnership or corporation: 4- . Official Address: 0, 0. �jeX kA MA �S-s Name of Authorized Official: -r�,eA GC, aec—y -i Title of Authorized Official: 6,Jrl,fz, Telephone Number(s): Authorized Signature ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ADDENDA: I hereby acknowledge that I have received and am fully aware of the following addenda (initial in acknowledgement): 1. � 6kr- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1985 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROPOSAL / t,. •C� CITY OF RIChTIELD', MINNESOTA This form to be completed and included with proposal submitted March 21, 1985. PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE -RITE? FORMERLY NAME OF BIDDER (DBA) : Co , MIDWEST STUMP REMOVAL BUSINESS ADDRESS: P-0. ''ox ISM to oV- A MA SS3 03 Street City State Zip Code BUSINESS PHONE: 47 -04-L5 CONTACT PERSON: HOME PHONE NUMBER: 047:5. EXPERIENCE (Include municipal contracts and years) Ct-n oF- 2tC0--r-t0Z T2amm�AV JgS4 C jre or f2oP,61,4 51)9uV �E10 CURRENT CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (List employer, dollar amount, trees per day and any other significant information) 5e, COO EQUIPMENT (List only 'those items that are available to work this contract) I q 77 � ;(L_0 00 o a v/ / I z0 P2Ea'M cA- L tai C-1 jdr'L, l boo W1 57' 1- - aA4 6A ifL- o `4 \4 -O CA- P A-a,c EMPLOYEES (List only those available to work this contract - include skill and experience) YQs Z Y25 P�' CA&LS O-,1 z Y2,s (Use reverse side or additional sheet of paper as needed for above items) Statemen= of Intent to Comply Page I of ' 1 -CITY CF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Statz-ent of Intent to Comply with EEO and. Affirmative Action Requirements The City of Richfield and variou's funding sources that are us-ed for constriction of city projects have requirements and standards to ensure equal employment opportunities and anti - discrimination practice. These standards must be met.in order to receive the funds described above. The undersigned hereby states that he fully intends to co,��ply ,pith these standards as described in the contract documents and as required by the regulations of the city and the funding agencies. • Date: Signature: ,S R . A Title: IL Firm Name and Address: FORMERLY MIDWEST STUMP REMOVAL (�H`► � K.ti �� 55 3 � 3 ■ 4 y, CITY OF RIC.H.F!::LD 0700 Portland Avenue (; Richfield, Minnesota 55423 AFFIZAVIT AND INFORMATION REQUIRED OF BIDDERS Affidavit of Non- Collusion: I hereby swear (or affirm) under the penalty for perjury: (1) That I am the bidder (if the bidder is an individual) , a partner in the bidder (if the bidder is a partnership), or an officer or employee of the bidding corporation having authority to sign on its behalf (if the bidder is a corporation); (2) That the attached bid or bids have been arrived at by the bidder independ- ently, and have been submitted without collusion with, and without any agreement, understanding, or planned common course of action with, any other vendor of materials, supplies, equipment or services described in the invitation to bid, designed to limit independent bidding or competition; (3) That the contents of the bid or bids have not been communicated by the bidder or its employees or agents to any person not an employee or agent of the bidder or its surety or_ any bond furnished with the bid or bids, and will not be communicated to any such person prior to the official opening of the bid or bids; and (4) That 1 have fully informed myself regarding the accuracy of the statements made in this affidavit. 0 Signed: < . _: L4) �1_0-� Firm Name:2�cr_t a- . Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 ' day of '7"n cr _Jh 19 �. Notary Public My commission expires 19 *, KAYtYNN KAML ; NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA APIUKA COUNTY My Commission Expires Nov. 6. Bidder's E. I. Number (Number used on Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return, U. S, Treasury Department Form 941): W Pao c s% Fair Trade Items- List below each item upon which a bid is made, the price of which is affected by a resale price maintenance or "fair trade" contract between the bidder and the person or firm supplying the item to the bidder. ( Use reverse side if necessary) . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 104 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Sand Blasting and Painting of Logan Avenue Elevated Water Tower Tank Council Members: On March 7, 1985, bids were opened, in accordance with legal requirements, for sand blasting and painting the elevated water tower tank on Logan Avenue at the West Junior High School site adjacent to Donaldson Park. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for city council review. The adopted 1985 budget provides $75,000 for the sand blasting and painting of the Logan Water Tower as well as the aceletor (an aceletor is equipment that mixes water at the water plant) at the water plant. The March 7 bids were only for the Logan water tower. Four bids were received. Each proposal included two bid items. The difference between the two is the type of paint being specified. It is the opinion of staff that the best interest of the city would be served through rewriting of the specifications and readvertisement for bids. Therefore, it is recommended the city council reject all bids received March 7, 1985, for sand blasting and painting of the Logan Water Tower and authorize staff to proceed with rewriting of specifications and readvertising for bids. The painting of the aceletor will not be included in the new request for bids. The work will be performed by city personnel. pectfu ly itted, �t �� 64o'hon G. ar Wright City Manager JGC /eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING March 7, 1985 Sand Blasting & Painting of Logan Avenue Elevated Tank H9- z Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative staff was called by Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Sand Blasting and Painting of Logan Avenue Elevated Tank, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 13, 1985. Present: Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Marshall Raaen, Techincal Operations Coordinator John Thom, Utility Supervisor Steven Devich, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR Audlon Protected Coating, Inc. Valley Contracting, Stillwater Dairyland Improvement Co. Cottage Grove, Wi. BID SECURITY BID ITEM #1 5% Bid Bond $118,100 5% Bid Bond $121,000 Check $138,026 Larson Tank Co., Badger, Mn. 5% Bid Bond BID ITEM #2 $114,250 $117,000 $122,000 $148,500 $123,500 The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 8'; 1985 City Council meeting. Steven L. Devich Acting City Clerk C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. ,iii Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - Hydraulic Bucket Machine Council Members: On March 28, 1985, bids were opened for a hydraulic bucket machine in accordance with legal requirements. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. The adopted 1985 budget allocates $30,000 for the replacement of this fully depreciated 1967 equipment. It is in poor condition and parts are becoming difficult to locate. The equipment is used primarily for cleaning sewer lines. Bids were first opened for this equipment on February 12, S 1985, with one bid received. The base bid was $36,986 with a trade -in credit of $3,000 for a net purchase price of $33,986. On the recommendation of staff, the city council rejected this bid and authorized readvertisement. The recommendation to reject bids was based upon the hope that more than one bidder could be obtained and that a lower price might be possible. One bid was received on March 28, 1985. This bid, submitted by Flexible Pipe and Tool Company, provides a base bid of $35,684 with a trade -in allowance of $5,700 for a net purchase price of $29,984. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of a hydraulic bucket machine from Flexible Pipe and Tool Company per their bid of March 28, 1985, at a net purchase price of $29,984. JGC /eja 0 R pectf 1� ohn G. Car City Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening March 28, 1985 Hydraulic Bucket Machine BID no. 85 -3 yA- z. 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, sealed bids for a Hydraulic Bucket Machine, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 13, 1985. Present: Steve Devich, Administrative Services Director /Assistant City Manager Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BASE BID LESS TOTAL BID SECURITY TRADE -IN BID 0 Flexible Pipe Tool Co. B. B. 5% $35,684 $5,700 $29,984 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the April 8, 1985 city council meeting. T omas P. Ferber, City Clerk • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 102 Agenda April 8, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of the "Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year" Award Council Members: Each year the Richfield Human Rights Commission selects an individual, family or oganization in the community who has made an outstanding contribution to the betterment of human rights in the community as the Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year. The commission solicited nominations from the community for this award during the months of December, 1984 and January, 1985• This year the commission selected John Takekawa for this • award. The presentation will be made at the April 8, 1985, city council meeting, when a plaque and a proclamation will be presented to Mr. Takekawa. Tollie Flippin, commission chairperson, will be present to make the presentation in cooperation with city council members. After the presentation, a reception will be held in the main conference room to give friends and family members an opportunity to congratulate Mr. Takekawa on his being selected as the Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year. Attached to this council letter is a list of accomplishments that the commission took into consideration in selecting John Takekawa. R pectf ohn G. City Man JGC /eja 1 omitted, -ar wrigh ager • INN A a IN- y � A � A _ ;d /.w 2..o Aoos �•� coo,• O� �1, � C7 N to C�'1• fo, C�1• � ti• t� � �`, Z � o � ?`• r�' cam, � C co c� ? • c'1 C S75 o S�g 2 Z S ?•cif : A- rn S (o rn n S o o S rn o A rn �• �, S c M rn m 73 A• N O ?, iU �• � Pi• (� Pw N 0o S � c s -tt S` c`o o r*• c� Po 0 o c c" ps s one M �-,�R5 ASS Po co co rrt ro co n c`t R P+ P; • c`y. SZ � � A � S A S' co nT ii c't nT ro P• A PL r m S co o co o S S o A nz S A T co c> —1 co � c'i• n � � � � o o s�i o �• �� 1•, s �•, � cry � A A ?, o P+ �o O (o G c� S Pi• c`i• s P . s AS�c cow - coo �- rri S o c`fi d c o i a ca a+ �P-.s �•c s � A 2� A � n P• • c'i• • �sSS cost osci A IT- 44 ro cos c'b �• G7 P•• A n r�•'S o c*i,co co co � o Pi• � co ?-• S s A A P'i• Q- c co c�i• S �+ o s � • A 6- CX-n S' S o P-, co 3 T•w � S o aP., INN A a IN- y � A � A _ ;d /.w 2..o 0 1984 GENE JACOBSEN CITIZEN OF THE YEAR JOHN TAKEKAWA 7333 THOMAS AVENUE John Takekawa is one of the foremost citizens of Richfield, involved in service projects of caring and outreach. John has served as a member of the Senior Citizens /Handicapped Commission, and is currently a member of the Community Services Advisory Commission. Through his leadership on the Senior Citizens /Handicapped Commission and his many volunteer hours that the following projects were accomplished: The publication of the Richfield /Bloomington Accessiblity 0 Guide Book. This book contains a listing of all of the public buildings in these communities and indicates their accessiblity to individuals with mobility problems. John Takekawa was the key person in this project. The research of a Food Coop for Richfield that would benefit senior citizens. A cooperative buying group is recommended for establishment and has been referred to VEAP. Spent countless hours and Nrote numerous letters attempting to establish a postal substation at Lund's Grocery store at 52nd and Penn Avenue. 0 iJohn Takekawa is an active member of the First Christian Church, Minneapolis, where he works as a volunteer with the Nikkei Group - Japenese /American senior citizens. He has also served his church as treasurer of the board of trustees, as a member of the Christian Education Commission, and as an elder. John is actively involved with Richfield VEAP (Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People) and is actively involved with transporting food from the depot to the pantry at House of Lutheran Church. John and his wife, Phyllis, have three daughters and one son. dedication to his fellow man, the Human Rights Comission is proud to name John Takekawa as the "Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year for 1984 ". Mr. Takekawa has made significant contributions to his community and fellow citizens through his many volunteer efforts. Because of his concern and dedication to his fellow man, the Human Rights Comission is proud to name John Takekawa as the "Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year for 1984 ". CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 101 Agenda March 18, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for a Planned Unit Development Plan and Final Development Plan Amendment for the Woodlake Point Condominium. Council Members: The city council has previously approved a planned unit development plan and final development plan for the market plaza development on the block bounded by 65th Street, 66th Street, Lyndale Avenue and Graham Avenue. The developers have been issued a permit to pour footings. They are in the process of submitting mechanical and building plans for building permit for the Woodlake Point Condominium portion of the proposed development. In order to meet the building code requirements for ventilating and heating the underground garage, the developer is being required to provide a 12 x 13 feet by 8 foot high gas fired tempered air source. They are proposing to locate this unit adjacent to the south side of the condominium structure facing 66th Street. The developer has countered tht they do not believe the garage has to have this type of garage heating system. They propose vents which would introduce cold air and then they would heat the air periodically with heating units hung from the garage ceiling. This issue was unresolved at the time of dictating this letter. However, if the developer is required to met the code as interepreted by the city, they are proposing to screen this unit with a wood screen fence. They will also be locating an 8 foot by 10 foot electrical transformer and pad west of the proposed condominium structure. Because these units are attached to the building it has been determined that these structures would change the setback of the building. The planned unit development ordinance indicates that the development must be in substantial compliance with the final development plan approved by the city. The ordinance indicates that a development would not be in substantial compliance if there are changes in the setbacks. Therefore, a plan change is one of the requirements necessary before a building permit can be issued. -2- Staff has reviewed these changes and would recommend council approval of the proposed amendment subject to the stipulation that the electrical transformer and the gas fired tempered air source be screened with brick rather than wood. The brick used should match the brick used on the building. The council may want to refer this item to the planning commission for their review if the council believes this is a major issue. However, it is staff's feeling that this is not a major issue and that the city council can take action on this matter at the present time in order to minimize delays to the project. JGC /eja Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager Z107 \ -- � S C a C L L c Ex IQ ul gf cr- It y 10 �71 Y7 ItN Nl- CD tCA -3L r. CD yt P, �1 vi SA QO woo W1 /C7 Yelp