The URL can be used to link to this page

08-12-85 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 307 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the"City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of MnDOT Municipal Agreement for the Longfellow Avenue Frontage Road Improvement Project - City Project No. 803 Council Members: Bids for the improvement of the Longfellow Avenue frontage road improvements have been awarded, and the project is ready to proceed. However, before the Minnesota Department of Transportation will allow the project to begin, a Municipal Agreement must be approved by the city council. The agreement stipulates the cost split between the MnDOT and Richfield's Municipal State Aid accounts. This agreement will be available for city council review at the Augus 12, 1985 city council meeting. After the city council action, the agreement is sent back to the state for signatures from MnDOT, the State Attorney General's office and Minnesota's Finance Department. Officials from Bituminous Roadways, the low bidder on the project, have agreed to begin work upon notice that the Municipal Agreement has beery signed. The work still should be completed before winter. So that the project may proceed, it is recommended that the city council approve the MnDOT Municipal Agreement for the Longfellow Avenue Frontage Road Improvement project. SLD /eja • R pectfully submitted, De h A ting City Manager • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 306 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Audit Proposals Council Members: During the course of last year's budget hearings the City Council requested staff to solicit proposals for auditor services commencing with the end of fiscal year 1985. There was consensus that the auditing engagement be 4 or 5 years in duration in order to establish a long range working relationship with an auditing firm. Pursuant to request, city staff prepared a Request For Proposal (RFP) for auditing • services. The RFP was sent to approximately 16 auditing firms who perform these types of services in the metropolitan area. Attachment A indicates the auditing firms contacted. In response to the RFP approximately 10 auditing firms have set appointments with the Finance Manager to personally review the City's financial systems. In addition, several other firms contacted the Finance Manager and indicated that they would be interested in submitting a proposal, but did not seek a personal review of the financial system. The RFP included a timetable for the selection of a new auditor. Proposals will be accepted until 4:30 p.m. August 16, 1985. After that date a period of several weeks has been set aside for review of the audit proposals. The timetable projects that an auditor will be selected by the Richfield City Council at the Council meeting of September 23, 1985. This schedule allows ample time for the City to thoroughly review the audit proposals and further, provides ample time for the auditor selected to prepare preliminary work on 1985 financial report. The review process that will be used for screening the proposals will consist of an initial screening process during which the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, and, Finance Manager will screen incoming proposals down to a number of finalists who would then be invited to participate in oral • interviews. It is anticipated that the number of auditors invited for oral interviews would be limited to 4 or 5 participants. 15=,2- -2- • It is recommended that the committee which will interivew the finalists be composed of both City staff and City Council members. To that end, it is suggested that the City Council select 2 or 3 council members to serve on this interivew committee. In addition to the Council members on the committee, the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, and, Finance Manager will also participate in the oral interviews. In the interest of timeliness, the week of September 9 thru 13 is being targeted as the possible dates for the oral interviews. This will allow ample time for interviewing and analysis of interview results so that a recommendation for auditor selection may be made to the full City Council on September 23, 1985• It is recommended that the City Council select 2 or 3 council members to serve on the interview subcommittee at the August 12 meeting. C. • SLD /eja Respectfully submitted, is c ing City Mana er 0 • r� U MAILING LIST ANFINSON, HENDRICKSON & CO. ARTHUR ANDERSON & CO. MARK BABCOCK & CO. BOECKERMANN, HEINEN & MAYER COOPERS & LYBRAND CUMMINGS, KEEGAN & CO. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS ERNST & WHINNEY GEORGE M. HANSEN COMPANY, P.A. HANSEN & BABCOCK LAVENTHOL & HORWATH MCGLADREY, HENDRICKSON & PULLEN OLSON & CLOUGH PEAT, MARWICK, MITCHELL & CO. VOTO, REARDON, TAUTGES & CO., LTD. WILKERSON, GUTHMANN & JOHNSON, LTD. J 7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 305 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract - City Hall Lobby and Licensing Division Remodeling Council Members: On Friday, July 19, 1985, bids were received for City Project 798, City Hall Lobby and License Division Remodeling. This project, which is included in the 198+ -1985 Capital Improvement budget, provides for remodeling, new furniture and carpeting for the City Clerk /Licensing area. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. The bid specifications were prepared by Architectural Alliance, and were divided into five sections by category of • items to be bid. Two bids were received. Office Interiors, Inc., did not submit a bid for Item A (which included the steelcase furniture), but submitted a bid for all other items including other furniture, seating and carpeting. General Office Products Company submitted a bid for Item A only, and a small portion of Item B. At the time of bid opening, General Office Products failed to include the required 5% bid bond with their bid. However, they have subsequently submitted the'proper bid bond. In addition, two other companies also submitted bids on this project. However, bids were received after the designated bid opening time and were rejected. The staff of Architectural Alliance, the Assistant City Attorney, and city staff have reviewed the bids and recommend that the City Council take the following action: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations. • -2- • 2. Adopt the attached resolution awarding a contract to General Office Products Co. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Item A (steelcase furnishings) in the amount of $14,020.12, and award a contract to Office Interiors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for items B, C, D and E of the bid, in the amount of $20,246.82. SLD /eja • • Resp t ully sub itt d, e L. evich Acting City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening July 19, 1985 City Hall Lobby and Licensing Division Remodeling C.P. 798 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 City Hall Lobby and Licensing Division Remodeling (Furniture and Carpeting), as advertised in the official newspaper on July 9, 1985. Present: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director Muza Habeck, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER Item A Item B Item C Item D Item E General Office Products $14,020.12 $4,442.70 Company, Mpls. (partial Bid Bond 5% * bid) Office Interiors Inc. - $12,727.96 $1,386.49 $3,234.73 $2,897.64 Mpls. Bid Bond 5% The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the August 12th, 1985 City Council meeting. * Bid Bond received after Bid Opening. Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CITY HALL LOBBY AND LICENSING DIVISION REMODELING C -. P . 798 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the City Hail Lobby and Licensing Division Furniture and Carpeting, Bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that Office Interiors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder for items B, C, D, and E; and that General Office Products Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder for item A; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the bid of Office Interiors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota for items B, C, D, & E at a cost of $20;246.82 and the bid of General Office Products for item A at a cost of $14,020.12 are hereby accepted; 2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for C.P. 798 with Office Interiors, Inc. and General Office Products of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement according to the plans and specifications; 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk is John Hamilton, Mayor 4�;k ,Architectural Affia= 400 MW south. Ntyvapois, NkreSota 55403 (612)871-5703 Architecture * Planning • interior Design • Energy Design i J City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota '55423 August 1, 1985 City Council: On Friday, July 19, 1985, the furniture and carpeting bids were tabulated. There was a total of five (5) categories A -E for vendors to bid on and the results are as follows: r We, Architectural Alliance, recommend using GOP (Generaa Office Products) for Category A and Office Interiors for Categories B -E. The bid package cost totalled $34,266.94 which is less than the estimated budget cost of $36,159.47. Minneapolis/Saint Paul • Twin Cities International Airport • Phoenix *j GOP OFFICE INTERIORS A. Steelcase Furniture $14,020.12 no bid B. Kinetics Furniture partial $12,727.96 Peter Pepper Acc., bid Supreme Equipment only Medart Lockers C. Kinetics Furniture no bid $ 1,386.49 in Information Area D. Charvoz Dauphin no bid $ 3,234.73 Seating E... Carpeting no bid $ 2,897.64 TOTAL $14,020.12 $20,246.82 r We, Architectural Alliance, recommend using GOP (Generaa Office Products) for Category A and Office Interiors for Categories B -E. The bid package cost totalled $34,266.94 which is less than the estimated budget cost of $36,159.47. Minneapolis/Saint Paul • Twin Cities International Airport • Phoenix *j -2- ig We feel the prices are very competitive. Even though only two vendors chose to bid,.the bid package was publicly advertized. Also, GOP chose only to bid on Category A but could have bid on Categories B -E if they wanted to. Office Interiors, on the other r hand, could only bid on Categories B -E due to the fact that the Steelcase Product is unavaiable to them and they didn't have an approved equal due to the specifications of the design and space. Both vendors have good reputations for product and service and will do a great job with the Licensing Division. Sincerely, J 1A DEHNERT Project Designer JD /bfr cc: Tom Ferber Steven Devich Sharry Cooper !LI-& • 0 r LeFevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien & Drawz A Profmional Awwiati m '000 First Bank Place West July 26, 19 8 5 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 elephone {612) 333-0543 alecopier 16121 333-0540 Tom Ferber ;layton L LeFevere City Clerk ierbert P. Lefler 6700 Port land Avenue S. J. Dennis O'Brien Richfield, MN 55423 John E. Drawz )avid J. Kennedy ,ohn B. Dean RE: Bids for City Hall Remodeling Tenn E. Purdue iichard J. Schieffer :haries L. LeFevere Dear Tom: ierbert P. Lefler III Jeffrey J. Strand Mary J. Biorklund At your request I have examined the various bid documents :ohn G. Kressel for the remodeling of the City Clerk- licensing areas of )ayle Nolan the City Hall. On the basis of my review, I conclude as Michael A. Nash follows: ;rian F. Rice orr- S. Clugg ar J. Thomson, Jr. 1. The delay of one of the bidders to submit, on time, ame M. Strommen Mary C. Nielsen its bid bond may be waived by the City Council. I erry L.Hall understand that the bidder has now furnished the ionald H. Batty bond. Villiam P. Jordan : Erickson usan Dickel Minsberg :urt J. E 2. The failure of the two bidders to bid all of the items in the specifications does not appear to violate the instructions to bidders or the speci- fications. In that regard, I note that the Council may award a contract to one of the bidders for the single item that it bid; and a separate contract to the other bidder for the items which it bid. Therefore, it appears to my satisfaction that there are no irregularities in the bidding which mandate that the bids, or any one of them, be rejected. Of course, the Council has the right to reject all bids and start over if it should choose to do so. Respectfully ours, o n B. Dean 40 :lr • L_J • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield - z1/J- / Council Letter No. 304 Agenda August 12, 1985 Subject: Schedule of Review of 1985 Revised and 1986 Proposed Budgets Council Members: The city staff is now working to prepare the 1985 revised and the 1986 proposed budgets. It is expected that the budget documents will be printed and distributed shortly after Labor Day. In order for council members and staff to arrange their schedules, the following dates and times are suggested for the councils budget review sessions: September 11 Overall Budget Preparation Wednesday General Fund 7:00 p.m. Public Safety Community Development Community Services Administrative Services Legislative /Executive September 18 Water Fund Wednesday Sewer Fund 7:00 p.m. Golf Course Fund Liquor Fund Debt Service Funds Internal Service Funds September 25 Special Revenue Fund Wednesday Capital Budget 7:00 P.M. Budget Adoption October 2 Reserve date, if necessary Wednesday 7:00 p.m. It is expected that the review sessions scheduled above will provide sufficient time for budget discussion. It may be possible to shorten the number of sessions; however, all of these dates should be held open in case they are necessary. Res tfully submitted, ieh e CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 303 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization to Call for Bids on a High Speed Plain Paper Copier Council Members: The city's rental agreement for a high volume photocopier expires on September 30th of this year. Consequently, the staff is requesting that the city council authorize bids for this equipment. The city has been renting a Xerox model 9400 copier for the past three years at a cost of approximately $2,000 per month. • City departments-average 59,000 copies on the machine each month. This represents 70% of all copying done by city staff. A detailed study of the city's photocopying use was conducted late this spring to determine what type of equipment would best meet the needs of city departments. Three alternative solutions were identified. To determine the approximate cost of each alternative, price quotes from four vendors were obtained. A monthly cost was then formulated for each alternative for a three year lease, including maintenance. NEEDS As a result of the photocopying study, a four point needs analysis was determined. Requirement #1: Minimal training required to operate the equipment. The copier is used by many staff members. Some use it every day and others only occasionally. Because of this use pattern, the copier must be easy to operate. Requirement #2: Equipment must be designed to handle a monthly volume of up to 90,000 copies. • Photocopiers are engineered to handle a specified monthly copying volume. The city's experience with other copiers has -2- /_ -_Z proven that-when the maximum monthly volume is reached, the reliability of the equipment decreases significantly. • Because 70% of the city's photocopying is done on the high speed copier, it must be reliable. Requirement #3: Equipment must have an easy method of two -sided copying. Approximately 45% of the originals run through the machine are made into two -sided copies. This practice is encouraged as it reduces paper costs for the city and makes documents less bulky and therefore easier to handle and store. Quick and easy two -sided copying would promote this preferred method of copying. Requirement #4: Equipment must not significantly increase the amount of time needed to run special jobs. The city has several special photocopying jobs which involve sorting and collating. An example is the Council agenda packet. Copies on two colors of paper and both one and two -sided copies are combined to produce the completed packet. The present copier is able to put together the entire packet with no manual collating required. This capability has been a tremendous time -saver for the staff. ' ALTERNATIVES The three alternatives and related costs identified by staff are as follows: Alternative #1: Continue with the Xerox 9400 or other similar large copier. The Xerox`9400 prints 120 copies per minute and meets all of the requirements identified above. The city has been accruing credits toward the purchase or lease /purchase of the present copier during the past three years. This discount makes the cost of the Xerox 9400 significantly lower than the prices quoted for similar machines from other vendors. Alternative #1 meets all of the requirements. Estimated cost: $1,850 per month. Alternative #2: Replace the large copier with multiple small copiers. Several vendors offer copiers that print 35 to 50 copies per minute with a variety of features. Two or three of these copiers, depending on the monthly volume capacities, would meet is -3- I -3 the city's requirements. To meet the requirements of special jobs, however, the copiers would have to be placed in the same • location and run in tandem. A unique advantage of this alternative is that if one copier is in need of repairs, another copier would still be available. • Alternative X62 meets all of the requirements. Estimated cost: $1,900 per month. Alternative #3: Replace the large copier with a mid -sized copier. Midway between the speeds of the large and small copiers are those that print 70 to 90 copies per minute. These machines provide automatic two -sided copying, can handle a peak monthly volume of 90,000 copies and are easy to use. However, the staff was unable to find a copier model of this size that could produce the city's special jobs without requiring hand collating. Alternative X63 meets three of the four requirements. Estimated cost: $1,820 per month. RENTAL vs. LEASE PURCHASE A second part of the staff's study reviewed the various contract options available to the city for photocopying equipment. These options include rental, lease /purchase and an outright purchase. The rental agreement options examined by the city staff proved to be the most costly and were not offered by all vendors. The lease /purchase option is offered by all vendors and typically provides for a 3, 4 or 5 year term with a purchase option at the end of the leasing period. The lease agreements staff examined appear to offer the city a reasonable alternative to the outright purchase of this expensive equipment. RECOMMENDATION The monthly costs of the three alternatives examined are estimated to be very close. Alternatives #1 and #2 meet all of the requirements set forth in the staff's study. The copier now in use has met the city's needs for the last three years and those needs are not projected to change significantly during the next three years. Additionally, the copier has proven to be reliable and service under the maintenance agreement has been very good. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council authorize the staff to call for bids for a high speed plain paper copier and service agreement with proposals submitted for both the purchase and lease /purchase of the equipment. It is further recommended -4- that the specifications be based on the equipment now in place, but allow for substitutions to specific stipulations. This • would permit other proposals to be submitted should other alternatives or new products be available which meet the city's requirements. Res ct ully s mitted L. evlch ting City Manag r • r� �_J Li .%Ij /- / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 302 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Temporary Sign To Be Located at Hub Shopping Center and Lincoln Field Council Members: The Richfield Football League has requested an advertising permit to place a double -faced reader board measuring 12 feet by 6 feet (72 square feet) in the Hub Shopping Center during August 23 - August 25. On August 25 it would be moved to Lincoln Field and remain there until September 3, 1985. They have also requested that the permit fee be waived. City of Richfield ordinance code 3.149, subdivision 16 (5) • provides that city council approval is necessary for temporary ground signs. The ordinance also provides that temporary ground signs be no larger than 12 square feet, and the proposed sign would be 72 square feet. The city staff recommends denial of this request on the basis that the sign is larger than that allowed by City of Richfield ordinances. SLD /eja r� Re;pe tfully submitted, ,' �♦ ev evic Acting City Manager APPROVE DENT APPROVE DEFY City Manager •Inspeec;tor > Jv zw� c v+�l` `-*-• -, / 5 5 © Date Da t e TEN APPROVE a DE" 1 APPROVE F-1 �L� Piahnin • Dep�irtment Citv Council £�c<'c �Z �f • Date .S =JRS� Date u�en • � Rc to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER MIT Citv of Richfield, Minnesota Date �j f- ,Zoning Sign Erected - Yes i:o XC Fee -z'/ Address of Sign Proprietor Name_ - I� } P I(I 1 CO+ BA ( � � 'CW .C,- Sign Erector o F tF' _ Address % � _ rC, d -`i>Js4n, d Tvne of Sizn Desien Weather Cover Liehtini Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: X Trailer D T[] A[3 Post If Illuminated - Yes No El1Prical Contractor Property Owner Estimated Cost or his Agent Signature Watts Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors, �,2 - Address Phone Phone Sign Widtya Height 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? 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? L d Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm S -- '� Date Phone Number ' - - 37 Ikr 8/6 Sivert PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIG:: LOCATION SKETCH Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager is Council Letter No. 301 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Municipal State Aid (MSA) Five -Year Construction Program Council Members: In 1982, the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Office of State Aid required all Minnesota cities to submit five - year Municipal State Aid (gas tax) Construction Programs at three year intervals. In the fall of 1984, the city council revi -sed its five -year MSA construction program to include frontage road improvements. The revised report which is attached to this council letter, reflects this change. The five -year program is a planning tool and does not commit the City of Richfield to any of the projects reported. Additionally, the program will be revised once again when any ILN costs are identified. Some Municipal State Aid costs are expected if major street improvements are made in the ILN. Staff recommends that the city council adopt-the attached resolution approving the proposed Municipal State Aid Five -Year Construction Program for the City of Richfield and authorizing submittal of the Program to the District State Aid Engineer. SLD /eja 4 Res tfully bmitted, �i. en L. Devich Ac ing City Manager is 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIVE -YEAR MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, the Municipal Screening Committee requires each municipality to submit a council- approved, itemized five -year construction program at three year intervals to the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Office of State Aid; and WHEREAS, the Committee is now requesting that such Program be submitted to the District State Aid Engineer by August 15, 1985; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has established a Five -Year Municipal State Aid Construction Program for the City of Richfield, encompassing the years 1985 through 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The council hereby approves the Five -Year Municipal State Aid Construction Program for the years 1985 through 1990 as submitted; and 2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to submit the completed Program to the 5istrict State Aid Engineer. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: homas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 John Hamilton, Mayor MNICIPAL STATE -AID STREET SYSTEM 5 -Year Construction Program For Rs Ej P,612 (State Aid Expenditures Only) REVENUE • Present State Aid Construction Balance June 30, 19 - Estimated Annual Construction Allotment $ ,� ',' X 4 = Cstimated Total State Aid Allotment for Programming Purposes ESTIMATED EXPZNDITU °DES Year of Exnenditune 1985 1985 1986 E•:• " ". 1986 1987 Termini On 69th St. & Penn Ave. From intersection To Length On Longfellow Avenue From 68th Street To 69th Street Length 627' On 66th St. & Penn Ave. From intersection To Length On W. 66th Street From Sheridan Avenue Lo Xerxes A=iir- Len,th 1 500' On Humboldt Ave (east.of From 72nd St. To 76th St, Length 2,943, On Penn Avenue From. I -494 To W. 76th Street Length 0' Project Descriotion Traffic Signal Installation Curb & gutter and paving for one -half of street Intersection Imp. Widening, left turn lanes medians, sidewalks, light ing, traffic signal, & reconstruction of pave- Street Improvement Installation of curb, gutter, and reconstruct pavement surface sll� 13 $ 0 Estimated State Aid Exoenditure $ 50,000 s15,000 $ 375-000 3 150,000 Frontage Road Imps. Curb & gutter and surfacing -? 155,000 Intersection Imps. Realignment of service roads, turn lanes, $_750,000 medians • • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Environmental Investments /MN .Motel Site) Council Members: Council better No. 300 Agenda August 12, 1985 Assessment for the CDR Corporation Project (Cloverleaf In order for the proposed CDR Project to proceed on schedule, it is necessary that work on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this project begin immediately. Therefore, a resolution authorizing the CDR Corporation to begin work on an environmental assessment worksheet is scheduled on the August 12, 1985 city council meeting agenda. Prior to selection of the appropriate environmental assessment process, a thorough analysis of the physical and legal components of the project had to be completed. Once this was done, the developer and city staff met to decide upon the appropriate environmental process. The EAW was selected. The CDR Corporation will be responsible for all costs involved in the preparation of the EAW. The City Attorney has prepared the appropriate resolution and a copy is attached to this council letter. Additional information on this agenda item will be pre- sented at the August 12 city council meeting by the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development. The architect for the developer will also be present to answer any questions council members may have. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution authorizing and initiating the environmental review process for the CDR project and authorizing the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. SLD /eja Respe tfully submitted, S even L. evich cting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. ' A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND INITIATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CDR PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. WHEREAS, under the enactment by the Minnesota Legislature of Chapter 116D of the Minnesota Statutes, which is cited as "State Environmental Policy" and applicable Minnesota Rules thereunder, the City of Richfield, Minnesota ( "City ") is authorized to perform certain review functions in connection with certain development activities within the City; WHEREAS, CDR Investments /Minnesota, a Texas general partnership, has acquired certain real property in the City of Richfield legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ( "Land ") and desires to construct an office building and hotel thereon containing less than 750,000 total square feet, together with parking facilities related thereto (which Land and proposed improvements shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Project "); WHEREAS, the Project requires the prepartion of a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( "EAW ") pursuant to Minnesota Rules §4410.4300, which Rule also designates the City as the responsible governmental unit ( "RGU ") responsible for the preparation of the EAW with respect to industrial, . commercial and institutional facilities of the type composing the Project; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The city manager and city staff are authorized and directed to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the Project in accordance with Section 116D of the Minnesota Statutes and applicable Minnesota Rules thereunder; 2. The city manager and city staff are authorized and directed to contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the purpose of reaching an agreement as to RGU designation for the Project pursuant to Section 4410.0500, Subdivision 5 of the Minnesota Rules. ' 3. The city manager and city staff are authorized to engage or hire any consultants deemed necessary to aid in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, provided that the cost of such consultants will be the sole obligation of CDR Investments /Minnesota. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: Mayo r City Clerk ■ ■ .I W V4 Li �f �. �� • • . - r t HOTEL PROJECT i 11 t r: SL',ZEACE PAAKfNl • y r NTLFCTATE °s AY 4 94 ■ fir•.- r �,. _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ , _ -. o Sr, T , •� ® ., ' , i -- r t at or Ill i Leg Far tn0 00 `�' isr r' at T k o, _P r^ y " ' " Lai ,�'°�� •� •t yr✓L ifi M L 2� JTN \D:kl I f t t O on $O J11 i - % tl■ { — _ vll ; - e� er n •� •a �� • Pa ar 1 I .� t 3e ; 116 Ci Ii r ING N � • .a�, r ^ ^ �� ran - - _ a .M� gal • � '� > �� t' sr ' j 2 .i �� .. _ ^I H IELb Z " Wm 65 cul $a s MI • � I r CfT r C!T u o :Wed La ' _ — - - u D to , Hi Se I � � Dons dson - 1 � �`Jl_Jl�.l � T• I ,_GraverP�ts- / a wf• - ii SA a:! II i rk i L, ek IJ r1 e Sti J '1 " rl j- -- 11 h ° i I ..:. % I • � I� sevNt ( , 7�� '•\ r <tf QI I��'�a'• i''�� FIO' iJ `•861 _ :nom .a II IIr�Hi. H' II! t S inglCjn �. �,I -_`�ji ' �- i, ' r_- ■ m�' :r,aller',� ■ thoDDrn¢Center 8696 k -i ''i' rl�T sr — _ - fly..',r,�.. ' . =1 — : ■- ■! =� J e-''i p iy �.r ' I ry r i..l-1 -- '- it ^� `s 1 JI ■ gR —t - -- , - -�_: ?fe drason �-% -- II II �.'\ i� • �� LP aygre�nd �� r 1 —Hembokk High.— t' � •� rl�• ;,j• �O� - M I,!i! fl �I II I✓:: I � -�� - -�. :! 15 I i i ^i ,.� }J X11 f I , •I ! 1 PIP !I II I Isch I' �ll�llC IL:_ =. .Jr'I • . 1 1 I �,. •/11 - 1 i; ��- r.��--� -il I =' � -�• �' � �I_.,i� ��4 (� '��i� I �J Ali �� . �± �� I �i'* r J�= i LD T ' I = � I M I II 1 J ',I ,ro '••�aihbur `= o �' yo. J, . �'i_hSt �'I I L / —= — ��.— �— =��`•� � _•• s•r•. i� --Park 1 - r Hesh " r'r- I� �'� 1 1II r _ •may C _�'• Imo._- �•---•I —_ ills pl'`II II I I�•4 ;• Park �[_ BTra r t� II - —�. �i a _ .• I i it r 1` i Ii - _� v.I� .\ ___ // . '� •♦l�a, = �:� r_`� �j _II I��r � _ -I�I - - -'1 — Ik ji \'(( Zjl II II ^iLi di ,�� Z �I I 11' W r i r �jr� -♦ IUt � °= •1 Penn �/I ✓ten`1 ay i( •I, 21Y :' �+•. II I �i ',� ^ i =; y� I� aQ��;�_i .oar S, ;i1 ,- Lake t + 01' I t� 1I ,: _ ! b (� �� 2f- �`i~-= TrailenPa� (,Slfppin I� "T i la li L' 1.Ir •'� 1 .- r: =.��. _ ��- �,r�"� -•�'_ �--- ;, ,d: ° o....; q, II,njI ` r'- _• �{,I Ya11ay-Yiew r_'• HI(A Seh :I •' �I �: � 'r. .�`.• �`r �L�,II�f —,f IJ_ /�- ,'� 7 I II u-Sel ::\ ' _ — t _ i ;\�.h 1i •.:. ANletc:l r r .1'- II e FTU f I,. r�PoRtand !{ i ielC _fIt ew e�: 1 _ ettn ar I �� w° - :- r -- r sx • ! 1f II : _ '�'L _� ^— _ •;� _l�_- s __ c•�i s :Yl I � ■ ■ I��It i�< I�� 1 I Ifa`m �a Tank • 1V 77-7 �I �� j*! i \? I I ,'I t Valley vie.. PIWridd _ �� _ ✓i .I, _Bali I�PDn _ -3D *�.I; 'e ��`��plJJ�� I I � -,�� } _�: I � I_"^11',.' ' !' t�� ' `�Seh.. �!1_ .I: •W 1 irl�l� -li ( Y k�y� -�i -4�i � -/ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 299 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization to Apply for Hennepin County Discretionary CDBG Funds Council Members: In October, 1985, Hennepin County will act on funding recommendations to reallocate $390,000 of unexpended CDBG funds. These are funds which have been unexpended by Hennepin County communities in the yearly Community Development Block Grant Program and have been returned to Hennepin County for discretionary allocation. Funding requests for these monies are • due to Hennepin County no later than August 26, 1985. There are five funding request classifications: Housing Rehabilitation; Housing New Development Assistance, Public Services; Public Facilities; and Economic Development. The scoring and ranking of discretionay funds will be performed by the Citizens Advisory Committee. City staff has identified two projects recommended for City Council consideration for application submission to Hennepin County. The first project is for an amount not to exceed $200,000 to assist Louise Whitbeck Fraser School in acquiring a site for independent living housing for developmentally disabled adults. Information regarding this project is attached to this council letter. Representatives from Fraser School have applied for HUD Section 202 housing funds to develop this project. While the project is contingent upon the successful receipt of HUD 202 funds, the preliminary indications is that their application is being favorably reviewed by HUD. However, the applicant will not know whether 202 funds have been approved for the project until late September, 1985. A potential site for the project has been identified at Russell Avenue and 66th Street. Preliminary discussions with the owner of the property indicate that the property owner is willing to negotiate the sale of the property. The City will Peed to take action to rezone the property and amend the City's Comprehensive Plan as it applies to that property if the project is approved. -2_ The second project involves the request of $10,000 for energy efficient draperies at the Community Center. Currently the draperies in use at the Community Center are approximately 10 years old and nearing the end of their useful life. Replacing the draperies with an energy efficient product would be in keeping with the City's overall goal of making City facilities more energy efficient. With the large amount of outside wall glass space at the Community Center, energy efficient drapes could save the City several hundred dollars in utility costs each year. Community Development Director Fondrick will be present at the August 12 meeting to answer any questions regarding this project and to provide additional information if necessary. It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to prepare detailed application forms for the projects discussed and submit them to Hennepin County to be considered for discretionary CDBG funding by August 26, 1985. s SD /eja cc: Community Services Director • 4 Respe fully submitted, Steven Acting City Manager • Ll DATE: TO: HENNEPIN FROM: July 30, 1985 Cooperating Units Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development 17-3 [J Li SUBJECT: UHC CDBG PROGRAWCOUNTYWIDE DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT FUNDING REQUEST PROCESS The process by which a funding recommendation will be made to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners for reallocation of the $390,000 in the county- wide discretionary account as of June 30, 1985 is based upon the current Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement and Citizen Participation Plan. The Joint Cooperation Agreement establishes that unexpended grant funds for which the expenditure period has expired be placed in a countywide discre- tionary account and that each cooperating unit have the opportunity to submit a request for the. available funds. To provide this opportunity and comply with the Urban Hennepin County citizen, participation process, a countywide discretionary account funding-request process is being implemented utilizing the accompanying Funding Request forms and a ranking system based upon the comparison of. similar activities and a cumulative point score. The application documents, which incorporate the review criteria and scoring.scale, were developed in conjunction with the Citizens Advisory Committee in furtherance of their responsibility to provide the Hennepin County Board with a recommendation on the awarding of the countywide discretionary account funds. In developing the five funding request classifications: Housing Rehabili- tation; Housing.New Development Assistance; Public Services; Public Faci- lities; and Economic Development, the Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed the Year XI Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds and the Project Status Reports covering Years IX and X to determine the types of activities which have been programmed. The scoring and ranking of discretionary account.funding requests will be done by the Citizens Advisory Committee using the point scale shown on the funding request form. To expedite the review and recommendation preparation process, it is necessary that each funding request be as complete and detailed as possible, since the Committee is to score the funding requests only upon the written material presented. The Committee will provide each community submitting a funding request(s) the opportunity to make a brief presentation on the requests as part of the review process. Communities are encouraged to limit their funding requests to one per classification and to remember that the available funds are limited and must be expended within 12 months of the award date.. Please take careful note of the accompanying Funding Request Process Schedule. mlg Enclosure !W Discretionar y Account Fun ng equest Process Schedule 1. Funding Requests Due At Hennepin County August 26, 1985 2. Citizens Advisory Committee Review Meeting September 9, 1985* 'j 3. Hennepin County Board Public Hearing on October 24, 1985 ** Funding Recommendations 4. Hennepin County Board Action on October 29, 1985** Funding Recommendations * CAC will- schedule additional meeting(s) if necessary **,Tentative schedule based on CAC schedule M19 f • • 17-6 EXHIBIT II L. W. Fraser Independent Living'Project, Inc. The proposed project will provide independent living housing for adults ,x who are developmentally disabled. Most adults who are developmentally disabled are now living in intermediate care facilities or in private homes. Many of these are low income, but could live in their own apart- ment if provided with the proper environment and rental subsidies. While there are numerous subsidized developments for the elderly and /or physically handicapped in the Twin Cities`Metropolitan Area, the developmentally dis- abled are not easily integrated into or ever, accepted at these projects. Hence the need to develop a small, subsidized, apartment project to house adults who'are developmentally disabled. Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. presently operates three group homes housing 36 adults who are developmentally disabled. Twelve of these are capable of living independently, given the proper environment and training. However, at this time there is no place for these people to go. Similarly, the Network of Not For Profit Residential Providers'of Mental Retardation Services estimates that approximately 10% of all residents in IFC /MR facilities could live independently, if they were provided rental subsidies and a supportive environment. The attached table shows that 1,396 adults who are developmentally disabled presently reside in IFC /MR facilities within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. If we assume that 10% of these could live independently, there is a need for approximately 140 subsidized units to house the mentally retarded. Since the proposed development will be located in Richfield, MN, and since the sponsor's primary operating area is the city-of Minneapolis and its western and southern suburban areas, it might be more appropriate to con - sider only those individuals living in IFC /MR facilities located in Minneapolis.and.its suburbs. With 756 adults who are developmentally disabled living in IFC /MR facilities on the west side of the Mississippi River, the need for independent living units would be approximately 75 units. However, these statistics may understate the need for housing for develop- mentally disabled adults, since a large number are living with their families or in apartments maintained by their ,families. May of these may be inter- ested in and able to reside in a small project designed for independent lviing. We have estimated the total market need for independent.living units for adults who are developmentally disabled and live in the metro- politan area to be at least 75 units. • • 17-6 ADULTS IN ICF /MR FACILITIES IN TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA MINNEAPOLIS NAME LOCATION # ADULTS Areskarn Minneapolis 7 �t Areskarn 2 Robbinsdale 6 Aspen Minneapolis 6 Chai St. Louis Park 6 Charles Bronstein Minneapolis 10 Clarea Doerr Minneapolis 103 Community Living Coon Rapids 24 Dungarvin 5 Crystal 12 Forestview Minneapolis 6 Forestview /Kentucky Crystal 6 Forestview /Lexington New Brighton -6 Forestview /Minnetonka Minnetonka 6 Forestview /Sunlen Bloomington 6 Forestview /Vincent Richfield 6 Gerarda Bloomington 6 Hammer Wayzata 6 Hammer 2 Wayzata 21 Konnelly Burnsville 8 Logan _ -- . _ __ _- _ _ _ Mi nneapol is 6 Maria Minneapolis- 9 MHR /Charlson Eden Prairie 12 MHR /Fraser Eden Prairie 12 MHR /Westby Eden Prairie 12 Nebton /Minnehaha Minneapolis 6 Nebton /Queen Minneapolis 6 Nebton /William Edina 6 Northeast Minneapolis 24 Oakwood l Minnetonka 15 Outreach /Bloomington Bloomington 6 Outreach /Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center 6 Outreach /Minneapolis Minneapolis 6 Outreach /Northeast Minneapolis 7 Outreach /Plymouth Plymouth 6 Outreach /Plymouth East Plymouth 6 Penn Lake Bloomington 6 Portland Residence Minneapolis 101 REM /Bloomington Bloomington 15 REM /Lyndale Minneapolis 10 REM /Minnetonka Minnetonka 15 REM /Pillsbury Minneapolis 34 REM /Pleasant Minneapolis 15 REM /Southeast Minneapolis 10 Resa Minnetonka 5 • 17-6 NAME LOCATION # ADULTS Residential Alter l Brooklyn Center 8 Residential Alter 2 Brooklyn Center 8 Residential Alter 3 Robbinsdale 6 Residential Alter 4 Robbinsdale 9 Residential Alter 5 Robbinsdale 9 Shadyway Wayzata 6 Shingle Creek Brooklyn Park 15 'y St. Ann's 1 Minneapolis 6 St. Ann's 2 Minneapolis 30 St. Stephen's 1 Bloomington 12 St. Stephen's 2 Bloomington 12 Summitt 1 Minneapolis 6 Summitt 2 St. Louis Park 6 Three Thirty Minneapolis 9. Venture Minneapolis 6 Subtotal 756 ST. PAUL ACR Arden Hills 6 Aurora St. Paul 6 Bryant Avenue So. St. Paul 15 Chez Nous St. Paul 6 Community Concepts St. Paul 6 Dakota's Adults West St. Paul 12 Dungarvin 1 St. Paul 15 Dungarvin 2 St. Paul 6 Dungarvin 3 St. Paul' 6 Dungarvin 6 Shoreview 6 .Frances St. Paul 6 Good Neighbor 1 St. Paul 6 Good Neighbor 2 St. Paul 6 Greenbriar St. Paul 165 Horizon Apartments West St. Paul 15 _ McClare So. St. Paul 6 Mainstream - Reaney St. Paul 6 MN Jewash St. Paul 6 Nebton /Frost St. Paul 6 Nebton /Goodrich St. Paul 8 Nebton /Hodgson Shoreview 6 Nebton /Mississippi St. Paul 6 Nebton. /Seftant Little Canada 6 Nebton /Wheeler St. Paul 6 Nebton /Wyoming St. Paul 6 New Directions St. Paul 6 Norhaven St. Paul 108 Our House 1 St. Paul 6 Our House 2 St. Paul 6 17-7 0 • • NAME Residence l Residence 2 Spruce Stenencraft Summitt 3 �r Sur La Rue 1 Sur La Rue 2 Sur La Rue 3 Thompson Wicklough Subtotal Grand Total - Metropolitan Area • • LOCATION Shoreview Shoreview So. St. Paul St. Paul So. St. Paul St. Paul Maplewood St. Paul West St. Paul St. Paul # ADULTS 8 8 6 6 15 6 6 6 9 100 640 1,396 • /7 -9 • MORMAGEBANKERs Siacs 1885 4940 VIKING DRIVE May 15, 1985 EDINA, MN 55435 tl TELEPHONE(612)835 -7511 Mr. Thomas Feeney U. S. Dept. of HUD 220 South Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Re: L. W. Independent Living Project, -Inc. Richfield, MN Dear Tom: We are pleased to submit on behalf of Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. and L. W. Fraser Independent Living Project, Inc. the enclosed proposed for 30 units of assisted housing for adults who are developmentally disabled to be constructed'in Richfield, MN. This proposal is submitted in response to-your current Notification inviting proposals under the Section 202 Direct Loan Program for housing for the elderly or handicapped. Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. has operated in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area for 50 years. It was initially created as the Home Study School to provide educational services for children who were developmentally disabled. Today, Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. operates three divisions: The Fraser School, Whitbeck Nursery School, and the Muriel Humphrey Residences., The Fraser School provides early childhood education for children who are mentally retarded. Whitbeck Nursery School is a-licensed nursery school serving-non-handicapped children. The Muriel Humphrey Residences are three group homes which provide housing for 36 adults who are developmentally disabled. Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. has established itself as a professionally run, non - profit organization, with a solid financial standing. When Mrs. Fraser opened her school in 1935 she had little more than a personal devotion and ideas. Initially, expenses were paid through parent fees and fund raisers. Today, Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. operates on an annual budget in excess of $1.4 million and controls total assets over $1.5 million, including $200,000 in current assets, and a net worth of approximately $585,000. 112tEQUAL OPPORTUNITY LENDER 7-1e) Mr. Thomas Feeney May •15, 1985 Page two Through its efforts on behalf of people who are developmentally disabled, the Board of-Directors of Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. has come to recognize that there is a need for independent living arrange- ments for adults who are developmentally disabled. While a total market need for at least 75 units has been identified, presently there is not even one facility providing the needed housing. A big.factor in the lack of such housing has been the availability of rental subsidies, which are needed since most adults who are developmentally disabled are also low income. A small Section 202 development would provide subsidized housing in a supportive environment. We anticipate developing this project in the city of Richfield, so as to be near other facilities operated by Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. This project has been discussed with'the Mayor and other officials of the city of Richfield and the city has agreed not only to support this development, but also assist in acquiring and writing down the cost of a suitable site. In fact, the city has even identified a possible location. This site is just to.the west of a strip shopping center located at 66th Street and Penn Avenue in Richfield. The owners of this property have been contacted and would be willing to sell to the Fraser organization. After reviewing the enclosed proposal, I am sure-you will agree that this 0 application has considerable merit. The sponsor has the right combination of experience and financial resources to provide a successful development. This proposal should include all the documents required for your preliminary review; however,-if you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. On behalf of Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community Services, Inc. I would also like to invite you and appropriate members of your staff to tour Fraser's facilities in Richfield and.Eden Prairie. The special services provided by the Fraser organization can be best understood-by actually visiting its facilities. A tour can be arranged at your convenience-by calling either me or Bob Kowalczyk, Executive Director of Louise Whitbeck Fraser Community. Services, Inc. Since ly, ROT ILD FINA CIAL CORPORATION D uglas Ma Vice Presi ent OM:nj encs. cc: Bob Kowalczyk w /package CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 298 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Providing for Polling Places and Designating Judges for Primary Election - September 10, 1985 Council Members: The City Charter requires that a primary election be held if more than two candidates file for each elective office. Closing of candidate filing for the November municipal election is 5:00 p.m. Monday, August 12, 1985. At that time, it will be known if a primary election is necessary. However, consideration of this item at the August 12, 1985, meeting is necessary to meet publications and notice requirements for a primary election. fe Attached is a resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the municipal primary election to be held September 10, 1985. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the September 10, 1985, primary election, if such election is found to be necessary. SLD /eja cc: City Clerk U Re e)ctfully submitted, e Devich cting City Manager Precinct No. 5, Richfield Jr. High 7461 Oliver Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson: Phyllis Reinmuth (R) Co Chair Lois Karnas (R) Donna Jordahi (D) Angela Aylward (D) r Precinct No. 6, Central School 7100 Harriet.Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson:. Viv Bennis (R) Co Chair Betty Halloran (R) Alta Harmon (D) Kathleen Leckner (D-) Precinct No. 7, Portland School 72nd & 4th Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson: Donna Vidas (R) Co Chair Jean Frenz (R) Fabiola Sullivan (D) Joan Wong (D) Precinct No. 8, Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson: Gertie Herll (D) Co Chair : Audrey Winslow (R) Ann Mullerleile (D) ' Janet Benson (R) Precinct No. 9, Centennial School 7315 Bloomington Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson: Corrine Cosgrove (D) Co Chair Barb Cook (D) Shirley Comstock (R) Sharon Peterson (R) i Absentee Precinct, Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Ave So. Election Judges: Chairperson: Joan Wilmes (D) Co Chair . Pat Toney (R) r Alternatives-: Democrat Lois Ball Lorayne Sutton Virginia Nitke Jean Anderson Pat Brenner Lois Kovach Kathy Marjanen Beulah Johnson (R) Pat Bunting '(D) Republican Florence Habegger Judith Moquist Howard Mortensen Gertrude Broker May Farr Maxine Evans Ethel Hommes Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 12th day of August, 1985. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 16 9 :3 I • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 297 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Providing for a Reduction in Mileage Reimbursement Council Members: There is an item on the August 12, 1985, city council agenda providing for council approval of a reduction in mileage reimbursement to city employees utilizing personal autos for city business from 22 cents per mile to 20.5 cents per mile. Under recently finalized IRS regulations governing the application of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, effective January 1, • 1985, a limit of 20.5 cents per mile may be used in determining a non- taxable fringe benefit reimbursement for an employee's use of their personal vehicle for city business. C7 The city's present rate of 22 cents per mile increases an employee's federal, and state income tax liability, with a strong possiblity that FICA and PERA contributions would also be affected. With the new law and IRS regulations, any benefit the employee formerly received for the additional 1.5 cents per mile is significantly reduced or negated. Additionally, the city's auditing firm of Cummins, Keegan and Company has made the recommendation that the city reduce its mileage reimbursement to the non - taxable rate of 20.5 cents per mile effective August 12, 1985. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution reducing mileage reimbursement from 22 cents - per -mile to the non - taxable rate of 20.5 cents per mile established by Internal Revenue Service rules governing the Tax Reform Act of 1984, effective August 12, 1985• City RESOLUTION NO. Is Resolution Establishing Mileage Reimbursement Rate WHEREAS, the City of Richfield does provide a mileage reimbursement to City employees driving their personal vehicles on official City business, and WHEREAS, the purpose of a mileage reimbursement is to provide compensation for City employees who are required to use their own vehicles on official City business, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has the legal authority to establish mileage reimbursement rates comparable to the actual costs of operating a motor vehicle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that as of August 12, 1985, the mileage reimbursement rate will be the non- taxable rate of 20.5 cents per mile established by Internal Revenue Service Regulations governing the Tax Reform Act of 1984. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas Ferb4r, City Clerk 6 John Hamilton • Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 296 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for a Variance to the Rearyard Setback Requirements to Allow Construction Of a Second Story Addition to the Dwelling at 7645 Emerson Avenue Council Members: PROPOSAL Mr. Donald Saeger has requested a variance to allow him to complete a second story addition which he has partially constructed on his dwelling at 7645 Emerson Avenue. Mr. Saeger began construction of this addition without first obtaining the • necessary variances or building permits to do so. The building inspector discovered the construction and issued a stop work order. The existing dwelling is a nonconforming structure which does not meet the city's rearyard setback requirements. The structure has a rearyard of approximately 3 feet instead of the required 25 foot setback. The staff can find no record of variances being granted for the dwelling. The second story addition would not increase the setbacks of the dwelling. However, city ordinance prohibits the expansion of nonconform- ing structures. Therefore, to allow the construction to go ahead, the city would have to grant a variance to the rearyard setback requirements in an "R" residential district. The dwelling is also in the ILN study area and subject to the building moratorium currently in place. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.29, subdivision 1, indicates that nonconforming stuctures can not be expanded. 2. Section 3.30, subdivision 5, requires that a single family dwelling in an R residence district must ahave a 25 foot rearyard setback. • -2- I.:� 3. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists 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. It is staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances present on this site. The site has an area greater than the minimum area required for a residential lot, it is similar to other lots in the area and is of regular shape. 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 adversely affect 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 granting of the variance could adversely effect the general public welfare. While the addition does not increase the nonconformity of the structure, it would set a bad precedent. The property owner chose to ignore city codes and ordinances in constructing this dwelling which,, if allowed to stand, would set a bad precedent for ordinance enforcement in the city. The structure is also in the area covered by the ILN building moratorium, and the construction activity violates the ILN moratorium provisions as well as the city building code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this variance request because the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met. 4 is • /J -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At their regular meeting on June 25, 1985, the planning commission voted unanimously (6 -0) to recommend that the City Council refuse to hear the variance request since the city's ILN moratorium states that no variances or substantial construction will occur in that area and that the City Council direct the staff to instruct the applicant to restore the structure to its original state. SLD /eja Res a tfully bmitted, teven evic 'r Acting City Manager 0 i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING JUDGES FOR MUNICIPAL PRIMARY ELECTION- SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. That there will be a Primary Election on Tuesday, September 10, 1985 2. That said election shall be held: at the polling places as herein appear- specified, and that the following are hereby appointed as judges for said election: Precinct No. 1A, Mount Calvary Educational Bldg. 6541 16th Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson:* Shirley Gisselquist (D) Co Chair : Ralph Roberts (R) Myrtle Lindgren (R) Philip Carney (D) Precinct No. 2A, Saint Peter's Church 67th & Nicollet Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson: Elayne Gilhousen (R) Co Chair Ellen Brandon (R) Lorayne Sutton (D) Fern Oreck (D) Precinct No. 3A, Sheridan Hills. School. 6400 Sheridan Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson: Jan Anderson (R) Co Chair Lois Awes (D) Cher Merrill (D) Sue Raymond (R) Precinct No. 4, Saint Richard's Church 7540 Penn Ave So Election Judges: Chairperson: Dave Arnold (R) Co Chair Catherine Alfano (D) Franc Gray (R) Gerry Ascher (D) _... _. ADDITION j i I;I�I�I�I;I { 1 Irlltl 1'Irl'I'I'I • � - 1 i'i'i�i'i� � � f it;l�►�I�I� 0 co O - - r.r,tilll�ll 1 r't�r'I'I'1 III11111111111 II1�1�1 ,1�11111�I�III,II1,,1,,,, Illllfllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1,1,',111,1,1, 111,1,1,I,t,1,1,1,111 . 11111,I,I1'111'Il,l , rtltl,',111,11' 1' I' I'1'I'I'I'111'I'I'r'I't'1'I'I'I 1' 1' I'I'I'1'1'1'I'I'I'I'I't'1'1'I'I • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr IIIIIIIIIIIII11111 IIIIIIIIIII111111 III, I,t�l�l,l,111,111,1,1,1,1,1�1,1 II1�1 ,tII�I�I�IIIIt,I,I,t�,�l,l,ll1 I�Itlllll�I ,I,It1,,,1,1�11111,1t111 I' I' I'I'I'I'I'I'I'1'1'1'1'I'111'1'I 111' I'I'I'1'1'1'I'I'I'I't'I'I'I'I'1 III�Ir11111�r�r,l�r111 I'1111t'I111111t1't'11 I,III,I�Irllr,lllllll� I,I�III,III�I,Itl�l,l� Itl�lll,l�l,l,l�lll�l� 1�1,111t1�IIIIrIIll�rl I,J11,I�t�tll�l�lll,l, I�I�I�I�I�Illll�l�ttl,l 11111�I,I,I,Irl�lll�l, I,III�I�1�111�1�1,1,111 I,Itl,l�l�l,ltl11111111 I�It1�11111�1�11111,1�1 I,IIIrI�I�1�I�111�1�111 I,I�t�1,l,l�l�l,ll11111 I�III,ItI�1�I,I,fII1111 I,I�I�I�I,I�III,I�I�III III�I,III�III,IIItl,lll sL a a 0 v 0 z 'i VI '^7 EMERSON AVE 0 • i •W J r Copied from original handwritten letter r Planning Division City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Commission Members: May 30, 1985 The reason for this letter is to explain my need for a variance. My home is not large enough to house.my family, a wife and two boys, adequately so I needed to add an additional • room to serve as my sons bedroom. The square footage of my house is only 821 with the addition. My wife and I explored the possibilities of moving into a larger home, but because of my self- employed status and lack of steady work, we were not able to qualify financially. Our second son was born July 16, 1984, which forced us to add a large enough bedroom for both boys. The two bedrooms existing before the addition were only 10 X 12 and 5 X 9 without closet space. Since we really enjoy the area we live in now, with our oldest son's school close by and our church across the street, combined with our financial difficulties, moving seemed impossible. 6 I'm in the construction field and was able to add the bedroom with,the help of my family and friends for very little cost. All that remains to be finished is the siding and exterior trim. I was aware at the time that I built the bedroom that I was going against the City ordinance. I felt my personal circumstances forced me to do this. Nine years ago when I purchased this house it was vacant and condemned. Over the years I have strived to improve this house to serve as a home for my family. At this point in time, I am extremely sorry for breaking the Richfield City laws by not obtaining the variance and permit required. I am also very sorry for the time and trouble, and any inconveniences I have caused Sivert Hendrickson, Building Official. Sincerely, • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 295 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request by Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center for Special Use Permit to Operate a Day Care. Center at 7001 Elliot Avenue Council Members: There is an item on the agenda concerning a request by the Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club) for a special use permit to operate a daycare program at Elliot Elementary School. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST • The Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club) has made an application for a special use permit to allow them to extend their daycare program. The Richfield Fun Club currently has 60 children at their Central School location (71st and Harriet Avenue). The applicant has indicated that there are 64 additional children waiting to enter the program. In addition to the daycare center at Central School, they are now planning to rent 3 rooms at Elliot Elementary School, 7001 Elliot Avenue, to allow for an additional 60 children (kindergarten through sixth grade) at that site. A total of 120 children would participate in the Richfield Latch Key Child Care program at both sites. The applicant has stated that the school district has approved the use of the space. Southdale YMCA is also operates a daycare program at the Elliot School that provides services to 66 children (infants, toddlers, and preschoolers). The total number of children that would be served by both daycare programs at the Elliot Elementary School site would be 126. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.30, subd. 3, requires daycare centers for more than 10 children obtain a special use permit. is 2. Section 3.41, subd. 5, outlines the conditions for granting special use permits. -2- C _ _1 STAFF REVIEW • 1. The proposed daycare center will not be determintal to the neighborhood. The Southdale YMCA daycare is located in the southwest wing of the same building. The Richfield Fun Club is renting 3 rooms on the east wing of the building. Parking lots are located within close proximity of the center. Adequate parking and drop -off space exists on the site to handle the proposed increase in use. 2. On February 13, 1984, the City Council approved a special use permit to Southdale YMCA to allow them to expand their daycare facility located at Elliot Elementary School. The City Council stipulated at that time that any fire code violations be corrected to the satisfaction to the Public Safety Department. FIRE CODE CONCERNS The Public Safety Department has indicated that the Southdale YMCA daycare program is operating under a temporary license because the building does not comply with the Minnesota uniform fire code. Additionally, the Public Safety Department has again expressed serious concern regarding compliance of the • fire code in the proposed site and recommended against the site for a child care center until the fire code violations are corrected. One significant fire code issue is that of a fire sprinkler system. The building does not have a fire sprinkler system as required by the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. To that end, school officials are aware of the problem and are in the initial stages of contracting for sprinkler installation at Elliot School. Other concerns cited by the Assistant Fire Chief relate to a cross corridor door which would be needed to isolate the wing from -the rest of the building and fire code compliance for the entire school building. In addition, the east wing of Elliot School has been used for storage which would present another potential fire hazard. School officials informed the city that the storage would be removed in September. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The city staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow expansion of the Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club) at the Elliot School with the following stipulation: • -3- -3 1. The Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center not be issued a certificate of occupancy permit, nor be allowed to operate a daycare center at the proposed site at Elliot Elementary School, until all fire code violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the Public Safety Department. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 (Kaiser -nay) to recommend council approval of a special use permit to allow expansion of the Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club) at Elliot Elementary School with the following stipulations: 1. The fire code violations at the elementary school be corrected within 90 days. 2. The Public Safety Department issue a temporary 90 day occupancy permit to the Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center provided the code violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the Public Safety Department. C SLD /eja cc: Public Safety Director • qRe fully b mit . eC /d evich g Q ( , City Mana er W/ -'�/ LU RICHFIELD LATCH KEY Richfield Planning Commission Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Commission Members, 7145 HARRIET AVENUE SOUTH RICHFIELD, MN 95423 June 13, 1985 The Richfield Latch Key Child Care Center (Fun Club) is making a request to obtain a Special Use Permit in relation to our child care facility. Our current location is in the Central School building, located on 71st and Harriet. Because of the tremendous community demand for school- age child care we are finding it necessary to expand our program. There is no more space available in.our existing facility for such expansion. Therefore, we are requesting permission to expand our program into the Elliot School building, located on 70th and Elliot. The school district • has agreed and encouraged us to rent this space and they are very supportive of us. The rooms we are requesting are located in the east wing of Elliot, at tie far east end of the hallway. The three rooms we are planning on would accomodate 60 additional children. We currently have a waiting list of 64 children who are waiting to enter our program this fall. As you can see, this expansion is necessary to better serve the families and children.of the Richfield community. Enclosed you will find the application for the Special Use Permit, the application fee, as well as the information on the site plan. The exterior of the building will not change in any way.. As stated before, the school district has approved the use of the space. I am also working with Bev Moran at the DPW State Licensing Division. We hope to take possession of this space in August. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Kathy Loken Program Director r CITY OF RICHFIELD MEMORANDUM July 10, 1985 CO TO: Rick Jopke FROM: Pat Coughlin, Ass,t. Fire Chief SUBJECT: SPECIAL USE PERMIT.REQUEST FOR 7001 ELLIOT We will not allow expansion of the day care program at Elliot school into the part of the building noted in the request for special use permit. The existing day care operation at the site in question is operating under a temporary licensing approval because the building does not comply with the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. We agreed to allow the facility to open under three conditions. First, certain fire code items had to be complied with in the wing being occupied. Second, the wing had to be isolated from the rest of the building by an approved cross - corridor door. Third, the occupancy was provisional, contingent upon the rest of the school being brought up to code • when the school system completed its study of fire code problems in all its buildings. Before we will allow the expansion of the day care operation the rest of the building must be brought into compliance with the fire code. .• O Z CA N m m C - w rpi 1 ~ 1 s` ` k• -`-,o "'L'r 'l''.' �t i`r� r < s� M -' J . - '�. y -, +q ct ..-h ayxn .Z e�"r�s, °.tip - •r' :;eX�#wr - IfA ,. s: "x �• +: ?y ;, -i!r- �.,.- k x...� > •_ � ;,,si,i,..� �'� y, r � �'� i - ic?+.`" r'a�'vy�,� t!* • � at xx '` :. 1 ` ..�x'• +�a, «fi-re : x�a �" %r.�.3��k - `E'.^}+' -y'7f. s "xwy,s'c`�'��s`,,.a.?",� ,�} S "�i,. `""e� � � :;r - ol ^9+''�Frtx .+ tya -..1.v EP...?' �ii.'.2 .s' ' i y ms`s Taa''dl. r �'..•t'.. ,,.d' nL . �.x: a'1iF'^ {, ,.` w w � '_°' - �,'+c ^�'� i?7� �'$,5."�'�i%'i�}r+��''!�' �. .� e. 'S: ¢ s• �, � �" �o _.n,•i�� at 3- " -�: ' ...� -3, � ` .._i '^'�62?'�"- :•,•,.. Q //�]a-�` S . d` }ivr�.,,,W(T- ii..,, �� ="�'^ .?.� ` r.�.,�,�!tt��ia.�.. 'r �'' - s r �' 3w.,. •Z •-'* ,� � } _ f _ ;r"4'� �.,{.,�.Syi� - �t�-*h�a -^A' � - . wr�, 1. "'�� +"`-�, � `' �[_LiOT V N th /) S t I / /may ■• / "' l yid.: Zf. - .�.'Y ��.._ �'� y�LY�i,yy� 1.: ' ?W� _ � • - .. �n _ C - w rpi 1 ~ 1 s` ` k• -`-,o "'L'r 'l''.' �t i`r� r < s� M -' J . - '�. y -, +q ct ..-h ayxn .Z e�"r�s, °.tip - •r' :;eX�#wr - IfA ,. s: "x �• +: ?y ;, -i!r- �.,.- k x...� > •_ � ;,,si,i,..� �'� y, r � �'� i - ic?+.`" r'a�'vy�,� t!* • � at xx '` :. 1 ` ..�x'• +�a, «fi-re : x�a �" %r.�.3��k - `E'.^}+' -y'7f. s "xwy,s'c`�'��s`,,.a.?",� ,�} S "�i,. `""e� � � :;r - ol ^9+''�Frtx .+ tya -..1.v EP...?' �ii.'.2 .s' ' i y ms`s Taa''dl. r �'..•t'.. ,,.d' nL . �.x: a'1iF'^ {, ,.` w w � '_°' - �,'+c ^�'� i?7� �'$,5."�'�i%'i�}r+��''!�' �. .� e. 'S: ¢ s• �, � �" �o _.n,•i�� at 3- " -�: ' ...� -3, � ` .._i '^'�62?'�"- :•,•,.. Q //�]a-�` S . d` }ivr�.,,,W(T- ii..,, �� ="�'^ .?.� ` r.�.,�,�!tt��ia.�.. 'r �'' - s r �' 3w.,. •Z •-'* ,� � } _ f _ ;r"4'� �.,{.,�.Syi� - �t�-*h�a -^A' � - . wr�, 1. "'�� +"`-�, � `' �[_LiOT V N th •r f � i TL �V 4A V. y •. Z {•7 y' � a .i . r ra — , 3•s"B4 � �"w� -.+r"� 'J .1.. f. �„`�+a ,i�, , tS'r.�� ••,� OM .. 'NK a +°" �+t �rx, 'ti G' ..• x� �i C w * r r + e a 1� t °X S �..y� � a d' �.t >.«• -y. '�'r�x. St.._ yt - + � .: 'f ".yfdi -i'a. .Pt .. K 7. ... I°EE'CN _ " ° x �Y s Jr _� i•4�.... Y! 1.i!5: _.l�L: �' aT• ._ wk4 5 'Y Kx t- iz y( '�'. 'R! ifgs « w � `•�"'+�'S a '� dL- ^'Y 1 7 _ 1.'' w�a 1 _ � 7 �, r ,,t.. _OC/.d, for , 1 a4 W77 ..q.,sf •+. s k}�. ,�sr__a'i c4�jrr ,cy�a -�'tf' : :."'+`' -s - ,a,..c1 r may, aR'. .4Ja y T -0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 294 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield. Subject: Request for a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance Rearyard Setback Requirements to Allow Construction of an Addition to the Building at 1415 East 66th Street Council Members: PROPOSAL Helen and Pat Savage have requested a variance to allow a 27.33 x 32.0 foot addition to the existing building at 1415 East 66th Street. The building is located in a C -2 zoning district (general commerical) and is used as a beauty shop. • The existing building meets all the setback requirements. However, the proposed addition would reduce the rearyard setback from 48.91 feet to 16.91 feet. Under the zoning ordinance, a,25 foot rearyard setback is required in commercial zoning districts. The addition would reduce the current 17 parking spaces on the site to 14. The total building area, including the proposed addition, will be 1,950 square feet, which would require 10 parking spaces. There would be four more parking spaces than is required by city guidelines. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1•. Section 3.33, subdivision 6 and Section 3.32, subdivision 4, requires that a 25 foot rearyard be provided in commercial zoning districts. 2. Section 3.40, subdivision 6, lists 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: • -2- ,5'-012� • 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions a ecting this land not common to other properties or similar districts. It is staff's opinion that there are no special circumstances present on this site. The site has an area of 11,503 square feet which is similar to other lots in the area and is regular in shape. 2. That the grantin the preservation rights. of the application is necessary for and en_iovment of substantial orooert It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance request would not preclude reasonable use of the property. The existing commercial use of the property could continue on the site if the variance is denied. 3. That the granting of the application will not materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhoo an will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood. • It is staff's opinion that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the public in the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff must recommend denial of the variance since the three conditions for granting a variance have not been meet. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend city council denial of the variance on the grounds that the three conditions for granting the variance have not been met. SLD /eja Res c fully su mitted i ev n L. Devich Acting City Manager �r i nl o. u � »•s z e n •gin � �u �i o, o o, <! ;i 2' is 9i a� e� P! di M, r Q r r r 0 n r z ♦ V {1 i I ' = Q t01 .J r T PZ i i 1 i LLJ k { 3� �o V 0 F t W J Ll SK rI 7r o� a 9 S 1 e o, P� z; z! n� YI 1 4 Di D� =t 31 0 z 0 :J "r .a • Zr rr P, r e �J r� r K a2 S J 1L CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 293 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Variance Request at 7133 Lyndale Avenue South Council Members: On June 25, 1985, the Planning Commission recommended denial of a variance request at 7133 Lyndale Avenue. On July 8, at the request of the applicant's attorney, the City Council continued the public hearing on this matter until August 12, 1985. Mr. Ralph Gale, attorney for the applicant, has now decided to withdraw the variance request. It is recommended that city council accept the withdrawal of • the variance request at 7133 Lyndale Avenue South. 4Res fully su 'tte Cartwright y Manager JGC /eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 292 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Temporary Advertising Sign - Cloverleaf Motel Site, 7700 Fremont Avenue Council Members: CDR Investments has requested a permit to erect a temporary sign advertising the proposed development on the former Clover- leaf Motel site at 7700 Fremont Avenue. The sign is to be a multi - colored, 8 foot by 8 foot single faced sign. City ordinances provide that city council approval is necessary for temporary signs. The city staff has reviewed the sign application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve this sign permit request. SLD /eja G Re 'e tfully submitted, n �ee i h Ac ing City Ma ager 0 • - n- -,-1 -- --, - - 3 j - a i SITE SITE PLAN FOR' SIGN APPROVAL 35w /494 DEVELOPMENT KKE ARCWT£CTS, INC. as-al- 0034 -01 a/2 /aa r' 0 0 0 OFFICE & HOTEL DEVELOPMENT CDR INVESTMENTS 831 -4878 ARCWTECT: KORSUfMY KRANC ERICKSON INC. Y ti y. F 351//494 DEVELOPMENT KKE ARCHITECTS, INC. 0 85 -01- 0054 -01 8/2/85 S-.-z-- l CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager i-i LJ Council Letter No. 291. Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign At Bloomington Honda Council Members: Nordquist Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to erect a double -faced illuminated pedestal sign measuring 305 square feet, at Bloomington Honda located at 400 West 78th Street. The proposed sign would measure 35 feet in height. City ordinances provide that city council approval is necessary for illuminated signs, and also for the maximum height of 35 feet. City ordinance Section 3.49, subdivision 4 (copy attached) provides for a maximum height of 35 feet under seven listed conditions. The city staff has reviewed the sign permit application and finds that the illuminated sign appears to meet all ordinance requirements, including the seven conditions for the height of the sign. It is recommended that the city council approve this sign permit request. I f SLD /eja Res0�ctfu1 tev#tM E.- Devichl cting City Man ger AP: ROVE ❑ DENY F-1: APPROVE 10 DENY FI: ,FIB -ti City Manager Inspector Date � Date �1s/ S 4 APPROVE E DEA'Y❑ :_� �� , Iz.-C. APPROVE ❑ DE;�'Y❑ Plannin Depaa tment City Council Ste( Tc7 COV�CI ` Date �� , 7 Date Y .V T fpt2 —iht A rtoute to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date 8/2/85 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No X Fee Address of Sign 400 West 78th Street Proprietor Name Richfield /Bloom DBA Honda, Inc. Sign Erector Nordquist Sign, Inc. Address 312 West Lake Street M ls.. Minn. TVDe of Sien Design Weather Cover Lightin aisp.iay Deiow tionaa ie'tters. If Illuminated - Yes X No Watts 80 E.Orical Contractor Dotty Construction Address 3601 W. 77th St. Phone 869 -1586 Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 47 5-31 94 Estimated Cost 14,000. Sign Width 34' Height 359 Total Square Feet 304,85 9 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 Applicant's Signature z(nd Title with Firm Date 8/2/85 Phone Number (612)475-3194 1 8 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 Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T ❑ AM Post ❑ Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other X Other(Explain) Sign Colors Blue and White Alternating Time and Temperature X X X aisp.iay Deiow tionaa ie'tters. If Illuminated - Yes X No Watts 80 E.Orical Contractor Dotty Construction Address 3601 W. 77th St. Phone 869 -1586 Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone 47 5-31 94 Estimated Cost 14,000. Sign Width 34' Height 359 Total Square Feet 304,85 9 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 Applicant's Signature z(nd Title with Firm Date 8/2/85 Phone Number (612)475-3194 1 8 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 1: (7) All signs and sign structures shall be maintained in a safe condition and in a state of good repair at all times. No sign shall display obscene matter. (8) Each sign shall be,used and maintained only in the manner permitted and subject to the conditions imposed at the time the permit therefor was granted. Subd. 2. Ground Signs. No ground sign or signboard shall exceed 27 feet in height above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces, nor shall such structure exceed 65 feet in length (including the base thereof) unless a special permit therefor has been granted as hereinafter provided. Every ground sign or signboard except temporary ground signs shall have a space of at least 2 feet between the lower edge thereof and the ground, which space shall not be closed in any manner. The provisions of this sub- division do not apply to outdoor advertising displays. (Bill 1983 -5) 2/14/83 Subd. 3. Special Permit. The council may grant a special permit for a ground sign exceeding 65 feet in length, but only if it finds that such structure (1) will not be lighted or illuminated; (2) will be located on general commer- cial or industrial property.and at least 190 feet from the street or highway which it faces; (3) will not be faced toward any residences or residential property and will not be within 200 feet of any residential properties; (4) will not unduly obstruct visibility of neighboring property; (5) will bear only the name of the business or industry being conducted on the property on which it is located; and (6) will not adversely affect the value of any adjacent property. The provisions of this subdivision do not apply to outdoor advertising displays. (Bill 1983 -5) 2/14/83 Subd. 4. Special Permits - Height. The council may grant a special permit for a ground sign exceeding 27 feet in height, but only if it finds that such structure (1) if located on property adjacent to a federal freeway, will not exceed 35 feet in height or the highest part of any building located on the same premises; whichever is higher; (2) if not located adjacent to a federal freeway, will not exceed in height the highest part of any building located on the same premises; (3) will be located on industrial property; (4) will not be within 300 feet of any single family residence property; (5) will not unduly obstruct visibility from neighboring properties; (6) will not in any event exceed elevation of 204, Richfield datum; and (7) will not adversely affect the value of any adjacent property. If the sign for which the special permit is issued is a double -faced sign the council may permit the sign to have screening standing not more than 10 feet above the face of the sign, in addition to the maximum elevations hereinbefore specified; provided that such screening must consist of a plain metal surface bearing no advertising matter, lettering or writing. The provisions of this subdivision do not apply to outdoor adver- tising displays. (Bill 1983 -5) 2/14/83 Subd. 5. Application to Council for Permits. The council may attach conditions to the granting of any such permit; such permit shall be ford a period of no more than five years. At the end of the permit period, the sign shall not be retained on the premises but shall be removed by the property owner unless a new special permit therefor has been granted. The application for any such structure shall describe the sign in detail, including the copy to be used 2/14/83 ORDINANCE CODE 88 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ,:?h/-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 290 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request for Permit to Install Illuminated Sign at 7614 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: Universal Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to erect a 6 foot by 2 foot illuminated, single -faced wall sign at Southport Cleaners, 7614 Lyndale Avenue. City of Richfield Ordinance Code 3.49, subdivision 19 - Illuminated Signs, provides that city council approval is required for illuminated signs. The inspection division staff has reviewed the sign permit application and finds that the sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for an illuminated sign at 7614 Lyndale Avenue. SLD /e;ja It Res p tfully submitted, v n L. Acting City Mana er ??CvE DENY •'�'� —w City :tanager Date APPROVE © 1) EN')'a : I u�l� It ° -f'i Pianni b Department Date . Route to above for specia: approval per code APPROVE DEN7f Inspector / Date_ !Z APPROV_ I DE'17 City Council Date APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISIN, -, PERMIT City of Richfield, ::innesota General Siens Date"Okk.j 0� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes lo__ Fee�� Address of Sign 7G& LiLAz j} � Proprietor NameDIC(C Ru S*-, D DBA Sdc' %�f poZfCLE Sign Erector 0j�(j, T- fALS160 co Address L033 *Ncmr�s At/, A PiWLA /V le, Tvoe of Sien Design Weather Cover Lishtinz If Illuminated - Yes No Watts * ElWical Contractor a-tV_7 1('6M ..J L L�;Lf�! L (L Address 3ZSO 66 1-1141?7 44� Phone Z��a -/ y Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimted Cost �cQ.` -� Sign Width � a ,ULheight _-- Z0" 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 advertisin; 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 anv sipht distance under, around, or over for safe access b}, persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /1/01 Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm z. 3 Phone Number Number y� U L. Date %�30�� L� - lk 8/ PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIG:; LGC. -.T ION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 J-O AQ / Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced I Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T D A n Post Clear Lexon Constant Froste? Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors &Jj &OC60.c::..Y0 tel4itLr Lr t}lnLS _ I ( If Illuminated - Yes No Watts * ElWical Contractor a-tV_7 1('6M ..J L L�;Lf�! L (L Address 3ZSO 66 1-1141?7 44� Phone Z��a -/ y Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimted Cost �cQ.` -� Sign Width � a ,ULheight _-- Z0" 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 advertisin; 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 anv sipht distance under, around, or over for safe access b}, persons destined for or passing the subject premises? /1/01 Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm z. 3 Phone Number Number y� U L. Date %�30�� L� - lk 8/ PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIG:; LGC. -.T ION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 J-O AQ / ,�? ' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 289 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: 1986 Alley Maintenance Special Assessment Project City Project No. 820 Council Members: The policy adopted by the city council in 1980 for the permanent improvement of the city's alleys by paving provides that paving of an alley will be undertaken by petition of the owners representing more than 50% of the abutting property alley footage. The alley paving projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis, with those alleys in the city which are not paved, or scheduled to be paved, subject to special assessment for annual maintenance costs such as patching. In order to implement this alley maintenance policy, it is necessary for the city council to initiate a specific alley maintenance project. The policy states, "all costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed against the property abutting the alley." In 1981, the maintenance functions covered sweeping, cleaning of potholes and cold patching. In 1982, the maintenance functions covered by this assessment included not only the repair work, but also an assessment to all alleys for snowplowing. Community Services Department personnel estimate the 1986 alley maintenance cost for the period January 1 - December 31 to be $23,600. Assessments will vary according to the amount of repair work necessary on any individual alley. Alleys which were paved in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 or are to be resurfaced in 1986 will not be assessed for the repair type maintenance. The second part of the estimated annual cost is the cost for snowplowing. Weather conditions will have a major impact on the actual assessment costs for snowplowing. All alleys in the city are assessed for snowplowing whether permanently improved or not. Therefore, the current maintenance costs for alleys to be assessed to abutting property owners in 1986 will be based on a per alley block calculation of actual cost for alley repair and a calculated shared cost of the actual cost for snowplowing. • -2- It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution which proposes to specially assess the costs of 1986 services for alley maintenance and sets the public hearing on this special assessment project for September 9, 1985. SLD /eja • Ll Resp c fully s mitted, ev L. evich Acting City Manager 34-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD JANUARY 1, 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1986 CITY PROJECT NO. 820 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That area which includes the property which abuts improved alleys in Richfield (the "District ") is hereby established as a special assessment district for the purpose of assessing for current services provided by the city; 2. That the following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the District with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefitted property within the District: the repair, maintenance and snowplowing of alleys; 3. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the District. It is proposed that special assessments on property be made on the basis of pro -rated share of assessable abutting footage as defined in the alley • improvement policy, Resolution No. 6345; 4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of a public hearing by this council at which time the council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once and at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, September 9, 1985 commencing at 7 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5•. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period from January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that period, using day labor, is $23,600. 6. The project is feasible. r Y' -2- J / t Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 1585. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas. P. erber, City Clerk • F—I LJ • • is 3��—_ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 288 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Maytr and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolutions Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Alley Maintenance and Snowplowing for the Period January 1, 19814 to December 31, 19824 and Setting the Date of Hearing - CP 796 Council Members: The costs incurred for alley maintenance and snowplowing for the period of January 1, 19814 to December 31, 19814 have been determined to be $21,195.32. Property owners on permanently paved concrete alleys are assessed for snowplowing only, while property owners on all other alleys are assessed actual maintenance costs for their individual alley and snowplowing costs. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll; and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 9, 1985. SLD /eja Re e fully s itt d, eve L. Devich �� Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE AND SNOWPLOWING - CITY PROJECT NO. 796 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance and snowplowing of the following alleys in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance and snowplowing for.the period of January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1984 amount to be $21,195.32: Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets 1001 Xerxes - Washburn 66th -67th 1002 Xerxes - Washburn 67th -68th 1003 Xerxes - Washburn 68th -69th 1004 Xerxes - Washburn 69th -70th 1005 Washburn - Vincent 66th -67th 1006 Washburn - Vincent 67th -68th 1007 Washburn - Vincent 68th -69th 1008 Washburn - Vincent 69th -70th 1009 Vincent - Upton 66th -67th 1010 Vincent - Upton 67th -68th 1011 Vincent - Upton 68th -69th 1012 Vincent - Upton 69th -70th 1013 Upton - Thomas 66th -67th 1014 Upton - Thomas 68th -69th 1015 Upton - Thomas 69th -70th 1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66th -67th 1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67th -68th 1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68th -69th 1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69th -70th 1020 Sheridan - Russell 66th -67th 1021 Sheridan - Russell 67th -68th 1022 Sheridan- Russell 68th -69th 1023 Sheridan - Russell 69th -70th 1024 Russell - Queen 66th -67th 1025 Russell - Queen 67th -68th 1026 Russell - Queen 68th -69th 1027 Russell - Queen 69th -70th 1028 Queen - Penn 66th -67th 1029 Queen - Penn 67th -68th 1030 Queen - Penn 68th -69th 1031 Queen - Penn 69th -70th 2001 Penn - Oliver 63rd -64th 2002 Oliver - Newton 63rd -64th 2004 Morgan - Logan 63rd -64th 2005 Logan - Knox 63rd -64th 2007 James - Irving 63rd -64th 2008 Irving - Humboldt 63rd -64th 2009 Humboldt - Girard 63rd -64th 2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63rd -64th 2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64th -65th -2- 31'j 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th -66th 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th -65th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th -66th 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd- Mildred Dr 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd - Mildred Dr 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd - Mildred Dr 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk Shr Dr 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th -76th 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th -69th 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th -71st 3004 Augsburg.- Garfield 71st -72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield -72nd -73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd -74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st -72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd -73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd -74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th -68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th -69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd -73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd -74th 3015 Grand - Pleasant 68th -69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd -73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 67th -68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th 3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th -75th 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75th -76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th -69th 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th -71st 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st -72nd 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd -?3rd 3028 1st - Stevens 71st -72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd -73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st -72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th -67th 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st -72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th -67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd -74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th -67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd -74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th -67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd -74th 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th -66th 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd -63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd -63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th -66th 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th 0 I* 3� 1/ -3- 4008 Cedar - Longfellow' 64th -65th 4009 Cedar - Longfellow 65th -66th 4010 19th - 20th Avenue 65th -66th 4012 22nd — Standish 65th -66th 4013 13th - 14th Avenue 66th -67th NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefitted property owners is-declared to be $21,195.32; _ 2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without regard to cash valuation as provided by law, and shall file a.copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection; 3. The clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the city council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of August, 1985. John Hamilton, Mayor • ATTEST: homas P. PerSer, City Clerk • 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON.PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ALLEY MAINTENANCE C.P. 796 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed City of Richfield on August 12, 1985 to prepare assessment of the cost of r alleys in the City of Richfield for 1984 through December 31, 1984: Number 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 2001 2002 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Surrounding Avenues JA-15 by the city council of the the city clerk was directed maintaining the following the period of January 1, Xerxes Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Xerxes - Washburn Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Washburn - Vincent Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Vincent - Upton Upton - Thomas Upton - Thomas Upton - Thomas Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - Sheridan Thomas - Sheridan Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Sheridan - Russell Russell - Queen Russell - Queen Russell - Queen Russell - Queen Queen - Penn Queen - Penn Queen - Penn Queen - Penn Penn - Oliver Oliver - Newton Morgan - Logan Logan - Knox James - Irving Irving - Humboldt Humboldt - Girard Girard - Fremont (35W) Girard - Fremont (35W) Surrounding Streets 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th-70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 66th -67th 67th -68th 68th -69th 69th -70th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th 63rd -64th. 64th -65th -2- .31--6 2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65th -66th 2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64th -65th 2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65th -66th • 2015 Dupont - Colfax 63rd- Mildred Dr 2016 Colfax - Bryant 63rd- Mildred Dr 2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63rd- Mildred Dr 2019 Graham - Lyndale 66th -Lk Shr Dr 2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75th -76th 2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76th -77th 3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68th -69th 3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70th -71st 3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71st -72nd 3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72nd -73rd 3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73rd -74th 3007 Garfield - Harriet 71st -72nd 3008 Garfield - Harriet 72nd-73rd 3009 Garfield - Harriet 73rd -74th 3011 Harriet - Grand 67th -68th 3012 Harriet - Grand 68th -69th 3013 Harriet - Grand 72nd -73rd 3014 Harriet - Grand 73rd -74th 3015 Grand — Pleasant. 68th -69th 3016 Grand - Pleasant 72nd -73rd 3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 66th -68th 3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72nd -73rd 3021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73rd -74th 3022 3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet Blaisdell - Nicollet 74th -75th • 75th -76th 3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68th -69th 3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70th -71st 3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71st -72nd 3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72nd -73rd 3028 1st - Stevens 71st -72nd 3029 1st - Stevens 72nd -73rd 3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71st -72nd 3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3032 2nd - 3rd Avenue 66th -67th 3033 2nd - 3rd Avenue 71st -72nd 3034 2nd - 3rd Avenue 72nd -73rd 3035 3rd - Clinton 66th -67th 3036 3rd - Clinton 73rd -74th 3037 Clinton - 4th Avenue 66th -67th 3038 Clinton - 4th Avenue 73rd -74th 3039 4th - 5th Avenue 66th -67th 3040 4th - 5th Avenue 73rd -74th 4001 13th - 14th Avenue 65th -66th 4002 14th - 15th Avenue 62nd -63rd 4004 15th - Bloomington 62nd -63rd 4005 15th - Bloomington 65th -66th 4006 Bloomington - 16th Avenue 65th -66th 4007 Cedar - Longfellow 63rd -64th I] U 0 4008 4009 4010 4012 4013 -3- Cedar - Longfellow Cedar - Longfellow 19th - 20th Avenue 22nd - Standish Avenue 13th - 14th Avenue 64th -65th 65th -66th 65th -66th 65th -66th 66th -67th WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the city council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED-by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 21--7 1. A hearing shall be held on the 9th day of September, 1985, in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this.12th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor 344-- / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 287 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Relating to Maintenance Assessments, L /H /N Redevelopment Area - C.P. 821 Council Members: On January 26, 1981, the city council adopted Resolution No. 6372, which established a policy that the actual cost of performing current maintenance services in the L /H /N area (area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue) would be specially assessed. The special assessments to commercial property would be made on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable commercial property • within the district being assessed an equal amount. All single family, two family and multiple family residential property within this area were eliminated from the special assessment levy. In 1982, agreements were reached with owners in the L /H /N area related to maintenance of property. For the most part, each owner was to be responsible for property to the curb while the city is responsible for common areas such as street islands. Although the city does do some maintenance work for individual property owners, these costs are directly assessed to the appropriate owner and maintenance of common areas continues to be assessed to the entire district. Current maintenance services for the district would include, but not necessarily be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. Landscaping, including tree trimming; 2. Sidewalk sweeping in summer; 3. Snow removal in winter; 4. Sidewalk deicing; 5. Painting and repair of wood furniture; 6. Trash removal; 7. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement; 8. Irrigation maintenance. These items are extra services provided directly to the is L /H /N Redevelopment Area and do not include services provided to the entire city. For example, all city streets are swept twice a year, and for this service there would be no charge to the ,. L /H /N maintenance assessment. However, any additional street sweeping in the L /H /N area would be an assessable item. -2- • 34 'p2, It is recommended that the city council take action to adopt the attached resolution proposing to specially assess for the costs of current services provided within the L /H /N project area for the period of January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986 and set the public hearing for September 9, 1985• SLD /eja • r� Res tfully omit d, v evic Acting City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SPECIALLY ASSESS FOR THE COSTS OF CURRENT SERVICES PROVIDED WITHIN THE LYNDALE /HUB /NICOLLET PROJECT AREA FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1986 CITY PROJECT NO. 821 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. There is hereby established a special assessment district, the boundaries of which are conterminous with the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area, for the purposes of assessing for current services provided by the city. 2. The following current services of the city are hereby proposed to be undertaken by the city in the district, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against benefited property within the district: Snow, ice or rubbish removal; Weed elimination; Elimination or removal.of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; Installation or repair of water service lines; . Street sprinkling or other dust treatment of streets; Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian walkways; Operation of the street lighting system; Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right -of -way; Maintenance of Civic Plaza; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; Painting and repair of wood furniture; General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. ' • I. The area proposed to be specially assessed for such current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of land within the district. It is proposed that special assessments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area with each square foot of assessable commercial property within the district being assessed an equal amount for maintenance of common. areas. Exempt from the special assessment levy shall.be all single family, two- family, multiple family residential property within the L /H /N redevelopment district. Special maintenance of individual commercial properties shall be assessed directly for costs incurred in performing said maintenance to said property. 3, e5 -- y 4. The city clerk is authorized and directed to give public notice of a hearing by this council at-which the council will consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to bear the costs thereof. The city clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing as required by law. Such hearing shall be held on Monday, September 9, 1985, commencing at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached on the agenda. 5. It is hereby proposed that the project consist of the costs of the aforementioned services for the period of January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986. The estimated cost of providing all of the aforementioned current services during that period is $52,900. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 1985• John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: omas P. Fgr6er, City Clerk •, • JO-/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 286 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Preparation of Assessment Rolls and Setting Hearing Date for City Project No. 797, 1984 L /H /N Maintenance Council Members: Attached are resolutions declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment rolls, and setting the hearing date for the proposed assessment for City Project No. 797, the 1984 L /H /N Maintenance project. It is recommended that the city council pass the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of the proposed assessment for L /H /N maintenance, and the resolution setting the date of hearing on the proposed assessment for September 9, 1985- SLD /eja • Res tfully ubmitted, v evlc Acting City Ma ager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR LHN MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1984 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1984 CITY PROJECT NO. 797 WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the maintenance of the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (L /H /N) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to $41,983.68 for the period of January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1984. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $41,983.68; 2. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer and the facilities /projects coordinator, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public inspection. 3. The city clerk shall, upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the city council thereof. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 12th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas-P. Ferber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor 3,6 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR L /H /N MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1, 1984 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1984 CITY PROJECT NO. 797 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the city council of the City of Richfield on August 12, 1985, the city clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of maintaining the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (L /H /N) Redevelopment Area which is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield, Minnesota for the period of January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1984; and WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the city council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 9th day of September, 1985 in the council chambers of city hall at 7 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said maintenance assessment will be given an opportunity to be heard in reference to such assessment. • 2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the maintenance. The city clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 1985• ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Ramilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 285 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchases.in Excess of $5,000 Council Members: The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that when the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction exceeds the amount of $5,000, the authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for considera- tion. There are three such items on the August 12 agenda. City Garage Roof Materials In the early 1980's, funding was provided for repair and • restoration of the built -up gravel roof system at the city garage. However, it was determined that the city hall roof would be reworked at the time of the Public Safety addition to the city hall. Therefore, only a portion of the city garage roof was repaired at the time. Infra -red studied indicated locations requiring immediate repair and attention and this work was done. Funding is currently available in C.P. 799 for completion of the roof repair and restoration as begun earlier on the east side of the garage complex. Three quotations were received for the materials needed to complete the work. The materials include resaturant, flashing mastic, repair mastic, quick dry primer and membrane reinforcement. The quotations were: Tremco $12,974.75 Horizon Specialists, Inc. $13,663.00 H & H Enterprises $13,818.00 The Tremco product was used for the work done earlier on other sections of the city garage east building. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of needed materials to complete the restoration of the roofing system on the east building of the city garage from Tremco in • the amount of $12197+.75- 3e -2- Installation of Roofing Materials Because of the specialized equipment required for the installation of the roofing materials, and because the city staff does not have the time nor the expertise for such application, quotations were solicited from three companies to provide the labor and equipment for such work. One quotation was submitted. It is recommended the city council authorize M & S Roofing, Inc. to perform the necessary work for the completion of approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of roof for the sum of $11,200. Play Equipment The adopted 1985 Capital Budget includes $50,000 for improvements at Little Bob's Park which is located in the vicinity of 67th Street and Harriet Avenue. Two neighborhood meetings were held. Plans and specifications were reviewed and approved by the Community Services Commission and the City Council. The majority of the project work relates to play equipment in the park. Three quotations were received for play equipment. Hilan quoted $9,379.00 for the materials specified and Timber Form quoted $15,800.00 for a similar package of materials. Timber Form - submitted a second quotation in the amount of is $14,400.00 for a new play equipment package. This equipment does not require inground installation except at the base of a spiral slide and the clatterbridge supports. The equipment has never been installed in Minnesota. The city's recreation supervisor /designer has examined the new product line and visited with the manufacturer. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of play equipment from Hilan in the amount of $9,379.00. SLD /eja • Re tfull submitted, r v Devi h Acting City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 284 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ratifying City Manager's Action to execute Mortgage Commitment Agreements for HRA Council Members: On July 31, 1985, the City Manager executed documents on behalf of the HRA, that secured $744,000 in lower than market interest money for first.time homebuyers. The financing will be utilized for family housing that has been constructed or is being planned at 66th Street and Rae Drive, 7245 Humboldt Avenue, and 7508 Colfax Avenue. This letter briefly describes the action taken and the program the HRA is administering. In March, 1985, the HRA authorized the Executive Director, John Cartwright, to apply for and secure mortgage money from "The Municipal Home Mortgage Program" administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) if the program becomes available. MHFA subsequently offered the program in May and staff prepared an application to secure 9.95 percent 30 year mortgage money for family housing at 66th Street and Rae Drive, 7245 Humboldt, and 7508 Colfax Avenue South. MHFA notified the city in early July that funds had been reserved and could be secured by executing commitment documents on or before July 1, 1985• The commitment documents require the city to pay a fee to hold the funds for one year, and to be executed by the City Manager, even though the reservation is made for use by the HRA in its Housing Program. The HRA, in cooperation with TCF Mortgage Corporation of Edina, provided the $22,320 refundable fee to hold $744,000 mortgage funds for one year. The City Manager executed the commitment documents in time to meet the July 31, 1985 deadline. The City Attorney's staff has reviewed the commitment documents and recommended that the City Council ratify the City Manager's action taken on behalf of the HRA to secure these .funds. -2- • It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion ratifying the City Manager's execution of MHFA mortgage commitment agreements on behalf of the HRA. SLD /eja 0 0 Res c fully s mit d, r even L. Devich Acting City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 283 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract for Bituminous Mixture for Path at Richfield Lake Council Members: On Wednesday, August 7, 1985, bids were opened for bituminous mixture for the paving of the path at Richfield Lake. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. The engineer's cost estimate for this project was $19,640. Preferred Paving, Inc. of Waconia, Minnesota, submitted the low bid of $19,671. This work was originally scheduled to be completed in 1984. The contract was awarded to McNamara - Vivant Contracting Co., Inc, on March 12, 1984 in the amount of $21,569. However, due to the combination of weather and high water, the city chose to terminate the contract. The bituminous paving of the path will be done this year. At the August 27, 1984 meeting, the city council directed staff to construct the path at an elevation of 116' or higher. The plan calls for a 116' minimum elevation. The staff recommends the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations; and, 2. Pass a resolution to award a contract to Preferred Paving, Inc. for bituminous mixture for the path at Richfield Lake, City Project No. 7055, in the amount of $19,671. Resp ully su mitte , ev ich �� cting City Manager 0 SLD /e ja //'7 RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BITUMINOUS MIXTURE FOR PATH AT RICHFIELD LAKE CITY PROJECT NO. 7055 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the placement of 710 tons of bituminous mixture for an eight foot wide, three inch thick path and appurtenant work located at Richfield Lake, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; AND WHEREAS, it appears that Preferred Paving, Inc. of Waconia, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the bid of Preferred Paving, Inc. for construction of the above- mentioned project with estimated construction cost of $19,671 is hereby accepted; 2. That the mayor and clerk are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Preferred Paving, Inc. in the name of the City of Richfield for such improvement according to the plans and specifications; • 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of August, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas P. Perber, City Clerk • John Hamilton, Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening August 7, 1985 Bituminous Pathway for Richfield Lake City Project 7055 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 Bituminous Pathway for Richfield Lake, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 17, 1985. Present: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Steven L. Devich, Acting City Manager.. Michael Eastling, City Engineer Don Fonderick, Comm. Services Director The following bids were submitted and read aloud: • BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Munn Blacktop Inc. 5% 23,190.00 A.C.I 5% 31,667.40 Barber Construction Co., Inc. 50%, 24,102.90 Preferred Paving, Inc. 5% 19,671.00 Lund Asphalt Construction Co., Inc. 5% 21,270.00 Prior Lake Blacktop, Inc. 5% 24,870.20 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the August 12, 1985 City Council meeting. Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 t�_ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 282 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of Concept for Rehabilitation of 6401 -35 Lyndale Avenue and Setting Date of Hearing for Use of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Council Members: Mr. Michael Oreck recently acquired the above identified property, commonly known as the Opdal block. He is interested in undertaking a rehabilitation project, the concept for which was presented to the HRA on July 15, 1985, and will be presented to the City Council on August 12. He would like to utilize Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IDRB's) for financing. The HRA responded favorably to the preliminary concept proposal 40 which envisions the following: - Expansion of approximately 2,000 square feet and rehabilitation of the structure at the corner of 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue; - Removal of shed structures at rear of large buildings; - Installation of a pedestrian arcade to permit pedestrians to walk from the rear parking lot to the front of the building; -A mansard roof; - Bronze colored framing of the window and door openings; - Repaving of the parking lot; - Installation of fire suppression sprinkling system; and - Upgrading of electrical, plumbing and heating systems. Mr. Oreck wishes to utilize IDRB's in the amount of $400,000 (Preliminary budget is attached). The project is in agreement with existing policies. It is in conformance with the Guidelines for the Issuance of IDRB's. The project is compatible and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and L /H /N Project Goals and Objectives. When completed the project will create approximately 60 new jobs and will have an-annual payroll of approximately $1,036,800. 0 -2- Mr. Oreck, his architect Bernard Herman, and his attorney Leonard Juster, will be in attendance at the August 12 city is council meeting to present their concept. With a favorable response from the council, the neighboring residents will be invited to a meeting where the proposal will be presented. It is recommended that city council adopt the attached resolution establishing the date of public hearing and consideration of the adoption of the inducement resolution for September 9, 1985. SLD /eja 41 0 Res c fully s mit d, S is Acting City Man ger RESOLUTION NO. ; -j RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL • DEVELOPMENT ACT. WHEREAS, Michael Oreck and Susan Oreck, individuals residing in Hennepin County, Minnesota (Company) have proposed that the City undertake and finance a project under the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (Act); and WHEREAS, the Act and federal regulations require that a public hearing on the proposed project be conducted by the Council before any action may be taken by it relative to the proposed project: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. The Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 9, 1985 to conduct a public hearing on the proposed project requested by the Company and to take whatever action in relation thereto as it deems appropriate. 2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of the hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A once in the official newspaper and once in . the Minneapolis Star - Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, no less than 15 days prior to September 9, 1985. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of August, 1985. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: omas FerSer city Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • PROJECT BUDGET ITEM . Facing of a new 2000 square foot building, windows and doors, signs, sprinkling system, lighting, flooring, sheetrock, roof and decorating Demolition and Site Preparation Acquisition of Equipment Architectural, Engineering fiscal and legal fees Construction Interest Contingencies TOTAL n LJ 0 ;-4 AMOUNT $213,000 $ 35,000 $ 75,000 $ 25,000 $ 12,000 $ 40,000 $400,000 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager �- Council Letter No. 281 Agenda August 12, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Study Session Presentation on the Metropolitan Stadium Mega Mall Development Proposal Council Members: A study session has been scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Monday, August 12, in the city council chambers. The study session will feature a presentation by Larry Lee, Assistant City Manager of the City of Bloomington, on the proposed Metropol- itan stadium site redevelopment project. As Council Members are aware, the Triple Five. Corporation Limited of Edmonton, Alberta, is proposing a $1.2 - $1.5 billion dollar development for the Metropolitan Stadium site. The proposed development will include a one million square foot convention and trade center, two million square feet of office space, two million square feet of luxury hotel facilites, and a three story parking structure surrounding the entire complex with a capacity for 19,000 vehicles. These project characteris- tics were those submitted by the Triple Five Corporation at a recent briefing session and are more than likely subject to modification as the project progresses. The Bloomington representatives will give a brief presentation on the nature and status of the project and will be available to answer questions. Attached for your information is a series of articles from the Minneapolis Star and Tribune regarding the Metropolitan Stadium site proposal. SLD /eja e Res ect ully submitted, �S-t e v e -n - L. —6e"v i c h Acting City Manager uburban m *. ors By Paal`Gustaisosg" m ay +"Yth thiiins League, and Wendy 3. Tai v �, Iic>t helped initiate the program in S Writers r: the early 1970s, also objected Ito ex : a empting the. 'mega-mail: The group. , North sdb major developments to south 'and i that.: mayors, Upset.about said MatUndau's rationale i9 invalid losing: it shouldn't be confused metro communities;:: attracted two " ' With the city's? longtime' dislike for "friends"." with similar worries. to a' 1 the metrowide tax- sharing program. meeting or Don Fraser and City Council Pros. Tuesday Minneapolis May _ The 197l1'law that exempted numer ident Alice RalaviDe. ous , projects, such as the World. 3 7Crade: „ Center, In St. Paul and Indus Brbokiyn Park Mayor James Krauts try Square in Minneapolis, was in- kremer, who organized the meeting, tended to prevent, just this type of said Minneapolis officials were invit renugst,_said Bob de la Vega of the edYa talk about mutual development ; ;League. Itcaffed for future tax- incre- concerns, not to plot strategleg to mem;;development districts: to:. con - defeat aBloomington mega mail pro- tribute to.. the tax-base. sharing pool, Posal ' �x ar;yavhich,;up to then,, had 'not included those districts: And. it exempted -the The mega -malt and Mhnneapolhs.con- redevelopment districts for these”: veation- center plans were discussed, projects, . that were set up before but Fraser and. Rainvine did not ask . _1979 w '. i� w for, and did not receive the mayors' � , ' support, ighting it, Krautkremer said. rt in "There's: a - difference. between :loop � hole. closing and-treating a . new .ex- .. won.,' de la Vega said- r. Nevertheless,,.. , mayors agreed'' wAkFraser. and : "Rainville on : poc., %indau,, who has said the exempted t� than won't ..please mega -mall projects area precedent for, his..re- supporters:y They.: oppose, cxemptingt� ~quest,: called: :that : argument. "hypo: the' development- from the ,`.dam . -. :: 5 5/ ;�_, eg ne. o gg Twin Cities' is likely remember the wuners and for - Ah, ' but when you've got your get the.duds:. 'headset on "world "class, ";as Gov:' Tbeeconomyllas helped;I'erpich Rudy Perpich does, a facelift; foi enormously. His second term has the home of the Shrine Circusfjust: coincided; with a rapid .economic doesn't cut it „Te ►ery that provided', "enough �moiny to cHt taxes, fund some of And when your primary goal is jobs, jobs, jobs, as his is, it's easy top ": his favorite proleets and make the throw over a betrothed who offers VVernor looklike-ts- winner- 4,000 jobs. for an upstart with a;: -- Now th'_': ii omy ns.souring. The dowry of 40;000' jobs, including sloV'.dowit i$ not. the - governor's fearforyour,"ovedlronRaagesj continues, state . The convention center - reveals. both the best of Rudy, -- his heart felt:concern for' the state's. jobless -- and ° the worst of Rudy = the erratic, eamtionai style that doom nated his first to MAI.. nes.h o a ` e prmisd land;1 raft- ing enough, jobs. with,;one-,mega mall to wipe out nearly a third of the state's unemployment. "Sadly- ma 9 Minnesota- " the, premised. , land -won't be that easy^ ,�, Tlnr follrs who need-=lobs npo are not in Bloomington - They, are on the in : Iron Range and hard-hit; farm: towns in the far reaches of, Minnesota. Amusement parbs, and retail shops arse LLnot n,fQrpay high wages ,.f -., opI seem - 44 C c s raised. And.' the state, . which will have °:to pick up. the operating. loss of a convention center wherever it - .Iands, cannot afford tW make deci'. signs based on promises and emo- Iook • closelusf how big, new and --wor " a' new .conven- ; lion centermust be. t >, POV,* has been dreaming of a m 'new 66nvention center for Minn. sota since- he visited Leipwg n East Germany in°_1979.1.'support -J. ing.the Ghermezians' plan, he's d& sided the state ;needs one;, that': -would make Chicago's McCormick Place look sick. 4 The probiela >s that the co_nven G ! , x u. <.vCrSr...� •.2.d -p . s ..eEU,,.: _�.�,.e..wvua �,e�.d..� tion business is not growing'very ;fast,. but - igrowmg v ery competi- hva in Minnesota alone, the num- w her of convention centers has grown from five in 1980 to 15 to-' day- ...Meanwhile, the number of con ventions in the nation has bounced around on either side of 90,000 for, five years. The number of.conven --'' tioneers -_ or, as' the industry prefers to call them, delegates — is rising about,'7 'percent. -a year. The most hopeful trend is their spending habits: Recession or re- covery, 'they spend about 20 per. _ cent more each years In many cases, cities have to ` steal from each other , to make '. their convention business grow Bidding for conventions, esReamR,y Dig and well- heeled ones, is- com' p , petitive enough- that cities are not i above a bit' of -civic back-biting.-." '' Detroit casts aspersions... on our weather and we do the same for its street crime, Twin Cities officials insist: thatp the area is not getting its, share of " `convention business. They, may be right. Of the ;21 billion'spent on ;conventions annually, Minneapolis gets about $61 million. The city's. - ._ "'consultants • agree that the arga could do better. Their studies a io - 0 • Tie" convention center isn't real �} ly a battle between Minneapolis- likely to. relocatef for lobs making and Bloomington. It's a- battle- be- sib -foot waves: _ tweea'. 'those of us with, modest , 'True; the' Ghermezians have a dreams and nervous hands: on our plan to build a factory on the Iron -back poekets and those who would Range to:mak6'concrete slabs for build the -Taj Mahar- on I -494 and ' the. mall's construction.: But with the Colosseum mwled _ up: agannst4 Twin Cities :plants that make pre- Butler Square. . stressed concrete operating at only There is another, cheapper'' option, 40 percent to 60 percent capacity; it has• - "the several outside consultants ;re- r all signs . of a rcoals -to- m'signs, Minnesotans last week: go.' 'Newcastle schem large and spiff no the.Basting con' - ; PerpichYs appeal as governor has - vention center on. Grant Street hut, Minneapolis. included his endless, ideas for Min., The overhaul would cost i<77 mil-r Wows self - improv ement. and his. ebullient salesmanship of `the staW lion :to f95 million - instead of they - 8is ideas howbeen so plentiful - ilk; million minimum fora new .� gambling in Ely, lower tai- cater. And,:in a shwof unanimity . rare among consultautsl; 'the es, a' lottery; -a craft sale on the II I M� a.world trade T center, agreed that the- remodeled -cen would be-•bin andflashv, ennnob 5R.7., a billion - dollar Shturo bid, an arts hiah school and_nnw FAntaawis..A Twin Cities' is likely remember the wuners and for - Ah, ' but when you've got your get the.duds:. 'headset on "world "class, ";as Gov:' Tbeeconomyllas helped;I'erpich Rudy Perpich does, a facelift; foi enormously. His second term has the home of the Shrine Circusfjust: coincided; with a rapid .economic doesn't cut it „Te ►ery that provided', "enough �moiny to cHt taxes, fund some of And when your primary goal is jobs, jobs, jobs, as his is, it's easy top ": his favorite proleets and make the throw over a betrothed who offers VVernor looklike-ts- winner- 4,000 jobs. for an upstart with a;: -- Now th'_': ii omy ns.souring. The dowry of 40;000' jobs, including sloV'.dowit i$ not. the - governor's fearforyour,"ovedlronRaagesj continues, state . The convention center - reveals. both the best of Rudy, -- his heart felt:concern for' the state's. jobless -- and ° the worst of Rudy = the erratic, eamtionai style that doom nated his first to MAI.. nes.h o a ` e prmisd land;1 raft- ing enough, jobs. with,;one-,mega mall to wipe out nearly a third of the state's unemployment. "Sadly- ma 9 Minnesota- " the, premised. , land -won't be that easy^ ,�, Tlnr follrs who need-=lobs npo are not in Bloomington - They, are on the in : Iron Range and hard-hit; farm: towns in the far reaches of, Minnesota. Amusement parbs, and retail shops arse LLnot n,fQrpay high wages ,.f -., opI seem - 44 C c s raised. And.' the state, . which will have °:to pick up. the operating. loss of a convention center wherever it - .Iands, cannot afford tW make deci'. signs based on promises and emo- Iook • closelusf how big, new and --wor " a' new .conven- ; lion centermust be. t >, POV,* has been dreaming of a m 'new 66nvention center for Minn. sota since- he visited Leipwg n East Germany in°_1979.1.'support -J. ing.the Ghermezians' plan, he's d& sided the state ;needs one;, that': -would make Chicago's McCormick Place look sick. 4 The probiela >s that the co_nven G ! , x u. <.vCrSr...� •.2.d -p . s ..eEU,,.: _�.�,.e..wvua �,e�.d..� tion business is not growing'very ;fast,. but - igrowmg v ery competi- hva in Minnesota alone, the num- w her of convention centers has grown from five in 1980 to 15 to-' day- ...Meanwhile, the number of con ventions in the nation has bounced around on either side of 90,000 for, five years. The number of.conven --'' tioneers -_ or, as' the industry prefers to call them, delegates — is rising about,'7 'percent. -a year. The most hopeful trend is their spending habits: Recession or re- covery, 'they spend about 20 per. _ cent more each years In many cases, cities have to ` steal from each other , to make '. their convention business grow Bidding for conventions, esReamR,y Dig and well- heeled ones, is- com' p , petitive enough- that cities are not i above a bit' of -civic back-biting.-." '' Detroit casts aspersions... on our weather and we do the same for its street crime, Twin Cities officials insist: thatp the area is not getting its, share of " `convention business. They, may be right. Of the ;21 billion'spent on ;conventions annually, Minneapolis gets about $61 million. The city's. - ._ "'consultants • agree that the arga could do better. Their studies a io - 0 • agree, that 'Minneapolis eouIdr eo well by expanding and remodeling the. current center as by building a new one. As :Oliver Byrum of the M,nne- apolis.' Planning Department uts " it, ,I fact,.. it does not make t Of difference if the building is new. Xhat makes: a- difference is 7s it_ functional 4, it flexible? _Ts it ezci,4g ?kv!`IS z This ' dose . of consevat�sm leas been lost amidst, the Minneapolis Bloomington_orouhaha;' it desetves, a more- prominent, place In . the - whole debate. y State 'and city officials must sep• . Grate . the ; issue'- of entertainment from the issue of convention buss ness. 'ad' they must- tel `the pablic bot- ,lust: how mang ttie centers.: .would create; but how: Mu& thek creation would cost state -- W, the .drain from the fib cthe al dispari. ties pool,_ the operating losses of the convention halls, the state tax loss stemming from ,industrial rev enue bonds and -WAbe `,ptber goo- 'diesthat are�ynder dbop. H A few &e facts like that, a few •less promises about- the -ainth'won- der' of the world, and, maybe we'd stop .holding . our�wa]4ts se ana iously.. x,;» �s/ 3 , .rvF a � `jdtng the Etloominito Aga -matt R� n m Jit ;, 985 will be remembered as the month that then deliberations, by Minneapolis Mayor Don Fra-" , OhQQ the world Of Minnesota development.- Over sere eonventiozr task "force, = should be completed ttlgpt;_.Ethe ; Ghermezian br.othdW,, ;proposal for: a , within. weeks.. The- state commission's :supporting project of staggering size. on., the. old Metropolitan material.— the basis for its recommendation•, is- Stadium site in Bloomington lies challengod.Minne - - open. to, public inspection.. The• Fraseraasli jorce's sotansc`to think differently about' retailing, enter will be. The Ghermezian material is not yet avail- ,teintne�►t, tourism, job cre�tlon s td metropolitan able When it is, the state can decide which makes �''�'•• �.�fi"-#ss*& ••kE�.sr >s�/,crhrx,L,�'' ' F' r`, ��, v""} ay!- rvri. 2n" �.h'>�sr`ath�r'betterc�.'ase� •�:a a..ai zatlya n.g�aF'y x.- �h,'a,"�CC+'7�: �j ,.y „ :v .F+^' eY pX'wr use wA+re. i.1J3,'«- h• +•. }n^. r r�e1�,�u v.:' :R.•..aMr..n '- .2...,e. ,. w..t,r. .lrL •.> .,..e l .w " i.-.., .,,,.., xii..... :> , i ......Si.. ...Y..,v.� ._u'. sacra >ssues neea s stsaseup _ It may; fie that ,approval .d. f the eattre BIo�►mingEon project - con tietsaditiots$l approaches were rlgtt ail along, Tie vent i on_ center, `Fantasyland entertainment; parts, eaidenice is5 not yet- ln. except fit one ,respect: meji4 iak and more. Incorrectly,` in trot vie vt 'he r. lilsne.4ata has °B tradition of'genertng near ideas, interprets such criticism:: as indifference;_ to job i elramining them. rigorously and"sltbjecting them to ,creation and economic. development.; Our concern t ..but.:elvii-de5ate: Thai` tradition ol°_fairness _ is aht which c' -new development, but where . signs of slipping. It must sad ii treed not. that development,wilLdo most for the metropolitan, aad`:the ,state. If; the project does what its °:, requires firsC that etlzen the public advocates claim, it will deserve statewide snjtport whcr {epresenL them have 1n hand the... The issue; now is the lack. of iniarmation to substan " is for decisiontnaking' -L iredients they bate or rebut the advocates' claims. 4 , "Fiprr two reaspns 0, decisions, are not far i • [erme to mag alone Qne ; reasQa is,� The GhermeZtans` point to their Edmonton mall as gaverntnenttls� dies Tlte'other a. preeededt: It is im p ressive indeed, and much of volvgs 8overamentalt oversight otk metro- -what has b done in Edmonton may be transfer= per" evelogment., The ..Ghertneisn protect, may" able here ; I then the developers make available ter to. Metropolitan Cnsuist:i development ,market studies to back the _Bloomington proposai,� Y j7, #t h 0mon8 othek things t�sll fora and when the treads of state agencies complete the iLVetttwaa .center In fla�►vntoarn Minneapolis assignments Perpich gave. .diem lost weets; Manner ifi ;:Bloomlington: theft-, project" is •,s sotans will be better able to make a judgment tt ;the state and .the Metropolitan .Area, the �etines, need revision but` oinlya after "the The scale m the `proposed project makes that c?outmit and the lsstblic issue the hays for making . judgment crucial. The state . cannot lightly dismiss a c.°aludgtfYent; development . that its sponsors say could bring 40,000 new jobs, _billions in new income and mil - judgment also rests.oti the.rrplative merits of , lionsf in new "tax. revenue. Neither can the state ting, ideM including ideas about, 6nyendon lightly, endorse it without the, best ; possible esti. hers: if—bigger, is better, the Ghermezlan, propos-, mates.of,its prospects: To ask about subsidies is not,. attractive: 1., million, square =feet -compared' _ as the Ghermezians' say, merely, to "haggle over. a . 300,000 *,- 400 ;000 square feet: recommended fe %milli W'dollars. To ask about'the impact :,of ll lace Mitsneoffi Convention Fad Commission. miWoa additional tourists on, transportation and othersystetrss is notto quibble. -Y try s uis� MgaeSS lg not the, Oni Z '1 �� y.. terlog The state: i on reached '{cotsdusion titter a nT[ing: Fairness also requires `reciprocity "Opponents -have enventidn facilities "si�t.other siatesNCO poring ;been O' energetic in condernaing the project as to dties, and Mintieap6n§- sites; retaining an,; supporters in praising it., Both would do-well to `took" ;.to make"- feasibility sftoy, determining ; at the• evidence 'when, nnally, the evidence.is,h anunr area and selecting ti flaance plan. Fui hand tx f` 4 1a ..$:+ w` .x'k „ak�`w'�''`s�.�i,.a..r'i. SS /I-5 letro� ,o itan CoOndt conflict Of interest 4 ;x a Sandia ax`detiriag::3& lyieadied fo r a cuafiict :oi Predecessor, Gerald'Isaacs,;.wantedIto put,it as iai+erest'aadisiye should back octt bet she gets,, an advocate" for., development rather than- as.,,a, 1. there .As 6� `o! the-,Metropol}tan ;Council, controller of development. But eyes, Isoa&w idely �. sile -has: een, appointed byGov Perp}ch: to head as < criticized ,scheme assumed than. and projects the x lnteragacy team to ; monitor and ' assist. "develop- council supported would first be reviewed .for com meat" of the p posed $ ilft0 megb mall_ project ` pafibilify,wftir regional planning goals Ilt tills ; t.$'ioo niagtbn" Met -Staff site: gu nas Council ti e'counciP -� 'througlf GardeIiiin 4� Is to i com* i "ehAhvwn, she also will have 'the chief resporisibil• involved before such compatibility has been estab- ity for. reviewing the massive Eprojoct! for.. potential 1}shed > negative i7ppacts on the regional `economy: and`on ' -' , .'' egioaal sewer, transporta#ion and_ other systems . T he couacfT previously approved a Bloomington ply, -Site cannot do the ;first .- without serioly coPretien�ive .plan that called for large -scale del d, ng.her,credibility - Bad herageAcy's }n �.velopment .af the .Met Stad }umt site: But once it' ng he second - '� ,fin a, #, r ° ` -approves,a.:, city's plan, the council must still make . � F • , x sure that` "development' is .consistent with. "what the., =,�rb ng can expedite o�� guide the, project .plan calls !or is type; scalb and ' regional impact g the revievr proi:t a .to � a consistency not neces�saritlr clear in this Case ; C4 neutrality,y tier }nvolettient must b6, ;at�TIS_ awn lengt6inoctiiig }im' - tor.otlrdinate the, of The developmment- review process is :; a good 'and tteetro. agettcles to . move tha +:which , should not be' short - circuited It requires, the , project= forarard is inappropriate -- at -least until Metropolitan , Council .,to,. :put - regional interests tie eotiacil's review -p- it been completed. ahead of individual ,deyetopmeat or `political inter- „ 3 a` gists. Pere Vic should let the• Metropolitan CQuncil do 'I halm hew. ahsiSrkment coutd put the its `duty by relieving. Gardebring of the conflict of d 1 her. Y 7 • i1t th ve n is v►hich Gardebring's interest he has created'for „ .. .:� ?Y��' ''�x;...tBL+.�'9'.�F. _:w��ls� .i?i -: �.f!.• � .�.3 : -. Y+.....m .F u- N:.�i.- 0 COIL{ ire toured.. king NIT, r, l : =31" 41_.j985 ° '� . Ylnneanolls Star and Trlbune' en.t.,er:� Lindau/ Bloomington pvFV ISK. ans'v -I.A an111vn- 099O1Fping -• amusement - convention. develop- Why should the convention center Minneapolis business leaders have W. ment they. have proposed for i:. ° be,built in Bloomington? formed a. coalition to seek adown- ltioomington, Minneapolis propo- :> s ` ;town eonventton center. What im- -nents were preparing fora fight 'to• ; It wonfd be tiuilt �6ith. private toads, pact trill this have en your plans?! have the stab's main Convention,. and the'cow&jetion ot.a convention center built In, their.own city. Ran- center In Bloomington, together with .We're not askingMinneapolis for dy Furst interviewed spokesmen - the other. development that Triple permission.to build what we're plan- ' on each.sids Bloomington Mayor Five haspropdsed, wW give Minn- ning to build in Bloomington. So we'll .ismes Undau and Lyall Schwarz- " < ,: sota an-entirely new tourist industry. go ahead with our .project:.. . kopf,, Minneapolis city coordinator Beyond thaWit s close to the airport and lobbyist. Here are excerpts and tt's at the center of an excellent.. transportation system. jin'daa continued ow page 10A _ l i 7- VOtali shoppi —US and U .. . t the difference ` be - spite of that, downtown iVUnnenw.�s •suspec ` has flourished and is a very strong, AreYg that Yon; will `bdld twee>F a Minneapolis convention cern• n' vibrant economy: ;s convention this, `whether Minneapolis bdids ter and "� Biooinin8ton t HH need this convendoa 'venter. � their`cenventio center, or not? ! tenter is ,that in Bloommgto0. entire r flies would come es they dq in for mall to succeed, why do yop~ I suspect; it °wilt be` the yQihe �avay' vim and orlan ac 4 need subsidies to make it go? • around« ,would irroagiae :Ebel We� <. tvouid be ahead of'Minaea�;a lls and . 'Bow can you be sure that this new - Y o 1`he. only subsidies t$at I`have ever" then. the cbo %e''0v11I be `tltlefrs,' tot Bloomington mail_ will, attract 'li ' spoken- of -- and I want to be. very: decide whether they will build 8 con- - s minion to 11 million tourists, as the emphatic atic about this I appeared" vention center When there already is � -6hermezian brothers assert is n amore the d convention aid center: con-: one in place in Bloomington. it reports? '>`tiat would be as on. an t Bl0oattngtan_ �' lr as Disnegf and. s r Would find a way to build a cpnven- x Do you think there' is room in .titer ; K a �r'�4 w xk tion centeF with private capital. And areatfor two major convention eon-a a study) Wag not .ilte �hte�: that; if .We were relieved from the t , +aig w. iC ores as independent group fiscal disparities tae,. that we Would t Maras hired liy the > Triple ;Five i �+ � CtiveF�" the operating losses Qut of ' r icertainly don't: thiNrleres room that concluded that Al millloa; ; those;monies. Those are the only two ' ,�Qr one and I suspect that: any band r - wrists World indeed -come to' this It l That we've ever talked about. M'Or'. ;bond ratingagency`that Woad. j ;'a'ea.1?art:of the reason'is that Min- ; (Note: The fiscal disparities law pro-' veto deal with the ant i8 a .. i iota is eentraity" located. Either ' video that 40 percent of the net 'as= 'a„ooid ccfnveatitiarr aeister bttt ; Maineyland: or .Disney World ISO ' s Qt. taxable- value of a dty's- ry,g ep�, k e extreme edge`of the ;country. i neW cou}mercial and industrial mink th WoWd be::i growth 1s put info a.pool for redistri- Why ; is the cenveadon, eEnter� n' and vrilbe, rte button 811 metro -area municipal ington mall project? Won't a `convention center /�oP',tiY r s , . � 14 ping: center /hotel /entertainanent ' > loomingtQn win contribute tart People are attracted #4� cite; convert - � Vomplez suck business away from i as has happened : cremeat ttnandng� lion center because of ihe`entertala - s .downtown Minneapolis and, from ;: x or deve%prment in w went component. The•)tlnnventibti %, many oft the suburban :malls,.:hurt : �. Minnesota. But Ybeyond'" at we'' center in Bloomington 'wcWd cause mg the region's economy,? r 4 - haven't; talked. albont arq! other kind people to bring their_ entire amities of fisaneln8. 'µ 1F rather, than just the coavention4oer y if (here a ",Quite the contrarre him or herself.:Ttie ,entertainment asiiWon more people to come in here. Gov ith hasysuggested that he's Would be the.. valet �enhaace�1fte,: economy, - by .� give. the: Bioom- yst that. Would: 1tvtill pesfectlWiUing to Sl cause the ,tourists to come here: ,A... ¢k about S5 billion $ Y 'I D'Id MON 1.4 ington.project -the same kind of -moa cwlventiow,center without that ipom Softtddales frotrt � _QwntoWn - Miane� i� that. the' Legislature tnight.4have poitent . is just eaother -buf ld6ag.' So f apolis hurt the. ecanomYv I don t Wn willing a has been inn think'ait of the decisions w the ..- cQnvention�fanWies- that coma° B>itmjrpositto soy._ } than have ►peen; ;made to establish A sect f� Day-A: the subsidies that (or eaartaigmeat will also engage.itt;' ,wherever; they are- should We ate.° ;taking; about are• -to_ build ' t wo been viearect wltl►'some skepa' ' `m re, like Par , 'e amwbY #hedQranioWnarea�:BOt.ln:,j and�eets,andthoseare the.proper,, respollslbility of municipal—govern, went..^ �... 4 r....w 4 r; 7- VOtali shoppi —US and U .. . t the difference ` be - spite of that, downtown iVUnnenw.�s •suspec ` has flourished and is a very strong, AreYg that Yon; will `bdld twee>F a Minneapolis convention cern• n' vibrant economy: ;s convention this, `whether Minneapolis bdids ter and "� Biooinin8ton t HH need this convendoa 'venter. � their`cenventio center, or not? ! tenter is ,that in Bloommgto0. entire r flies would come es they dq in for mall to succeed, why do yop~ I suspect; it °wilt be` the yQihe �avay' vim and orlan ac 4 need subsidies to make it go? • around« ,would irroagiae :Ebel We� <. tvouid be ahead of'Minaea�;a lls and . 'Bow can you be sure that this new - Y o 1`he. only subsidies t$at I`have ever" then. the cbo %e''0v11I be `tltlefrs,' tot Bloomington mail_ will, attract 'li ' spoken- of -- and I want to be. very: decide whether they will build 8 con- - s minion to 11 million tourists, as the emphatic atic about this I appeared" vention center When there already is � -6hermezian brothers assert is n amore the d convention aid center: con-: one in place in Bloomington. it reports? '>`tiat would be as on. an t Bl0oattngtan_ �' lr as Disnegf and. s r Would find a way to build a cpnven- x Do you think there' is room in .titer ; K a �r'�4 w xk tion centeF with private capital. And areatfor two major convention eon-a a study) Wag not .ilte �hte�: that; if .We were relieved from the t , +aig w. iC ores as independent group fiscal disparities tae,. that we Would t Maras hired liy the > Triple ;Five i �+ � CtiveF�" the operating losses Qut of ' r icertainly don't: thiNrleres room that concluded that Al millloa; ; those;monies. Those are the only two ' ,�Qr one and I suspect that: any band r - wrists World indeed -come to' this It l That we've ever talked about. M'Or'. ;bond ratingagency`that Woad. j ;'a'ea.1?art:of the reason'is that Min- ; (Note: The fiscal disparities law pro-' veto deal with the ant i8 a .. i iota is eentraity" located. Either ' video that 40 percent of the net 'as= 'a„ooid ccfnveatitiarr aeister bttt ; Maineyland: or .Disney World ISO ' s Qt. taxable- value of a dty's- ry,g ep�, k e extreme edge`of the ;country. i neW cou}mercial and industrial mink th WoWd be::i growth 1s put info a.pool for redistri- Why ; is the cenveadon, eEnter� n' and vrilbe, rte button 811 metro -area municipal ington mall project? Won't a `convention center /�oP',tiY r s , . � 14 ping: center /hotel /entertainanent ' > loomingtQn win contribute tart People are attracted #4� cite; convert - � Vomplez suck business away from i as has happened : cremeat ttnandng� lion center because of ihe`entertala - s .downtown Minneapolis and, from ;: x or deve%prment in w went component. The•)tlnnventibti %, many oft the suburban :malls,.:hurt : �. Minnesota. But Ybeyond'" at we'' center in Bloomington 'wcWd cause mg the region's economy,? r 4 - haven't; talked. albont arq! other kind people to bring their_ entire amities of fisaneln8. 'µ 1F rather, than just the coavention4oer y if (here a ",Quite the contrarre him or herself.:Ttie ,entertainment asiiWon more people to come in here. Gov ith hasysuggested that he's Would be the.. valet �enhaace�1fte,: economy, - by .� give. the: Bioom- yst that. Would: 1tvtill pesfectlWiUing to Sl cause the ,tourists to come here: ,A... ¢k about S5 billion $ Y 'I D'Id MON 1.4 ington.project -the same kind of -moa cwlventiow,center without that ipom Softtddales frotrt � _QwntoWn - Miane� i� that. the' Legislature tnight.4have poitent . is just eaother -buf ld6ag.' So f apolis hurt the. ecanomYv I don t Wn willing a has been inn think'ait of the decisions w the ..- cQnvention�fanWies- that coma° B>itmjrpositto soy._ } than have ►peen; ;made to establish A sect f� Day-A: the subsidies that (or eaartaigmeat will also engage.itt;' ,wherever; they are- should We ate.° ;taking; about are• -to_ build ' t wo been viearect wltl►'some skepa' ' `m re, like Par , 'e amwbY #hedQranioWnarea�:BOt.ln:,j and�eets,andthoseare the.proper,, respollslbility of municipal—govern, went..^ �... 4 r....w 4 r; I • 0 ` "And. the money, that we, spend, the 1120' >Ytilllon ;plus a►hat;; operating, .;lasses we might ha0e,16 coyer,, '-will . buy aoY just aagte expensive =build tag hilt' an entirely ' new industry for the state of Minnesota. tiwrr° , # '116ne'eearatown, . asiness leader says ,.people'- who,:..gut. on. eonventions< ' idon't *"tan entertainment center °:associated _with a,'cont+entioa� cen - 1 they want; an edneationab cen-: aer with 'it. He says; that's :why-the Las- Vega94W convention center,, is falling out :of favor.. JI Well,, I would- suggest thatthatfgenius tntiy':vbhat's:, happened. in Orlando, Fla.,;'tiecause that certainly doesn't; suggest. that' the people who go to , wconventioq city. are, looking for an - educettonal ezperience And.theres �.gothlAg.to. sayIthat 8 miilion-square- -faoVeonvention center =that: happens = -.,,to be; located close to entertainment,, can't - provide; an educational expert encc., But what. , it wM ' provide ,in Addition, is in entertainment eupert ence : as," people have 1pr'� Orlandd when.tliey've gone to Disney World. , I! the Minneapolis task force ib able to arrive at a single site' for a' -.Minheapolis- convention cemee and make& its can at the. Legislature,-. what's Bloomington goingto do? We'regoing to develop as simple and "straiglitmfoiiard a :package : for the Legislature. as is necessary to. com ' J. Vlete.;he project outhere.'Btoomin� ton and the Triple Fite° Corp. will build this< project:. So I e would since: ply, ask the Legislature' for-authority , to' build; the highways and provide the operating low ,coverage. that ` :,we'v4talked about from Day i , ,'. one of "the. things 'we lueve to, :remember to keep : thisentire project in perspective I is, that Minnesotans were: willing1o. spend $1.3 billion to' attract.,, the Saturn Corp.: Now: we have` someone who -:has- come along and is- willing: to finest virtually, the some amount of money: in a tourism' Industry for the state: If that. project hadn't_ nciuded a convention center, I'd suggest that there would be bands . In-the itreeil to: meet them, and open ,arms towelcome them;: f sSr_7 Nis aft� a .,,wv "Ya Emarxec, studfe& The city of Minneapolis ,.- .:.YOrkwho,dId&sfiidy16rus. an found - that most people who am interested in bringing conventions to MindekMvmnta downtown fadutyi,:,:, The Governors. Commission on Convention Center Fadiitiesd a: Sdhw*61` Since' he was -electik.` 6V I -has. been pushing to'g-'e' t, i nest and jobs Into Minum -j�jperplch is proposint,to,'. 0. largest 'COmplex:41! Its a eowdry,and oae'#`l the 64 4 jects, It, thd stafi�','I& mad &.1oMerd, who am `i oppc�sc °tbfs can til, On 4 Blo' fit this pgrtieula�tirite, °at�c brother �` hem the other `day -that it's 'go*`W-W'R� 4 11% -to" • I JobiC-AA. L have, talked' bu 4monton' they :.have Minne F0 I At" )i4indtho, foxi&6". 1, ible, who Out on conventions A.* 4owntowm area.. Thirdly;'. eAmerican Society of Ion Executives were in t6wo. t;-WaAl . d-a survey of theM also came out saying that uldbring their convention to �9W. 1; we - had: . a- facility and- A Matinue ilraT.pager,IA at 40 percent :efficiency right now, , 60 percent more that they could pro.. duos if .there the business: Ao. A►onidn't It "ii more seam to pntI convention, centerAn A ''single., mpld*, With 8:0 stores, , night-, -clubs, tlieste* an amusement park,-, and restaurants,. -all In one 'coma.. ptej7 . rather than in Minneapolis.: ..where 1. suck Map are spread out. dwoqW.%h6.,who1e downtowit.area?., Y T.he z,ahiwer, 6m the peop le who,, plan ,coiventlons and actually- bring them to your city I% "No." It makes more sensl to have it In a downtown. ,area where people: can move around, where they have great 1f; they are intizekoid, in shopping at an entertainment mall, they - -40 out to that entertainment ermez1ans say It will be thee :,biggesc type, - of complex In the:' couhtry with 840 stores, striets,that., 1091e like different, parts, of, the world,. top-ofitho-IIA4 amusement, Ades,the., largest Indoor lake 'W10 *avew Shouldn't families who > .' 7i&nN iMrd to. go to Disneyland or. Disney World be able to have some thing 1101 this <in their region that their, children can, go to? And If It cas only be built it there's a. con center. with. It, why- block this orolow .1. have'* iduallY mall,"` Th by have . goii ahead and paid oft the Oa V, ape ion's t , �,f, that: their. lease no. longer i6pi,�them, O'downtown and then, moved thbm obt to their store Now that mdank then, w alt" they are doing" Is `,Wa.m , dawn - W -be dow 16W that, to ow1r., are I'lOw.; oft a - the , ablest:: PA- At Afdml:561, there's riot a great it's " 4 binstw of • QV :Ikatlditl6n to thl&,Ift-impori- ..'tent to figure out what happebs. to Hub, the; High - land. :Park AM, Ii SL- Pop%-, rhat. .1-1 happens to Barhiiiiii and -those par ! ttcuisr communities. Will thosesfiqp- -rinte p 410trim M V 11di fro P id P they a dbecaese O Fropesals for to than$ "tong. go, conio'U"'M164 ' Eomonton. - They can bkd& shops, they can build their, ew:,, . . . . . . . . . . malt, they can have tertainm d WOuldarre th am':union everybody can enjoy It. The conven- jobs, at $6 an hour, woikiu$- in ft _n,,,,�,-,Illoncenter., a-lossleader concrete', factory? 14,,-,the coacreie factory in competition to,, that major business i R factories In the :metro !Area? lft my., t sdeft4re opposed to- it/because understanding going to hurt their own pocket- !0 been reading that our present con-, books?; crete fiictoriis lithe metro area,, an - �;� � - V' SS1- f 0 is . • '4': �.r., ; �+M1 x� .;T. SS+M ;i � � � . rY' �..r ,F,rl ,� .YK+ 1 :don ft, knoWO ft t for a fact: I havtW- waM a go to FantasyIaad, they�d6zA heard one businessman say that. My ' want 10 =;ga to Disney World, Ahey � .:general. feeling_:is that,. I think that _ 'want to -go to-. downtown.ar -And this 1 large: a, facility, this facility is " that's where T ,most of ihentiwant to three and'a half;Southdales, imagine take tbeir conventions. ; the 'traffic,. Imagine the parldng. ° ' Think of'the gdw_ highways that the I thinks therefore, we will always be public .tlas,10 built ;the : sewers that successful with our facility. We know_: the public has tc�:put n;'the electri ;�-wt>m our limits _are:. Our limits are that a.be, done we Og000' t now. That's cat-work t has DO :. squats fee right., really want than or eto we prefer to : the kin `bf =conventionwe can at see the sb'opptn- Eenters spread out tract. K;dW..future iC¢an go up to'` :more mound t» metropolitan area ' 500,00f# ; uare feet. liWe kn6w.4hat r� so: lsean fd .them . Basil so we : Attract a :iitltoar. y the sae ishop easitg and so ythey food co e�ntioa. We `l—M that, we don't b other people? tpete. wit+h� Vegas, with t`M i� ar n andwitit 'IiCSgO'sC ;Saw susti eeater,in Bloom Ciirmice z F�F ington pump millions and millions r Y ot.doilr ipt* the re a, into the &A eate in lYiinne- ecoaom > a r ka apolis' abant ol6ere' fe build; his ` S� �� t F1>lYientiba center. If the situ: for You dal carair$ conventSo . Inneapoii can't bed settled oxpe When you are. a visftitr o>• a tourist, 'd3tiouslyxdoesr;Minneapolie� deserve , ,west potrbuy iamay6e a dress, ynay to have a soavent%a neater? , , pair. Oi IOeSbe may Some kniCkknackg 0 bt3ntg home; z'Ate; ottnci lit oOt 4-0 Aca nod - aboub" something like- 'that�y but you don't §stir Two�at�e rduncii uaiem -. buy the tic et items. Now the bigi bets are . Most; oC the roundi them - tickefitetbs a ;also ft: ism# at ..;hers : -d 6erpeid. about building legit it , iM;, i to ::Edmonton' •', ,this'f ity -now, in' downtown Mtn :Mall Tftaf nteansthat.the saaie.dot� ' neapQlisjbeoause ove are lasing cow ;lad are :being°'s {it's just .being- vennong'that wee traditionally have. spent at a different place.,. We haves list of=57 conventions that: pave. here, avant to. come -back, 'ion Bay yotr;vviii ga ahead with-the "' b can't because . our. _facilities.- are Minneapolis : convention center,: no "tov small: matter, what: Suppose. that ;the Ghiimezian. brothers, do_ *i .same« 1think that the mayor's and council's:'. Can thg'on support two soaves» as>F iorce on site now will settle the tioa seaters? J Lei gnestidn once and ' for all: It is _ a:� „ �y� ` •* understanding by reading about , Moa I hnk that we wW move meadAnd � 1U ness community .h front all. indications. of our studies, , . lag .they also. will: support whatever and ourStudiessnow are: with tradt r „that site might be. And'so I -don't tional American convention't�nanag tti"ere's going -to be a • lot of ers, we,will be successful: TheydonT cont6versy about.a. site any longer 'vans to L11Weyland, they don't .t ,. .sina.JaSY, A r R `� —- a as ... a � s z: Y? r ' f -. r .� '°O p KWON � a c SHIA 62-1 ` I O a� 7 tL s i AiffKill $Q t 4: °. all '? V+�'b a l a' apt lisp IS '1y1 -�lI ISm maid U� ;. -� s.Af B Vi arm 'g a R'. AC O A V .3 d. :a o. O a ay 3 w 1-AA '�+ $ a G 3 a. F NO 46 rre a lam to IL 4 Q ID owl 0 ..A��CL R ..ile N Q r► 89— s irkA 4-a' 96- r G� a'A ��4l,C:p O'er a •3, a A 3 Q C� o . -::0 i..< ° &S.g es a+S °a a ft� 06 av s" fitt'` =o.�5...�Q�:.�3p'¢° qag e "M�� a� 3 p3 »� a xrs.. c s ($� ar flop cr a c 3�_s ee m Q SSpp p � A.Sig. Mig`O A'aA.A ro e Q F� QA O ma..r'g� ao 3't. A B �o• s a� Vs c Ac�oedAO. o F,d�s�o Q,R s2 CL rto a -. 0 $ Jim �o a..g8o=.:`o 't 8.Igt�~ SSI -/l nn 01M .Stagy a . _ and Tribune Estabiiehea 1867 � r spy' N:'��'�F` $=y�`� �S`K'g7mRo9er.PariCinsgn Polisher end President X�x py a xy x 7ts'AVa ty�rK4xw y ��s y�Joet K �anier/,E�xecu�t�i�v�e�g� �% r•T�iVY Ire 'nw E s y' Editorial Editor 4A * va4 W tea v� ,k x ednesday; July 10 1985 3N # a 3 s s x �� ... • • �^K ink _ �z* 'r z�n fi- /'. - .:> t �. 4 E'It1 r rs the r:�ght d�v ;� a elQpment took op of loci the raiment has SraWn:. taster " But'abolishi I" quarter CeltturY -- or aron.�ied; more ng ax;increnient Hnancing,..w. as man y mtxdd leelings thaw the' Aromotfoa of real�estate including' the..league;: pr _'not; by; itself a de eiopmeIIt Driven ' iy Pressures to easWera Taint tlnaa stimulate "local `ecoatimi_ "mom availatile.to.dfies fevelo e or, '' lf_ Grad well { o - ftlnaaang. Ii it is to be abolished, i d p• petition from , otber comet _ m cities 'have unities o x x the p is the IanaiIIg almost nyutiae`o�miiite thaf reps y �W clag, ot,private , the 7acement, the,league that proms; ,Legislature allow.Minnesota cities to ap p�_: g UAW need ate money directly into redevelopment benetiaal. ltsut fire use ot`public.dollars to file !wads for:close tile, wow L IcetAl = also ly reggulated- urban. pw • utj Besides providing more accountability. such - sarlien some e ati approach should also °doia'l� appear to develop better use:pt public A x oPiaeAt Bid Meaawhil f s mg Would -mgt flaanc- ,Y x;� be phased gut over a period of theoavihtegsr seems sound. It ma Years. . on in= develop- be made lew Y Welt deserve to alpatated Y'. rspeated.atte t:,'}he.. ' i«imp� Ya pt$Cti( ; ,parti'cular'terget-.has, bee FOT While_ the 1 cremeIIt linen eague questloas the & ".wader which cities Pro- and. extent o! deveio current methods aid by borro Pment assistaQce by does, its in tanreveiliies' 'the. ins repots adds up to a Solid 'endorsement of, a contin- espected to begenerated bq wed active:;aty role' in "W>1ila; the device Worirs .well, is {the. Promoting development. In it is such; a painless and aims invisi- league's Words, city -offiaals have >a legitimate r money that. 16: under ieW ,concern about, the. quality; ; design, location and M lcLcOastraints. As the Citizens a notes- 's of: .deveiopment, and they have a`vision of i» a ae report highly crlticsi of t meat 'community's suture. Cities IIeed an appropri- financing it caw be used, foi• financial tool to help atl�t J 48L1lO� any develop• Legislature should mgge vlsiotierializei The x , t elite th f i.+%A R`.W.lL .M.f ":a6c� :U¢�+1a ✓_4,�`5�lV.a ... . .ri...F, u... 4.. V , i.. .._4:?f,..�v,2 � I 1 I I ec 0 m 0 to =zl = = 9; -1 10, CL 0 ::V =* M E; C CL.4- to * � 23 w - W .==- =*er-M. < 1 0 P.- rA N 2, &-g r Cr 0.0 g W G ir 'A cr: d C�� r n fD O M-Z A • IL 1p. W CL CA M'w 8 S M-0 am act cr = CA Cr JD 00 23 A rA on, .0 M, Mr va co m W IMA W rA O EL MJ. 0 tip 03 'Ir cs 2 go" 3 rA M. M 0 • 0 FA -2 = W P-ft it su f A ec 0 m 0 to =zl = = 9; -1 10, CL 0 ::V =* M E; C CL.4- to * � 23 w - W .==- =*er-M. < 1 0 P.- rA N 2, &-g r Cr 0.0 g W G ir 'A cr: d C�� r n fD O M-Z A • IL 1p. W CL CA M'w 8 S M-0 am act cr = CA Cr JD 00 23 A rA on, .0 M, Mr va co m W IMA W rA O EL MJ. 0 tip 03 'Ir cs 2 go" 3 rA M. M 0 • 0