01-26-87 agenda
R
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 30
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Selection of a developer for the Graham Avenue area site.
Background:
The HRA has been presented with three development concepts for
the Graham Avenue site. Proposals were made by Walker Methodist.,
Trestman-Shaller, and Tushie-Derrick. Near the end of December,
1986, Walker Methodist withdrew their proposal. The Trestman-
Shaller proposal was withdrawn at the public meeting on January
21, 1987. The Tushie-Derrick proposal for a mixed use
development known as Landmark Center remains.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that staff be authorized to initiate
negotiations on behalf of the HRA with the developers of the
proposed Landmark Center and that staff request the City Council
to concur in the selection of Tushie-Derrick as developer and
authorize negotiations on their behalf.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Landmark Center is a development concept which is appropriate
for the site. The approximate distribution of floor area
usage is 10.5% residential, 12.5% retail, 14.4% office-
medical, 43.7% garage, 13.3% VFW, and 5.6% miscellaneous
usage. The mixed use proposal would be well suited for the
area.
2. There is a market for additional office and retail space.
3. The below market rent housing would help the community
achieve a long sought goal.
4. All of these uses are contained within a structure which
is sensitively and attractively designed.
5. The tax increment to be generated from this site, while not a
primary consideration, is favorable.
6. Using parking generation data published by the Urban Land
Institute and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, BRW,
the city's planning consultant, has determined the number of
spaces proposed to be adequate.
7. At the January 21 information meeting, Mr. Shaller, owner of
Big Wheel Auto Parts and Mr. Trestman, owner of Trestman
Music, indicated they have reached agreement with Tushie-
Derrick regarding their future. Mr. Shaller has reaffirmed
1 retail store as a tenant
his intent to operate a Big Whee
mark Center. Mr. Trestman will relocate his business
of. Land
from the site. Both Mr. Shaller and Mr. Trestman would
become partners in the .development.
8. The VFW also indicated their continued support for the
concept. Their goal is not only to be a tenant, but also
part owners of Landmark Center.
9. Mr. Rules, owner of the Cricket Photo facility, is also in
support of the project, assuming he can remain on the site.
~ /3- i
}
Tushie-Derrick have worked out a tentative agreement with him
as well as with the Lynch and Davis families for their
property.
10. Preliminary traffic analysis indicates that with a modest
level of improvements, the streets could carry the
additional traffic.
11. Public utilities are adequate to handle the new building.
Attached to this letter is the evaluation form initially
presented to the HRA in October, 1986 and updated at each of the
HRA meetings which followed. in November, December, and finally
this month of January. (Exhibit A)
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Reject. the Landmark proposal, and solicit for new
redevelopment proposals which would exclude the LSD owned lot
from the redevelopment.
This parcel was originally purchased by the HRA and subse-
quently sold to Knutson Construction Company for inclusion in
the condominium site. At the time of the sale to Knutson,
the HRA included restrictions in the deed which prohibited
the owners from constructing any building on that site.
The Condominium Association has filed a Declaration of Open
Space Covenants and Easement against the property running in
favor of each owner of the Lake Shore Drive Condominiums.
Each owner has a perpetual, non-exclusive easement over the
property. Reaching an agreement on this parcel may be
difficult. Additionally, some residents of the Lake Shore
Drive condominium hold the opinion that the city agreed to
never permit any construction- on that site.
Some condominium owners also believe that the HRA has a
contractual obligation to offer for purchase the Davis/Lync h
properties. There was such a provision in an agreement with
Knutson Construction, but it expired on June 1, 1982.
Presently, Tushie-Derrick has a purchase option for the two
parcels, and the HRA will not obtain title to the property.
2. Reject the proposal on the basis of concerns of the Lake
Shore Drive condominiums owners that construction of the
Landmark building would have an adverse impact on their
property.
Residents from Lake Shore Drive have reported that
their property values have decreased because of construction
of Wood Lake Point and Market Towers. They fear that the
Landmark Building would have a similar impact.
A discussion with the city assessor indicated that he was
• unaware of any such decreases. Lee Maxfield, the marketing
specialist retained by the HRA, has expressed some concern
about values. Brad Bjorklund, an independent appraiser
~.i~'-
}
consulting with the city, has indicated that it would be
difficult to justify a decrease in value for Lake Shore
Drive condominium units on the basis of construction by the
.Landmark building.
It should be noted, however, that as a result of the concerns
initially expressed by Lake Shore Drive residents, the length
of the east/west leg of the Landmark Center has already been
shortened to minimize the impact on the condominiums. To
illustrate-the ortion of the Landmark Buildin in relation
P 9
to LSD, the proposed building site has been staked. Blue
stakes indicate the most westerly portion of the building,
which would be constructed on top of the parking facility.
The red stakes indicate the westerly portion of the original
plan.
3. Abandon efforts to rehabilitate the Graham Avenue area
because of neighborhood opposition. A copy of a letter
recently received from Mr. Russel Helleckson, President of
Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association is attached.
(Exhibit B) His letter raises a number of concerns regarding
the proposed development of the Graham Avenue site. Staff's
response is also attached. (Exhibit C)
4. Seek modifications to the Landmark proposal. Since the
Landmark proposal is a mixed use, some aspects may be
modified if there are particular problems with the proposed
use. However, it is also likely that some aspects of the
development cannot be modified without endangering the
financial feasibility of the project.
A summary of remarks made at a community meeting held on
January 21, 1987 is attached. (Exhibit D). Only a portion.
of the people who were to be invited received an invitation.
Those people who were not invited to the meeting on January
21, 1987 have received an invitation to the HRA meeting on
January 27, 1987, and have been invited to contact the staff
if they wish to review any information prior to the January
27, 1987 meeting.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The Tushie-Derrick proposal was first presented to the HRA on
September 29, 1986, approximately four months ago. At each
meeting since that time, there has been discussion of the
conce t. Virtuall ever issue identified to date has been
P Y Y
examined. A final determination of some issues is appropriate
only if designation of Tushie-Derrick as the developer is
provided by the HRA. Some of the issues which require additional
analysis include environmental assessment, traffic impact, value
and purchase process for the lot owned by Lake Shore Drive, the
amount of subsidy to be provided by the HRA, the amount of money
the HRA is to receive in return for its assistance, the rent
levels for the 48 units, the number of years rent is to be below
market rate, rezoning of the site, and final design plans.
/3
The City Council is requested to attend a joint meeting of the
HRA in order that. they may indicate their opinion regarding this
development proposal. The City Council will be asked to adjourn
their meeting of 1/26 to 1/27 for this purpose.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
.City anager
JDP/eja
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSAL: TUSHIE-DERRICK (LYNDAEE PARTNERS)
1. Development team:
-identify memCers
-experience with. similar projects
-financial capaClity to ce determined
Developer: Lyndale Partners (Tushie/Derrick/Shaller/Trestman
Architect: Tushie Montgomery and Associates
Contractor: Bossardt/C?~ristianson
New partnership, memCers of the partnership have mixed use
development experience in cooperation with local government.
Thefinal membership is still Ceing determined.
2. Brief description of overall project and comments regarding
building height, location, shadows, etc.
I
Copy of preliminary site plan and revised site plan, is
attached. "Landmark Center" is a stepped 5 story mixed use
development with five distinct uses: Office (31,700 square
feet), VFW (48,600 square feet), residential (38,300 square
feet), retail (45,600 square feet) medical (21,000 square
feet), garage (159,600 square feet) and circulation space all.
floors (14,000 square feet). Also included is 6,600 square
feet of mechanical space. Total land area needed. for the
project approximates 4.8 acres with the building set Cack
from Tyndale Avenue and Lake Shore Drive to accommodate
parking to the front.
There are 282 surface parking stalls and 498 parking stalls
within a privately owned ramp. The first level, primarily
retail and VFW .uses, covers 55,100 square feet of floor area
and is reduced to 24,900 square feet in the fifth level. The
length of the east/west "leg" has been reduced to improve
site lines and traffic circulation. With the reduction in
length, none of the Lake Shore Drive units (LSD) would Ce in
a shadow. Only a small portion of LSD site would be shadowed
but this area is already in a shadow from the existing trees.
All present uses would be relocated: VFW, Cricket Photo, Sig
Wheel, Trestman, Lynch, and Davis. The vacant lot owned by
the condominium would ~e needed for the development.
3. Site lines; on site, off site i
It has been represented Cy the developer that the mature tree
line closely .approximates the fourth level of the Cuilding. ~i
However, it is not clear how many existing trees would
remain.. Since the development would Ce built directly
-sue
adjacent tp LSD Condominium development, the screening,
terming and planting that occurs to the. north side of the new
building would be on LSD property for LSD to maintain. With.
the new design, additional landscaping and plant materials
have been added along the edge of the property line shared
with LSD. The rear delivery driveway and receiving area
would be screened wits a canopy. An intended use restriction
would prevent large semi truck trailers from servicing the
development. =ighteen feet of green space is provided along
Lyndale with the new Cricket Photo located within a corner
plaza. The entire first floor of the building is accessible
from the Lyndale Avenue elevation even though the grade
changes .significantly along Lake Shore Drive. Under round
9
ramp parking will fill in ~rihere the grade changes. All
mechanical equipment would be enclosed in a penthouse.
4. Density; lot coverage, massing, number of housing units and
parking spaces,. square footage of uses, open space
The building covers SS,I00 square feet, approximately 26
percent of the total land area. The number of levels gives
it a "mid-rise" configuratidn in comparison to high rise
development on adjacent areas. The stepped floor
arrangement 55,100 square feet on first, 47,700 square feet
on second, 41,900 square feet on the third, 36,200 square
feet on the fourth, 24,900 square feet on the fifth, reduces
the building mass to land coverage ratio. Forty eight (48)
units of lower cost rental housing are proposed: 40-1
bedroom, 2-2 bedroom, 2-1 bedroom and den, 4-efficiencies.
There would be designated parking stalls for the residential
use. Other uses would chars the parking referred to in Item
~~2 above.
The developers have indicated they will be providing 780
parking spaces on the site. Current city parking guidelines
do not address the parking needs for the VFW and a mixed use
project as proposed. The planning consulting firm of 8RW
reviewed the proposed parking against Urban Land Institute
and Institute of Transportation Engineers standards and their
experience and determined it to be adequate.
5. Identification of development site boundary:
-ability to secure sits control
-consensus of opinion by affected owners
-resolution of site restrictions
The Lyndale Partners have secured a purchase agreement from
homeowners Lynch and Davis. Although Shaller, Trestman, and
VFW have all made individual plans for there own buildings,
they also appear receptive to being included in the new
• development. (Discussions are continuing on this item). In
a land trade with the developer, the owner of Cricket Photo
would be relocated to a new building designed for the corner.
_ / ~
Y Y
LSD owns a key parcel in the development area. Them are
restrictive covenants on the LSD parcel and other parcels
which would require condemnation to eliminate. The
condemnation could result in payment of damages.
b. Traffic Analysis:
-offstreet parking, internal and external circulation
(loading, access to various uses)
-capacity of adjacent streets
-conflicts with existing public street improvements
Based on a preliminary analysis by staff, the TushielDerrick
proposal may result in a portion of Lyndale Avenue (from
Lakeshore Drive to 67th Street) being over its design
capacity. If left turn lanes were constructed at the
Lakeshore Drive and Lyndale Avenue intersection, the design
capacity would not be exceeded. The design capacity of
Lakeshore Drive may be exceeded. However, if on-street
parking is prohibited on Lakeshore Drive to maintain two
lanes of traffic in each direction, the likelihood that its.
design capacity would be exceeded would be minimized.
If this proposal is selected, additional traffic analysis by
consultants would be needed concerning peak hour traffic
volumes, level of service, and turning movements to determine
more specifically any problems and if additional signals or
other intersection improvements such as turning lanes would
be necessary.
7. Compatit•ility:
-adjacent uses (LSD, Lyndale Hardware,
Shaller-Trestman, Cricket Photo, VFW)
-redevelopment district
-buffering
-The proposed development has accommodated the retail uses
into a strip retail center. Discussions with owners and the
relationship to LSD and Lyndale Hardware have been initiated
and are continuing. The developer has indicated, that the
owner of Lyndale Hardware is supportive of their concept.
Developers oosition:
~ -Cricket Photo remains a separate wilding for photo studio
and processing work. (Staff is not yet totally comfortable
with this concept).
-VF'A will be concerned if additional restaurants utilize the
retail space.
-LS~J will have to be satisfied with the buffering and
driveway uses.
-rVaste disposal to be handled internally
_ o
Looking odors at th,. V. .V should be considered in develo in
P 9
final plans.
8. Marketability of use, need, lease up
The developer has indicated that discussions are underway
tivith users who .are interested in approximately 53 percent of
the space.
Primary tenant would be VF~~!
-48,600 square feet leased with an ownership position in the
development.
(The VF'/V does pay property taxes)
Retail Space (45,600 square feet)
The amount of retail space has been increased about 11,000
square feet to accommodate demand.
-Sh311er & Trestman may locate in a portion of this space
`Medical (21,000 square feet)
Meta Partners of Cleveland with a local office in Edina Fvould
lease this space and then sublease to professional medical
people.
Office (31,700 square feet)
This space was reduced by almost 50~ from the original
concept. The VF~I and Tushis-Montgomery would occupy a
portion of this space.
Housing (38,300 square feet)
The rental housing would meet Section 8/Section 202 design
requirements and be very affordable if the proposed rents
ranging from $319 to $490/month can be achieved. There is a
need for this type of opportunity.
9. Summary of estimated project costs: Iii
-net construction
-architectural
-parking
-site
-financing
-profit
Building Construction $10,613,000
leasehold Improvements $ 2,008,400
Site Costs ~ 890,000 (utilities, demolition,
grading, soil prep,
.surface parking,
landscape)
Land $ 2,000,000
Financing Costs $ 2,589,116
Marketing $ 389,225
Contingency $ 1,059,462
Total $21,006,203
Requested HRA Assistance ($2,031,886)
Net Development Costs $18,974,317
City/NRA subsidy could take several forms: land writedown,
public improvements, tax increment interest reduction. The
HRA has already incurred costs of approximately $250,000 to
acquire the 3 parcels on Graham Avenue. Utility relocation
would require an additional $50,000 to $75,000, Negotiations
would determine who paid that expense as well as the return
to the HRA for the assistance which would be provided.
10. Timing/phasing of project:
A 15 month construction period is anticipated. Construction
would likely begin-during the summer of 1987. The VFW,
Shaller, and Cricket ?hoto uses would remain while the ramp
parking and building foundation was initiated.
To permit the phasing, interim parking at other locations
would have to be identified.
11. City and HRA role:
-formation of tax increment district project boundary
-zoning considerations
-financial assistance
-acquisition/clearance
-displacement
-puClic improvements
An Economic Development TIF district would have to be
established. It would encompass that portion of the site now
within the LHPJ and the balance of the site. An analysis by
Evensen-Dodge of the impact of deleting five parcels from the
LHN indicates that all the outstanding bonds for the LHN
could still be paid off by 2002 with the possibility of an
early call.
- 9
A $2.,031,886 subsidy is Ceing requested, which could take the
form of land writedown, installation of puClic improvements,
and tax increment interest reduction. Thus the HRA would be
involved in site assemCly, however not directly in purchase
negotiations. A preliminary cash flow analysis Cy
~vensen Dodge indicates that the project would Ce self-
. supporting during a period of eight years.
In return, 48 units of rental housing for lower income
elderly is planned. Below market rents may continue for up
to 20 years.
Neither dousing Revenue Bonds nor IDRB's for the commercial
development would he utilized.
The entire development would Ce privately owned.
12. Consistency with city zoning ordinance requirements
The site would require rezoning to a PJD. It would prohaCly.
exceed the guidelines concerning maximum floor area.
However, a variance would not ~e required. Also the
Comprehensive Plan may re-quire amendment.
i3. Revenue to Ce realized from development including land
proceeds Tax .increment.
At this point, the developer has not volunteered to pay for
land owned ~y the HRA. However, it is anticipated that this
:would Ce an item. of negotiation.
A preliminary cash flow analysis of the proposal does
indicate that it would "e self-supporting. The TIF district
-would he of 8 years duration from the receipt of the first
increment.
(As indicated in numCer 9 move, the HRA has already expended
approximately $250,000 in the purchase and management of 3
parcels in Graham Avenue).
14. Environmental review process-EAW required
An EAW would ~e necessary because the development exceeds the
300,000 square feet building area threshold. This document
would Ce the responsi~ility of the developer to Ce reviewed
cy staff prior to suCmittal to the City Council.
15. Demand on existing puClic services, puClic improvements
The pudic sewer and water utilities in the-area are adequate
to service this development. However, plans for handling
~o
storm water runoff should be closely studied. If an
extensive amount of public amenities would become necessary
which require intensive public maintenance a special
assessment district would be necessary similar to the LHN.
The demand for emergency medical services could incrsase with
48 units. of housing but would not require additional city
personnel be hired. Additional police service should not be
needed.
16. Housing element feasibility:
-management
-target market (low income target?)
-rents
-arrangement of common spaces in mixed use. concept
-separation from commercial uses
-amenities, services, support for residents
-unit size and type
Developing the housing portion according to HUD's Section
202/Section requirements, would produce the lowest practical
cost. The units would range in size from 430 s.f. for an
efficiency to 875 s.f. for a two bedroom. The efficiency
units would rent for $319/month beginning in 1988. One
bedroom units would have rents at $380/month. The ..one
bedroom plus den would rent for $437/month and the two
bedroom units would beat $490/month. A community room of
2,400 square feet •,vould be provided on the 5th floor along
with a laundry. The community room would have space for a
library, and arts and crafts. Marketing and management
services would be by a nonprofit health related organization.
The emphasis would be on marketing to Richfield residents.
The affordable housing option may remain for up to the life
of the tax increment project that is developed to encompass
the development.
17. Employment Opportunities
The developer has indicated jobs on-site during construction
would approximate 78. .Jobs in the completed office, retail,
medical and VFW facilities would approximate 289.
18. Public reaction
This developer has met on several occasions with the
residents of Lakeshore Drive Condominium. The residents are
concerned about loss of vietiv from their living units. The
revised design proposal reduces that impact. They have also
met on at least one occasion with the residents of Woodlake
Point. They too are concerned about views and the impact on
their units.
(yA`~ Mlr..iry, ,.~Y • t• ~
,
t. 1 ~ ~
` - ~ ( - 7'11 .,.k . ~~-~~':itl: +
rt••''ti~f'i !,,.'Frt...
t ~ ~ -
~ •~,t,~ tj.< 1 f
/
~ r r - ~ r i t
a I ~
. + I
1
I
r
, I
I
r. ~ I
II
+t
I
tt i I
1
I I ti
I
II
~ I
> . ~ II ~
+ ~ . I ~ .
'I
4;,~, Rees e
~'1~.
. \
' ~ ) REVISED PLAN
~ MGM n
~
` `
r / ~ ! l ~ ~ j i-.
1 - r r' ~ l r
~ 1/ / /
• y ~ ~
~ ~ / •1
/r,
.
1
r
~ J -
~ -
~ ~
J
,
1------
/ ~ / c~ ~ ~
i
~ '
l~ 11 ( ' ~ r i r~ ~ ~ C _
r ' l r-
J _
t ~ wl \ l ~ ~rrl ll l ~i rr ~ I'r. ~ll !~~ll///r/ / //l
/ ,
~
~
.
• 5
I 1 I .I I. I I I I 1
I
•
i
-
.:a t ~ _
- ~ EX~;IBIT B
LAKE SHORE DRIVE MANAGED
~r12Y0f ~ . BY THE
HEALTH
CUyrr') _ ! ?6615 LAKE SHORE DRIVE • RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423 • cb12~ s61as9s CENTRAL
~ SYSTEM
c~~ ?
Clerk S~fr`r~ December 30, 1986
Mr. Thomas E. Harms
Chairman of HRA
6400 Morgan Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
Mr. Harms,
The Board of Directors of Lake Shore Drive at their
December 16th meeting decided not to poll our residents on the .
proposed development on the Graham site. We feel it would be
difficult to get a true reaction. We have some residents who
feel they were promised that nothing would be built that would
interfere with our building. This is the real vocal group. We
have a number of residents that favor an acceptable development.
A large number of residents have voiced no strong opinion on
this development, especially the residents on the north side of
Lake Shore Drive.
The Board of Directors still favor the Trestman-Shallar proposal
as we stated in our previous letter to you. If the Trestman-Shallar
is turned down, the choice would be between the Tushie-Derrick
proposal and the Walker-Methodist proposal. In an .informal poll
of the Board of Directors, the majority favor the Tushie-Derrick
proposal over the Walker-Methodist proposal in case the Trestman-
Shallar proposal is turned down. This is not a unanimous decision
of our Board because several members do not favor either the Tushie-
Derrick or Walker-Methodist proposal.
Attached to this letter is a list of concerns about this
development compiled by the Ad Hoc Committee appointed to Study the
Proposed Development Concepts for the Graham Avenue Development Site.
I am leaving Richfield shortly for a 3 month period so I will
not be available for the next HRA meeting. I hope this information
can be of help to your committee.
Russel L: Helleckson
President, Board of Directors
Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association
• cc: City Manager Jim Prosser ,
-/J`
CONCERNS
Potential problems arising from the Walker-Methodist and Tushie-Derrick
proposals
1. If developers and/or owners cannot meet payment on the bonds,
the City of Richfield must do so.
2. Hub-Nicollet-Lyndale tax increment district will require a
considerable increase in this bonding to cover the proposed
developments. What is Richfield's limit on this bonding?
Both Moody's and Standard and Poore's weighs total indebtedness
in setting credit ratings.
3. There is already a heavy concentration of seniors in the Lyndale-66th
Street area. Problems this may raise are:
a. Will the increased traffic adversely affect the pedestrian
traffic by seniors?
b. Will there be an increase in crime, given the fact that
seniors are more vulnerable to crimes against the person
such as assault and rape and robbery than other groups?
c. How will. the concentration of seniors affect the businesses
in the area, and what businesses will they attract?
d. Will a large population of seniors (many on fixed incomes)
tend to resist future bond issues for such things as schools?
4. Since the taxes from property developed through tax increment
financing must be used to pay off the bonds, tax benefits will
not accrue to Richfield for about 20 years. In the meantime will
the rest of the taxpayers of the city be subsidizing the delivery
of services - water, sewers, health, police, and fire - to the area?
5. Will the water and sewer s stems in the L dale-66th area accomodate
Y Yn
the increased demands upon them?
b. How will the increased noise and pollution levels during construction
and afterwards affect Wood Lake Nature Center?
7. Since the Tushie-Derrick developers say that the subsidized.
housing in their plan would be subsidized by the other (commercial)
occupants of the complex rather than by federal funds, how long
will that subsidy continue? Will the City Qf Richfield have to
contribute to that subsidy?
8. Both the Walker and Tushie-Derrick organizations suggest housing
development bonds to finance the housing components of their
proposals. How will these bonds be retired from the profits
from subsidized housing in either platy if built?
, . %-i~
9. How much of a demand is there for housing for seniors at the
suggested rental rates in the metropolitan area?
10. Will an environmental impact statement be provided even if not
required?
r
•
I
January 16, 1987 EXHIBIT C
* Russel L. Helleckson
President, Board of Directors
Lake Shore Drive Condominium Association _
C'7 6615 Lake Shore Drive
N Richfield, MN 55423
d'
~ Oear Mr. Helleckson,
~ Thank you for your letter of December 30, 1986
regarding the Graham Avenue site. The questions
attached to that letter, which were prepared by the
y ad hoc committee, indicate they have been doing
~ their job well.
= Accompanying this letter are answers to those
~ questions which I hope you will find helpful. If
you want to discuss any of this information further,
please contact me.
~ Sincerel
Y~
~
James D. Prosser
City Manager
~ cc: Fred Moore
Lake Shore Drive Condominium, ~~500
O ~ 6615 Lake Shore Drive
= Richfield, MN 55423
L JDP/dh
0
Q.
Q
telephone: 869-7521 (612)
an equal opportur?ity employer
1. "If developers and/or owners .cannot meet payment on the bonds,
the City of Richfield must do so".
Assuming that the question is directed at tax increment general
obligation redevelopment bonds, the statement is correct.
However, there are several techniques used to reduce the risk and
assure the city a sufficient tax increment cash flow to payoff
the bonds. 1) A developer's agreement is negotiated. As a part
of this process, the capability of the developer to finance the
.development is assessed. The agreement is a legally binding
contract committing the developer, HRA and city to do certain
things within a stated time frame. 2) Ther° is a document known
as An Assessor's Certification. It establishes the minimum
market value of the property for tax purposes. The minimum
market value reflects an appropriate value for both the
improvements and the amount of tax revenue needed for debt
service on the bonds.. The minimum market value cannot be legally
challenged. 3) There is a Deficiency Agreement. This agreement;
within limitations established by the IRS, requires the developer
to pay cash to the city in any year that the tax revenue is less
than that which is needed for debt service. Finally, and most
importantly, a lender is usually involved in financing the
private development. They area=concerned about protecting their
investment. If a developer is unable to complete a project, it
is likely. the lender would step in to complete it. The Tushie-
Derrick proposal has an opportunity to be very successful. because
between 50-60% of the rentable space has identifiable potential
tenants already interested. For this site, the risk would be
further reduced because it is likely the bonds would be paid off
in eight years.
2. "Hub/Nicollet/Lyndale tax increment district will require a
considerable increase in this bonding to cover the proposed
developments. What is Richfield's limit on this bonding?
Both Moody's.and Standard and Poore's weighs total
indebtedness in setting credit ratings".
It is likely that to provide a site for the Tushie-Derrick ~i
.proposal, a new tax increment project would be created separate
from the Tyndale/Hub/Nicollet project (LHN). Five tax parcels
would be deleted from the LHN and combined with parcels south of
Auto Lane (the alley). Evensen-Dodge, a private consulting firm
which advises the city on financial matters including bonds, has
analyzed the impact of deleting these five parcels from the LHN.
The impact is negligible. That is, it has been projected that
all the outstanding LHN bonds could be paid off by the year 2002.
With the deletion of the parcels, the projected bond payoff
remains 2002. (_It is possible that projected reserves could
result in an earlier payoff).
There is not an absolute dollar limit on the amount of bonds
which may be sold. The ability of Richfield to sell bonds is
based on a combination of factors. Moody's Investment Services
rates a bond issue. The rating is based upon the financial
condition of the issuer (city) and the security of the bond issue
itself. The buyers in the market place look to the rating of the
bond issue to establish the desirability of the bonds as an
investment.
In 1977 Richfield's credit rating,~by Moody's, was set at Aa. II
This :vas at a time when large amounts of bonds were being issued
fdr street improvements and the LHN. This is a very goad rating
as only 13 of 855 cities in Minnesota hold it. Only two cities
- in Minnesota hold a higher rating of Aaa. The most recent review
of Richfield's credit rating was at the time of a bond sale in
March of 1986. Moody'§ confirmed the Aa rating at that time.
The amount of bonding required for the Tushie-Derrick proposal at
this time appears to be approximately two million dollars.
3. "There is already a heavy concentration of seniors in the
Lyndale-66th Street Area. Problems this may raise are:
a. Will the increased traffic adversely affect the pedestrian
traffic by seniors?
It is the objective of the city to minimize the conflicts. between j
pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic. Goals of the LHN are to
encourage pedestrian traffic and, at the same time, assure
pedestrian safety. A part of the redevelopment process has
resulted in the installation of pedestrian crosswalks and signals
and an extensive sidewalk system. A high level of maintenance
provides for good snow removal services as well during the
winter.
However, the Tushie/Derrick proposal will increase traffic in the II
area. Staff is aware that some people feel there is a problem ~i
with pedestrian safety already and the Tushie/Derrick proposal
will add to it. An ad hoc committee of staff people is being
formed to review the situation and identify problem areas and-
solutions.
b. Will there be an increase in crime, given the fact that
seniors are more vulnerable to crimes against the persons
such as assault and rape and robbery than other groups?
Public Safety personnel have studied this and do not believe
there will be an increase in crime because of the elderly
population. They reviewed crime data for the entire city and are
of the opinion that crime in Richfield has not increased as a
result of the aging of the population. Secondly, crime in the
LHN has decreased because the environment is generally not
friendly to criminals. The new construction and renovation of
privately owned buildings and public improvements has resulted in
"cleaner" more visible building surfaces. All of the residential
Cuildings in the area have a security system as a deterrent to
unauthorized persons entering.
c. How ~:vill the concentration of seniors affect the
Cusinesses in the area, and what Cusinesses will they
attract?
The Tushie/Derrick proposal would add only 48 units of senior
housing to the area. This development will he a benefit to other
retail Businesses in the area. It is unlikely that many
retailers cat=_ring exclusively to seniors would locate in the
area Because of this additional development. The total senior
population would not Ce high enough.- Also many of the seniors in
the area are mobile and can leave the area to conduct business at
other nearby locations. Retailers are likely to Ce attracted to
the area because of the concentration of population and the
accessiCility of the 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection
to a much larger market. The Drug Emporium is an example. It is "
dependent upon a Iarge volume of customers and is attractive to
customers both young and old. The Tushie/Derrick proposal may
contain a medical office facility. Such a facility would Ce
attracted to the area because of the population concentration and
accessiCility of the area to others.
d. 4Vi11 a large population of seniors (many on fixed
incomes) tend to resist future Coed issues for such things
-as schools?
We don't !know. The age and income of residents does influence
their perspective on the cost of providing services to the
community.
4. "Since the taxes from property developed through tax
increment financing must Ce used to pay off the Conds, tax
benefits will not accrue to Richfield for about 20 years. In
the meantime will the rest of the taxpayers of the city Ce
su~sidizing the delivery of service - ~r~ater, sewers, health,
police, and fire - to the area?"
Yes, Fut only to a very limited extant. First it is important to
- understand that all of the taxing jurisdictions continue to
receive revenue from the project area. The revenue is derived
from the ~ase value of the project area. Only the tax increment
provided cy the value above the Case value is used to retire the
bonds. Secondly as indicated above, it is likely that the
development would he located within a new tax increment district.
The district-would exist-for eight years rather than 15 to 20
years.
Experience in the LHN indicates the need for police and fire
services has decreased as a result of redevelopment. Pedestrian
• and motor vehicle accidents are fewer, police calls resulting
from potential criminal acts are down, fire calls are fewer.
Because. of the elderly population, the need for emergency first
-~i
aid has increased but has not and will not require the purchase
of additional equipment or hiring of additional personnel.
Shoplifting in retail stores has increased. The sewer and water
costs are paid by a user fee.
5. "will the ~,vater and sewer systems in the Lyndale-66th area
accommodate the increased demands-upon them?"
Yes. .The tivater line was installed in the early 1960's. Its life
expectancy exceeds well beyond 50 years. In the early 1980's, as
part of the development of the Lake Shore Drive condominiums, the
.system '.vas upgraded by installing a "loop". The "loop" removed a
dead end line in the area and means water is always available in
the line from two directions. It also put the water supply
closer to the main trunk line Between the water plant and the
water tower. The capacity of the line is more than adequate to
handle the Tushie/Derrick proposal.
The sanitary sewer was installed in the early 1950's. Its life
expectancy exceeds well beyond 50 years. A main trunk line is
located beneath 66th Street.
The graham Avenue site is only .about one block from the main.
The Tushie/Derrick development would use a lateral line shared
possibly pnly by one or two existing commercial developments
before it connects to the main. The Lake Shore Drive condominium
connects directly to the main. The main has more than adequate
capacity to handle the Tushie/Derrick development.
6. "How tivill the increased noise and pollution levels during
construction and afterwards affect Wood Lake Nature Center?"
We don't think the noise and pollution levels from the
Tushie/Derrick project will negatively affect Wood Lake. For
example, during the .construction of the Lake Shore Drive
condominiums there were no noticeable effects from noise or other
pollution sources. However, upon completion, some birds were
killed because while flying they hit the building. Now they have
adjusted their flight pattern for the height of the structure.
The contractor for the Tushie/Derrick project would be required
- to prevent soil laden runoff water during construction from
running into the lake. Once occupied, the building shouldn't
negatively impact Wood Lake either. However, before the
Tushie/Derrick proposal can be constructed, it would be necessary
to complete an environmental Assessment Worksheet. The process
requires that the impact of the development be studied. Its .
relationship to Y~ood Lake would be determined as a part of that
study.
7. "Since the Tushie/Derrick developers say that the subsidized
housing in their plan would be subsidized by the other
(commercial) occupants of the complex rather than by federal
funds, how long will that subsidy continue? Will the City
of Richfield 'nave to contribute to that subsidy?"
~
The 48 units of housing would require a subsidy to maintain the
rents at the levels proposed which may fall within the $390 to
$440. range initially. Increases would likely ~e tied to a
formula which would assure their affordability ~y lower income
elderly. The length of time the developer would be required to
provide low rent would be estarlis~ed during negotiations on a
developers agreement.
The HRA would be providing a subsidy to encourage this
development. That subsidy and the rent from the commercial space .
would help make it possible for the developer to offer lower
rents for the housing units. Neither the HRA nor the city
anticipate providing a direct rent subsidy.
8. "both the ~~alker and Tushie/Derrick organizations suggest
housing development bonds to finance the housing components
of their proposals. How will these bonds be retired from
the profits from subsidized housing in either plan, if
built?"
Initially Tushie/Derrick proposed to utilize housing revenue
conds. However, at the present time they have determined not to
-use them.
9. "How much of a demand is them for housing for seniors at the
suggested rental rates in the metropolitan area?"
'The market demand far exceeds that which will be met by the 48
units in the project. The rents proposed for-the 48 units would
make them available and affordable to a single person for example
with an income between $12,000 and $16,000. For a couple, the
income range would be slightly higher. The intent of the
developer tivould be to market these units to Richfield residents
first.
10. "Will an environmental impact statement be provided even if
not required?"
The development would require that an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet be completed (EAW). The EAW requires a study of the
- impact of development on the surrounding environment and public
facilities such as roads and utilities. The results of an EAW
are evaluataed against state guidelines to determine if an
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) must be undertaken. A
decision on an EIS would be made by the City Council after an EAW
is completed.
/`j - ~2~3
.
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF RICHFIELD,- MINNESOTA
Inter-Office Memorandum
DATE: DecemCer 11, 1986
T0: Housing & Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Development Review Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: Summary of Comments, Concerns and Issues Expressed at
12/10/86 P4eeting.
Thy Development Review Advisory Committee is a group of staff
from the various administrative departments and divisions of the
city. They met to listen and react to a presentation of the
Tushie-Derrick concept which included the use of drawings and a
t`~ree dimensional model. Following are the thoughts that were
expressed during the meeting.
1) The design from a fire protection point of view appears to Ce
good on Loth the int°rior and exterior.
2) Barking and traffic flow should he closely studied to avoid
_ congestion and other safety hazards.
3) Pedestrian circulation far the entire southwest quadrant
should ~e studied and for this development the crossing of
Lyndale Avenue in particular.
4) Site drainage should Ce carefully planned.
5) Odor discharge from the vF~~l kitchen should Ce carefully
thought to avoid adverse impact on the area.
. .
6) The separation of the uses in the building appears to be well
thought out. With proper construction, noisy transmission
from the vFW ar=a :vould not be a oroblem.
7) The staging of the development to permit existing
organizations to function during construction is good.
However, it could result in serious parking problems during
construction, especially with the VFW. The developer must
work out an agreement with the VFW. The options to be
explored include the suspension of special events, which
require considerable parking and the use of parking lots at
other locations and a shuttle bus. The activity schedule for
Wood make Nature Center and the VFW should be coordinated.
perhaps the VFW should hire traffic police personnel for
certain events.
3) Because the site must ~e rezoned and an amendment to the
Comprehensive plan may be necessary and an EA;~~ would be
necessary as will as the establishment of a new TIF district,
the planning phase for this project could be protracted.
9) Fora fevr minutes the discussion centered on the question of
the appropriateness of the concept. Is this concept simply
an attempt to satisfy everyone on every issue?
The collective response eras that there seems to be a market
for the uses, the rental apartments are desirable if
Richfield residents are given priority in the occupancy of
the units and the development would Ce an appropriate
„
entrance/exit feature for this area of downtown Richfield.
a» <
10) A puClic information meeting should de scheduled to permit.
people in the area to express their thoughts.
The ,yal!<er concept could not to evaluated as it is reing
reformulated. The Trest^?an-Shaller proposal ;vas discussed
briefly. There was agreement that while it would result in the
upgrading of the property, it did not utilize the site to its
Cest advantage.
_ ~jp
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 29
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Appointment of Persons to Various Advisory Boards and Commissions
Background:
The terms of members of the various city commissions will expire
January 31, 1987. Applicants were interviewed by the city
council on January 12 and January 26. Some applicants have
expressed an interest in more than one commission. The order of -
their preference has been indicated for each commission. Thee
vacancies and applicants are as follows:
ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH
There are six appointments to be made to this board. Three
members wish to be considered for reappointment, and there are
three new applicants.
Applicants Appointed
Seeking Reappointment:
Anne Kinley~
Carol Olson
Larry Slepicka~
New Applicants:
Lisa Peterson (3rd choice)
Ramona Rusinak (lst choice)
Paul Zander (only choice)
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
There is one appointment to be made. Jack Duich has served two
terms and is seeking reappointment. There are seven new
applicants.
Applicants Appointed
Seeking Reappointment:
ack Duich
New Applicants:
Robert Burditt
Kris Maser
Lisa Peterson (4th choice)
Xavier Ruhling (3rd choice)
Joe Sausen (2nd choice)
John Takekawa
Joanne Wilmes (3rd choice)
•
_ ~ ~/a
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
Four .appointments to be made. Two members are seeking
reappointment, and there are eight new applicants.
Applicants Appointed
Sgeking Reappointment:
JBetsy Asher
Richard Starleaf
New Applicants:
JJames Clinite (only choice)
Bette Flanders (2nd choice) ~ -
Lisa Peterson (2nd choice)
Xaviar Ruhling (4th choice)
Joe Sausen (1st choice)
Ronald Schwartz (only choice)
Liz Swanson (only choice)
Joanne Wilmes (2nd choice)
ENERGY AWARENESS COMMISSION
There are three appointments to be made. One member is seeking
reappointment, and there are two other applicants.
Applicants Appointed
S eking. Reappointment:
Herb Doty
New Applicants.:
Jane Schoewe (only choice)
Joe Sausen (3rd choice)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Three appointments need to be made. Two members are seeking
reappointment, and there are two other applicants.
Applicants Appointed
Se king Reappointment:
anne Ervasti
Jrollie Flippin
New Applicants:
Lisa Peterson (5th choice)
Xavier Ruhling (1st choice)
HUMAN SERVICES (Serving Seniors and Disabled)
Three appointments to be made. One member is seeking
reappointment, and there are eight applicants.
_ XX I
~j~/
HUMAN SERVICES (Serving Seniors and Disabled)
Applicants Appointed
Seeking Reappointment: -
Donna Terras
Ne Applicants:
etty Carr (only choice)
~ette Flanders (1st choice)
Russ Kennedy (2nd choice).
Kris Maser
Lisa Peterson (6th choice)
Joan Robinson (only choice)
Xavier Ruhling (2nd choice)
Ramona Rusink (2nd choice)
PLANNING COMMISSION
Three appointments to be made. Two members are seeking
reappointment, and there are six. new applicants.
Applicants Appointed
Seeking Reappointment: .
~~Connie Hoverson _
~Maggi McDermott-Lindstrand
New Applicants:
gonna Drummond (only choice)
JRuss Kennedy (1st choice)
Roland Nelson (only choice)
Lisa Peterson (1st choice)
John Takekawa
Joanne Wilmes (1st choice)
SISTER CITY INTERNATIONAL
There are six appointments to be made. Three members wish to be
reappointed, and there is one applicant.
Applicants Appointed
S eking Reappointment:
B. J. Gersey
Al Oster
Russ Susag
N w Applicant:
Xavier Ruhling (5th choice)
Recommendation:
Appoint members to fill the terms on the various advisory boards
and commissions.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. Terms of members expire on January 31. In order to assure
quorums for February meetings, appointments should be made
at this time.
.~/~T~3
2. -With the exception of the Sister City Commission, there are
sufficient applicants for each appointment.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Defer appointments to a later date. However, this could
result in some commissions not having a quorum for February
meetings.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
As the terms of commission members expire on January 31, this
item has been placed on the January 26, 1987 city council agenda
for action.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
_ I
~y
~
- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 28
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Authorization to enter into grant agreements with the Minnesota
Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) and
extension of the Energy Audit and Housedoctoring Agreement with
Self Reliance Center (SRC).
Background•
On January~l2, 1987 a grant-application was submitted to GEED,
requesting $15,000 to support a variety of energy conservation
programs in Richfield. This application is similar to one
submitted in 1984 when $15,000 was secured to finance. program
administration. However, the funds for this application would
come from monies secured by the state as a result of a court
order requiring Exxon, Inc. to refund rate overcharges to its
customers.
The 1986 revised City budget authorized staff to secure up to
$17,000 of the Exxon funds when they became available. They did
not become available until 1987 and the maximum request allowed
is $15,000. Even though the Council approved submission of the
application, a resolution as attached is required by DEED.
If the grant is received, a portion of the funds will be used for
the following purposes. 1) Administrative activities of
existing staff, 2) providing low income fuel assistance clients
if in and coordinatin
with an energy audit directed at ident
Y 9 g
conservation services to help residents make energy related .
improvements, 3) assist residents in obtaining MN Housing Finance
Agency energy improvements loans and identifying appropriate
energy conservation improvements, 4) assessment of the
effectiveness of the audit and housedoctor programs, and, 5)
"housedoctor" weatherization in approximately 27 local homes.
A separate, but related item to be addressed is extending the
existing contract with SRC for audits and housedoctoring
activities which expires in March, 1987.. The contract would be
extended through September, 1987. Funds for the contract are
provided by NSP, Minnegasco and CDBG funds. If the DEED grant is
provided, that would also be a source of revenue. There are no
city funds involved in the contract. The contract extension is
needed to continue with programs already funded and would also be
needed if the DEED grant was received.
Staff Recommendations:
1. Adopt the attached- resolution to complete our grant
application and which authorizes the City Manager to execute
a grant agreement if an award is made to Richfield.
2. Extend the Auditing and Housedoctoring Agreement with Self
Reliance Center to September, 1987.
_ ~y
Basis of Recommendation:
. The grant funds will finance energy program activities that might
not otherwise take place. Additional housedoctoring grants are
not available from any other funding source at this time. The
demand for this service exceeds the funds available. The present
auditing and housedoctor agreement is due to expire in March,
1987. Extending the agreement to September, 1987, allows CDBG
and DEED funds to be expended in a timely manner and audits to
continue within an agreement that works quite well.
Alternative Recommendation:
1) Not authorize the resolution requested by DEED which would
result in nullifying the grant request.
2) Not extend the SRC contract, however, CD6G funds already
committed to housedoctoring might not be expended in a timely
manner. The audit program would have to be discontinued.
Decision Mode:
The resolution must be approved by the Council on January 26th to
permit DEED to evaluate our grant request. The extension of the
SRC contract would permit the energy program to continue to
operate smoothly.
Respe tfully submitted,
i
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
i
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RELATED TO ENERGY GRANT
Se it resolved by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1) The City of Richfield shall act as the sponsoring unit
of government for the project titled "Bundle Up Richfield" to be
conducted during the period February, 1987 to July, 1987. James
D. Prosser, City Manager,is hereby authorized to apply to the
Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for
funding of this project on behalf of the City of Richfield.
2) The City of Richfield shall enter into a grant agreement
with the State of Minnesota for the project named above if the
application, is successful. James D. Prosser, City Manager,is
hereby authorized to execute certifications as required and
execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project
named above.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of January, 1987.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
_
~ r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 27
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request For An Off-Street Parking Permit At 6345 Cedar Avenue
Background:
Arbor Construction Company~~has requested city-approval of an off-
street parking permit for the site at 6345 Cedar Avenue. Arbor
Construction has purchased the property and wishes to convert the
existing building into an office and storage facility for their
company. The existing fence and trailer area south of the
building would be removed; the building would be remodeled; and a
portion of the existing gravel area on the site would be
converted into a parking area for 6 vehicles. Access to the
parking area would be provided from the existing curb cuts from
64th Street and from Cedar Avenue. There would be no access from
the alley. With the exception of a landscaped boulevard area
along Cedar Avenue and a landscaped area along the alley, the
site would be blacktopped. Perimeter curbing would be provided
along Cedar Avenue. The boulevard area along 64th Street would
be blacktopped.
Staff Recommendation:
The City Council pass the attached resolution approving the off-
street parking permit with the following stipulations:
1. That the boulevard area along 64th Street be landscaped
rather than blacktopped. A landscape plan should be
submitted for staff approval.
2. That a catch basin be installed on the site to collect
.drainage on site. The design and location of this catch
basin should be approved by the city engineer.
3. Perimeter curbing should be provided as required by city
ordinances.
Basis of Recommendation:
The basis of the recommendation is that the off-street parking
permit generally meets the city standards for driveways and
parking areas. It is staff's opinion that the changes outlined
in the stipulations above would bring the proposal into total
compliance with city standards as well as providing a more
aesthetically pleasing site. It would also provide a better
defined parking lot; keep uses and cars off the city boulevard
areas; and provide proper handling of the drainage. However, the
applicant has indicated that they do not feel an onsite catch
basin is necessary. They have indicated that the landscaping
along Cedar Avenue will act as a natural catch basin for the
small amount of run off from a lot this size and that the cost of
installing a system that is connected to the city storm sewer is
prohibitive and unjustified.
r
Alternative Recommendation:
Alternative recommendations would be to approve the off-street
parking permit as submitted or to deny the off-street parking
permit.
Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for council consideration on
January 26, 1987.
Respec fully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
City Manager
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF-STREET PARKING
PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87-1
ARBOR CONSTRUCTION
6345 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking
as contained in off-street parking application No. 87-1 is
hereby approved subject to the following stipulations:
a. That the boulevard area along 64th Street be landscaped I
rather than blackto ed. A 1 nds n houl
pp a cape pla s d be
i
submitted for staff approval.
b. That a catch basin be installed on the site to collect
drainage on site. The design and location of this catch
basin should be approved by the city engineer.
c. Perimeter curbing should be provided as required by city
ordinances. ~I
2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of
said off-street parking lot shall remain 'the responsibility 'i
of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with
Ordinance Code 4.05.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this it
26th day of January, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
r
Thomas rerber City Clerk
i
-
s
~ C®r1~'~~''L1C'~i®r'1
CARPENTRY • ROOFING • DECKS • REMODELING • LANDSCAPING • DESIGN
Rick Jopke
Richfield city Planners
Dear Planners,
Mr. Jopke raised a-few questions about our site plan for 6345 Cedar.
I would like to address the questions.
There will be twc enterances tc our parking area. One will enter from
64th st. the other from Cedar. Both enterances will use existing curb
cuts that appear to have been installed by the city.
There is no acce~;s to the alley from our parking lot and there will
not be one. We plan to-do some landscaping along the alley.
We plan to .black top the entire lot,- starting at the north property
line to the city curb on the south. Our plan is to landscape the
~ boulevard along Cedar.
We will be installing fixed curbs between our lot and the Cedar blvd.
Because of the small- lot size and the fact that the drainage from
this lot would run cnto the landscaped blvd. along Cedar Ave., [tie feel
that a catch basin is not necessary. The landscaping along Cedar will
act as a natural catch basin-for the small amount cf runoff from
a lct this size. the cost of installing a system that is connected to
the city storm sewer is prohibitive and un}ustified.
Thankyou,
Randy Johnson Pres.
4921 2nd Avenue South. Minneapolis. MN 55409 Business Phone 822-521.0
LICENSED • 80NDED • INSURED ~
m l ~ _ _
a
D PROPERTY LINE
~ I
~ ~~b'
EXISTING BUILDING 32~
m
z ~ r
~ ~ r
(TIPERIMETER CURB I"'
~ 41
~ ~
o z
c ~ LANDSCAPED
m n ~ 3 y $ ~8'~
y v ~ 4 HG AREA
~ m
o ° ~ ~
`I4'
26'
~ ~
64TH STREET"" `
Rte, ,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City Council Letter No. 26
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request For Approval Of An Off-Street Parking Permit At 1720 East
66th Street
Background:
Mr. Wallace Roholt has requested an off-street parking permit to
allow him to construct two parking areas on the property he owns
at 1720 East 66th Street. There is a one story single family
residence on the property which is zoned C-2 General Commercial.
Mr. Roholt wishes to construct a second story on the existing
residence. The upper floor would be used for his residence and
the lower floor would be used for a doll museum. A parking area
for four vehicles would be constructed in front of the building
and a parking area for three vehicles would be constructed to the
rear of the building. The existing garage would remain and be
used for parking for the residence. One new curb cut would be
constructed off of 66th Street.
Staff Recommendation:
Pass the attached resolution approving the off-street parking
layout subject to the following stipulations:
1. That perimeter curbing be provided.
2. That only the rear parking area be constructed at this time.
The front parking area should only be constructed if it is
determined by the. city that a parking problem exists on .the
site or if the usage changes. If the front parking area is
constructed the following changes should be made in the
proposal:
a. The necessary curb cut permit be obtained from Hennepin
County for the curb cut onto 66th Street and the width of
the curb cut should be at 26 feet and the curb cut should
have at least a 15 foot radius.
b. That the driving aisle in the parking area in front of
the building be extended approximately 5 feet beyond the
parking stalls to allow additional turnout area to
provide proper maneuverability space in the parking area.
This would necessitate the redesign of the handicap ramp.
Basis of Recommendation
1. The proposed total number of parking stalls meets the city's
'minimum ordinance requirements for commercial and residential
uses. However, it is staff's opinion that it would exceed
the number of spaces needed for the particular type of use
being proposed.
2. The city engineer has reviewed the plans and approves the
proposed drainage. It is preferable to provide onsite catch
basins. However, in this particular case because of the
location of the city's storm sewer line on the opposite side
of 66th Street there is no reasonable method for connecting
_ - _ ~ //~/J
/
G-
to the storm sewer line. There also will be a small amount
of hard surface area being created. Therefore, the city
engineer has approved the surface drainage plan proposed.
3. Staff has some concern about the .maneuverability of cars in
the parking lot in front of the building. It would be
difficult for cars parked in spots numbered four and six to
be able to back out and turn and proceed back out onto 66th
Street. Therefore it is recommended that the driving aisle
be extended north of the parking areas to provide additional
turn space.
4. It is staff's opinion that it is desirable to maintain the
residential character of that block of 66th Street, even
though it is zoned commercial. The construction of the front -
parking area would have an adverse effect on the residential
character of the area.
5. It is not. clear from the drawings whether or not perimeter
curb will be provided as required in the city's ordinance.
Perimeter curbing is necessary to define a parking area and
to control drainage.
6. With the exception of the concerns previously .listed the
parking area would meet all other requirements of the city's
ordinance.
Alternative Recommendation:
Deny the off-street parking permit or to approve an offstreet
parking permit for construction of both parking areas at this
time with the following stipulations:
1. That the necessary curb cut permit be obtained from Hennepin
County for the curb cut onto 66th Street. Further the width
of the curb cut should be at 26 feet and the curb cut should
have at least a 15 foot radius.
2. That the driving aisle in the parking area in front of the
building be extended approximately 5 feet beyond the parking
stalls to allow additional turnout area to provide proper
maneuverability in the parking area. This would necessitate
the redesign of the handicap ramp.
Decision Mode:
This matter has been scheduled for council consideration on
January 26, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
Cit Manager
w
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF-STREET PARKING
PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION 87-2
WALLACE ROHOLT
1720 EAST 66TH STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking
as contained in off-street parking application No. 87-2 is
hereby approved subject to the following stipulations:
a. That perimeter curbing be provided.
b. That only the rear. parking area be constructed at this time.
The front parking area should only be constructed if it is
determined by the city that a parking problem exists on the
site or if the usage changes. If the front parking area is
constructed the following changes should be made:
1. The necessary curb cut permit be obtained from Hennepin
County for the curb cut onto 66th Street and the width of
the curb cut should be at 26 feet and the curb cut should
have at least a 15 foot radius.
2. That the driving aisle in the parking area in front of
the building be extended approximately 5 feet beyond the
parking stalls to allow additional turnout area to
provide proper maneuverability space in the parking area.
This would necessitate the redesign of the handicap ramp.
2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of
said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility
of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with
Ordinance Code 4.05.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
26th day of January, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas Ferber City Clerk
~ r w ~ J
'
EXISTING GARAGE
r j
J 1
t~ t
1
REAR PARKING AREA c Z
t ~
3 y~,
r
W
~ ~
~ Z
W
EXISTING HGUSE ~
r =
H
o0
T
60'
HC ~ 6
FRONT PARKING AREA
7 ~
o_ 5 ~ _ 1
2+1~
~ ~ J
66TH STREET
A,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 25
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Approval of the 1987 Labor Contract with the Richfield Police
Officers Federation.
Background:
City Staff has completed negotiations on a labor agreement,
subject to City Council approval, with the Richfield Police
Officers Federation, which is represented by the Law Enforcement
Labor Services, a statewide Police Labor Union.
The Police Officers Federation represents the positions of
Police Officer. and Investigator/Agent. There are presently
thirty-four employees represented within the Unit.
The 1987 contract is the second year of a two-year agreement and
contract articles open for negotiations were limited to wages.
The changes in wages for 1987 are:
1. An adjustment of 4% over 1986 wage rates for the
classification of Police Officer.
2. An adjustment of 3.5% over the 1986 wage rates for
the classification of Investigator/Agent. A previously
negotiated provision of the contract established the
1987 wage rate for the top step of Investigator/Agent at
6% above the top Patrol wage rate.
The following benefit increases were negotiated in 1986 for 1987
and were previously approved by the City Council:
1. An increase of $11.50 per employee towards an Employee
Health Insurance premium.
2. An increase of $.05/credit in college incentive from
January 1,1987 through June 30, 1987, and another
increase of $.OS/credit in college incentive from July
1, 1987 through December 31, 1987.
3. An increase in the number of holidays paid at time and
one-half from three in 1986 to five in 1987.
The total estimated package. cost of the 1987 settlement is 4.10%,
which is comparable to other Police units in the metropolitan
area.
Recommendation:
"Approve the labor agreement with the Richfield Police Officers
Federation.
Basis For Recommendation:
,Police wage settlements in other communities, which were
consistently at 4%.
Alternative Recommendation
• Do not approve the Labor Agreement, requiring further
negotiations and/or arbitration.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify
payroll records in a timely manner for January 1, 1987, it is
recommended the City Council act on January 26, 1987 to adopt the
attached Resolution providing for contract changes effective
January 1, 1987.
Respectully submitted,
.James .Prosser.
City anager
JDP/sae
•
_ ~
M.... p
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE
RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICERS FEDERATION
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 1987
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Officers
Federation have reached a complete understanding concerning rates
of pay, hours and other conditions of employment for the year
1987, and
WHEREAS, the personnel ordinance requires that contracts.
between the City and the exclusive representative of the
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented
by Council Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield
and the Police Officers Federation Bargaining Unit for the year
1987 and order the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be
implemented, effective January 1, 1987.
Passed by the City Council of the. City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of January, 1987.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•
r _
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 24
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Cancellation of public hearing for the amended ILN Redevelopment
Plan.
Background:
On December 22, 1986 the City Council adopted a resolution
establishing January 26, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time
for a public hearing on amendments to the ILN redevelopment plan.
The amendments reflected CDR's revised development concept for a
first stage which included an office building and portion of a
parking ramp.
Recommendation:
Cancel the hearing.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Following the formulation of the amendment, discussions were
initiated regarding the possible inclusion of a hotel in the
first stage of CDR's development. At this time that concept
is still being evaluated.
2. If a hotel is included in the first stage it would impact the
level of public improvements and the amount of funds
available for .public improvements.
3. Because this issue arose, the notice of public hearing was not
published.
Alternative Recommendation:
Set a hearing for another date.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
It would be appropriate to officially cancel the hearing
scheduled for the January 26, 1987 city council meeting. Once
the above concerns have been evaluated, the council should
schedule the public hearing for another date.
Respect ully submitted,
r.
James 'D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP/eja
y
.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 23
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Request for approval to place a temporary oversize sign at St.
Peter's Church, 6730 Nicollet Avenue.
Background:
City Ordinance provides that the city council must approve all
permits for temporary signs.
I
St. Peter's Church has requested a permit to erect an oversized
temporary sign at the above address. The sign is to be a
25' X 12' (300 sq. ft.) non-illuminated, double-faced trailer
sign. They wish to use the sign. from Jan. 31st-Feb. 9th, 1987.
Recommendation: ~
It is recommended that the city council deny the permit for
this illuminated sign.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have
denied the sign because it does not conform to city
ordinances. City ordinances limit temporary signs to a
maximum size of 3' X 4' (12 sq. ft.). This sign is 300
square feet.
2. If signs of this size are approved for churches, civic or
educational groups, they must. also be approved for
commercial use to prevent the city from discriminating.
3. A smaller sign, meeting the ordinance code requirements,
could be used for the same purpose.
Alternate Recommendation:
2. If Council Members wish to discuss this matter, this item
can be removed from the consent calendar and placed at the
end of the regular agenda for council consideration.
1. Approve the oversize sign for the .time allotted. However,
if this particular sign is approved, signs of this size
would also. have to be approved for commercial use.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the
Jan. 26th council agenda for consideration, with the staff
recommendation to deny the permit.
Respectf ly submitted,
Jame Prosser
City anager
a . ~ L . ~ ~ I ~ ~ "1 LC.'`i a.? ~i I I . X I r7 i~y~--~ct.~~-c, Cwt..- ~
. ~ City aanager w •
~ ~ Inspzctor
Date ~~~~jL~ ~'~""f Date
?PROVE DE:f7 ~ L ao l~ .
('~G~ ~ ROVE ~ ~ ~ DENY ~ :
Planning Department City Council
Date Date .
Route to above for•special approval per code Gz^.eral Sizes
:~PPLICaTION FOR' aDVE3TISIVG PER'~IT
.City of Richfield, ,Minnesota
Date ~ ~ ~ ~ Zoning Sign Erected -Yes No Fee .
~tr:~ rv
address of Sign ~ ~ i` • ~ .-~i ~i`L .S,^ Proprietor Name C.-~ (?r~-?~< C :-t~~•t': DBE ~ <
Sigr. Erector ~!nuici~ . 1~f;; Address . 'IC. 1..~ % Ci` ~c.~ ~ N'~,'
Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Li?ht1nE
IWal1 Single Face Clear Leson _ Constant
DTojectiag Double Face _ Frosted LeYan Flashing
Ground ~ Multi ^aced ~ Plastic Covered I Revolving
_ Roof _ aeriallBlimp i Shaded, ~ ~ Traveling
_ Pedestal Searclioht ~ veon I I Zip Lite
~ r•.
~ C:~angeable Banner/Ps^.nants ,t ~ Cther~c'=-:'r-< ~ Other(E:r~lai~,
1 I Temporar-,~ _ Por_able Frame: I + Si;n Colors - " ~•`i
I I Trailer I T~ a~ Post
~r laminated -Yes Vo Wags
`Electrical Contractor ~ ~cdress ?hone
r0yerty Owner Or hiS ~gert S~g?'~t'?re •~~1;N':>_ ".~~'--7- ~ - .1, ~ ~ P!:Ore , fir'`,
C3t_:..aLed Cost 5~~^. WiCtha.=y :elm.^.t i~~ TJtal SCL'a~8 ~°E't ~
~OS'~..~On 02 t::e 3C'.'ert,52_^.e^.t SC='.:C_..r2 iA r~,.zL~JP.SII~.7 CO C.^.e aG~aCB:IL ::L'I~.._ ~S, S~Ce~3l_{S.
C;:_JS, roadways, OVe.:e3C ilC~.~__, _~aeS, Ve.^.iCle ~CV2We^.t 1:^.eS, Or ~L'Dl::. =aC~l=~~2S On
dr3L~i~:.g with Sl~n~=Cant C We^.S:.CZ:S and attaCheC :leret0 OL major Si~nS. :'t~:C~ Sim^.S aS
de=~aed on page 2.
Two blueprints of the si., b'_llbca=', or outdoor advertising structure ccnst_sction plans:
_^cludiag specifications, ?ist of r.aterials, and e::piicit anchoring or Fastening details
anc a copy o= the stress sheets, cslculat:ons, color of sign structure.
Dces a sib copy relate solely to _ :e busi::ess, _^st:tution, or activ: y conc::ctad on
:e . -emises".
Wa_ the sign, structure, or billbcard rest_ic= any sight distance under, around, er over
or safe access by persons destines .or or passi:g the subject premises?
apoiicant;s Signature aad Title with Firm
~ Date ~ i.. , ~ x' - T /
P':cre Number 1 i (~,i~`~
•
Lit
198 PL:-SSE SER R:.vn.•tSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION S~F.TC3
Sivert Hendric!cson/Building Of:icial - $66-~06I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
.Council Letter No. 22
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Purchase of two single-axle diesel dump trucks for city
maintenance operations.
Background:
Single-axle diesel trucks are currently utilized by the street
maintenance division for maintenance purposes. Two units are now
fully depreciated and due to be replaced. An appropriation in
the amount of $85,000 was approved in the 1987 Central Garage
Capital Outlay Budget (602-4862).
Through the Hennepin County bid process, a quotation. in the
amount of $80,696 for the two dump trucks was received from 3oyer
Trucks, Inc. of Minneapolis.
Recommendation:
Approve the purchase of two single-axle diesel dump trucks from
Boyer Trucks, Inc. in the amount of $80,696.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. This type of vehicle is used extensively in the Community
Services Department and has proven to be invaluable for its
• many uses.
2. Hennepin County bid process typically obtains the lowest
possible prices for vehicles.
3. The vehicles are. fully depreciated and funds are budgeted
in 1987 for their replacement.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not purchase the trucks at this time. However, the
existing vehicles are fully depreciated and scheduled for
replacement.
2. Reject the bid of Boyer Trucks, Inc. and direct the staff to
obtain bids from other dealers.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
Equipment is usually purchased during the first part of a new
year so that it is available when. needed. The item is also
scheduled on the January 26, 1987 council agenda to take
advantage of the Hennepin County bid.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame D. Prosser
. City anager
JDP/eja
E
..r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 21
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Award of Contract for Walk-In Cooler and Appurtenant Work at new
Cedar Liquor Store.
Background:
On January 13, 1987 bids were opened in accordance with legal
requirements for a walk-in cooler and appurtenant work at the new
Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. There were seven plan holders of
record. Four bids were submitted:
Palen-Kimball Company $39,995
Northwestern Service $39,853
Carbonic Machines, Inc. $39,450
Northern Air, Inc.. $38,830
A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for city
council review.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the city council take the following actions:
1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulation.
2. Award a contract to Northern Air Corporation in the amount of
$38,830 for a walk-in cooler and appurtenant work at the new
Cedar Liquor Store.
3. Authorize the return of the four bid securities upon proper
execution of the contract.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The lowest bid by a responsible bidder, received from
Northern Air Corporation in the amount of $38,830, meets
specifications.
2. Sufficient funding is available for this portion of the work
related to the construction of the municipal liquor store. I,
i
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Not award this contract. However, as the lowest
responsible bidder meets specifications, this action would
not be in the best interests of the city.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The work to be performed under this contract will need to be
coordinated with other contractors and vendors on the
construction site. To facilitate the work of this contract in a
timely manner, the item has been placed on the city council
agenda for January 26, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser ~
City ~ anager
JDP/eja
- _ ~
/ '
~
_ CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
January 13, 1987
Walk-In Cooler and Appurtenant Work
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who
announced that the purpose-of the meeting was to receive, open and
read aloud, bids for walk-in cooler and appurtenant work, as advertised
in the official newspaper on December 31, 1986.
Present: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative.
William Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR BID PROPOSAL
SECURITY (Cooler)
Northern Air Inc. Money order $38,830
Carbonic Machines, Inc. Cert. Check $39,450
Mpls
Palen-Kimball Company 5% Bond $39,995
St. Paul
Northwestern Service, Inc. 5% Bond $39,853
St. Paul
The City Clerk announced .that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
January 26, 1987 City Council Meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 20
Agenda January 26, 1987 i
i
Issue Statement:
Request for illuminated sign at G.B.S. Sports, 766 West 66th
Street.
Background:
City Ordinance provides .that the city council must approve all
permits for illuminated signs.
G.B.S. Sports has requested a .permit to erect an exterior
illuminated sign at their location in Market Plaza. The sign ~
is to be 12' X 24".
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council approve the permit for I!
this illuminated sign.
Basis for Recommendation:
1. The Inspection Division and the Planning Division have
approved the sign.
2. The sign conforms to all applicable city ordinances.
i
Alternative Recommendation: ~
1. Not approve the permit. However, the city has no
alternative design criteria to suggest for substitutes
for this sign.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been placed on the consent calendar portion of the
January 26th council agenda for consideration. The business is
requesting action to complete their sign placement of this
new business establishment. ~
Respectfully submitted, I,
James Prosser
City Manager I,
I
I
i
~[PPROVE ~ ~ DEFY' APPROVE I ~ ~ DEti'Y ( ~ : ~L2~u-ct..... s/;G /
/N >
•Cicy M.znager Inspector.
u
r'
Date Date
APPROVE ~1 TJE:~'1 I ! : ~:.i,~ s APPROVE DEFY) ~ : ~
_ Plannin~ ei}artment City Council
• Date 1 ~'~~,r] Date
Route to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT
City of Richfield, Minnesota
Date /L%/~ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ~No Fee ~ • °
~ ~ ~ - '
/ H , ~lv ~o G~E,~ T ~o ~o Tff ~
Address of Sign L~7 ~ / rceL!A~.t Proprietor Dame ~.t~v ~~i4~~"~~ DBA
Sign Erector ,~~jC~/4~ -~~-n./,- • Address /C~~~% ~l,~t,-/,.~(~ ,/~~C~ ,j,S~r~~
Tyne of Sign Design - t.'eather Cover LiQhtin~
"alISingle Face ~ Clear Lexon Constant
Projecting Double Face Frosted Lexon Flashing
Ground _ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered _ Revolving
Roof Aerial/Blimp Shaded Traveling
Pedestal Searchlight Neon Zip Lite
Changeable Banner/Pennants Other _ Other(Explain)
Temporary Portable Frame: Sign Colors LL/-f~~-,-~ ~=,.:~r-= ,c/~^n/
Trailer ~ T ~ A ~ Post
Illuminated Yes ~ No Watts
ectrical Contractor address Phone
Property Owner or his agent Signature Phone
Esti~rated Cost ~/il'~ ' Sign Width ~ 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. I~.inor 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?~~
t+'ill the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for s e acces b}• person destined for or pas 'ng t subject premises? ~
Applica t s gnature and Title with Firm
~ Date ~~,~~~~~»G.
Phone :~u er-E~~,~~~ _Q Tai
t
8/83 PLEASE ~EE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGti LOCATION SKETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Of~icial - 866-5061
. _ ~ .
IH ~ R~lit7~~i ~ O ~ ~
t~ -
i~~ti~
~ ~
c
~ dt ~ Oe- Q~c -
.
~
; .
tt :i;
4: ~ ~ _
- t 'y ° _ ...mot
___-S~v ` f ~ ~
~ .E.~
~ a~'
i
~~~~9
l Qa .~o ~ ~P
i; a ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Council Letter No. 19
Agenda January 26, 1987
Issue Statement:
Donation of a bullet proof vest to the Police Division, and
donation of $350.00 for public education materials to the Fire
Division from The Knights of Columbus, Monsignor Thomas E.
Meacher Assembly.
Background:
Bullet proof. vests are .worn under the clothing of Police Officers
and found to be very effective in adding a significant measure of
security to an Officer in the performance of his duties. The
Knights of Columbus; Monsignor Thomas E. Meagher Assembly,
recently contacted the Department of Public Safety indicating
that they would like to donate a bullet proof vest to the Police
Division. Sob Adelman, Faithful Navigator of the Assembly's
Community Service Committee will make ther presentation to a
member of Police Division at the regularly scheduled council
meeting on January 26, 1987.
Mr. Adelman will also present a check for $350.00 to the Fire
Division at the same time. The money will be used to purchase and
print public education material for the Fire Division's
Neighborhood Fire Prevention Program. The program is a unique
fire safety education project which was designed by the Fire
Division last year. Firefighters personally visit residents in
selected neighborhoods to distribute fire safety material, and
conduct a fire safety demonstration on the street corner at which
.neighbors can participate.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the city council acknowledge the
generosity of the Knights of Columbus in their donation for the
purchase of a bullet proof vest and public education materials
for the Police and Fire Divisions.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Police Division and Fire Division is in need of the vest
and public education material.
2. Members of the Knights of Columbus will be present at the
meeting of January 26, 1987 to make the presentation.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Do not accept the bullet proof vest or funds far the public
education material that the Knights of Columbus wish to
donate.
Decision/Discussion Mode:
The members of the Knights of Columbus have requested an
opportunity to present the bullet proof vest and check for the
public education material to the Police and Fire Divisions of the
i
-
Public Safety Department at the regularly scheduled meeting of
the city council on January 26, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam D: Prosser
Cit Manager
JDP/eja
I~
I~~
I