The URL can be used to link to this page

01-13-86 agendaso: owl L--] a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 35 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: National League of Cities /Congressional Conference To Be Held In Washington, D.C. March 8 - 11, 1986 Council Members: The National League of Cities /Congressional Conference will be held in Washington, D.C. March 8 -11, 1986. This conference is an opportunity to learn first hand about the most important federal issues affecting cities. Funds are provided in the 1986 budget document for two Council Members to attend this conference. Reservations for two council members have already been sent to National League of Cities in an effort to obtain hotel rooms at the convention hotel. It would be most helpful in making arrangements for this conference if council members at this time can advise the City Manager who is planning to attend. JGC /e ja Re,gpectfy,�y/�ubmitted, ohn G. Ca twr City Manag CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 34 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Council Members: On November 25, 1985, the city council selected the Republic Employees Federal Credit Union and Bill Henning and Company as redeveloper for the Cedar Avenue liquor store site. The city staff was directed to negotiate with Mr. Henning on the construction of a commercial service center and municipal liquor store on the northeast part of the site. The construction of the credit union building is expected to start August 1, 1986. . Prior to that time a developer's agreement will be presented to the city council for approval of that development. The first question to be answered by the city council is whether to own the new liquor store or to lease it from Mr. Henning. Extensive staff analysis indicates that it is in the city's best interest to own rather than to lease the liquor store. Several municipal liquor operations in the metro area were contacted and no municipal liquor operator advocated leasing a building at market price. Beverage Marketing Incorporated (BMI), the liquor operations consultant which the city has on retainer, strongly recommended that the city own its own store and to consider the building as an investment. Lease Option According to figures furnished by Mr. Henning the first floor space would be leased for eight dollars per square foot- and the basement would be leased for two dollars per square foot for initial term of the lease. The city, as leasee, will be subject to future lease conditions dictated by Mr. Henning, whereas if the city owns its own building it will not experience the disadvantages of a tenant. It has been determined that both the first floor and the basement should have an area of 5,500 square feet. Therefore, .Is the initial lease for the building would be at $55,000 per year. In addition to this amount, there will be charges for a3 -a- miscellaneous association fees for building operation. Even if the city leases the building from Mr. Henning it will have the 41 responsibility to provide fixtures and equipment. It is estimated that this cost will be $65,000. If this amount is depreciated for a 15 year period, it will result in an annual cost of $4,333• Lease costs, association fees and fixture and equipment depreciation will have an initial annual cost of $61,000 to $65,000 per year. Ownership Option According to estimated construction costs provided by Mr. Henning, the cost to construct a building for subsequent sale to the city would be $45 per square foot for the first floor and $20 per square foot for the basement. The $45 per square foot includes parking lot and landscaping improvements for the municipal liquor store. This would result in a total construction cost of $357,000 for the building. As in the lease example described above, the fixture and equipment and association costs would be added to this amount. If the city were to invest an amount of $357,000 at an interest rate of 8% the annual yield would be $28,560 per year. Therefore, even if building appreciation is not considered, it would cost approximately $26,440 more per year to lease the building than it would to own it ($55,000 - $28,560 = $26,440). For this reason, the staff strongly recommends that the ownership option be selected. It is anticipated that the commercial service center building will be one story in height and will contain approximately 16,000 square feet of first floor area including the 5,500 square feet for the city's liquor store. The city liquor store will be on the north end of the building and will be separated from the privately owned part of the building by a party wall. It is anticipated that there will be a sharing of maintenance costs on a prorated basis. The majority of the costs for the liquor store will come from the land disposition proceeds. It is assumed that the credit union will purchase 1.5 acres of land or 65,340 square feet at a cost of $2.70 per square foot or $176,418. Mr. Henning will purchase approximately 44,500 square feet from the city at a cost of $2.85 per square foot or approximately $126,800. This will result in total land disposition proceeds of approximately $303,000. The estimated cost for constructing the liquor store building and for providing fixtures and other equipment is $422,000. After substracting $303,000 for land disposition proceeds, the remaining $119,000 will come from the Liquor Fund. The Liquor Fund cash balance for fiscal year 1985 is estimated to be $759,417 and for fiscal year 1986 $685,667. Approximately $300,000 must be deducted from the cash balance to account for current liabilities. a-3-3 The existing oversized Cedar Avenue liquor store, if it were to be saved and continued as a municipal liquor store has these costly deficiencies: (1) roof leaks - needs replacement - estimated cost $115,000; (2) parking lot requires resurfacing; and, (3) ber cooler needs replacement - estimated cost $19,000. Actual Estimate Estimate 1984 1985 1986 Cash Balance 12/31 $620,101 $759,417 $685,667 Less Current Liability - 248,552 - 300,000 - 300,000 Cash Available $371,549 $459,417 $385,6'-6-7 Adequate funds are available from the Liquor Fund to fiance the construction of the liquor store building assuming the sale of land proceeds of $303,000 are utilized. The efficiency of operation of a smaller more energy efficient liquor store should result in profits which will be appreciably higher than they would be from the present less efficient Cedar Avenue Liquor store. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the city manager to negotiate with an architect for the design of the building and with Mr. William Henning for the construction of the building. The city manager should also be authorized to contract for the services of a registered land surveyor so that the property can be surveyed and platted as required for the credit union and commercial service center redevelopment • projects. Another element of the plan relates to the vacation of 67th Street between 18th Avenue and Cedar Avenue. It is requested that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to review the street vacation and conduct a public hearing on this subject and then report its findings back to the city council. Attached for council consideration are two preliminary drawings which depict the internal layout of the fixtures and equipment in the liquor store and a second drawing which shows a "profitable layout" for the display of liquor store products. City staff will be available to discuss this subject in greater detail at the January 13th city council meeting. Respect*Cartwr submitted, John G. ht City Manager JGC /eja S CASH FLOW SUMMARY LIQUOR FUND USES OF CASH Total xpenditures 1983 1984 1985 1986 Capital Outlay Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget SOURCES OF CASH (73,750) Less Current Liabilities - Total revenues $59521,202 $5,682,276 $5,702,500 $5,686,900 $5,672,000 Decrease in inventory 42087 59,038 Item -not Requiring Cash Depreciation 43,366 43,009 45,620 45,620 39,190 Gain on sale of equipment 420 393,000 3509000 2169000 300,000 Increase in Accounts and 61,087 64,533 67,880 67,770 146,370 Salaries Payable 32,902 27 TOTAL SOURCES $5,640,077 $5,784,350 $5,748,120 $5,732,520 $5,711,190 USES OF CASH Total xpenditures $59001,039 $592029405 $5,2669390 $5,293,680 $5034,570 Capital Outlay 39629 91990 14,620 4,000 Increase in Accounts (73,750) Less Current Liabilities - Receivable 614 514 248,552 295,000 Decrease in Accounts and Salaries Payable Transfer to Special 34,395 Revenue Fund 400,000 393,000 3509000 2169000 300,000 Transfer to Other Funds 61,087 64,533 67,880 67,770 146,370 TOTAL USES $5,466,369 $5,704,837 $5,684,270 $5,592,070 $5,784,940 Net Increase in Cash 173,708 79,513 63,850 140,450 (73,750) Cash Balance-• January 1 365,746 539,454 605,684 618,967 759,417 Cash Balance- December 31 $ 539,454 $ 618,967 $ 669,534 $ 759,417 $ 685,667 Current Assets - December 31 $ 540,074 $ 620,101 $ 669,534 Less Current Liabilities - December 31 285,374 248,552 295,000 Cash Available- December 31 $ 254,700 $ 371,549 $ 374,534 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA E -2 ANNUAL BUDGET �" r m o, -p 0 O p /. a o a t' i 0 W d 0 0 DC r v. a Gn ! a XLOJ a ua. t Conv. I I 'Bottle Ret. GONDOLA 'Carts WALL UNITS 1 m m w rd t .o ' I Door: Line �" r m o, -p 0 O p /. a o a t' i 0 W d 0 0 DC r v. a Gn ! a XLOJ a ua. t Conv. I I 'Bottle Ret. GONDOLA 'Carts WALL UNITS 1 m m w CONDUCTED BY: Beverage Marketing, Inc. 3927 W. 63rd Street Chicago, IL 60629 1p-i SECTION I A) REVIEW OF 1990 PROJECTIONS The question is whether or not there is a bigger downside out there facing the Richfield liquor stores. BMI has therefore been asked to reevaluate the 1990 projections and make a very conservative estimate of what the future holds. This is partly due to the increase in dram shop insurance from $80, 000 to $150,000, which the stores must absorb. There is also concerns whether the new Federal Excise Tax and comsutner shifts in drinking tendencies will still keep the liquor business profitable. We would first like to reiterate that our projections for 1990 were made based on national figures and trends and were made leaning toward the conservative side. Admittely, there has been declining consumption do to a variety of social, legal, and economic factors. The Federal Excise Tax has resulted in higher prices do to higher' taxes on liquor; never the less, retailers are expecting their liquor, sales to drop but that their overall sales should be similar to last year. Spirits are expected to be down five percent for the holidays, but the slack is expected to be made up in wines, wine coolers, imported beer, premium spirits, and cordial sales. In short, what is happening ' is that the trend'is toward hard liquor sales dropping; while wine and beer consumptions are on the upward trend. When the gross markups are taken into consideration the least profitable (hard liquor) is decreasing while the more profitable items to the store (wine and beer). are on an upward trend. `00 For purposes of comparison we reevaluated our projections with a more critical view of the situation effecting Richfield. We reevaluated each category as follows: We reviewed liquor sales on Richfields' present downward trend and assumed the worst; that it would continue directly thru 1990 at a 50% weighted percentage of this amount. Therefore a (- 17.50 %) decrease by 1990. For wine we will assume the worst; and say it will nbt increase as much as national figures predict. We therefore took off 1.25% a year until 1990. This gives a percentage increase for wine to be +18.5 %. �3.I0 For beer we took a weighted percentage of the present Richfield trend with a conservative view and estimated beer sales to only increase +10.93% by 1990. For the other miscellaneous category we dropped our yearly percentage increase by .5% a year, therefore, +9.4% increase by 1990. We still believe our original figures were conservative but this is an attempt to view them from a less than optimistic stand point. After evaluating the various categories of sales, our calculations show the total sales to increase by +3.06% by 1990. The two following charts summarize the 1990 very conservative trend in Minnesota and secondly how that translates to the Richfield stores. REVISED STATE PROJECTIONS 1990 PROJECTED 1984' 1990 MINNESOTA MINNESOTA PROJECTED SALES CATEGORY + ( -) SALES' MINNESOTA LIQUOR (- 17.50%) 29317,376 Thousand Cases 1,911,835 Thousand Cases ($60 Per.Case) $139,042,560 $114,710,112 WINE +18,5% 2,423.4 Thousand Cases 2,871,255 Thousand Cases ($35 Per Case) ($35.Per Case) $84,805,000 $100,493,925 BEER +10:93 3,662,000 Thousand Barrels 4,062,257 Thousand Barrels ($7 Per Case) 7 Cases Per 15.5 Gal, Barrel* $179,438,000 $199,059,593 OTHER ** +9.4% $22,121,148 $240200,535 TOTAL +3.06% $425,406,708 $438,455,165 K• K• I 0 O C r3 M [r1 PO H W �0 H t7 C- rt m rt 1-4 07� - Ln (a 04 + O O V O rt n m ci• N O7 00 o � �D %D b %D O m V I In 00 H M rt N O W V In I 'q r �O O Ln ON O + 1�D m N N r W rf %.D O O v ° f'1 O .D z p W p p a 0-2 0 0-4 9 OQ v W ° a m rt O �t v b ON rt . O' %0 N rt ON m V N W M V W� HHy rt C m 4-- O n In M N W L-4 W ON w O` rt m N H. I i d W rt rn _U N -W N rt N• -M W. •in 1t r w rt . . m O O + 4 (7% 000 4,- r^ a 4 v W m O 00 . O H. �pNJ (IQ rt � fD N U3 I 0 r3 M [r1 PO H W �0 H t7 C- O 1-4 07� Ln O7 00 OD tv �D %D r x O %D O y00 V I In 00 H M O W V In I W' r G �O O Ln ON O + + N N r W %.D O OD v ° r ^ COrJ CtJ .D z p W p p \D v H H 0-2 0 0-4 C) � d v 1 v ! •. 00 ON rt . O' %0 H ON ON V N W M V W� HHy O O r 4-- O N In M N rt 4. L-4 W ON W O` m N I i -U+ _U N -W N -C/ W N• -M W. •in 1t r c 1 d . :or -j O O + 4 (7% 000 4,- r^ N 4 v W �v O 00 . O rt N �pNJ �W � v N O O ro M O ro r IV 9 ul � w Oo r t• 0 H gd 0 H H H O C O O O � � ,4 ,4 ,q 0 z fr % ( M E n-M -v -M -M � ~ trJ G1 ►-+ v 4 -1 w ftl c N a� N to rn O H O W N In O% W N 00 O O N O 00 O tD V t-+ S C77 H cn O O H W r W ON In V V V N Vt OD OD W n 0 Cl E -M -v 4-- -U> C% an rn -Q), 4-- C°n O + O to r ON rr oo VO v r ^ V ro 00 t.0 PO N W OD O W I%j � � H H ko O a42-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 33 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Comments on the Environmental Impact Statement Draft for Mall of America and Fantasy World Council Members: The City of Richfield recognizes that the former Metropolitan Stadium site will be developed for high intensity uses. Richfield is not opposed to the development of this site and recognizes that positive benefits will accrue to Richfield as a result of development, e.g., additional jobs and satelite business opportunities. However, the City of Richfield has significant concerns about the proposed Mall of America • development. The city staff has reviewed the above mentioned Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Mall of America and Fantasy World project and has, more specifically, found potential adverse impacts on the City of Richfield in three categories. These concerns are in the areas of transportation, noise and economic impact. Transportation Impacts It is anticipated that traffic congestion on Interstate 494 west of Trunk Highway 77 will be at an unacceptable level following the completion of the Mega Mall project unless roadway improvements are made. While it is realized that, at some later date, I -494 will need to be improved regardless of whether the Mega Mall is constructed, the construction of this project will accelerate the onset of traffic congestion on I -494. The anticipated levels of traffic congestion on Trunk Highway 77 and on I -494 could divert traffic meant for the regional system onto local Richfield streets such as Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland, 12th and Bloomington Avenues. Funding for highway improvements has been programmed for the next five years and there are no improvements scheduled on the I -494 corridor in this program. The lack of funding could be a problem for the City of Richfield. 09C2` � The EIS suggests that "an alternative to mitigation (of over capacity conditions) would be a decision to accept service levels below desired design values." Any reduction in service levels which would divert regional traffic onto the local street system is opposed by the City of Richfield. If the land use management contemplated as a traffic mitigation element prohibits development in Richfield this is unacceptable to the City of Richfield. Noise Impact The EIS concludes that the proposed improvement of Trunk Highway 77 reduces noise impacts west of Highway 77. We question whether this includes property which is located along the west side of Trunk Highway 77 north of I -494. If the traffic volumes increase on Trunk Highway 77, how will the noise be reduced? Are noise walls to be constructed? It would appear reasonable that noise mitigation measures be implemented along both sides of Trunk Highway 77, north of I -494. Economic Impacts The EIS indicates that the City of Bloomington is proposing to raise 8.5 to 10 million dollars per year of operating subsidy by exempting the mall project from the fiscal disparities contribution levy. If this occurs there would be a negative economic impact upon the City of Richfield in that the city • receives significant amounts of revenue from the fiscal disparities pool. As indicated in the Metropolitan Significance Review Report Mall of American and Fantasy World in the City of Bloomington which was prepared by the Metropolitan Council, "The Fiseial Disparities Act is based upon the proposition that, in many respects the metropolitan area is a single community, and that, in large measure, commercial /industrial development in the seven county area is regional in nature: it occurs in part because of the proximity of the metropolitan population and it tends to serve and depend upon, an area far beyond the borders of the municipality in which it happens to locate. Very large commercial /industrial developments, whether large factories, regional shopping centers, industrial or office parks locate in the metropolitan area by reason of the fact that it is a metropolitan area because of the presence of a market and such metropolitan resources as transportation facilities. By their very nature, such developments occur in limited numbers. The act assumes that it is more fair for each city to share a portion of its commercial /industrial growth with the rest of the metropolitan area than it is to maintain a system where the particular municipality which happens to attract such a development receives the entire windfall of the value of the development." The City of Richfield is opposed to any fiscal disparities exemption for the Mall of American and Fantasy World project. 11 as 3 The city staff will be available at the city council meeting to discuss this in greater detail. Written comments on this draft Environmental Impact Statement must be submitted to the City of Bloomington no later than January 24, 1986. 5Re e ctfu y ksm d, n G. Cart City Man ager JGC /eja is • i From the Citizens League's Statement to the House Tax Subcommittee on Fiscal Disparities. Minnesota should retain the metropolitan tax -base sharing law... Unlike other ways to help finance local governments, the law requires no state aid, which means it does impose a burden on the state general nue fund. Tax -base sharing often is thought of as a source of revenue for local governments. But the revenue does not come automatically. A city, for example, can levy taxes on its share of the regional pool of valuations. But it receives no money un- less it actually levies the taxes, with the knowledge that the same tax rate also will fall on its resident voters ... The Legislature doesn't have to re- author- ize metropolitan tax -base sharing every biennium, in stark contrast to its time-con- suming biennial (sometimes annual) strug- gles with state aid to schools, cities and counties and property tax relief ... 0 Change tax - base sharing law, but keep it The fact that the Legislature has made so few changes since the law was found con- stitutional 11 years ago is testimony to its essential strength. Nevertheless, some changes should be made: Phase out exemptions. When the law was passed, the Legislature exempted certain properties: (a) property in tax- increment districts, (b) cities with a special designation from the federal Economic Development Administration, and, (c) property at the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport. Minnesota Journal Since passage, the Legislature has acted twice to reduce the size of the tax- incre- ment exemption, in 1974 and 1979. The Legislature in 1986 should complete this job by phasing out the remaining properties covered by this exemption ... Contrary to some critics of the law, the Leg- islature has not granted any exemptions since the law was passed. It has only acted to cut back on exemption granted at the time of passage in 1971. Thus recent proposals to grant exemptions to specific properties are without precedent ... The Legislature is being asked in 1985 to grant an exemption from the tax -base sharing law to help finance a mega -mall at the old Metropolitan Stadium site in Bloom- ington ... The Legislature can provide the same dollars and be fairer to all parties in- volved through a direct tax that falls in the same proportion on all taxpayers. November 19, 1985 inn fiscal cparitas closer to home k Even with the attention focused.4n it by.the megae Tax-Committee figuresshow that the effects o mall issue► the significance of: the` "'i!&Caldlgp= -U,g Ong generally, move in the right direc- *linnea olis Star,- and Ta ' bun She impact in terms that enable homeowners to' , Park RoOer t naOn Publietw and PreejcW better understand how the law affects them, what'$ good about it and what may be wrong with it .loci. R. Kramer Executive E r ; TIM .WOW* Managp Editor $65,000 house in Bloomington, whose mayor has vowed to get the fiscal-dlsparlties law repealed if ROW I. Yilitlb EdtsxW Editor R . , ties, has one of the area's highest taxes on a $65,000 t& ' home — $806. Little Canada, a. Community strug Ming to build its tax base, loses substantially to : (1 s + ' 4 :,y Nr MRkt'f 4"pp F x a tax on a $65,000 house. Clearly the law is not working as intended in such cases. Nor may it be achieving its purposes in North Oaks, an exclusive The two examples lUustrate ,how the tiscaldispariT , . ties law can affect even chose neighbors in residential suburb phere the tax on a $65,000 home la: psyG ; md►ittee at a mere 55T.. i opposite14y.:tbe ways. But they show as well well .that even so-called losers under fiscal disparities often still come inn fiscal cparitas closer to home k Even with the attention focused.4n it by.the megae Tax-Committee figuresshow that the effects o mall issue► the significance of: the` "'i!&Caldlgp= -U,g Ong generally, move in the right direc- ties•• law has remained elusive. Now, however, the Minnesota House: Tax Committee has calculated > tion -- toward the center. With fiscal disparities, She impact in terms that enable homeowners to' , tax rates range from 82 mills to 131 mitts; without fiscal disparities they would range from 72 mills to better understand how the law affects them, what'$ good about it and what may be wrong with it 151 mills. with fiscal disparities, taxes on $65,000 'homes Take two homeowners as examples. One owns a, . range from $490 to $811; without, they would range from $399 to $1,014. $65,000 house in Bloomington, whose mayor has vowed to get the fiscal-dlsparlties law repealed if But the figures also reveal some wrong turns. Shakopee, one of the biggest losers to fiscal dispari. the mega -mall Isn't exempted, The other owns a: similar $65,000 house a few blocks north In ties, has one of the area's highest taxes on a $65,000 — ; Richfield. Under fiscal dhsparities, the Bloomington ' home — $806. Little Canada, a. Community strug Ming to build its tax base, loses substantially to : owner's property tax's 6560: the Richfield owner's, 1628. If fiscal disparities were repealed, the fiscal disparities but levies a relatively high $695` Bloom - fin owner would pay a little less — $530. But the Old owuar'woukt PRY lot more -- $770.. tax on a $65,000 house. Clearly the law is not working as intended in such cases. Nor may it be achieving its purposes in North Oaks, an exclusive The two examples lUustrate ,how the tiscaldispariT , . ties law can affect even chose neighbors in residential suburb phere the tax on a $65,000 home la: psyG ; md►ittee at a mere 55T.. i opposite14y.:tbe ways. But they show as well well .that even so-called losers under fiscal disparities often still come The Shakopee and Little Canada ' ' examples argue 'for out ahead of the "winners," That's because the intent Of fiscal disparities is merely to narrow the some change in the law, which Tax Committee Chairman Bill Schreiber thinks can be done. Fixing the North gap: between the lightly taxed and the heavily. taxed — : a gap that may exist for no better reason than that Oaks problem, he fears, might create new inequitles elsewhere. Overall,, however, it is , the. two live on opposite 81(105 of ' a municipal bogadary. By reducing such inequities, the fiscal.. -`to the Richfield and Bloomington examples that re. Elect the law's effectiveness -- how it was supposed d0wrid8s law also reduces the •need for other ,: ' tax work, how. it generally does. work, and why it should be allowed to keep on working to the benefit Of relief and tRUtllci . °,� pf the Twig Clues area.. n U �a 5 OIA • I �"isca� Dis�aR� -ries �� AR�1 WIDf'PDOI. C'f)'8 � �,263,SOi,000 �,rr 6 �� 40 40:000� ASSeSStD VAi.u¢ < < (fil ow 5 �'>y� art,%' 40% ' G +T &ViliowTH riluniew!goqll,jT M1NNfilpeliS SST "PAUI. RvcNFtELD �apular�/ WF LIT�{ *RsCAll Cii�gC� 'PUTS 114 ZS9 PA t414 tffi m 5.SM 7AKiS ova � Z�s M iss rn 14 An 2a.5na .r, ZZc, blow';; o o Y{om o L a a° ` W v: aca�c> c � t : r "� am; car•+. r�� L m o o3.c o . e _,..o a wco VL cc Go IEEE �• � "� yy t00�ON�� 3t HIM � dn ' Std d w C��•� va � oD ars Ris; 920 ao eq.+.: mm` m as a XQ' LD ITP,, Vw ' . om C6 It vs ■� - � oaf a � _� a�� IS Fri., Sept. 20, 1985 ss' Mlnneapolie Star and Tribune to its population and in inverse pro• �n portion to its per capita property . wea .lth:.:'- - 'XeS Continued from page 1B According to the report e r w. t. srC d W t ,. .r, {,. Tern f. w' %a.. * +' - r •(, a. s'. ;.;#p "Eliminit It, mean some . :1971, as a base to calculate `the ■ Big "winners" this year include= very dramatic increases for a lot of amount to be contributed to the Circle Pines in Anoka County, where- property taxpayers in the metro area wide pool, he said. That might gross property taxes overall would area. We don't intend on doing that, give Bloomington some leeway, he be 29 percent- higher without the Rep. Bill Schreiber,,chairman,of the; said. The contribution is 40 percent pool; South St. Paul in Dakota Coun- =. tax committee, said yesterday ;ti of the increase in the taxable value ty, where property taxes would go: of a municipality's commercial and _ 14.7 percent; Champlin in Hennepin Schreiber's hometown" of Brooklyn industrial property # h County, which would have a 20 per - ,j Park is a' winner' . under the law, f , tw cent increase; North Oaks in Ramsey =y But property taxes there would go up Schreiber also said the law may. County, which would have a 14 per- 1 8 percent without fiscal disparities, . , need to be revised so that . suburbs .. cent increase in overall property tax, l such as North Oaks;' which restricts es; Jordan in Scott County, which Without a .law; the Legislature commercial and industrial develop-.,,,- would have a.19 percent increase;,-' I would have to invent,a way to hold meat,, wouldn't: continue to benefit and Oakdale In Washington County,„: t down property taxes in the metro , by the program,ts x *s which would have an 18 percent in 1 �rarea,.SC4h * T8ddedtrla4'4 kr� l.aq�t:T.. crease., srk 1, a For taxes payable in 188, more than i#e said,... a ,report .reinforces, ,the: • $1.2 billion of the _taxable value of ■ The- big `losers" inelude. Fridley argument that givltig Bloomington an commercial and industrial property • in Anoka County, where gross prop-_.. I x :exemption for. its mega mall would �4was shared among "have" and "have - eFty taxes would .decrease 8.6 per ., c Undermine a pro that's working not" communities, as a result of the cent without the tax sharing plan, s Chaska ; is Carver .County, which;n would, have a 5.2 percent d Z:. rw w y The tax co tte y recommend E c, municipality !s allocaEed a por Eagan::in Dakotas County, which y usinga "floatin year Instead ` of Lion of the pool in direct, proportion would have an 3 percent decrease,, ` r Plymouth, which would. have sn 88 p t z s rc� -;; •. • , ° , ^ „, r 3 x t : peme4t. decrease; Arden Hills 1n ` i Im ac of eUmmatin fiscal dis Ramsey County, Which would have a , b P. ,c 9 P on e�ti w�ti� more than 2 500 population 25.2 percent decrease, Shakopee 15 k .: Scott County, which•.would have a 15 percent decrease, and Bayport in W n County, a,.9.5 percent Net tax on $65,000 home cry Jy i r3'f '.• 4' WItI10Ut k ` "' Current fiscal Percent ■Minneapolis "is' a slight loser. to 1 arm law disparities change' 1985 for the second year in a row; Its i x gross property taxes would be re- duced four-tenths of 1 percent with Araks Coirriy Townah� x 5 $509�r y $64i y 27.1% ` ;+ I.- out the:law; St ;Paul came out ahead, 9.3% `its property taxes would be 2.1 per t dover;i:4 rid j 530 698 31,3% , cent higher without the law nn Y Cokornbia t3 %�T Cs� . 529 e41 � z z 21;2°k r; t y, :', _YT �' a:,.ia 537 858 i�u. .,: 59:896 ■Hennepin County is the only. count'' E. ty in the seven - county metropolitan .. ,.� far fat 577 52Q -9.996 +. 'Coon Rapids s..' wN ' ; c , 818 758 « rc' area that;i3 an - Overall::: loser, 8n4% 57 �•?°b - contributed $148 million more 552 881 3 + 24,-'$gfr it received this year., Anoka County, €Ar - . :tno ta8es f G 670 :_929 38.7% Was the biggest "winner" and gained ¢ 'Esst Bated ty� Sol 'am f, ;: 2a.9% a net $82.9 million. Individual com- a ” -; �'iam Lske' sF ° ±a; =k� -`525. BT , " 28.8% munitieS iD each ::county could be l winners or losers, however 548 yq 15.7% Spring Lake Park ;j 6 . r 548 740 35.096 ■ Almost all townships are net .gain- L �i K 3k ers, according to the report Asa G general rule, smaller communities ;'Carver County Tow2!sW , $503 $532 5.8% are likelier t0 benefit, and benefit t0 'T ' Chaskd _ : ^., 562 534 -5.0%. , a greater degree than larger commu waconie : - 607 638 5.1%. nities. ; Cnannassenlpx 749 sty 22.2% ■Commercial and indusMal roper LM ' ty as a whole would benefit most Dakota County Township ri $490 $53s 10:096 from eliminating the fiscal dispari Fad 847 18.8% ties law, and would have an overall drop in their metrowide net tax bur- Grove tteghta, 5t35 539 -a.e : den of 2.4 percent; ` ' .'about $I2.5 B1ae ` 966 781 10.996 million. The e ffective tax rate would Rosemow►t 598 573 -4 •2°� drop from 445- pe 4.34 per- 'r .South St base, would be the most adversely _� 5 5 %- affected, with a net An . A oL, &0(*Iyn center $t302 3 6.8 pe ' Ssss rcent, 7 C^....��.� `� ,839 �-: r ' 898 40 5% Crystal y; 874 77 848 y 26.8%: r Ci ieS u� . Deephaven" x' 882 832 22 0 %p�utatioll who ale } set 5074 , -2 T% percent of;reductton ta1r P1?e Edina ` `' x ' 7996 stY;. taXe3 :withou} the Qt0$CaII1 `;?ii' xa7 806. Excelsior r 546 Y -81% dude��7 a Golden Valey V 528 Iyakota County. Inver rave Heigh ' 576 885 <j ,18 9% r , kda ,,,d 4,4 percent, Rosemount, 2.3 pe 83S 8 1% Mendota Heights, 0 2ercenBurAS�� Osseo 828 770 '. 22.6% - vl]lef 3.5 percent. PichfieW# ran 990 ' 26.9% laobbinsdale -7.5% Hennepin County: BroolyII r+ St Louis Park `. ' - ` 597 552 percent EdiAa, 3.8 percent, Gold r ..2.t% 31 waynta 532 '' Valley,' , 5.2 percent: St. Liittis 5W s3tt : -8 7Wo F, k� :4.3 percent; BloomingtOII BloonNngton 7 3% rcent;� Nev+. Hope, 3. percent:. 4" Hope' 1s. • ';832 ,.Fden @, g7s h} 11.7 %' neto" ?:$. pe rCent; Ms.,* Grove a , 591 598 1 2%; `/ 9 porce t, Mitlnea 0l 3 r Medina 644 77.7 Orotw 635 49f3 ROSettiie,� y .County:. Brooktyn Park :r 620 725. 9% cent; Little Canada, 6.6 Oer IIt'. -M8 r, s5astl �w a- s.7a6;= ; ptewood, 15.3.:.percent: zx'adnais Minetonkat tss <,_933 y ;:a6.9% Heights, ..0 percent. ; - thou { Shorewood 612 888 4 2 percent" a .. -64t 588 8,796 �t Corcoran 6 r 1 tt CSun wage, �l 9 �a °642 816 .• �. t3.7% SCO F tY Eden Prairie 632`1�VashingtOu..:Fdrest Dayton (part) f<� 60T �.:; „ 38.1Mo CeIIt; Oak park- Heights, 44 Prrcentc Minneapoas 666 882.9Mo Woodbury, 3 5 perceIItr _ St AMlwnp _ y(^ r_. 37 m 8840 56 31.9Mo " . ( •". �, ...ki �' t Rasey Comb Township �i I40- _qo uagi; I 09 New Brighton 532 '555 23.2% aIRAOMI SSaulp133�j 1 0b MaII;B 639 787 North St. Paul -8.8% i do As pus a [tajtaes hlo 08 pings � • Rosevine 568 518 Iqu�Soldtua„ ` ais oqm : s;ualdlaa t Fak�n Heights r 56t 761 34,a% sI, �8ny OAfP911 paa ap , ,z� r 51T , 399 ,R -22.8% Olgls[gat uaq& 8Z ►f uw" 3883 «6i /kden tWls 603 ; r� t3.2% A, naA8 to Sings s SesOltof Sa sal aqy g` ;;tittle Canada '' ^. �•:, �� arm ;� 3i ;�, +� F '�� Norti+ oaks 2e 7% 'Iei►lug i}agl uodn sapuaga aaunaeld 4 728 nnOO 01 Luagl pans _pau 'q�t3a Maplewood 526 37 2.1% - 38 `isal.a jo sa�doa ppU`fZ'paiaP vadna� Heights ,s6o , *AVq,!tagl .l l paouaouas, sbaje H 10 luauredaQ:a}els.egl Mounds Vow T82 803 2:7% sispU 0 `�CBpSlil U 4l1IUI00Q11S ' •' St. Pad '' T.9% OH g30S2IIUIp1j 8 j0 aaur 8 }V St. Mthany (part) 631 581 9Wo soY w 703 876 • 24 sriE?tx)q'ASl�drr' . While Bear Lake (part) , , ti �'R li �nr ,{ r x lAs 'QOIlllul![d7cg rPa��Is�a� atOtF ::. scoff cWnb Township 553s 5847 20.0% Ou sE age 4�14d► tot iva/gorj Q: 848 a2s 2T.9% dmoa e_ sq ssauauatd luaply ;; 754 1,014' 34.6% fir �yx t mn 10.2% ,a Prarleke at 1 757 =8.7 %' ; 'Mpni os ais �iropsanb aip t18 toH Savage 568 29.5% Shakopee r 6os ar: e� -u8 110 New Prague (part) 800 850 .1 3% 6 n. 5528 $583 10.4% ship Washington County Town 2.4% _ Afton 534 547 O t Bayport 55.1 504 -8.5% 591 525 a, -11.2% <r'" # _k v'.; s• Forest Lake 534 552 3.4% ��o 6W Lake 13.9% (' Lake El 830 Mahtomedi 615 720 17.1% Newport 674 690 2:4% St. Pad Pack 630 705 11.99b x , ' SoWater 62a 659 5.6% Oak Park Heights 5544 �) 544 0.0% ti Cottage Grove sf - 721 813 12 7% ?� *y r, a WoodbuY . ,.., 4h �N ,' %872 z .. 825 9% 849 884 38.2% Oakdale ti Y aa� Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291 -6359 A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED MALL OF AMERICA /FANTASYWORLD PROJECT BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA Testimony of Metropolitan Council Chair Sandra S. Gardebring To Committees of the Minnesota State Legislature September 18, 1985 --vIN claw Publication No. 02 -85 -130 INTRODUCTION- Thank you for inviting me to discuss our work on the Mall of America/ Fantasyworld proposal. We have prepared testimony that addresses questions raised by various legislative committees. as -�/ First, I want to report we are about to initiate a metropolitan significance review of this proposal. The Council's Metropolitan Systems Committee has already approved initiating the review. It will go to the full Council on Sept.,26, 1985. The metropolitan significance review will concentrate on two broad areas of concern. The review will cover the impact of the project on the metropolitan systems of highways, transit, airports, sewers and parks. It will also cover the economic impact on communities other than Bloomington. I have attached an outline of the economic study the Council will be under- taking in cooperation with the Minnesota Departments of Energy and Economic Development (DEED), Finance and Revenue. Some of you may have received a staff report from DEED this week. That report and the testimony you will hear today are the first attempts on the part of the state agencies and the Council to pull together some factual data on the Bloomington development. I want to report on the activities that are now under way concerning this project and that will lead to a comprehensive report in the coming months. 1. The Council is in the process of hiring a consultant to analyze the capability of the project to attract tourists and generate retail sales. 2. Our staff has been working closely with Bloomington's transportation • consultants, Minnesota Department of Transportation and Regional Transit Board to ensure the analysis of the highway and transit impacts are fully understood. The Council has retained its own transportation consultant to provide advice during this process. 3. The Council has been participating in the environmental review process for the project. The Council has prepared comments on the state environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) scoping report and the federal EAW scoping report. Our staff has been working closely with the city and representa- tives of the developers to ensure that the timing of our metropolitan significance review process and the environmental process do not cause undue delays in the project. 4. The Council has held two Committee of the Whole meetings to get background information on the project. One sessions covered the metropolitan signif- icance process and the fiscal disparities legislation. Charles Weaver, a former representative from Anoka County, briefed the Council on the legisla- tive history of fiscal disparities and the basis for exclusions that were made to the program. 5. You are one of five legislative committees I will be testifying before on this topic this week. I hope you will find our report enlightening, but would ask you to understand that we have not completed our analysis, so what we are able to tell you today is preliminary in nature. DEVELOPERS' PROPOSAL I would like to take a little time to review what it is we are analyzing and to compare it to the projected development in the airport south generic environ- mental impact statement that included the stadium site. The Mall of America / Fantasyworld project is 11 million square feet in size (see Table 1). This is broken down into five primary uses: • 5 million square feet retail shopping mall (4 million square feet gross leasable area) • 1 million square feet Fantasyworld (This amusement and recreation area is 23 acres in size.) • 1 million square feet convention center, 500,000 - square -feet exhibit space (There has been some discussion of reducing this space, but at this time the specifics are unclear.) • 2 million square feet of hotel space, which represents 2,000 hotel rooms a 2 million square feet of office space The generic EIS was prepared for the entire airport south area of Bloomington which consists of about 900 developable acres. At the time the study was undertaken, there were about 300 acres of vacant land available for develop- ment, including the 85 -acre stadium site. Table 1 shows the amount of development that was anticipated in the generic EIS for the entire area and for • the stadium site. When compared to the larger area, the Mall of America/ Fantasyworld proposal contains significantly more retail space, a recreation/ amusement area and a convention center. The generic EIS concept contained much more office buildings and housing units. The stadium site itself contained all the new retail space in the airport south area (900,000 square feet), a significant amount of office space and some hotel and residential units. Table 1 also shows the land uses suggested by the Trammell Crow and United Western development teams that submitted proposals to Bloomington for the stadium site at the same time Triple 5 submitted the Mall of America proposal. Although each contains hotels, retail and residential uses, office space is the major use in the two competing proposals. The Trammell Crow proposal also contains 100,000 square feet of convention center. SITE VISITORS PROJECTIONS /TOURISM There has been a good deal of discussion about the number of people that will be attracted to this project. A key factor in determining the benefits to the region and state will be the number of tourists that the project can attract. First, I'll review the projections of total visitors by the various activities, and then I'll discuss tourists in some detail. 0 2 • 3 C E CDn • O is y r s �- C � C C av c w y � O CA L41 a � c c N N .L t as -i3 +i <: N N L 7 S Q r�i+ N N O O N �1L p O O O t dl 0 O 3 N N Q O N +' O O �+ LO p ON m L w Y. O •.• w N rY O ^ p C O • C% O rr 0. N .. F d In It . r" V !O S W FdC � N # 49 01 N N N _ + O y rw C Z W N 1. MY. p C ac 7 N N Q O N A d O p ^ p 0 O p 0 H O� N rC •.n y �. � E � V N N �.t L O N pp Lei p yy p Q • _L Ci O O eJ Q t0 e ui C • y e i oLi � v v t ie e CCC:,, d 41 i d C d _ d 'O A y w • 3 C E CDn • O is y r s �- C � C C av c w y � O CA L41 a � c c N N .L t as -i3 SITE VISITORS PROJECTIONS A project of this scale will potentially attract a very large number of people. A basic concept of the developers is that the various uses will serve to bring people to the site who will then be attracted to the other activ- ities. The developers believe that Fantasyworld and the convention center will be major generators for the retail mall. Table 2 shows the most current data available from the developers on visitors to the site. The visits are broken down by the primary reason people will come to the site and do not show multiple trip purposes. While this is the best data, there is still some confusion about some of the figures. It is important to note that the table includes both turnstile "clicks," or counts, and people or individuals. This means that the 800,000 convention center delegates (individuals) are expected to stay four days and generate 3.2 million turnstile clicks. The tourists that come for retail and amusement are expected to visit these areas two times each, so the total tourists to the site represent 12.2 million turnstile counts or 3,866,666 people. There was considerable press coverage of the 11 million tourists expected at the site. The figure was reported in the original proposal to Bloomington and was subsequently defined as turnstile clicks as opposed to people. The data in hand "shows an estimated 3,867,000 tourists will come to the project. A key finding made clear in the table is that the majority of site visitors will be local residents. The locally- generated turnstile clicks will represent 59 percent of all visitors. Another way to view this figure is to convert the turnstile clicks to people, which is done in Table 2. Since local visitors live close to the site and do not stay overnight, each visitor makes one turnstile count. The figures reported for local visitors -to the retail and • amusement area are, in fact, people. But the developers' information does not distinguish between tourists who stay overnight or whether they come from within 50 or 100 miles of the site. If these people are all from within 50 miles of the site, an area that has a population of 2,284,760, each person would have to visit the project seven or more times a year to meet these projections. If they come from within 100 miles of the site, an area which has a population of 3,302,425, each person would have to each visit the project five times a year to meet the projections. TOURISM The number of tourists that will be attracted to the mall is a critical factor in determining the impacts of the mall on the regional and state economy. The developers estimate (Table 2) 12.2 million tourist turnstile clicks will be produced by the convention center, retail mall and amusement center. Tourists are defined as anyone who lives more than 100 miles from the site or stays overnight. Retail and amusement tourist turnstile clicks total 6.9 and 2.9 million, respectively. Using an average of three turnstile clicks per visitor yields actual tourist totals of 2,300,000 for retail and 966,666 for amusement, or a total of 3,266,660 people. The convention center is projected to attract 600,000 tourists who will stay an average of three and one -half days at the site and each attend trade shows or convention events four times. 4 J ^ O O g 0 o g g W N Q $z N O Y p u Y v o o u+•r v O It ►� N Q' 1, N t ^ O M M tC L OeM�f Y eMrf � 7 W YI N •.1 N N O y R L c °o °o V a L 0) c. O Q Q o o L c Y t w �a N+ O O O p O O p y - L O O . � d rn s d > S. i Q Q M A Y L G C Y 4A u > N 2~ G � ^ V 9F. ^ QQ �D MD O + Y V d S p .0 W O O �O G i G' i6 Aj J Yl Y O O Y 1G0 >> Y N V F• d O \D C Y w 4 q c G .O H N p M = > L E 110 z Z L co O w `-1 w 1O v ~ +� 3!Y y co L Z LL to p Q O Y R G L OM —CM A d Y d Y ' Y O O ' C U. 0 Y G d J y D Y T G O N O OJ 10 a) d L CQ Opp • a~ . c ^ O O p r0 i0 G d c A S- C: � A d N _ + N w fc N V G fa L O M tOp 100 O �' y X07 G O a) O tG �o vai N O E +O+ O QO N E O) N L N Q Ln O t to p ,..� N Y M t N N UP N t j y A q u r W Y 10 y� pO O O pQ g N N N 0' Vl N Y 01 > d G y v O O L O Y y i �n O O GIY Y+ L A t 41 L V N O� {tf t0 Y n7 i L OJ N Y J S N ►' M OD 1� Cl G Q G cl > > d L c •� N 0) v+ 0O T Y L t Ol •• d Q) G Y= A C 55 v p A j W O �0 07 �11W.W o d ecW �" E cc W4°fa G u O^ c ^�+ g0 d� N aEi N ^ E i G Ol 01 ^ _ E y Q, d i 'O ..E. Y y 11 �p,1 8 - N Of > R! 0 N J Q H � 1� 6Y C L a G Y '� N• L O N rL- v � d� ►p-. � a h J It is not clear what.the assumptions about length of stay are based on- -e.g., national surveys, the experience at Edmonton, etc. We have asked the developer for clarification. We have also asked whether the number of actual tourists are new (net) to the • region or whether they represent in part people already coming to the state for other entertainment purposes. The developers have not been able to answer this question. The Council has reviewed data on tourism for the region that helps put these numbers into some perspective. Table 3 shows data from a study completed in 1979 on regional travel and tourism. These figures have been increased by 10 percent to account for growth during the past seven years. (As an example, population from April 1, 1978 to April 1, 1985 increased 6.5 percent and employment increased 16.7 percent.) Using these figures, the number of people who come to this region for both recreation, sightseeing and entertainment (line 4) and shopping (line 5) total approximately 4,158,000. (The definition of tourist is someone that lives over 100 miles away or someone that stays overnight, which is the definition the developers are using.) The figure compares with the 3,266,666 tourist figure used by the developers for retail and amusement. The material from the developers does not make it clear if these people are new tourists or if they are in whole or in part existing tourists. If one assumes the'developers projected only new tourists, this would mean that the number of people that come to this region that might be considered tourists or to shop would have to increase by 78 percent. If, on the other hand, we assume the developers' estimate includes no new tourists or shoppers, all these visitors to the region would have to go to the mall to meet the developers' projections. • If a broader definition is made to include tourism - travelers, then we could include people who come to the region to visit friends and relatives (Table 3, line 1). It may be reasonable to consider that those people coming to the area to visit friends or relatives might have time or want to visit the mall. The total tourists, shoppers and visitors to the region (lines 1, 4 and 5) in this case would be approximately 11,642,400. Again, if we assume the developers' figure of 3,266,666 tourists (excluding those that come to convention and trade shows) are all new, the regional visitor total would have to increase to 14,909,066 or an increase of 28 percent. If there are no new tourists, one in four of the total of 11.6 million people that come to the region to visit friends and relatives, for recreation, shopping, etc., would have to go to the mall. ANALYSISICOMPARISON OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT In this section, I "11 compare the projections made by the developers to some existing conditions to provide some perspective on what is being proposed. When possible, I'll draw some conclusions about the proposal. RETAIL The retail shopping center is the key component of this project. The total • area dedicated to retail space is five million square feet, broken down as follows: four million square feet is gross leasable area; the remaining one 0 0 0 17J million square feet includes public toilets, corridors, stairwells, elevators, machine and equipment rooms, lobbies or mall areas. The developers project retail sales (1985 dollars) of $1,144,000,000. (Based on discussions with the developer, this 'excludes retail sales of Bloomington residents.) 17 i' Table 3 TOURISTS- VISITORS TO REGION 10 percent Estimated 1977 -78* Increase 1985 1. Visit to friends and relatives 6,804,000 680,400 7,484,400 2. Work or business 4,284,000 3. Personal business 1 3,780,000 4. Recreation, sightseeing, entertainment 2,016,000 5. Shopping 1,764,000 6. Conference and convention 1,260,000 7. Travel Node, no special reason to be in TCMA 4,536,000 8. All others 756,000 25,200,000 428,400 4,712,400 378,000 4,158,000 201,600 2,217,600 176,400 1,940,400 126,000 1,386,000 453,600 4,989,600 75,600 831,600 2,520,000 27,720,000 *Minneapolis -St. Paul Travel- Tourism People, Dollars and Activities in the Metropolitan Area, Executive Summary, Uel Blank, Michael Petkovich, University of Minnesota, Oct. 1979. Our interpretation of the developers' concept is that Fantasyworld and the convention center would draw potential shoppers to the retail area. The more people on- site, the more opportunity to attract shoppers to the stores, restaurants and bars. The key question that needs to be answered is how much of the retail sales will be shifted from other retail areas in the region and state, and how much might be considered new. The Council's analysis, when completed, will attempt to determine where the patrons of the mall will come from. The developers have provided some indication of this. The Council will analyze the projections in the coming months. At this time, we have only attempted to set the retail sales into some context so you might get an understanding of the scope of this project. In Table 4, the mall is compared to regional retail sales. The spending level for the mall is in 1985 dollars. The regional sales are for 1983 (These are 7 being updated to 1985.) We recognize there has been growth in regional retail sales so the comparisons are not thoroughly compatible. Nevertheless, they help put the project into perspective. Table 4 COMPARISON OF MALL OF AMERICA TO REGIONAL RETAIL SALES IN 1983 Mall Percent Region Mall of Region 53 General Merchandise $ 2,232,488,000 $ 256,662,000 11.5% 54 Food 1,969,219,000 34,505,000 1.7% 56 Apparel 430,258,000 393,830,175 91.5% 57 Furniture 708,511,000 70,405,340 9.9% 58 Eating and Drinking 1,143,532,000 76,496,400 6.7% 59 Miscellaneous Retail 2,965,813,000 259,791,918 8.8% $ 9,449,821,000 $1,091,689,000 11.5% Total State Retail Sales $15,778,379,000 $1,091,689,000 6.9% Total sales volume at the mall is projected to be $1,144,000,000. For compar- ison purposes, we have not included personal business, auto, health and recreation services or motion pictures or amusements in Table 4. Excluding these categories of sales, the mall will do $1,091,690,000 in sales. The corresponding figure for the region in 1983 is $9,449,821,000. The sales at the mall, then, represent 11.5 percent of regional retail sales. When compared with the state retail sales figures, the mall represents 6.9 percent. Presently, retail sales in Bloomington represent 5.2 percent of the region's sales and three percent of the state sales. How does the Mall of America compare to the sales at existing regional malls? Southdale, Brookdale, Rosedale and Ridgedale malls (this does not include any retail off-site in these areas) had total sales in 1984 of $485,410,000. The Mall of America is projected to have sales two and one - fourth times the combined sales at these four regional malls.. The average annual sales per square foot at these four malls ranges from $189 to $218. The Mall of America is projected to have total sales of $300 per square foot. (If sales to Bloomington residents are excluded, the mall is expected to have sales of $286 per square foot.) n As noted above, the key question is who will shop in the mall. The developers have said that, of the total sales at the mall, $774,600,000 would come from 0 -Minnesota residents. Of this, $600 million of sales would be from residents within 50 miles of the mall and the remainder would be from residents living ,V-17 beyond 50 miles. The remaining $425,400,000 in retail sales are projected to be from visitors drawn into the area by the mall. An important point needs to be made here. The material provided by the developers has not made it clear if all of this amount would be attributable to new tourists or if a portion of the sales would come by attracting existing tourists to the mall. If, in fact, the sales are attributed to new tourists, these dollars would not have come into the regional or state economy without the mall and, therefore, these sales would represent a net increase. If these sales are totally or in part due to present tourists visiting the mall, then a share of these sales would have been made even if the mall were-not built. This question will be explored more fully in the Council analysis in the coming weeks. At this time, the conclusions. that can be reached are that any new major attrac- tion in the region will attract some portion of existing tourists. No one would assume that none of the present 11 million tourist -type visitors would not visit ,a new project as attractive as the developers have described. Therefore, a portion of the tourist - related business is already in the region and state, but we do not know how big a portion that represents of the $425 million. The developers also make the argument that, because of the new tourists and jobs, an amount that ranges from $592 million to $716 million in additional retail sales will be created in the region and state. At this time, it is not possible to say how accurate these figures are but we know they are based on two key assumptions: 1) The project will create 40,000 direct and indirect jobs, and 2) 3,866,666 million tourists will be attracted to the region to visit the mall. The estimated new jobs seems to be much lower than 40,000 projected by the developer. I'll talk about employment more shortly. As far as tourists are concerned, it appears unlikely these are all new tourists. We conclude that it is not very probable the project will create $592 million to $716 million in additional retail sales in the region and state to offset the $775 million in existing sales that will be shifted to the Mall of America. FANTASYWORLD ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX The one million square foot (23 -acre) Fantasyworld will be an important factor in attractin visitors to the mall. This complex will be composed of a water sports park including an ocean wave pool, 15 water slides, water ski machine, changing rooms for 5,000 people), submarine lake, space center, ice arena, marineland, roller rink, art and sculpture court, sports hall of fame, and fantasyworld pavilion (including a 12 -story multiloop roller coaster and a 14- story free -fall ride) . The developers project that there will be approximately 7.5 million turnstile - count visitors to Fantasyworld. We estimate this means 5,566,666 people will come to see Fantasyworld. Of this total, 4.6 million live within 50 miles of the site. The tourists who will come to Fantasyworld will generate 2.9 million turnstile counts. If we assume tourists will visit the area three times during their stay, this means 966,666 tourists will visit Fantasyworld. How does this figure compare to current attractions in the region? It is estimated that 20 major attractions in the region will have a total attendance of 14 million in 1985. These include Canterbury Downs Race Track, Carlton Celebrity Theater, Chanhassen Dinner Theatre, Children's Theatre Co., Chimera, Guthrie, Little Six Bingo,_ Minneapolis Institute of Art, Met Center (total all events), Orchestra Hall (all events), Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Zoo, Old Log Theater, Ordway Theatre, Padelford Packet Boats Co., Radisson Playhouse, Renaissance Festival, Science Museum /Omnitheater, Valleyfair Amusement Park and the Walker. In combination, these 20 attractions will spend $15 million for advertising in 1985. A rough estimate of nonlocal visitors to these 20 attractions ranges from 15 to 25 percent. This means 2.1 million to 3.5 million of the 14 million audience would be from outside the seven - county area. As noted above, Fantasy - world is projected to sell 7.5 million tickets. This represents 54 percent of the total 14 million ticket sold for these 20 major attractions. Fantasyworld is expected to attract 966,666 people from outside the region. This represents 28 to 46 percent of all the nonlocal visitors who attend these 20 attractions. Given the very diverse tastes these 20 attractions serve, the attendance projec- tions for Fantasyworld are somewhat questionable. CONVENTION CENTER The project contains provisions for a convention center. The specific size originally suggested was one million square feet. This was a total square foot figure. The facility will have 500,000 square feet of exhibit space. DEED commissioned Coopers - Lybrand to analyze the potential revenue impacts if this convention center and a new convention center planned in Minneapolis (a 300,000 square feet net exhibition space) were both built. A number of conclusions can be drawn from that report. 1. The two facilities will compete with one another for both local and national events. 2. Both facilities will compete with convention facilities throughout the state for some local and regional events. This includes facilities in St. Paul, Duluth, St. Cloud and Rochester. 3. If only one of these facilities were built, it would operate with a smaller deficit than if two were built. 4. Either one of these facilities has sufficient space to accommodate the projected events that would be attracted to the area for at least 10 years. HOTELS The project calls for the construction of 2,000 rooms and provide accommoda- tions for some of the convention /trade show attendees and tourists. By the middle of 1985, the seven - county region had approximately 20,900 hotel rooms. The 2,000 hotel rooms within the project will increase the regional supply to 22,900, or an increase of 9.5 per cent. Another way to view the 2,000 additional hotel rooms is to compare them to major concentrations in the region. In 1985, downtown Minneapolis had 4,721 hotel rooms, St. Paul had 1,715 rooms, and the I -494 strip had 5,428 rooms. OFFICE SPACE The project includes the construction of two million square feet of office space. In the spring of 1985, the seven - county region contained approximately 35 million square feet of rentable office space. This does not include office 10 4;Z; _49%X/ buildings owned and occupied by an individual company such as the Control Data office building in the airport south area or governmental offices (Source: Occupancy and Rent Report Summary, Spring 1985, Towle Real Estate Co.). The vacancy rate at that time was 13.2 percent representing 4.6 million square feet of space. If the proposed office space were added to the total rentable space, the total would be 37 million square feet. This is a 5.7 percent increase, and would have resulted in a 17.9 percent vacancy rate this year. In the spring of 1985, the southwestern part of the region (including_ Bloomington, Richfield, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina and St. Louis Park) had a total supply of rentable office space of .10.9 million square feet and a vacancy rate of 13.6 percent. The addition of two million square feet would increase the total by 18.3 percent and increase the vacancy rate to 26.9 percent. In considering these figures, it should be noted that office space construction and vacancy rates are cyclical in nature. Historically, the occupancy of office space increases to a point where the vacancy rates may be as low as three to five percent. Developers start to construct additional space in response to the market. Typically, these construction spurts continue until the vacancy rate gets to a fairly high level, 15 to 20 percent. New construc- tion then slows down until the vacant space is absorbed. The developers have said that construction of the office space may be the most likely candidate for any delay in the project. IMPACTS The Council will be preparing a complete metropolitan significance report on this project during the next three months. At this time, the analysis has not identified all the impacts, both positive and negative, that this project may generate. I'm going to talk about three of them that we will look at as we review the project. They are employment, taxes and impacts on the metropolitan systems -- highways, transit, airports, sewers and parks. We haven't completed our analysis, but we have some interesting facts for you. EMPLOYMENT Employment will be generated during both the construction and operating phases of the project. Construction Employment The developers estimate the project will create 15,300 person years of direct and indirect construction employment in the Metropolitan Area and an additional 3,500 person years in the remainder of the state. DEED has estimated 12,670 person years of direct or indirect employment from the project. The Council has not analyzed these estimates in detail. This will be done in conjunction with DEED and the Department of Revenue during the next three months. Operational Employment I'll now turn to "new" jobs being created by the project, describe the kind of jobs envisioned and how the numbers compare to what was forecast for the region. 11 Developers' Employment Estimates Table 5 below is a modification of the estimates provided by the developers. The Council has eliminated the range of numbers given for hotel and amusement employment. We have instead used the mid -point of the ranges given in order to is make the table more readable. The current proposal estimates 23,530 jobs are needed to operate the mall project when all construction is completed and all operations running. The number quoted here is full- time - equivalent (F.T.E.) jobs. As can be seen in the table, a good deal of the employment will be part time. This figure does not include the indirect jobs created by income generated by the proposal. In order to calculate those indirect jobs, it is necessary to know how many of the jobs in the proposal can be described as "new" jobs to the state or region. I'll look at this question more later. According to the Triple Five's estimates, the convention center, part of the retail, and part of the amusement jobs will be new to Minnesota. The office jobs, some amusement, and some retail would be coming to the region with or without the mall. The convention center, retail and amusement facilities would open in 1988 (we use 1990 to fit better with Council forecasts). The rest of the hotel and office space will open in around 1995. Metropolitan Council Forecasts Bloomington, under the current Council forecasts, is expected to grow from 59,000 employees to 75,000 between 1980 and 1990. Based on the city's current 67,000 employment, the city would be expected to add 8,000 between now and 1990. Regional jobs are forecasted to grow from 1,075,000 to 1.3 million between 1980 and 1990, or to add approximately 112,500 jobs between 1985 and 1990. The mall would account for approximately 21 percent of the forecasted regional employment growth between 1985 and 1990. These numbers need to be used carefully. First, the forecasts are for all jobs in the region, not just hotel, convention centers, retail, amusement and office. Second, the mall proposal is assumed to bring new business into the region, not just fill the jobs that were likely to occur anyway. This illustrates, however, the importance of the tourism estimates. If the tourists do not come in the numbers projected, then Bloomington will capture a larger share of the region's market for economic growth over the next five to 10 years. Types of Jobs The types of jobs to be created are shown in Table 5. Table 6 is an estimate of salaries associated with jobs in these industries. The table was taken from information provided by the developer. We have updated these numbers to reflect 1985 rather than 1983 wages. Triple Five has qualified this data as follows, and we agree with the qualification: Average annual wage levels in the hotel, convention, retail, and amusement sectors are distorted by the significant element of part - time and casual labor. The data does give some order of magnitude to the incomes anticipated for the jobs to be created. They tend to be lower- paying jobs. 0 12 Unemployment Given the relative low wage scale, it is not reasonable to assume that people will move to the metropolitan area to get these new jobs. In fact, the developers note in their discussion of who will fill the jobs that "the generation of employment demand in the retail and service sectors generally draws workers from that part of the adult population not currently employed or actively seeking employment as well as from the registered pool of unemployed. The developers also estimate approximately 11,000 unemployed workers statewide in those fields, somewhat less than they need. Total unemployment for the state in April was 126,000 for all occupations and 47,356 for the seven - county Metropolitan Area. Net New Jobs for the State Net new jobs created by the project for the state are difficult to calculate, but crucial to the whole debate. We have used a method to calculate these net new jobs similar to the method used by DEED. The developers, in their original proposal submitted to Bloomington, presented information (Table 3) that showed income generated to Bloomington and income generated to the state. Bloomington figures were higher than the state because the project will capture some growth that would otherwise occur outside of Bloomington. The Minnesota figure is net income to-the state -. The difference between the two represents displaced income. Furthermore, the developers have indicated that they calculated overall jobs for the state based on estimated income generated and the "output per employee." In a sense, we have reversed this estimate. To develop Table 7, we calculated the income per employee based on our F.T.E. numbers and the developers' estimates of income generated for Bloomington. We then used that to calculate net new employees for the state based on the developers' estimate of net income to the state. Table 7 gives gross jobs to Bloomington, net jobs for the state and the displacement (jobs going to Bloomington that would other- wise have been distributed around the state, perhaps mostly elsewhere in the Metropolitan Area). Table 7 also shows indirect jobs created, based on the net new jobs in the state. The developers use an employment multiplier of 2.0 for 13 Table 5 COMPOSITION OF EMPLOYEES Total Skilled Casual or Total Employees Management Full -Time Part -Time F.T.E. Hotel 1,800 190 1,070 540 1,530 Convention Center`< 1,250 40 210 1,000 600 Retail 13,330 1,810 5,440 6,080 9,700 Amusement 3,200 400 1,225 1,600 2,400 Subtotal 19,580 2,440 7,945 9,220 14,230 Office 9,300 -- -- -- 9,300 Total 28,880 -- -- -- 23,530 Unemployment Given the relative low wage scale, it is not reasonable to assume that people will move to the metropolitan area to get these new jobs. In fact, the developers note in their discussion of who will fill the jobs that "the generation of employment demand in the retail and service sectors generally draws workers from that part of the adult population not currently employed or actively seeking employment as well as from the registered pool of unemployed. The developers also estimate approximately 11,000 unemployed workers statewide in those fields, somewhat less than they need. Total unemployment for the state in April was 126,000 for all occupations and 47,356 for the seven - county Metropolitan Area. Net New Jobs for the State Net new jobs created by the project for the state are difficult to calculate, but crucial to the whole debate. We have used a method to calculate these net new jobs similar to the method used by DEED. The developers, in their original proposal submitted to Bloomington, presented information (Table 3) that showed income generated to Bloomington and income generated to the state. Bloomington figures were higher than the state because the project will capture some growth that would otherwise occur outside of Bloomington. The Minnesota figure is net income to-the state -. The difference between the two represents displaced income. Furthermore, the developers have indicated that they calculated overall jobs for the state based on estimated income generated and the "output per employee." In a sense, we have reversed this estimate. To develop Table 7, we calculated the income per employee based on our F.T.E. numbers and the developers' estimates of income generated for Bloomington. We then used that to calculate net new employees for the state based on the developers' estimate of net income to the state. Table 7 gives gross jobs to Bloomington, net jobs for the state and the displacement (jobs going to Bloomington that would other- wise have been distributed around the state, perhaps mostly elsewhere in the Metropolitan Area). Table 7 also shows indirect jobs created, based on the net new jobs in the state. The developers use an employment multiplier of 2.0 for 13 Table 6 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE LEVELS IN SELECTED SIC'S - -1985 Category Annual Wage Retail Trade - General Merchandise Stores $ 8,336 - Food Stores 10,375 - Apparel and Accessory Stores 7,758 - Furniture and Home Furnishing Stores 13,519 - Catering and Drinking Establishments 5,778 Services - Hotels and Other Lodging Places 8,396 - Motion Pictures 8,576 - Amusement and Recreation Services 9,915 *Assumes develops 2.0 employment multiplier for state. DEED believe 1.6 is a more appropriate multiplier which yields 4,557 indirect jobs for a total of 12,152 new jobs to the state. 14 Table 7 NET NEW JOBS VS. DISPLACEMENT New Jobs Displaced Project Component Bloomington to Minnesota Jobs Retail 9,700 3,500 6,200 Convention Center /Hotel 2,130 2,130 -- Amusement 2,400 1,965 435 Office 9,300 -- 9,300 TOTAL DIRECT 23,530 7,595 15,935 TOTAL INDIRECT 7,595* GRANT TOTAL 15,190 *Assumes develops 2.0 employment multiplier for state. DEED believe 1.6 is a more appropriate multiplier which yields 4,557 indirect jobs for a total of 12,152 new jobs to the state. 14 the state. DEED feels that a multiplier final analysis, the Triple Five proposal new jobs, excluding the construction jobs er, the figure is 12,152 new jobs. Based on this analysis, we conclude: of 1.6 is more appropriate. In the would appear to be generating 15,190 to build it. Using DEED's multipli- 1. The proposal will in all likelihood add new jobs to the state, although it depends on how successful it will be as a tourist attraction. How sensi- tive the new jobs are to the tourist numbers has not been analyzed here. The total new jobs being created are significantly lower than the 40,000 figure that the developers estimate. 2. It would appear that the region could accommodate this number of new jobs, given the forecasts and the current level of unemployed workers, as well as the 10 years it will take to get all elements of -the projects on line. 3. The level of jobs being created are not those most sought after in the usual economic development efforts,of government. TAXES I'm now going to turn to the regional impact of the project if it is included in, or if it is excluded from, fiscal disparities. I'il also summarize the developers' and DEED's estimates of tax revenues from the project. Fiscal Disparities One of the financing proposals for the mall project is to exempt it from the contribution to the fiscal disparities program. At completion of the project in 1991 Bloomington estimates that $94 million of assessed value would be contributed from the project and $125 million from the entire airport south district (including the mall). In recent weeks there have been several estimates of the impact of Bloomington's proposed exemption from fiscal disparities. One difficulty is that each uses somewhat different assumptions. However, all agree that the primary effect would be on local governments -- municipalities, counties, school districts- -and to a lesser extent on property tax - related state aids (e.g., homestead credits, school aids). Since the program redistributes tax base within the region, the regional fiscal capacity remains unchanged (disregarding the fact that the project will use tax increment financing). The fiscal capacity of all individual municipalities will change. To the extent that the redistribution is inverse to wealth as measured by fiscal capacity (market value of real property), poorer places will have less fiscal capacity and wealthy.places more. The primary effect is to raise property taxes in other cities by the amount these cities would gain under fiscal disparities. If the project was built and contributed to fiscal disparities, Bloomington's tax base would increase by 60 percent of the project's assessed value plus its fiscal disparities share of the remainder. (Under fiscal disparities all cities contribute and all cities receive a distribution share.) Other cities would receive a distribution share of the 40 percent contribution. If the project is exempt from fiscal dispar- ities, Bloomington receives 100 percent of the project's assessed value and 15 other cities receive nothing. Other cities would have less tax base than if 40 percent of the project were shared. Tax rates (taxes) in these cities would be higher than if the project were not exempt. If the project contributes to fiscal disparities, there is a savings in proper- ty taxes paid by residents in other cities. If it is exempted, tax burdens are higher in the rest of the Metropolitan Area. In other words, tax burdens that might remain in Bloomington are shifted to other metropolitan taxpayers. Table 8 shows the amount of tax base cities would not receive if $100 million of tax base were exempted from the pool today. This is based on the distribu- tion share cities received for taxes payable in 1985. The table includes each city's share of the entire pool and its share of total population. The difference between these shares represents the effect of the wealth adjustment (a larger distribution to poorer places; a smaller distribution to wealthier places). Bloomington is included since it would receive a distribution share. The share would be somewhat less than shown due to the effect of the wealth adjustment after the addition of the project. Although the Council does not gain tax revenue from the fiscal disparities program, it has supported the program since its enactment. From the Council's perspective the metropolitan area is a single economic unit whose residents live, work and shop in different subareas. Regional planning aims to make the region a better place to live and do business for all its residents. Regional investments are partly responsible for where development occurs in the region. Fiscal disparities provides a way to spread the fiscal benefits of development. It would seem preferable to examine the fiscal disparities program as a whole, apart from the issue of the Bloomington exemption. If it is examined as a means of providing public subsidies, it should be evaluated against alternative programs such as metropolitan taxes, a metropolitan redevelopment fund or a metropolitan bond guarantee. In conclusion, the effect of exempting Bloomington from the fiscal disparities pool is to increase property taxes in other cities of the Metropolitan Area. If the issue is to finance the public subsidy to the project, alternative ways of accomplishing this should be evaluated. Tax Revenues The Council has not attempted to estimate taxes that the project will generate. The Council is working with the Minnesota Departments of Revenue and Finance on this issue. The developers and DEED have estimated tax revenues. The developers have estimated the project will generate $118.9 million to $136.0 million in direct and indirect new state revenues each year for the life of the project. The following is a breakdown of revenues by type of tax: retail sales tax- -$54.4 million to $62 million annually; individual income tax- - $47.4 million to $54.4 million annually; corporate income tax - -$5.6 million to $6.4 million annually; other taxes -- motor vehicle excise tax, tax on alcoholic beverages and highway fuel taxes - -$11.5 million to $13.2 million annually. The DEED study broke down the taxes generated by year from beginning of construction to full operation of the project. In this manner, some of the taxes will phase out once construction has been completed and others will 16 4 2a -a� W - C Z< WON N O tD pp m^ M ID r m N m N �► t0 O m v -t0 M m an M O^ l0 10 ^IDrN< O^ OOOoW000IDM ^w00000wMOv0 ^OOm ^mNm ^NON ^OOONMONO00 ^JZ 000 - 00000000 ^004 ^N6^000000000000000 ^000 ^000000 ^0^N000 W W m aW a O v W J O O a — W ti Z C O O < ra = OIR 000rNIpQtf' )mrr8 r ^r ^vm0mNQN0 Mr0NM ^ ^mMMN{D< .+ mm!- o w (p C.) Cl) OOOOMOOapmm ^m0000o(DC4 WONOOONLnc4 QON ^991 OC! o ^000 �J W 000 ^60000000NOON—N6^00000000000 -00 ^6N6^0 ^000000 ^00 ^000 �- U Vf Ix J w W ca 0 <0 00. N C W 0. Z 0 m M 1- Z mmNlDmt DMrM^ mminOa^ �mQQmtO( OrNMQmOm ^Nem ^ON_tnMmmM ^mNMMMOrtO MIDm_^ W U. � tp r lD m N M O m m m N N ID r M� O< ID O O r N M m N m M o r {D Q m^ m W W o"- (O m t` - m M N. w m^ m O OJ ^IDM ^MQQmrNrom0 J mIDIMrM ^ ^^NMO -MW tO QooNo Q lOO ^vIDQvwNwmIarDN r w m rO ^Om MmONrmNMQ'P^mOMMetmO^ ppO N m^QO ln W m NmMMNOQlcM W` WmMM^ N M mom ^D ON M N 0NInN ^ Q N 1p OQIO^ C Z " N N ^ N ^ ^ N S O N 0 N O: C: Ix 1- I- W < < S 1- 1- X F C. C C7 W ^ . } W W 1- I- Z cr 1- 1 1 to r+ > C F W W N Z Z C: C: Z W< Y W W W iN O W C: J N JJ MM a «OUO. W UWJ Z Z > F-< WC: C. M I- J O Y J W W - �-+ 0« m Z <f+ JJI- 0� - >OZZ -JH =-4"ZW(A 1-C. 4VfaZ C Z-WO I-< 1-F- C: >2F -ZIL n. O W Z } }F-« J >"cAN W�+OQQ W JW >OYW WC W C:3 ZJ3Ww -i"JJ >ZC:W O J «d <WtnZmmO:o C71- <O Zd00 4 co 0. WQ - Z >QWZOOW WO W SZZWZXXWOW WJC: WC.iSYYJ W ozz O <■+I- QO=X <JZ 4 C:Y 00XJw9L -JJh- SUS "X 000ZZ0 >l- <1- ZZZvf00 0MMZUM -00_j C.JZC7<1. -ZZ0 -W I- OOC.O } }JJZ 0Z « <4 <C <JJJOO: F W }S} WJZM0 N W"XCL M Ia_ZZ0.0:4 <W W W W�+JJJJ0:0 » « <W W SSSSS�- +000000Omm < <W W W O «OOJZO < aaQ< mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmUUVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU000GQOWWWWUdWW 17 r� C O V co d r m 1- W m' ZQ NN NN QOO- 0000; Ml pNS nriflNOfmrMMN�NNQN- 01MOt0QlDQ01MmrQmcOOf��'OM� --N OftffrOSNQOW nrMm r000000m0000n-- a00- NOO coo ON— MOOONNOMOO Mail 00000 -' 000000000000000000 .000000000000000000C; C; C; 000 W m U OC mw CL v W N = U7 OOiommQ�OcvtoNN�lOQMN -- - O��OQOMCDOOmQmmrO POmNNO�m0�0aoNQmmr�Nr �cnaacvQOn- 00000000000x00-- OmN— m7NNO�- 1O7mN�NOM-- QOOO��ONOO 0104 Z r0;w 00000-000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-0-00 F U N C o,y W pa Z a�faMmOMQr�OrNmnN�- o�mOm00► mOMnO�ommtOrmnO0�00�O0�NOm�nmcoO�Mnr O .- OO�ro�xcvtoQO+o+MU�tn n�nnmmOO��xo+mmtn�v�OmcDtOMOU� W �+ MlC)t tfQQOmIt1 ONQ�- mLL' 900001MtnOn�ttOfmmQnO" MO�MMMQfQ�tflrmlOMnQ�OfON IOmmM01n OJ OPT W J �r �00N14N7V0N01ONpfIMQ H �O�Oxrr� �lO trC. � .l O- a�rIIAC! ( MDlNnm� OfM--tmOm0 r " mM � O NMI1mC1If OON rO�nm Of l�Mf-lmINt1 MCN O Ox m01 {DCO�:mQ�N�NO M mG mM wN Ml7x m r � - tZ;- m 00 C14 N M 0 � Z � Q 2 0 W O M X O cz N V U F Q m r N N ►- W rXi a' ui < W W Z M- «O+ZYY J p~ p a m ►- U U S v Z> U V) I- W Vf Z W wz C W0« Q JWpm F. �. v O W OH O W J2 W W J■»OQpZ!- pS�JJ w> W JO OW i-W O CC Z •CCZJJQO WY UY JOCJOO. N t? YY h- .•<OJYazzx= cc mOW zaz JM- ZZXJJoF -JEC 400 -dwom0 Z wzzZ -f-wQZ LL>3U4m000 WZZZa03Z W OZW W<<0 <=04J0 WJ� >Z 3 We JO ;NNJJW FZZZ Q J-dH >W W ZO 0-1 F-WO W W W Z2 W U�il W0 0ZWwwY mmmUpNFP M+-W JJYOW WYpW W W W W WOO►' >031 -:7 W►- �I -JJJ —o U J m' m C w Z -J Q W W W W Z Z Z Z Z Vl N N J J J m C7 O> U Y Y Y Y Y Y Z 0 X J Z Z F Z GC 0 S XQstOOCWOO; CffCCaaaQa�2Q «w..00OZZ' <O <s[<a <Ca_j J J _jJJ — jOZZaZZZ W li{L IL IL 4.CJ(7(7(7t?G7 C7SSSSSSSSS SS SSS�+�77J..+JJJJJJJJJJJJJJgZiii Tc 18 0 0 n C O v Ql 0 W d' ZQ 0= Ul V) CO f- Ot'QF- r W 0. ci 0= C. W a v W OQ F- N to = Of m Z r lz UA N � W Oa v Z UJO OJ J 0: Z Q N _8 M av -ay Mt0'RM VNNN 01 O--R V to m w V N 0" 0 N V M w 0 Mt0 M+��'�" - '00- -OMORO�OrvcO. -.O.- OOH- OrO- toONrtpMrOmc�OOOmc0O0NROONOOWOGMO 0000000R-- OOOOrO�- 000000000000000-- 000OOrOOOOrO00000O-00 r Rf Or01rM� `(OM'+ORMOMMNfOMrQIMROIO� OWN f OR "N�NrMO�Ot7NfMRIt7NlON�'NN1�f NNr 0000ONOOV O+� <ofMONOO—O�- OOR� -NOm�- OcoMROOrWROONQOONOvOlrNQO 000000Cr-- 0000 -0r 000000000000000rOOOOO— '0000 -- 0000000 00 vaomO w tl - v m m r- m v 4O M V VO w t o- V;0NL0OQ NV O N WO;N1ntp0O10tD0D1 V n PL f WNMWW OMR;mOfIrn-MOfMtOOmCMOM.- M O1 NVMNN t0 V V W 0NOW W NMMOOa,Ttl-O Won " O mm v R M CO 117 v tD 61 to r N M W v W W v M m O O 01 V M R M 01 CO R ao N OR V W -+- 0I O1nMOf NVRNtpNO11P1Ott 7OQlROfCORMrMONMCONQINRN V tARitfRO0fu7RtOrMNR RNrCD --M ( ONrOfRMOfMNNiAN-- RMtOmt71MCONtOR -- NCO-- rNO1DM1l�NlOR-tOr .--W NN N 0v v01^ N r r R N Mrr MMR co r- N' N VM--N V r r r r F- F- C C: Q Q as to V N H C CY W S tau P- J = JQa Y C9 w Z F = 0 O -9 Q -� N Q Q ~ C3 _ U H Q O Y Q 0. F- W C7 W to a W W J W ►rQQF 3F-Z FF-►r HN = Z W N J wY Y`1 =WJYYN W =Q W W - W r.i Y F-OQ 1-WU W 30 -QQ W J O Z Z ►+ - O Z W Y Y Z W O: Q I- > y cz = Q == J a a Z J Z W h- W W a I- J J Z QQ -j 0. O OO: 0. 1-J -+Q Ht - 0.a Qw V) 0! =JQ( WOw wQFHH CQJ NO (30 1- MU Z O O >WWWWOO w O = Z Z N H OZ = =OOMQQ 4I0NO �OJOMCWQOQQOZQrW-"OOU OmOx O > Qy„ Q0QU1- OSW=W =ZZ W88a0VZZZZZ CL"h -F-3 OZWWZONOOW=Mxwww OQOYYCF -"" YYZZwZZZZ= =33333333zocIx OVZYyZZ Utntn QQW W W W r OO W W W W W W W W Z >+QOOOMC ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ' ZZOOOOOaO .CCtYO:OC��CZO:CCNNHVfNNNNNN 19 W C ZQ I N �=JZ W aU OC aW a v uj O Z C tJ H H v wmI.- C W d F U H lS (!1rm�'mmNmNmm NmNl+u>N m0)QrNOrr10 O)OTf'101N th t0m - ONTOOOOOONto000c 'a000�'OO�OTOm�- On�0�0000 OOOOOOONOe '�OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTO000000 T Tun coOttto) -' o�NOc�rinTemaametinTmina +m <O— cmvTON 000000 OMOOO-0 000mm mow —0 OOOOOOOTOvO0000000000000000T0000000 T Z. •Ql71NmPlNN00r -1- 10 V-4 t- 0m%01- 000 cmNfrrOtvr•r 6� rctnmtno) fno) mTno)< r�- tntomtototomtor�o )rOCOOfrOi�Omtt�to O J N N N OQ W O) T t D w w 0) - T m f. r - 0 to m @ . r fn C4 -W 0 w N tom co P- O 0 N J 9) V) )Cc w -0Nrfn M9)CDt7wmV—mtowID 90 m V) N. lu T NT 10 MMW O. T T cc N e T C g T Q T Q T in � V T M C C 4 Q aa= ~moo Y = OJa< as w Wad C 1-W t9 F- Z =JJf- U a d �•r w Y�ZZQ«+ZaN t�CC< WZ 2 JaCCC CC Q <O�WUWN� WWJ > =00 t-OZZ W QQaW WW �tO.S �ZC�+ >JJt -f� a �•+�+Q C33 Y.•W4JW�+ >pZZ r►•ZQ30C » <QStGtnJ�l�- +fit <OOOa�4l�mfnl�ZC Z <•C L7OZZOCQOdQQ33N ..JJC•+�+tt.t -+-HJN CO< ZZdQmtiJJiaCJJ�•+ <d!+►�OZZCCCa WWWWmJCJO wr �r JJILY ZZZf -00 W W W Nf- 1- •i- i��JOOZZ 0CfaQQ QF�F - Y Lo V) +«+J0000 daf+a`M- t`f- Hf�F -4-f -F OOd W W.••Q <d 4 44 W W =S =x+0000 IA 1ANf/1NNNNNNVfNN1/fi- »]933333333333333 >Y 20 i 0 �r 3/ increase as the various phases of the project open. The DEED study also assumed that if this project was not built on the site something else would be, so the construction - related taxes were lowered accordingly. At the peak of construction, sales and use taxes on equipment and building materials would generate $9.2 million annually; personal income taxes would generated $7.7 million; and employee - generated sales taxes would generate $2.2 million. In total, during the three peak construction years, $19.1 million would be generated in state taxes. At full operation, DEED estimates a total of $63.4 million in state taxes would be generated. The breakdown follows: sales taxes - -$44.9 million; corporate taxes - -$0.3 million; personal income taxes- -$12.3 million; and employee - generated sales taxes - -$4.1 million. For comparison purposes either the category of other taxes needs to be subtracted from the developers' estimate or added to DEED's estimate. If these "other tax" revenues are subtracted from the developers' projections of taxes, the total increase would be $107.4 million to $122.8 million annually, which compares to DEED's estimate of $63.4 million. Clearly, new tax revenues will be generated. The level is unclear at this time. IMPACTS ON THE REGIONAL SYSTEMS A major part of the metropolitan significance report and the EISs that will be prepared on the project will address impacts associated with highways, transit, airports and sewers (The regional park system is one of the regional systems, but no impacts are projected to result from the project). At this time, I can give you some information on the impacts from the project. .SEWERS The increased sewage flow represented by the size of the Mall of America and Fantasyworld will not significantly accelerate the expansion of the Seneca Treatment Plant so there will be no additional treatment plant - related capital costs associated with this development. Whether there will be capital costs for Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) interceptor sewers depends on the plans for conveying the sewage from the site. One alternative would use only local trunk sewers and local funding. Another option would require some regional interceptors, presumably at regional cost. The city must submit an amendment to its comprehensive sewer plan indicating which alternative it proposes to implement. The Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commis- sion (MWCC) will address which alternative will be selected and how it will be funded. All operating costs associated with providing regional sewerage service for this development will be charged back to the development through MWCC user charges. TRANSIT The project proposes to use transit for from one to three percent of the daily vehicle trips generated by the development. Transit can be provided by a variety of methods, a number of them privately financed, such as charter bus service. Ride - sharing and other transportation system management approaches are to be studied in the EIS process for their ability to mitigate adverse impacts of the traffic generated by this development. At the present time, the city's transportation consultant has estimated that $4 million will be spent by 21 the developer for on -site transit- related improvements- An additional $4 million in capital costs could be incurred by the Regional Transit Board (RTB) to provide the 20 -30 additional peak -hour Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) buses needed to serve the development. The operating costs associated is with MTC service to the site have not been estimated. Funding capital and operating costs for transit service provided by the MTC buses is an important concern. Because the city is proposing a tax increment district for the stadium site, property tax revenues for the RTB from the Mall of America and Fantasyworld would be frozen at their current level. With the exception of passenger fares and federal subsidies, no other funding is available to support MTC service to the site. Alternatives for funding are ar increased legislative appropriation or a cutback in service to other areas of the region. AIRPORTS The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has concluded from its initial review of the project that it will have no impact on service at Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport. MAC has hired a consultant to analyze the project to verify this conclusion. Air passenger trips projected to be generated from development at the stadium site are estimated at approximately 1,323,500 annually, an increase of 12 percent in the current passenger enplane - ments of 11 million. These passengers represent about a seven percent increase in the total number of annual visitors to the airport. Further study of impacts at the airport may conclude that, while this increase may not affect the number of gates or Landing- takeoffs, it can have an effect on parking and ground transportation at the airport. These effects may translate into capital • improvements. Airport improvements in the past have been charged back to users of the airport so no general revenues will be drawn on to support them if the policy is continued. HIGHWAYS The third transportation system that will be potentially impacted by this development is highways. The metropolitan highway system, primarily freeways, comprises about 600 miles, or five percent, of the roadways in the region, but carries a high proportion (60 percent) of all automobile trips. The completion of the metropolitan highway system has been a high priority for the Council. We have worked very closely with Mn /DOT to accomplish this goal. Today the goal is within reach. Current plans call for the completion of all major highways, such as I -394, I -35E and I -494, by 1992. The airport south study recommended improvements to the 24th Av. /I -494 interchange and to Hwy. 77 between Killebrew Dr. and I -494. It included the interchange at Killebrew Dr., direct access to the Met Stadium site north of Killebrew Dr. (called the "Texas turn "), collector- distributor roads adjacent to Hwy. 77, and an underpass at 79th St. and Hwy. 77. Highway improvements tentatively identified for the Mall of America include all airport south improvements plus an interchange at 76th St. /Hwy. 77, a connection between 76th St. and 24th Av. at I -494, improvements to the Hwy. 77 and I -494 interchange (including collector- distributor roads) and possibly widening the mainline of I -494 west of 24th Av. and Hwy. 77 from 76th to 79th. 22 as -33 Cost estimates of improvements prepared to date have been made by consultants to Bloomington ($50 million) and Minneapolis ($215 million). The big difference in the figures is probably due to the inclusion or exclusion of different improvements. For example, $115 million of Minneapolis' estimate is for widening the mainline of I -494. The Minneapolis consultant also proposes collector- distributor roads for I -494. Bloomington's consultant did not include these improvements. It is too early to say which estimate is more correct. Existing commitments for the completion of the metropolitan highway system as currently planned over the next seven to 10 years will make it very difficult to finance new sizable projects with existing funding sources. After comple- tion of the system, a lot of resources will go towards maintaining and upgrading the 600 -mile system. Undertaking major new highway improvements in the vicinity of the Mall of America project without any new funding sources would require a extensive reappraisal of regional and, perhaps, state priorities. There currently is no plan on how to finance the transportation improvements. Likely sources for funding any highway improvements are federal (interstate and federal aid urban) and state highway funds. The current ratio for interstate funding, which might be applicable for I -494, is 90 percent federal and 10 percent local. Federal participation for federal aid urban projects is 76 percent. Interstate funding for completion of the system as currently planned does not envision widening I -494. Another federal source, the 4R funds (mainly for reconstruction and rehabilitation) presently budgeted, would not be suffi- cient and would probably be needed elsewhere. Future federal funding levels for interstate construction upgrading are uncertain at this time. Urban Mass Transportation Administration funds for transit improvements are also limited in nature. The projects would be in competition with other projects, both within the Metropolitan Area and elsewhere in the country. Estimates of trip generation from the Mall of America have not been completed. Preliminary Council estimates for different major activity centers are shown on Table 9. They are based on regional forecasting models and traffic counts. Table 9 TRIP GENERATION BY MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS Generator Person Trip Year Minneapolis Downtown 415,000 2000 (est.) Airport South 345,000 2000 (est.) St. Paul Downtown 250,000 2000 (est.) Metro Dome 130,000 actual count Ridgedale 103,000 actual count University of Minnesota 101,000 actual count MSP International 82,000 actual count Peak traffic demand for the Mall of America would occur during the usual afternoon peak (4:30 to 5:30 p.m.) when background traffic generated by developments throughout the region is also at a peak. The project will generate an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 peak -hour vehicle trips. Lesser 23 late other peaks for -Mall- generated traffic would occur later in the evening (8:30 to 9:30 p.m.) and;Saturday afternoons, when other traffic is at _a lower level. Any improvements to the regional highway system will be designed to provide a Level of Service D (with A being a free flow of traffic and E as a semi- mobile I parking lot). Bloomington would prefer to see transportation improvements completed by the time the project opens. This does not seem to be possible, even by accelerating normal construction schedules, unless extraordinary shortcuts took place in the preparation of environmental studies, roadway design and construction schedules. Mn /DOT currently has no improvements for this area in its two -year program. The county plans to let a contract for the first stage of of the 24th /I -494 interchange improvement by January 1986, and to let stage II in 1988. Bloomington's application for federal aid urban funds shows contract letting for the Killebrew interchange and the direct access to the stadium site (the Texas turn) in 1987 and 1988, respectively. QUESTIONS THAT STILL NEED TO BE ANSWERED I've pointed out that our analysis of the Mall of America /Fantasyworld is only just beginning and that the data provided here is preliminary. Two significant questions will need to be extensively researched before a comprehensive study is completed. 1. We don't know the reliability of the projections of tourists or if the projections are of new tourists or the attraction of existing tourists. This is important in determining new jobs, new sales in the region and the state and new tax revenues. Conversely, this data will tell how many jobs will be displaced and the amount of sales which will be transferred to this site from the remainder of the region and the state. The Council has approved funds to hire a prominent national consultant to analyze the potential of this project to attract tourists and other visitors and to analyze the impact on retail sales. 2. We don't know if a project of this nature will successfully draw occupants, sales or patrons to its attractions. We are not aware of any development like the one proposed anywhere in the world. The Edmonton Mall expansion that will approximate the size of this project has just opened so data is not and will not be available to help answer this question. We think our analysis will help give decision makers some data on which to make judgments about the potential success of the project, but a definitive answer may not be available until or unless the project is built. CEO:emp 09.18.85 EP101E, PHDEVI 24 i al-I CITY OF RICHFIELD,,MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 32 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract for New Computer System SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION On October 7, 1985, bids were opened for computer software and equipment. Thirteen vendors submitted proposals for computer systems (hardware) to replace the existing Four Phase computer, financial applications (software) and office automation (software). The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for Council review. Financial applications software • include programs for payroll, accounts receivable and payable, budgeting, etc. Office automation software are programs such as word processing, spreadsheets and graphics. David McCauley, the city's computer consultant, and city staff have conducted an extensive review of the proposals and recommend that the Council accept the proposal of MTI Office Systems. MTI's bid includes Burroughs hardware and a variety of software from different sources. Equipment maintenance, training and general support will be provided by MTI. MTI Office Systems is located at 7874 12th Avenue South, Bloomington. The company has been in business in the Minneapolis area for 70 years. The president of the company, Mr. L.S. White, is a longtime resident of Richfield. The final purchase price is still in the final negotiation stage. Both systems can be purchased at a cost not to exceed the $276,500 budgeted. Delivery has been promised by MTI within 30 days. PROPOSAL REVIEW City staff participated in an extensive review process to evaluate the bids received by the city. From the thirteen .vendors who submitted proposals, the five lowest bidders who met is the city's bid specifications were selected as finalists. Three review teams made up of city staff and Mr. McCauley were formed. The five vendors demonstrated the various products a/ . z offered in their proposals and each team reviewed the products in their area of expertise. The review teams and their areas of responsibility were as follows: Review Team Responsibilities 1. Financial Team Analysis of financial applications offered. Specifically: Fund Accounting, Accounts Payable, Utility Billing and Payroll. 2. Office Team Analysis of office automation systems. Specifically: Word Processing and Graphics. 3. Technical Team Analysis of hardware, operating system software, and both technical and user programming tools. Specifically: Hardware capabilities, personal computing capabilities, communications, and programming languages. • After the initial review of"the finalists was completed, the number of proposals was narrowed to two vendors. The two finalists were AmeriData Systems, Inc. of Brooklyn Park, and MTI,Office Systems of Bloomington. The review teams then participated in a second round of demonstrations to analyze the proposals in more detail. During this period, the City Manager and other staff members visited computer installations of each vendor's customers. These installations included the City of Fridley, the University of Minnesota Hospitals and Hennepin County. The final step in the review process involved a line by line review of the items in each bid to determine where the city would benefit by selecting alternate and optional items proposed. New bid totals were then tabulated to reflect any changes. The result of these calculations showed the two finalist bids of equal cost to the city. rRTTRRTA The staff recommendation to select MTI Office Systems is made for the following reasons: 1. Hardware. is The Burroughs system proposed by MTI offers the city a flexible hardware configuration which can easily grow to meet Al,-.3 our needs in the foreseeable future. The Burroughs computer is a shared resource system which permits workstations to operate as personal computers, as independant clusters of two to seven workstations, as a centralized system where all workstations are directly connected to the central processor, or any combination of these. Because of this flexibility, workstations can be added to the system as the need arises without affecting the capability of the system to provide adequate response time. 'In addition, various system procedures such as data back -up and hardware repairs can be accomplished with minimal disruption to applications such as police and fire information systems which require round - the -clock availability of the computer system. The Burroughs equipment under consideration is a relatively new product. It has been in use long enough to be a proven performer but is new enough to offer the city the advantages of up to date computer technology. 2. Vendor Support. Based on interviews with some of their current customers, MTI has a reputation for excellent customer support. Questions receive a prompt and accurate response, problems are quickly resolved and hardware malfunctions are repaired in a timely fashion. Staff's dealings with MTI to date confirm these observations. The level of vendor support is a particularly important consideration as the city undertakes the conversion of all applications from the current Four Phase system to a new computer system. Not only is this a major undertaking to begin with, but it must be completed within the time contraints imposed by the city's committment to terminate the present lease of the Four Phase computer on December 31, 1986. 3. Financial Applications. Although none of the financial application software packages offered by any of the vendors were judged adequate to meet the city's needs, the MTI proposal offers the best opportunity for customization. Software is written in a programming language which allows programs to be easily tailored to fit the city's requirements. This has the additional advantage of reducing the amount of time and cost required to maintain the programs as changes to the applications become necessary. The customization and programs would be a joint effort of city staff and MTI Office Systems. In addition to the factors described above which staff found to be the major advantages of the MTI proposal, the following factors were judged to be of equal benefit under • either the AmeriData or MTI proposals. ai y 4. Application Development and End-User Tools. This category includes word processing, technical programming languages and end -user programming languages. The word processing system proposed by MTI was judged to be the best of those offered. It is easy to use and has all of the features the city required. The primary programming language for both technical and non- technical users is a menu driven process guiding the user through the steps necessary to query the city's database, produce reports and develop applications. In addition, the most common technical programming language for business applictions, COBOL, is available to the data processing staff for those systems which are particularly complex and require the features of such a language. 5. Office Systems. This category includes productivity tools such as electronic spreadsheets, graphics and electronic mail. Also considered in this category was the ability of the proposed system to run software designed for personal computers, such as the IBM PC. Again, the system offered by MTI gives the city the opportunity to take advantage of these tools. The electronic spreadsheet proposed, Multiplan, is in widespread use on a • variety of computers. It will be advantageous for budgeting, financial analysis and a variety of other applications. The graphics software proposed by MTI was judged to be the best of those reviewed. Basic business graphics, such as bar and pie charts, are provided as well as the ability to produce drawings such as floor plans and simple maps. The Burroughs hardware can also run the MS /DOS operating system which is the most common personal computer operating system. This will allow the city to purchase compatible "off the shelf" software designed for personal computers and run it on the Burroughs system. OTHER BIDDERS Two other bids not discussed above deserve mention at this point. The low bidder for the computer system was the NCR Corporation. Based on their written proposal, NCR was selected as one of the five finalists. After attending demonstrations of the products offered in the bid, however, staff found the word processing and end -user programming features to be inadequate to meet the city's needs. Motorola /Four Phase, the city's current computer vendor, also submitted a proposal. Their bid was not price competitive with the five lowest bidders, and further, did not offer a total solution to the city's computing needs. They • proposed that the city purchase the existing IV95 system and add another separate system to handle some of the current processing 0 0Z / - s'" done on the IV95 and to allow for expansion. This proposal would not offer all city departments the productivity and end user programming tools required in the bid specifications. COST Although a final purchase price has not yet been negotiated with MTI, initial calculations by staff indicate that the entire computer system can be purchased at a cost which will not exceed the amount budgeted for the current year. A total of $276,500.00 has been budgeted in 1986 for the acquisition of a new computer system. This amount includes allocations for equipment, software, custom programming, installation, freight, training, cables and communications devices. In addition, $11,250.00 is budgeted for maintenance of the equipment and software support in 1986. Most of the costs associated with the new computer system are fixed at the prices quoted in the formal bid. However, several items are negotiable based on rates quoted in the bid. These are: 1. Training. MTI proposed a training program for the city based on a set • rate per classroom hour. The city will determine the number of training hours required based on the needs of staff. 2. Custom Programming. Again, an hourly rate for customizing the financial applications to meet the city's requirements was quoted in the bid. Those program changes which will be the responsibility of the vendor will be identified and the number of hours to complete them determined. 3. Modems and Cables. Compatible equipment of this type is available from a variety of sources and staff will obtain competetive quotes from other vendors to determine the best price for cables and modems. 4. Maintenance Contract. Annual costs for the maintenance of each piece of equipment were quoted in the bid. A time and materials maintenance agreement is also available for some of this equipment. Staff will determine a cost effective combination of these two types of maintenance contracts. INSTALLATION • Staff anticipates that the installation of equipment and software from MTI could begin in approximately thirty days. Although most of the equipment will be brought in during this =;,) / - 6 initial installation, the remaining equipment will be phased in as each application is ready for conversion to the new computer system. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution which takes the following actions: 1. Approve the bid minutes and tabulations for computer equipment and software; 2. Award the bid to MTI Office Systems and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract for computer equipment and software in an amount not to exceed the budgeted amount of $276,500.00;- and 3. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract for equipment and software maintenance for 1986 with MTI Office Systems for an amount not to exceed the budgeted amount of $111250.00. The city's computer consultant, Dave McCauley, and representatives of MTI Office Systems will be available at the Council meeting to answer your questions. 0 Respectful submitted, ohn G. Car ri t City Manager JGC /e ja cc: Administrative Services Director Data Processing Manager Finance Manager L 02 /-% RESOLUTION NO. i RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the acquisition of computer hardware, software and related services, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, it appears that MTI Office Systems, Inc. of Bloomington, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the proposal dated October 1, 1985, of MTI Office Systems, Inc. of Bloomington, Minnesota for computer equipment, software and related services is hereby accepted; 2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for the above mentioned computer system with MTI Office Systems of Bloomington, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such products and services in an amount not to exceed $276,500.00; . 3. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for maintenance of the above mentioned equipment and software with MTI Office Systems of Bloomington, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield for such services through December 31, 1986, for an amount not to exceed $11,250.00; and • 4. That 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 responsible bidder, AmeriData Systems, Inc. of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of January, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor LJ 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING October 7, 1985 Computer Software and Equipment 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 Computer Software and Equipment, as advertised in the official newspaper on September 11, 1985. Present: Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Steven L. Devich, Administrative Services Director Thomas Ferber, City e 1e :rk Sally Morton, Data Processing Manager David McCaully, Consultant The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER l BID SECURITY BID AMOUNT Planning Data Center $15,000.00 $287,410.00 St. Paul, MN Cashiers check NCR Mpls., MN 5% Bond Alternate Alternate A B $246,796.00 $278,296.00 Starwood Alternate A $429,275.70 San Antonio, TX 5% Bond Alternate B. $330,082.78 New World Systems 5% Bond $486,539.50 Troy, MI McDonnell Douglas 5% Bond $300,847.00 Oakbrook, IL MTI Office Systems 5% Bond $262,290.00 Bloomington, MN Four -Phase Systems 5% Bond $297,815.00 Mpls., MN Alternate A $271,040.00 AmeriData Systems 5% Bond Alternate B $300,805.00 Mpls., MN Information Development $6,056.00 $ 54,000.00 Consultants, Inc. letter of joint bid with Wang Chicago, IL cre it Wang Laboratories $19,000.00 $372,540.00 Bloomington, MN bid bond joint bid with Info. bevel. w Consultants Arthur Anderson & Co. 5% Bond $387,094.75 Mpls., MN *Total Bid: $426,540 II BID OPENING Page 2l'~ Computer Software 1.0/7/85 BIDDER BID SECURITY BID AMOUNT CPT Corporation 5% Bond Alternate A $309,429.85 Mpls., MN Alternate B $334,942.85 Packaged Computer Systems 5% Bond $286,050:00 Brooklyn Park, MN The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the January 13, 1986 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager lCouncil Letter No. 31 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Appointment of Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commissioner Council Members: The term of HRA Commissioner Vern Luettinger expired at the end of October, 1985. Commissioner Vern Luettinger was appointed to the HRA in 1983 to fill an unexpired five year term. Under state law, the Mayor appoints HRA Commissioners subject to confirmation by the city council. Mayor Hamilton has indicated that he will reappoint Commissioner Luettinger to a full five year term at the January 13, 1986, city council • meeting. The Mayor's appointment to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for a five -year term expiring October, 1990, requires City Council confirmation. JGC /eja R pectf 1Jy s,iibmitted, l ohn G. Car wri City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 30 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Water Utility - Policies Concerning High Water Bill Complaints Council Members: In 1964, the city's water utility was just beginning to make residential connections to the system. The population at that time was approximately 43,000 with 10,000 or just under 25% of the population being served. By 1969, when the population was estimated to be 47,000, the population being served by the city's water system was approximately 42,000 or just under 90 %. By the mid- 1970's, virtually the entire population was connected and being served by the water /sewer utility. For approximately the first 15 years of the operation, the city would establish utility rates for a set time period, usually four to six years. This meant there may have been higher than needed revenues at the beginning of the time period, but, by the end of the time period, revenues generated by the rates were often lower than needed to meet operating costs. In 1980, a new policy was put into effect calling for utility rates to be analyzed every year, based on actual revenue needs for maintaining the utility during that time period. With the age of our facility and the rate of inflation, it has been fiscally prudent to follow this procedure. In 1980, the city made a policy change related to billing periods. Prior to 1980, Richfield read meters throughout the year and billed monthly with each residence charged four times annually. With the new policy, meters continue to be read throughout the year, but billings are generated weekly. Each residence receives a quarterly bill, but because the volume of bills being distributed at any one time has been reduced, staff has more opportunity to edit what are called exception reports and notice discrepancies from previous quarters and from the same billing period in the previous year. When readings are comparable to past use, they are generally assumed to be accurate. Discrepancies are often attributable to such things as 1) the season; i.e., lawn sprinkling in the summer and /or winter vacancies due time spent by residents in warmer climates, 2) a change in occupancy; i.e., sale /purchase of a home by a larger /smaller family, children are born /move away or 3) a / 9 ;L- problem; i.e, leaky faucets, meter /reader malfunction. It has been the practice of the city to have an employee check readings that appear inaccurate. This is done by checking the meter in the basement or leaving a note asking the customer to contact us if access is not possible. It is not uncommon for people to not respond to the notes. Such accounts are given an estimated billing. If the estimate is high, the city will usually hear from the customer when the bill is sent. When questioned by a resident about a high water bill, the city staff works with the resident to find the reason for the higher than normal consumption of water (i.e., leakage, changes in habit /occupancy). While it is the policy of the city not to reduce, refund or rebate any utility charge because of a water leak within a home, there is no charge to the resident for assistance in identifying a potential leakage problem. The resident is responsible for repairs. The cause of the leakage may vary substantially from need for a new faucet washer to broken pipes occurring during a resident's absence. Most high water bill complaints occur when a home is sold and city personnel obtain a final reading on water consumption by reading the indoor water meter. This is when a meter /reader malfunction is established. Each residence has an interior water meter which records the water being processed for use by that residence. The meter then transmits to the reader which is located on the outside of the residence. For a number • of reasons, varying from equipment age to tampering, the reader may not agree with the meter. The "count" on the reader may be more or less than on the meter. It has been a long term policy of the city to use the indoor meter as the official meter reading. The city provides a refund if the indoor meter indicates a lower consumption than that which has been billed. If, however, the indoor meter indicates that more water has been used than is recorded on the outdoor reader, it is the practice to charge for all water consumption indicated. However, the related sanitary sewer charge and administrative costs for billing and collection are forgiven. In the case of the $527.51 high water bill, the household outdoor reader has reported very low consumption figures ever since the home was connected to the city's water system. This household had typical readings of 4000 gallons to 8000 gallons of water used for a three month period. This fact may suggest that the outdoor reader was faulty from its early use, some 7 years ago. In 1969, the then Public Works Department noted there were many households where it was not uncommon to use 60 gallons of water per day per capita. This would equal about 5,000 -5,500 gallons per person per quarter. Again, there could be several variables such as personal habit, life style (employed, retired, 7 ':3 etc.), energy awareness as well as season, occupancy and other problems. Today, the estimated average daily consumption • per capita is 85 -100 gallons of water per day per capita. In 1983 the city began replacing all residential meters. At that time, the Richfield water system was about 20 years old and many aspects of the system, including the meters installed in residences and places of business, were worn and difficult to repair. There were 11,300 accounts with water line sizes ranging from 3/4" to 211. The majority of the accounts (10,700) had 5/8" meters. Most of the problems were encountered with about 8,000 of these 5/8" water meters. The problems were many and were related to the age of the system. The city was unable to obtain parts for the existing American Tele -read meters. This caused many problems with reading of meters, especially attempting to get an accurate reading. Due to these problems, the meter readers generally had to make a second trip to over 8% of the 8,000 accounts to obtain the reading. This amounted to over 640 callbacks in a three -month period. There were homeowner complaints because of the inconvenience of having to be home at a special time so the city staff could get to the meter location. The American Tele -read meters were also inaccurate in measuring water flow. The 8,000 meters had an average accuracy of 94 %, amounting to an average loss of water revenue each year of 6%. The new residential meter program • called for replacement of all 10,700 5/8" meters with a type that could be read from outside the house by means of a tape recorder. The tape, in turn, transfers this reading information to the city computer. A three year program for replacement of residential meters was established with estimated completion in 1985. While there would be no additional charge to the homeowner for the equipment, existing policy related to final readings, charges for total consumption recorded (including water flowing through the meter due to leakage, etc.), refund for overpayment due to discrepancy between meter and reader and all other policies would remain in effect. Records indicate that with approximately 10,915 new residential meters installed, approximately 547 accounts, or 5%, have required adjusted billings. Of the 547 adjusted accounts examined by staff, 144 received refunds and 403 received additional charges for collection by the city. The water rate amount of $1.07/1,000 gallons was used in the computations. Approximately 550 accounts were adjusted with a net effect, to the water utility, of approximately $9,400. The refunds and collections, as with this report, do not include any $.82 sanitary sewer charge per 1,000 gallons of water. A summary of the refunds and collections is provided below: n L.J REFUNDS Number of Accounts 1,000 gallons / �7- � Amount 1 138 $147.66 1 113 120.91 1 107 114.49 1 106 113.42 4 100 428.00 1 95 101.65 2 80 171.20 1 74 79.18 1 69 73.83 1 65 69.55 1 60 64.20 1 51 54.57 3 50 160.50 2 47 100.58 1 44 47.08 1 43 46.01 1 42 44.94 1 40 42.80 1 39 41.73 1 36 38.52 1 35 37.45 1 34 36.38 1 33 35.31 1 32 34.24 • 1 31 33.17 2 29 62.06 2 28 59.92 2 25 53.50 7 24 179.76 1 22 23.54 2 21 44.94 6 20 128.40 2 19 40.66 3 18 57.78 2 17 36.38 3 16 51.36 4 15 64.20 3 14 44.94 2 13 27.82 5 12 64.20 4 11 47.08 27 10 288.90 6 9 57.78 4 8 34.24 4 7 52.43 6 6 38.52 5 5 26.75 6 4 25.68 3 3 9.63 • 1 2 2.14 TOTAL 144 REFUNDS $3,759.9 COLLECTIONS l Number of Accounts 1,000 gallons Amount 1 2 $ 2.14 1 3 3.21 3 4 12.84 11 5 58.85 3 6 19.26 7 7 52.43 12 8 102.72 15 9 144.45 16 10 171.20 12 11 141.24 24 12 308.16 22 13 306.02 20 14 299.60 23 15 369.15 13 16 222.56 13 17 236.47 8 18 154.08 18 19 365.94 11 20 235.40 9 21 202.23 10 22 235.40 9 23 221.49 6 24 154.08 6 25 160.50 • 8 26 222.56 4 27 115.56 3 28 89.88 4 29 124.12 6 30 192.60 2 31 66.34 3 32 102.72 3 33 105.93 1 34 36.38 5 35 187.25 7 36 269.64 4 37 158.36 2 38 81.32 3 39 125.19 2 40 85.60 2 41 87.74 2 42 89.88 1 44 47.08 1 45 48.15 1 46 49.22 5 48 256.80 1 49 52.43 2 50 107.00 4 52 222.56 2 53 113.42 . 1 2 55 56 58.85 119.84 2 57 121.98 • • 0 COLLECTIONS Number of Accounts 1,000 gallons Amount 1 58 62.06 1 59 63.13 3 62 199.02 3 63 202.23 1 64 68.48 1 65 69.55 2 67 143.38 1 68 72.76 3 70 224.70 1 73 78.11 1 74 79.18 1 75 80.25 1 76 81.32 2 78 166.92 1 81 86.67 1 86 92.02 1 87 93.09 1 88 94.16 1 89 95.23 1 90 96.30 2 91 194.74 1 92 98.44 1 97 103.79 2 100 214.00 1 106 113.42 1 107 114.49 1 131 140.17 1 137 146.59 1 140 149.80 1 155 165.85 1 164 175.48 1 180 192.60 1 182 194.74 1 252 269.64 1 279 298.53 1 372 398.04 1 493 527.51 TOTAL T63 COLLECTIONS $13,1.21 /9 -J In those situations where the homeowner or occupant owed the city money, the city has offered the homeowner the option • of extending payment over nine quarters, a period of over two years. Unlike the situation where a bill has not been paid and is certified to the tax roll, there is no interest charge (1.5 %) when the additional collection is due to a meter /reader discrepancy whether the homeowner elects to pay at one time or by installment. Further, when additional collection for water consumption is called for, any sanitary sewer charges related to water consumption are forgiven. Conversations with St. Cloud, Eden Prairie, Bloomington and St. Louis Park indicate that while rates may vary, policies related to refunding, collection and interest are identical to those in Richfield. Northern States Power does not seem to have the same reconciliation problems as apparently all their meters are accessible which permits all readings from the master meter. Minnegasco has a similar policy related to refunds and collections. The meter, whether inside or outside, is the official reading and any discrepency is either refunded to the consumer or paid by the consumer. Year end 1985 should see the completion of the three year program for replacement of residential 5/8" water meters and readers. The adopted 1986 budget includes the beginning of the new program for replacement of the larger than 5/8" water meters, generally found in commercial facilities. With completion of this second phase of meter replacement, all water meters /readers in the city will have been upgraded. The new meter system will provide several improvements to the residents as well as to the city. Some of the improvements are: 1. Reduced cost for readings 2. More accurate readings 3. Direct reading of the inside meter 4. Readings do not have to be key punched 5. No need to gain entrance to household 6. Increased revenues to the city It is the opinion of staff that the billing policies established for the water utility are fair and equitable. Any amendment to these policies as a result of the meter change program would need to be applicable to all residents. Richfield has one of the finest water systems available. Every effort is made to provide the most modern, reliable equipment possible to maintain a quality system at a reasonable cost to the consumer. Under present policies, all consumers pay for their actual water usage. It is recommended there be no policy changes as a result of the new meter replacement program. pect ubmitted, ohn G. Ca twri City Manag r JGC /eja lev- / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager SCouncil Letter No. 29 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Council Ratification of an Agreement Between MAMA Negotiating Committee and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local X49 Council Members: There is an item on the January 13, 1986, City Council agenda providing for council ratification of an agreement between the Metropolitan Area Management Association Negotiating Committee and Local 49 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, which represents most of the cities' maintenance employees. The agreement involves twenty -two municipalities that traditionally have been involved in the joint negotiations. A majority of the bargaining unit employees have approved the contract and City Managers are now in the process of recommending approval to their respective communities. The Master Contract covers the years of 1985 and 1986 and contained a reopener on the issues of wages and insurance contributions for the year 1986. Changes in the contract for 1986 wages and insurance are as follows: 1) Wages - a 4% wage increase for the classifications of Maintenance I and Maintenance II. A flat 45¢ per hour increase for the classification of Maintenance III, which equals a 3.8% increase. 2) Insurance - $10 increase in 1986 on the City's contribution for health and life insurance, bringing the maximum contribution per month to $165.00 per employee. When the proposed contract settlement is viewed with respect to other 1986 City settlements and wage adjustments, they reflect a favorable settlement from the City's perspective. 0 It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving execution of this agreement with Local 49 and authorize the City Manager to implement the provisions of this contract. JGC /eja 10 Respectf 1 ubmitted, a ohn G. a twri h City Manager RESOLUTION NO. )b--3 RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF RICHFIELD AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 AFL /CIO FOR THE YEAR 1986 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Metropolitan Area Management Association have reached an agreement with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the year 1986, and WHEREAS, this agreement includes new wage and contract insurance provisions for 1986, and WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by Council Resolution. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Richfield and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 for the year 1986. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Richfield. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of January, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk 0 John Hamilton Mayor 15-1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 28 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Policy Resolution Regarding Inserts with the Water /Sewer Bills Council Members: At a recent city council meeting, the subject of water bill inserts was discussed. A request for a water bill insert from the Storefront /Youth Action organization seeking donations was approved and prompted the city council to direct the City Manager to prepare a policy to handle such requests. The city staff surveyed several metropolitan communities • regarding their existing policy and practice in such matters. From the results of that survey,. the city found that most communities sent water /sewer bills out in a postcard format. However, from the information collected from those cities that utilize an envelope mailing, a draft policy was formulated for the City of Richfield. Attached is a resolution establishing a policy regulating the use of water /sewer bill inserts for council consideration. In terms of a long -range plan for water /sewer bill mailings, the city will again evaluate the use of a postcard mailing instead of the present envelope system when the new computer system is installed during early 1986. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution regulating inserts for city water /sewer bill mailings. R pectf 1 bmitted, ohn G. ar rig City Manager 0 JGC /eja RESOLUTION NO. /5—aloo' RESOLUTION REGULATING WHEN INFORMATIONAL INSERTS CAN BE INCLUDED WITH WATER /SEWER BILL MAILINGS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield generates weekly mailings of water /sewer bills to users of the system, and WHEREAS, such weekly mailings may accomodate informational inserts in addition to the billing information, and WHEREAS, the City periodically receives requests to include informational inserts from a variety of organizations to be included in the weekly water bills, and WHEREAS, the City seeks to establish a uniform policy for dealing with such requests. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following policy be established to regulate informational inserts to be included with water /sewer bill mailings: Introduction The City of Richfield will make available to City Departments, Advisory Boards and Commissions, Council appointed committees and task forces and not- for - profit organizations that serve the residents of Richfield, the use of the water /sewer is bill mailing for inserts. The material to be inserted along with the City's water/ sewer bill shall be limited to information that is determined to be of interest to most Richfield residents. Priority 1. The City of Richfield and its Advisory Boards and Commissions will have first priority on all inserts. 2. Second priority is any non - profit civic organization that serves the residents of Richfield. Such organizations may use the water bill mailing for inserts on a first come, first served basis. 3. The use of the mailing will not be extended to any religious organizations. 4. All organizations should contact the Director of Administrative Services prior to printing material to insure that the proposed insert can be included with the water /sewer bill. 0 Size of Insert The Director of will be responsible for the insert to be envelope. 1 5- 3 Administrative Services or his /her designee for determining what size an insert can be placed in the Richfield water /sewer bill The maximum dimensions of an insert shall be 6 1/2 inches by 11 inches. The preferred size is 3 inches by 5 1/2 inches. Weight and Number of Inserts Water /sewer bills are sent by first class mail and the weight of each envelope must be kept under one ounce or additional postage will be required. The number of inserts per water /sewer bill will be limited to no more than three inserts in addition to the water /sewer bill. The number of inserts will also be limited by the weight factor so that each envelope, with inserts, will not exceed one ounce in weight. Cost There will be no cost to have the approved insert included with the water /sewer bill, provided that there is no additional postage cost to the City. If there is an added postage cost, the organization(s) shall be required to pay the additional cost of postage. The Director of Administrative Services may • require an advanced deposit to cover the additional cost of postage. The deposit will be fully refunded if there is no added postage. Frequency Not - for - profit organizations shall be limited to the use of the water /sewer bill insert to once each year. Staff Denial to Use an Insert The Director of Administrative Services shall have the authority to deny the insertion of any material that may not be appropriate for distribution by the City of Richfield. The not - for- profit organization may appeal the decision to the City Council. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 13th day of January, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk John Hamilton Mayor lb 1 - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 27 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subjects: (1) Resolution Receiving Preliminary Report and Setting a Public Hearing Date for the 1986 Alley Paving Project, Project No. 822; and, (2) Staff Recommendation to Reconsider the 50% Rule for Initiating Alley Projects. Council Members: In November 1980, the city council established a policy providing for the improvement of the city's alleys by concrete paving. This policy stipulates that an alley will be paved upon receipt of a petition signed by property owners representing • more than fifty percent (50 %) of the abutting footage requesting such paving. In the first five years of this program, 65 of the 96 alleys in the city have been paved. At the December 9, 1985 city council meeting, the council ordered a preliminary report to be prepared for the following two eligible petitions which had been submitted to the city: Alley Between From To Second and Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 359' north The attached preliminary report includes the estimated costs and assessments for the proposed 1986 alley paving project. The estimated residential assessment is $22.50 per foot as compared to approximately $19.30 per foot for the 1985 alley assessment program. Staff recommends that the city council adopt the resolution accepting the preliminary report and setting a public hearing date on the two alley projects for February 10, 1986. Minnesota Statute 429.031 provides that the council may order such a petitioned project, by a majority vote, if presented with a petition of more than 35% of the property • owners. The staff recommends that the city council consider revising their policy to reflect this lower percentage requirement. This revision will hopefully expedite the completion of the remaining 31 alleys yet to be permanently paved with concrete. 65 alleys have been paved to With only two alley projects planned for 1986, it that the alley pavement program will essentially b a change in policy is made. City staff recommends matter be placed on a future work shop agenda for JGC /eja • • date. is apparent e ended unless that this consideration. R pect ul submitted, e ohn G. Ca wri t City Manager 0 • I y3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING CITY PROJECT NO. 822 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7117 of the city council adopted December 9, 1985, with reference to the improvement of the following alleys by concrete paving: Alley Between From To Second and Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 359' north NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The preliminary report on the proposed City Project No. 822, dated the 13th day of January, 1986, prepared by the city engineer, is hereby received and ordered to be placed on file. 2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on February 10, 1986 commencing at 7 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, at which time the council will consider the improvement of these alleys in accordance with the report and assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429, at an estimated cost of the improvement of $43,200. 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of January, 1986. ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk John Hamilton, Mayor A /1/--y PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 822 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete a ey paving improvements in the City of Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The alleys i en i ie as um ers 1 and 2 in Item No. IV were requested by petition representing greater than 50 percent of the abutting footage. These alleys are proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide concrete alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT January 13, IV. LOCATION . Alley Between From To 1. Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 357 feet North of 71st 2. Second and Third Avenue 66th Street 67th Street V: FEASIBILITY The alley paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed. and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting a alleys previously described in Item No. IV. VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 11' Wide Concrete Alley Estimated Construction Cost Administration, Legal, Engineering & Interest (35 %) Estimated Project Cost Cost of Alleys 1 and 2 $32,350.00 11,325.00 $43,675.00 1y -,5 fo -2- VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT Property abutting a eys will a assessed for alley construction according to the assessment policy established in the City Council Resolution No. 6345. Alleys 1 and 2 Total Assessable Alley Frontage 1,920' Total Project Cost $43,675.00 Less City Cost - 475.00 Assessable Cost $43,200.00 $43,200.00 = 1,920 = $22.50 /assessable foot Typical Assessment for 50' lot = $1,125.00 Typical Assessment for 75' lot = $1,687.50 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. micnael V astling DATE: 1/13/86 Registration No. 15066 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 26 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Amendment to Section 3.34A (Planned Unit Developments) Council Members: In 1976 the city adopted ordinance provisions which provided for the establishment of a new type of zoning district in the city: the planned unit development zoning district. Those provisions are located in Section 3.34A of the ordinance code. The objective of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section was to permit greater flexibility in zoning for certain developments than was permitted or allowed under the classical zoning formula • which dealt in general terms with lot size, lot coverage, setbacks and permitted uses. Under the PUD section, the city became directly involved in designing a specific use and configuration of structures on a parcel of land. The PUD process has generally worked very well and the community has benefited in many ways by developments in PUD districts which could not have been developed under traditional zoning regulations. With the passage of time, the city has gained a great deal of experience and knowledge in the use of the PUD process. With that experience and knowledge has come the realization that certain provisions of the PUD section have not always worked well in practice. Among the most notable examples are the criteria and standards contained in subdivisions 9, 10, and 11 of the PUD section. Those criteria were designed to regulate, such matters as floor area, open space, livability space, recreation space and parking requirements. Experience has shown, however, that when a proposed development is subjected to the PUD process and possesses the qualities in design, land use and community benefit which fulfill the purposes and objectives of the PUD section, those same projects depart radically from the standards and criteria contained in the subdivisions mentioned above. An example is • the Market Plaza PUD project. In that instance, the city approved a PUD which had approximately one -third more floor 15,2_ area, two - thirds less livability space and two - fifths less recreational space that was contained in the criteria and standards. In spite of those significant departures, the development itself was the kind of land use which the PUD section was intended to permit. Moreover, the extent of the departures clearly suggests that the standards and criteria contained in the PUD section served no legitimate function in the process of designing and approving that development. Attached to this letter is a proposed amendment to.Section 3.34A which is drafted to address the concern addressed above. The proposed ordinance amendment addresses the concern in a somewhat cautious and conservative manner by limiting its application only to PUDs in development project areas. Because our experience with the PUD section (and our difficulty with the criteria and standards) has been limited to such areas of the city, we are only recommending that those criteria and standards be removed from PUDs in such areas. It is recommended that the attached ordinance amendment be given first reading, and second reading and the public hearing be scheduled for February 10, 1986. • JGC /eja Respectfully submitted; Alhl n G. JC 6tw r t City Manager /C;z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 25 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Amendment to Interim Ordinance Council Members: On February 11, 1985, the city council enacted Transitory Ordinance No. 17.18. The ordinance placed certain restrictions and limitations upon development, redevelopment and construction within portions of the Interstate - Lyndale Area. The purpose for the ordinance was "to protect the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city and to ensure that the city and its citizens retain the benefits of the new comprehensive plan (which is in the process of being formulated) and development - redevelopment for the Area ". Following the adoption of the interim ordinance, significant redevelopment activities have been considered for the Interstate - Lyndale Area. Two such projects, Hampton Inn and CDR, either have, or soon may have, been processed up to the point where they will be ready to apply for building permits and begin construction. In order for that to occur, however, the interim ordinance must be amended so as to remove the prohibition on development and redevelopment from their projects. The staff has considered two approaches to amendment of the interim ordinance: 1. Amending Section 1A of the Interim Ordinance. This approach would involve removing properties from the legal description of the Area. The property could then be developed without the restraint of the interim ordinance. This approach, however, has a significant drawback. Property freed from the interim ordinance could be developed in any manner consistent with the underlying zoning for that property. Moreover, the owner of property freed from the interim ordinance would be free to seek to rezone the property. The ability of the city to control and guide development during the planning process for the ILN Area could • thereby be seriously compromised. / C2 -C;-, - 2. Excepting Approved PUDs from the Restrictions of the Ordinance. This approach would seem to meet the • objective of allowing approved projects to progress while at the same time continuing to limit and restrict development or redevelopment on the project sites which are not consistent with the approved PUD. Attached to this council letter is a proposed ordinance which is designed to "lift" the interim ordinance to allow for projects which are approved PUDs to be carried out. It is recommended that this proposed ordinance be given first reading at the January 13, 1986, city council meeting, and that the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance be scheduled for February 10, 1986. JGC /eja 0 Res4G.Car y ubmitted, ohn right City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 24 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Providing for Minimum Liquor Liability Insurance for Municipal Liquor Operation Council Members: In the Fall of 1985, the City was notified by the Home Insurance Company that the Liquor Liability (Dram Shop) Insurance policy for the municipal liquor stores would not be renewed for 1986. City staff immediately proceeded to secure alternate coverage. Liquor Liability Insurance was secured by City staff through the State Assigned Risk Pool, underwritten by the • Transcontinental Insurance Company. However, the City would only be able to obtain a $100,000 level of primary insurance coverage for the Cedar Avenue store if the City did not have an ordinance requiring greater limits of liability. The City would be able to obtain a $500,000 level of coverage for the Lyndale and Penn Avenue stores without any ordinance requirement. The reason for the discrepancy is that the City currently has a dram shop claim pending at the Cedar Avenue store. Thus, the Assigned Risk Pool is unwilling to voluntarily offer the City better coverage for the Cedar Avenue store. The attached ordinance amendment would provide the legal authority for the City to secure $500,000 for each store location. From a risk management perspective, this $500,000 primary limit is a much preferred liquor liability coverage to the $100,000 available for the Cedar Avenue store without the ordinance amendment. In previous years, the City has maintained a $500,000 primary limit of liquor liability and an umbrella policy of several million dollars on top of the primary limit. No umbrella policy is available to the City for liquor liablity insurance for 1986. Thus the primary limit is the only liquor liability insurance coverage available to the City for 1986. This factor makes it even more critical that the City secure the highest primary limit possible for all store locations. 49 It is recommended that the City Council give first reading consideration to the attached ordinance providing for minimum liquor liability limits for the municipal liquor operation and schedule second reading for January 27, 1986. Ll JGC /eja Respectfu bmitted, fohn G. Ca twrig City Manager cc: Administrative Services Director Liquor Operations Director Finance Manager Personnel Manager • r� U //- Z- � /0--,/ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 23 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: First Reading on Ordinance Relating to Regulations of Various Commercial Enterprises Providing Adult- Oriented Services. Council Members: As council members are aware, the Public Safety Department has aggressively been dealing with prostitution and related criminal vice problems in the city. As a result of this enforcement activity, the Public Safety Department has determined that organized vice activities are occurring in the community within the framework of certain legal commercial "fronts ". Currently, the only business license required by the city of commercial enterprises susceptible to operations which might support criminal vice activities is the sauna and masseuse licensing requirements contained in Richfield City Ordinance Code 5.25 and 5.26. These particular license requirements in our community have not been really effective because they are so specific in nature that commercial enterprises have been able to change the form of their activities to avoid the requirements of these regulations. For some time, the Public Safety Department in cooperation with the City Attorney's office, has been reviewing established business license practices of other communities to regulate businesses which are particularly susceptible to illegal operations. Business license regulations in other communities which appear to have been successful in this regard generally deal with something of an "umbrella" regulation of adult - oriented services. Based upon the study conducted by the Public Safety Department and the City Attorney's office, a new ordinance regulating commercial enterprises providing adult - oriented services has been developed for council consideration. The ordinance herein proposed is very much like ordinances in other communities that have been upheld by Federal and State • courts. The advantage of the proposed ordinance is that it is /0- 2ww more general in nature than existing ordinance regulations, and, therefore, more easily applied to business activities which imay be susceptible to illegal conduct. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the city council give favorable first reading consideration to the attached ordinance proposal regulating commercial enterprises providing adult- oriented services. The cities of Bloomington and St. Louis Park have very similiar ordinances to the one being recommended to the Richfield city council. Both cities have demonstrated that the ordinance has been very effective in either preventing the locations of illegal enterprises with adult oriented services or their discontinuance. If the new ordinance is approved by council action, we would recommend that the existing sauna and masseuse license ordinance provisions of 5.25 and 5.26 of the city ordinance code be repealed. We believe that this new ordinance should be of great assistance to the Department of Public Safety in attempting to rid Richfield of prostitution related activity. It certainly would provide a much stronger legal foundation for the Public Safety Department's enforcement efforts in this area. r� U JGC /e ja C7 pect,f"u4X, /submitted, John G: Cal twrig City Manager � CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 22 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Martin Luther King Holiday Personnel Ordinance Amendment. Second Reading. Council Members: The State Legislature recently amended M.S. 645.44, Subdivision 5 - Holidays, to include "Martin Luther King's Birthday, the third Monday in January ". The section provides that "No public business shall be transacted on any holiday, except in cases of necessity ... ". Thus, the addition of Martin Luther King's Birthday mandates that city hall be closed for public business on the third Monday in January, commencing with January 20, 1986. • Paid holiday leave is established by recommendation of the City Manager and approval of the City Council for city employee groups not represented by collective bargaining agreements. The specific benefits for such employees are stated in the City's Personnel Ordinance. Holiday pay for union - represented employees, such as police, fire and labor /trades personnel, is established through the collective bargaining process, and approved by the City Council. Currently the City Personnel Ordinance grants eligible employees eight hours of paid holiday leave for each of the following 11 holidays: New Year's Day on January 1st; Washington's and Lincoln's Birthdays on the third Monday in February; Memorial Day on the last Monday in May; Independence Day on July 4th; Labor Day on the first Monday in September; Veteran's Day on November 11th; Thanksgiving Day on the fourth Thursday of November; the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Day; a holiday the date of which shall be designated each year by the City Manager; and one floating holiday. There are several options available to the city to meet the situation created by the new holiday, including: 1) Eliminate the employee's floating holiday and replace it with Martin Luther King's Birthday, or 9- 20000 2) Eliminate the City Manager designated holiday and replace it with Martin Luther King's Birthday, or 3) Add another holiday to the City Personnel Ordinance for Martin Luther King's Birthday and increase the annual paid holidays for eligible employees to 12. At the January 2, 1986, city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an amendment to'the personnel ordinance which will include an additional paid holiday for Martin Luther King's Birthday. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and give second reading approval to this ordinance amendment for the following reasons: First, the non - organized city employees (General Services and Management) have enjoyed the use of a floating holiday since the mid- 1970's and it has been very popular with the employees. To replace the floating holiday with Martin Luther King's Birthday would be a very unpopular action. Similarly, the designated 11th holiday, adopted February 25, 1980, which is often used as the day preceding or following Christmas Day, has allowed all General Services and Management employees to plan on a two -day city'hall closing for travel, etc. The day before and after Christmas are extremely slow days with respect to city business. Few telephone calls are • received on those days and walk -in business is nearly non- existent. Thus, it is a logical day to remain closed and is a very desirable holiday from the city employee's perspective. It should also be considered that it is not often that the city is in the position of granting a benefit to non -union city employees that union employees don't already have or have exceeded. Finally, it should also be noted that as contracts of the major labor groups open for 1986 and 1987, it is quite possible that some labor groups will win an additional holiday through collective bargaining. As this occurs, it will gradually spread through the metropolitan area for all comparable work groups. It is, therefore, recommended that the City Council approve second reading of the attached ordinance providing for an additional paid holiday for Martin Luther King's Birthday for eligible General Services and Management employees. Fohn ctf l submitted, • G . Ca tw ri,g t Manage • JGC /eja BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER II, PART III OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter II, Part III, Section 2.33, Subdivision 2 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota relating to Attendance and Leaves, Holidays, is hereby amended in the following respects: 2.33 ATTENDANCE AND LEAVES Subd. 2. Holidays. Eligible full -time employees will be granted eight hours of paid holiday leave for each of the following holidays observed by the city: New.Year's Day on January 1st; Martin Luther King's Birthday on the third Monday of January; Washington's and Lincoln's Birthdays on the third Monday in February; Memorial Day on the last Monday in May; Independence Day on July 4th; Labor Day on the first Monday in September; Veteran's Day on November 11th; Thanksgiving Day on the fourth Thursday of November; the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Day; a holiday the date of which shall be designated each year by the city manager; and one floating holiday. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 21 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Reconsideration of a Special Use Permit Application for a 28 Seat Restaurant at 7724 Morgan Avenue (City Administration Recommends Continuance to February 10, 1986). Council Members: SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTINUANCE At the December 12, 1985, city council meeting Paul Knutson who operates a carry out deli business asked the city council to • reconsider its earlier determination to not issue a special use permit for a 28 seat restaurant. The city council voted to reconsider the matter at its next regular meeting (January 13, 1986) The City Attorney and City Manager have learned that there is litigation involved between Mr. Knutson, the tenant, and the Viking Center, the landlord. The landlord is seeking to evict Mr. Knutson from the shopping center for failure to make any lease payments. Mr. Knutson has filed a lawsuit or counter claim that seeks to establish that he has either a 99 year verbal lease or an 18 year lease (this included 5 three year options). Mr. Knutson says his lease is for 3000 square feet but he only uses 300 square feet for the carry out deli operation. Apparently Mr. Knutson also has a dispute over how much his lease payments should be. Since there is litigation in process which raises a question as to whether Mr. Knutson has or does not have a lease,. Mr. Knutson may not be an eligible applicant for a special use permit. It is recommended that this matter be continued until the first meeting in February. Hopefully, by early February, • the results of the litigation may be known. HISTORY • If the city council January 13th meeting, a request follows. 9.2,0. wishes to consider the request at the brief history of the special use permit In February 1985, Mr. Paul Knudson of 601 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, requested a special use permit to operate a 28 seat deli restaurant and bar serving beer and wine at the Viking Center. The proposed restaurant was to be located at 7724 Morgan Avenue which is in the middle of the existing commercial strip center. Mr. Knudson leases both the first floor and basement at that address. The proposed restaurant was to be located on the first floor and the basement area would be used for dry storage with potential for future expansion of the restaurant. The food was to be catered in and there would have been a preparation area behind the bar for cold sandwiches. The restaurant would have been open for breakfast, lunch and dinner and remain open until midnight or 1:00 AM. The city council, on a 4 -1 vote, denied the special use permit which would have permitted a 28 seat restaurant. Mr. Knudson has subsequently opened a take -out deli. Mr. Knudson asked at the 12/12/85 city council meeting that the city council reconsider his request for a special use permit. The council set January 13, 1986, as a public hearing • date for this reconsideration. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Section 3.33, subdivision 2, lists restaurants as uses which may be allowed in C -2 districts if they are granted a special use permit. 2. Section 3.33, subdivision 4, establishes standards which must be complied with in order to issue a special use permit to a restaurant. A copy of this ordinance is attached for your information. 3. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, indicates that a special use permit shall not be granted unless it is found that the proposal would not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use or to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. STAFF REVIEW Staff has reviewed the proposal against the standards for restaurants and has found the following: 1. The proposed site is located in the C -2 general commercial district which allows restaurants by special use permit. 8 -3 2. The proposal is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan which designates the site within a freeway strip area. • This allows for high density uses specifically including dining and entertainment. 3. The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion on surrounding streets. Access to the site is by either 78th Street frontage road or from Morgan Avenue. The proposal may result in a slight increase in traffic on Morgan Avenue through the residential neighborhood north of 77th Street. This increase should not be significant. The off - street parking lot provided for the center is adequately designed to insure safe traffic circulation on the site itself. 4. The proposed restaruant will be located within an existing office /commercial structure. Therefore, there should be no problems with setbacks, screening, glare or landscaping. Because there are no kitchen facilities proposed at this time, dust and fumes would pose no problems to surrounding property. 5. Assuming that the use of the shopping center as a whole remains predominately office uses rather than commercial uses, and that the number of seats in the restaurant does not exceed 28, the proposal would met the city's minimum off - street parking guidelines. The center with the proposed restaurant would require 91 parking spaces and 92 are provided. A number of complaints have been received by the city in the past concerning on- street parking and traffic congestion in the area and in the residential blocks north of 77th Street. Parking shortage is a result of heavy demand generated by two large car dealerships and a number of other commercial operations. If the parking demand at the Viking Center increases due to changes in uses at the center, the center may not provide sufficient parking. Any overflow parking created by a shortage'at the Viking Center would exacerbate the problems in the surrounding area. 6. In order to serve wine on the premises, a restaurant must be located on a main thoroughfare of the city. In this particular case, while a portion of the Viking Plaza Center abuts on the 78th Street service road to 494, the space to be occupied by the restaurant abuts Morgan Avenue which would not meet the city's definition of a main thoroughfare. 7. Access to the off - street parking for the center and the proposed restaurant is from an internal driveway system and not directly from public streets. Provision is also made for sufficient stacking space which allows for an efficient • and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent streets. • V 8. The public safety department has indicated that there are some potential building code related problems that would have to be resolved prior to the issuance of permits to remodel the space into a restaurant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is staff's recommendation that the special use permit be approved with the following stipulations: 1. That wine not be offered on the premises because it does not abut a major thoroughfare. 2. That the special use permit be limited to the first floor area of the restaurant. 3. That seating for no more than 28 persons be provided. 4. That all building code problems be resolved to the satisfaction of the public safety department. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the special use permit be granted as requested with the four stipulations set forth in the staff recommendation. COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER The City Manager has learned that Walser Buick has leased the southern part of the Viking Shopping Center for the storage of automobile parts. Also, Walser Buick says they have an option to purchase the entire property in September, 1986. If the option is exercised, Walser Buick says that they expect to demolish the shopping center for expansion of the their dealership. In a telephone conversation with Hedlund Properties, leasing agent for the Viking Shopping Center, the City Manager was told that Mr. Knudson is fully aware of the Walser Buick lease and option to purchase. JGC /eja City Manage ubmitted, 0 • SITE PLAN. .. 7724 MORGAN AVE( LU W ui r- U W co (- 4 i -- I 8 � FRONTAGE ROAD 7�10 74 • Tz IL 1 ..5 LIM �.� U i \J L. ,. . ............ . s — w m i — 1 �. ' �. f .b ' .... -I I .- .'4. i t t .v ,♦ cio _ v r - m x . fl r m -f7 > x 44 F 24 20 � 14 ! �i• � O• s W Z v c �i o m m v v n ( S! O n _ r s — w m i — 1 �. ' �. f .b ' .... -I I .- .'4. i .� (S8 I LJ -! I ° � ill 44 � 34 � :i 24 20 � 14 ! �i• � O• .., , N - OLIVER i�3 ( S! 33 27 21 _, x to t t. i m p 14 oa i Tsca �.,QI. = 10.11 110- �1- C�44RDYS i a �s y I ul I-.;b j w j N � ADDITION _ 944 3i !2 23 20 141{ ox > - NEWTON "M 1 GP` A At _0 A t V 'S 7" i ADDl1TIGQN f .., , N - I2 • sv�r�i 0 nn 1 J Cl 11 _, x to t t. i m p 14 oa i Tsca 1 GP` A At _0 A t V I2 REMNo 11 F-"-El S �.,QI. = 10.11 110- — � _ 1 GP` A At _0 A t V .... �c%:� •� .:. .: µ:-_ms; yr•' -' n:: n ice., !ice ��'t 150 feet, two such signs may be allowed by the council on such frontage, subject to any other applicable sign regulations. (Bill "1970 -10) 3/23/70 (k) All exterior lighting will be so designed, placed and operated, I as not to be a nuisance to adjacent properties. (1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center or other integrated development, it will be in architectural harmony with the rest of the center or development. (m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and other petroleum products between pumps, or the temporary display of merchan- dise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted. (n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6 :00 a.m. of the following day. (o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 50 feet of the in- tersection, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displays or other materials which tend to obstruct intersection visibility. Subd. 4. Regulations Relating to Hotels, Motels, Restaurants and Cafes. A special use permit shall not be granted for a hotel, motel, restaurant or cafe unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the following standards: (a) The use will not create undue traffic hazards or traffic con - gestion either on the public streets adjacent to the site or on the parking areas on or adjacent to the site or on streets adjacent to the site unto which traffic to or from the site is channeled. (b) Adequate provision will be made, through the use of building setbacks, buffer areas, screening, and exterior treatment or placement of the building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust, and any other sources of nuisance or annoyance to adjacent properties. (c) Adequate,provision will be made through the use of building setbacks, screening,.landscaping, exterior design and placement of the building on the site to avoid noise, glare, fumes, dust and any other sources of nuisance or annoyance to users, or patrons of the facility. (d) Adequate off - street parking space is available for patrons and employees. (e) If liquor is to be sold on the premises (1) of the property abuts upon a main thoroughfare of the city, (2) access to all off - street parking space is from internal driveway systems and is not directly from public streets, and (3) provision is made for well- designed vehicular stacking space allowing for an efficient and orderly flow of traffic from the site onto adjacent main thoroughfares of the city. "Main thoroughfares of the city ", as used in this paragraph, means a street designated as a state trunk highway or a service drive adjacent to the state trunk highway, a state aid highway, a county aid highway, a county highway, or a street which is so located as to serve, primarily, commercial development. (Bill 1976 -10) 4/26/76 (f) The proposed facility will provide an aesthetic appearance which will not detract from or conflict with the existing or proposed architectural form of buildings in the same area. (g) The use will not create an excessive burden on public parks, public open- space, streets, or utilities requiring public services which are proposed to serve the facility. 4/26/76 ORDINANCE CODE 68.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA (h) The proposed development will not conflict with the comprehensive development plan of the city. Subd. S. Heieht Regulations.- In a "C -2" district no building shall hereafter be erected or structurally altered to exceed three stories of !•0 feet in height, subject to the modifications and exceptions provided in Section 3.39 of this chapter. Subd. 6. Lot Areas and Yard Requirements. (The same requirements shall be observed for the "C -2" district as are provided for a "C -1" district in Section 3.32 of this chapter.) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subdivision the same minimum'requirements shall be observed for "C -2" district as are provided for a "C -1" district in Section.3.32. (2) A gasoline service station may construct a carop;r extended into 'the building setback area of the lot on which it is located provided that such canopy complies with the following regulations: (a) It must be designed and constructed to serve as protection for customers and attendants from inclement weather. (b) It may extend into the front yard area distance of 10 feet, as measured from the centerline of the gasoline pump island closest to the street . lot-line but in no instance _loser than five feet from this lot line. (c) Only one canopy shall be permitted at each service station, unless it is located on a corner lot. main service station building and shall extend from such building. (d) The canopy shall not be constructed to a height exceeding sixteen feet. (e) The canopy shall not be designed for use nor shall it b.e used as a location for any business or advertising sign of a permanent or te:aporary construction.. (f) Lighting located on the canopy shall be designed as an integral part of the canopy providing that fixtures shall not extend below the bottom surface of the canopy structure and shall be beamed downward. (g) The canopy shall not be used as the location for lights or lighting fixtures used to illuminate the service station building, off - street parking areas or other areas not directly beneath the canopy. Flashing lights and rotating lights shall not be located on or attached to the canopy. (h) No canopy, whether it conforms with the foregoing regulations or not, shall be constructed in a location or manner which will block or obscure the vision of automobile traffic on any street adjacent to the service station or the vision of an automobile entering or leaving the service station.. Bill No. 1985 -15 (7/20/85) Subd. 7. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.4,0 the council :may grant an exception or an adjustment to any of the requirements of this section where the council finds that the project encourages a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land and to environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the zoning regulations of the city, provided that the project is consistent with the purposes of such regulations. (Bill 1972 -6) 3/13/72 7/20/85 OROINANCE COOE 58.2 C1 7Y OF RICHFIEL O, .MIMW:jv^.i,a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 20 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing Concerning CDR Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Council Members: A public hearing has been scheduled to receive comments concerning the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) completed in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes. After the public hearing is closed the council will need to determine if the EAW adequately addresses potential environmental issues and impacts of the proposed CDR project or if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be necessary. • Minnesota State Statutes require that an EAW be completed for the project because the total square footage of the project exceeds 300,000 square feet, because there are parking facilities for more than 1,000 vehicles, and because the proposed development will discharge more than 50,000 gallons of waste water per day to the sanitary sewer system. The attached EAW was completed by the developer and copies distributed to the various agencies required by state statutes. The state required a 30 day comment period which expired on January 2, 1986. The public hearing scheduled on this matter is optional and not required by state statutes. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun on December 25, 1985, and January 1, 1986. The following is a summary of the information contained in the EAW. 1. Some soil correction work will be necessary but soil corrections will not have a significant impact on the development or upon surrounding areas. 2. Erosion will be controlled during construction through perimeter siltation fences. Detention /retention ponds will be constructed to provide for some settlement of sediments prior to outletting to storm water systems. 3. The storm water runoff from the site will be controlled through the use of detention ponding facilities designed to • limit storm water runoff so that it does not exceed the runoff currently existing on the site. Sediment and floatable pollutants will be removed through use of detention ponds baffled weirs and riser pipes. 4. The completed project will generate 146,549 gallons of sanitary waste water per day. Existing sanitary sewer laterals do not have sufficient capacity to handle the proposed development. A new lift station and an 8 inch force main will be constructed on the westerly portion of the site and connected to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) interceptor on 76th Street. MWCC staff has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the interceptor to serve the proposed development. 5. Existing traffic conditions generate noise levels which are near or exceed standards during peak hours. This is due to the high existing traffic volumes on 135W and 1494. The development will result in an increase in noise levels of less than 1 decibel over a "no development" alternative. This is a minor increase. Noise levels are primarily influenced by traffic noise on 135W and I494. Although abatement of noise along 135W and I494 is possible it is beyond the scope of this project. Construction of berms along West 77th Street would provide minimal reduction in noise. 6. Air quality analysis indicates that carbon monoxide concentrations would be below state standards therefore the proposed project would comply with state statutes. 7. Construction equipment will generate noise, exhaust fumes, and dust. All motorized equipment will be muffled and the site will be watered for dust control. State and city ordinances on noise levels will be maintained. 8. The development will have minimal impact on wildlife habitat. 9. With the planned roadway improvements to be constructed as part of the ILN redevelopment project there will be adequate capacity on adjacent roadways to handle the projected traffic volumes. The backup materials accompanying this council letter are copies of the written comments which staff received concerning the EAW. Comments include the following: 1. The Minnesota Historical Society indicates that there are no known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, 10 archeological or engineering significance within the area of the proposed project. 7--3 2. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicates the City of Richfield can act as the responsible governmental unit (RGU) in reviewing the Environmental Assessment Worksheet(EAW). MPCA also indicates that the EAW adequately addresses the areas which they would be concerned about. These areas are air quality, traffic noise and waste water aspects of the project. 3. The Minnesota Department of Transportation indicates that they anticipate that the proposed project will cause little adverse impact to their transportation facilities. 4. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources indicates that the EAW understates the value of small wetlands. They indicate that small wetlands can provide excellant wildlife habitat depending on type and relationship to other wetlands and proximity to upland wildlife habitat. Wetlands also function as ground water recharge areas and flood water retention basins and recycle runoff nutrients and protect shorelined areas. They also indicate that they are concerned about the potential contribution of this project to waste water flows in the 76th Street interceptor. DNR questioned the advisablity connecting the proposed projects waste water outlet to an interceptor system that may contribute to increased bypassing of sanitary waste water to the Mississippi River during peak flow periods. They suggested that the cooling tower storage water be discharged into the storm water system rather than • in the sanitary system. 5. The Metropolitan Council indicated that an Environmental Assessment is not necessary for the proposed project, but indicated that the projects impact on three nearby highway access points be analyzed as well as the potential affect of an inadequate Lyndale Avenue, 77th Street intersection on the I494 interchange. 6. The City of Bloomington has indicated they have no problem with the proposed development. Recommendation It is staff's opinion that the environmental issues concerning the proposed CDR Development have been adequately addressed in the EAW. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council find that no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. A resolution is attached for your consideration. Respectfu)�Ty) ,aruomitted , L John G. Cart right City Manager NOTE: At the time of preparing this council letter, was still waiting for information from the attorney CDR. When this additional material is received, it provided to council members as soon as possible. • 7- city staff representing will be 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55101 General Office Telephone (612) 291 -6359 'tx ctTtwr REVIEW A Metropolitan Council bulletin for community leaders Editor: Jim Martin. For more information, call the Communications Department at 291 -6464. (TDD 291- 0904). December 20, 1985 RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Dec. 8— Dec. 20) Metropolitan Significance - -The Council voted to allow the proposed $1.3 billion Bloomington mega —mall project to go forward, concluding its metropolitan significance review of the project The Council said the Metropolitan Land Planning Act gives it adequate authority to require any future modifications in the project necessary to protect the region's transportation system. The Council said the amount of office space proposed in the mega —mall area should be scaled down. The Council also said no exemption should be made for the development from the fiscal disparities law, under which the tax value of the development would be shared by all local governments in the region. Housing- -The Council received approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for 74 vouchers under the Section 8 housing assistance payment program, raising the Council's number of vouchers to 360 and adding $332,368 to the project's funding. The Council 0 proved the contract that makes it eligible to receive the deral funds. The Council voted to eliminate the designations of elderly and family from the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority Section 8 rent assistance program certificates to increase administrative flexibility in dealing with a changing client population. Minority Issues - -The Council accepted a 1985 report from its Minority Issues Advisory Committee, and asked the staff to develop recommendations on how to carry out the report's suggestions. A major focus of the report is to ,develop better data on Twin Cities minorities. Development - -The Council said that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for a proposed office space and hotel development northeast of the Interstate Hwy.494/1 -35W interchange in Richfield. The Council said, however, the project's impact on three nearby highway access points shou!d be analyzed, as well as the potent'sa! effect of an inadequate Lyndale /77th St intersection on the 1 -494 interchange. The Council said a proposal to develop 42 single — family lots on a 136 acre site in the City of Ramsey is consistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide. The Council's action makes the project eligible for federal mortgage insurance. The Council said further phases of the development will be reviewed again for consistency with the guide. Solid Waste - -The Council set public meetings on Jan. 15 and 16 to give the public an opportunity to review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement on Hennepin County's resource recovery project The Council adopted guidelines for making payments to cities and towns as part of the recycling tonnage payment program outlined in the 1985 amendments to the Waste Management Act The Council approved a report to the legislature that describes the status of solid waste abatement activities in the etro Area at the end of 1985. The Council also approved the amended waste flow designation plan for Anoka County. The plan designates Northern States Power Co. as the developer of the county's ' resource recovery plant, which will have a 1,000 ton per day MR. JIJiit G CARTWRIGHT M,AN, A G E R CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 PORTLAND AV RICHFIELD 'N 55423 capacity, if the necessary trash flow can be guaranteed. The Council said an air emissions permit for a planned solid waste incinerator should be issued to Waste Energy Systems, Inc. in New Brighton, providing several conditions regarding the planning and operation of the plant are met. The Council also approved issuing a permit to Fabcon Inc. for an industrial .waste landfill provided Fabcon continues to look for a long —term way to reuse the-currently unusable concrete waste, rather than landfilling- it Parks- -The Council approved a single acre land exchange between Ramsey County and White Bear Township in Bald Eagle —Otter Lake Regional Park. The Council authorized a contract with Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. for auditing of regional park grant contracts with Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Sewers - -The Council recommended that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) not implement an increase in its service availability charge fund rate (a fee to hook up to the sewer system) planned for Jan. 1. The Council proposed that it join the MWCC in a study of the fund, the fund rate and collection policies to determine the fund's future needs. The Council said the study should be completed by May 1. The Council approved the 1986 -1990 MWCC development program after excepting some projects that had either not been approved as part of the sewer policy plan or that needed further clarification. The Council extended the deadline for signing a contract with the MWCC, Chanhassen and Eden Prairie that provides for joint use of the Lake Ann interceptor and cost— sharing. The new deadline is Feb. 19, 1986. Planning - -The Council approved two $ 14,000 planning loans- -one for Jordan and one.for.Mendota Heights. Jordan will use the money to prepare a comprehensive water distribution and storage plan and Mendota Heights will complete the second phase of its southeast area study. Transportation - -The Council submitted comments to the Minnesota Department of Transportation- regarding the regional concerns that need to be considered in the environmental impact statement for a proposed Stillwater— Houlton bridge over the St. Croix River. The Council approved the 1986 -1988 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a program of federally funded highway and transit projects. The Council advised the Minnesota Department of Transportation that it was important to complete projects on U.S. 169, 10 and 610, although they were not included in the TIP. Administration- -The Council approved a collective bargaining agreement for Jan. 1 1986 —Dec. 31, 1987 between the Council and its union employees. The Council authorized upgrading its IBM 4361 computer system by expanding its capacity. PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS The Council has scheduled several public hearings and meetings in January. Unless noted otherwise the meetings are held at the Council offices, 300 Metro Square Bldg., 7th and Robert Sts., St. Paul. The meetings and hearings are as follows: Jan. 7: Public meeting on the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The chapter describes the direction investment in the Twin Cities aviation system should take through 2003. The Council will use the chapter to review airport plans and related proposals. Richfield Community Education Center, Elliot Av. and W. 70th St., Richfield. 7 p.m. Jan. 9: Second public meeting on the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Hennepin - Brookdale Library, 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center. 7 p.m. Jan. 10: Public meeting to discuss the Council's recently drafted plan for managing regional resources to achieve orderly and economic development, called the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF). Bloomington City Hall, 2215 W. Old Shakopee Rd., Bloomington. 1:30 p.m. Jan. 15: Public meeting on the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed 1,000 ton per day resource recovery project in Hennepin County. The plant will process the waste and produce steam and electricity. Hennepin County Government Center Auditorium, 300 S. 6th St., Minneapolis. 7 p.m. Jan. 16: Second public meeting on the proposed Hennepin County resource recovery project. Edina Community Center, 5701 Normandale Blvd., Edina. 7 p.m. Jan. 21: Public hearing on the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The chapter describes the direction investment in the Twin Cities aviation system should take through 2003. 7 p.m. To get free copies of the draft aviation chapter, the MDIF or a summary of the Hennepin County resource recovery project's draft EIS, call the Council offices at 291 -6464. COUNCIL OFFERS SOLID WASTE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CITIES The Metropolitan Council is administering a program to reimburse cities and townships in the seven - county Metropolitan Area for solid waste abatement and resource recovery expenses. The program gives communities as much as 50 cents per household. For an application, call Sunny Emerson of the Council staff at 291 -6499. NOMINATE SOMEONE FOR 'REGIONAL CITIZEN OF YEAR' The Metropolitan Council is seeking nominations for the 1986 "Regional Citizen of the Year" award. The award honors a citizen of the seven - county Metropolitan Area who has made an outstanding contribution to the region as a whole. The deadline for submitting nominations is Jan. 3. The winner will be announced at the Council's annual State of the Region event Feb. 26 in Minneapolis. To make a nomination, send a letter (no more than two pages) about the nominee's contributions to the region to Shirlee Smith, 300 Metro Square Bldg., 7th and Robert Sts., St. Paul, 55101. Include the name, address and telephone number of the nominee and the person making the nomination. NEW APPOINTMENTS The Metropolitan Council made the following appointments: Land Use Advisory Committee: Bill Wilson, St. Paul; Mugs (Marguerite) Nardini, Little Canada; Richard Little, John Doyle and Raymond Leek, all of Minneapolis; Bryan McGinnis, Birchwood; James Filippi, Plymouth; William Dix, Brooklyn Park; Edwina Garcia, Richfield; Larry Donlin, Minnetonka; Donald Hoese, Mayer; William Casey, Prior Lake; Elizabeth Witt, Mendota Heights; and Gerald Stelzel, Farmington as chair. Minority Issues Advisory Committee: Erlinda Davis, White Bear Lake. NEW PUBLICATIONS Long -Term Care: Agenda for Action. This is the transcript of a June conference on changes that are needed in the way long -term care services are provided and funded. Long -term care is the range of services that chronically ill and physically and mentally disabled people need over a long period of time. No. 14-85-154; 42 pp.; $2. Hospital Specialty Services Use in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1980 -1984. Dec. 1985. Report says area hospitals have taken steps in the last five years to consolidate the use of high -cost, low- volume specialty services, like open -heart surgery. However, the area's hospitals still have too many such services. No. 18 -85 -153; 38 pp.; $2. COMING MEETINGS (Dec. 30, 1985 -Jan. 17, 1986) (Meetings are tentative. To verify, call 291 -6464) Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, Dec. 30, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Technical Advisory Committee, Monday, Jan. 6, 9 a.m.: Council Chambers. Regional Transit Board, Monday, Jan. 6, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Management Committee, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 11 a.m., Conference Room E. Waste Management Advisory Committee, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Minority Issues Advisory Committee, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Health Planning Board, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Chair's Advisory Committee, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan and Community Development Comm ittee,Thursday, Jan. 9, 2:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council, Thursday, Jan. 9, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. • city of bioomington, minnesoto Municipal Building • 2215 West Old Shakopee Road • Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 • (612) 881 -5811 James H. Lindau John G. Pidgeon Mayor Manager December 16, 1985 John Hamilton, Mayor City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear May am' on: Thank you for sending a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on the CDR Office /Hotel Development for comment. Our City staff has reviewed.this document and finds it to be • very thorough and complete. Each issue relative to environmental impacts of the project is discussed and measures to mitigate possible adverse impacts are included. is The City of Bloomington wishes the City of Richfield success in completing this office /hotel development. We look forward to working cooperatively with you for the beneficial development of the I -494 corridor. Si erely, J s H. Lindau o AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION /EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Telecommunications Device for the Deaf: (612) 887 -9677 _ MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOUNDED IN 1849 690 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • (612) 296 -6126 December 19, 1985 Mr. Dennis Kraft City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Kraft: RE: 35W - 494 Development SW1 /4, SE1 /4, Sec. 33, T28, R24 Minneapolis, Hennepin County, MN MHS File Number: Z 234 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Council of Historic Preservation (36CFR800). • This review reveals the location of no known sites of historic, architectural, cultural, archaeological, or engineering significance within the area of the proposed project. There are no sites in the project area which are on the National Register or eligible for inclusion on the National Register, and, therefore, none which may be affected by your proposal. Again, thank you for your participation in this important effort to preserve Minnesota's heritage. Sincerely, `Russell W. Fridley State Historic Preservation Officer • 1 F • • low Minnesota Pollution Control Agency January 2, 1986 Mr.-Dennis Kraft Community Development Director 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Kraft: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) including the supplemental sanitary wastewater infor- mation, for the 35W -494 Development in the City of Richfield. We have determined that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects, from our Agency's perspective. As a potential responsible governmental unit for the project under the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) rules due to the parking and sewer cate- gories, our staff has previously reviewed air quality, traffic, noise and wastewater aspects for the project. We approved the EAW for distribution, con- tingent on the addition of required wastewater information to the EAW. The supple- mental sanitary wastewater information provided in the EAW adequately addressed our wastewater concerns. As such, the EAW and the supplement are sufficient to stand in lieu of an EAW prepared by the MPCA pursuant to Minnesota Rules part 4410.4300, Subpart 15(B) covering the parking category and Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300, Subpart 18 covering the sewer category. It is important to note that the rule number for the sewer category should have been included under item 6 in the EAW listing all MEQB mandatory category rule numbers which apply to the project. In addition, a sewer extension approval from the MPCA is required prior to construction of the sewer facilities. The staff does, however, have these comments to offer in the air quality area. An indirect source permit is required for the project under the agency's indirect source permit rule, Minnesota Rules Part 7001.1250 - 7001.1350. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) staff has reviewed information submitted for the air quality analysis and upon consultation with representatives from Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc., the consultant for the project, has found this analysis to Phone: 612/296 -7799 1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785 Regional Offices • Duluth /Brainerd /Detroit Lakes /Marshall /Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer 7 -/ �-- Mr. Dennis Kraft Page Two be adequate. Areas of particular concern, the use of the ten percent trip reduction factor for the estimation of traffic from the project and the unusually high predicted one hour carbon monoxide concentration, have been adequately justified for the project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Marlene Voita of my staff at 296 -7796. Sincerely, Deborah R. Pile Director Office of Planning and Review DRP /MV:jal cc: Gregg Downing, Environmental Quality.Board Barbara Jackson, MPCA, Office of Planning and Review Susanne Pelly, MPCA, Division of Air Quality • Lloyd G. Kepple, Thompson, & Klaverkamp PA, Minneapolis Ferrol Robinson, Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. C, n ° Minnesota Department of Transportation - �Qp� Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 TOF TwP December 23, 1985 Phone 296 -1652 Dennis Kraft Community Development Director 6700 Portland Ave. S. Richfield, MN 55423 Re: 35W -494 Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) District 5 (Richfield, Hennepin Co.) Dear Mr. Kraft: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has completed a review of the above - referenced EAW. We anticipate that the proposed project will cause little adverse impact to our transportation facilities. If you require additional information from Mn /DOT, please contact • Carl Hoffstedt, Transportation Planning Engineer at our District Office in Golden Valley, telephone number (612) 593 -8540. Sincerely, Cheryl Heide, Planner Office of Environmental Services An Equal Opporruniq Employer ��SnnTATE OF HUVMf(0)UQ DEPARTMENT OF BOX 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • DNR INFORMATION (612) 296 -6157 Mr. Dennis Kraft City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 7 -�y NATURAL RESOURCES ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55146 December 31, 1985 RE: CDR 35W - 494 DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) Dear Mr. Kraft: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the above - referenced document and we offer the following comments for your consideration. The EAW in the response to Item 19, understates the value of small wetlands. Larger wetlands are not necessarily more valuable than smaller ones, and dust because a wetland is not protected by the DNR does not mean that it has no value. Small wetlands can provide excellent wildlife habitat depending on • their type, relationship to other nearby wetlands, and proximity to upland wildlife habitat. Wetlands also function as groundwater recharge areas and floodwater retention basins, and they recycle runoff nutrients and protect shoreland areas. We are concerned about the potential contribution of this project to wastewater flows in the 76th Avenue interceptor. We question the advisability of connecting the proposed project's wastewater outlet to an interceptor system that may contribute to increased bypassing of sanitary wastewater to the Mississippi River during peak flow periods. In this regard we suggest that the possibility of discharging the supernate from the cooling tower storage water into the stormwater system rather than the sewer system should be evaluated. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom Environmental Review Coordinator TWB /DB:jl c: Kathleen Wallace Earl Huber Wayne Edgerton Gregg Downing - EQB Lloyd G. Kepple - CDR Investments /Minnesota AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ''(Official Publication) NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. WORKSHEET (EAW)FORCDR iNV ESTMENTS /MINNESOTA pItOJECT AT 1494 AND SSW The City of Richfield win conduct 8 public hearing to receive Worhsh et for a 7l m Ilion dollar 26 story 749,000 square {pot. mixed use development located "generally be- et ,tween 76th Stre;1ens Emerson Girard enue. and the All' d ton.Of therde- Avenue . "Uses mcluded m velopmint include 509.009 square feet of office space.: a 400 ran h tel with . restaurant, lounge [ur_ I900 cars." The space, and parkin o held at the City QQubhc hearlu$ l GOuncil meeting at 7. PM Monday, it January 15, 1986 in COnallat 67 bars r Richfield Cit9 mall, at 8700 Portland Avenue South ,. Copies of the EAW are available foyyr review 8:00 AM to hfield Ci y onda aII. thra Friday at R. dived by Jen is wl9i 1986- cepted u (Dec. yy, 1985 &.Jan 1 1888) —RICH M 6 -I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 19 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: City Administration Recommendation to Order Consul Corporation d /b /a Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant at 7717 Nicollet Avenue to Cease Operations Until All Necessary Licenses Have Been Granted Council Members: Summary Chi Chi's Restaurant should be ordered by the City Council to immediately cease operations at 7717 Nicollet Avenue. Public Safety personnel report there are possibly five • serious violations of municipal ordinances; namely: 1. Kitchen sanitation violations; 2. Failure to submit required accountant's statement on food and beverage sales; 3. Failure to apply for and receive a tavern license which is necessary before permitting public dancing on the premises; 4. Failure to apply for and obtain a restaurant renewal license; and, 5. The possible sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. It is the City Administration's recommendation that Chi Chi's Restaurant be immediately closed until the Public Safety Department determines that the violations have been satisfactorily resolved. A business without a restaurant license is not authorized to sell alcoholic beverages. Results of Public Safety Investigation The city has received an application and most of the required documents for the renewal of the on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue. In addition, the 1986 on -sale liquor license fee of $10,419, the Sunday liquor license fee of $200, and the in- vestigative fee of $248 has been paid. (0_ z The Department of Public Safety has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the parent corporation of Chi Chi's Restaurant continues to be the Consul Restaurant Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The corporate structure of this organization, with one exception, remains the same as last year and is as follows: Mr. James H. Crivits, President; Mr. Theodore J. O'Shaugnessy, Vice- President; Mr. William C. Kuhlmann, Secretary; and, Mr. Robert A. Lamp, Treasurer. Mr. Lamp has replaced Mr. John H. Hamburger as Corporate Treasurer since licensure last year. None of these individuals have any known criminal record. During 1985 Mr. Craig A. Schreiber replaced Mr. Lee Bushman as the on -site manager of the restaurant. The change in manager was partly to add stability to the management of the Richfield restaurant. Mr. Schreiber had previously served as manager of the Richfield restaurant and was always cooperative with the Department of Public Safety. Mr. Schreiber is well qualified for his management position and has no known criminal record. The Marno -Max Company continues to own the building located at 7717 Nicollet Avenue and leases the property to the applicant, who pays the real estate taxes. The current real estate tax, in the amount of $76,454.30 has been paid as of October 7, 1985. These taxes reflect a market value,of the building and property of $1,671,700. In addition, all state withholding and sales taxes have been paid and are current. The applicant has failed to supply the required financial • statement prepared by a Certified Public Accountant, even after being verbally notified of this "failure to comply" requirement, at a meeting with Richfield Public Safety officials on December 18, 1985. The applicant did supply a handwritten report containing sales figures for the twelve month period ending September, 1985. There is no indication as to who may have compiled these figures, which are as follows: Food sales amounted to $2,645,960, or 59% of the total sales, while beverage sales amounted to $1,868,012, or 41% of the total sales. The total sales for this period as reported, were $49513,972. The required $10,000 liquor bond has been filed with the city. This bond is carried with the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford, Connecticut and is effective until December 31, 1986. The certificate of insurance detailing public and liquor liability has been submitted by the H & H Insurance Services of Brookfield, Wisconsin and lists the Standard Fire Insurance Company as affording the required coverages. The certificate of insurance lists the City of Richfield as additionally insured and appears to meet ordinance code requirements as they pertain to public and liquor liability insurance coverages. • �3 During the twelve month period ending October 31, 1985, 4 there were 91 public safety contacts with Chi Chi's Restaurant establishment. This figure compares with 101 contacts for the previous year, or a decrease of 10 %. The breakdown is as follows: 1984 1985 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 27 24 "Bar Type" (included in criminal contacts) 6 8 NON CRIMINAL CONTACTS 74 67 Public Assists 47 48 Traffic /Parking 14 12 Medical Emergencies 7 3 Licensing /Inspections 6 4 TOTAL CONTACTS 101 91 As a result of an incident that occurred on December 30, 1985, the Department of Public Safety has probable cause to believe that Chi Chi's Restaurant is not regularly checking the identification of customers who appear to be under the legal drinking age and may be serving alcholic beverages to minors. An investigation into this matter is currently in progress. Also, during the course of the renewal investigation it was determined that Chi Chi's now has a specified area for dancing, • located in the bar area of their establishment, which offers and advertises dancing from 9:00 p.m. until closing, Wednesday through Sunday. The applicant neither possesses, nor has applied for, a tavern license as required by Richfield Ordinance Code 11.02. Finally, it has been determined that the applicant has neither applied for or obtained a 1986 restaurant license. A restaurant license is required as a condition of on -sale liquor licensure. During 1985, the Public Safety Department, through the Bloomington Environmental Health Department, has encountered numerous problems with health and sanitation requirements. Problems centered on the kitchen areas of the restaurant. As a result of numerous complaints from customers of Chi Chi's, three environmental inspections were conducted by Bloomington Health Specialists. These surveys resulted in the following standardized inspection ratings: January 28, 1985, 71 %; July 30, 1985, 43%; November 18, 1985, 56 %. Due to the numerous health violations which resulted in these low inspection ratings four citations were issued to the restaurant on July 30th. On November 18th, three additional citations were issued, two of which were for the same violations as cited on July 30th. The Department of Public Safety was advised by Mr. Richard Holloway, Senior Bloomington Environmental Health Specialist, that a standardized rating of 80% is considered the minimum acceptable rating for a restaurant with a liquor license. Additionally, the conditions observed at Chi Chi's resulted in the lowest three consecutive ratings within a 12 month period of any restaurant with a liquor license inspected by Bloomington health officials. In an attempt to resolve this matter Richfield and Bloomington officals have met with Chi Chi representatives. During the course of these meetings Chi Chi's offered two primary reasons for the existence of the health problems. Basically, these involve employee turnover and attitude, as well as the constant transfer of managerial personnel resulting in poor quality control. As a result of these meetings with representatives from Chi Chi's they have agreed to the following: 1) Minimize management turnover 2) Develop a continuing self- inspection program, approved by Bloomington Health officials 3) Provide additional training for all employees including key kitchen management personnel. ' Chi Chi's has hired a private consultant approved by BloomingtonHealth officials, to address the food service problems which have been identified. Representatives from Chi Chi's will be present at the city council meeting scheduled for January 13, 1986, to discuss their proposed plans for implementing a self- inspection program. Mr. Holloway will also be present at this meeting to answer any questions that council members may have. • The application renewal investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety has identified the following five areas of concern: 1) Serious cleanliness violations centered primarily in the kitchen area of the restaurant establishment. 2) Failure to submit the required accountant's statement. 3) Failure to apply for, or obtain the required tavern license before offering, and advertising, public dancing. 4) Failure to apply for, or obtain, the required restaurant license renewal for 1986. 5) Probable cause to believe that minors are being served alcoholic beverages due to lack of proper identification procedures. While each one of these concerns is in and of itself a serious matter, the fact that all five currently exist seem to reflect a disturbing attitude on the part of the applicant. The applicant has demonstrated an alarming lack of cooperation with our Public Safety Department in regard to furnishing timely information related to the license renewal process. Multiple state and local code violations appear to have occurred during the past license year. The Public Safety Department, in cooperation with the City Attorney's office, is currently preparing formal complaints for prosecution of violations related to operations occurring without proper licensing. �_15 Additionally, the Public Safety Department is continuing their investigation related to the allegation that the applicant is not properly checking the identification of customers who appear to be under the legal drinking age and may be serving alcoholic beverages to minors. The original hearing on the applicant's request for an on- sale and Sunday liquor license was properly scheduled for the council meeting of December 9, 1985. Because of the applicant's failure to provide timely information required by our Public Safety Department in regard to their license renewal investigation process, the hearing was continued to the January 13, 1986, city council meeting. In continuing the hearing the council allowed the business to continue all operations, including on -sale liquor sales, until the rescheduled hearing date of January 13, 1986. This action was really a courtesy to allow the applicant time to furnish the required license renewal information. During the period of the continuance the additional problems of the applicant allegedly selling liquor to a minor and operating without the required restaurant and tavern licenses have occurred. Recommendation At this point, the applicant does not have a 1986 restaurant license, nor has the applicant applied for such license. A restaurant license is required as a condition of on -sale liquor licensure. Additionally, the applicant has not provided all the • information required for the renewal of their on -sale liquor license. In view of all of the foregoing problems it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that council not act on the applicant's present request for the renewal of the on -sale liquor license until all conditions required by licensure have been met. Additionally, it is recommended that the business be ordered to cease operations until all proper licenses have been granted by the city, and the City Council and Public Safety Department are satisfied that the applicant is adequately addressing the other license related problems which have been identified as a part of the license renewal process. If the council concurs with the staff recommendation in this matter, the city attorney will advise the council on the proper procedural options which may be followed with regard to this issue. In the meantime, the city will continue to prepare for prosecution of the formal complaints noted herein. pectf 1 bmitted, John G Car wrig t City Manager JGC /eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 18 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing And Second Reading Of Ordinance To Rezone The Hampton Inn Site. (City Administration Recommends Continuance to 2/10/86). Council Members: On December 9, 1985, the council gave first reading to the attached ordinance to rezone the site of the proposed Hampton Inn from C -2 general commercial to PC -2 planned general commercial. Second reading of the ordinance and the public • hearing on this matter was scheduled for January 13, 1986. Notice of the hearing has appeared in the Richfield Sun. The site proposed for rezoning included a portion of the 78th Street right -of -way which was to be vacated and made available to the developer for use as part of the project. The right -of -way is controlled by the State of Minnesota. Subsequent to the December 9th council meeting, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has indicated that they are not willing to vacate a portion of the right -of -way because of the potential need for the right -of -way for the widening of I494 in the future. The loss of the 78th Street right -of -way will have major impact on the proposed development. It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing on this matter until February 10, 1986. This wil allow time for the developer to evaluate the impact of the loss of the right -of -way to the project and make amendments to their plans. The plans may then have to be reviewed again by the Planning Commision if major changes are made. Respecta bmitted, s ohn G. wrig • City Manager JGC /eja • • • AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield enti- tled "Boundaries of Zoning Districts" is hereby amended in the following respects: I. Paragraph (9) of Section 3 thereof is amended to read as follows: ( 9 ) That area lying between the center lines of 77th and 78th Streets and between the center lines of Garfield Avenue and Interstate Highway 35W except that part of such area zoned as PC -2 and described in Section 7 of this Appendix C. II. Section 7 of Appendix C is amended by adding paragraph (6) thereto to read as follows: (6) The following 2 parcels collectively: Parcel 1: All that part of the West k of the Southwest a of the Southwest h of the South- west k of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, lying Northerly and Easterly of the State Highway. EXCEPT the Northerly 105 feet of the Westerly 165 feet thereof. ALSO That part of the West � of the East of the Southwest 4 of the Southwest a of the Southwest 4 of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian lying ng Northerly► of State Highway, EXCEPT the East 150 feet thereof. All being situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Parcel 2: The Northerly 105 feet of the Westerly 165 feet of the South of the Southwest 4 of the Southwest < of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, except therefrom the Northerly 30 feet and Westerly 50 feet for public streets, together with all the right, title and interest of Landlord in and to a certain Easement dated August 10, 1962, which is recorded in Deed Book 2357 at Page 33. �S 3 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 198 ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 0 • John N. Hamilton, Mayor 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter - Office Memorandum DATE: January 10, 1986 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Manager and Director Community Development SUBJECT: Preliminary Staff Analysis of Not Acquiring the I494 Frontage Road for the Hampton Inn Project Restaurant #-,5-Y The proposed 150seat restaurant is partially located within the I494 . frontage road. MDIDOT has agreed with the Metropolitan Council to conduct a study of the 1494 corridor during the next 18 months to determine how many additional lanes are needed. Because of this study, MNDOT has rightly taken the position that they will not release any frontage road right of way along 1494 in Richfield at this time. The restaurant could probably be relocated on the site, but a loss of parking spaces may require either fewer motel units or eliminating the restaurant altogether. It may be possible to acquire, with city participation, land to the east of the site. The most likely parcel would be the parking lot on the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue extended and West 77th Street. The developer has said sometime ago that this was considered, but the acquisition price was too great. Parking The proposed development site plan dated November 1, 1985, gives the following parking data: City Parking Guidelines Developer's Site Plan With Restaurant (135 units) 194 160 Without Restaurant (146 units) 154 135 The November 1, 1985, site plan proposed 110 spaces: 102 parking spaces for the motel assuming a 75% occupancy ratio, plus 8 parking spaces for employees. The restaurant would be allocated the remaining 50 spaces. The inability to acquire the I494 frontage road would mean a loss of approximately 39 parking spaces. The November 1, 1985, site plan indicated the provision of fewer parking spaces than required by the guidelines. The city was willing to accept the smaller numbr of spaces as proposed by the developer. However, the loss of the frontage road right of way will further substantially diminish the number of parking spaces available. . Based upon the aforementioned concerns, it is the staff's recommendation that further work be carried out with the developer in an attempt to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. s • • PARKING ANALYSIS Parking Regulations 1. Hotel: 1 space per unit + 1 per employee 13.5 units + 8 employees = 144 spaces 146 units + 8 employees = 154 spaces 2. Restaurant: 1 space per 3 seats 150 seats = 50 spaces 3. Total: 144 + 50 = 194 spaces 154 = 154 Adjustments #s<5 Barton- Asehman shared parking study indicates: 1. Hotel parking requirement can be 1 space per unit. Assumption is that 20% of occupants will use taxis, buses or.shared cars. This would reduce requirement for hotel by 8 spaces (135 required with restaurant, 146 without restaurant) 2. 50% of'restaurant customers could also be hotel occupants. Using a more conservative estimate of 25% (because of restaurant type, lack of other restaurants in area, and because it is a freestanding restaurant). This could reduce rewquirement for restaurant by 12 spaces a (38 spaces would be required). Total Parking Required After Adjustments: With Restaurant: 135 + 38 = 173 spaces Without Restaurant: 146 spaces Parking Provided: With Restaurant: 160 spaces Without Restaurant: 135 spaces Parking Shortage With Restaurant: 173 - 160 = 13 spaces Without Restaurant: 146 - 135 = 11 spaces W1 r' a WAY j(J 1 + y a£ HIT, z 4 n fr{ '• � tY +,"i tsi.� .� ..'yaie xa E�+ -' * FTC ; A F ` y,tb q ]'jy C ~. *�' k•�rM '•r ?rly Js Snf`o- . -.'-- An oil y. r f sFL• k tr... + r 1 r r. :w rF�i � r �. ..`¢. '`, � '.. .ne t:. ..<!r,�, 'y A�, uX$. {-� •R`R- u."r1�f+ P d,+ �' k m 8y � a�t� � � �� ; E � w � � � �2' � zt a < i£ S: . #' M�gt•s , •� sa .'s,E. ''��' '- �4c1` -: x t„�;Fs iu.,y:id S f --#xi xv�w''t'3y %tik ,le�wt,' :yi- '�u��k �aLfA • y��•Y .:i x�' Y-�` 1 1„ ��"' �j #. � ...,. IFi � ti`�'�, ,d •-y^ ~,t,u ;, � ; r i•,^` ;nM1�${]t �, � � 4 vrh" c4� ;., � 4� 1. K E •� i d+5,d+k ..'� ♦ ' iii R�� V45jG•Y -t�4k{ iy�..s `p, tiE'a -'4..4 - .s '�' �+s �.� Fk�n -Y� •�' `;` ii," Eh R� .$ � � � sl: , `� ✓ � s :a. 4 x: ? � .x a -- � �,+.c�4 •� ,ty��.`3 5.w 4Ydk .' jj. N f+"tyrt^ 4� '� �, � v y f ti s. E' �i� � { •, -w• f: .,jJGl3w f �� :sift W 1 •. �,�� 'b:9�o-� cL, R .. � � :,+i'�E .t � k E :ri. . xr i� r .„yam ;s 5•'�` ' .},,. r yi "Y >.r.•v t a ' '�� 'TY .« l _ � y`.. ';' F r�.♦�y�rc•O jV ��,R,� r�"Ss.Y y s.• 't.a i ..,� .n: 1 �. 4 sib � �. .:Fyc �' � _ c�"- r:�i��b� ' �- � @�F s�c z �v ':. x :E° • -� '4,� '3�.. '�. r r r 1[�' +eta' .N r .i ��r� ,�ggqqjj „�rr4 '�"" use ` ;.., �� `'� � :.��..,�," V itel7��axd4� i + � - 15 x.d.. y:x -. • .� t% .� r�r'�"Fx��,.; r; j.�,"�t' :i 7 '�°°:�' ;.s'da`Yp�E'�4 �'S' dTM�' r " -,4'4 �.. -`nt `a...5 es:�:. �' 9� w ^��i>✓ `• a. ; � .:. �.: 1\ .. �. �: r... '.� a ;+r � try �W,Y^`J"z s -.tr �� A Y-WT �f IU Yrl ` � '�° r ,�'yat�' �' ' a�•t � -sly .•.. � ?r 3, 'd � � � 5� till, � zal J`d � ♦+r S � �y� � � b \ ssf p :a +,�� ' Ik � .'r' •' wa?+as ��,d.+�' v � . ' '� '�"° � �• � fu� '"use #r .. t i,w.Y' ..p,,,t,• 'ice «^ n ,, .a..': J 4 z`'`715 ,Y 4 r ti <• W W\ r- �,4 !,l_„,.n ��„ ,cDy " 5��^'�y�� 1� �� -'a�: t ��'m _• .Aek . \\ ." _ ,F ._.o-�; ��i^ ''fie "y,,.,fc,. Y� } e •a! C KA+rr. N d 0 IP W 7ct •• y C-�� q ,Y 5 , Yg{ s• �p a+' r Y a -, a '� Si � i y 'y ( i�'>� s � { •� i y x },� f n f" � Y,dy- rs�Y�� - t r ; 4 �YYi... �. ;hl � t:s a •k ,.� 6 b � {,r '�� t r. W. t f_ •A� 'f£.as . -Y f d � r E .gip• "'R�f�' �.y�. -ay L.> h } � �Aj � y ktC'. E R'S•;,'yyS Y`_`r dY"'WS n "14"Y +(� 't•� �61X�.1� �T G 19` ..t '~ �'�eS113i•� 4�Y x _.Y,.MJt! J ,Y 7`• I> . ti tk{ 5' 2' Yf F� ,h �� r/Y \1 •. E Y 1•F I 7-7-tp 2r � �Ei J} k ) a, 1 r' Y-WT �f IU Yrl ` � '�° r ,�'yat�' �' ' a�•t � -sly .•.. � ?r 3, 'd � � � 5� till, � zal J`d � ♦+r S � �y� � � b \ ssf p :a +,�� ' Ik � .'r' •' wa?+as ��,d.+�' v � . ' '� '�"° � �• � fu� '"use #r .. t i,w.Y' ..p,,,t,• 'ice «^ n ,, .a..': J 4 z`'`715 ,Y 4 r ti <• W W\ r- �,4 !,l_„,.n ��„ ,cDy " 5��^'�y�� 1� �� -'a�: t ��'m _• .Aek . \\ ." _ ,F ._.o-�; ��i^ ''fie "y,,.,fc,. Y� } e •a! C KA+rr. N d 0 IP W 7ct •• y C-�� q ,Y 5 , Yg{ s• �p a+' r Y a -, a '� Si � i y 'y ( i�'>� s � { •� i y x },� f n f" � Y,dy- rs�Y�� - t r ; 4 �YYi... �. ;hl � t:s a •k ,.� 6 b � {,r '�� t r. W. t f_ •A� 'f£.as . -Y f d � r E .gip• "'R�f�' �.y�. -ay L.> h } � �Aj 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 17 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Consideration of the Request for an Oversize Temporary Advertising Sign at Richfield Shoppes Parking Lot Council Members: City Staff Review Cragg Signs has requested a permit to erect a temporary advertising sign in the Richfield Shoppes parking lot. The sign would measure 8' x 4' (32 square feet) and advertise space for lease for a period of 60 days. The proposed sign is an "A" frame construction which rests on the paved parking lot. The municipal code of ordinances provides that the city council must approve all temporary signs. The staff has reviewed the sign permit and recommends that the city council deny this request because the proposed sign is larger than that provided for in city ordinances. City ordinances provide that a temporary "A" frame type sign that rests upon the ground sign must be no larger than 12 square feet. (Page 84 of the ordinance code; subparagraph (15). City Manager Recommendation Subdivision 16 of Section 3.49 of the municipal code of ordinances (pages 91 and 92) provides, in subparagraph (5), that "no temporary ground sign shall be located on any multiple - residence, commercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special use permit therefore from the council." The council may impose conditions. The City Manager recommends approval of a ground sign placed on posts in a location that does not block parking spaces. The size to be limited to 32 square feet for a period not to exceed 60 days. JGC /eja Respectfully submitted, ohn G. tCtw "ght City Manager • rA n APPROVE APPROVE F1DENY ❑ City Manager Date T)ENY® : C c�.�_ a,-11- 1 i Planning D partment Date APPROVE F-1 DENY : Inspector x - G +,z't Date APPROVE F-1 DENYFI City Coun it Date Ro to above for special approval per code General Signs 10 __J APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date 2 g- Zoning Sign Erected - Yes Nox Fee Address of Sign ��Tfi bL- &evfl_r / (� Proprietor Name/,',k v //�v ' {SDBA Sign Erector C y.Cc 9 q �i� 9 l� ST e Address_ ., 22 Ci 4/1's o s �evzy . rz old k f Type of Sign Design Weather Cover Lighting �— Z i If Illuminated - Yes No Watts Elf rical Contractor Address Phone Phone �7 3- &(PO Sign Width 5? Height _Total Square Feet 3z Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost 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? .G Will the sign, structure., or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons dest' d f r or passing the subject premises? p icantts Signature and Title with Firm ry Date ''e — Phone Number L0 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 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: Post n Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling, Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors NT❑AM �— Z i If Illuminated - Yes No Watts Elf rical Contractor Address Phone Phone �7 3- &(PO Sign Width 5? Height _Total Square Feet 3z Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost 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? .G Will the sign, structure., or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for safe access by persons dest' d f r or passing the subject premises? p icantts Signature and Title with Firm ry Date ''e — Phone Number L0 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 M 01 adjacent to the property on which the sign is located. No such sign shall have a sign area of more than 340 square feet on each side. Such sign may advertise only business located on the premises. No business property shall have more than one pedestal sign adjacent to each street upon which such business property abouts; provided that on each street frontage of more than 100 feet one ad- ditional pedestal sign may be established and maintained on such street frontage if such additional pedestal sign (a) is located on a single pole, (b) does not exceed 28 square feet in area on any side and does not have more than two sides, (c) is not more than 4 feet in width or 7 feet in height on the sign face, (d) is located at least 7 feet above the surface of the street. In lieu of one additional pedestal sign, two separate signs may be located on the same pole, but such two signs combined shall not exceed, in any area or diminsions, the limitations applicable to a single additional pedestal sign. No pedestal sign shall be so designed as to have both (a) moving parts, and (b) moving or blinking lights. In addition to the pedestal signs permitted by the foregoing provisions of this subdivision, a sign advertising a public telephone may be located in the area ahead of the building setback line on the structure in which such public telephone is located. (1 3) "Business Sign" means a sign that state the proper name of the business, organization or institution located on the premises on which the sign is located. (14) "Sign Area" means that area of a sign within the marginal lines of the surface, which bears the announcement, name, advertisement or other message; or in the case of letters, figures, or symbols attached directly to any part of a building, the area which is included in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe each letter, figure or symbol displayed thereon. (15) "Temporary Ground Sign" means a sign which rests upon the ground, which is of either "A" frame or "T" construction, constructed of metal or other noncombustible materials, and so designed as to be readily movable. No such sign shall exceed 12 square feet in area on each side. (16) "Promotional Display Device" means and is limited to any beacon, banner or aerial balloon being used in connection with the promotion of any event or activity and situated entirely on premises where such activity or event is or will be conducted. (Bill 1978 -18) 9/11/78 (17) "Freestanding Sign" means a sign attached to the ground on its own structures and which is not attached to any building or building structure. (Bill 1983 -5) 2/14/83 Subd. 1. Building Permits Required.. It is unlawful to install, construct, erect, alter, revise, reconstruct or relocate any outdoor sign or structure, as defined in this part, in the city without first obtaining a permit therefor as required by this part, except as provided in Subd. 3 of this section. 2/14/83 ORDINANCE CODE 84 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA r1 LJ • CHAPTER III PART V. SIGNS 3.47. REGULATION OF THE USE OF SIGNS Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section and in sections 3.48 and 3.49 of this Code: (1) "Sign" means a display board, billboard,. screen, structure, projection or part thereof, used to announce, declar, demonstrate, display or otherwise advertise and attract the attention of the public. (2) "Advertising Sign" means a sign the primary function of which is to direct attention to a commercial product, commercial service or commercial activity that is sold, offered, or conducted either elsewhere or upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which it is affixed. (Bill 1983 -5) 2/14/83 (3) "Sign, Directional" means a sign for the purpose of making specific commercial, industrial, or public and semipublic locations known and to assist in finding these locations. (4) "Situs Sign" means an advertising sign which is located upon the premises where the advertised business activity, use, product, services, entertainment, commodities are sold, conducted or offered and which does not come within the definition of "outdoor advertising display" as defined in paragraph (5) of this subdivision. Situs signs identifying industrial uses may also call attention to the product, goods or material which is produced, or assembled on the premises. (Bill 1983 -5) 2/14/83 (5) "Outdoor Advertising Display" means an advertising sign which advertises businesses, uses, products, services, entertainment, commodities or other activities not primarily or exclusively sold,.offered or conducted at the ' premises where the sign is located. The term shall not include.the names of businesses, or the products or services offered by such businesses, having multiple locations under the same business name if the advertising sign is located on the premises of the business and does not specifically advertise any other location. (Bill 1:983 -5) 2/14/83 (6) "Sign, Illuminated" means any sign upon which artificial light is directed or which has an interior light source. (7) "Sign, Flashing" means any illuminated sign on which the artifical light is not maintained stationary and /or 'constant in intensity and color at all times when such sign is in use. (8) "Ground Sign" means a detached sign erected upon or supported by the ground and not attached to any building. (9) "Projecting Sign" means a sign other than a wall sign suspended from or supported by a building or structure and projecting out therefrom. (10) "Roof Sign" means a sign erected upon or above the roof or parapet wall of a building or structure. (11) "Wall Sign" means a sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approxi- mately parallel to the face of said wall. (12) Pedestal Sign" is a ground sign erected upon a single post,or shaft, or upon two posts or shafts that merge or touch at the base, or which are not more than 15 feet apart, center of shaft to center of shaft, with the display portion mounted on top thereof at least 7 feet above the surface of the street ORDINANCE CODE 2/14/83 83 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA �y (4) The building or structure from which any such sign projects and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign. (5) All such signs shall be of non- combustible materials, or of not less than one hour fire resistive construction. Subd. 14. Roof Signs: Construction and Design. The following standards shall be maintained for all roof signs: (1) No roof sign shall be located nearer than five feet from the outside wall toward which it faces, nor exceed 25 feet in height above the roof level of the building unless constructed integral with the building or structure, nor shall it project beyond the edge of said roof in any direction. For the purposes of this subdivision, lights attached to the sign structure and lights attached to the building and beamed toward the sign structure shall be con - sidered part of the sign structure. (2) Every such sign shall be either metal, metal clad, incombustible, open wire or open metal sign, except that such sign may have letters, figures, characters, or borders of wood if such borders do not exceed four inches in width, and such wooden letters, figures or characters do not cover more than 25 % of the area of such sign, provided that in place of sheet metal, sub- stitution may be made of the following materials; tempered pressed wood or other similar materials approved by the chief inspector, having equal proper- ties as to strength, fire and moisture resistance. (3) No such sign shall be so placed as to prevent free passage of persons from one part of the roof to another. (4) The building or structure upon which such sign is placed, and all attachments or fastenings must be so constructed as to safely resist the dead load and the wind load added by the attached sign, and in such a manner as not to cause damage to the building or structure on which such sign is placed. (5) No roof sign shall be more than 65 feet in length nor shall it extend more than 25 feet above the surface of the roof of the building on which it is located. No roof sign shall extend more than 45 feet above the average ground level of that part of the street toward which it faces. Subd. 15. Wall Signs; Construction and Design. The following standards shall, be maintained for all wall signs: (1) No wall sign shall have a projection over a private sidewalk or an established building line of more than 12 inches. (2) The materials, construction and attachment of any such sign shall meet the same standards and requirements as roof signs. Subd. 16. Banners and Temporary Signs. The following standards shall be maintained for all banners and temporary signs: (1) Temporary signs and banners attached to any building and constructed of canvas, plastic material, cloth or other combustible material with or with- out framework; shall be strongly constructed and shall be securely attached to their supports. They shall be removed (including all framework and supports) as soon as damaged or torn and in no case later than 60 days after erection. (2) Temporary signs of combustible material shall not be larger than 120 square feet in area for each twenty feet of building frontage. There shall not be more than one temporary sign on any building frontage. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 91 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA � -lam (3) No temporary sign of combustible construction shall project over public property or right -of -way, but may extend a maximum of 6 inches from the face of the building. (4) Temporary signs of combustible construction shall not be hung so as to cover either partially or completely any door, window, or opening required for ventilation. 1p (5) No roof sign shall be more than combustible material, and no tem- porary ground sign shall be located on any multiple- residence, commercial or industrial property in the city without first obtaining a special permit therefor from the council. If the council determines to grant an application for a special permit for any such temporary sign or bannering, or any such temporary ground sign, it may impose conditions upon the granting thereof, and it shall-be unlawful to locate or maintain any such sign or bannering for a longer period or in a different manner than that specified in the special permit. No such special permit shall be for a period of more than 60 days. No such special permit shall be granted, however, where such temporary signs or banners are prohibited by other provisions of this code. Subd. 17. Application of Other Provisions of this Part. Temporary ground signs as defined in Section 3.41, Subdivision 1, of this part, shall comply with the provisions of Subdivision 16. Subd. 18. Approval of Sign Permit Applications. Upon presentation of ap- plication, permit fee, plans and specifications and other required information, the sign construction permit shall be issued by the manager, or his represent- ative, except as provided in Subdivision 19 of this section. Subd. 19. Special Approval from Council. In the case of an application for a sign requiring a special permit, or which will be illuminated, or moving, or of unusual height, size, design, or location, the manager shall refer such sign to the council for approval. No permit for any such sign, so referred, shall be issued without first obtaining the approval of the council. Subd. 20. Variance from Terms of Approval Prohibited. No sign shall be erected, used or maintained in a manner at variance from the provisions of this code or different from that approved by the council. No building or electrical permit for a sign shall be granted until the sign permit has been approved. Subd. 21. Future Permits. A permit shall not be issued for any new bill- board or advertising sign located off the premises where the advertised product is sold, if such billboard or sign would be within 300 feet of any other such billboard or .sign already in existence in the interior of the same city block or its equivalent area. Permits may be 'issued for directional or identification signs. Any billboard removed under the provisions of Sub -' division 22 of this section shall not be reissued. Any billboard destroyed by storms or acts of God may be rebuilt within 90 days, if complying with this part. 4/8/68 ORDINANCE CODE 92 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA -' 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 161 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Consideration of a Request For Temporary, Promotional Oversize Sign at 7700 Lyndale Avenue Council Members: STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION Kayo Oil has requested a permit to erect a temporary frame sign measuring 8' x 8' for a 30 day period at their station located at 7700 Lyndale Avenue. The municipal code of ordinances provides that the city council must approve all temporary signs. • The staff has reviewed this sign permit application and recommends that the permit be denied as city ordinance stipulates that temporary signs are limited to a maximum of 12 square feet. The sign proposed for 7700 Lyndale would be 64 square feet (8' x 8' double faced). CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION Kayo Oil representatives, when advised that the city staff would recommend against a 64 square foot sign (8' x 81), requested that the city council consider approving a 32 square foot sign on a trailer. The purpose of the sign is to promote the sale of their new premium unleaded gas at the price of regular unleaded gasoline. In similar gasoline station requests for temporary promotional displays, council has given its approval to signs greater than 12 square feet. Approval in this case would be consistent with previous council determinations. R ectf 11 s mitted, s ohn G. Car Wright City Manager is JGC /e ja APPROVE F-1 DENY ❑ : APPROVE F-1 DENY City Manager Inspector -�' Date C i 4`� -- ['Z.1Ff r _ Date APPROVE pE 1' (�.� APPROVE DENY '�"•- Plannin De artment �.Cit Council g y Date i �(, � ��(� Date Ro* to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date - -�� Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T [] AM Post Address of Sign ' �p� L y��,a�G j� � P S Proprietor Name k1r, DBA J e T Sign Erector Address Tvno of Sian 11aGivn Weather Cover Liehtin£ If Illuminated - Yes E1•rical Contractor M Property Owner or his Agent Signature Watts z __ �-% -, %'/ - /_- Address Phone Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width Height �. Total Square Feet , =;Xs1 ; Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? �S Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over far -safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? J�JQ Appli ant s Sign ure and ritle with Firm Date Phone Number - O��//� 3 Ll.1985 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 Other(Explain) Sign Colors If Illuminated - Yes E1•rical Contractor M Property Owner or his Agent Signature Watts z __ �-% -, %'/ - /_- Address Phone Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width Height �. Total Square Feet , =;Xs1 ; Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? �S Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over far -safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? J�JQ Appli ant s Sign ure and ritle with Firm Date Phone Number - O��//� 3 Ll.1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 qr=i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 15 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Requests for Illuminated Sign Permits At Various Locations Council Members: Richfield Bank and Trust Sign Service, Inc. has requested two sign permits to replace two tenant signs located at 6625 Lyndale Avenue. The signs are to replace two non - illuminated wall signs with two illuminated signs measuring 15' x 5' x 4 3/4'. World Bazaar, 7731 Nicollet Attracta Sign, Inc. has requested a permit to erect a 28' x 4' single faced roof sign with constant illumination at World Bazaar, 7731 Nicollet Avenue. Mr. Movies. 1224 East 66th Street DeMar's Signs has requested a permit to erect a 17' x 6" x 24" illuminated wall sign at Mr. Movies, 1224 E. 66th Street. Superamerica - 2913 West 66th Street; 7720 Nicollet Avenue; and, 826 West 66th Street Suburban Lighting has requested a permit to replace pedestal signs at the above three locations due to a change in the company logo. The signs will be double -faced signs measuring 8' x 10' with constant illumination. Mobil Oil Station, 2816 West 66th Street Suburban Lighting has requested a permit to erect an illuminated sign at the Mobil Oil station located at 2816 West 66th Street. The sign is to read "Mobil" and will replace an existing car wash sign on top of the pedestal. A smaller car wash sign would is be located below the existing price board. Apco Station, 817 East 66th Street Suburban Lighting has requested a permit to replace an . existing pedestal sign reading "Apco ", with the initial "K". The sign will measure 5' x 10' with constant illumination. Midwest Dental, 1407 West 66th Street Attracta Sign has requested'a permit to install an illuminated wall sign at Midwest Dental located at 407 West 66th Street. The sign will measure 8' x 3'. City ordinances provide that the city council must approve all illuminated sign installations. The city staff has reviewed these sign permit applications and finds that all of the signs comply with all pertinent city ordinances. It is recommended that the city council approve the permits for the illuminated signs noted in this council letter. JGC /eja C� 0 Respect uiLy manager bmitted, APPROVE F-1 DENY ❑ City Manager Date APPROVE DENY ` Planning.De artment Date !< j`:; S C- APPROVE DENY ❑ : �� 3 Inspecto Date APPROVE DENY a City Council Date Ro to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT o A n City of Richfield, Minnesota Date �Z — �'�s Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign Pro p rietor Name rc DBA Sign Erector_�U�if Address Type of Sign D9.sign Weather Cover Lighting 5 �c'�'- -a S' .i i C' i /¢,0 .— /- / '�✓ l w 1 If Illuminated - V No Watts El&rical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner o his Agent Signature i / �% ,�i�y��' T��►St Phone % �0/ Estimated Cost Sign Widtlj) ' Height ',� i %4i/ 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? ra Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any for safe access by persons destined for or passing 461KaRt's Signature and Titl with Firm 1 Phone Number sight distance under, around, or over the subject premises? G Date L PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 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 ❑ AD Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors f,Jln , �e 'T 5 �c'�'- -a S' .i i C' i /¢,0 .— /- / '�✓ l w 1 If Illuminated - V No Watts El&rical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner o his Agent Signature i / �% ,�i�y��' T��►St Phone % �0/ Estimated Cost Sign Widtlj) ' Height ',� i %4i/ 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? ra Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any for safe access by persons destined for or passing 461KaRt's Signature and Titl with Firm 1 Phone Number sight distance under, around, or over the subject premises? G Date L PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH 1985 Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 APPROVE 1-1 DENY F-1 City Manager Date APPROVE DENY Planning DepLartment Date APPROVE DENY❑ `"iii------"' Inspector Date f 2.. APPROVE F-1 DENYFI: City Council Date Role to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign Proprietor Name4�4 41(/E i/ BA Sign Erector �j� /� ��y(/j�L� �,Z/��, Addressj��Sjl� Type of Sign Pesign Weather Cover Ligh g If Illuminated -/des/ No Watts E0trical Contrycll-tor Address Phone Property Owner r his Agent Signature s Phone ZZZ -e.3e�21 Estimated Cos Sign idth %( Height 'y3 e 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? C Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, r nd, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises ? Ap icant's gnature and Title witl<Yirm f _ Date Phone Number 3y —� 1 5 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 J Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Color s �iJ�� If Illuminated -/des/ No Watts E0trical Contrycll-tor Address Phone Property Owner r his Agent Signature s Phone ZZZ -e.3e�21 Estimated Cos Sign idth %( Height 'y3 e 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? C Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, r nd, or over for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises ? Ap icant's gnature and Title witl<Yirm f _ Date Phone Number 3y —� 1 5 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 --*P4iROVE ( ( DENY": 3 J City Manager Date APPROVE LZI DENY U :`�/ •� : - f!�'� Inspector Date 12 ° APPROVE , DENY : { i'- �: {''i;�.c'" APPROVE 0 DENY : Planning epartment City Council Date Date y Rbute to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota z Date 12 -6 -85 Zoning Sign .Erected - Yes XX Address of Sign -7-7-37- Nicollet Ave. So. Proprietor Name Sign Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. Address Of Ji gn Design Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary XX Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: Trailer L_J T [] A E] Post E] No Fee 40.00 DBA World Bazaar 6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield Weather Cover Clear Lexon Frosted Lexon Plastic Covered Shaded Neon Other Sign Colors Orange & * I Illuminated - Yes X No Watts ctrical Contractor Address Property Owner or his Agent Signature Estimated Cost $2F000.00 Sign Width28' tin Constant Flashing Revolving Traveling Zip Lite Other(Explain) ack Phone Phone Height 4' Total Square Feet 112 '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 gignature and Title with Firm Date 12 -6 -85 Phone Number 866 -3047 10 8/83 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 N V O `* �, N cx V F- OC w ¢ 0100 Iwo w XIjY J m V V do z as U- O M :r rn E •r � 4-)4— 4-) 4- � o 0 r i U 4-) c (v a) 3 a- CL O N rts v i a) M-0 +) Y •v) O v +-) •r Y U N 4-) CO N N E U —4 O i a1 t}_ w 4-3 N Eca)N •r •r � Y X U •r O (0 r S- S- i O CL -0 4-- 4-- d O (o W i i N c •r 'b rd O 4-3 i C(1)(a3 O S- S: `. ^ . a) ,CAr U O . 4) +-� i c ^ a) �ccnCr O CT c to E •r (o c V) n. ro r � r✓ L 3 c +U-) L 0,— O 4- •r Q 4-) 04-) to Q. U •h) Q) 00,— (V F- r 3 to O 1 ct N9IS U Li 1 Z IL O z 0 A �a 44 I� �f it Y �r 1 tll P �n.k 00 E N •r i X •F-+ a) rty r a) M .n 3 +-) F- r a) N .9--= J 4J *") Y •r c CT ^ a) r c Cl r 3 O i O 4J r 0 Li- O'r7 •r 1 � •p a) ck� U Q I.r_ •r N 4- 3 i .1..3 r0 Q Z . a) m o a) (V 4..; r�i �4-_i CTJ � V) o " U E M O S- E _¢ 4- 4-3 •r - to 4- O o2f E r•-1 O c : LO O = r -0 M V) O Z ro a) 4-) i O (n c N 0)" r •r O tn •r Y r--r r RS c (0 C:). i a) O -0 = a)r- U 1 • p ,— a) d Y ro r L V) c N 3 = -0 3 •r 0 ye -b r- N r - 3 Iz ri- 'Lou I,- ,Q, yE -7 DENY APPROVE DENYD : 00 APPROVE APPROVE F] City Manager In pector . _ Date Date Y Y56 APPROVE DENY ❑ : ED Eil= APPROVE —1 DENY D : Plannin -Dep rtment City Council Date-, 3 Date Roue to above for special approval per code General Signs Date APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT yy� City of Richfield, Minnesota Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee Address of Sign T -rq C � C, , , Proprietor Name :+- n L,2 � 5 � 1,0C_ DBA '�� /Yl q K.S � 1 � ti%'g Sign Erector, Address CSC �igy��iAGc,;�) ,',�� , . rux) 553z TvnA of Rion Tlacion WaarhPr rover LiQhtin2 If Illuminated - Yes No Watts I a� (.0 () ( :I i fP-cx ESrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature , ,_r ( ��L^- Phone Estimated Cost 3; C Sign Width Height ,• Total Square Feet^ �rj, Z ' Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for fe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ;tc, Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm ,r Date K _ Z Phone Number �'_ - ,(, q 1� A 1985 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 Other(Explain) Sign Colors k; le- w,` �-� � �� re-c- . G A, r- el ,', If Illuminated - Yes No Watts I a� (.0 () ( :I i fP-cx ESrical Contractor Address Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature , ,_r ( ��L^- Phone Estimated Cost 3; C Sign Width Height ,• Total Square Feet^ �rj, Z ' Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks, curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. Minor signs as defined on page 2. Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans: including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure. Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on the premises? Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over for fe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ;tc, Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm ,r Date K _ Z Phone Number �'_ - ,(, q 1� A 1985 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 tk '. r i '. f �__ ♦t Z4.. ' - - ;•� u`4i' y�,a ~l_ _�Z'' i �`.�..� *�Jtip Stist>♦ j )„ ^. :}'} D �tw y. �'w t �i , i .♦ t ( i�� _ � � �1, ,�si� RI ..E�+�y 1 j.r taa ; bit. "•. �� ,}. i �`'+ y^x .`�>, '�� t • ....! w yy,.�i .. ! .. .. �� - ! � t Y-� .ill , -• 7 J � � s 4 ,�to: - + .� x •4.•• � :i, yy� �• a i"a) .%< 45.4 . �as .'�" /.'�' iS T T•'r �� t Q : t �� r' � ro: '�' - �� aar , �,� . s • '�.t. r ej'.♦� t Y�S'! � >r i y S II > .. .. + f .'�'�:,� �. �•3,F _at,� >\. ; -. `!)e- njG,e�,,,�y. •lr,. :1 S .w w -4, + - � y ' x i' � {y + �7rD� t � c o } x.. !. F ._ rs yfi'',�V . -y'• � .S• > - �♦,r'.. ♦.t >.� y Vl'!'fY�y L. „yf� � qS3'� ,�� {�t Y.1� t�,.a ),rt ,� � •r. 4i )� mac. y �.0 � t R �£ ♦ �• �� `'�Y - �'� �; f �vT'�'� 7�.it�'~ -j�SP• ff+t> t ! s} i,';� :k7 4 • )� _) _ Z �sk x Pr X�•J TA s4. •� ,, 'i. Ca_*'� ;:fi �cC¢ ` e►, �£Fjr1 �F ;�'. r !�.. �tj�"• . '�r, � , k -P.!EK ... � , t�S- F��: y ,'�a15'�i,, ,i'd .a+•!. .i a ,.•a. , k '� �" •r � �r . �f? .,� ' ='s. ...k a �t• :�. S Yi1 ^ tr, q.!•e1r r- ';+r ,r'sR i ,�- , t '� a 3•�s }a �• l t y >.: * �ZS. r .+ ♦:. r Jc4.� .:A roar t,� ♦ ,� 3 r ��•'1y - .._t s 3'j= '•s.i#,:`: •" t'i •i F.S .a}�.'yCS ':l'•�tS. y 4A,+ �v','c1tik. il�i.#ba�+�.k �.y''$'J•'J(4J2t �1/i..d�r'D!�.)�• f• •i ; 7 r' -•k• �Sy3.y'9�'�,R. (, a ! - - >' '. Y. '! . D. i r x. ♦.• �.^� '_Y .J � 4�j r c � . r. � T .t ;Y� . :.� �'� t •') ,,l t � j i r q � t a � t, 1t .� S y '� � •.. R)'(•��{ t: s i • - j ! } '.�. ♦ > ♦`- � • . fr yr, � x w � + R•' � a� ...e ( - 'j , � � � �t S �' a x'• 1{ � � t ✓'air .r: ,yf � •F a .Y }I � � ` .D � � 44r�� gay. -4 � �. • > J' - 1 'j ♦ is ;{ J _ `I ♦ _y / {y � `l; -� to ,\ f _ _K i `'� � ..:tS�. r•'�;t i ♦"' F > s? sp IN V15ION 5 . AMERICAN 'SIGN AND MARKETING SERYICES,:.J 4w J✓ � . J y �• t • . 7 w� \ s , CHMK V y' t� t� . �f i ^ ✓ti+!G -. V'1 i 'i t r > VRW�tiV PI % C ;� .� -�j,_ Aw.�A •y t♦�a� "�` .1) a�•i> } ) 4t(•� NOTED (.. {.J j • .j� 'L -t r �4 ♦rdy 1'fi S DATE� � f ! • � F r } -' � , .° �.+r -' ,+.. ...� y y, ay.;.s-aSrF j4�� : �" � Y �•a ti try ♦ `3 �. .t'♦� aa , � .. .,' }� • -rr a > -a l 1 'f ,�ri� •i�a ;r•. Q�i��f•: r. -�:• '. ..'- ') �•"•'i -'i � jwrr A7�I`��•f� ♦.,. � '" a .� .,r _ •. £: •, •�' �{r� t,�{ � � : ?.4 4 � �. W x \ r�>v t t'y� � i. � i � •, f'J'y,. 4yaf4�yye •' p y. , t +iid5>� .is° It-. r ' o r i�.�4�R ?.,`�>., ��'� } •.:..��w�Y .lsirftir,.�RC,�'. i.. Y r .2 . �..k. ;..fta i >�Dy- �' Ra r. jt -f. .� r t � t..r� !� �r .$� i+l .f ♦ +..tw.tii,i .�'.x.,.�_.�..:� ..a:•:r;•..�.?i �'a::1.�' �g. LW��. a-. f. a��...: �..J � "it....s,7•._.wy:.;.'..i:A.'a.� ..r'..ii_.i.:.o:,. .ir[r..i. APPROVE APPROVE DENY F-1 : City Manager Date DENY ❑ : V. Planning. Dep rtment Date APPROVE Iq DENY a : Inspector i ' Date '/ /l APPROVE F-1 DENY: City Council Date Roo to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, 'Minnesota Date 4 -41— F5 Zoning Sign Erected - 'Yes >/ No Fee Address of Sign 7700 AJ%C.'OZ --f.f AV, 5, Proprietor Name 50PEiPA14Ek'/CA DBA Sign Erector 0.60 ,64N G' 6W71 -41(1; ISLE: Address 1-4Ke-7 j6a4LfO 577'&' tO// Type of Sign /t�2Y,1-0/✓ Desien /i 11-6j ; 11Za1Y1A1A7XX1 Weather Cover ��` ,411V Lighting 1t4/-W4eS, If Illuminated - No Watts Elto rical Contractor f7&6 Address Property Owner or his Agent Signature_ Estimated. Cost Sign Phone's Phone Width height /Q Total Square Feet 00 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 pale 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? MD Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number `; Date /.-� -`/ '-0✓ Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T E] A 17 Post Clear Lexon Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors _8 1 .•`1:..s;,y.;.,,., �.: _ ::•::: ;_„ . h PLEASE SEE 'REVERS£ 'SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH' Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 '0 "`." ,.r•:,. :l�.. ,e'.'S�s. .S�'3 �a �!'''�'iR�'•i:+.•Q' 'ti.jX #hj''i'.t ✓.iF� %i iv 3E`itiv�;•i!: R'. i•C :y '•�: �� .'^`�In " *: W'�4��.sr �i� J, •`iif ;a.• 'tt,�,L�.....6.�A:.S- .,;•..i `^';: , iF•;: ..4 1. 5..s .-. N If Illuminated - No Watts Elto rical Contractor f7&6 Address Property Owner or his Agent Signature_ Estimated. Cost Sign Phone's Phone Width height /Q Total Square Feet 00 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 pale 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? MD Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number `; Date /.-� -`/ '-0✓ _8 1 .•`1:..s;,y.;.,,., �.: _ ::•::: ;_„ . h PLEASE SEE 'REVERS£ 'SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH' Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 '0 "`." ,.r•:,. :l�.. ,e'.'S�s. .S�'3 �a �!'''�'iR�'•i:+.•Q' 'ti.jX #hj''i'.t ✓.iF� %i iv 3E`itiv�;•i!: R'. i•C :y '•�: �� .'^`�In " *: W'�4��.sr �i� J, •`iif ;a.• 'tt,�,L�.....6.�A:.S- .,;•..i `^';: , iF•;: ..4 1. 5..s .-. :,,s� `t•.::,.�, c..` ". �•;.!.'.�',�.�!!.. i:':::." :'•i''.. :.. ♦ �:a APPROVE F 7] DENY: APPROVE City Manager Date APPROVE l.___1 DENYa : u.,�, ;_):� � APPROVE ❑ Planning Depa.xment Date 1 2�5I�,`j DENY ❑ : Date i 2 ,s�. DEN`YF : IfF.071 City Council Date Roo to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date /G'_ - Z/— �S Zoning Sign Erected - Yes ie No Fee Address of Sign z bf/ �aCoT 5�; Proprietor Name ;5_0 SCIVe6aCCA DBA Sign Erector j(J�(J,E'�/{/t/ Z1c,H7`1416 //(_! Address j;�'p77 l ,L�, EG"o •46�� /_ /. ne of Sign /' Wall Projecting Ground Roof X Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Design /,f/rt5P 1Z6a'11VzVaQWeather Cover / &,XAA) Lightin Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T A Post Clear Lexon X Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors�Ci, If Illuminated -(iii) No Watts Elarical Contractor -TV&V eAV L 6Ae7 -t/6 /W,-Address 4V Phone Property Owner or his Agent Signature_ Estimated Cost ye ZL-Z�0, Sign Phone i Width $ Height /0" 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? �S . 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? /yo Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm �i�C�— 0 �� ' Date p Phone Number ��'- G� — p 8 '''''"Yi `�• ' '' '"`•" PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDEI FOR SIGN LOCATION ' SYETCHr `�, t F Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 pi+ 1F;.d►'1.i• !i:;,t %"+. _'wa h. ^r ✓t.- •, -.�.?4 'iVn r•,7.4•.::;. -:; •�.��• :Y.•: i; ,*+{F ,a.: �:,�.._.r.�,,,- y..;�C.::'- :'N.;•' }•i-�.5.44 .'ti ' • ^ t 2S+ .. _ . •= •1.f:'; .'! .. 'J.. `•• APPROVE a DENY : City Manager Date APPROVE 1� T)ENY F : + _ • Planning U artment Date APPROVE ✓ . DENY ❑:_ , JWi -• ti .:. ___�,..� Inspector Date /2 _ APPROVE F-1 DEXY F : City Cuunc 1 Date Ro* to above for special approval per code General Signs APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota Date /0_L/-'g;57 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes x No Fee Address of Sign Z91,'3 W, 4�;67W � Proprietor Dame DBA Sign Erector 6(%&)R61W Me,C/G , /I Address t�,67? MAC z��iy1D ff� e, ST%L�Gl/r¢7` Type of Sign Design /x(11 ,Q / /40/Y /d%/f70VWeather Cover ZAMIUI Lighting FLD(Jr S� Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T r-� A E] Post Clear Lexon ' Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors�",�U, If Illuminated No Watts El&rical Contractor �(f�j'�> ,g /l/ 1,��{j%/� Address Phone y -7 - 0 Property Owner or his Agent Signature_ Estimated Cost & /g06),�j Sign Phone Width_]E�I� HeightTotal Square Feet 0(`.11l 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? Y15 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? 40 Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Phone Number `7` ,3 9 746 Date 1 - ::.:.::•....- :: �- ter- �� -,..., .. ,� - -- . ,: .....: .. -:..:- �: ,• _.. :. • ..:�...,, . - _. -:�., ::;c ;:.. PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH" - Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 1Y. YfC! �; ..."rt�r�"•'ti�5l= _�- `4F:eS':�S ra; G. .ft�'i!::''g 4" !+..�^.+3s :fi .. 7�i�-.fti: .! �i!nt ;. �r.�'s'":'S 'tlt., i'�•; ^r: J'!�;,a ,r ?.t ."-g.'�:.::' ie. =a` %. ..�i..::r „s :',r J`?' •n .c': y,}a:i:: ^ ",.: �y�' d..'J, �.;. �Ec�ui,,4 2- Gfk-5N U N LE,4�i? 64,-6 P yF -l3 �70 ee REMOVE) ..-- ORO Pct 5ED 's k X I ,-- rX /5-r, 5)(,5 ' 651GN To REMAIN) i D Z--'z a iii i r i D ('TO QE RE- MOVE =O) F)Ct 5 Tc y �4 z ,l x g i L of l Pet) Po5E0 yu Fr. l _c-AR WA 59 X5454 1 CS€'E D ,efr W /NG APPROVE F-1 DENY: Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer APPROVE El DENY a : J - % L /(a�fT/f,(!�_ Address �' City Manager Inspector _ A J Date Date Z r ! APPROVE T)ENY[--] : APPROVE F-1 DEKYFT Plannin epar_=ent City Cuuncil Date ►2- c(I Date Route to above for special approval per code General Signs Date /Z � `S5 APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT City of Richfield, Minnesota vdc��L Zoning Sign Erected - Yes Y No Fee Address of Sign Z$16 "X .57-1 Proprietor Name 11 7061z O/L DBA Sign Erector L /07_1/7(5 Address X077 ZMt-- lelD 1411, /(% TvDe of Sien /9YL01v Design deK Weather Cover Lj!5_X, K) Lighting If Illuminated - rejP Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer Watts Single Face Double Face Multi- Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T r_� An Post Elorical Contractor Clear Lexon x Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors ' % L /(a�fT/f,(!�_ Address �' Phone Z/_5 74, If Illuminated - rejP No Watts Elorical Contractor S j%jPj�j�' % L /(a�fT/f,(!�_ Address �' Phone Z/_5 74, Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone �,,C 1/ Estimated Cost �D /57 00 Sign Width �'_U Height � / -p "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?.:.. }/c5 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? AJO -;r, azz�� Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Qom` Phone Number �� 9- `7`�'O Date tom• lk�; . _ ...... .:�.. ;.:,., -,,. •'',• .. =.t . , ..... ... -.. . � , . .. ... ; . � -.'r PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH:-,` Sivert Hendrickson /BuildinglOfficial - 866 -5061 ,�'G:F'f�lfNti «::1.' :)itt' {••!t4 _zr:4 :�'4E4 uA.-i �v wc.• *.�Y• ��' <•. '•: •. f��. ?'Ct'rt..nr �!:i!'•�tn�: .; ,� Af y�� 1�.: .`.. �.n; 'T ;rp: f; Sr :'�-�" t`:•::1�. °A "��v �'' <'�.: ttF i?i.; •..'a X:4; G.:�i``.. t Ti.�A�:•. t ... .. • y 0 >tj1L k/ A-Sq �) i NC 6 G rN sl► yam - 1.5 • • �o y 11 y ; IT, • 0 ,ye,R sx /o FT; L /o4 SING ANI Dex:� APPROVE D DENY F-1 : Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer j( APPROVE © DENY X Clear Lexon /K Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors -4/r E-1 City Date Manager lnspector. C Date APPROVE l MENY : _�' _ i ";' APPROVE DE:�'YF : 4. is _t 1,0 Planningbepartment City Cuuncil Date ('", 0, kI (- -1 ate �< ) Route to above for special approval per code General Sign &Z�f APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PERMIT hUN Z City of Richfield, Minnesota Date 1z-(,--S5 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes )( No Fee Address of Sign f / 7 E • ( 6 7" 5TH Proprietor Name ,KUrUZ OIL DBA Sign Erector rj(i%�(%I�t3fF/L� L /(�f{ % //iJ� j/��C, Address �077,114t_&EZHD VV, 572IZ4WI47� 5$6ffZ' Tvnp, of Sinn ,oiI-o/v DeSi -gn DBL. 1 Weather CoverZeKAA% Lichtiniz If Illuminated -Ci�D - No Watts ElJrical Contractor 5O,60R1311N L /6j/7- //l.eAddress Phone q3 ?- 7zl4l<D Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width /0/ 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?..Y� 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 ? /1%C) Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Q ``// Date /z -� -�� Phone :lumber Z/ 3 / ` 7zlVo PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH - V. Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 �.r_.�3.!'YL.Vt..�v�.c.:;i;•.. 'vim:;. ✓�'vrYyb.,� {..:�,� �. . � .�rr: -.s uriyL.6i�. �.. �,.fu�;a�'ars:�:.h�:ar'.,�n.:, .. 'wY�:+.+F. *.. w.4Y�r.:-.:.•:. ..�,r .:% ". . i .t` ".iR. '�P? -::i '):Y••� �' �'. :r.•� .:.5 k � -�.. .+h�!•'.y�r, �-0 yr.. Wall Projecting Ground Roof Pedestal Changeable Temporary Trailer j( Single Face Double Face Multi -Faced Aerial /Blimp Searchlight Banner /Pennants Portable Frame: T F_� A 17 Post X Clear Lexon /K Constant Frosted Lexon Flashing Plastic Covered Revolving Shaded Traveling Neon Zip Lite Other Other(Explain) Sign Colors -4/r E-1 If Illuminated -Ci�D - No Watts ElJrical Contractor 5O,60R1311N L /6j/7- //l.eAddress Phone q3 ?- 7zl4l<D Property Owner or his Agent Signature Phone Estimated Cost Sign Width /0/ 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?..Y� 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 ? /1%C) Applicant's Signature and Title with Firm Q ``// Date /z -� -�� Phone :lumber Z/ 3 / ` 7zlVo PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIGN LOCATION SKETCH - V. Sivert Hendrickson /Building Official - 866 -5061 �.r_.�3.!'YL.Vt..�v�.c.:;i;•.. 'vim:;. ✓�'vrYyb.,� {..:�,� �. . � .�rr: -.s uriyL.6i�. �.. �,.fu�;a�'ars:�:.h�:ar'.,�n.:, .. 'wY�:+.+F. *.. w.4Y�r.:-.:.•:. ..�,r .:% ". . i .t` ".iR. '�P? -::i '):Y••� �' �'. :r.•� .:.5 k � -�.. .+h�!•'.y�r, �-0 yr.. 0 0 �om 0 •S -3A -V 10 / -77--7 'yp'2-P r� "i, o n� e � c CA 0 �om 0 •S -3A -V 10 / -77--7 'yp'2-P r� "i, P U U Fig Ap ��a 0 Z Z z m n Z CZ co Y r! Z z wzm .?q CIO 0 0) - -9 (®ro) I\t .'' . - i @ �uj �- _, EO @ co ui o r Lr_ull. rl Lp L rl -1 rl I , , 1 1 tj O I L LL -.; L I LE- l L -7 r CE-1 I 0 CO) P U U Fig Ap ��a 0 Z Z z m n Z CZ co Y r! Z z wzm .?q CIO 0 0) - -9 (®ro) I\t .'' . - i @ �uj �- _, EO @ co ui o r Lr_ull. rl Lp L rl -1 rl I , , 1 1 tj O I L LL -.; L I LE- l L -7 r CE-1 I 0 //40 410P I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 14 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Renewal Of Kennel Contract With The City of Bloomington Council Members: The City of Richfield has contracted with the City of Bloomington for kennel services for animals impounded by the Department of Public Safety for several years. The contract fee has been $5 per animal per day since 1982. The contract fee established for 1986 will be for $7.50 per animal per day. For animals reclaimed by Richfield residents, the kennel fee is paid directly by the owner of the animal. The City of Richfield pays the fee for those animals not reclaimed. During 1984, the charge to the city for unclaimed animals was $3,150. For the first ten months of 1985 the charge has been $2,315. It is the opinion of the Public Safety Department that the fee increase for 1986 is reasonable, considering that no increase has been made since 1982. The City of Bloomington has made two significant improvements to the kennel operations. First, an employee of Bloomington is now on duty full time to care for the animals and cleanliness of the operation. The need for a full time employee at the kennel is based upon the greater animal population housed at the kennel than in previous years. Also, the Richfield resident who visits the kennel to pickup their animal no longer has to make arrangements with a Richfield Public Safety employee to release the animal. Residents merely go directly to the kennel thus saving the time of our employees in the process. Secondly, the kennel facilities have been upgraded with heating and ventilation equipment. This expenditure was in the neighborhood of $15,000 - $20,000. Richfield is partially reimbursed for the cost our city pays • to the City of Bloomington by the payment of an impounding fee by the resident to the City of Richfield when the animal is released from the kennel. The 1986 impounding fee schedule is. Each Animal 1st Time $ 7.00 2nd Time $ 30.00 3rd Time $ 56.00 4th Time $ 82.00 5th Time $106.00 6th Time $130.00 In 1985, the City of Richfield collected $670.00 from Richfield residents for impounding fees. Residents also have to pay a daily "room and board" fee to the City of Bloomington for each day the animal is housed at the kennel. Of course not all animals are claimed by their owners. This is the reason for the City of Richfield paying the City of Bloomington for providing the kennel operations and disposal of unclaimed animals. It is the recommended that the city council authorize the renewal of the kennel contract with the City of Bloomington for 1986. An appropriation for the city cost of animal impoundment is provided in the 1986 public safety budget document. • JGC /eja Res.Dectful y s itted, hn G. ar right City Manager r y ?I q-0-3 0 AGREEMENT This Agreement executed on the 9th day of December, 1985, by and between the City of Bloomington, a municipal corporation, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter called "Bloomington "), and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter called "Richfield "); WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, Bloomington has facilities for the impoundment of animals available for the use of Richfield; and WHEREAS, Richfield is desirous of using Bloomington's facilities for the impoundment and storage of animals which are impounded persuant to the ordinances of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed on the type of use and manner of use by • Richfield of Bloomington's impoundment facilities; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Richfield may deliver animals to Bloomington's impoundment facilities, and Bloomington will board said animals for the sum of Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($7.50) per day, per animal, to be paid by Richfield. 2. That Bloomington shall assume the responsibility for releasing animals, delivered to Bloomington by Richfield Animal Control personnel, to those owners wishing to redeem said animals. 3. That in the event that an impounded animal must be disposed of pursuant to Minnesota Statutes or City Ordinances, Bloomington will do so at a charge of Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($7.50) per animal, to be paid by Richfield. 1 1 Jam. 4. That Richfield will indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, its officers, agents, officials and employees from claims, suits, actions, damages, and costs arising out of the impoundment or destruction of animals delivered to Bloomington by Richfield. 5. That Richfield shall comply with by all Kennel operating procedures established by Bloomington. 6. This Agreement shall cover the period from December 14, 1985, to December 31, 1985, and for a period of one year thereafter commencing January 1 and ending December 31. This Agreement shall be automatically renewable from year to year on the last business day of December unless either party gives notice thirty days' prior to the expiration date that it intends not to renew the agreement. 7. The fees charged by Bloomington against Richfield shall be subject to review and negotiation prior to thirty days before the yearly renewal date. Upon proper execution, this Agreeme,pot shall be a legal and bindi obligation upon the Cit Hof- Bloom1nvtnn. tyAt 2 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON . Ua putt Ma 'Cltv4ager CITY OF RICHFIELD Mayor City Manager H C.1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 13 Agenda January 13, 1986 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 will be submitted to the city council for consideration. There are six such items on the January 13th agenda. is LIME SLUDGE REMOVAL The 1985 contract for removal of sludge from the water plant lime pits is held by Bradley and David Fredrickson with a unit price of $7.03 /cubic yard. The specifications for the 1985 contract indicated "Said contract may be extended yearly by mutual agreement of the City.of Richfield and the contractor." Staff has met with Mr. David Fredrickson who has indicated the Fredrickson brothers are willing to extend the contract through 1986 at the 1985 rate of $7.03 /cubic yard. It is recommended the city council authorize a contract with Bradley and David Fredrickson for lime sludge removal in 1986 at a unit price of $7.03 /cubic yard for an estimated 9,000 cubic yards and an estimated total contract price of $63,270. ICE ARENA REFRIGERATION SYSTEM On Thursday, December 19, 1985, emergency repair of the ice arena refrigeration system was necessary. When the problem was discovered in the early morning, almost all of the refrigerant was gone from the system. Fire personnel were called in to close valves. Other city personnel began the work of making repairs and replacing Freon (refrigerant). City sponsored activities for the day were cancelled including practice hours for the Richfield Hockey Association and Holy Angels and some hours following the Richfield School District hockey game. The RHS game was held. Materials ordered for the repair included: 5000 pounds of Freon at $1.58 /pound for a price of $7,900; 12 drier yc- Z cores, used to prevent moisture from getting into the system, at $30 each for a price of $360; and, a new heat exchanger at a price of $1400. It is recommended the city council approve the payment already made for the emergency materials for the ice arena refrigeration system to Holmsten Ice Rinks, Inc. in the amount of $9,660. WATER METERS The adopted 1986 budget includes the initiation of a new water meter replacement program. This project includes the larger sized meters found primarily in business and commercial establishments. Two quotations were received for Rockwell Mainline Propeller (102 flanged tube) Meters (two meters of the 10" size and two meters of the 8" size). Layne Minnesota Company quoted $5,248.55 and Water Products Company quoted a price of $5,190. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase from Water Products Company in the amount of $5,190. PURCHASE OF COPIER TO MEET PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS Last fall, as a part of the city review of copy needs and equipment to adequately meet these needs, the Public Safety Department also analyzed their copy equipment requirements. The concern of the Public Safety Department related to their rather unique requirement of copy equipment availability on a 24 -hour 7 days a week basis. Public Safety has been leasing a Pitney -Bowes Model 9700 Copier. 1985 was the second year of a five -year lease agreement for this equipment. Significant mechanical failures have been experienced with this copier, primarily because it doesn't have the capacity utilized by the department, nor is it designed for 24 hour operation. The city has taken advantage of the state law which allows municipalities to cancel lease agreements at the end of a fiscal year and notified Pitney -Bowes of this cancellation. The public safety department is planning to replace the Pitney -Bowes copier with a Toshiba 8412 Model Copier. This is one of the machines the city studied as a part of the analysis of the overall copy needs. The machine is presently available through the Hennepin County Contract at a price of $6,745. This purchase will resolve the problems experienced by Public Safety and save the city $8,090 over the next three year period, as compared to continuing the Pitney -Bowes lease for the remaining three years. The cost saving analysis appears in the addendum • to this city council letter in a December 27, 1985, memorandum from Lieutenant Vaughn Lambert to Public Safety Director Tom Morgan. y e -� It is recommended that the council authorize the acquisition of a Toshiba 8412 Model at a price of $6,745 through the Hennepin County purchasing contract. COMPRESSOR The adopted 1986 budget for the water utility includes funding for a new compressor(s) for supplying air for the instrumentation at the water plant. The present compressors pass too much oil for the new filter consoles to operate efficiently. Two quotations were received for two 25 HP, 120 Gallon Horizontal Compressors. General Repair quoted a unit price of $5,500, and W. W. Grainger, Inc. quoted a price of $4,815.67. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of two compressors from W. W. Grainger, Inc. at a unit price of $4,815.67 for a total purchase price of $9,631.34. DREDGING OF NORBY'S POND Two quotations were received for dredging the build -up of muck from Norby's.Pond. Approximately 2,700 cubic yards of material needs to be removed to complete the work begun in 1985. The final quantity will be determined by truck • measurement. The dredging allows the pond to be deeper, which improves the appearance of the pond and reduces the smell of the decaying pond bottom. The work is a budgeted expense from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund. Two quotations were received for this work. Arcon Construction Company quoted a price of $5.44 per cubic yard of material removed and a quotation of $4.95 per cubic yard was received from Turner Excavating Company. It is recommended the city council authorize the dredging of Norby's Pond by Turner Excavating Company at a cost of $4.95 per cubic yard, or approximately 2,700 cubic yards for $13,365. JGC /eja • Respect fyl-�y/-qubmitted , crohn G. Cattwri ht City Manage MEMORANDUM • Date: 12 -27 -85 To: Tom Morgan From: Vaughn Lambert Subject: Proposal To Buy Plain Paper Copier Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 465.71, the City of Richfield has terminated its lease purchase agreement with Pitney Bowes, Inc. for one model 9700 copier and related equipment effective December 31, 1985. The equipment should be removed by Pitney Bowes shortly after that date. qd.1 Pursuant to the terms of the equipment maintenance agreement with Pitney Bowes dated December 6, 1985, that agreement has been termininated effective February 6, 1986 (30 day notice). It is proposed that the Public Safety Department purchase a plain paper copier rated at sufficient copy volume per month and so configured as to eliminate the need by Public Safety personnel to routinely utilize the Central Services Division copier. Attached you will find a analysis of current usage and costs as well as a breakdown of costs for the purchase of a proposed • copier from the Hennepin County bid contract. You will notice that current usage is averaging about 26,000 copies per month. With the current equipment (Pitney Bowes and Xerox), 1986 cost are projected at $6936.00 (consumables not included). This cost remains fairly constant for subsequent years throughout the life of the lease. This proposal recommends the purchase of a Toshiba 8412 copier of the Hennepin County bid. This unit provides the features of the Central Services copier and is rated at 40,000 copies per month. This provides some cushion which should minimize down time. The 1986 cost would be $8374.00 (consumables not included). After the initial purchase in 1986, the cost for subsequent years would consist of equipment maintenance agreement costs of about $2172.00 . A cost comparison over 3 years is as follows: (based on current usage) P.B. + Xerox Toshiba 8412 1986 ,93 .00 $8,374.00 1987 $6,936.00 $2,172.00 1988 $6,936.00 $29172.00 TOTAL $20,80 .00- $12,71$.00 (3 Yr.) SAVINGS OVFR 3 YEARS - - -- 81090.00 PER YEAR SAVINGS-- - - - - -- $ , . 7 (avg. over 3 yrs.) 1986 NON- BUDGETED COST - $ 1 ,4314.00 -1 > ,. MEMORANDUM Date: 12 -27 -85 • To: Tom Morgan From: Vaughn Lambert Subject: Proposal To Buy Plain Paper Copier Page 2 Current copier usage by the Public Safety Department is as follows: Xerox (Central Services) - - -- 2527 c /mo (average, 1985) Pitney Bowes (P.S.D.) - - - - - -- 23,471 e /mo (avg., 3rd Qtr 85) TOTAL COPIES 25,998 c /mo average Current copier costs are as follows: Xerox - 2,527 X $0.07 /copy -------------- - - - - -- $176.00 / mo. Pitney Bowes - 14,471 X $0.007 /copy ------ - - - - -- $101.00 /mo. (23,471 less 9000 credit) Lease Agreement ------------ - - - - -- $209.00 /mo. Maintenance Agreement ------ - - - - -- $ 92.00 /mo. $301.00/ 0. $301.00 /mo TOTAL combined cost /mo. ----------------------- - - - - -- $578.00/mo. Cost /copy ($578 / 25,998) --- - - - - -- $0.022 PROPOSAL: Purchase Toshiba 8412 copier - - - -- $4595.00 Two side copy option ------- - - - - -- $ 950.00 20 bin sorter option ------- - - - - -- $1050.00 Copier stand option -------- - - - - -- $ 150.00 Total purchase cost - - -- 7 5.00 Cost over 36 months ------------ - - - - -- $187.36/mo. Equipment maintenance and copy cost ($0.007 X 25,998 copies) ------------ - - - - -- $181.00/mo. TOTAL cost for copies, maintenance, and amortized payment over 36 months -----------=-- - - - - -- $368.36/mo. Cost /copy ($368.36 / 25,998) - - - - -- $0.014 TOTAL EXPENDITURE FROM 1986 BUDGET: With current Pitney Bowes: $578 X 12mo. - - - -- $6936.00 (including Xerox costs) With outright purchase of Toshiba 8412 plus maintenance agreement and copy costs: ($6745 + ($181 X 9 mo. *) ------------ - - - - -- $8374.00 # 90 day warranty period Non - budgeted addition expense ------------ - - - - -- $1438.00 �6-. / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 12 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Contract for Educational Services with Project Charlie III Council Members: Project Charlie III is a volunteer organization in the city that seeks to prevent chemical dependency through education. This group of volunteers works mainly with elementary students in an effort to educate them about drug abuse before the problem starts. For the past several years, the city council has supported the activities of this organization through an annual appropriation of $3,160. This amount was also approved in the 1986 budget document. It is recommended that the city council approve the agreement for educational services and authorize its execution by the City Manager. JGC /e ja 40 Respectfu]� ubmitted, 6hn G. C/artwrig ity Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 11 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Agreement for Counseling Services with Storefront /Youth Action, Inc. for 1986 Council Members: The city council approved an appropriation of $40,800 for counseling services to be provided for by the Storefront /Youth Action, Inc. for 1986. In 1985, the city appropriated $38,600 for these services, and $36,400 was spent for these services in 1984. The attached contractual agreement summarizes the services to be provided. The services are the same as those which have been previously contracted for by the city. • It is recommended that the city council approve the proposed agreement and authorize its execution by the City Manager. JGC /e ja • Respectf y submitted, ohn G. Ca twri t City Manage 1 � z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 10 Agenda January 13, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Eileen O'Toole and Michael O'Toole Council Members: Lezlie Hinnenkamp, community instruction teacher for adolescent trainable mentally handicapped students at the Portland Program located in the Lincoln Hills building, has brought to the attention of Mayor Hamilton the commendable activities of Eileen O'Toole and her son, Michael, regarding these students. Eileen O'Toole and her son, Michael, operate the Richfield Beauty School. Each week, two classes of four students go to the Richfield Beauty School to learn grooming and social skills. The O'Tooles arrange it so that the students shampoo, dry, cut and curl hair, and give manicures at no charge to the Portland Program. The O'Toole's continue to be calm and supportive of this program even when students may become loud and disruptive. The O'Tooles have provided this service for the past four years, as well as donating several pieces of furniture to the school to sell at the school's annual rummage sale. , Eileen and Michael O'Toole will be present at the January 13, 1986 city council meeting to receive a Certificate of Appreciation from Mayor Hamilton. JGC /eja • Res ectf ubmitted, 9 ohn G. Car wri City Manager