The URL can be used to link to this page

07-28-86 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 292 _ _ _ _ Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor ' and Members Of .The City Council City of Richfield Subject: .Appointments to Community Services Commission Council Members: Within the past~few weeks, two members of the Community Services Commission, Dave Dunham and Thomas Kegley, have submitted letters of resignation. Thus, that Commission is now operating two members short and there are several individuals who have expressed an interest in serving on the Community Services Commission. In considering the two appointments to be made, it should . also be noted that the membership of the Commission currently consists of three females and six males. Following is a list of the applicants and their choice of preference with respect to serving on the Community Services Commission: Applicant Robert Burditt First Choice Michael Karnas First Choice Peter Schlemmer Second Choice Karen Skwira First Choice Joanne Wilmes Second Choice RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that two appointments for unexpired terms, one expiring on January 31, 1988 and the second expiring on January 31, 1989, be made at the July 28, 1986 City Council Meeting. Resp ctfully Submitted, i . -eve' L. ~D-e ch Acting City Manager SD/sae DATE ~ j ~ ~~;;c~. CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM NAME ~ ~a•~ f' S. ~ l• ~ l t. r F,1_-~ c r ~ ~ Last First Middle. HOME ADDRESS c I ~ n /Tti _ . Y> ~ i PHONE Home X i ~ / Business ~ ~ ' ,'1` ~ _ APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Advisory Board of Health Human Rights Commission Civil Service Commission Planning Commission Community Services Commiss-ipn ~ Senior Citizens/Handicapped .Energy Awareness Commission Commission Fourth of July Cor~nittee Sister City International Other. Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory cousnissi//o~'n and why you are interested in serving: I ~j f ? /.1~. .ly1.r/7 viAy~4~C • • ~~f ~i~ _ ~.r> `r ~!.u~c• .G=•"~L~!//r.,;'J_ i~,cY ~~'Y ~~CtG!~~s• !-r,~ .LG~/ (`~1-~-;kfl' /c~//%y i'~~.-~i..-C/.t:s , ~N~ %G~~ G'%u.~il%~'/~49.;:~ (r.~.~cJ•~ is ~~t~'/-t/..:~ v CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: - \ f ~ n/ - , f/r fem. G"`P/? - . if''-,°~~ j'~/ `/~/'`%''./..1~ ~.5 .'i 6ZG r r ~ r REFERENCES (OPTIONAL)/ _ /J ~j~ ~ % '~~(f ~ -~1 f 3'' G~'~N-' . - ~7f~~/fj ~~~/y'~/~~~~~iDNf - ~7.'r~,rfx ~ OCCUPATION: lc. ~iC;%S,.',r2.;~ - ~/,,5' ~~yt•as ~'j>.~-'f ~_.:?i , Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 55423 Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter _ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FOR " O NAME ~lr~~~rg. 4'-~--•r~-r G--C.-~iSO-r;~ tea i~iL'i.~,~~.. Last First Middle HOME ADDRESS ~ --.o >f `Jv . PHONE Home d~~9- Business u 7-~ rY o->- y ~ APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Advisory Board of Health Human Rights Commission Civil Service Commission Planning Commission Community Services Commission ~ Senior Citizens/Handicapped Energy Awareness Commissi2~n Commission, Fourth of July Committee Sister City International Other Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory commission and why you are interested in serving: ~ ~ . _ / / / \ ~ ti/ / r / Luau • ,c' -e ~v .p n ' ~ ~ ~ •e ~-~r ~f CHIC, PROFESSION/AL AND COMMyUN~ITYjACTI~VI/TIES: '-~u.P-r-~-C O ~ ~ 4 /-z-r c/ . ~%P~S~ 9 P~'-,5 ~~J-. 5-0 ~~r r ~l'Lj ~ REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) D o-Sli ~ ~o ~ d T /1 ~ ~ a-,l / / OCCUPATION: ~Z7y~~y.~~~ ~.s~ . ~ Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, NW 55423 Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter • i • ~1 DATE ~ ~oZ ~ 1cg J CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMITTEE APPLICATION FORM NAME ~C ~ w? rni°/Z T ~2`1~ 2 N ~ LAST FIRST MIDDLE HOME .ADDRESS ~I~ ~J~~4~~ /7t/P - ~U . PHONE HOME S rQ / C7 BUSINESS g ~ S - Co ~ 7 APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: (Number in, order of preference if more than one). Advisory Board of Health Planning Commission Civil Service Commission n Human Services Commission • Community Services Commission r1` (Serving Seniors & Disabled) Energy Awareness Commission Sister City International Human Rights Commission ~ Other Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory commission and why you are interested in serving: I ~ 6 !I c0 j Gtsi a~t~ ~il5 p,K.~ ~ u ~c i v"'1 a ~ c. a ~ii ~~~/+eS l<OP~ r'od h ~ ~+~T Comet ~:Jri~tJ r~J/ L~~~v S~ n?a ~iv~ 71,e ~ ~ Z ~ovn ~d raa s a! i h `ftu3 Qot»fnuh chi , /~i~.rGU~t , yGv ~u s~ ~ 4~ ~ • ~ ~ I,~~d ~.-,~u,I ~ ;use ~t~~~ a~ d 6~. ~ ~ d ti~w w~ -~j~~ _ F ~ .`T~t: 'S~ ~fcoKs~ irl~c~/u[~ /M1 a•r cunYr~ ~-fo ~ ~ocnn•C~c~.~ ,gc,S~Nr'~~i CIVIC'','' PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITYES: !""o~nn ~ R- R ~ c.lti~te ~/~rc.~LiE. REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) ~~l~l~1A•z+1 kl're~f,U~/Z - ~~A~~i?iLl~! b,~ ~oa.Y ~ , /S~Jo~~r~~1 ~~~~T OCCUPATION: ~?'2bcT /~c~Pr ~ trer~~'~2 ~r~c~~~_ C?~.~ir ,G~,e~ c Return to City Manager's office, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, . MN 55423. Please complete in black ink or typewriter. CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM . ~J. ~ NAME Last ~ / First ~p ~/Q y ~ MiDddle HOME .ADDRESS /~J (Q ~ ~ d~~%t-~~ .~~~%l.~'.l~ ct-~`/Zc-~' . (~L v~;,7!` ~ PHONE Home ~"~G-- ~ y Business - APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: .Advisory Board of Health ~ Human Rights Commission Civil Service Commission Planning Commission Community Services Commission ~ Senior Citizens/Handicapped Energy Awareness Commission Commission Fourth of July Committee Sister City. International Other Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this adnvis'o-r'y commiss'/~ion and why yzou are intereste'd' in serving: ~-~%~"~?/~''~~1 . V.~'I.G~L'1 J 5 n?~C11~ ~ l ~'n,.~~~-tZrt ~j //,Z. ~~GCjz~ ..~'~~G~~-P~?~(" Fo2P-?.~~ v ~ ~ , c~ , - yet ~ ~~l ~',~if1b . ~~~~l Q't . Z"~liL~` G~/I / ~?rL,-~,. ~,E~~ ,t ~rl ~ ~yvc~ • v, CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVh~T,IES: U U ~ ~n ~ R NC S OPTIONAL OCCUPATION : ~l ~'/(~~>G~i~ ~~/Lrc.•~1~/: ~ U?-~ ~ ~~6i~i~-Lr ~ ~ G ~ Return to City Managers Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, NIIJ 55423 Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter • CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM NAME ~i 1m~s 1Qa~n~ P,n~.rQ Last - First Middle HOME ADDRESS ~p ~ o~ / (p ~ h ~ v~ PHONE Home Business - - APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Adv' rv Roard of Health Human Ris~hts Commission i cPrvicP rr~ission - ~ ~Planning Commission ~ ) (Community services ~ommi,~ssion ~ senior uiLi2ensihd~~uicapped F~ergy Awareness scion Commission Fourth of July Committee Sister City International Other Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this advisory commission and why you are interested in serving: , ~irri~ ~I ~P ~'2.!'' /J IY)~3 iY17) P.~~ m 1~ial-,~,~` ~h-e .r~~S~'` mss , ~h ~ ~h~e~ tl~~ ~.er<z{/Q-ems c©m~~rs~~r~~i~,~ Q,~ ~r~ ;c y, / ~j /v ~l~j~ /.r~ ~'~V a ve~l~ m~~~- ef~~ CIVIC, FR~ES~TO~AL ~Q~OMMONITY A~TIV~~ES ~"a N eJ .Z 4J©C(jc,~ ~ l l /-f e, ~O S ~ f? • ~e gG~ ! 12i.+ ,~lp~sc~ ~'~vr2~~ ~~Q~ hea' ~ ~ ra ~~ph~ . REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) OCC1lPATION :~oO7?Q I'1'1 Ct . ~e r Q.yI~ ~i~-e~ - IG2.i7 C2~ f~ /e n'1 C,Zr ~Y~f ink ~2~1'0 2, i Return to City Manager's Office, b700 Portland Ave., Richfield, NW 55u23 Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter i 1' 4 - - - ` r ~ / CITY OF RICHFIELD, MTNNESOTA .Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 291 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Request To~Permit Outside Liquor Sales at Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant Council Members: On July 14, 1986 the city received a request from Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant to permit outdoor sales of liquor in the parking lot area of their restaurant at 7717 Nicollet Avenue South on the evening of Saturday, August. 2, 1986. The request is for the hours from 9:00 p.m., on August 2nd, to 1:00 a.m., on August 3rd. The event is in connection with the 10th Anniversary Celebration of Chi Chi's Restaurant. Sales would be confined to a tent area which Chi Chi's has been permitted to erect on the date noted. LEGAL BACKGROUND Chi Ghi's currently has a valid on-sale liquor license for their business at the above location. Under the terms of Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.06, Subd. 12,(5), sales are generally limited•to the "compact and contiguous space" for which. the license has been issued. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that the City Council may grant permission for on-sale liquor sales for-the space immediately adjoining the "compact and contiguous space" for which the license was originally granted. STAFF REVIEW Based on a review of this request by the Public Safety Department and the City Attorney's office, the following conditions are suggested as a stipulation to the permit which has been requested. 1) The applicant has agreed to supply the city with an insurance binder indicatin that their ublic and 9 P liability insurance extends into the parking lot where the party will be conducted. The city will be named as an additional insured. 2) All food preparation will be done in the kitchen and catered to the outside parking lot. No food will be prepared in the parking lot. In addition, the applicant i • will be responsible for the collection of any and all trash in the parking lot. The applicant has also indicated that the tent to be used for this• party will be constructed of a flame retardant material. 3) .The applicant has__agreed to provide additional security in. the parking lot to prevent anyone attending the party from leaving the area with alcohol and also to prevent any non-invited guests from wandering into the designated party area. Finally, the security personnel will be responsible for controlling the level of noise to reduce the possibility of any noise violation complaints from s~irrounding neighbors.. 4) To reduce the possibility of any traffic and parking problems, the applicant has agreed to place the tent in the northeast corner of their parking lot, adjacent to the fence that separates their parking lot from the parking lot owned by the Best Company. The applicant has also agreed to inform the Best Company, with whom they currently have a parking lease agreement, that additional parking may be required for this gathering. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to close the drive through between their parking lot and the Best Company parking lot and to limit the access between the two lots to pedestrians. This will reduce the possibility of anyone being injured by a vehicle. i I In addition to the above noted conditions, the Public Safety Department would reserve the right to order outside liquor sales to cease immediately if, in the opinion of the Public Safety De artment an roblem seemed to be develo in with this i P ~ Y P P 9 activity. The Public Safety Department would also reserve the right to order operations ceased if there was an apparent violation of Richfield City Code 10.02, related to noise control and regulation. A permit fee in the amount of $200 has been negotiated by the city staff and the applicant to cover costs of monitoring this activity if the permit is granted by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION d hat an ctivit such as the one It should be emphasize t a y requested here is viewed by staff as an unusual situation. In this case, the party at Chi Chi's represents that restaurant's Tenth Anniversary celebration. This is not the type of activity that City staff would look favorably upon on any basis but a very infrequent occasion. Based upon the fact that this is a one-time activity heavily regulated by the series of stipulations outlined in this City Council letter, it is recommended that the City Council grant a permit for the on-sale liquor sales requested, subject to the following staff stipulations: J-.. 1) Chi Chi's submit to the City an insurance certificate naming the City as an additional insurer as evidence of proper insurance coverage for the activity. 2) All food preparation be limited to .the restaurant kitchen facilities. 3) Chi Chi's is responsible for the immediate collection of any trash in the parking .lot and adjacent areas. 4) The tent be constructed of an approved flame retardant material. 5) Chi Chi's provide adequate security personnel to supervise alcohol related party activity and attendance, prevent noise violations and monitor auto and. pedestrian traffic. 6) That the access between Chi .Chi's and Best lots be limited to pedestrian traffic only. 7) Best Company be informed of the possibility of a need for additional parking. 8) Chi Chi's pay a permit fee of $200.00 to cover City costs' associated with granting such permit. Respect ully Submi ted, l~ L. vich Acti g City Manager SLD/sae `i s~ a , CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 290 Agenda July 28,1986 The Honorable Mayo r and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield ~ Subject: Agreement For Professional Services with Bather- Ringrose-Wolsfeld-Jarvis-Gardner, Inc. (BRW), ILN Redevelopment Project Council Members: Staff is seeking authorization from. the City Council to continue a contractual relationship with the BRW consulting firm in the ILN. On July 21, the HRA approved the new contract. In April of 1985, the HRA and City Council entered into a contract with BRW. That contract retained their services to undertake a comprehensive redevelopment study of the ILN. All of that work has been completed and the money expended. The funds were provided through the HRA Capital Revolving Fund. PROPOSED NEW CONTRACT Attached is a copy of a proposed new contract which identifies two tasks to be performed. Under Task One, BRW would provide technical assistance to staff for special studies. An illustration of this type of activity would be the study of an' interim solution for the intersection of 78th Street on the east side of Lyndale Avenue. BRW is also studying interim measures to reduce traffic circulation problems along 77th Street east of Lyndale Avenue identified by the residents. Another farm of assistance included under Task One would be in the assessment of the impact of development proposals on the ILN redevelopment plan. This type of activity is illustrated by the work being done to assess the impact of the CDR development on the Phase I public improvements and to address the concerns of the residents of the-ILN area relating to design of the public improvements. Funding for Task One would not exceed $12,000. Task Two calls for the formulation of guidelines and strategies for the redevelopment of the area between 77th Street and I494. As a part of the guidelines and strategies, an illustrative plan may be prepared. This would assist staff and the HRA and Council in envisioning actual development concepts. It is important to address this matter and have some well defined Y / . concepts in place prior to the expiration of the interim ordinance in March, 1987. Task Two would be funded at an amount not to exceed $14,000. SUMMARY This contract would make it possible to continue to deal with redevelopment planning issues. Work must continue to make it possible for the CDR development to proceed. It is appropriate to note that work under this contract would proceed on a project by project basis only after authorization by staff. In the motion adopted by the HRA which. approved the contract and the expenditure of funds from the Capital Fund, they requested the City Council to share in the cost of this contract." However, it is staff's position that the revolving fund of the. HRA Capital Fund is the proper revenue source for this contract. Additionally, the City operating budget does not have funds set aside for this purpose.. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and Acting City Manager to execute the contract. It is further recommended that funding for the contract be limited to the HRA Capital Fund. Resp ctf lly Sul~nitted, tea' Steve L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD/sae J. V , C1~1~ 1 PLANNING ! TRANSPORTATIONlENGINEERMIC / ARCHITECTURE. Agreement For Professional Services This AGREEMENT entered into by: the CLIENT: City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 and the CONSULTANT: BENNETT-RINGROSE-WOLSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 55415 for the following PROJECTS: Technical Assistance for ILN Redevelopment Project Implementation WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CONSULTANT did work with the City Council of the City of Richfield, the HRA, and the ILN Task Force in studying the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) commercial area and did prepare a redevelopment plan which formed the basis for the Redevelopment Project which was ultimately adopted by the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS,~the CLIENT desires the provision of certain technical assistance and other services in conjunction with the implementation of the ILN Redevelopment Porject~as heretofore adopted by the City, and WHEREAS,- the CLIENT desires that the CONSULSTANT provide such assistance and services in order to ensure continuity in this major project, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the: mutual covenants and promises contained , herein, the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT agree as follows: The CONSULTANT shall provide professional services for the PROJECT in accordance with the Terms and Conditions as set forth below under Article II entitled "Services" and The CLIENT shall compensate the CONSULTANT in accordance with the Terms and Conditions as set forth below under Article III entitled "Compensation." 1 ~i . I TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT ARTICLE I. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. CHANGE IN SCOPE OF THE PROJECT Should the CONSULTANT'S scope of services change substantially from that outlined in this AGREEMENT or if work is suspended or delayed by the CLIENT for more than-three months, then this AGREEMENT may be subject to re-negotiation. B. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT may be terminated by either party upon ten days written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. In the event of termination due to the fault of parties other than the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall be paid his compensation for services per- . formed to termination date, including Reimbursable Expenses. C. TRANSFER OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is not transferable by either party to a non-named party without the written consent of the other party. D. CONFLICT OF INTEREST No member, officer, or employee of the CONSULTANT, or its designees or agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the PROJECT is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities, who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the PROJECT, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or -the proceeds thereof for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under this AGREEMENT. E. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - In connection with the execution of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall take affirmative actions to insure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. i 2 Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment, or recruitment advertising; layoff, or termination; rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and selection for training including apprenticeship. F. MATERIALS OWNERSHIP.- All materials produced under the terms of this AGREEMENT are the property of the CLIENT. The term "Materials" includes all documents, data, reports, studies, and maps. 3 • ~ _ Y ARTICLE II SERVICES A. SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT'S scope of services shall consist of providing Professional Services to the CLIENT for the implementation of the ILN Redevelopment Project. The Services shall include the following work tasks: TASK 1: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL STUDIES IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ~ Objective: To provide technical assistance to the City staff in deve- loping special studies for the redevelopment project area and to assist staff in the evaluation and assessment of specific developer .proposals. a. Prepare special detailed studies, at the direction of City staff, of the redevelopment project area in order to assess develo ment traffic circulation and other P > impacts. b. Review and evaluate developer proposals, at the request of . City staff, for the redevelopment project area and make recommendations regarding their impact on the redevelop- ment plan. TASK 2: PREPARATION OF FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS Objective: To develop guidelines and establish strategies for encouraging the redevelopment of the "future redevelopment areas" south of West 77th Street, which are not part of the Phase I improve- ments, as designated in the ILN Redevelopment Study. - a. Review and evaluate all currently proposed or contemplated development plans for the future redevelopment areas, as requested by City staff. _ - b. Develop preliminary prototypical concept framework plans and guidelines for the future redevelopment areas. This task may include the preparation of typical illustrative plans, as required, to help illustrate the anticipated . development densities and locations. c. Review the recommended framework plans and guidelines with City staff, all affected City agencies, the ILN Task Force, and interested developers and select a preferred framework - plan and guideline. - 4 d. Assist the City staff in preparing implementation strate- gies for the framework plan for the future redevelopment areas including design guidelines, zoning ordinances, and developer requests-for-proposals, as required. B. PRODUCTS .Products for each task shall be established at the time the CLIENT gives authorization to proceed. C. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time of performance for all tasks shall be established at the time the CLIENT gives authorization to proceed. D. PROJECT PERSONNEL The CONSULTANT shall assign Arijs Pakalns as Project Manager and Donald Ringrose as Principal-In-Charge. The assigned personnel shall be primarily responsible for the project development and presentations and shall not be replaced unless a change is approved in writing by the CLIENT. E. MAINTENANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS The CONSULTANT shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting • records and other evidence pertaining to cost incurred in connection with work and services performed hereunder. The CONSULTANT shall make such material available at its office at all reasonable times during the contract period and for three years from the date of final payment under this agreement for inspection by the CLIENT and copies thereof shall be furnished upon request. The CLIENT may also request originals of drawings or the text material. 5 . ARTICLE III COMPENSATION A. COMPENSATION The cost of providing professional consultant services as set forth under ARTICLE II shall be as described below, unless additional amounts are approved in writing by the CLIENT. It is understood and agreed that the CLIENT must authorize the CONSULTANT to proceed with each task. TASK 1: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL STUDIES IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Compensation for services provided under Task 1 shall be on an hourly basis and the total amount shall not exceed $12,000.00 TASK 2: PREPARATION OF FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS Compensation for services provided under Task 2 shall be on an hourly basis and the total amount shall not exceed $14,000.00. 6. TERMS OF COMPENSATION Compensation for services provided on an hourly basis shall be according to the hourly rates by employee classification plus Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses include photographic and printing expenses at cost. The CLIENT will be billed according to the following hourly rates by employee classification. Principal $95.00 Sr. Associate 67.50 Associate 62.50 Sr. Professional- 55.00 Professional II 47.50 Professional I 37.50 Supervisor/Sr. Technician 35.00 . - Technician III 32.50 Technician II 27.50 Technician I 19.00 These hourly rates are in effect through March 31, 1987. During the month - of March, 1987, the CONSULTANT shall file with the CLIENT revised hourly rates which will become effective starting with April 1, 1987. C. INVOICE CERTIFICATION Each invoice shall contain a certification by an officer of the company . stating that the invoice is correct and that payment has not been received previously. _ 6 D. TERMS OF PAYMENT The CONSULTANT will bill the CLIENT monthly for work completed the previous.. month. The CLIENT agrees to pay all invoices in full within 45 days after receiving them. This AGREEMENT executed this day of CLIENT: By: By: By~ By: CONSULTANT: By: gy; _ 7 r CITY. OF RICHFIELD Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 289 ,Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Cour~il City of .Richfield Subject: Amended Offstreet Parking Permit Request at 7640 Cedar Avenue Council Members: 'i The owners of the Inn Hotel at 7640 Cedar Avenue South have applied for a building permit to construct a trash enclosure and handicap ramp on the north side of their existing building. On the attached drawings, the existing and proposed improvements are indicated. The :proposed addition would require the elimination of one existing 'parking stall. The city approved an offstreet parking permit in 1980 in conjunction with a special use permit. This action allowed the expansion of the existing hotel which added a 76 seat restaurant and 12 additional guest rooms onto the existing hotel on the site. Parking on the site was increased from 73 parking spaces to 89 spaces. City offstreet parking guidelines indicated that 131 parking spaces should be provided on the site. The council approved less parking stalls because of the shared usage between the hotel and restaurant and because a substantial part of the hotel clientele arrive from the airport via hotel van or taxi and do not require parking. Staff is not aware of any parking problems on the site. The owners wish to eliminate one parking stall which would reduce the total parking from 89 to 88. It is staff's opinion that the loss of one parking stall would not be detrimental. The proposal would result in the correction of an existing trash problem on the site. The owners have been cited for not having a large enough trash dumpster and an enclosure for the trash dumpster. The proposal would correct this problem and provide a handicap ramp which would improve handicap accessibility to meeting rooms in the facility. The ramp would be adjacent to the trash enclosure. w . / / V ~ RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the council approve the revised offstreet parking layout for the site by passing the attached resolution. Respe tfully s~ mitted, - / , t~ L . De~ch Acting City Manager SLD:sb ti RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION N0. 8b-6 THE INN 7640 CEDAR AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,. as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in Off-Street Parking application No. 86-6 is hereby approved. ~ 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of July, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk = ` _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ - - ,mss fe 1 I U.-"~' ya1 V r` ~ {OOM1 ~l f. / j '1i ~ d^'}I' l ~ ExfsTf~[D 51 ~s fMP p,y ~ M . ~ ` ~ 1 91 iy. ~ _ _ , ~ it v ..wl~, i r ` , GCpA4 V .l -x~ 1 _ _ _ -n. w tr wtSY poR P~aN v ~L RIiH~ i~o ~ ~.,1 1 P V ja,N ~y - ~a Y ~1 H I ~ ~ I[I'r . } c ,v uawrHti cN~G l~ D w ~.w~a y , "F ' ` t s I ~ NA~,1 N!'V 141 jE,FPOM1 S ~ w! V R pREST~wwlf I R _ IT T. •9• I µA~ G E ~ A` ~ P ~ Q.,.N as ~~THM.nN s oo` }~~",1St _ ~YI~ PAY fir- y1TE 400 ~ ~ ~ <-r ~~~o.. ,~{,(V~~jy1! ~ ~`I,jNU~ J~ 0 ai ts.f~eO ~ b" GGppK. ~It~.1~E5 "~P R.~GF-1-1E - ~ s~ . ~ ~ Vt _ ~A L' ` =~y P Y Yt~'~ ~W tf. f ~:t t• ~+t 1t ~ ~ x t; T t ry~ G ~ ~s w• ~L ODR p~RN t., ..,_-yi ~ ` I fir' , \ ~ ~ i . Y R..K- G AH 1~ ~ t~ ~ ~I~t MN. ~ _ it .r T IL E atU .r ~ ~ _ ~.w'- 'x'11 P4AN 2 ' FK~o ~ N ~ p~AN N p' ~ ~ ~ G. { Yr ~t ~Mw° 1aa~a ~ wY^ iio `y' 4 T. A ~ ~ ~ P ~ t,,...JEirI^~ M aa, rocooa a ya~.sttt t,Di~ v~Y"no t ..°.r7 = .~.~~t,« .~t°~ USED .s ts.~+ao ~ 'A~ P` ~t~l.lt..fES~tp RdL~~ IE~-D , ' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. .288 Agenda July 28,..1986 The. Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield .Subject: ILN Project, Right-of-Way Improvements To 77th and 78th Streets, East of Lyndale Avenue Council Members: This letter requests the City Council to take action to authorize activity which could result in the installation of interim traffic control measures at two areas within the ILN Redevelopment Project. One area is along 77th Street at its intersection with Garfield and Harriet Avenues, and the second is at 78th Street and its intersection with Lyndale Avenue. BACKGROUND In November, 1985, a Phase I plan for right-of-way improvements for the ILN Redevelopment Project was approved by the HRA and City Council. The schedule at that time anticipated the city would begin to purchase property for the right-of-way improvements when CDR began-the construction of their office building in June, 1986. Construction of the right-of-way improvements would begin in the Spring of 1987 when CDR initiated work on the hotel development. CDR, of course, is not proceeding on that original schedule. However, the development east of Lyndale Avenue is proceeding. Richfield-Bloomington Honda is complete and the Hampton Inn should be under construction in August or September. Construction should be completed in about 9 to 12 months. With development east of Lyndale Avenue proceeding, but with the density and tax increment cash flow not yet determined for a revised CDR concept (a revised CDR concept is not yet available), it was appropriate to identify interim traffic control measures. The measures were to be consistent with the ILN Redevelopment Plan Phase I, cost effective, provide protection to the residential area north of 77th Street, help establish the desired permanent traffic patterns, and minimize or eliminate further problems. /i~" On May 12 and May 27, the Council discussed interim traffic - control measures which could be provided to give relief to the anticipated intensification of existing problems at .the intersection of 78th and Lyndale Avenue with the construction of the Hampton Inn. Related to this consideration was a request made by some of the residents north of 77th Street to eliminate or significantly reduce commercial related traffic on their residential streets. At the May 27th meeting., three alternatives for 78th Street identified as A, B, and C were discussed. Each of the three offered a different option for 78th Street and its intersection with Lyndale Avenue. Each of the three called for a diverter at the intersection of Harriet Avenue with 77th Street and conversion of Garfield Avenue to a one way. Alternative C was selected by the Council as the most desirable solution (a copy is attached)... It included the conversion of 78th Street to a one-way east bound, as well as the measures noted above, but further study of the Garfield Avenue solution was re nested q ' because of concern that one-way signs would not be effective. A request was made by the Council that staff evaluate alternative interim improvements which would reduce or eliminate commercial traffic on Garfield as well as Harriet Avenues. Measure s to mitigate the other land use conflicts between the residential and commercial areas related to noise and vision were also to be studied. REVISED PLANS Attached to this letter are three different stages prepared by BRW for the Garfield/Harriet Avenue area. The third stage is the full implementation of the Phase I plan as designed by BRW. Implementation of Stage 1 only at this time would be appropriate. The Stage 1 plan, Figure 1, represents the minimum plan which would accomplish the established goals while preserving the integrity of the ILN Study Plan. Stage 1 would require, in addition to the construction of the roadway diversion at the Harriet Avenue and West 77th Street intersection, the acquisition and clearing of two residential properties north of West 77th Street. The two properties to be purchased would be 7645 Garfield and 7644 Harriet. It would also provide for the construction of a residential loop road between Garfield Avenue and Harriet Avenue. This option would totally separate commercial and residential traffic and it would present some opportunities for screening the commercial district from the residential neighborhood. Although a sound-barrier type wall, as suggested in the ILN Study, could be constructed for a portion of the residential area, it is recommended that the sound-barrier wall not be constructed with this option. It would be appropriate in a later stage when a more complete and therefore more effective wall can i ~ + be installed. Some landscaping-improvements, including screening, however, could be implemented as part of Stage 1. Stage l can be implemented independently of any other improvements in the Redevelopment Project area,-and it would be a viable option even if no further redevelopment activities or improvements are carried out. The Stage 2 plan, Figure 2, illustrates further improvements which could be implemented in addition to the Stage 1 improvements discussed above. The Stage 2 plan would require the acquisition of one more residential property north of West 77th Street and west of Garfield Avenue, as well as the commercial property north of West " 77th Street at Lyndale Avenue and a 24 foot strip from the properties east of the Hampton Lnn south of West 77th Street. The additional improvements would include the widening of West 77th Street between Harriet Avenue and Lyndale Avenue, the construction of the sound-barrier wall north of West 77th Street, and the landscaping of the buffer strip area. This option would provide the maximum traffic, visual, and noise separation between the residential and commercial areas. The residential property at the corner of West 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue could be redeveloped for commercial use. The widening of West 77th Street east of Lyndale Avenue, as shown in Figure 2, should be implemented only in conjunction with the widening of West 77th Street west of Lyndale Avenue. These two actions are interdependent and one should not be carried out without the other. The Stage 3 Plan which would be the optimum plan, represents Phase I of the ILN Redevelopment Plan and includes all the improvements described in Stages 1 and 2, as well as the widening of Lyndale Avenue. This plan accomplishes all the goals established for the Redevelopment Project area, including the goals for the residential neighborhood north of West 77th Street. A further stage, not illustrated as part of this study, would be the extension of West 77th .Street to the east through the City garage property, as was recommended in the ILN Study Long-Range Plan. This stage would require acquisition of additional properties east of Harriet Avenue and the construction of a new roadway through the City garage area. SUMMARY The three options represent staged improvements of the ILN Redevelopment Project Phase I Plan. They are all viable options with each option accomplishing more of the established goals than the previous option. Correspondingly, each option would be more complex and more costly to implement than the foregoing option. Since Stages 2 and 3 depend on many factors which are currently .undetermined, no accurate cost estimate can be given at this time for implementing those options. A cul-du-sac was an alternative to the loop street for Garfield Avenue. However, a cul-du-sac is not desirable from a street maintenance point of view, especially snow plowing. Additionally, Land would still be needed for a landscape. buffer necessitating the. shifting. of the cul-du-sac to the north away from. 77th Street. It would also require the partial acquisition -from at least four residential properties. COSTS ~ . The desired interim right-of-way solutions fo-r the three areas are as follows. Alternative C with the 'median at 78th Street and Lyndale Avenue, one-way east bound traffic on 78th Street, and the diverter at Harriet. and 77th Street;. and, Stage 1 Figure 1 with the loop road and landscaped buffer strip. The approximate total cost for .each of the two solutions is estimated as follows: Alternate C Stage 1 Total $60,000 $288,030 $348,030 The costs include design and construction and for Stage 1 acquisition of the two properties and relocation benefits as well. The funds for these activities would be provided by the sale of long term tax increment bonds. Evenson-Dodge has estimated that with the tax increment from only the Hampton Inn, it could be possible to support a bond issue of approximately $1.2 million at slightly over 7~ interest. The net proceeds, which would be available for project related activities, would be approximately $935,000. However, approximately $115,000 of this amount would be paid to the Hampton Inn for easements specified in the developers agreement and $290,000 would be returned to the HRA to reimburse the Capital Fund for the cost of ILN activities since 1983. An approximate balance of $181,970 would remain after the $348,000 was expended. To accomplish the long term bond sale, a portion of the short-term three year bonds sold in December, 1985 would be recalled and reissued. Given the nature of the improvements, their location and relatively small size, it would be appropriate to combine them into one project. Cost economies could also be achieved. Assuming the Hampton Inn proceeds, the actual construction of the improvements could be initiated in the spring of 1987 and would require about one month. Prior to construction, final plans and specifications are needed for bidding, the two residential properties at 7645 Garfield and 7644 Harriet must be appraised, acquired and the occupants relocated. The Hampton. Inn project is significant in terms of generating greater traffic and congestion, as well as a source of funds for a solution. Once that projects' footings and foundations are under construction and staff is reasonably assured that it will be completed, it would be appropriate to initiate the following-actions: 1) Order OSM and Associates to prepare detail plans and specifications for the traffic control measures. identified in Alternative C and Step 1 Figure 1, 2) Direct SRW to prepare a landscape plan for the area between the loop street and 77th Street. ~i The cost of this work would be approximately $10,000. 3) Order appraisals of the two properties at a cost of $500. When this work is completed, (within four to six weeks following the commencement of the Hampton Inn construction) I~ a report could be made to the Council before proceeding further. It is critical to time the ex enditure of these funds with P the progress in the Hampton Inn project, since it will be providing the source of revenues to complete the city contracted work. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications, landscape plans, and appraisals of the property once the construction of the. footings and foundation for the Hampton Inn Project has been initiated.. Res~c fully bmitted, , is Acti g City Manager SAD/sae ~ South 8~ I ~ ( 8 One-WaY Street ~~'j Optbn I OMerebn ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ - - ~ - Alternative west 77th Street C . , ~ - - - - -I - ~ Roadway r _ ~ ~ Reconstruction ~ _JIIIIIIUIIIIIillllll~ =1 ~ ~ I--=-= ~ ~ - III ` , 1 P?oposed I _ ~ , ' Hampton Inn ' i i west n v2 stmt t ~ ~ ! C _ I l I I I I I I U ~ I I I I I I I I - 'r• - ~ \ j' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1LN ~ K'~r ~e1h ~ ~ _ ~ Stud velopment so-eet G o! Richlie(d. Minnesota ~weYb \ ~c rculatlon tY Y ~.J j ~ . ~ O ti4ga V North Figure W ~ C~ - :II~{{II1 p p Irt • ( ~ Itl~ll' \ t ~ ~ # . I ~ ~ U ~ i I 1 • • f----- - 1 ~ - . - - ~ - - - - i- 1 ~ a 1 O- - ~ _ - I - ~ _ ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 !r w !r v 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ` - ~ ~ d ti ~ Y West 77111 SIrt,Cl ~ ' I _ J ~ ~~IIII'Il~lll~ 1 ~ ~ IpMMy ~ 1 ~ n .r .r ~ _ 1 •t 1 ~ ur - ~ ProPOaed - 1 1 Hampton Inn - - - - C ~ i i I-- ~ (I I I 1 Sta e 1 I LN ® O 9 1 W. 77th Street (East Half) Re¦development "°"h FI`9~`e RsUminary Design St ri.a~Y i I zIl Io la I ,I I. I do to F~. ~•:<<~ • City of Richfield. Minnesota ;~k:.~:;°~;~;~.:: °~•.A::~• • . ~ ~ U ~ ~ - a ~ - I-- ---1 ~ I- a r - _ a ~ Redevela~ment I yt Parcel 3S F •r •r •r I ~ ~ - i ) ~ _ J Y ~ Y C i r tr ~ West 771h Slrcrol F a - - k ' - - Y~ ~ - - - ~ - \ - ~ - _ ~ _ r - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ 1 ~IIIIIIII,~~ , ~ Redsvebpment Parcel ~ ~ - L ' - J r Proposed r •r .r •r .i ~ Hampton Inn - ` - - _ I I i Stage 2 I LN ~ O W. 77th Street (East Half) Redevelopment Norlh Figure Prsllminary Deelyn p '.I) IO IO I BI IO P) 4) )i 'l i). ,..sa.:::~: r-#- ~lii~11' City of Richfield. Minnesota w..„,.,..„,.~..,. - N• N I ~ ' ~ ~ I lU1 ~ ~u ~ ~ f- - 1 C I ~ - _ - - - - - - f. -r a Redevetgayppment ' Parcbl i - I ~ - ~ ` I - ~ - f--- r w•+ frt rr_ w• fry w• r~ _ r ~ ws' YI L >v1 d ~ ~ >i~ ~ Y I I ~I _ s I ~ r k Wc~sl 77th SUa~t ~ ~ / ~ i~_ - ~ ` \ it ~II ~ ~ Rsdevebpment Parcel I I I ~ I I ~ ~ ELI ~ I ~ I ~ I~_ ~ r ~ ~ r ~ _ ' r-~ ~ ~ J ~ Proposed o w w•~fr fr fr v rrl frl H• •o • - _ - - - - ->t-it---. - , Hampton Inn . _ . I I I - - _ Stage 3 I LN ~ 03 W. 77th Street (East Half) ~ Redevelopment North Figure Preliminary Deelgn Study I I I~ I I A7 ~.i 0 p 2U JO 10 50 60 )0 BO 90 k 0 f~. r ' ;It1~1V ~ City of Richfield. Minnesota ,a..~.,, C`~ l CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 287 _ _ _ Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield ~ Subject: Council Discussion of Regulations Related to Itinerant Sales Council Members: On June 23, 1986, Mayor Hamilton received the attached letter from the Richfield Chamber of Commerce requesting that the council strengthen the existing ordinances related to itinerant sales, or prohibit such sales within the community. .The Public Safety Director and the City Attorney have researched this matter and it is presen ed here for council discussion. BACKGROUND Existing regulations are provided under Richfield City Ordinance Code 6.15, which deals with transient merchants, Ordinance Code 6.17, which deals with peddlers and solicitors, and sections of Ordinance Code 6.01, which deals with various food product sales. i The attached memorandum from the City Attorney's office identifies areas in which all three current code provisions might be strengthened. Basically, there are five issues which must be considered in relation to this matter: 1. Total prohibition of all itinerant sales by individual types of merchants is not permissible. 2. Some forms of solicitation may be protected by the inter- state commerce and free trade provisions of the Constitution. ~ 3. Agriculture products which are raised and sold by the producer are exempt from licensure requirements under state statute. 4. Food products for sale by a vendor who has obtained proper licensure from the State Department of Agriculture are exempt from-local licensure requirements. 5. Generally, peddling or solicitations by religious or non- rofit r o anizations ma not be restric p 9 Y ted PEDDLER/SOLICITOR- As outlined in the attached legal review of this_issue, it would appear that the council can take actions to provide more stringent control of peddler .and solicitation sales within the community. Both of these. practices involve door-to-door sales within the. residential areas of our community. A peddler sells products which he carries for immediate conveyance to purchasers. Solicitors take orders for future delivery of goods or services. The two types of sales should be addressed independently because of the nature in-which the products are conveyed to the purchaser.. It would appear that the city could prohibit peddlers within the residential area of the community, but such a prohibition against solicitors might be invalidated by the free- trade provisions if the products sold are transported across state lines for direct delivery to the purchaser. The attached legal memorandum discusses the "Green River" approach to control of such business activities. By revising current ordinance requirements related to the regulation of peddlers and solicitors, the "Green River" approach would generally allow ;prohibition. of peddlers operating with the community. Solicitors could be prohibited, under this concept, from residential. properties on which the property owner has posted a sign prohibiting such solicitation. . TRANSIENT MERCHANT In reviewing the issues related to the transient merchant, the city has examined ordinance code provisions from other communities which are more restrictive than the current Richfield code, and has also examined model regulations developed by the Minnesota League of Municipalities. The predominant transient merchandising activity in Richfield involves sale of seafood products and flowers. Currently the vendors of seafood products have state agriculture licenses which essentially excludes the city from imposing local licensure requirements. However, the state law does not exclude the city from controlling transient sales through zoning requirements. For example, St. Louis Park has adopted a zoning regulation which requires itinerant sales, except by special permit from the City Council, to be conducted in a permanent structure within a fixed location. Under current Richfield Ordinance Code, itinerant sales may be conducted in open lots with~the ermission f p o the property owner. This merchandisin 9 practice could clearly be modified by amending the existing zoning code. In addition, the licensure requirements for transient merchants within our community could be strengthened in relation to the licensure process itself. In this regard, the city has examined the ordinance code provisions used in Coon Rapids, which provides greater control over transient merchandise vendors, the products which are sold, and the manner in which such products are sold. RECOMMENDATION In examining the request .from the Chamber of Commerce, and reviewing our existing code requirements, it would appear that a number. of amendments to existing codes could be considered by the council which would be consistent with the request from the Chamber. Following council discussion of this issue and proper direction to the staff, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the .City Council direct the staff to take the following actions: 1. Develop an amendment to the existing ordinance code. regulation related to peddlers to prohibit unsolicited door-to-door sales within the residential community. 2. Develop an amendment to the existing ordinance code requirement related to solicitors to prohibit door-to door solicitation from residential properties in the community where posted notice prohibiting such sales exists. 3. Develop an amendment to the existing ordinance code related to transient merchants which requires such sales to be conducted in permanent structures at fixed locations within the community. 4. Strengthen all three of the foregoing ordinance code regulations in relation to control of vendors making such sales, control of products sold, and control of merchandising practices. 5. Develop an amendment to the existing zoning code require- ments related to outdoor sales. If council concurs with the staff recommendations, the. necessary code amendments could be prepared by the City Attorney's office and returned for initial council action on August 25, 1986. Any additional recommendations which arise from council discussion of this issue can also be incorporated into the City Attorney's proposed ordinance code amendments. Resp~ct ully Su itte , tev L. `Devich Acting City Manager SLD/sae R/CHF/ELD ~ r CHAMBER of COMMERCE 6637 Lyndale Av. So. Richfield. MN 55423 TelQphone: (f312) 866-5100 June 23, 19ts6 Mayor John llamilton City of Richfield n/UU Portland Avenue So~' Richfield, M:1 55423 Dear Mayor liamilton: At the June 18, 19Sb Board of Director's meeting of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, an issue concerning local transient merchants was discussed and a recommendation was made by the board that the City adopt a policy prohibiting transient merchants in Richfield. Richfield businesses-have to meet city codes,. pay taxes, observe sign ordinances and meet stringent health code regulations at a consid- erable investment and then have to compete with people that come in from outside of the city with little or no investment. The board requests that the Mayor, the City Council and the City Attorney review the existing Transient Merchant Ordinance and either prohibit or tighten up the requirements before a license be issued. . Sincerel~, la R. E strrand 'V Executive hector ~ v~ cc: City Council a,embers Clayton LeFevere Mark Johnson, Richfield Sun-Current MEMORANDUM T0: Thomas A. Morgan, Jr., Director of Public Safety, City of Richfield. FROM: Andrew Parker DATE: July 17, 1986 RE: Regulation of Itinerant'Merchants. INTRODUCTION This memorandum responds to your request for advice regarding the legal parameters of restricting itinerant merchants from engaging in business within the city limits of Richfield. There exist few' absolutes when discussing law in this area. Taken as a whole, decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis. BACKGROUND i ~I The law recognizes three distinct categories of itinerant .merchants - (1) peddlers or hawkers, (2) solicitors or canvassers, (3) transient merchants. An individual is a peddler if he travels about from place to place with no fixed place of business; carries with him merchandise he offers for sale, and not mere samples of such merchandise; sells his merchandise at the time he offers it for sale; delivers his merchandise at the time he consummates the sale; sells to the ultimate consumer and not to retail dealers. City of St. Paul v. Briggs, 85 Minn. 290, 88 N.W. 984 (1902). Solicitors and canvassers also travel from place to place but,`unike peddlers, they do not carry with them the merchandise they offer for sale. Solicitors take orders for merchandise to be delivered to the customer at some future date; often across state borders. It is the movement across borders which creates the legal distinction between soliciting an peddling by raising a constitutional question about interference .within interstate commerce. Transient merchants are those who lease or use a building, structure or vacant lot for the exhibition and sale of merchandise. Minn. Stat.;~§329.02-329.09 requires all peddlers to secure an annual license from each county in which they intend to do business. Minn. Stat. X329.099-329.17 requires the same for transient merchants. (Note that solicitors are not included in these statutes because of the state's awareness of a potential violation of .the commerce clause of the Constitution.) Cities also have the power to "restrain or license or regulate auctioneers, transient merchants, and dealers, hawkers, peddlers, solicitors and canvassers." Minn. Stat. X412.221(19) (1984). Nothing in the county licensing statutes are to be construed in such a way that limits or interferes with the regulatory power granted to cities. Minn. Stat. §329.06 (1984) and Minn. Stat. §329.15 (1984). -2- DISCUSSION It is not likely that cities may "regulate" itinerant business to the extent of prohibiting all such selling within its municipal limits. Though no cases have explicitly stated that such prohibition would be struck down, an Attorney General Opinion made it clear that the authority to "regulate" business does not permit entire prohibition of transient dealers from doing business within municipal boundaries. Op. Atty. Gen., 290-P (October 15, 1937). The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that Minn. Stat. §412.221(19) grants to cities for police purposes the right to apply licensing restrictions in order to protect buyers from imposition and fraud "but not to prohibit the business." State ex. rel. Cook v. Oates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 (1907)(where an ordinance licensing auctioneers was struck down)(emphasis added); see also, Orr v. City of Rochester, 258 N.W. 569 (Minn. 1935). There exists several alternatives to complete prohibition of itinerant selling. The rest of this memorandum will describe four of these alternatives and briefly discuss the strengths and i weaknesses of each. ~ ~I Regulatory Licensing Perhaps the most often used approach in regulating itinerant merchants is by adopting licensing ordinances similar to what Richfield currently has in effect. In order to increase -3- regulation on itinerant merchants the City may wish to strengthen their licensing ordinances. The Coon Rapids ordinances, provided in your correspondence, are a viable alternative for increasing _ _ regulatory requirements and deterring transient selling. In changing current ordinances, the City must be careful not to- differentiate amongst transient vendors or base restrictions on residency. State v. Saahmidt, 159 N.W.2d 113 (Minn. 1968). In addition, licensing of transient sellers cannot be applied to solicitors or canvassers because of the already mentioned potential commerce clause violations. Licensing, however, is a tested method of regulation and has a sound basis in law whereas many other forms of regulation are yet untested. Green River Ordinance A second alternative, known as the Green River approach, makes it a nuisance to go upon private property for the purpose of peddling or soliciting orders for goods or merchandise unless an expressed or implied invitation to call is tended to the seller by the property owner. Such an ordinance has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court and the majority of state courts which have passed upon its validity. Minnesota, however, has yet to rule on a Green River ordinance, but is likely to endorse the majority position due to the similarity of relevant. clauses in the Minnesota Constitution. The Green River approach can be used to greatly strengthen a city's regulation of itinerant sellers because it reaches both -4- ` peddlers and solicitors. Moreover, it absolutely prohibits. racti p ces which it defines. The primary problem with the Green River approach is that its legality is still in question in Minnesota though it is likely to be upheld. Another problem is that it does not apply to all types of selling by peddlers or solicitors. The ordinance restricts a common peddler or solicitor from uninvited door to door selling.. However, a distinction has been drawn between the seller of ordinary gadgets and notions and route deliveries of "necessary but perishable goods" by certain businesses such as bakeries. Excelsior Bakinq Company v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 138 (1956)(where the court found that a baking company may make a series of uninvited initiatory visits to householders in an urban residential area in an effort to establish a regular route service without being considered a nuisance under the city ordinance). A standard Green River ordinance also does not apply to soliciting which has as its purpose the sale of personal services such as insurance. Gregory v. Clausen, 99 N.W.2d 883 (S.D. 1959). Moreover, the ordinance does not apply to peddling or soliciting at business establishments. Business establishments have been ruled to have an implied invitation attached to their business offices. Day v. Klein, 82 So.2d 831 (1955). Nor does the ordinance apply to house-to-house solicitation by religious groups or those solicitin for charitable or anizations because of First g g Amendment protections. Finally, and perhaps most significant, the ordinance does not affect transient merchants. -5- Modified Green River Approach A third alternative to regulating itinerant merchants is a modified Green River approach. This. alternative prohibits peddling or soliciting from house-to-house where the householder has posted a sign indicating that he does not wish to be disturbed by door-to-doomssalesmen. Such an ordinance leaves it up to the householder to prohibit peddlers and solicitors by affirmative action and: then makes an offense to violate the householder's expressed wish. This modified Green River approach, unlike the standard Green River ordinance, applies to solicitors selling goods in interstate commerce as well as solicitors of the sale of services. Moreover, it appears that since the purpose of the ordinance is merely to enforce the wishes of the owner not to be disturbed, such signs can be used by businesses to prohibit peddlers and solicitors from creating disturbances in the work place. Though the modified Green River approach is not a blanket prohibition, it does close many of the loopholes of standard Green River ordinances. St. Louis Park Ordinance The alternatives discussed thus far have not dealt with the regulation of transient merchants as defined in Richfield Ordinance Code §6.15. Though it is plausible to simply strengthen the current licensing requirement of such merchants, -6- ~ /.1 C it may be more effective to require all such merchants to sell their wares out of a wholly enclosed structure. St. Louis Park applies both restrictions. All transient _ _ merchants doing business in the City must be licensed. In addition, the city zoning ordinances require all businesses to be conducted within an enclosed structure unless the owner of the premises obtains a lice~e to allow for an outdoor sale. In effect, the City allows transient salesmen to sell clothing samples out of a hotel suite (if a license is obtained), but prohibits the "starving artist" from selling his wares in a parking lot unless the sale is attached to an established business which has obtained a license. The St. Louis Park ordinance has never been tested in court. In talking with the St. Louis Park City Clerk I found that the ordinance has proven to be quite effective in regulating outdoor sales but is cumbersome in interpretation. CONCLUSION Attached are three samples of ordinances showing the Green River approach, the modified Green River approach, and the Coon Rapids licensing approach. Also attached is a model ordinance provided by the League of Minnesota Cities which licenses peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Though the model ordinance appears to be invalid with regard to licensing solicitors, the League suggests that it be used. • until challenged and invalidated in court. At that time, a more ~ r I / restrictive Green River type ordinance should be adopted. If the council chooses to go this route, it should adopt a Coon Rapid ordinance because it appears even more stringent than the model. OOSSMEO1M14 _ _ _ -8- ~ / SUMMARY OF CAVEATS WHEN AMENDING ORDINANCES RELATING TO ITINERANT MERCHANTS 1. Complete prohibition of all itinerant merchants. is .likely. to be ruled invalid. 2. Licensing requirements apply to peddlers and transient merchants. 3. Green River ordinances apply. to peddlers and solicitors. 4. While licensing requirements have been legally tested, Green River ordinances have not been explicitly upheld by Minnesota courts. 5. Almost any regulation or licensure based on residency is invalid as a violation of equal protection. 6. Attempts to single out individual types of merchants will almost always be found in violation of the equal protection clause. 7. Licensing requirements applied to solicitors or canvassers are likely to be found invalid due to potential commerce • clause violations. 8. Peddlers may be licensed unless they are selling their own produce, in which case the Minnesota Constitution invalidates such an ordinance. 9. Solicitors or peddlers of religious literature or charitable contributions may not be restricted by licensing or Green River ordinances because of First Amendment rights. (A modified Green River approach does not violate these First Amendment rights.) 10. Green River ordinances are not valid against: a. Peddlers or solicitors engaging in door-to-door sales at business places. (A modified Green River ordinance making it illegal to peddle or solicit where property owner has posted a sign is valid at places of business.) b. Peddlers of "necessary but perishable goods" who engage in initiatory door-to-door sales in order to establish regular route service for future delivery. c. Solicitors who have as their primary purpose the sale • of personal services. LeFe~~ere Lefler Renned~• O'Prien Dray. z ~ Prtde~.inn:~l 2000 First Bank Place West July 2 2 , 19 8 6 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone 1612) 333-0543 I Telecopier!6121333-0540 Thomas A. Morgan,~:Tr. Clayton L. LeFevere D1reCtOr Of Pub11C Safety Herbert P. Lefler City of Richfield J.Oennis-0'Brian 6700 Portland Avenue South John E. Drawz David J. Kennedy Richfield, Minnesota 55423 John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue RE: Transient Merchants Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Dear TOm: James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dayle Nolan This letter is intended as a footnote to the memorandum Brian F. Rice which we furnished you last week. John G. Kressel Lorraine S. Clugg J es M. Strommen As we indicated in the memo, one option available to the H. Batty City is to place certain "facility" requirements upon P. Jordan Susan Dickel Minsberg transient merchants aS part Of Our transient merchant Kurt J. Erickson license regulations . '.'Viliiam R. Skailerud Rodney D. Anderson As ou are aware some individuals who are engaged in Corrine A. Heine y ~ John R. McDonald, Jr. activities falling within the general definition of Davin D. Beaudoin transient merchant may be exempt from obtaining a Rich- field transient merchant license by operation of state law. Examples may include state licensed food handlers. Consequently, we will not be able to impose "facility" requirements on those .individuals through transient merchant licenses. However, it does appear that the City could, through II zoning regulations, place requirements on those activi- ties similar or identical to the requirements which we can place on non-exempt transient merchants through i licensure. If the Council does determine to proceed to strengthen the City's regulation of transient merchants, we believe that enforceable regulations can be fashioned. However, in some instances those regulations may be through zoning. rather than licensure. Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Page 2 July 22,.1986 Respectfully yours, _ John B . Dean JBD : lr Enc. M' _ _ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 285 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members Of The City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution Amending Self Insurance Fund to Provide fivr Self Insurance of.Property Casualty Liability Risk Exposure Council Members: During the course of the past several months, City Staff has been working with the City's auditor, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, to identify what areas of the City insurance program could be incorporated into a greater self insurance on the part of the City. At the meeting of July 14. 1986, the City Council approved staff's recommendation to assume greater deductible levels on a variety of the City's property and casualty insurance program. With the additional deductible levels assumed by the City in that program, per occurrence deductibles of $50,000 will now. be common in many of the City's risk exposures. PAST LOSS EXPERIENCE In addition, the auditors have worked with the City staff to assess what type of funding level may be appropriate for a self- insured property/liability program. To that end, the auditors have examined the City's past loss experience for the most recent six-year period. (See attachment "A") During this period 1980 through 1985,. the City through its insurance carrier, incurred claims of $742,521 and of those .incurred claims, paid a total of $131,821, for an average "paid claims" per year of $21,970. However, it should also be noted that of the total $742,000 of incurred claims during that six year period, two claims, a backup of a lift station in 1981, and a motorcycle accident in 1983, accounted for $613,000 of the total. Aside from those two claims, the City's loss experience has been reasonably good. Based on that data, the City staff, with the assistance of the auditor, came to recommend assuming a greater amount of self-insurance through higher deductible levels, to save premiums. As is indicated in Council Letter Number 273 from July 14, 1986, the modified insurance program which the City is now entering into with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, will net the City, premium returns for 1986, of between $33,000 and $3.7,000. An additional amount will also be saved during 1987. y / However, now that the City has embarked upon a self- - insurance program, it is essential that the City provide for self funding of certain property, casualty losses. Thus, it is necessary to begin to establish a reserve of funds in the self- insurance fund for payment_ of claims which may occur under .the newly assumed deductible level. Previously, a number of sources were identified by City staff which could be potential sources .for providing initial funding of the property/liability portion of the self-insurance fund. In Council Letter Number 75, the City staff identified a series of funding alternatives which could be, utilized for this purpose. The alternative's identified in that letter are as follows: (1) 1985 year-end surplus funds: Council Members are. aware that the 1985 budget year ended with a significant surplus of general funds. However, since that time the 1985 year-.end fund balance has been set aside into the overall general fund balance. A portion of the general fund balance could be utilized for establishing the property/liability portion of the self-insurance fund. (2) Budgeted 1986 insurance premiums: The 1986 budget provided for sufficient funds to cover the cost of insurance premiums for the typical property, casualty, specialty insurances, plus an additional amount of $50,000 to cover the cost of an umbrella liability insurance policy. However, due to the extraordinary cost of the umbrella policy ($78,200 for one million dollars of coverage), it was determined that purchase of the umbrella insurance was not a feasible option, thus the $50,000 remains, and could be set aside in the self-insurance fund for the property/casualty account. The 1986 liquor fund budget allocation provided $71,000 for liquor liability insurance. However, the liquor liability insurance premium amounted to $56,000. Thus, approximately $15,000 remains of budgeted insurance premiums in the liquor fund and it could be utilized to transfer into the property/casualty portion of the self-insurance fund. (3) Liquor Fund Permanent Assessment: In the 1987 and subsequent budgets, a set amount for the annual assessments for an umbrella liability insurance could be initiated. Since the City does not have a statutory liability limit for liquor operations, it may be prudent to set aside funds for such an exposure. (4) Transfer A Portion of ThP_ !'~~rrent Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund Balance: The balance of the Workers' Compensation portion of the self-insurance fund is approximately $700,000. This fund balance is a result of seven years of operating the fund while the City contributed an average of $146,000 from the general fund to the self-insurance fund, for each of those seven years. Originally, the self-insurance fund was to achieve and maintain a balance of $500-,000. However, since then the fund balance goal of $500,000 has been increased to $650,000 to achieve a greater degree of safety in the event of multiple claims in one year, and also to provide .interest income to the fund for the future general fund contributions. Thus, the fund does seem a relatively good fund balance position at year _ _ end 1985, and as such, a certain portion of those funds could be allocated to the property/casualty portion of the self-insurance fund. (5) Using a Portion of The 1986 Budgeted Workers' Compensation City Contribution to the Self-Insurance Fund: Each of the City's Funds contributed a certain amount of funding to the self-insurance fund for compensation assessments.. Initially, the annual contribution would be $170,000. This figure was based on the City's proposed 1979 Workers' Compensation insurance premium. The $170,000 level of funding was continued for three years, but during the past several years, has been reduced to roughly $125,000. In 1986, the contribution is set at $125,000. Since the Workers' Compensation portion of the self-insurance fund is slightly above its originally targeted goal, it may be possible to make a one year adjustment for 1986, and transfer part of the contribution to the property/liability portion of the self-insurance fund. On a one year basis, this would not significantly reduce the Workers' Compensation Account balance. (6) Annual .Assessments to The Enterprise General and General -Service Funds: Once the initial fund balance has been established for ensuing years, a logical approach may be to establish an ongoing funding or assessment for the property/ liability portion of the self-insurance fund. The amount of the general assessment could be established at budget time, as it is for the Workers' Compensation assessment. STATUARY LIMITATION According to Minnesota State statutes, the City of Richfield enjoys an immunity to liability claims in excess of $600,000. That $600,000 level is the level at which the City has purchased insurance from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Thus, that statute provision and the limit of the City's primary insurance figured heavily into the decision to bypass purchase of excess liability insurance. If the City were to establish an excess liability fund, or an umbrella fund which would provide for funding of claims in excess of the $600,000 limit, such an action may waive the City's limit of liability provided under Minnesota State statutes. Thus, it is the writer's opinion that providing for such umbrella liability funding would not be a prudent action. Instead, the City should strive to provide adequate funding to pay claims which may occur in the deductible level of the primary insurance now carried. In addition, as previously noted, the City's liquor operation does not enjoy an immunity to liability claims at the $600,000 level. .Thus, it may be necessary to provide some funding for a liquor liability claim that might exceed this $600,000 level. SUMMARY _ _ _ _ _ In conclusion, the City is now in a position of formally establishing the property/liability portion of the self-insurance fund. It is recommended by the writer, that the following sources be utilized in 1986 to establish the initial fund balance in that portion of the account. 1J That the $50,00 provided for in the 1986 budget for excess liability insurance be transferred to the property/ casualty portion of the self-insurance fund. 2} That the roughly $37,000 of premium returns from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for 1986, also be set aside as the initial fund balance in the property/casualty portion of the self-insurance fund. 3) That the $15,000 provided for in the liquor budget for 1986, for dram shop premium, be transferred into the property/ casualty portion of the self-insurance fund. The three sources identified above would provide an initial funding of roughly $100,000 for the property/casualty account for 1986. This should provide a sufficient base to begin the account with. It's further recommended by the writer that in 1987, the difference between the amount provided for in the 1987 budget for i insurance premiums (which will be proposed at the 1986 insurance premium level) and the actual cost of insurance for 1987 through the modified League Program be transferred into the property! casualty account of the self-insurance fund. That transfer in f r 1987- 1987 could be in the vicinity of $75,000. In addition o it is recommended that a nominal assessment be charged against the enterprise fund to provide a total contribution of approximately $100,000. The initial funding for the account provided for in 1986 and 1987 would establish a solid base for the property casualty account and provide a degree of security in terms of paying types of claims which may occur from within the deductible level. Once ~I the current self-insurance program has been in effect for a year or mare, it will be easier to estimate the magnitude of assessments that should be charged to the various funds for an ongoing annual assessment. However, in terms of long term strategy, it would be prudent for the City to strive to maintain a balance of $300,0.00 within the property liability account of the Self Insurance Fund. Under the City's new self-insurance program, the City could sustain up to $300,000 of deductible loss t in one year. Thus, it would seem that the $300,000 level would be a logical funding Level to strive for. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City. Council adopt .the attached resolution to provide for Self.-Insurance of Property/Liability Risk Exposures, and that the City Council further authorize the City Manager to provide for initial funding for the property casualty account, as provided for in this Council Letter.. Resp ctfully submitted, ven L. ch Acting City Manager SLD/sae I Clty of Richfield ~ Schedule 2 \V~\ Schedule of Incurred and Pail Claims for Pulicy Years 1980 through L985 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 't'otal Description Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Incurred Paid Water $ 166 5 L66 5 92,004 532,004 = 3,814 S 3,814 $ 183 5 183 $ 931 $ 931 $ U 5 0 ~ 97,098 ~ 37,098 Glass 964 964 1,162 1,162 1,715 1,715 183 183 331 33l 208 208 4,563 4,563 Personal Injury U 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 2,500 2,500 U U 0 0 4,500 4,500 Property Damage 132 132 2,327 2,321 2.606 2,606 1,216 1,216 745 745 1,415 25 8,501 7.051 Fire- 18,059 18,059 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 18,059 18,059 Forgery 0 0 2.500 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 2,500 Crime 0 0 0 0 3,360 3,360 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,360 3,360 Bodily Injury 3,500 1,000 1,200 L,200 35,179 20,179 521,058 1,058 4,238 2,538 4,350 0 569,525 25,975 i Auto - Physical Damage 1,542 1,542 1,989 1,989 2,488 2,488 156 156 858 858 330 330 1,363 7,363 Liability 4,150 4,150 4,311 4,311 2,754 2,754 9,393 4,393 3,676 3,676 1,711 1,011 25,995 20,295 Other 0 0 0 0 154 154 0 0 361 367 536 536 1.051 ~ L,057 547,_493 552.010 5 TOTAL 528._513 26.013 5107,493, 37.070 5534,689 59.689 511,146 59.446 58.610 52,1L0 5742,521 5131,.821 I j i CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION .AMENDING THE TRUST AND AGENCY FUND -FOR SELF INSURANCE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL UNINSURED LIABILITIES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, has previously established a Trust and Agency. Fund for payment of worker's compensation and unemp.loy~ttent compensation liabilities; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.981 permits the City of Richfield to self insure against .liability of the City and its officers, employees, agents, and other servants for damages resulting from their acts; WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has authorized the purchase of the League of Minnesota Cities. Insurance Trust (LMCIT) primary package, which protects the City up to the maximum statutory .limits of .liability specified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04; WHEREAS, the City of Richfield deems it to be in the best public interest of the City to self insure, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.981, for those amounts not covered by LMCIT; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The existing fund entitled "The Worker's Compensation Trust and Agency Self-Insurance Fund" is amended to provide for the payment of all claims, .losses, costs of defense, administrative costs, and legal fees for all liability matters not covered by the LMCIT program. 2. By taking this action, the City Council is not intending to waive any statutory or common law immunity or any statutory or other limitation on liability, including but not limited to, the immunities and .limitations on liability contained in Minnesota S a t tutes Cha ter 466 'nc.ludin the monetar i P g Y limitations contained therein. 3. By taking this action, the City Council is not intending to expand the potential .liability of the City, or of its officers, employees, agents or servants to include any situations or events that the City, or its officers, employees, agents, or servants would not otherwise be liable. • 4. The City Manager is authorized to administer the fund. and to delegate administrative functions to other staff members. as he deems appropriate. The City Manager is further authorized to pay amounts from the fund for the purposes authorized by this Resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day o•f March, 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk v . . ~ 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~Office_of City Manager Council Letter No. 284 I A enda Jul 28, 1986 9 Y Th.e Honorable Mayor. and Members Of The City Council Cit of Richfield Y 1 Subject: Ordinance Amendment to Prohibit Dogs in City Parks Council Members: On April 14, 1986, the council discussed a problem which a eared to be develo in rela ed d x r m pp p g t to og e c e ent in certain city parks and playground areas. A result of that discussion has been an educational information effort on the part of the City to seek compliance with provisions of our Richfield City Ordinance j Code 5.27 (Subd. 9), relating to immediate disposal of dog feces. This information ap eared on the Cable TV "Bulletin Board" in P I the Ri hfi 1 c e d Sun-Current, in Your Cit and Schools, and as a Y water bill insert to every home on the water system. During the council meeting on July 14, 1986, council expressed concern that the problem had not been resolved. Council then directed the City Attorney's office to work with the Public Safety Department in developing an ordinance amendment to prohibit dogs in city park and playground areas. The attached ordinance amendment has been prepared by the City Attorney's office for council consideration in this matter. ENFORCEMENT An issue directly related to the ordinance amendment proposal is the ability of the City to enforce animal control regulations as they currently exist. As a part of the 1987 budget program, the Public Safety Department is examining alternatives to strengthen and improve our enforcement efforts, as they relate to animal control activities. Presently the enforcement efforts are conducted on a part-time .basis by our Community Service Officers (CSO's). Often, CSO's are heavily involved in a variety of other Public Safety activities which limits their current availability to perform a complete animal control program. The Public Safety Department is examining methods in which the efforts of the CSO's may be better coordinated, and methods in which more of their time can be directed specifically toward animal control activities. The improvements in our animal control and enforcement activities, currently under consideration by the Public Safety Department, would greatly improve the ability of the City-to enforce the provisions of ordinance-code 5.25 (Subd. 9), and it may not be necessary to prohibit dogs from parks and playground areas. Perhaps with the alternatives cited in the proposed 1987 budget, better enforcement of the dog excrement removal ordinance already in effect would alleviate-the problems which have apparently been experienced by citizens this summer. It may also be a way to specifically concentrate on those individuals who continue to disregard the City ordinance currently in place. It has been our experience that most animal owners are responsible citizens not wishing to create community problems. By working with this group of animal owners, and by improving our enforcement activities, we are optimistic that we can resolve the problem of concern to the council. without the prohibition of dogs in our parks and playground areas.. RECOMMENDATION It is therefore the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the council defer their action on this matter until a program of improved animal control activities can be provided for council consideration as a part of the budget hearing process. Should the City Council decide to adopt an ordinance banning dogs from City parks, a draft of such an ordinance is attached for first reading consideration. Resp t ully s mit ed, ~ ,~i tevg L. evich Acting City Manager SLD:sb ~ ~ Subd. 6. Identification of Licensed animal. Upon the issuance of a dog or cat license by the city clerk or the city pound keeper, the licensee shall be pro- vided with a metallic tag bearingthe license number, the word "Richfield", and the year when the license period begins or has begun. Except where the dog or cat for which .the license is ,issued is indoors on the premises of his owner, the animal shall have a collar or harness on which the license tag is affixed. No person shall counterfeit any such tag of this city or use a counterfeit tag. Subd. 7. License Nontransferable. A license tag is nontransferable to any other animal or to a new owner for a dog or cat for which it is issued. Subd. 8. Replacement of Lost Tag. If any such tag is lost or stolen, the owner may obtain a new tag by sur~ndering the. receipt for the first tag and by paying the charge for a duplicate license as provided in Appendix D of this Code. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77 Subd. 9. Doffs Not to beat Large; Iamediate Disposal of Dog Feces. No-owner _ shall permit his dog to be at large in this city, but shall keep such dog•under restraint at alI times. Every-dog owner and every person having custody or • control of any dog shall immediately clean up and. sanitarily dispose of any feces of•the animal,-except that this provision shall not apply to blind persons with respect to their ownership and use of seeing eye dogs. (Bill 1980-26) 12/8180 Subd. 10. Confinement When Necessarv. The owner-shall confine within a building or secure enclosure any fierce, dangerous or uicious dog, except when muzzled and in the control of a competent person. Every female dog or cat in heat shall be confined in a building, secure enclosure, veterinary hospital or boarding kennel, or shall be controlled on a Leash while being e.Yercised, provided the animal does not create•a public nuisance. Subd. 11. Public Nuisances. The keeping of a dog or cat which annoys other persons is a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written complaint of such annoyance by the occupants of two or more neighboring prop- erties, the city shall notify the owner of such dog or cat that the nuisance shall be abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey such notice is a violation of this section. CROSS-REF~tE;ICE: See Chapter X, Part I, for general nuisance provisions. Subd. 12. Citv Pound. The council may provide for a city animal pound, either• within or outside the limits of the city. Subd. 13. Pound Keeper. If a city pound is established, the manager shall designate the pound keeper and he may appoint and deputize special officers to enforce this section. Such persons shall have police powers to cite owners of dogs or cats for violations of this section, to impound dogs or cats and to enforce the provisions of this section. • • 12/8/80. ORDINANCE CODE 140 CITY OF RtCHFIELO, MINNESOTA AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IV OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, entitled "Regulation of Streets, Public Ways, Grounds and Plac- es", is amended. by adding .thereto the following new section 4.19 Dogs Pro~iibited in Public Parks. It is unlawful for the owner or person in control of any doq to permit or allow such animal to enter or be in any public park. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1986. John N. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk 0055AM03.E14 - Carol iJankivel 6623 Clinton Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 July 24, 1986 City of Richfield City Council Members 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Council Members: I am writing to urge you to oppose the proposed ban on dogs in Richfield parks. I believe such a ban is a serious denial of my right to enjoy the city parks that I pay taxes to maintain. Asa dog owner I would be extremely resentful that there are Richfield facilities devoted, at great expense, to people who enjoy hockey, tennis, softball, swimming, basketball, archery, etc., but that if I want to simply walk through a city park with my dog, at no extra expense to the city, I would be subject to a 30 day jail term. For my choice of recreation (and more than 1,500 other Richfield dog owners) I am denied one inch of public property and must try to enjoy myself among the cars and trucks in the street. (Will your next move be to require vehicle licensing for dogs in addition to dog licenses?) If you ban dogs from city parks I must urge you, in the interests of democracy, to ban every other activity as well. I find that the noise, litter and resulting wear on public property that results from picnics, playground use, and suntanning seriously disrupts my enjoyment of the parks and violates my interpretation of how they should be used. Such activities are not even funded by licenses. If the city of Richfield is in a mode to avoid accommodation and compromise, I have no other choice but to ask that my wishes be addressed. I understand the concern that has prompted the proposed ban and agree that it is the dog owner's responsibility to remove dog droppings. However, you already have an ordinance addressing that problem. ~ dog is licensed, leashed, vaccinated and accompanied by a scooper, how many other park users are that regulated? If the premise of the proposed ban is to provide a cheaper and easier means of enforcement you must be consjstent in your application of all city ordinances; if litter is a problem ban all activities that could generate litter, if vandalism is a problem, set an age minimum for park use (60 years and over). My point is: your decision should not be based on the fact that some people object to my use of the park, or that some dog owners do not comply with the law, or that it is cheaper and easier to ban dogs instead of enforce the law, your decision should be based on the need to accommodate various interests and reach a fair and reasonable compromise. I believe the scooper law already fairly addresses the concern and only needs more time and visibil ity to achieve the desired results. Sincerely, Carol Nankivel - CITY OF RICHFIELD Office of City Manager Council Letter No.283 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Court8il City of Richfield Subject: Sign Ordinance Amendment: Second Reading Council Members: On July 14, 1986, the City Council gave first reading to the attached ordinance amendment concerning signs. The council scheduled the public hearing and second reading consideration of the ordinance for July 28, 1986. A copy of the previous council letter describing the ordinance amendment is attached for. your information. As Council Members are aware, the ordinance is being considered at the request of a particular individual enterprise so that they may subsequently apply for a free standing sign, which would exceed the maximum 27 foot height allowed by the City Sign ordinance. Currently, there is no provision in the City Sign ordinance to grant a variance to the 27 foot height standard for a business located in a general commercial district, rather than an industrial zoning district. CITY STAFF CONSIDERATIONS City staff has spent some time reviewing the attached sign ordinance and concluded that because such a sign ordinance would have such a potential impact on the entire City, and may proliferate signs throughout the community, it is an ordinance that would require significant analysis. To that end, the staff would request additional time to examine the potential impact of this ordinance in greater detail. Additionally, the individual entity that has requested action regarding the sign ordinance is currently in violation of provisions of a previous special use permit and also continues to utilize an illegal canopy on their building. During the past several weeks, City staff has had numerous contacts with representatives of that business entity requesting that the illegal canopy be removed. Despite verbal assurances of compliance from attorneys representing that business, no action has been taken to remove the canopy. It still exists as of 4:00 II p.m. Thursday, July 24, 1986. In addition, an unauthorized yellow curb designation also exists in front of the illegal canopy. In December of 1984, the City Council issued a special use permit for the sale of"used and new cars for the premises in question, and as a condition of the permit, required that ten parking places be reserved in front of the building for customer and employee parking. This has not been done. Also, the City was to receive a hold harmless agreement from that business before it was to utilize the. Colfax Avenue boulevard to display vehicles. Display cars have been parked on the boulevard area while the City has no homed harmless agreement. In view of the apparent inability of the City to work with the business to resolve the issues presented here, and given the fact that a taller sign would increase the intensity of the use of this particular piece of property, it is recommended that this matter be given further consideration before adoption of any ordinance amendment. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above staff review, it is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing on this matter and second reading of the ordinance to a future Council Meeting in August. During that time, the issues sighted above may be able to be resolved. If the Council wishes to conduct a public hearing on the matter and give second reading consideration to the attached ordinance this evening, a copy of the ordinance is attached. Respectfully Submitted, Steven L. Devich Acting City Manager SAD/sae i . ~ t: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 268 Agenda July 14, 1986 The Honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Sign Ordinance Amendment Council Members: Background: As Council Members may recall, Terry Feldman Imports requested a permit for a freestanding sign which would exceed the 27 foot maximum height allowed by the city sign ordinance. There was no provision in the city sign ordinance to grant a variance to the 27 foot height standard because the site is in a general commercial district rather than an industrial zoning district. Thus, at the request of Terry Feldman Imports, an ordinance amendment to exceed the 27 foot maximum height under certain conditions has been prepared. This ordinance amendment has been n it a enda for first readin placed •n the July 14, 1~iG city c~u c consideration. Ordinance Amendment Provisions The proposed amendment to the sign ordinance would permit the City Council to issue a special use permit to allow signs up to 35 feet in height if a number of conditions are met. These conditions have been amended to allow the council the ability to grant special height permits for property not only in industrial zoning districts, but in general commercial districts situated within redevelopment project areas as well. This amendment would allow the council to consider a special height permit for the Terr Feldman site because the site is zoned eneral commercial, Y 9 and is within the ILN Redevelopment project area. The Feldman site is along a freeway so the council could approve a 35 foot high sign on the site. - The scope of the ordinance amendment is limited. The amendment would only apply to a very limited area. First of all, only property within redevelopment project areas would be affected and then only properties which are zoned C-2 general commercial. This amendment would not apply to property zoned in planned unit developments. Therefore, the amendment will not open the door for a lot of higher signs. ~ . L~ ~ F~ r. l T -is' i c4 . ^ y=~' i~ • July 16, 1986 M Mr. Terry Feldman N Terry Feldman's Imports ~ 920 West 78th Street ~ Richfield, MN~ 554.23 L!7 Re: Special Use Permit for 1918 West 77~ Street - Richfield. Dear Mr. Feldman, 0 N Enclosed is a copy of the special use permit stipulations as granted by the City Council on December 17, 1984 for = use of the above premises for new and used car sales. A review of conditions on 7/15/86 indicated the entire front parking area is used for new car sales. Ten spaces must be reserved for customer and employee parking. - ~ We have not received the hold-harmless agreement as indicated ¦ ~ in the second stipulations, and the display vehicles may not be parked on the Colfax Avenue boulevard until such an agreement is on file in the City offices. ~ Your attorney has advised me that the illegal canvas canopy over the entry door to your main building showroom would be removed but that has not been done. = Your request for a sign permit for use of the arial balloon every Thursday and Saturday has been denied for the following reasons. i"' Promotional display devices are intended for use at occasional special events or promotions and not for continuous use. Richfield Q Sign Ordinances require that promotional display devices be situated entirely on the premises where such activity is conducted. Q If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact ~ 'me at 866-5061, X 370. Yours. truly, . . ~ Sivert Hendrickson Building Official SH/lkt telephone: 869-7521 (812) an equal opportunity employer tl s M i~ ' CITY Or Q1C~?I~7 6 70 0 2or t'_a_^_d ~ver_ue Scuth S?~C"•~, ~S ?~=~'~-=Q ~~A_~c':'_~~~iT list. ?BR.`~I': ~ Fz'ZC~iI:iG Q Ga.~ i,~iC~ ~ ~,JuST~L='~i=' ~:ii. ~~p~'aT,S C] ?L'D ?~,:d Q ?IV~L, D~~I+v^P`~~VT Phi ~,J ='C ~ Term. c eld~-nar. Import 920 West 78th Street Richriel~, ~N 5523 You a.e nererv nct_=~e~ that you= applicaticn dat.d November 1, 1984 =or a saecial use permit for a new and. used -car sales, service, and parts sale facility at 9I8 West 77 1/2 Street. has bee. proved) ~ (Denied) The =ollewinc is t:^_e laces, descr_~tioZ of i a.^.d affectec by the abcve acticr.: All of Lot~B~except the easterly 4 thereof anc•lots 9, 10, lI, Block 1, Strand Bcwen 2nd addition (918 West 772 Street) Scecia_ Ccnd'_ticrs. 1. The .ten parking stalls along tze front of the building should be reserved for employee and customer par:{ing. These ten stalls should not be used for new cr used vehicles which are for sale. 2. That the applicant enter into a hold harmless agreement with the • City for allowing the use of.the boulevard area of Colfax Avenue =~r to display of new vehicles. ~?_pp ^ve~) (De.^.ied) y t e C_ty Coun c_? December 17, 1984 (Da _e} 3v Ric{ Jocke + ` . ,.~i? CITY OF RICHFIE~n. MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 282 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor _ and Members of the City Council Cityof Richfield Subject: Purchase 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, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. There is one such item on the agenda for July 28, 1986. REPAIR OF DECORATIVE CONCRETE IN THE L/H/N/ AREA Decorative concrete sidewalks were installed in 1980 as part of the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Public Improvements. Due to deterioration, it has now become necessary for portions of these sidewalks to be repaired with new bomonite. The areas of sidewalk involved are in the northeast corner and northwest corner of 66t.h Street and Nicollet Avenue. There is only one contractor in the immediate metro area that works with bomonite. Concrete Design Specialties Inc. of South St. Paul proposes to repair the sidewalk at these locations for a total cost of $6,070. They have also agreed to regrout the northwest corner section at no additional cost to the City. Work would be done sometime in August and would take three to four days to complete. This project will cause no traffic disruptions on adjacent streets. The cost of these sidewalk repairs would be .funded through the annual maintenance assessment charge to property owners within the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet area. RECOMMENDATION , It is recommended that the City Council authorize the repair. of a portion of decorative concrete sidewalk in the L/H/N area by Concrete Design Specialties, Inc. in the amount of $6,070. Res ctlfully ubmi ted, tev,en L. Devich Acting City Manager SLD:sb M1 ? W CITY OF RICHFIELD., MINNESOTA Office of City Manage r Council Letter No. 281 Agenda July 28,..1986 The Honorable Mayor and i Members Of The City Council City of Richfield .Subject: Authorizing CP705 Funds For Public Improvements On 66th Street Council Members: On July 15, 1986, the HRA authorized the installation of public improvements along Rae Drive and 66th Street. The HRA has requested the City Council to allocate some CP705 funds to help complete public improvements (sewer, water, concrete) along the 66th Street right-of-way. The improvements (concrete) along the Rae Drive right-of-way would be funded Frith CDBG funds provided to support this housing development. The development agreement between the HRA and George Branton Construction Co. specified certain responsibilities of the HRA. Within the public right-of-way and up to the front property line, the HRA is responsible for providing residential sewer line service to the two westerly units (1016 and 1018 West 66th Street); residential city water service to all four westerly units (1008, 1012, 1016 and 1018 West 66th Street); and curb and gutter, sidewalk, and driveway apron concrete installation and replacement to satisfy requirements of the attached site plan. The anticipated cost of these improvements were included in the adopted 1986 budget. CP705 funds would be utilized to install a sewer line to service the westerly portion of the development area. The original 66th Street road improvements widened the roadway, leaving the sewer line for this property located in westbound traffic lanes rather than at the property line. The change in grade of the roadway left the existing sewer line stub at too shallow a depth to be used. CP705 funds would also be used to install water. service to the property line and reduce the number of driveway openings along 66th Street to conform to present turn lane openings for traffic in the center median. HRA BID AUTHORIZATION Specifications for the work were prepared and the HRA reviewed the bids. The HRA authorized: -Star Plumbing and Excavating to install the sewer service for $9,000; -Star Plumbing and Excavating to install the water service for $6,000; and -Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors to perform the concrete .work for $8,596. The total. amount of CP705 funds to be utilized is $18,480. • The. total amount of CDBG funds to be utilized is $5,116. The sewer service was the most difficult job for which to obtain-bids. The work requires a portion of 66th Street to be .closed and excavated and several utility services to be located and avoided.. Several contractors, including Richfield Plumbing, Blaylock Plumbing, Aqua City Plumbing, Rae Haeg Plumbing, Grand Hagen Plumbing and Spetz and. Berg, declined to bid because of the difficulty of the job and the need for the use of heavy equipment. City Sewer Division personnel are familiar with Star Plumbing and feel they are capable of satisfactorily undertaking. the job. Regarding the concrete work, Gunderson Brothers Cement Contractors has a contract with the City for concrete alley replacement work. The City Engineering Division has been very satisfied with the work. Each contractor was required to submit a performance bond for the total amount of work, provide evidence of insurance, and execute a standard form contract with the HRA that has been reviewed by legal counsel and approved for use for construction projects such as these that are of limited scope. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution allocating $18,480 of CP705 funds to complete the public improvements along 66th Street and Rae Drive. Res e t ully s mitted r v e; L . e h Acting City Manager SLD/sae • A_ RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CP705 FUNDS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON 66TH STREET. WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in and for the City of Richfield has authorized .public improvements adjacent to the 66th Street and Rae Drive housing development; and WHEREAS, the HRA has requested the City Council to allocate CP705 funds to fund the public improvements on 66th Street. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that $18,.480 in CP705 funds be allocated for sewer and water-service and concrete work adjacent to the 66th Street and Rae Drive housing development. Passed by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of July, 1986. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Ferber, City Clerk } RAE DRIVE 66TH STREET~~DE.VELOPMENT ~ ~ ' A „ _ PUBLIC IMPROVEMEN - _ ~ 5~ ' r I r, ' T r. S , ~ , . , EXISTING DRIVEWAY OPENINGS TO, BE CLOSED ~ • ~ a~ ,.NEW .DRIVEWAY OPENINGS TO BE INSTALLED s; t , zti I ' NEW .SEWER LINE SERVICE TO PROPERTY LINE , ~ ~ , l~ ~ . E ,I ~ Iv • s _ NEW WATER SERVICE TO PROPERTY LINE ' . r ~f~ , 1 i a ` , ~ I h ' , I~ i . _ i'. ~ I } r ` ~ ~+ir. F ' ti.y ~ ' k..~, ~ ~ Fi, ~ , Vla~r.~i~artJsct w ~ ~ t ` ~ , ~~1 L.tt .I r„ '1 k.. A ~ti ~ ~ r rp ~KM1x ~ i~VG~ I ~ ~ ' 3SI~oRgyr-1~°~ ~ _ ,y I . ~ ~ '~4 r 1 . yt. ~ ~S ~ I ~ 111 ~ I I ~pw~ `V ' II 2 ! ;It~ , '~T i ~ s g s: ~ i K c ~ +r; Y ~ ~ r I r, ' r' t ( spa ~ ul ~ 1117 Z k~ , - ~ °t o~ ~ M r' t6 , i'p r t f - /,i'' ~a~ ,P:e`rt~It11uC 1M11W+~ ~ I~ M I ' ~ r 1 , rt, y Y l r~ I . , 1 17 i 'i~ 1 Z ~ r ~ 1 ~ T , ~ L~ ~ P I l y 1 I r ~ f ,Y S2 H f."' } C f i S'I y I P li. \ - G ~r I ~ t~ W i ~ a o,~, ''1111 [ , ,x ~ r r I ~ • zA i t~~, , l ~ 1.1i H~ , t t~ + r ~ ~ k.'r-- ~ ~ , D~ ~ , i l , ~ f I ~ I ~ ~ ` , ~ I,Y,+,' I'' 4~., r~ i ~ Ip' ' 1~Yf (:1141A~ 61~IY. ~NI.Y,11 i ""~r • r ~ ~ ~ N ^ i 1 ' /~~~''~(j N ~ t``, ~ ~ _ r M~ ~ r' •n 'r'°r- •n i ~ N ~ 11 _ _ _ B i ~ ; is a I in - ~b f (~@y ~d: t ~ ~•~j • • I 1^tjr.l~. , 1'~~u.~ ~ r--- ; i - ~ f ; rtin I lO ~ I"6 ~ ~ ~ or =Uxr1.~ _•(C'r 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ,1 ' 7~~f t n N. M` _ ~ r~, ~ 7~ ' t ~ i) y a,u I Y~ 1:1'rpN li:q • ' A ~ ~ tF l ~ } ~ ~ . r;l'S' ~ e'1 `or y '~~jl~~Tl~C) ~ ~ r L'O ~ .I ~Q _ •LI".' bl• lI 7D1 > „1 ~'~,~x1a"'` ~ C~l e1~,M1ax'~ Z Fw+.tt~ , Z tJrJIT' I p 7 i ~I Inc .a _ ' • 1 ~ ~ ~ - I WELLW~ IA 11 '7 ~•j 1 I ! F i~. i.nltlt? f" k + I aS ~ 1. q1~ - ~ 1 w~l' 1. ~ ~ ~,5,., ~ I LII.(~(•ff 1 ..y i Nam ` r rb .'u ~ r 1' ' . I~ i ~ ~rr-~' 1 r' ~ . C(L '1 _ 4 r>1 ,}1 I. i~l- I1 ~,+C-.~cyt.'',',~~'pJ~- s ~ I .l 1 ' v, e~' Ui' I.L~' 111) - I ~•~1 ' { 4 i 1' 0 `(l ~r,p Mue~ y rQ . 7[~'~.~ _ ~ r ~ ? ' I I r- I I • - 1H ~1W ' G.Y~ ~ -ML ' _ _ 1U[ YJMU Y ~ ~'ia•I=TiN,. ,rGoP-~,s-M R. ~ _ , •:,i 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A14Y+~r ,,I -fir ~ ~ ~ I ~ vy~aRl~IL _/~i _ 1 T r Or. ~-y7 - ~ i-p. . 4L'1IY12 t_.J r 1~?, ~ 1 Jr f .Y, 1f tnj.. M1~1 r~l~J~t 1~F'-- . I,.^.I ''z M1IN~t,~Rcl~p. F''+1 I ~ -I +'I: I I ~ ,.jI I'r~ ~ µ;~u _ + ,4 5' I 9r'.` It ' i' thaUCV.• ~ ~ I ..d -....__I 1 / . a. C+ . =i'ioN ''.t > r ~ ~ rl ~ I ~,r~ ~ I 1~ W •,'a "'"~rC .~{s ~ ' . Ip., 'f,~~'~t x..1...+1 3: I A .n '1 r e(•; i>,. '+~'N:. 1 t1. 1'. .'14~'~.~1' .inw ~f. ;,~I-,~.,.'r:;'.l; I'~, (J 75.. ':'I: .c. •i. :f r . I'' ,.~.h { j.. ••s ~ 7 !.,ir,: J. it.D J~ , .I `.111 , "S .'11 4. 4 •a:; . 1 . ~ i I 'ISr .q ! s I s I ;a y 1;G yh ir. `t I :+'ird. , . .r. ' f i' h.' ~I 4r nC~ 1 °1' ! ' 9 ~4±k'R'~ 'i ' ,t, r. I. I ,~p :r~r' }1 ~ ~'''vd.~j , ?iii r~ '1~~, v ~ P ;~t ..~e J 1. 'i''4~ r; ti (t y rP~: ~t I'i,~ ,I ,.:k''[i ~I' j ~pHS?c I. n~~~~~ , i. IL.k ~n'J r. :r'N}, r'%~' ~"'~'Mll r•r/~utt~ s~rfiltal~l F>~t ~Itli •JJ~. ~ ll.;l,i ,.11,4,1 ~ b II I , ~i , ^t'k, ~ ~~~'~P,F t`~• ilir' ~:a tl <1; ~ ~r.,:: f r,',"`~I 11Y~~It~n,l~r 1 t r., N• rA r e'?W ;d ' ~ q 't,- 1 ~ h!'~"~~ r r1~'.~~ ~_;VR~. f~ .vN r 1~ r:~ r~ f. 1.,yrtllGw r,'~'I ° 5F1. r r~ r~ ",i~ 1 5•W~.J..~1~ 1'lli I 1'~-v i + ` ` _ t~711. :M@, 1. ' bi" 1 rK i' pi+f.. F I I'~~ I u. 7 , to ,1 t, 7 ~ 1 I f t., 'u'' r ~ I . 1 . I ? a r, 1 r ~ r f `•.,'y7 ~ U _ M ' I.J+.1a~j ^ ~ ~ J w CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter.No. 280.. Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and ~ Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Award of Contract for Furnishing and Planting Approximately 60 Boulevard Trees Council Members: On July 1, 1986, bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for the furnishing and planting of approximately 60 4"-5" boulevard linden, ash and sugar maple trees. A copy of the bid opening minuaes and tabulation is attached. These trees are replacements for ones removed this spring due to the street excavation necessary for the storm sewer project. The depth of the new pipe and width of the trench made it impossible to do the project without the removal of these trees. The majority of trees removed were elms, but maple, ash, hackberry, spruce and cottonwood were also taken down. A replacement tree will be provided at each location which lost a tree. Two bids were received for this work. The lowest bid was submitted by Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $19,955. The planting will occur this fall when weather conditions are more favorable for tree planting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council award the contract for furnishing-and planting approximately 60 boulevard trees to Minnesota Valley Landscape, Inc. in the amount of $19,955. Res ect ully bmit ed, L. De ch Acting City Manager SLD:sb ~'7 :l. Y-. i CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING _ July 1, 1986. Furnishing and Planting .Boulevard Trees Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read. aloud, bids for Furnishing and Planting of Boulevard Trees, as advertised in the official newspaper on June 11, 1986. Present: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative Thomas Morgan, Public Safety Director The following bids were submitted and read aloud: ' ~ ~ ~ ~ VENDOR BID TOTAL ;STATEMENT ;AFFIDAVIT; . ~ ;SECURITY BID ;OF INTENT ;OF NON- ; ;TO COMPLY ;COLLUSION; ;Trees, Inc. ' ~ ~ ' ;Burnsville, MN. ;5X Bid Bond; $24,080* Yes Yes ; ' ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' ;Mn. Valley Land- ; ' ;scaping, Inc. ;Bloomington, MN. ;5X Bid Bond; $19,.955 Yes Yes ; *exceptions for tree substitutes The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the July 28, 1986 City Council Meeting. Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 279 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield ~ Subject: Approval of .Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract for Joint Cleaning and Resealing of 76th. Street, 12th Avenue to Cedar Avenue Council Members: On July 18, 1986, bids were opened for joint cleaning and resealing of the concrete surface of 76th Street, 12th Avenue to Cedar Avenue. Three bids .were received for this work. .The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. An appropriation for this project is in the 1986 Street Division operating budget. Cleaning debris from the joints removes inflexible material that can cause the joint to erupt during times of expansion. After cleaning, the joints are resealed with material that expands and contracts with the pavement surface. This also will reduce water intrusion into-the pavement base, which weakens the street surface. The low bid was submitted by Richard Knutson Inc. of Burnsville, Minnesota. The low bid amount is within the 1986 budget appropriation for this work. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that .the city council take the following . action: 1. Accept the bid minutes; 2. Award the contract for 1986 joint cleaning and resealing to Richard Knutson Inc. of Burnsville, Minnesota in the amount of $56,976. Resp c fully s mitt d, L. uevich Acting City Manager SLD:sb V CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING Jul 18 1986 Y , 1986 Joint Cleaning & Resealing Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Steven L. Devich, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting. was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1986 Joint Cleaning & Resealing, as advertised in the official newspaper on July 2, 1986. Present: .Steven L. Devich, Acting City Manager/Acting City Clerk Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director Vicki Paulson, Community Services Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID TOTAL ;STATEMENT ;AFFIDAVIT; ;SECURITY BID ;OF INTENT ;OF NON- ; ;TO COMPLY ;COLLUSION; ;Blattner & Sons ;5% Bid Bond; 565,088.00 Yes Yes ; ;Richard Knutson, Inc. ;5% Bid Bond; 556,976.00 Yes Yes ; ;Progressive Cont.; ~ ~ ~ ' Inc. ;5% Bid Bond; 562,934.50 Yes Yes The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the July 28, 19 6 ity Council Meeting. ~ / Steven L. Devich ~ ~lctit~g City Clerk y i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager _ Council Letter_ N.o. .2.78 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and ~ i~ Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract for 1986 Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair ~ Council Members: On Friday, July 18, 1986, bids were opened for. the 1986 Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair project. This improvement project consists: of removal. and replacement of concrete sidewalk sections and curb & gutter in various portions of the City. A majority of this. work is necessitated, due to heaving of the concrete by boulevard tree roots. Three bids were received for this work. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. The low bid was submitted by Gunderson Brothers Co. of Minneapolis. An appropriation for this project is in the 1986 Street Division operation budget. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council take the following action: 1. Accept the bid minutes; 2. Award the contract for the 1986 Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair project to Gunderson Brothers Co. in the amount of $26,642.50. Res c fully bmitted, teve~Devich Acting City Manager SLD:sb / CITY OF RICHFIBLD BID OPENING July 18, 1986 1986 Sidewalk and Curb Sc Gutter Repair Pursuant to requirements of Etesolution 210. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Steven L. Devich, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the. purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for 1986 Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter Repair as advertised in the official newspaper on July 2, II 1986. Present: Steven L. Devich, Acting City Manager/Acting City Clerk Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Manager Vicki Paulson, Community Services Aide ' Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director The following bids were submitted and read aloud: I • ~ I VENDOR BID TOTAL ;STATEMENT ;AFFIDAVIT; ;SECURITY BID ;OF INTENT ;OF NON- ; ;TO COMPLY ;COLLUSION;- ;Gunderson Bros. ;5% Bid Bond; $26,642.50 Yes Yes ; , ;Halvorson Const. ;5% Bid Bond; $29,721.50 Yes Yes ; ;Advanced Contr. ;5% Bid Bond; $36,281.60 Yes Yes ; The Acting City Clerk announced tha the bids would be tabulated and considered at the July 28, 1 6 City Council Meeting. C ~ ~Ste~en L. evict Acting City .Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 277 Agenda July 28, 19.86 The Honorable Mayor and ~ Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: 5:45 PM Study Session - Trunk High-way 77 from North of 70th Street to South of 86th Street and 1494 from West of 12th Avenue to East of 34th Avenue Council Members: Staff members of the firm Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. (BRW) will be in attendance to discuss the Final Study Outline and Scoping Decision Document for proposed improvements on existing Trunk Highway (TH) 77 and Interstate Highway (I) 494. The proposed highway improvements will be necessary to provide for additional expected traffic demands resulting from development in the Airport South Area of Bloomington. Proposed development in the area includes the Mall of America and Fantasyworld (Mega Mall) which is to be built on a site east of TH 77, north of Killebrew Drive and Old Shakopee Road, and south of I-494 (the former Metropolitan Stadium site). The report and discussion will include the proposed project; the project schedule; public and agency involvement; permits needed; the justification for the project; project alternatives initially considered and those which will be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and project issues that will be studied in depth and those that will be studied in less detail. Res ec fully bmit ed, Lev L. Uevich Acting City Manager SLD/sae CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 276 Agenda July 28, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Community Services Commission. Applicant Interviews Council Members: There is a letter on the Council Agenda for July 28, 1986 to make two appointments to the Community Services Commission. Two of the applicants who are interested in appointment to this Commission have not been interviewed by the City Council.. Therefore, the following interviews have been scheduled for • Monday, July 28: 5:15 p.m. Karen Skwira 5:30 p.m. Michael Karnas The interviews will be held in the first Conference Room off the Council Chambers. Res ct ully su it d, j even Devich Acting City Manager SLD:sb