09-23-85 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office - of.City Manager
Council Letter No. 370
i
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Addition to the U.S. Swim and Fitness Center
(Nautilus)
Council Members,
In May, 1985, the City Council approved an amendment to the
PUD plan to.allow an addition onto the west end of the Nautilus
Swim and Fitness Center. The addition was to provide additional
women's locker room space, a fitness testing area and a screened
trash storage area. The city's approval was subject to the
following three stipulations:
• 1. That employers strongly encourage their employees to
park in the underutilized area north and east of the
Marshall store in the Hub Shopping Center;
2. That the east curb out from 65th Street be widened to 32
feet and the radius.on the west side of the curb out be
increased to 15 feet; and,
3. That handicapped stalls in the parking lot be at least
12 feet wide.
Nautilus Swim and Fitness Center has recently changed its
name to U.S. Swim and Fitness Center. They have submitted plans
for the building addition and finds that the proposal differs
from the plans submitted for Council approval in May. The
differences include that the trash enclosure area would now be
totally enclosed and an additional floor area not anticipated
in the original plan would be constructed over the top of the
trash storage area. The locker room expansion remains the same
although it appears that there will be fewer lockers.provided in
the space. The additional second floor area would now be used
to provide space for 5 tanning beds.
Because the floor area has been expanded on the second
floor, the ratio of off - street parking space to gross floor area
changes, which means that the proposal would not be in
substantial compliance with the approved plan as required by
city ordinances.
•
•
Staff has reviewed this change and found that it would not
adversely affect the development. The footprint of the building
does not change. The trash enclosure area would be totally
enclosed now and would present a much better appearance and much
better control of the trash from the facility. The proposal
would not result in any additional loss of parking nor in
staff's opinion would it generate the need for any additional
parking. The additional floor area would,provide services to
the existing members and would not increase the membership. It
appears from the drawings that the number of additional lockers
provided would be fewer with the current proposal as compared to
the proposal presented to the council in May.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the revised
plan subject to the three stipulations attached to the May
Council approval outlined above. The City Council may
refer this matter to the Planning Commission, however, it is
staff's opinion that this is not a major change and would not
merit Planning Commission review.
Res ectfu ubmitted,
John G Cartwr' ht
City Manager
JGC /eja
i-_
P
ROPOSED PLAN
`46T,ll'
�W
A,
/(o ;3
• .1
4 --- - I
o�I�Cr h1p��" w�ic► —� _ ''�O�{�S G.' ?�.,��� � :rte -�
...� -__ _'�✓� '� !mss GTi f� . ��� D.
iV`�t
i 1i ✓
7'wA(r..'si
I
PREVIOUS PLAN
ir
71
40
NA
K4
110
�JUNRIM
kffm"7-
INIM
n I
O
'1�
�
PREVIOUS PLAN
eoS
NZ
�� � �:, it � 1 — -�� — � ; i
al
I:
I . : I
s \1
)
i
CJ�
al
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 369
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of 'Richfield
Subject: Resolution Amending Resolution No,. 7019`2
"Resolution Adopting Assessment on City Project
No. 793, 1984 Alley Paving ", by Establishing
Annual Interest Rate for Assessments.
Council "_Members:
On March 11, 1985, the Richfield City Council adopted
Resolution No. 7019, "Resolution Adopting Assessment on City
Project No. ?93, 1984 Alley Paving ". In that resolution it was
stated that all assessments shall bear interest at a rate to be
determined at the bond sale financing such improvements. A bond
sale was then anticipated during the.summer -of 1985.
Several months later, the Richfield School District asked
to add their fire suppression improvement projects in the
-
special assessment bond sale. This has delayed the issuance of
the bonds until at least October 14th.
The City must certify the assessments to the County Assessor
no later than October 10, 1985. Further, in order to spread the
assessments, the�City must certify to the County a specific
interest rate. The interest rate certified in similar
assessment proceedings has been a`rate based upon the interest
rate of the bonds issued to finance the improvements, as
provided by statute. Generally, however, the 'bonds have been
sold prior to the adoption of the assessment. Thus, the rate
was already. established.
In the current situation, the city is placed in a position
of _setting the interest rate for the assessments prior to
the sale of bonds. Evensen - Dodge, financial advisors to the
city, anticipates a rate of between 8 1/2% and 9 %. The closer
to the end of the year the bonds are issued the more likely the
rate is to be at or near 9% This matter has been reviewed with
the City Attorney and the recommendation is to proceed with the
passage of the resolution.
The attached resolution anticipates the interest rate to be
per annum and establishes for the 1984 alley avin
• 9� P 9% 198.. y paving
assessments.
It is recommended that the city P council adopt the attached
resolution amending Resolution No. 7019 which sets the interest
rate at 9 %.
Respectful�jy submitted,
hn G. Car wri t
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
:1
a 1 -3
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7019
ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 793,
1984 ALLEY PAVING, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL INTEREST RATE
WHEREAS, pursuant to all applicable law, the city council
adopted Resolution No. 7019 "Resolution Adopting Assessment on
City Project No. 793, 1984 Alley Paving ", and
WHEREAS, said Resolution No. 7019, provides that the
assessments shall bear interest at a rate to be determined by
the sale of bonds to finance the improvements, and
WHEREAS, the City must certify a stated annual interest rate
for such assessments in specific terms so that the assessments
may be spread, and
WHEREAS, said annual interest rate must be certifed to
Hennepin County on or before October 10, 1985, and,
WHEREAS, the City now .anticipates that interest rate for
bonds issued to finance the improvements will be 9 %.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota that Resolution No. 7019 be amended
to state that all assessments shall bear an annual interest rate
of 9 %, the anticipated average annual interest rate on bonds to
be issued to finance the improvements.
Passed by the City Council of the. City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of September, 1985•
ATTEST:
omas P. erber, Clty ler
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 368
Agenda September 23, 1985
•
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Proposals For Submission To The National League
of Cities Concerning Congressional Bills Or
Current Presidential Positions
Council Members:
The Policy Committee of the National League of Cities (NLC)
will meet December 8, 1985, to consider policy proposals
submitted by member cities. The policy proposals are due to NLC
by October 14, 1985.
If the Policy Committee accepts the proposal, it will be
submitted to the Resolutions Committee by the Policy Committee
Chairperson as part of his or her committee report.
The City Manager offers the following:
1. The MAC resolution on airport noise (see Exhibit A-
memorandum by J. Robert Stassen dated 9/11/85).
/11) . fU601 * tted ,
JGC /eja
6hn G. Garl`ri
ity Manager,
M E M O R A N D U M �j
1 -,2
DATE: September 11, 1985
NWO: Commissioners, Metropolitan Airports Commission
ROM: J. Robert Stassen
RE: NOISE
Commissioner Jan Del Calzo has recently presented a proposed plan
to encourage MSP's' home based airlines to expedite their plans
to purchase Stage III aircraft, in order to provide some measure of
relief from the ever increasing noise problem on and around the
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport.
The Commission has approved a feasibility study of her suggested plan,
as well as a study of differential landing fees as an incentive for
all airlines to acquire.the quieter Stage III aircraft.
As we have seen already, her plan is innovative, but also controver-
sial. Whether or not the study will indicate additional steps the
Commission can take to attenuate; the noise problem remains to seen,
but already her suggestion has caused the Commission and others to
begin brainstorming to find other possible solutions to this
perplexing problem. She should be applauded for her efforts.
Although MAC has taken a leading role over the years in attempting
to find solutions to the noise problem, and with MASAC and our two
home based airlines, pioneered 17 programs to reduce noise problems
t MSP, we cannot rest on our laurels.
Airport neighbors who for years have been willing to put up with
aircraft noise in hopes that a long term solution was near, now are
finding the increased noise such that they are vigorously complaining
to the Commission. With over 1200 telephoned complaints in July,
there is no doubt the problem is becoming unbearable to many of our
citizen neighbors in south Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington and
portions of Dakota County.
Although MAC has told the community that we are helpless to do much
more about it due to Federal regulations and laws, we are still looked
to as the body which should provide noise relief, and control the
aircraft which use our airport.
If Congress and Federal Government are the only ones that can take
further effective steps to alleviate this problem, then I believe it
is the Commission's responsibility to lead the way to help our affected
neighbors make their message heard where it can do the most good.
I therefore propose that MAC launch a program of bringing to bear all
the pressure that we can on Congress and the Federal regulators
to take steps to solve the problem, or to allow airport authorities
more means to alleviate the problem on a local level, or both.
0 As a first step, I propose that MAC adopt the attached resolution to
be presented to the appropriate committee at the AOCI conference in
Los Angeles in October, and urge its adoption. A copy should also be
forwarded.to the Minnesota Congressional Delegation in Washington,
D.C. and to the DOT, with a strong letter urging prompt action.
l �
RESOLUTION /
09EREAS, deregulation of airlines has resulted in a dramatic increase
Of air traffic, especially between the major hub airports in the
United States, and
WHEREAS, deregulation of airlines has resulted in a dramatic increase
in landings and takeoffs at most major hub airports in the United
States and a 60 percent increase in operations at Minneapolis -St. Paul
International (MSP), and
WHEREAS, deregulation of airlines has resulted in many new applications
for gate and ramp space at most airports from existing as well as newly
formed national and commuter airlines, many of which fly Stage II
aircraft disposed of by other airlines, and
WHEREAS, the program of purchasing Stage III aircraft by many airlines
has not resulted in the permanent retirement of the Stage II aircraft
being disposed of because newer airlines purchase and return them to
service, and
WHEREAS, under deregulation there are many overlapping and duplicative
flights by competing airlines with low occupancy rates which unneces-
sarily increase air traffic, exacerbating problem's of safety, noise,
pollution, as well as inefficient use of aircraft, fuel, and the
environment, and
REAS, in Minnesota, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
(MASAC), consisting of representatives of airport operators, airlines,
impacted communities and the FAA, has initiated seventeen successful
sound abatement programs and procedures which have now been reduced in
effectiveness by the impact of greatly increased air traffic, and
WHEREAS, it is being questioned whether the FAA has yet developed an
adequate cadre of trained air traffic controllers to safely handle the
increased air traffic without undue delays which lengthen flight time
thereby creating more noise, pollution, and inefficient use of fuel
and air space, and
WHEREAS, the FAA, in order to maintain safe operations at many crowded
airports, has had to abandon or adversely modify previously agreed to
noise abatement procedures, including near abandonment of the highly
successful preferential runway system at MSP, and
WHEREAS, the general public is increasingly complaining to airport
operators around the country about noise and air pollution problems, and
WHEREAS, airport operators are too often unable to abate noise or
correct pollution or safety problems due to federal preemption of their
authority to control the use of airport facilities, based upon alleged
adverse effects on interstate commerce, and
WHEREAS, the wise use of the environment and natural resources should
havea priority which should not always be subjugated to deregulated
interstate commerce and unbridled competition,
THEREFORE, the Metropolitan Airports Commission of Minnesota recommends
the following resolution for adoption by the Airport Operators Council.
International (AOCI), and urges Congress and federal regulators to adopt
the following steps to help alleviate the problems and maintain safe
and.'-environmentally improved conditions on and around commercial
airports:
1:. A temporary and limited degree of airline regulation be rein-
stituted in an attempt to accomplish a reduction in the number
of flights between common points where occupancy is low. This
need not unduly interfere with interstate commerce, but should
be designed to restore common sense to use of air space, with-
out imposing full regulation.
This could be accomplished through a mandated cooperative
effort of the airlines involved, mandated restrictions of the
number of allowable flights on a route, or an awarding of
routes,*as the situation dictates.
These actions could reduce the duplication of low occupancy
flights, reduce the excessive use of fuel, increase efficient
use of aircraft and airspace, and reduce noise and pollution
at both the point of origin and termination.
This also would improve the ability of the Air Traffic Control
System to handle flights in a safe and efficient manner.
2. Congress should direct the DOT or the FAA to conduct a six
month study on ways-to encourage airlines to accelerate the
modernization of their fleets in order to reduce airport
noise, as currently proposed in the House Appropriations
bill by Congressman Martin Sabo of Minnesota.
3. Congress should consider tax incentives, interest free loans
or other measures which would encourage the purchase and use
of Stage III aircraft or the modification of Stage II air-
craft to achieve less noisy and more fuel efficient flights.
4. Congress should'consider an increased tax on commercial jet
fuel to discourage continued long term use of Stage,Il
aircraft which are not fuel efficient. These tax monies
should be used to fund tax incentives for the purchase of
Stage III aircraft. Subsidies should be diminished for air -
lines not modernizing their fleets.
5. Federal authorities should enforce disposal or modification
of all Stage II aircraft at a specified date and provide a
reasonable schedule for phasing out such aircraft, allowing
time to recapture investment in recently purchased aircraft.
6. Airport authorities should be allowed to apply to DOT for
permission to institute and enforce operational restrictions
where a major safety, noise or air pollution problem can
be demonstrated to exist.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission further directs staff to forward
this resolution to the appropriate committee of AOCI, to members of
the Minnesota delegation in Congress, to the Directors of DOT, the FAA,
and other appropriate state and national regulatory bodies.
s
•
s
f:�' l
(rn�\ NedonN 1301 PBnnsylvaniBAvenue NW Officers
T�F oW W• D'C'' President
of 20004 George v voinovicn
C1f1111111 t2M Mayor, Cleveland. Ohio
:�i2b�e' NLGlTIES first Vice President
• Carol Bellamy
Council President. New York, New York
September 6, 1985 Second VicePresrdent
Henry G. Cisneros
Mayor, San Antonio. Texas
Immediate Past President
George Latimer
Mayor, St. Paul. Minnesota
Executive Director
Alan Beals
TO: Mayors and Managers of Direct Member Cities
Executive Directors of State Municipal Lea lies
From: Alan Beals, Executive Director
Subject: Proposed Amendments to National Municipal Policy and
Separate Resolutions, Annual Congress of Cities, Seattle,
Washington, December 7 -11, 1985
DUE: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1985
The Policy Committees of the National League of Cities will meet
from 9 :00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Sunday, December 8, in the Seattle
Center. NLC's Resolutions Committee will meet at 1:00 p.m.,
Monday, December 9, also in the Seattle Center. Member cities and
state municipal leagues are invited to submit policy proposals for
consideration by these committees.
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION
All. advance proposals to amend the NLC National Municipal Policy
and advance separate resolutions must be submitted to:
Chairman, Resolutions Committee
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
To assure sponsors full rights to the NLC policy process, and to
allow for distribution of advance proposals to NLC's membership,
proposals must be received in NLC's office by the end of business
on Tuesday, October 15, 1985.
Ant pneJdenb Tom Bradley, Mayor. Los Angeles. Calitamis • Feld L Harrison. Mayor. Scotland Neck, North Carolina • William H. Hudnut, Ill. Mayor. Indianapolis. Indiana • Henry W. Mater,
Mayor, Milwaukee. Wisconsin • Joule M. 1111411011" COUnCllwomen, Newoort News, Virginia • John A. Rousshls, Mayor, Savannah. Georgia • Charles Royer, Mayor. Seattle. Washington • Directors:
Art Ash" Mayor, Nitro. West Virginia • Rose BesnrmN% Council Member, Vancouver. Washington • Robert R. Cantlne. Executive Oirector, Wyoming Association of Municipalities • Henry Cook,
Council Member, Jacksonville, Florida • Jae W. D"S. Mayor, Huntsville. Alabama •Janos tL Ferguall , Mayor, Provo, Utan• Donald Frsan, Mayor, Minneapolis. Minnesota • Terry Goddard. Mayor.
Phoenix, Arizona • Ron Gonaalnf Council Member, Sunnyvale. California • Gaol 0. Goodman, Executive Director, Michigan Municipal League • DonM E. Grlaet, Mayor. Santa Ana, California
Richard Guthman, Jr., Council Member, Atlants, Georgia • Robert W Harpater, Executive Oirector, League of Iowa Municipalitip • DakNq Hudson, Council Member. Warrensburg, Missouri -
Brendan J. Kennedy, Alderman, New Britain, Connecticut • Dud LastraAn, Mayor, Lafayette, Louisiana• Paul A. Lent Mayor, Alton, Illinois • Garaltl McCann. Mayor, Jersey City, New Jersey • Orlon
J. D'NOM Council Member, Philadelphia. Pennsylvania • Pamela R Plumb, Councilor, Portland. Maine • Ruin H. Scott. Council Member. Rochester, New York • James W. Segel, Executive Director.
ManaChuSettS Municipal Association • Lattta Shackelford, City Oirector. Little Rack, Arkansas • Raymond C. SM Executive Oirector, Florida League of Cities • Donald A. Slater, Executive
Oirect Newark. League ot • nnesot X Wants. C & T oa loom Greenbelt. lift) Louls2a Mexico - Minsitte C.
Member ch, Mayor Te Tarn, Charlotte. North Carolina • Donald Tucker, Counc,l Member.
•
•
•
Page Two
September 6, 1985
FORM OF SUBMISSION
National Municipal Policy for 1985, copies of which have been
previously furnished to all member cities and state leagues, is
the comprehensive policy statement of the National League of
Cities. It is subject to amendment at each annual business
meeting of NLC. Proposed changes to the 1985 National Municipal
Pow licy should be submitted in the fora specified on the attached
insert.
Separate resolutions are short term expressions of the membership
of the National League of Cities, typically endorsing or opposing
specific Congressional bills or current Presidential positions.
They do not become part of the continuing National Municipal Policy
document but are transmitted to appropriate federal officials
immediately following the annual meeting. Such resolutions auto
matically die at the end of the calendar year following the
Congress of Cities at which they were passed. The format to be
followed for each resolution submitted is specified on the reverse
side of the attached insert.
Questions on the form or germaneness of policy proposals'or
separate resolutions will be referred to a subcommittee of NLC's
Advisory Council, appointed for that purpose by the NLC President,
for recommendation to NLC's Resolutions Committee. The criteria
used by the subcommittee in making their recommendations appear
below under the subtitle "Guidelines for Preparation of Policy
Proposals."
PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADVANCE SUBMISSIONS
All proposals received in.NLC's offices before the end of business
on Tuesday, October 15, 1985 will be assigned to a policy committee
for consideration when the committees meet on Sunday, December 8,
in Seattle. Members submitting proposals will be notified of the
committee to which their proposal is referred and the time and
place of the committee meeting. Sponsors of proposals or their
representatives will be expected to appear before the full committee
to present and discuss their proposal.
If the policy committee accepts the proposal, it will be submitted
to the Resolutions Committee by the policy committee chairperson as
part of his or her .committee report.
WWI
Page Three
September 6, 1985
If the policy committee rejects the proposal, the fact that the
proposal was received by Tuesday, October 15 and was distributed to
members in advance permits the sponsor to appeal the policy committee
action to the Resolutions Committee during their meeting on Monday,
December 9.
PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS NOT SUBMITTED BY TUESDAY,'
OCTOBER 15
A member of a policy committee may offer amendments to National
Municipal Policy within his committee's jurisdiction or related
separate resolutions during the policy committee meeting on Sunday,
December 8.
Policy Committees are composed of from three to seven members from
each state nominated by the state municipal league. Member cities
and state leagues are urged to work with their state committee
delegation if they are unable to submit their proposal prior to the
Tuesday, October 15 deadline.
The Resolutions Committee will consider only policy committee
reports, proposals from member cities and state municipal leagues
received in NLC's offices by Tuesday, October 15, and recommendations
of individual Resolutions Committee members.
ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING 9
Any certified voting delegate of a member city or state league may
offer a National Municipal Policy amendment or a separate resolution
for consideration at the Annual Business Meeting on Wednesday,
December 11, 1985. However, any proposals not submitted to the
voting delegates by the Resolutions Committee or the Board of
Directors must be by petition presented to the presiding officer
of the Annual Business Meeting no later than 1/2 hour prior to the
meeting's Call to Order. To be accepted for floor consideration at
the Annual Business Meeting, such a petition must receive a majority
vote of all certified voting delegates present and voting.
All proposals to amend National Municipal Policy and all separate
resolutions, however submitted, require a 2/3 vote of delegates
present and voting for passage.
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF POLICY PROPOSALS
NLC's Board of Directors has adopted the following guidelines for
policy proposals to be considered for adoption at the Congress of
Cities: 0
Page Four
September 6, 1985
1. Whether acted upon as amendments to National Municipal Policy
or separate resolutions, policy proposals
a. shall - -in their subject matter -- concern shared policy
and program needs, issues or problems of the nation's
municipal governments;
b. shall be concerned with federal government policy, and
therefore, be addressed to federal government policy-
makers;
c. shall neither contradict nor duplicate existing NLC
policy statements, except where they are intended to
amend or repeal such policy;
d. shall not compromise the independence or integrity of
individual member cities to pursue any course of action
adopted by appropriate municipal policy - making bodies;
and
e. shall not compromise the budget- making, program
determining or priority setting role of the NLC Board.
2. As basic,-continuing organizational policy positions, proposed
amendments to National Municipal Policy should specify city
positions on_ federal roles and responsibilities, policy goals,
purposes, principles and /or program characteristics within the
broad subject areas covered by existing policy or authorized by
Board action. They should not refer to proposed Congressional
legislation by title, sponsor's name or bill number.
3. Non- continuing separate resolutions should be restricted to
those action- specific items of short term utility addressed to
the Congress or the President. In separate resolutions, specific
reference to proposed legislation by title, sponsor's name or
bill number is appropriate.
4. Separate resolutions shall be considered only when they do not
conflict with or contradict existing National Municipal Policy.
Further information regarding the NLC policy process may be secured
prior to the Congress of Cities from:
Bill Davis, Director
Office of Policy Analysis and
Development
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 626 -3030
(S.PLE NMP AMENDMENTS)
Energy, Environment &
Natural Resources
2.04 SOLID WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
B. Hazardous Wastes and Materials Management
3. Policies
m. Smaller Generator Exemption
(�Pi4- s}tees�e�- attempt -te- determine -a�sat
emantitp -ef - hssardane -evaa te- 3a -et�rr ent�p
exerepte� -f rerR- 3ZERI4- regniatien- assd- arisether
e�rreeti� *- e�ee�pteei- geeeeatera- see- g�egeei�
�isge9sag- ef- ti�e�e- wastes -)
Congress should enact legislation which
would substantially reduce the existing
exemption for small generators of hazar-
dous waste from the current level of
1000 kilograms of waste per month. EPA
should develop and promulgate regulations
governing the hazardous waste management
practices of small generators as soon
after enactment as possible.
EPA should provide technical assistance
to states and local governments con-
sidering regulating federally exempted
hazardous waste generators.
11-50-/d
•
words to be deleted:
strike thru text and
enclose in arenthesis
words 'to be added:
underline text
�. text to remain
u=nchanged
•
(Sample Resolution)
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
OCEAN DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES
WHEREAS, the United States Navy has'a proposal to dispose of up to 100 defueled
decommissioned nuclear submarines during the next three decades; and
WHEREAS, one of the options is for ocean disposal of these submarines; and
WHEREAS, the oceans are a food source for much of the world's population, and
contamination of the food chain could have far reaching implications;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the National League of Cities should support the
1972 ban on all ocean dumping of nuclear wastes until it can be demon-
strated that the safety and efficiency of ocean disposal offers less
harm to human health and the environment than other practical alterna-
tive methods of disposal.
Typing Instructions
• Margins should be
one inch on all sides.
• Courier 12 typing element.
• Under the words "Proposed
Resolution ", type title.
• Make sure to type, in the
resolution's sponsor
(individual, city or
state municipal league).
Submitted by: Colorado Municipal League
Date Received: (LEAVE BLANK)
Referred to: (LEAVE BLANK)
•
40
t
�y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 367
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Consideration of Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council ( MASAC) Request for Membership
Input On Its Goals, Its Priorities, and What
Actions Can Be Taken To Meet The New Problems
Council Members:
Background
Deregulation of the airline industry has helped to increase
the number of airport operations (an operation is either a take -
off or landing) and noise complaints.
Where there used to be a dozen airlines operating from the
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport there are now between
two and three times as many. Metropolitan Airport Commission
(MAC) staff report that there are 50 flights a day between
Chicago and Minneapolis in 1985• However, if large capacity
planes were used, and they carried near full occupancy loads,
the actual number of flights could be held to about 15 a day.
The airport had an average of 705 operations a day in May,
1982, and 168 noise complaints a month. In July, 1985,
operations were at a record level of 1,104 a day, while
complaints were 1,250! This represents a 40 percent growth in
airline traffic in the last four years.
The ability of MAC and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council ( MASAC) to improve noise levels at the MSP
airport is going backwards - it's getting worse, not better.
MASAC Seeks Input
At the August 27, 1985, MASAC meeting, the members concurred
that because of the dramatic change at MSP in recent years,
particularly in the number of operations, that MASAC should
review its goals, re- examine its priorities and study what
operational actions can be taken to meet the new problems. It
was agreed to devote time at future MASAC meetings to address
these issues.
Chairman Walter Rockenstein in a communication dated
September 6, 1985, has asked MASAC members to be prepared to
• review its priorities. Each city.is asked to bring to the
September 24, 1985, meeting input on these three q uestions:
1. A definition of what one would like to pursue as
the criteria for the environmental capacity at
the airport;
2. What aspect of our noise abatement program should
5. Require MAC to its expansion plans for
more terminals, parking lots and related facilities
and advise what impact these proposed activities will
have on the number of daily operations; and,
6. Have MAC determine the feasibility to shift all general
aviation uses to the reliever airports.
The Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport is vital to
the seven - county metropolitan area economic health. This is
acknowledged by most everyone. Yet, the solutions to the noise
•
be reviewed; and,
3.
Suggestions for changes and /or additions in
operational procedures of the MAC noise abatement
program.
The
City Manager offers the following suggestions:
1.
MAC investigate the feasibility of a plan to
evaluate pilots on how quiet the landing or
departure of their aircraft are (John Wayne
Airport at Orange County, California);
2.
Impose operating fees up to ten times higher for
aircraft operating between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
This approach is up for a vote at Palm Beach County,
•
Florida in October;
3.
Forbid noisy aircraft operations during nighttime
hours (i.e. Palm Beach County);
4.
Investigate the feasibility of purchasing land
adjacent to the airport which suffers the most from
noise as possibly a more economical approach than
other solutions (i.e. a second airport, federal
subsidies to airlines for quieter aircraft engines).
This acquired land could be used for industrial
growth and recreational facilities (Seattle Airport
example);
5. Require MAC to its expansion plans for
more terminals, parking lots and related facilities
and advise what impact these proposed activities will
have on the number of daily operations; and,
6. Have MAC determine the feasibility to shift all general
aviation uses to the reliever airports.
The Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport is vital to
the seven - county metropolitan area economic health. This is
acknowledged by most everyone. Yet, the solutions to the noise
•
1
problems must be pursued at the local level as well as the
national level of government. The July 29, 1985, letter from
• Congressman. Bill Frenzel doesn't give any hope.for a financial
incentive to airlines approach for quieter aircraft.
Respectf��411 submitted,
l
John G. Cartw ght
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
•
A/_ 2-/
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC)
Chairman: Walter Rockenstein, II 6040 28th Avenue South
Past Chairs: Jan Del Calzo, 1979 -1982 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
Stanley W. Olson, 1969 -1979 (612) 726 -9411
Technical Advisor: Darrell Weslander
MEMORANDUM
TO: All MASAC Members
FROM: Walter Rockenstein, Chairman
DATE: September 6, 1985 •
SUBJECT: Review of MASAC Priorities
At the August 27 MASAC meeting, it was suggested that the Council
review its priorities. Because of this, we request that the member-
ship bring the following to the next MASAC meeting which will be
held Tuesday, September 24, 1985.
I. A definition of what one would like to purpose as the
criteria for the environmental capacity of the airport;
2. What aspect of our noise abatement program should be
reviewed; and
3. Suggestions for changes and /or additions in operational
procedures of the MAC noise abatement program.
/v
NOTE: We realize that the September 24 meeting is the eve of Yom
Kippur. Unfortunately the date was set early in the year
and we are not able to change it without major inconvenience.
Next year the MASAC meetings will not be scheduled to conflict
with religious holidays.
M
•
•
•
strl ti .41m. to mt. -
posing. curfews, banning certain types 'of
airplanes or taking other actions to try to
reduce the, din. Airlines claim such rules.. .
violate the rights of travelers, and some pi-
lots warn that ill- advised noise - control pot
ides- could, jeopardize safety.
So far; airline officials concede, restric-
tions haven't slowed industry growth. Ri.
dership on commercial airlines is hitting
record levels this year, up 13% from 1984...
But- airlines complain they are - being.
re c %0 s encourage p o a excel
sive risks to reduce noise.
California's Orange County, for in
stance, awards more landing rights to air -
lines with the lowest scores on noise moni .
tors.it places around John Wayne airport..
Officials say the system has prompted pi-
lots to develop quieter flying techniques.. .
Pilot Competition
. "We -tell airlines exactly how noisy each-.
Bight was," says Christine Edwards, an
,{
turned away from some hot new markets,. . airport noise-control Six ddual- We quite.
especially-in fast-growing an such as Is- eliminate overnight mail service, prompt frequently get calls from. pilots asking. how
Up or Southern California's Orange County, some carriers to bypass Palm Beach they did."
where - John Wayne Airport Is L clamping County and carry tourists .to nearby Fort Richard Deeds, chairman of the Airline
down on commercial jet traffic Lauderdale instead, and eliminate a Pilots Noise Abatement. Cbmmittee, says
Added Costs ~ .• ; planned cut-rate "night -owl" air service to- that program could reduce the pilots' mar
San Diego: gin of safety. To reduce noise, readings on
Airlines fewnoise- related controls will. Despite critics' complaints, jets have airport monitors, he says, pilots often try
become increasingly common. Already, actually become. substantially quieter in to take off at steeper angles, use less
most large- airports require jets to follow recent years, With a few exceptions, the power, and pull .their throttles back from
prescribed routes —often at considerable noisy jets thatwere used in the 1M and high take -off levels at lower altitudes than
added cost —to avoid residential areas. 19ft have been', phased out to meet FAA they should..Such techniques could reduce
Even tougher restraints are . possible. Los regulations. New - generation jets sound their control over the airplane in an emer-
Angeles International Airport, for instance;. about one- fourth as. loud as earlier air- gency, he says.
which expects to handle 37 million passen- craft. Mr. Deeds also, contends that some air -
gers this year, may restrict the number of . But such improvements haven't stopped lines use low-power Ianding techniques .to
flights to reduce noise. demands for tight: noise controls. Airlines reduce noise, even though that reduces pi-
"UlWaterally developed, uncoordinated want the FAA to set standards, but airport lots' control, impairs their ability to abort
constraints" have become a "dagger operators vehemently oppose-federal inter- . landings, and forces jets -to approach run-
pointed at the heart of-commerce," the Air vention.. They say communities might op- ways at angles. that give pilots. reduced
Transport Association, an industry trade pose all new airport-construction- and'cre- visibility.
group, said in a.recent petition asking the . ate- an even more serious economic .pinch The FAA. insists that. various noise-
Federal- Aviation Administration to- inter- for, airlines -if. Wasbington takes away abatement procedures are safe. But Mr.
vene. ` thefr> ability to. mediate between angry Deeds questions whether pilots should be
"If such restrictions spread, pretty soon "homeowners, homeowners and airlines. concentrating on noise rather than safety-
we'll be surrounded and have no place to The FAA refuses to assume broad re-- especially at- such crucial times as. take -
go," says an Air Transport Association.. sponsibility, fearing that it could be judged off.
spokesman-. . } liable- for noise - related damage claims "Pilots are getting pressured to do this:
Islip's W. Kalbaugh says citizens have from residential landowners near airports.. competitive flying," he complains. "Peo-
a right to some protection from noise. For "The FAA.has three boxes—,'In.' 'Out' and- ple should remember that one of the loud -
years, he says, residential development 'Too Tough,' " says Walter Coleman, the est noises you can have is somebody crash -
vas allowed very near to MacArthur Air-- operatfdns director of the. Air Transport : ing."
c/ ' ✓"'/t,
Increasln NbiseAMan'y g A Sparks",
.0 pro ar Between Homeowners andAirlines
p
BY CwurrorHs Coom : p
port because the facility was used only 'by .
. Association. "This issue has ended up in
s7afraepa.eerofTun wm.L sTamricuumA , s
small, fairly quiet private planes and an. t
the 'too-tough' box."
Foryears, officials in Islip, N.Y., on the o
occasional jet. Now, the noise from passen- S
Still, the FAA has .
south shore of Long Island tried to lure air C
Cr jets unfairly. disrupts residents' lives c
.great i
lines to serve .sleepy MacArthur. Airport. a
and; lowers their.. property values, he . t
tion. Ingeneral, the agency says it will ac..
-Finally, in the -past. five years, the num -, s
says.: c
cept "reasonable" noise - related controls,
her of commercial flights has tripled. But B
But others warn that turning jets away b
but objects to restrictions that "unduly"
now many residents aren't so. pleased. m
may hurt local economies. "While you're - i
interfere with interstate commerce. The
"The noise is most disruptive," com g
going to be improving the quality of life for a
agency, however, refuses to define those -
plains Edward Kalbaugh, -a citizen activist. a
a few, you're going to be reducing it for t
terms exactly.
and candidate for town supervisor. "Where t
the vast majority," warns Hugo Unruh, I
In the absence of uniform federal pol-
I live, you can't sleep after about 6:30 in. ,
,president of the Economic Council of Palm i
icies. most serious noise battles windup in
the morning. Closer in,. when a jet flies B
Beach County, Fla. Officials there may im c
court. That displeases airlines: which fear
overhead, walls shake, windows rattle, p
pose a curfew at the local airport and c
courts won't recognize how piecemeal re-
school classes have to stop what they're c
charge higher landing fees to noisy air - .
. strictions can undermine the national
doing. You can't even carry on a converses p
planes. t
travel network'. "Courts have limited expe-
tion." Islip's town fathers are now trying h
hosing Business . r
rience and don't look at the issue in its
to limit jet flights at the airport, but air - "
"We promote tourism and relocation of - -
- whole context;" complains Richard Street;
_ '
'business here, but (noise restrictions)' just a
a United Airlines vice president.
Similar battles are being U
Unruh. He fears the curfew would halt. d
don't like the complicated, curved ap•
shatters the desire of airport neighbors for d
late -night People Express. Airline flights P
down noise - But worse, they say some focal
peace and quiet. Scores of airports are im• . b
posing. curfews, banning certain types 'of
airplanes or taking other actions to try to
reduce the, din. Airlines claim such rules.. .
violate the rights of travelers, and some pi-
lots warn that ill- advised noise - control pot
ides- could, jeopardize safety.
So far; airline officials concede, restric-
tions haven't slowed industry growth. Ri.
dership on commercial airlines is hitting
record levels this year, up 13% from 1984...
But- airlines complain they are - being.
re c %0 s encourage p o a excel
sive risks to reduce noise.
California's Orange County, for in
stance, awards more landing rights to air -
lines with the lowest scores on noise moni .
tors.it places around John Wayne airport..
Officials say the system has prompted pi-
lots to develop quieter flying techniques.. .
Pilot Competition
. "We -tell airlines exactly how noisy each-.
Bight was," says Christine Edwards, an
,{
turned away from some hot new markets,. . airport noise-control Six ddual- We quite.
especially-in fast-growing an such as Is- eliminate overnight mail service, prompt frequently get calls from. pilots asking. how
Up or Southern California's Orange County, some carriers to bypass Palm Beach they did."
where - John Wayne Airport Is L clamping County and carry tourists .to nearby Fort Richard Deeds, chairman of the Airline
down on commercial jet traffic Lauderdale instead, and eliminate a Pilots Noise Abatement. Cbmmittee, says
Added Costs ~ .• ; planned cut-rate "night -owl" air service to- that program could reduce the pilots' mar
San Diego: gin of safety. To reduce noise, readings on
Airlines fewnoise- related controls will. Despite critics' complaints, jets have airport monitors, he says, pilots often try
become increasingly common. Already, actually become. substantially quieter in to take off at steeper angles, use less
most large- airports require jets to follow recent years, With a few exceptions, the power, and pull .their throttles back from
prescribed routes —often at considerable noisy jets thatwere used in the 1M and high take -off levels at lower altitudes than
added cost —to avoid residential areas. 19ft have been', phased out to meet FAA they should..Such techniques could reduce
Even tougher restraints are . possible. Los regulations. New - generation jets sound their control over the airplane in an emer-
Angeles International Airport, for instance;. about one- fourth as. loud as earlier air- gency, he says.
which expects to handle 37 million passen- craft. Mr. Deeds also, contends that some air -
gers this year, may restrict the number of . But such improvements haven't stopped lines use low-power Ianding techniques .to
flights to reduce noise. demands for tight: noise controls. Airlines reduce noise, even though that reduces pi-
"UlWaterally developed, uncoordinated want the FAA to set standards, but airport lots' control, impairs their ability to abort
constraints" have become a "dagger operators vehemently oppose-federal inter- . landings, and forces jets -to approach run-
pointed at the heart of-commerce," the Air vention.. They say communities might op- ways at angles. that give pilots. reduced
Transport Association, an industry trade pose all new airport-construction- and'cre- visibility.
group, said in a.recent petition asking the . ate- an even more serious economic .pinch The FAA. insists that. various noise-
Federal- Aviation Administration to- inter- for, airlines -if. Wasbington takes away abatement procedures are safe. But Mr.
vene. ` thefr> ability to. mediate between angry Deeds questions whether pilots should be
"If such restrictions spread, pretty soon "homeowners, homeowners and airlines. concentrating on noise rather than safety-
we'll be surrounded and have no place to The FAA refuses to assume broad re-- especially at- such crucial times as. take -
go," says an Air Transport Association.. sponsibility, fearing that it could be judged off.
spokesman-. . } liable- for noise - related damage claims "Pilots are getting pressured to do this:
Islip's W. Kalbaugh says citizens have from residential landowners near airports.. competitive flying," he complains. "Peo-
a right to some protection from noise. For "The FAA.has three boxes—,'In.' 'Out' and- ple should remember that one of the loud -
years, he says, residential development 'Too Tough,' " says Walter Coleman, the est noises you can have is somebody crash -
vas allowed very near to MacArthur Air-- operatfdns director of the. Air Transport : ing."
c/ ' ✓"'/t,
c/ ' ✓"'/t,
/y i
o�F+
qq��s °33E�.�
e3�6?�
°�u�•�333$�atr.ug�uEg
Y mares Fm 09a C�
■� �O.e.00 °Y31Vm��„Tm�
Sloa�$aa3YY,9r _ °$
♦+�Eo ��.. Ya4
� Eoo�e4fi -_Code
3 ex
�Eo
e.
°
ova
°
' aT�aeeY
oQaRSa�
nOLOECa
C
°uo�vmE
Eou °`a-
=4�=
mp °$cmE
p
°a
�� as , � efi�e 3tl 8 e°abL
!3-
Opp p 5�1V�' ;p�VR�
O 6V 9 �� a 6 E �� V � ` 6 4 0 Y $•
Q o e a Cfi �
• O.
g a
'�ee� �= t- • °p�a5g @ate �a,p.°', '
a Y pm =Cp p
EZiia p e E
8 1 8Ea8E
3ia
B5, � 6
Aws: C;bs
I%= CL
gR d
Ifs-
;_ �_..
pSYKV
g go i
fi$ao•
�V "9E
�3a°9�Soa °c= 3aSo�Eoo�'e$ 3u °3.
2.o1 gC
Jam
V O yQyQyQppp a_
OCtlM.°. E'p$p �CyO 1-
C p
G0M. 6.02. ;
mi
I»30Z° �
a's1 °so�a`m.�I II, i
CL
A4 1m
ov
m� a
♦� tee"' _C °v Ed prs "2'�E��°
SO eCS� ;tom:_ .FM�a CCC mil! v yo
•
•
Aviation.. adds. $ n, -to a -.on,q.r,1 '.
he aviation industry has a - - Generating. $2.T billion a year,.or 3 per -. -
in and indirect wages, it's estimated
significant economic effect ors cent of. the region's economic output;
to bring about $55 million in Rther _
the Twin Cities Area. It's = Employing more than 16,000 people =
expenditures While some general aviation
responsible for:. directly, most with the.commercial
takes place at the•international airport,
airlines; .._ ^,
most occurs at the region's smaller airports.
-- Generating ano th er; jobs in
A 1984 study of one`of'those -- Flying
_.. businesses serving the air transportation
Cloud Airport- showed that the :.
industry. _`
surrounding. Eden Prairie area benefted
The facts and figures come from a
directly from the rotation -of. the airport-
Metropolitan Council study done this year
employees with
The airport had 193 em
in connection with the updating of the
an annual payroll bf $3.6 million. The
Council's policy plan for the region's..
purchase of local goods and services ,
airport system. They are from 1.983, the-.
amounted to $§32,000; taxes paid were. ;
-
.
most recent year for which data is... -
$275,400.
available. _
Another separate study was done
".The.study reminds usthatthe aviation
earlier of the St Paul. Downtown Airport
_ industry is extremely important to the -
It showed -328 employees with a payroll-oi
region as an economic resource and as a ..
$6S. million, purchases of goods and_
Method of moving goods and people,"
services totalling $2.5 million, and' taxes'
said Philip C..Carruthers, a Council mem=
paid of about $223,000..
ber who serves on the Aviation Polio - ° -
Indirect economic impacts of aviatiorr
..
Plan Task Force: "Regional government"
include money spent by visitorsorr
has an important responsibility to -
"hotels, restaurants, entertainment and
enhance the region by protecting and
other things. Some 187,000yisitors were
improving the airport system."..
brought to the region in 1983 via private
Of the jobs in the industry, 95 percent
or business planes. No data is available
are with commercial airlines, located at -
on the number brought in by. commercial
the Minneapolis -St. Paul International
airlines.:;.:
Airport. And 95 percent of those jobs are
The Council, with the help of a con -
with Northwest and Republic Airlines, .7
sultant, conducted six surveys to obtain
which are based in the Twin Cities. Direct
information for the economic impact-
and indirect wages attributable to the
analysis. Groups surveyed included `
industry account for $922 million= $879
airlines, providers of services taairports,
million of that from commercial airlines.. '
freight handling firms, airport operators,.
17
pilots and businesses that use airports. ,
4General aviation. " — business, private
They were asked for their perceptions of
and pleasure flying —also contributes
the airport . system as well as economic
substantially to the economy of the
impacts of the system. - ■
region, the report said. Besides $43 million
Nanny Anrr/ames
_
-
•
•
•
C
7�2�•gs
- s
Notes taken at meeting with Darrel Weslander, Mayor John Hamilton, and, Don
Priebe on airport noise.
There's been an approximate 15% increase in air traffic at the
Minneapolis /St. Paul Airport since deregulation of airlines.
Deregulation has added to greater traffic and when there is greater traffic
the compacity to handle the aircraft must be shifted to the parallel runways
more and more. Some the added traffic recently has been from 2 commuter
airlines plus Piedmont Airlines and the addition of more-Northwest and Republic
Airline flights.
More flights do not show a corresponding increase in passenger count.
The competition for passengers means that an airline is reluctant to give up
its passengers so therefore each airline schedules smaller aircraft to fly on a
more frequent basis so that they can get their passengers from one major city
to another major city without giving up that passenger to another competitor.
In the case of smaller cities, deregulation has meant that there are fewer
flights and higher ticket prices at the smaller city airports. This leads
passengers from the smaller cities to drive to the Minneapolis /St. Paul
airport to take advantage of more frequent flight schedules and lower fares.
Darrel Westlander felt that Minneapolis /St. Paul airport serves 5 or 6 states.
We discussed the power takeoffs for Northwest Airlines and Republic
Airlines. From 0 to the first 1000 feet the airplane must use full power in
takeoff because this is the point in time where safety is the greatest issue in
getting the aircraft off the ground and full power is necessary. Northwest and
Republic pilots after they reach 1000 feet reduce power until they reach 3000
feet. The reduction in power means less noise. Once the aircraft reachs 3000
feet, and the aircraft is further away from the airport, pilots then return to
full power at this higher altitude which should have less of a noise impact on
the residents on the ground.
Other airlines that fly into the Minneapolis /St. Paul airport are being
contacted by Darrel Westlander and being urged to follow the Northwest Airline
procedure. FAA has approved the Northwest takeoff procedure.
It was noted that the airport plays a very important economic role in the
Twin Cities and to Richfield. Many employees of the airline industry live in
Richfield.
We discussed the environmental capacity concept. This is a relatively new
concept and it means an effort could be made to determine how many aircraft
operations in a 24 hour day an airport is capable of handling. The idea would
be to establish an environmental capacity and.then the number of operations
could not exceed that amount.
It was also noted that the noise problem from the airport affects only a
few communites and therefore only a few number of people comparatively speaking
when you consider all of the people living in the Twin Cities area.
It was also noted that when the airport expands its facilities by adding to
. a concourse or adding additional parking for vehicles it encourages more
aircraft operations. With more aircraft operations the airport must go to the
parallel runway system which then generates more noise to the residents who
live in the direct flight path of the parallel runway system.
-2-
%/_ 9
Recently it appears that the preferential runway program at the airport has
broken down due to the high number of operations on a daily basis and the need
to use the parallel runways more and more regardless of wind conditions.
Most of the flights that use runway 4/22 are headed either to the west
coast, to the south or southeast. Runway 4, when that is in use, must mix the
incoming aircraft and sandwich those in with the outgoing flights. The
preferential runway concept has roughly doubled the activity on Runway 4/22.;
Darrel Westlander commented that some of the things that the Federal government
could do in legislation would be to try to reduce the number of flights.
However, with deregulation this is unlikely. He noted that at the present time
there are 50 flights daily to Chicago and the number of passengers carried
could be handled in 15 wide- bodied planes rather than the 50 smaller planes. We
discussed the 180 degree departure turn. It was noted that before the 180
degree departure turn procedure, Runway 22 had approximately 43% of aircraft
heading in a 200 degree direction. The other 57% of the aircraft tookoff
heading either 220 degrees, 250 degrees or 350 degrees.
After the 180 degree departure regulation was in use, 35% of the aircraft
using Runway 22 were assigned the 180 degree turning movement to go down Cedar.
The remaining aircraft or 65% were assigned either to 220 degrees, 250 degrees,
or 350 degrees. The 200 degree departure route was eliminated since that flew
over southeast Richfield and Bloomington and created the greatest noise problem.
Darrel Westlander commented that in the last 3 weeks of June and the first
2 weeks of July the airport has had to rely to a great extent on the parallel
runways because of increased traffic. He pointed out that in 1984 in a typical
3 week period parallel runways were used about 100 hours in the month.
In 1985 it has jumped to 180 hours. Darrel Westlander commented that we need
tougher regulations by the Federal government so that we can get a cut -off date
for the elimination of Stage II aircraft. DC9s and 727s are Stage II aircraft
and they makeup 75% of the aircraft in use at the MSP airport. This airplane
in the future should either be grounded or refitted with new, quieter engines.
He commented that there is no dicussion underway in Congress to implement this
action-.
It was noted that there would be a high cost to replace aircraft. Even
though it may not be possible in the immediate next few years it is still
important to establish a date so that airlines can be put on notice when Stage
II aircraft would have to eliminated. Darrel Westlander thought that date
should be sometime in 1993 to 1995. The life expectancy of a 727 aircraft is
10 to 20 years.
Darrell Westlander commented that currently the airport is averaging 1076
flights on an average day. Five years ago the average number of flights was
around 500. This means there are 370,000 operations a year. An operation is
either takeoff or a landing.
A big issue is whether the airport should continue to expand its facilities
to take more aircraft or whether the airport should stop its expansion.
Airport growth is necessary one can argue to grow with the needs of the economy
and the need to meet business needs in the Twin Cities and for the State of
Minnesota. It was also noted that Minneapolis is the home base for Republic
and Northwest Airlines.
BILL FRENZEL
TNIIID Mama, MINNESOTA
WASHOWTON ORFICt
1026 LoNOWOI"N Bummma
202 -225 -2871
•
(Gongrvo of the Mnitrb Otatti
Jowk of Rtprtgtntotibtg
Wasibing ton, ;DX. 20515
July 29, 1985
The Honorable John Hamilton
Mayor
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423 .
Dear John:
MINNESOTA ORaCr%'
MAYSETN CNRISTENSEN
ROOM 445
8120 PENN AvENuE Som
BLOOMINGTON. MINNNESOTA 55431
612 - 881 -4600
Thank you for your letter regarding the increased air traffic
noise over Richfield.
I have previously contacted the FAA, the Metropolitan'Airport
Commission(MAC), and the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement
Council(MASAC) to express my concern.on the problem of excessive
aircraft noise in the metro area.
As your letter noted, the Deregulation Act of 1978 has had a
dramatic effect on the number of flight.operations. Before
deregulation, many airlines signed an agreement which placed a
.voluntary limitation on scheduled flights. With the onset of.
deregulation, many new carriers began service.' They have not
signed the agreement, and, legally,'they cannot be-forced-to
do:*so. Because of this problem, MASAC` is in the process of
developing new measures for controlling flight operations.
One such measure, now under study by MASAC, is the implementation
of differential landing fees to discourage airport use during
nighttime hours, and to encourage the use of. the quieter Stage
III aircraft. Another measure under study would restrict or
eliminate nighttime use of.'aircraft not meeting specific noise
.limits.
The proposal to provide financial incentives to airlines for the
purchase of Stage III aircraft could be introduced as legislation
to the Congress. However, my assessment is that such legislation
has little chance of passing. Congress is currently trying to
close tax loop- holes. New tax incentives, however meritorious,
.will simply.not even be looked at as long as tax reform is under
active consideration. This measure is likely to be viewed as
just another.large loop -hole for the airline industry.
Another proposal.suggested is to establish a "target date" or
deadline for moving from the Stage II to the quieter Stage III
aircraft. Production of the Stage III aircraft is underway and
many airlines are already using some of these aircraft.
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPCR MAOE WITH RECYCLED PIEiCRs
. - a
0
Page Two
Mayor Hamilton
The process of changing an airline's entire fleet.of aircraft
is extremely complicated; and,-of.course, expensive. Congress
has not shown a willingness to revisit this complex area, espe-
cially since the decision to deregulate the industry. If air-
lines were forced to. switch. from Stage II to Stage III aircraft in
a short period of time, the increased cost would, of.course,'be
passed on.to the consumer.
s'
With air traffic continuing to increase, I'm afraid the problem
of how to best handle the increased noise is only going to get
more complicated. It is my hope; that through the continuing
efforts of MASAC; MAC, and the FAA, the problem of aircraft noise
can be alleviated.
Your concern on this matter is greatly appreciated. I will
welcome your counsel at any time.
Yours very truly,
Bill Frenzel
Member of Congress
:js
cc: Mr. John Cartwright
•
•
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA��
CITY OF
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 366
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable.Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfiel -d
Subject: 'Recommend Rejection of Bids for High Speed Copier
Council Members:
On I
Tuesday, September 3, 1 85 , bids were opened for a _ high
speed copier and service agreement. The bid minutes and
tabulations are attached for council review. The City Manager
recommends rejection of the bids for the reasons listed at the
end of this council letter.
Three bids were received for the photocopying equipment.
Two of the vendors, Xerox and Metro Sales, did not submit
deposits with their bids. After consulting with the city
• attorney's office, staff requested that these vendors submit the
required bid bonds during the week following the bid opening.
Both vendors complied. In addition, one vendor, Kodak,
incorrectly submitted a rental plan price quotation on the
proposal form for equipment purchase prices. This error was not
discovered until after the bid opening when staff were reviewing
the bids in more detail. The bid minutes reflect the actual
proposed purchase and.,rental amounts.
The staff reviewed each of the bids received for
compliance with the 33 equipment and service specifications
detailed in the Request for Bids. The staff finds that the
equipment and service proposed by the Xerox Corporation is the
only bid which meets all of the city's specifications. Xerox
proposed the Model 9400 copier now in place at city hall.
Metro Sales proposed that the city lease or purchase two of
their mid -sized Ricoh 6085 copiers. If placed in the same
location and operated in tandem, Metro feels that the two
copiers would meet the city's specifications. For example, each
of these copiers operates at a speed of 50 copies per minute for
a combined speed of 100 copies per minute, as required by our
specifications. It is the staff's opinion that combining the
features of two copiers is not equivalent to providing these
requirements with one copier. Using the speed as an example
• again, each copying job would have to be split and run
-2-
simultaneously on the two machines to achieve the same result as
one high speed copier.. For most of the copying jobs done at the
city this would not be practical. Other specifications not met
by the Metro Sales bid, include document feeder requirements and
collating bin capacity.
Eastman Kodak bid their model 225AF copier. Staff found
this copier fell short of the city's specifications in the areas
of copying speed, capabilities of the document feeder and paper
tray capacity.. In addition, Kodak was the highest bidder.
The on- going operating costs of each of the three proposals.
were also reviewed. These costs include maintenance and
supplies. Prices for these items were included in the bids
submitted to the city, but are not reflected in the tabulated
results reported in the attached minutes. Whereas leasing and
purchase costs are fixed, maintenance and supply costs vary
according to monthly services provided. To make our comparison,
we calculated the costs of these items based on the city's
actual monthly copying volume for the period from May, 1984,
through April, 1985• This analysis revealed that the Xerox
copier has the lowest operating cost. This factor significantly
reduces the cost difference between the Xerox proposal and that
of the lowest bidder, Metro Sales. For example:
3 -Year Xerox Metro
Operating Cost Lease Lease
Equip. & Install. $45,940 $25,147
• Maint. & Supplies $21,965 $29,237
7,905
Staff then reviewed the financing options offered by the
Xerox Corporation: a three year lease and an outright
purchase. The total cost for each option, which includes
equipment, maintenance and supplies, were used to evaluate the
options. The three year cost for purchase of the copier was
determined to be $65,945• Of this.three year amount,
$44,203 represents the purchase price which would be due in full
this year. The Central Services Fund does not currently have a
cash reserve sufficient to support this capital outlay.
The three year lease agreement proposed by Xerox offers the
city a favorable alternative to outright purchase of the
equipment. The interest rate on the lease is 8 %, yielding a
three year cost, including service and supplies, of $67,905. At
the end of the three year term the city has the option of
purchasing the equipment for $4,420 or having the equipment
removed at no additional cost. During the three year term, the
leasing arrangement would cost the city only $1,960 over the
cost of an outright purchase of the equipment while spreading
the amount due over three years. The cost of this leasing
arrangement is actually less than the city has been paying for
the past three years. We expect to save approximately $200 per
•
-3
month. A more detailed analysis of the purchase and leasing
options offered by the three bidders is attached.
Xerox attached a promotional offer of free merchandise to
• their bid. This promotion is currently offered to all
government customers who purchase or lease the 9400 copier
model. After consulting with the city attorney's office,
however, staff recommends that these items be refused. The
items were not requested in the bidding specifications and their
offer should not in any way be construed as affecting the
outcome of the bidding process.
The City Manager recommends rejection of the bids for a high
speed copier for these reasons
1. Based upon our monthly volume of copies made
(50,000- 60,000 per month), there are less costly copiers on the
market that are designed for this volume;
2. The number of hours spent copying long agendas
probably averages 2 hours per week. With some changes to the
way the agenda is assembled for City Council, HRA, and, Planning
Commission meetings, the City may be able to use copiers
designed for 50 -70 copies per minute. The present copier is
rated at 120 copies per minute.
3. Copiers that run at 70 copies per minute may cost, with
a governmental discount, $20,000 to $25,000. The current copier
(120 copies per minute, Zerox Model 9400), was bid at $44,203.
• There is the potential for significant savings even when taking
into account that labor costs should increase because the large
volume runs would probably take twice as long with a 70 copy
per minute copier.
Of course, any analysis also needs to include maintenance,
supplies, lease /purchase interest, and, labor costs as well as
optional equipment.
The City Manager recommends the City extend the current
three .month rental agreement with Zerox for the 9400 copier so
that new bid specifications can be prepared, bids taken, and, an
analysis be completed. A recommendation would be made to the
City Council during November. The three month rental cost of
the Zerox is $$,000. This is approximately $1,000 per month
premium to rent rather than to purchase or lease /purchase the
equipment.
Respectfu y submitted,
John G. Car wr' ht
City Manager
JGC /eja
I
45- 41
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
A HIGH SPEED PLAIN PAPER COPIER WITH SERVICE /MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for a high
speed plain paper copier and equipment maintenance agreement
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and:
WHEREAS, it appears that Xerox Corporation of Stanford,
Connecticut is the lowest responsible bidder;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the bid of Xerox Corporation of Stanford,
Connecticut for the lease and service of the above- mentioned
equipment at the following costs is hereby accepted:
36 month lease $45,939.60
Service for 50,000 copies
per month $511 /month
Service for copies exceeding
50,000 per month $.0053 /copy
2. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized
and directed to enter into a contract for the above- mentioned
equipment and service with the lerox Corporation of Stanford,
Connecticut according to specifications therefore approved by
the city council;
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their
bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder shall be
retained until a contract has been signed.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of September, 1985.
ATTEST:
Thomas P, erber, My Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
/J-,�
•
ANALYSIS OF
PROPOSED COPIER EQUIPMENT
Three Year Operating
Costs:
- - - - -- XEROX - - - - --
- -- METRO
SALES - --
- - - - -- KODAK - - - - --
Lease
Purchase
Lease
Purchase
Lease
Purchase
Equipment
45,940
44,203
24,899
20,826
63,622
52,917
Maintenance
20,091
19,868
23,514
18,442
21,697
21,697
Supplies
1,874
1,874
5,723
5,723
21687
2,687
Installation
0
0
248
248
430
430
3 YR TOTAL
$ 67,905
$ 659945
$ 54,384
$ 45,239
$ 88,436
$ 77,731
Buyout at
end of lease
$ 4,420
n/a
$ 1
n/a
$ 5,292
n/a
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
September 3, 1985
is High Speed Plain Paper Copier with Service /Maintenance Agreement
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Thomas Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open-and read aloud, bids for One High Speed Plain
Paper Copier with Service /Maintenance Agreement, as advertised in the official
newspaper on August 21, 1985.
Present: Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative;
Steven Devich, Administrative Services Director;
Thomas Ferber, City Clerk; Sally Morton, Central
Services Manager; and John Holter, Central
Service Technician.
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
B-ID SECURITY PURCHASE AMOUNT LEASE AMOUNT
Metro Sales Inc., Mpls No Bid Security $21,074.00 $25,147.68
Eastman - Kodak, Mpls 10% Bid Bond $52,917.00 $69,349.10 (3 yr, lease)
$70,471.94 (4 yr. lease)
$59,686.00 (Conditional
Sales Contract;
$68,470.00 (3 yr. Rental)
Xerox Corp., MpIs No Bid Security $44,203.00 $50,359.60
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
September 9, and September 23, 1985 City Council Meetings.
0 Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk
•
•
�c2�_�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 365
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request From Mr. K. D. Johnson to Exempt -the
Pantry Restaurant Property From The ILN Building
Permit Moratorium to Allow the Improvement and
Expansion of the Existing Restaurant on the Site.
Council Members,
Mr. Ken Johnson is proposing to upgrade the interior and
exterior of the existing Pantry Restaurant located at 75+5
Lyndale Avenue. Included in the renovation is the
construction of a approximately 9' x 30' addition onto the front
of the building to provide an entry foyer and solarium dining
area. The seating will be increased as well as the square
footage of the building (18 %). Three additional parking
stalls would be added in front of the building. Mr. Johnson
indicates that the expenditure for the project will be $100,000
or less.
The site is located within the ILN study area and is subject
to the building permit moratorium. The ordinance states that
the city shall not issue building permits in the area unless a
number of conditions are met. One of these conditions is that
there be no expansion of the building. Another is that the
construction not add more then 10% to the value of the
property. The proposal involves an addition onto the building
and could exceed the 10% limitation on value increase resulting
from construction. Therefore, city staff cannot issue the
necessary building permits. The property owner has requested
an exemption from these requirements so that his construction
may proceed.
It is the recommendation of the staff that the property in
question not be removed from the provisions of the building
permit moratorium at this time. A part of the planning study
now underway is the formulation of guidelines which would permit
property in the area to be improved but in a way which would be
consistent with the concept plan. The guidelines will be
-2-
presented to the Council prior to yearns end. Thus at this
time, it is important to continue to protect the planning
process.
Respectfu y ubmitted,
ohn G Ca wri
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
1�
doe pantry �a -3
September 4, 1985
To whom it may concern:
The Richfield Pantry restaurant is located at 75+5 Lyndale
Avenue South, and-lies within the proposed redevelopment area.
The Pantry has been in operation for eleven years and needs
upgrading in order to compete in an extemely competative industry,
and to maintain current health standards.
The general scope of this project is to upgrade the interior
finishes and furnishings, and to add a solarium type addition at
the west side of the building, and to rework the exterior to a
look that is similar to the Edina Restaurant.
There are also plans for additional parking, new exterior
signs, and a complete upgrade of the kitchen facility. The seating
will be increased, and the square footage would be increased from
1400 to 1550, or about 181.
The expenditure for this project should be $100,000..00 or less.
Sincerely,
K. D. Johnson
Owner, Pantry Restaurants
E
1•
't
i
4
1
t
\s. i
-- '-�7is�eT`- mLaVATtel.t .... �`SOQ'rN' £LEVATtON .. __.
+—� f 1
L5aST111y KITCNW
� '�
SNP _�
•- -_ _�. �.._��`����
�
LMINK
pNwbnwte
rTT'
IT
. G AC �17ILDINf� - 1612 1.f.
NCw ' AODf{ION - 2i5 1•'.
}n
I
Y
'1
0
3
ISO
i
xi.Lt Yd'.l' -o
e
•
r
�
-1
�
ICl91DGNALIL /�1
I
I
T
a
�
•
diI
I
o�ot Soo
affW. Ao-
r
1
•N�
L`(NDALL AV6NUP-Z�•
7
f4z%vPAR:IC.il
lcs - 19
piGV/
PA4xlnw S_
-
T07AL
r%.MWM4 - LZ
xi.Lt Yd'.l' -o
e
•
APPENDIX A. TRANSITORY ORDINANCES
STRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO 17.18 AN INTERIM ZONIM
THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING'PROCESS IN AOCERTAIN AREA F THE CITY,
REGULATING, RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES, DEVELOPMENM AND
SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN SUCH AREA.
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1.
A. The City is concerned with the proper and more economic use,
deielopment and possible redevelopment of that area of the City generally.
referred to as "Interstate- Lyndale Area ", hereinafter referred to as the
"Area", the boundaries of which. Area are more specifically described as
follows:
All of the property between Interstate No. 35W and the Minneapolis North-
field Southern Railroad tracks and south of 77th Street with the following ad-
ditions: (a) the area west of Emerson Avenue, east of Interstate No. 35W,
between 76th and 77th Streets, (b) in the area between Emerson and Aldrich
Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of 77th Street; (c) the
entire block between Aldrich and Lyndale Avenues south of 76th Street; (d) the
east one -half block of the block between 75th and 76th Streets; (e) the west
ore -half of the block between Lyndale and Garfield Avenues,, south of Century
Court apartments and north of 76th Street; (f) the entire block between Lyndale
and Garfield Avenues between 76th and 77th Streets; and (g) between Garfield
and Pleasant Avenues, the first parcel abutting the north side of ?7th Street.
B. There are a number of planning and land use issues arising in the Area
which require comprehensive planning, among which are the following:
1. The City is deficient in commercial and industrial tax base. Very
little undeveloped land remains within the City. The location of the Area is
such that with proper planning it has the potential to provide a location for
some of the most valuable and desirable commercial and /or industrial develop-
ment within the City.
2. The Area presently contains tracts of undeveloped or underdeveloped
land which cannot be developed to the optimum without improving access and im-
proving traffic patterns.
3• The Area may best be developed pursuant to a unified plan and /or in
large segments rather than on a piecemeal basis.
4. The Area contains a number of buildings which are aging and appear to
be in a deteriorating condition. Some parts of the Area present a poor visual
appearance because of such factors as lack of uniform setbacks, unrelated
facades, inadequate or inappropriate loading and unloading areas, insufficient
Parking, excessive land coverage, conflicting traffic movements and other
functional inadequacies.
2/11/$5
OROINANC A. 74 CITY OF RICHFIELO, :MINNESO r A
5•• -Present streets serving the Area do not appear to provide the best
access from main thoroughfares to some parcels at the east and west edges of
the Area.
6. The Area includes and is bounded by single- family residence districts
which are jeopardized or adversely affected by non - residential traffic. There
appears to be a need to relocate and redesign streets and other traffic control
facilities in and around the Area so as to safeguard such residential areas and
so as to minimize existing land use conflicts.
7. Several of the streets in the Area are of substandard design. It
appears necessary and desirable to formulate a long -range master plan for
control and movement of traffic within nd around the Area.
8. It appears necessary and desirable to avoid further piecemeal develop-
ment and redevelopment of the Area so as to reverse the undesirable development
patterns which have existed and which.now exist within the Area including
fragmented land ownership and under - utilization of the land.
9. It appears that there are or may be substandard building conditions
and structures used or intended to be used for industrial or other purposes
within the Area.
10. It appears that by reason of sociological and technological changes,
as well as by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence and the faulty arrangement
or design of buildings and improvements in the Area, there is a need for comp
hensive planning and development of the Area.
11. I.t appears that there is or may be a lack of suitable public
facilities, excessive land coverage in some parts of the Area, deleterious land
use, and obsolete layout of land tracts and developments, requiring planning
and redevelopment.
12. The foregoing factors and other factors are found to be injurious to
the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens and property owners of
the City and persons occupying property or working and being in and around the
Area.
13. The presence of such conditions has caused an impairment of the value
of private investments, has threatened sources of public revenues, has deprived
the community and its residents of better facilities and job opportunities, and
has otherwise adversely affected the public welfare.
C. There is a need for the formulation of a new comprehensive plan and
program for the development and /or redevelopment of the Area. Such plan and
program will require intensive study over a number of months. There is a need
for an interim ordinance applicable to the Area for the purpose of protecting
the ping process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the
City and to insure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of the
new comprehensive plan and development - redevelopment program for the Area.
There is a further need to regulate, restrict or prohibit uses, developments or
subdivisions of land within the Area during the planning process, so as to
avoid the occurrence of events which will be inimical to the orderly develop-
ment and redevelopment of the Area in future years.
2/11/85
OR01NANC1 COCE A. 75 CITY OF RICHFiELO..MINNESO
for -
Section 2. Luring tl.A period tMt this interim ordinance is in effect,
.DrQPe —"rty wi w'iin the area shall be develo ed. or rode 1 ca no
licenses or permits, rezonings, P veloped nor shall any
Richfield -Cade of Ordinances, CYMatztr or land Idivisions V TI��t ti^ to
City for any such development or redevelopment except as provided in Section 3
i-.eraof.
Section 3. Subdivision 1. votwithstand ng the limitations, ret fictions,
to
and pronbiticns canta3rteci in the foregoing Section 2 s
, city council may
.grant cermit3 for development or redevelopment within the Area, but only if it
finds t5at the development or redevelopment involved will comply with t4,e
following criteria:
A. The permit will not involve the construction of a new building
or tF'G enlargement of an existing building.
3• Thee construucticn* will not materially change the future use
development or redevelopment of t.'^,e
adjacent properties. prcpertq involved or any
C. • The construction will not increase the fair maeeet =slue
of tZ-- property involved by more than tan percent•
D. The construction of the improvement will not intensify
traffic or parking problems on the subject property,
adjacent properties, or adjacent highways and streets,
E• The proposed project will not exacerbate or intensify
canflic -ts bet- dee..n residential and non - residential traffic
within the Area.
F• Granting of the permit will not make a material difference
in or create a serious rends
redevelopment of the property to tees development or
P r y involved upon complsticn of
tt:e Plarrit process.;
G• Tye permit will involve the repair, maintararice or sa:_-
S1'ding of existing structures or the (==letion of building
iz+arior improvements which are necessary to the proper wn-
ti.'Med utilization of the property pending the alaanier process.
Sroc 2. T A provisions of �{ 3 Ord{.r�
process, Lisa r � �` _nc;e still not prevent �.e City -rcm
�3 licenses, perm_ts, Mcnings, plat tLngs cr land divisions up `.o G,�
point of, cut rot i. ^_eluding, �+eir actual issuarc,
involved gill comply wit42 the follow criteria: is `'e pro,;;ect or projects
ing
A. The project will be on a single tract of land having an area of at
least 80,000 square feet and will involve development or redevelopment
within the Area which will have an estimated market value in excess of
$2,000,000 per acre. ' Bill-No. 1985 -18 (8/3/85)
B. The project involved is consistent with and cOmpiementary,to the
development or redevelopment of other adjacent properties within the
.Area. .
i
8/3/85
ORDINANCE CODE A. 16 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
a
C. The proposed project will, in the opinion of the council, contribute
to and accelerate the development or redevelopment of the balance of the Area.
Subd: 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing Subdivision 2, no
license, permit, rezoning, platting or land division shall be issued for any
Project described in that subdivision unless the site for the project is
removed from,the provisions of this ordinance by amendment to Section 1-A
hereof:
Section 4. This ordinance shall remain in effect for a period of one year
romm..{ts` effective date, provided that in 'the event the planning process has
not been completed within the one year period, its effectiveness.may be
extended for such additional periods as the City Council may by resolution
determine to be appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of
eighteen (18) months. Bill 1985 -1 (2/11/85)
0R01 MAN CS COOS
2/11/85
A.77 CITY OF RICHFIELD. MINNESO rA
I•
K]
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 364
Agenda: September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: 1986 -1987 Community Health Services Plan
Council Members
Since early May of this year Advisory Board of Health
members Martin Kirsch and Mary Brekke have been working with
Tom Morgan and Betsy Christensen of the Public Safety Department
on the Community Health Services Plan for 1986 -1987.
An approved Community Health Plan is required for the city
to obtain subsidy funding under the State Community Health
Services Act. This year's planning process has involved a
cooperative effort with members of the Advisory Boards of Health
in Bloomington and Edina, as well as staff members from those
two communities.
In 1985, Richfield will receive $76,3614 in subsidy
funding. In 1986, Richfield has been allocated $80,366 and it
is anticipated that the 1987 funding for the City of Richfield
will be in the amount of $85,459. The subsidy funding is
intended to offset a portion of the city's cost for providing
community health programs. A detailed budget is included in
the attached CHS Plan.
At the Advisory Board of Health meeting on Monday, September
9, 1985, the Board unanimously approved Richfield's Community
Health Service Plans for 1986 and 1987, including the budgetary
appropriations. The action of the Advisory Board of Health
reflects their recommendation to the city council to give final
approval to the planning document. The plan must be submitted
to Hennepin County by October 1, 1985, to qualify for subsidy
funding during the next two years.
In addition to the subsidy funding allocated to the City of
Richfield for the basic Health Service Plan, the last session of
the legislature appropriated an additional $51,151 for Richfield
to expand maternal and child health services beyond those
anticipated in the basic planning document. The Bloomington
Department of Health is currently preparing the necessary grant
application to obtain these additional funds for the City of
Richfield.
0
/1 -C..
Bloomington will be developing the new parent and child
health proposal before the end of the year. The details are not
yet available. When the grant application is ready, city staff
• will bring it to the city council for approval. The proposed
plan will simply expand on the basic parent - child program
provided in the CHS Plan (pages 10 -13).
Based upon the process followed by the Advisory Board of
Health in approving the Community Health Services Plan for the
City of Richfield for 1986 -1987, it is the recommendation of the
Director of Public.Safety, in which I concur, that the city
council give favorable consideration to the approval of the plan
and authorize its submittal to Hennepin County for subsidy
funding. City funding to meet the required match for the
public health subsidy is included as a part of the Public Safety
budget program.
Respeetfu ubmitted,
ohn G. Car righ
City Manager
JGC /eja
•.
•
C,
0
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A
PLAN IN APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY HEALTH
SERVICES ACT SUBSIDY FOR 1986 -1987
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the
official governing body of the City of Richfield and functions
as the official Board of Health of the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support,
and maintain the health of the entire community at the highest
level; and
WHEREAS, the Community Health Services Act provides for sub-
sidies in support of public health services on the local level
throughout the State of Minnesota; and
.WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Richfield
has reviewed and approved the preliminary plan for the provision
of public health services in the City of Richfield,.,-and recommends
that the City Council authorize its submission in application for
a grant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds this plan consistent with the
needs and priorities of the community as determined by the
Advisory Board of Health and as expressed by the citizens of
Richfield;
NOW, THEREFORE.BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, that the 1986 -87 Community Health Services Plan for
the City of Richfield is approved and authorization is hereby
given to submit said plan in application for a Community Health
Services Act subsidy for 1986 -87.
Passed and adopted this 23rd day of September, 1985.
ATTEST:
John Hamilton Mayor
Tom Ferber City Clerk
4��
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 363
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request by Market Plaza Corporation for a Waiver
of Subdivision Platting Requirements for the
Shopping Center and Rental Housing. Component B.
Council Members,
Market Plaza Corporation has requested that the City Council
approve a`waiver of provisions of the subdivision ordinance.
This is necessary for them to close on the financing for
the project and begin construction in a timely manner. The
closing on the housing bond issue is to take place either
September 24th or 25th. Soil preparation work is set for the
week of September 23rd.
Subdivision regulations Section 3.54, Subparagraph 4,
prohibits conveyance of parcels without replatting if the sub-
divisions are described by metes and bounds and are less than 5
acres in area and 300 feet in width . Section 3.54, Subparagraph
5, provides that the City Council may waive this requirement by
adoption of a resolution if compliance with the ordinance will
result in an unnecessary hardship, and, where failure to comply
does not interfere with the purpose of the platting regulations.
Platting is desirable because it provides the community with
an opportunity to control the dimensions of parcels, area of
parcels and thereby the density of development.
The Market Plaza development is being carried out within the
context of the PUD ordinance. The location of the building on
the property, height, floor area, etc. are all controlled
through this ordinance. Thus, the intent of the prohibition
noted above in Section 3.54, Subparagraph. 4, is being met
through the PUD ordinance.
The site being developed by Market Plaza Corporation is a
collection of several previously existing parcels. Portions of
these lots are being conveyed to different parties, i.e., the
residential development and the commercial development. To
replat the site would be very complicated and time consuming and
not necessary because of the controls provided by the PUD
ordinance.
V /�y
l —.2
Woodlake,Point, a part of the development in this area,
requested a waiver last year. On December 27, 1984,: the Council
granted the request.
Because the waiver would result in an unnecessary hardship
and because the waiver would not interfere with the purpose of
the platting regulations, it is recommended that the waiver be
granted by the adopting the resolution waiving the subdivison.
Re c fu ubmitted,
John G. Cartwri t
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
•
•
/uA -3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION WAIVING SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (hereinafter "HRA ") and the City of Richfield (herein-
after "City ") entered into a certain Contract for the Sale of
Land for Private Development with Market Plaza Corp. and others
dated May 12, 1984 (hereinafter the "Development Agreement "); and
WHEREAS, paragraph 3.3(05) of such Development Agreement
requires that the developer of property subject to the Develop-
ment Agreement "obtain the necessary subdivision platting and /or
Registered Land Survey approvals or Land Registrations" under
terms and conditions as set forth in such subparagraph (hereinaf-
ter "Subdivision Requirement "); and
WHEREAS, the real property described on Exhibit A attached
hereto is a part of the property. subject to the Development
Agreement (hereinafter the "Market Plaza Property "); and
WHEREAS, the owners of the Market Plaza Property have
requested that the City waive the platting requirements of its
subdivision ordinance and approve the subdivision of the Market
Plaza Property into three separate parcels, which parcels are
described both vertically and horizontally and which parcels are
described on Exhibits B, C and D attached hereto with the proper-
ty described on Exhibit B hereinafter referred to as the "Market
Plaza Commercial Parcel" and the property on Exhibit C being
hereinafter referred to as the "Market Plaza Housing Parcel" and
the property on Exhibit D hereinafter being referred to as the
"Market Plaza Parking Garage Parcel "; and
is
WHEREAS,
the
owners of the property
are requesting from
the
City approval
of
the subdivision of the
Market Plaza Parcel
into
the three separate parcels and are requesting that the City waive
the platting requirement of any and all subdivision ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.54 of the Richfield Ordinance
Code and Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358 the City determines
that such waiver would not interfere with the platting process
would avoid unnecessary hardship and is in the best interests of
the City and in compliance with the Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Richfield hereby waives the
platting requirement contained in its subdivision ordinance and
approves the subdivision of the Market Plaza Commercial Parcel,
the Market Plaza Housing Parcel and the Market Plaza Parking
Garage Parcel and the owners thereof shall have the right to
record documents of conveyance using the legal descriptions
attached hereto to describe such parcels. In addition, if in the
future the owners of such parcels take the necessary steps and
procedures to have the above - described parcels described as
Tracts in a Registered Land Survey, no further approval of the
City shall be required in connection with such procedure and this
certification shall serve as the approval by the City of such
Tracts and such Registered Land Survey Proceeding.
2
•
Page No. 1
EXHIBIT A
le-,.5
The following tracts, situate in Hennepin County, more particularly described
as follows:
Tract 1:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24 lying
southerly of the Southerly line of West 65th Street as described in
Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131 and lying easterly of the following
described line; ,
Beginning at the southwest corner of Government Lot 1, Section 27,
Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence north along
the west line of said Government Lot 1 a distance of 33.00 feet; thence
northwesterly deflecting to the left 14 degrees 15 minutes 38 seconds
a distance of 224.64 feet to the south line of said West 65th Street and
said line there terminating.
Tract 2:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1;
thence East along the South line of said Government Lot 1 a distance of
64.8 feet; thence North, parallel with the West line of said Government
Lot 1 and its extension North, to the Southerly line of Registered Land
Survey Number 1318, Filss of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin;
thence Southwesterly along the Southerly line of said Registered Land
Survey Number 1318 to the West line of said Government Lot 1; thence South
along said West line to the point of beginning.
Tract 3:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
described as beginning at a point on the South line of said Government Lot
1 distant 64.8 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Government Lot
1; thence East along said South line a distance of 88 feet; thence North,
parallel with the West line of said Government Lot I and its extension
North, to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey Number 1318, Files
of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence Southwesterly along
the Southerly line of said Registered Land Survey Number 1318 to its
intersection with a line drawn North, parallel with the West line of said
Government Lot 1 and its extension North, from the point of beginning;
thence South along the last described parallel line to the point of
beginning.
That the East boundary line of said tract has been judicially determined
and Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641.
—CONTINUED -
121/k/6
page No. 2
EXHIBIT A (continued)
Tract 4:
Par 1: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
commencing at a point, which point is marked by Judicial Landmark,
and is located 256.6 feet East and 33 feet North of the Southwest
corner of Government Lot 1; thence North parallel with West line of
said Lot 90.7 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence
at right angles East 229.2 feet to the point of intersection with
the Westerly line of Lyndale Avenue, which point is marked by Judicial
Landmark; thence Southwesterly along said line of Lyndale Avenue 95.5
feet to the point of intersection with the North line of West Sixty -
sixth Street, which point is marked by Judicial Landmark; thence West
along said line 195.7 feet to the point of beginning.
Par 2: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
described as beginning at a point in the South line of said Government
Lot 1; distant 152.80 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Govern-
ment Lot 1; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot
1 a distance of 103.80 feet; thence Northerly parallel with the West
line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 229.60 feet; thence at a
right angle Westerly 2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the
right 89 degrees 38 minutes a distance of 104.07 feet to the Southerly
line of Registered Land Survey Number 1318; Files of Registrar of Titles;
County of Hennepin; thence Westerly along last said Southerly line to an
Intersection with a line drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and
parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1; thence Southerly
along last said parallel line to the point of beginning.
That the East line of said tract has been judicially determined and marked
by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case Nos. 10017 and 17641
and the West line of said tract has been judicially determined and
Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641, according to
the Government Survey thereof.
Par 3: All that part.of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28 North,
Range 24 West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing on a line parallel to and 256.6 feet East of the West
line of.said Section 27 at a point therein which is 123.7 feet North
along said line from the South line of said Government Lot 1, which
point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence North along said parallel
line a distance of 105.9 feet; thence East a distance of 306.5 feet, more
or less, to an intersection with the Westerly line of Lyndale Avenue,
which point of intersection is determined by returning to the point of
beginning of said line and continuing North along said parallel line a
distance of 103 feet; thence South 82 degrees 56 minutes East 141.7
feet; thence North 82 degrees, 34 minutes East to the West line of
Lyndale Avenue; thence Southerly along said latter line, 115 feet to
said point of termination of the North line of the land now being
described; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of said Avenue
- CONTINUED-
121/k/7
0
Page No. 3
EXHIBIT A (continued)
Tract 4 (continued):
Par 3 (continued):
a distance of 113.4 feet, more or less, to a Judicial Landmark located
In said line at a distance of 95.5 feet Northeasterly along said line
from a Judicial Landmark placed at the intersection of the Westerly line
of said Avenue and the North line of West 66th Street; thence West, 229.2
feet to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
Par 4: Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of Registrar of
Titles, County of Hennepin.
Tract 5:
That part of Government Lot One (1), Section Twenty -seven (27), Township
Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -four (24), described as follows:
Commencing Two Hundred Twenty -nine and 6/10 (229.6) feet North and Two
Hundred Fifty -six and 6/10 (256.6) feet East from the Southwest corner of
Lot One (1), thence North One Hundred Three (103) feet, thence South
Eighty -two (82) degrees Fifty -six (56) minutes East One Hundred Forty One
and 7/10 (141.7) feet; thence North Eighty -two (82) degrees, Thirty -four
(34) minutes East to center line of Lyndale Avenue, thence Southerly along
the center line of Lyndale Avenue One Hundred Fifteen (115) feet, thence
West Three Hundred Six and 5/10 (306.5) feet to beginning.
Tract 7:
Tracts B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, except that part of Tract
B, Registered Land Survey No. 1318 described as lying easterly and northerly
of the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Tract
A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318; thence southerly along the southerly
extension of the westerly line -of Tract A, a distance of 8.62 feet; thence
easterly deflecting to the left 82 degrees 11 minutes 28 seconds to the
easterly line of said Tract B and there terminating.
Tract 8:
Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of Registrar of Titles,
County of Hennepin.
Tract 9:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described
as beginning at a point in the South line of said Government Lot 1, distant
256.6 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1; thence
Northerly parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, a distance
of 229.60 feet to the point of beginning; thence at a right angle Westerly
2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the right 89 degrees 38 minutes,
a distance of 104.7 feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey
- CONTINUED-
121/k/8
Page No. 4
EXHIBIT A (continued)
Tract 9 (con itinued):
No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence
Easterly along said Southerly line of Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files
of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, to its intersection with
a line drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the
West line of said Government Lot 1, thence southerly along said last parallel
line to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
The West line of *said tract has been judicially determined and marked
by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641.
121/k/9
•
•
..,
Page No. 1
EXHIBIT B
(Commercial Parcel)
Those parts of the following tracts, situate in the County of Hennepin, State
of Minnesota, to —wit:
Tract I:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24 lying
southerly of the Southerly line of West 65th Street as- described in
Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131 and lying easterly of the following
described line:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Government Lot 1, Section 27,
Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence north along
the west line of said Government Lot 1 a distance of 33.00 feet; thence
northwesterly deflecting to the left 14 degrees 15 minutes 38 seconds
a distance of 224.64 feet to the south line of said West 65th Street and
said line there terminating.
Tract 2: JI
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1;
thence East along the South line of said Government Lot 1 a distance of
64.8 feet; thence North, parallel with the West line of said Government
Lot 1 and its extension North, to the Southerly line of Registered Land
Survey Number 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin;
thence Southwesterly along the Southerly line of said Registered Land
Survey Number 1318 to the West line of said Government Lot-1; thence South
along said West line to the point of beginning.
Tract 3:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
described as beginning at a point on the South line of said Government Lot
1 distant 64.8 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Government Lot
1; thence East along said South line a distance of 88 feet; thence North,
parallel with the Hest line of said Government Lot 1 and its extension
North, to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey Number 1318, Files
of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence Southwesterly along
the Southerly line of said Registered Land Survey Number 1318 to its
intersection with a line drawn North, parallel with the West line of said
Government Lot 1 and its extension North, from the point of beginning;
thence South along the last described parallel line to the point of
beginning.
That the East boundary line of said tract has been judicially determined
and Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641.
• — CONTINUED-
121 /k /l
I
page No. 2
Tract 4:
EXHIBIT B (continued)
par 1: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
commencing at a point, which point is marked by Judicial Landmark,
and is located 256.6 feet East and 33 feet North of the Southwest
corner of Government Lot 1; thence North parallel with West line of
said Lot 90.7 feet to a point marked by Judicial Landmark; thence
at right angles East 229.2 feet to the point of intersection with
the Westerly line of Lyndale Avenue, which point is marked by Judicial
Landmark; thence Southwesterly along said line of Lyndale Avenue 95.5
feet to the point of intersection with the North line of West Sixty -
sixth Street, which point is marked by Judicial Landmark; thence West
along said line 195.7 feet to the point of beginning.
Par 2: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
described as beginning at a point in the South line of said Government
Lot 1; distant 152.80 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Govern-
ment Lot 1; thence Easterly along the South line of said Government Lot
I a distance of 103.80 feet; thence Northerly parallel with the West
line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 229.60 feet; thence at a
right angle Westerly 2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the
right 89 degrees 38 minutes a distance of 104.07 feet to the Southerlj
line of Registered Land Survey Number 1318; Files of Registrar of Titl ,
County of Hennepin; thence Westerly along last said Southerly line to an
intersection with a line drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and
parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1; thence Southerly
along last said parallel line to the point of beginning.
That the East line of said tract has been judicially determined and marked
by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case Nos. 10017 and 17641
and the West line of said tract has been judicially determined and
Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641, according to
the Government Survey thereof.
Par 3: All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28 North,
Range 24 West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing on a line parallel to and 256.6 feet East of the West
line of said Section 27 at a point therein which is 123.7 feet North
along said line from the South line of said Government Lot 1, which
point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence North along said parallel
line a distance of 105.9 feet; thence East a distance of 306.5 feet, more
or less, to an intersection with the Westerly line of Lyndale Avenue,
which point of intersection is determined by returning to the point of
beginning of said line and continuing North along said parallel line a
distance of 103 feet; thence South 82 degrees 56 minutes East 141.7
feet; thence North 82 degrees, 34 minutes East to the West line of
Lyndale Avenue; thence Southerly along said litter line, 115 feet to
said point of termination of the North line of the land now being
described; thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of said Avenue
- CONTINUED-
121/k/2
0 Page No. 3
EX1iIBIT B (continued)
Tract 4 (continued):
par 3 (continued):
/4-//
a distance of 113.4 feet, more or less, to a Judicial Landmark located
In said line at a distance of 95.5 feet Northeasterly along said line
from a Judicial Landmark placed at the intersection of the Westerly line
of said Avenue and the North line of West 66th Street;.thence West 229.2
feet to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
Par 4: Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of Registrar of
Titles, County of Hennepin.
Tract 5:
That part of Government Lot One (1), Section Twenty -seven (27), Township
Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -four (24), described as follows:
Commencing Two Hundred Twenty -nine and 6/10 (229.6) feet North and Two
Hundred Fifty -six and 6/10 (256.6) feet East from the Southwest corner of
Lot One (1), thence North One Hundred Three (103) feet, thence South
Eighty -two (82) degrees Fifty -six (56) minutes East One Hundred Forty One
and 7/10 (141.7) feet; thence North Eighty -two (82) degrees, Thirty -four
(34) minutes East to center line of Lyndale Avenue, thence Southerly along
the center line of Lyndale Avenue One Hundred Fifteen (115) feet, thence
West Three Hundred Six and 5/10 (306.5) feet to beginning.
Tract 7:
Tracts B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, except that part of Tract
B, Registered Land Survey No. 1318 described as lying easterly and northerly
of the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Tract
A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318; thence southerly along the southerly
extension of the westerly line of Tract A, a distance of 8.62 feet; thence
easterly deflecting to the left 82 degrees 11 minutes 28 seconds to the
easterly line of said Tract B and th8re terminating.
Tract 8:
Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of Registrar of Titles,
County of Hennepin.
Tract 9:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described
as beginning at a point in the South- line of said Government Lot 1, distant
256.6 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1; thence
Northerly parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, a distance
of 229.60 feet to the point of• beginning; thence at a right angle Westerly
0 2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the right 89 degrees 38 minutes,
a distance of 104.1 feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey
- CONTINUED-
121 /k /3
Page No. 4
a
EXHIBIT B (continued)
Tract 9 (conitinued):
/4�-o_
No.'1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence
Easterly along said Southerly line of Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files
of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, to its intersection with
a line drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the
West line of said Government Lot 1, thence southerly along said last parallel
line to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
The West line of said tract has been judicially determined and marked
by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641.
Tract 10:
That tract of land lying between the southerly line of the following
described parcel:
Tracts B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, excpet that part of
Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1318 described as lying easterly
and northerlv of the following described line: Beginning at the
Southwest corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318; thence
southerly along the southerly extension of the westerly line of Tract
A, a distance of 8.62 feet; thence easterly deflecting to the left
82 degrees 13 minutes 28 seconds to the easterly line of said Tract B
and there terminating;
and the northerly line of the following described parcel:
That part of Government Lot One (1), Section Twenty -Seven (27),
Township Twenty -Eight (28), Range Twenty -Four (24) described as
follows: Commencing Two Hundred Twenty -Nine and 6/10 (229.6) feet
North and Two Hundred Fifty -Six and 6/10 (256.6) feet East from the
Southwest corner of Lot One (1), thence North One Hundred Three (103)
feet, thence South Eighty -Two (82) degrees Fifty -Six (56) minutes East
One Hundred Forty -One and 7/10 (141.7) feet; thence North Eight -Two
(82) degrees Thirty -Four (34) minutes East to center line of Lyndale
Avenue, thence Southerly along the center line of Lyndale Avenue One
Hundred Fifteen (115) feet, thence West Three Hundred Six and 5/10
(306.5) feet to the beginning;
and between the extension southerly of the easterly line of Tract B,
Registered Land Survey No. 1318:
and the easterly line of the following described parcel:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described
as beginning at a point in the South line of said Government Lot 1, distant
256.6 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1; thence
Northerly parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, a distance
of 229.60 feet to the point of beginning; thence at a right angle Westerly
- CONTINUED-
121/k/4
•
Page No. 5
Tract 10 (continued):
EXHIBIT B (continued)
/a -13
2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting-to the right 89.degrees 38 minutes,
a distance of 104.7 feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey
No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence
Easterly along said Southerly line of Registered'Land Survey No. 1318, Files
of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, to its intersection with
a line drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with.the
West line of $aid Government Lot 1, thence southerly along said last parallel
line to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
The West line of said tract has been judicially determined and marked
by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641. (Abstract)
Tract 11:
That tract of land lying between the "southerly line of Tract C,
Registered Land Survey No. 1318, and the southerly line and its extention
easterly of the following described parcel:
That part of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described .
as beginning at a point in the South line of said Government Lot 1, distant
256.6 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 1; thence
Northerly parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, a distance
of 229.60 feet to the point of beginning; thence at a right angle Westerly
2.20 feet; thence Northerly deflecting to the right 89 degrees 38 minutes,
a distance of 104.7 feet to the Southerly line of Registered Land Survey
No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County.of Hennepin; thence
Easterly along said Southerly line of Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files
of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, to its intersection with
a line drawn Northerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the
West line of said Government Lot 1, thence southerly along said last parallel
line to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
The West line of said tract has been judicially determined and marked
by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17641.
and between the easterly line of the last above described parcel, and the
westerly line, and its extensions northerly and southerly of the following
described parcel:
That part of Government Lot One (1), Section Twenty -seven (27), Township
Twenty -eight (28), Range Twenty -four (24), described as follows:
Commencing Two Hundred Twenty -nine and 6/10 (229.6) feet North and Two
Hundred Fifty -six and 6/10 (256.6) feet East from the Southwest corner of
Lot One (1), thence North One Hundred Three (103) feet, thence South
Eighty -two (82) degrees Fifty -six (56) minutes East One Hundred Forty One
and 7/10 (141.7) feet; thence North Eighty -two (82) degrees, Thirty -four
(34) minutes East to center line of Lyndale Avenue, thence Southerly along
the center line of Lyndale Avenue One Hundred Fifteen (115) feet, thence
West Three Hundred Six and 5/10 (306.5) feet to beginning. (Abstact)
121 /k /5
Page No. 6
EXHIBIT B (continued)
•
EXCEPT Those parts of the above described Tracts which are embraced within the
boundary of the following described parcel and lying between Elevation 834.00
and Elevation 844.00 N.G.V.D. 1929 5th General Adjustment.
Commencing at the point of the intersection of the southeasterly line of
West 65th Street as described in Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131, and the west
line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of
Titles, County of Hennepin; thence South 58 degrees 48 minutes 45 seconds
West, assumed bearing, along said south line 408.13 feet to the point of
beginning of the Tract to be described; thence South 30 degrees 37 minutes
33 seconds East 1.50 feet; thence South 59 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds
West 42.00 feet; thence South 30 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds East 40.50
feet; thence South 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 90.12 feet; thence
North 75 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds East 23.50 feet; thence South 1.4
degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 20.00 feet; thence South 75 degrees 37
minutes 33 seconds East 23.50 feet; thence South 14 degrees 22 minutes 27
seconds West 61.79 feet; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 50 seconds East
130.26 feet; thence North 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds East 146.07 fee
thence. North 59 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds East 324.53 feet; thence Nor
30 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds West .23.60 feet; thence South 59 degrees 22
minutes 27 seconds West 12.00 feet; thence North 30 degrees 37 minutes 33
seconds West 6.58 feet; thence North 07 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds West
104.28 feet; thence South 59 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 405.85 feet
to the point of beginning.
AND EXCEPT those parts of the above described Tracts which are embraced within
the boundary of the following described parcel and lying between Elevation
860.34 and Elevation 949.75, N.G.V.D. 1929 5th General Adjustment.
Commencing at the point of the intersection of the southeasterly line of
West 65th Street as described in Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131, and the west
line of Tract A, Registered land Survey No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of
Titles, County of Hennepin; thence South 58 degrees 48 minutes 45 seconds
West, assumed bearing, along said south line 408.13 feet to the point of
beginning of the Tract to be described; thence South 14 degrees 22 minutes
27 seconds West 180.16 feet; thence South 75 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds
East 109.83 feet; thence North 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds East 70.64
feet; thence North 75 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds West 48.33 feet; thence
North 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds East 73.45 feet; thence North 59
degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 93.55 feet; thence North 30 degrees 37
minutes 33 seconds West 3.00 feet; thence North 59 degrees 22 minutes 27
seconds East 91.50 feet; thence North 30 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds West
66.00 feet; thence South 59 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 202.83 feet
to the point of beginning. 0
/o -/15
r.
EXHIBIT C
RESIDENTIAL PARCEL
Those parts of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28,
Range 24, and Tracts B, C, D and E Registered Land Survey
Number 1318, Files of the Registrar of Titles, situated in
the county of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and embraced within
the boundary of the following described parcel and lying
between Elevation 860.34 and Elevation 949.75,,N.G.V.D. 1929
5th General Adjustment.
Cotimencing at the point or the intersection of the southeasterly line of
West 65th Street as described in Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131, and the West
line of Tract A, Registered land Survey No. 1318, Files or the Registrar or
Tit1e3, County of Hennepin;' thence South 58 degrees 48 minutes 45 seconds
West, assumed bearing, along said south line 408.13 reet to the point of
beginning of the Tract to be described; thence South 14 degrees 22 minutes
27 seconds West 180.16 feet; thence South 75 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds
East 109.83 feet; thence North 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds East 70.64
feet; thence North 75 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds Weat 48.33 rest; thence
North 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds East 73.45 feet; thence North 59
degrees 22 ainutea 27 seconds West 93.55 feet; thence North 30 degrees 37
ainutes 33 seconds West 3.00 feet; thence North 59 degrees 22 minutes 27
seconds East 91.50 feet; thence North 30 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds West
66.00 rest; thence South 59 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 202.83 feet
to the point or beginning.
•
•
0
/4 *
•
EXHIBIT D
PARKING GARAGE PARCEL
Those parts of Government Lot 1, Section 27, Township 28, Range
24, Government Lot 2, Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, and
tracts B. C, D and E, Registered Land Survey Number 1318, Files
of the Registrar of Titles, all situated in the county of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota and embraced, with the Boundary of
the following described parcel and lying between Elevation
834.00 and Elevation 844.00 N.G.V.D. 1929 5th General Adjustment.
Commencing at the point of the intersection of the southeasterly line or
West 65th Street is described in Book 2053 of Deeds, page 131, and the west
line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1318, Files of the Registrar of
Titles, County of Hennepin; thence South 58 degrees 48 minutes 45 seconds
West, assumed bearing, alAng said south line 408.13 feet to the point or
beginning of the Tract to be described; thence South 30 degrees 37 minutes
33 seconds East 1.50 feet; thence South 59 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds
West 42.00 feet; thence South 30 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds East 40.50
meet; thence South 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 90.12 feet; thence
North 75 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds East 23.56 feet; thence South 14
degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 20.00 feet; thence South 75 degrees 37
minutes 33 seconds East 23.50 feet; thence South 14 degrees 22 minutes 27
seconds West 61.79 feet; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 50 seconds East
130.26 feet; thence North 14 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds East 146.07 feet;
thence North 59 degrees 22 minuted 27 seconds East 324.53 feet; thenoe North
30 degrees 37 minutes 33 seconds West 23.60 feet; thence South 59 degrees 22
minutes 27 seconds West 12.00 feet; thence North 30 degrees 37 minutes 33
seconds West 6.58 feet; thence North.07 degrees 23 minutes 52 seoonds West
104.28 feet; thence South 59 degrees 22 minutes 27 seconds West 405.85 feet
to the point of beginning.
is
0-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 362
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Council Consideration of a Resolution Approving
The Issuance of $8,250,000 Multi - Family Housing
Revenue Bonds Series 1985 for the Market Plaza
Housing Project
Council Members:
On September 9, 1985, the City Council held a public hearing
on the issuance of Housing Revenue Bonds [ "HRB's "] for the
multifamily rental housing component in the Market Plaza
Development. At the request of the underwriters, the city
council was asked to postpone action on the resolution for
two weeks.
At this time, the City Council is asked to approve the
resolution authorizing the sale of $8,250,000 in City of
Richfield multi - family HRB's Series 1985•
Approval of the attached bond resolution will permit
construction of the Market Plaza project to be initiated by
October 1, 1985• To date, the developers have been unable to
proceed with the construction of the commercial component
because the financial institutions have required the developer
to complete the financing for the housing project thus assuring
that the housing and commercial components proceed together.
The commercial project will be constucted in approximately 12
months and the residential portion will require 18 months.
The developer has advised the writer that the interest rate
of the bonds is 7 3/4%. The purchase price of the bonds is
anticipated to be not less than 97.25% of the principal amount.
The bond closing is scheduled to take place on Tuesday,
September 24, 1985. The bond documents are on-file with the
City Clerk
_2_ g�,
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached
resolution authorizing the issuance of housing revenue bonds for
the Market Plaza development.
R e a t f u mitted,
11 A
J hn G. Cart right
itv Manager
JGC /eja,
ARK: Draft 8/21/85; 9/4/85; 9/6/85; 9/18/85 516X
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROJECT AND
HOUSING PROGRAM UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES,
CHAPTER 462C (MUNICIPAL HOUSING PROGRAMS)
AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE
THE PROJECT AND PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Council has received a proposal from Market
Plaza Housing Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partner-
ship, (the "Company ") that the City undertake to finance a
certain Project and multifamily rental housing program for such
Project as herein described, pursuant to Chapter 462C,
Minnesota Statutes (the "Act "), through the issuance by the
City of its $8,250,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds,
Series 1985 (Market Plaza Housing Project) (the "Bonds "), and
in accordance with a Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond
Purchase Agreement ") between the City, the Company, E. J.
Plesko, sole general partner of the Company, and Miller &
Schroeder Financial, Inc. (the "Bond Purchaser ").
2. The Company desires to acquire and construct a
multifamily housing development consisting of an approximately
176,000 square foot building containing 166 units and related
improvements including parking facilities (hereinafter referred
•
9:3
to as the "Project ") in the City. The Project as described
above will facilitate the development of rental housing within
the community; encourage the development of affordable housing
opportunities for residents of the City, encourage the develop-
ment of housing facilities designed for occupancy by persons of
low or moderate income and assist such persons in obtaining
decent, safe and sanitary housing at rentals they can afford;
encourage the development of blighted or underutilized land and
structures within the boundaries of the City; and will
otherwise further the policies and purposes of the Act; and the
findings made in the Preliminary Resolution adopted by this
Council on December 19, 1983 with respect to the Project are
hereby ratified, affirmed and approved.
3. It is proposed that, pursuant to a Loan Agreement 0
dated as of September 1, 1985, between the City as Lender and
the Company as Borrower (the "Loan Agreement "), the city-loan
the proceeds of the Bonds to the Company to partially finance
the costs of the Project. The Loan Repayments to be made by
the Company under the Loan Agreement are fixed so as to produce
revenue sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any,
and interest on the Bonds when due. It is further proposed
that the City assign its rights to the Loan Repayments and
certain other rights under the Loan Agreement to First Trust
Company, Inc., in St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Trustee ") as
•
security for payment of the Bonds under an Indenture of Trust
dated as of September 1, 1985 (the "Indenture ") between the
City and the Trustee." To further secure the payment of the
Bonds and the interest thereon and of the purchase price of any
Bonds required to be purchased under the provisions of the
Indenture, the Company will provide for a Letter of Credit (the
"Letter of Credit ") to be issued by Midwest Federal Savings and
Loan Association of Minneapolis (the "Bank ") and in connection
therewith, enter into a Letter of Credit Reimbursement
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1985 (the "Reimbursement
Agreement ") with the Bank. Payments under the Letter of Credit
and payments on the Bonds will be further secured by collateral
pledged to the Trustee by the Bank pursuant to a Collateral
Agreement dated as of September 1, 1985 by and between the Bank
and the Trustee.. Payment of principal and interest on the
Bonds is also secured by a Trustee Mortgage, Assignment of
Rents and Leases, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing
Statement (the "Trustee Mortgage ") dated as of September 1,
1985 executed by the Company in favor of the Trustee and by a
Trustee Guaranty Agreement (the "Trustee Guaranty ") dated as of
September 1, 1985 executed by E. J. Plesko in favor of the
Trustee. The Company will enter into a Remarketing Agreement,
dated as of September 1, 1985, with Miller & Schroeder
Financial, Inc. (the "Remarketing Agreement "). The acquisi-
tion, construction, operation and occupancy of the Project will
•
rl-s
oq-4
conform to the terms and conditions of a Regulatory Agreement
(the "Regulatory Agreement ") dated as of September 1, 1985
between the City, the Company, the Bank and the Trustee and a
Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the "Declaration ") dated
as of September 1, 1985 executed by the Company and recorded as
a covenant and restriction running with the land on which the
Project is located.
4. This Council, by action taken on December 19,
1983, adopted a resolution giving preliminary approval to a
proposal to finance a project substantially the same as the
Project; and on or about October 25, 1984 the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency gave approval to the proposed financing program
for the Project. An additional public hearing on the Project
to approve a change in ownership entities of the Project was
held on September 9, 1985, after notice was duly published all
as required by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, as amended, and the Regulations promulgated thereunder,
at which public hearing all those appearing who so desired to
speak were heard.
5. Pursuant to the preliminary approval of the
Council, forms of the following documents have been submitted
to the Council for approval:
(a) The Loan Agreement.
(b) The Indenture.
(c) The Bond Purchase Agreement.
•
6. It is hereby found, determined and declared that:
(a) the Project described in the Loan
Agreement and Indenture referred to above
constitutes a Project authorized by the Act and
the financing program for the Project "is
authorized by the Act;
(b) the purpose of the Project and the
program for the Project is, and the effect thereof
will be, to promote the public welfare by the
acquisition, construction and equipping of rental
housing facilities for assisting persons of low
and moderate income within the City to obtain
decent, safe and sanitary housing at rentals they
can afford;
(c) the acquisition, construction and
installation of the Project, the issuance and sale
of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the
City of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the
Bond Purchase Agreement and the Regulatory Agree-
ment (collectively the "Agreements "), and the
performance of all covenants and agreements of the
City contained in the Agreements, and of all other
acts and things required under the constitution
•
(d)
The
Regulatory Agreement.
(e)
The
Declaration (not executed by the City).
6. It is hereby found, determined and declared that:
(a) the Project described in the Loan
Agreement and Indenture referred to above
constitutes a Project authorized by the Act and
the financing program for the Project "is
authorized by the Act;
(b) the purpose of the Project and the
program for the Project is, and the effect thereof
will be, to promote the public welfare by the
acquisition, construction and equipping of rental
housing facilities for assisting persons of low
and moderate income within the City to obtain
decent, safe and sanitary housing at rentals they
can afford;
(c) the acquisition, construction and
installation of the Project, the issuance and sale
of the Bonds, the execution and delivery by the
City of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the
Bond Purchase Agreement and the Regulatory Agree-
ment (collectively the "Agreements "), and the
performance of all covenants and agreements of the
City contained in the Agreements, and of all other
acts and things required under the constitution
•
and laws of the State of Minnesota and City
Charter to make the Agreements valid and binding
obligations of the City in accordance with their
terms, are authorized by the Act;
(d) it is desirable that the Company be
authorized, in accordance with the provisions of
the Act and subject to the terms and conditions
set forth 'in the Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agree-
ment and Declaration, which terms and conditions
the City determines to be necessary, desirable and
proper, to acquire and install the Project by such
means as shall be available to the Company and in
the manner determined by the Company, subject to
the terms of the aforesaid agreements;
(e) it is desirable that the Bonds be issued
by the City upon the terms set forth in the
Indenture;
(f) the loan.repayments under the Loan
Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient
to provide for the prompt payment of principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds issued
under the Indenture when due, and the Loan
Agreement, Indenture and Regulatory Agreement also
provide that the Company is required to pay all
expenses of the operation and maintenance of the
q_F
•
• Project, including, but without limitation,
adequate insurance thereon and insurance against
all liability for injury to persons or property
arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes
and special assessments levied upon or with
respect to the Project Premises and payable during
the term of the Loan Agreement, Indenture and
Regulatory Agreement;
(g) as provided in the Loan Agreement and
Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from or
charged upon any funds other than the revenues
pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not
subject to any liability thereon; no holder of any
• Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any
exercise by the City of its taxing powers to pay
any of the Bonds or the interest or premium, if
any, thereon, or to enforce payment thereof
against any property of the City except the
interests of the City in the Loan Agreement which
have been assigned to the Trustee under the
Indenture; the Bonds shall not constitute a
charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable,
upon any property of the City except the interests
of the City in the Loan Agreement which have been
assigned to the Trustee under the Indenture; the
•
9 -g
�-/O
Bonds shall recite that the Bonds are issued
without moral obligation on the part of the state
or its political subdivisions, and that the Bonds,
including interest thereon, are payable solely
fram the revenues pledged to the payment thereof
and that the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of
the City within the meaning of any constitutional
or statutory limitation; and
(h) a public hearing on the Project was duly
held by the City Council on December 19, 1983; on
September 9, 1985, a subsequent public hearing was
duly held by the City Council in order to consider
a change in the entity owning and operating the
Project. 0
6 -. Subject to the approval of the City Attorney and
the provisions of Section 9 of this Resolution, the forms of
the Agreements and exhibits thereto are approved substantially
in the form submitted and on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Agreements, in substantially the form submitted,
are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the
City by the Mayor and the City Manager. Any other documents
and certificates necessary to the transaction described above
shall be executed by the appropriate City officers. Copies of
all of the documents necessary to the transaction herein
•
described shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided
herein and in said Loan Agreement and Indenture.
7. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue its
Bonds, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the
Indenture and this Resolution. The Bonds shall initially bear
interest at a rate of seven and seventy -five one hundredths per-
cent (7.75$) per annum. The Bond Purchaser shall purchase the
Bonds for an amount not less than 97.75% of the principal
amount of the Bonds. The offer of the Bond Purchaser to so
purchase the Bonds is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City
Manager are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the
Bonds as prescribed in the Indenture and to deliver them to the
Trustee for authentication and delivery to the Bond Purchaser.
0 8. The Mayor and City Manager and other officers of
the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to
the Bond Purchaser certified copies of all proceedings and
records of the City relating to the bonds, and such other
affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the
facts relating to the legality of the Bonds as such facts
appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and
control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified
copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to
the truth of all statements contained therein.
I-/a-
9. The approval hereby given to the various
documents. referred to above includes approval of such •
additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate
and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and
additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and
approved by the City Attorney and the City officials authorized
herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and
said City Attorney and City officials are hereby authorized to
approve said changes on behalf of the City. The execution of
any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the
City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the
approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof.
In the absence (or inability) of the officials auth-
orized herein to execute any of the documents herein referred
to, the documents may be executed by any officer or member of
the City acting in their behalf.
Passed: September 23, 1985
Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
(SEAL)
3a J '/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 361
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: An Ordinance Permitting Interim Offstreet Parking
'in Frontyards During a Snow Emergency -
First Reading.
Council Members:
At the request of city council, a proposed amendment to
the municipal code of ordinances permitting interim offstreet
parking during a posted snow emergency subject to certain
conditions has been drafted for first reading consideration.
The ordinance with respect to snow removal states, 11(1) No
person shall park or leave standing any vehicle upon any public
street or highway in the City of Richfield after a snowfall of
• at least three (3) inches. Parking may be resumed on such
streets or highways after the snow has been removed or plowed to
the curb lines ". City staff has found, however, that there is a
lack of areas in the city to accommodate temporary interim off -
street parking following periods of heavy snowfall when vehicles
must be removed from public streets to facilitate snow plowing.
The proposed amendment to Section 9.03, Spy ecific Regulations,
Illegal Parking and Stopping, would permit vehicles to park in
the frontyard areas of resi ential districts of the city during
a snow emergency. The parking is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Cars must be parked as close as possible to the
driveway.
2. The car owner must have the property owner's permission.
3. The parked car must be eight feet behind the curb and
five feet behind the sidewalk.
4. The parked car must not be in the 50' corner sight
triangle.
5. Cars.must access the street at driveways and not over
the curb.
Once the snow emergency declaration is lifted by the City,
the vehicle(s) must be moved from the interim frontyard
location.
• It is recommended that first reading consideration be given
to the proposed amendment to the municipal code of ordinances
-2-
regarding snow emergency parking and schedule the second reading
of the ordinance for October 14, 1985. .
• Res ectfu bmitt d
p e ,
f
1
9ohn G. a twright
City Manager
JGC /e is
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IX
SECTION 9.03 OF THE
RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter IX, Section 9.03 of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield entitled: "Specific Regulations, Illegal Parking
and Stopping" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following
new Subject:ion:
Subdivision 3. Snow Emergency Parking.
(1) Findings and Determination: The city council finds
that following periods of heavy snowfall when vehicles must
be removed from public streets to facilitate snow plowing,
there is a lack of areas in the residential districts of the
city for temporary interim parking which do not violate the
parking restrictions of the city. The council further finds
that it is necessary and appropriate to provide for special
rules which govern parking of vehicles during such periods.
(2) Definitions: When used in this subdivision, the
following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them:
1. "Permitted period" shall mean the period of time
when on- street parking is prohibited in a specific
location pursuant to Section 9.02, subd. 11 of this
Code. •
2. "Covered vehicle" shall mean all motor vehicles
except those vehicles which are subject to the
provisions of Section 3.38, subdivisions 2, 4 and 8;
and Section 3.38A of this Code.
(3) Permitted Snow Emergency Parking: Notwithstanding
any provisions of this Code to the contrary, it is lawful,
during the permitted period, for covered vehicles to park
in the frontyard areas of residential districts of the
city subject to the following conditions:
1. The vehicle must be parked as close as possible
to the established driveway area serving the property
on which, or in front of which, it is parked.
2. Permission of the property owner must be obtained.
3. The vehicle must be parked at least eight feet back
from the curb line; and five feet back from any public
sidewalk.
4. The vehicle may not be parked within the area bounded
by the street curb lines abutting said corner lot and a
line connecting points on the abutting curb lines 50
feet from the point of intersection of the extensions of
the curb lines.
5. Movement to and from the parking area must be over
the established driveway area rather than over the curb.
-2-
(4) Repair of Damage to Boulevard: The
property shall repair any damage to the
area by reason of such parking. If such
30 days written notice from the city to
the city may make the repairs and charge
costs, including administrative costs.
f- Z/
owner of the
adjacent boulevard
owner fails, upon
make such repairs,
the owner of all
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd day of September, 1985.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
omas P. erber, CIEV M52
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA �;7—
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 360
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Prohibiting Unnecessary
Acceleration First Reading
Council Members:
Over the past several months, Richfield police officers
have been attempting to deal with a traffic problem related to
unnecessary acceleration (hot- rodding) by certain drivers on
city streets. Additionally, the Public Safety Department has
received an increased number of public complaints regarding
this driving behavior. While such driving behavior presents
some serious safety problems, it frequently does not meet all of
the elements to charge the driver involved with reckless
driving. Therefore, the City Attorney's office has prepared an
• amendment to the municipal code of ordinances related
specifically to unnecessary acceleration.
This ordinance is similar to an ordinance which has been
used effectively in the City of Bloomington for several years.
It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety,
in which I concur, that the city council give first reading
approval to the attached ordinance and schedule second
reading and the public hearing for the October 14, 1985,
city council meeting.
JGC /e ja
r�
LJ
Resp�eetfu bmitted,
bhn G. Cartwright
r
ity Manage ; I
•
•
7-,)-
A14ENDDIENT TO CHAPTER IX,
SECTION 9.05 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter IX, S9.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield relating to miscellaneous traffic and motor vehicle
regulations is hereby amended in the following respects:
By amending 59.05, by adding a new subdivison providing as
follows:
"Subd. 6. Starting and Acceleration. No person shall
start or accelerate any motor vehicle with an unnecessary
exhibition of speed on any public or private way within
the city limits. Prima facie evidence of such unnecessar
exhibition of speed shall be unreasonable squealing or
screeching sounds emitted by the tires or the throwing of
sand or gravel by the tires of said vehicle or both."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
John Hamilton, Mayor
I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 359
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Establishing a Committee of
Hearing Examiners to Review Zoning
Ordinance Variance Requests. Second Reading
Council Members:
In July, 1985, the city council approved an ordinance
amendment which created a committee of hearing examiners to
review zoning ordinance variance requests. The purpose of the
committee would be to review all variance requests administra-
tively, with the provision that appeals of administrative
decisions may be made to the city council. The committee of
hearing examiners was to be a committee of the Planning
Commission, composed of persons nominated by the Planning
Commission, and appointed by the city manager with city council
confirmation of the appointments.
At the August, 1985, meeting of the Planning Commission,
the Planning Commission determined that it would be more
appropriate that the Hearing Officer Committee be a committee of
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals (the City Council), rather
than the Planning Commission.
The commission by a 5 -1 vote recommended that the ordinance
be amended to make the committee of hearing examiners a
committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and that the
Planning Commission not be required to nominate members for
appointment to the committee. This ordinance to accomplish
the change was given first reading approval at the September 9,
1985, city council meeting, and the public hearing was scheduled
for September 23, 1985. If the ordinance is passed on second
reading, it will sunset after twelve months unless extended
by the city council.
The amended ordinance provides that the Hearing Examiner
Committee be a committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
and that it be administered by the Department of Community
Development. Members would be appointed by the city manager,
subject to confirmation by the city council. The ordinance
-2 / ?
CO -oL
provides that hearing examiners may be city employees. Also,
it provides that hearing examiner's shall have experience in
municipal administration and procedures of law.
It is recommended that the city council hold the public
hearing and approve second reading of this ordinance amendment
at the September 23, 1985, city council meeting..
Respectf bmitted,
t
ohn G. ar righ
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
� -'2
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.40A, Subdivision 2 of the
Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 2. Committee of Hearing Examiners.
There is hereby created the committee of Hearing Examiners
which shall constitute a special committee of the PlanirA *f
C+omm4az" Board of Adjustments and Appeals to be
administered by the Department of ommunity Development.
The Committee of Hearing Examiners shall constitute the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals in all matters within its
jurisdiction. Hearing examiners shall be xwrnix�atr�d. iayw
P1-a*n -Co*m4-"4<w-� appointed by the City Manager
subject to confirmation by the City Council and shall serve
at the pleasure of the City Manager. Hearing examiners may
be city employees and shall have experience in municipal
administration and procedures of law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1985.
ATTEST:
omas Pgrg9r, City Clerk
•
John MIME, , Mayor
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 358
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject Ordinance Amendment Relating to
Certain State Electrical Licenses And Permits
Council Members:
At the April 8, 1985, city council meeting, the council gave
first reading to an ordinance amendment which would allow the
city to issue electrical permits for the installation of power
limited 'alarm circuits to installers who do not have an
electrical contractors license, but are registered with the
State Board of Electricity. This ordinance amendment was based
upon 1984 changes in the statutes at that time.
• The second reading of this ordinance has been continued
to allow time to review 1985 statutory amendments passed by the
state legislature. In the special session of the legislature
held this past June, additional statutory amendments were passed
which relate to electrical installers licensure'and electrical
permits which are handled by municipal units of government. As
a result of the changes enacted in the special session, the City
Attorneys office has modified the ordinance amendment given
first reading approval by the city council on April 8, 1985.
The modifications to the original ordinance amendment
incorporate the statutory changes made in June of this year.
The proposed ordinance now provides, as set out in state
statutes, that no person shall engage in the business or trade
pf electrical construction and installation without a state
license, unless provided otherwise by statute. A person per-
forming electrical work must also obtain a permit. Electrical
contractors must be licensed by the state.
It is recommended that the city council give favorable
second reding consideration to this ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
•
r ohn G. Ca twr ht
City Manager
JGC /eja
r
J
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III,
PART It SECTION 3.02 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part I, Section 3.02 of the Ordinance Code of the
City of Richfield entitled "Adoption of Minnesota State Building
Code and Uniform Housing Code" is hereby amended by amending
subdivision 10 thereof to read as follows:
Subd. 10. State Electrical License. There
is no license fee for electrical construction
• and installations
Unless provided otherwise by statute, no
person shall practice or engage in the
business or trade of electrical construction
and installation within the city unless such
person is the holder of a valid and current
license from the State of Minnesota, nor
shall any person engage in the business of
electrical contracting within the city unless
such person is the holder of a valid and
current electrical contractor's license from
the State of Minnesota. Unless provided
otherwise by statute, It it is unlawful for
any person to perform any electrical work
regulated by this Code without first having
obtained a permit to do so. All fees
required for permits issued pursuant to this
subdivision shall be as contained in Appendix
D of this Code.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1985.
John N. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
. Tom Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD,,MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 357
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Assessment
Roll for City Project No. 813, Richfield State
Agency Storm Sewer Improvements
Council Members:
The city council scheduled a public hearing to be held
September 23, '1985, on the adoption of the proposed
assessment roll for City Project No. 813, the Richfield State
Agency Storm Sewer Improvement project. The city staff has
calculated the amounts to be assessed against every assessable
lot, piece or parcel of land benefited by the project.
Actual construction costs, plus administrative and
construction engineering charges for the project, total
$149,744.57. In agreements with Richfield State Agency
Inc. and the Market Plaza Corporation, their special
assessments are $134,744.57 and $15,000 respectively.
The property owners may make prepayment in full, make
partial prepayment, or have,the balance spread over a period
of twenty years.
An annual interest rate of 9 percent for annual installment
payments has been included with the resolution. This figure is
the rate at which it is anticipated the interest rate of the
bonds issued to finance the improvement will bear. The bonds
will be issued late in 1985•
The public hearing provides an opportunity-for all interested
persons to ask questions or raise objections, if any, to the
proposed assessment. Following the hearing, it is recommended
that the city council pass the attached resolution, adopting
the assessment roll for City Project No. 813, Richfield State
Agency Storm Sewer Improvements. If the city council makes
changes in the assessment roll as a result of the hearing,
the phrase "and has amended such proposed assessment as it
deems just" should be added to the resolution.
Respectfu bmitted,
John. G. Cart ight
City Manager Y
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON CITY PROJECT NO. 813,
RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by
law, the city council has met and heard and passed upon all
objections to the proposed assessment for the construction of a
storm sewer outlet from the RSA property in the southeast
quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue to Richfield Lake
across public right -of -way and across the property in the
northwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city
engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for City
Project No. 813, the Richfield State Agency Storm Sewer
Improvements, against every assessable lo:t, piece or parcel of
land specially benefited thereby in accordance with the
provisions of law, and the proposed assessment so made up was
filed with the city clerk for more than 15 days prior to the
assessment hearing and was open to public inspection during said
period. ,
2. That the City Council has heretofore duly established
City Project No. 813, and after carefully considering all the
facts, the benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and
fully advising itself in the premises, has found and determined
and hereby declares that each and every lot, piece or parcel of
land included in said proposed assessment roll was improved by
reason of the construction of said City Project No. 813 and has
been and is specially benefited in the amount set out in the
assessment roll opposite each such lot, piece or parcel of land.
3. The owner of.any property so assessed may, at any time
prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor,
pay whole of the assessment on such property to the city's
Assessing Division and he may, at any time thereafter pay to the
Assessing Division the entire amount of the assessment remaining
unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in
which payment is made.. Such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of
the succeeding year.
4. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed
and shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office
of the city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute a
special assessment for said City Project No. 813, RSA Storm
Sewer Improvements.
5. The assessment with accruing interest shall be a lien
upon the property included therein, concurrent with general
taxes and shall be payable in equal annual installments.
extending over a period of twenty years unless prepaid or
deferred. All assessments shall bear an annual interest rate
of nine (9) percent, the anticipated average annual interest
rate on bonds to be issued to finance the improvements.
w
6. The city clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified
duplicate of this assessment roll to the county auditor to
extend on °the proper tax lists of the county and such
assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and paid
over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 23rd "day of September, 1985.
Jo n Hami ton, Mayor
ATTEST:
omas P. FerGeF, City Clerk
•
•
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA-
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 356
Agenda September 23,1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Public Hearing Regarding A Proposed $1.00 Increase
to Food and Drink Vending Fees
Council Members:
There is a public hearing scheduled for September 23, 1985,
regarding the fees set by the city council for food vending,
drink vending, and tobacco vending machines. Minnesota State
Statute 1471.707 requires that the city council conduct a public
hearing when a fee adjustment is proposed for these license
categories. This law provides that thirty (30) days mailed
notice must be given to such vending machine businesses. A
timely notice of the September 23, 1985, hearing was mailed by
the City Clerks office to the licensees covered by the statute
(See attached notice). Pursuant to State Statute, a community
may not use license fees to generate revenues generally in
excess of the total costs incurred by the community for such
licensere.
The 1985 license fee of $18.00 for these categories was
based upon the administrative and vending machine inspection
costs.` These costs have been reviewed in meetings with
representatives of the Minnesota Automatic Merchandising
Council.
The proposed 1986 license fee of $19.00 is approximately
five percent (5%) increase over the 1985 license fee of
$1$.00. This increase is justified to cover additional labor
costs (the proposed 1986 budgets calls for a 4.5% wage
increase) and anticipated increase in the costs of supplies.
Therefore, based upon the review of the costs to regulate, the
recommended 1986 license fee is $19.00 for all categories
covered by this council letter. If the city council approves
.these fees, they will be included in the annual resolution to
establish license, permit, and miscellaneous fees to be
considered by the council in the 1986 proposed budget.
It is recommended that after the public hearing, the city
council adopt a motion setting the license fee at $19.00
for the following license categories:
n ice vending 1) 6.01 food and i g machines
2) 6.11 tobacco vending machines
3) 6.13 soft drink vending machines
Respectfully submitted,
ohn G. Cart fight
City Manager
JGC /e J 'a
.
tV
V
to
LO
ttttl•�
■ �■ O
i
■
C
. i
L
O
Q.
■� O
O
�O
•
3-3
August 21, 1985
To: All Vending Machine Licensees
Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Fee Increases
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
Minnesota State Statute 471.707 requires that hearings be held
on the following categories of licensure:
A. 6.01 food and ice vending machines
B. 6.11 tobacco vending machines
C. 6.13 soft drink vending machines
In order to comply with state law, the City of Richfield is holding
a PUBLIC HEARING in conjunction with the regulary scheduled City
Council Meeting on Monday, September 23, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. in the
council chambers at 6700 Portland Avenue.
Present
1985
Rate. Pro osed
6.01 Food
a. Food vending machine
$
18
$
19
required coin or token.
b. Other food vending
$
18
$
19
machine.
c. Ice vending machine.
1
18
$
19
6.11 Tobacco
a. Sale & distribution
$
18
$
19
b. Vending Machine
$
18
$
19
6.13 Soft Drink
a. en ng machine 1 year
$
18
$
19
b. Each additional: machine
$
18
$
19
Please plan on attending this hearing if you have comments or
questions regarding these proposed fee increases or call the
licensing staff at 869 -7521 during business hours, Monday 8 a.m.
to 6 p.m. and Tuesday - Friday 8 a.m, to 4:30 p.m.
Thomas P Ferber, City Clerk
.;
telephone: 869 - 7521(612)
an equal opportunity employer
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letxer No 355
Agenda September 23, 1985
-The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subjects Agreements with the Greater Minneapolis Day Care
- Association and the South Hennepin Human Services
Council Concerning Community Development Block
Grant Public Service Projects.
Council Members,
At the April 8, 1985, city council meeting; the city
council approved funding requests for Year XI Community Devel-
opment Block Grant Funds. Two of the projects approved for
funding were a request from the Greater Minneapolis Day Care
Association (GMDCA) for a sliding fee day care subsidy in the
•. amount of $20,000; and, a request from the South Hennepin Human
Services Council for $7,925 to help fund the Household and
Outside Maintenance for Elderly Program (H.O.M.E.).
Hennepin County requires that the city and the public
service provider enter into an agreement which governs the use
of those funds. Attached for council review and consideration
are public service agreements between the City and these
agencies.
It is recommended that the City Council approve these
agreements and authorize the mayor and city manager to execute
the agreements on behalf of the city.
Re ectful mitted,
ohn G. Cart rig t
City Manager
JGC /eja
PUBLIC SERVICES AGREEMENT
mall
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
Richfield herein after referred to as thei y
and South Hennepin Human Services Council, a public service agency, here-
in after re erre to as the gency ,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is an authorized subgrantee participant in
the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by
virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and
Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59, and
WHEREAS, the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds in program year xz , project number
p , for the purpose of supporting the H2O,M,E,
program administered by the Agency,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
I
The City agrees to provide 7,9 �5 dollars in Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant funds to the Agency in support
of the _H2O,M,E, program.
II
The Agency agrees to provide the City:
1. Affidavit of Agency service fee schedule.
2. A financial statement for the past full year.
3. A statement of public revenue sources for the period June
. 1, 1981 through June 1, 1982.
III
The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with:
1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88 -352)
(Nondiscrimination in programs or activities receiving
Federal financial assistance.)
2. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or
activity subject to provision of the HCDA.).
3. OMB Circular A -102 Attachment 0, Section 14, paragraph (h)
by assuring the grantee, federal grantor agency, the Comp-
troller General of the United States or any duly authorized
representative access to all records directly pertinent to
this contract for the purpose of making audit examinations,
excerpts and transcriptions.
4. OMB Circular A -102 Attachment C (2), and maintain all
required records for a period of three years after receiv-
ing final payment.
IV
The Agency, prior to financial reimbursement from the City shall provide
the City with:
1. Statement of service provided to client.
2. Individual Data Confidentiality form
3. Client Income Verification
4. Maintenance Service Plan /Service Evaluation
VIj
This Agreement is effective as of July 1, 198 and shall continue in
full force and effect until all funds made available under this agree-
ment have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I -IV, but no later
than December, 31, 1986.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands
and affixed their seals this day of 1982.
Upon proper execution, City of Richfield
this Agreement will be
legally valid and binding. State of Minnesota
By
Chairperson, South Hennepin Human
- Services Council City of
and . By
Executive Director, South Hennepin Mayor
Human Services Cou ncil
And
City Manager
c -, " '
•
11
;//-J-/
• Public Services Agreement/Daycare
This agreement made and entered into by and between the City of
hereinafter referred to as the "City" and
Greater Minneapolls Day are, a public service agency, hereinafter
referred to-as the "Agency ",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City is an authorized cooperating unit in
the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program by
virtue of a joint cooperation agreement executed between the City and
Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59, and
WHEREAS, the City has allocated Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant funds in program year XI, project number
o91 ., for the purpose of supporting the Child Care Sliding Fee
program administered by the Agency,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree
to the following terms and conditions:
The City agrees to provide o�-- dollars from the Urban
Hennepin County Community evnt BTock Grant to the Agency in
support of the Child Care Sliding Fee program.
The City reserves the right to assign its administrative responsibility,
pursuant to the requirement . of the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant program, to any other cooperating unit.
II
The Agency agrees to provide the-City:
1. Affidavit of Agency service fee schedule.
2. A financial statement for the past full year.
3. A statement of public revenue sources for the period
June 1, 1985 through June 1, 1986.
III
The Agency agrees to award funds to eligible applicants residing in the
City on a first come first served basis with maintenance of a waiting
list of eligible applicants.
OfT/
Public Services Agreement /Daycare Page Two
IV
The Agency agrees to allocate funds to eligible recipients based on the
State of.Minnesota Department of Public Welfare Sliding Fee Scale with
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 income limits
used as a ceiling cutoff for eligibility.
V
The Agency provides assurance that it will comply with:
1. Administrative reporting requirements of the County.
20 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL88 -352).
(Nondiscrimination in program or activities receiving
Federal financial assistance.)
3. Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 as amended. (Nondiscrimination in any program or activity
subject to provision of the HCDA.)
4. OMB Circular A -102 Attachment 0, Section 14, paragraph (h) by
assuring the grantee, federal grantor agency, the Comptroller
General of the United States or any duly authorized
representative access to all records directly pertinent to this
contract for the purpose of making audit examinations,
excerpts, and transcriptions.
5. OMB Circular A -102 Attachment C (2), and maintain all required
records for a period of three years after receiving final
payment.
VI
The Agency, prior to financial reimbursement, shall provide the City or
its assignee with:
1. Application.
2. Individual Data Confidentiality form.
3. Listing of clients, their addresses, and amount of assistance
per client.
VII
This Agreement is effective as of July 1, 1985, and shall continue in
full force and effect until all funds made available under this Agree-
ment have been expended in accordance with paragraphs I -VI, but no
later than December 31, 1986. .
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and
affixed. their seals this day of 19 .
Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. 4)
0
•
I
1U_..j
Public Service Agreement /Day Care
GREATER MINNEAPOLIS DAY CARE
ASSOCIATION
CITY OF
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BY BY
is I Rayor
and and
is My Manager
Page Three
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 354
Agenda September 23, 1985
The` Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the 'City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendment to Memorandum of Agreement with
Richfield State Agency to Extend the Date for
the Removal of the 'Retail Building at 6601
Lyndale Avenue:
Council Members:
On January 21, 1982,. the Richfield State Agency entered
into a contract with the HRA.and the City Council for the Sale
of Land for Private Development. The Contract stated that the
City Council would provide IDRB financing assistance for the
expansion of the RSA facility in which Richfield Bank & Trust is
•
the primary tenant. The HRA agreed to acquire and sell to RSA
two parcels of land: one located at 67th and Lyndale; and the
other located at 66th and Lyndale.
The Contract provides that the structures located.on these
two parcels are to be removed within 90 days of the sale of the
property to RSA. The structure at 67th and Lyndale was•removed.-
However, because of delays in the RSA expansion project, it was
not possible to remove the structure at 6601 Lyndale Avenue.
Thus, on December 13, 1983, the original contract was amended
through a Memorandum of Agreement between the Richfield State
• Agency and the HRA. This Agreement permitted the structure at
6601 Lyndale Avenue to remain until June 1, 1985, or no longer
than 90 days following the vacation of the property by its
tenants. In June,.1985, the HRA extended that date to
September 1, 1985, `
The parcel occupied by the 6601 building and the adjoining
structure to the east will become a below grade level parking
Tot to provide parking for customers to the McDonalds
Restaurant. The restaurant will be located in the lower level
of.the building.
The RSA project was delayed during the summer. The new date
for removal should be November 1, 1985, or- within 90 days
following the vacation of the property by its present tenants,
whichever date is earlier. The HRA approved this extension
_2_
at their meeting of September 16, 1985. It is recommended
that both the HRA and City Council approve the extension of time
amendment._.
• It is recommended that the Cit Y Council concur with the HRA
and approve the proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum*of
Agreement dated December 13, 1983, which would call for the
removal of the structure at 6601 Lyndale Avenue by November 1,
1985, or within 90 days following the date the property has been
vacated by its present occupants, which ever date is earlier.
p ec t?Car'wrig
b
mitted,
ohn G .
City Mar
JGC /e ja
I
a�3
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of
September, 1985 by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City ",
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Richfield, a body politic and corporate and a Minnesota
corporation, hereinafter called "HRA" and the Richfield State
Agency, Inc., a Minnesota business corporation, hereinafter
called "Developer ".
WHEREAS the parties hereto have heretofore entered into that
certain Contract for the Sale of Land for private Development
dated January 21, 1982, and
WHEREAS under Article III, Section 3.7, the Developer is to
remove all structures located on each of tracts -2 and 3 within
90 days following the date of closing on each such tract or
the date of termination of any leasehold interest, whichever is
later, and
WHEREAS the parties hereto desired to change the removal
time regarding the Hagen parcel (6601 Lynda.le Avenue South,
Richfield, Minnesota) and agreed to do so in an amendment
0 1
approved June 17, 1985, and
WHEREAS it has not been possible for the Developer to comply
with that date;
•
•
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree that the requirement of
demolition of the structures on the Hagen parcel shall be
extended to November 1, 1985, or within 90 days following the
date the Hagen property has been vacated by all of its present
oQcupants, whichever date is earlier.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF., the parties hereto have set their hands
as of the day and year first above written.
THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Executive Director
Its Commission Chairman
CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
By:
Its City Manager
Its Mayor
RICHFIELD STATE
AGENCY, INC.
By:.
Its President
Its Vice President
.CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 353
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Approving American Express
Card for City Manager
Council Members:
Very often it is necessary for the city manager to expend
funds at business functions a n
th t he attends on behalf of the
I
City of Richfield. The city manager uses his own credit cards
to pay for some of these expenses, and is reimbursed by the city
approximately once a month.
A corporate American Express Card would simplify record
keeping for city business related expenses incurred by the city
manager. In order to qualify for a corporate credit card, it
is necessary for the city council to pass a resolution approving
•
the use of such a card by the city manager.
Attached to this council letter is a resolution which would
approve the issuance of a corporate American Express card to
John G. Cartwright, City Manager. This resolution has been
placed on the September 23, 1985, city council agenda for
council action.
Res ectfu bmitted,
hn G. a twrigh
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
Ufa
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE
OF AN AMERICAN EXPRESS CARD
TO CITY MANAGER JOHN G. CARTWRIGHT
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city manager to expend
funds on behalf of the City of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, recordkeeping of city business related expenses
would be simplified by the use of an American Express card
issued to the City Manager for use on city business, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is responsible for payment of
expenses incurred by the City Manager on behalf of the City of
Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Richfield does hereby authorize John G. Cartwright, City
Manager, to bind the City in a contractual agreement with
American Express.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this 23rd day of September, 1985•
0 ATTEST:
T omas erber City Clerk
John Hamilton Mayor
te�'j .
August 28, 1985
R. L. Mercer
Travel Management Services
American Express
P. 0. Box 13807
Phoenix, Arizona 85002
Re: Reference Number 8521781304734
Your August 22, 1985, letter requested documentation of the city manager's
authorization to enter into a contractual agreement.
Attached please find a copy of Appendix E., page E. 15, of the City Charter of
the City of Richfield, Minnesota. Section 6.05, Purchases and Contracts,
provides that the city manager may make or let contracts up to an amount not to
exceed $10,000.
0. I trust this information is the documentation which you requested.
Sincerely yours,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC /eja
•
American Express
Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
Travel Management Services
August 22, 1985
John G Cartwright
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Reference Number: 8521781304734
Dear Card Applicant:
Thank you for applying for the American Express Card. We are pleased to
inform you that the application is ready for approval, but before we can
issue an account we are in need of the information listed below. Would
you please direct this request to your city attorney.
In order to establish an account for a municipality we are in need of a
copy of the enabling ordinance, charter, statute or other official
documentation indicating the proper authority to enter into a
contractual agreement with American Express.
As we cannot complete the processing of your application without this
information, we must temporarily refrain from establishing your account
until this information is received.
Sincerely,
R. .Mercer
TRAVEL D92V9GEMENT SERVICES
P.O. Box 13807
Phoenix, Arizona 85002
bs
An American Express Company
•
is
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 352
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Illuminated Sign at 6418 Penn Avenue
Council Members:
Attracta Sign Company has requested an advertising permit to
erect an illuminated sign at 6418 Penn Avenue. The proposed
sign would measure 12' x 16' with a 4' x 8' readerboard below
it.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19
Illuminated Signs provides that city council approval is
required for illuminated signs.
The city staff has reviewed the sign application and finds
that the proposed sign conforms to all pertinent city
ordinances. It is reco;iVmended that the city council approve the
permit to erect an illuminated sign at 6418 Penn Avenue.
Respectf 1 bmitted,
ohn G. Car rig t
City Manager
_JGC /eja
.� J..
•
Scale Revislons
Drawn By
M.K.
Salesperson
L.S.
Date & A24 v
ATTRACTA SIGN, INC.
84v PENN AVENUE SOUTH.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423
PHONE (612) 888 =3047
customer approval Date
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 351
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of 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, the authority to
purchase shall be submitted to the city council for
consideration. There is one such item on the September 23,
1985, city council agenda.
LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE
The adopted operating budget of the water utility fund
includes purchase of liquid carbon dioxide which is used in the
water softening process. Several suburban communities,
including Richfield, cooperate with the City of Minneapolis in
the bidding process. Bids have been received for furnishing of
liquid carbon dioxide for the period of November 1, 1985,
through. October 31, 1986. The low bidder was Cardox Corporation
with a base bid of $70 /ton, the same unit price as the previous
year. It is recommended the city council take the following
actions:
1. Accept the bid for liquid carbon dioxide per City of
Minneapolis Official Publication No. 9282.
2. Authorize master purchase order number 27044 for the
estimated purchase of 200 tons liquid carbon dioxide
at $70 /ton from Cardox Corporation for an estimated
total purchase of $14,000.
R ectful ubmitted ,
ohn G. Ca wright
City Manager
_;�6 -/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 350
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City- Council
Cit y of Richfield
Subject: Award of Contract - Infra -red Heating System and
-Make-up Air System, City Garage
Council Members:
On Tuesday, September 10, 1985, bids were opened for an
infra -red heating system and a make -up air system at the city
garage. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached
for city council review.
City Project No. 799 includes funding for work on the roof
as well as for heating and make -up air systems at the city
garage. The project is funded from the Capital Improvement
Budget utilizing funds allocated from the Special Revenue Fund.
•. The heating and make -up air systems are scheduled for
installation in the area where the city mechanics maintain city
equipment.
Three bids were received. The low bidder,. Midland Heating
and Air Conditioning, Inc., a Richfield based vendor, has
previously worked with the city on other projects and proposes
to do this work per the specifications.
It is recommended the city council award a contract to
Midland Heating and '.Air Conditioning, Inc. in the amount of
$17,090 for an infra -red heating system and a make -up air system
to be installed at the city garage.
•
JGC /e ja
ectfu
John G. Car wri
City Manager
tted,
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
September 10, 1985
Infra -Red Heating System
Make Up Air System
City Project 7990
Pursuant to requirements of'Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open,
and read aloud, sealed bids for Infra -Red Heating System at the City
Garage, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 28, 1985.
Present:'_ Thotnas`P. Ferber, City Clerk
Eileen Anderson, City Manager Representative
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
0 The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the September 23, 1985 City Council meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
BIDDER
BID SECURITY
TOTAL BID
B S C Mechanical Contractors
5%
17,627.00
Mpls
Midland
Heating & Air Conditioning,
Money Order
17,090.00
Inc.
Mpls
854.50
Gilbert
Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
5%
18,600.00
Mpls
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the September 23, 1985 City Council meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
•
0
Item City Garage Heating Systems
CRITERIA/QUESTIONS RELATED TO INFRAS'
1... Life Expectancy Several types of
the garage. New
20 - 25 years lunch room area
parking area's
rooftop gas
2. Current Age relative to life expectancy
May 2, 1985 4;1
r'RUCI'URE
heating is present in
office area -gas hanging,
- rooftop gas, storage or
unit heaters. Repair are
Lunch room 0
Shop 21 years
Addition 4.
Equip.Storage original 21 years
3. Current /Actual Condition relative to life expectancy
Repair area heating needs to be replaced.
Other areas good.
4. Already.Ccmpleted Renovations and Costs
New furnace (rooftop) installed 1984 - $10,000
New office area - 1980
5. Expected Renovations and Costs
Will be installing new heating system to repair area 84 -85
$15,000 or less
6. Interim Maintenance Items and Costs
Routine maintenance
7. Replacement Costs (1984 dollars)
New office area - $ 1,500
Lunch room area - $10,000
Repair area - $15,000
S. Special Circumstances (safety factors, cost effectiveness, ne *,r or advanced
technology /design)
9. Funding Source(s)?
.;
JGC /eja
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of Cit y Manager
Mana g
Council Letter No. 349
Agenda September 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject:, Resolution Providing for Polling Place and
Designating Judges for November 5, 1985
a
Munc' e
Municipal Election
Council Members:
The municipal general election to fill the offices of Mayor
and three ward Council Members will be held Tuesday, November 5,
1985. Attached is a resolution designating polling places and
appointing election judges for this election. Consideration of
this item at the September 23, 1985, city council meeting is
necessary to meet publication and notice requirements for the
November 5, 1985, municipal election.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution designating polling places and appointing election
judges.
R pectfu mitted ,
JGC /eja
•
M.--
TERMS OF OFFICE FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
In 1984 the City Charter was amended to extend the terms of the
Mayor and Council Members to four years to coincide with
Presidential and Gubernatorial elections. The Mayor and At-
Large Council Member would run in the same year.
These adjustments in terms will occur as follows:
Mayor 1985 -two year term
1987 -three year term
1990 -four year term
At Large 1984 -three year term
1987 -three year term
1990 -four year term
District 1985 -three year term
1988 -four year term
•
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR POLLING PLACES AND DESIGNATING
JUDGES FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTION'NOVEMBER-5, 1985.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
as follows:
1. That there will be a Municipal Election.on Tuesday,
November 5,.1985.
Z. That said election shall be held: at the polling places
as herein appear. specified, and that the following are
hereby appointed as.judges_ for said election:
Precinct No. 1-- Mount Calvary Educational Bldg.
6541 16th. Ave So
Election Judges: Chairperson: Shirley Gisselquist (0)
Co Chair Ralph Roberts (R)
Myrtle Lindgren (R)
Philip Carney (D)
Precinct No. Z --Saint Peter's Church
67th & Nicollet Ave So
Election Judges:: Chairperson: Elayne Gilhousen (R)
Ca Chair Ellen Brandon (R)
Lorayne Sutton (D)
Fern Oreck (D)
Precinct No. 3., Sheridan Hills School
6400 Sheridan Ave So
Election Judges: Chairperson:. Jan Anderson (R)
Co Chair Lo.is-Awes (D)
Cher Merrill (D)
Sue Raymond (R)
Precinct No. 4,. Saint Richard's Church
7540 Penn Ave So
Election Judges: Chairperson: Dave Arnold (R)
Cd. Chair Catherine Alfano (0)
Franc Gray (R)
Gerry Ascher (0)
aA3
;W-�
Precinct No. 5, Richfield Jr. High
7461 Oliver Ave So
Election Judges: Chairperson: Phyllis Reinmuth (R)
Co Chair. Lois Karnas (R)
Donna Jordahl (D)
Angela Aylward (0).
Precinct No. 6, Central School
7100-Harriet Ave So
Election Judges: Chairperson: Viv Bennis (R)
Co Chair : Betty Halloran (R)
Arta Harmon (D)
Kathleen Leckner (D)
Precinct No. 7, Portland School
72nd & 4th Ave So
Election Judges: Chairperson: Donna Vidas (R)
Co Chair Jean Fren2 (R)
Fabiola Sullivan (0) •
Joan Wong (0)
Precinct No. 8, Richfield Intermediate School
7020 12th Ave So
Election Judges: Chairperson: Gertie Herll (0)
Co Chair Audrey Winslow (R)
Ann Mullerleile (D)
Janet Benson (R)
Precinct No. 9, Centennial School'
7315 Bloomington Ave So
Election Judges:. Chairperson: Corrine Cosgrove (0)
Co Chair Barb Cook (D)
Shirley Comstock (R)
Sharon Peterson (R)
•
•
KI
Abs ent`ee, Precinct, Richfield City Hall
5700- Portland. Ave So.
Election Judges: Chairperson: Joan Wilmes'(0)
Co Chair Pat Toney (R)
Beulah Johnson (R)
Pat Bunting '(0)
Alternates
D_ . Republican
Lois Sall Florence Habegger
Raymond Howe Judith Moquist
Virginia Nitke }toward Mortensen
Jew Anderson Gertrude Broker
Pat Brenner May Farr
Lois Kovach Maxine.Evans
Kathy Marjanen Ethel Ho=es
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this. 23rd day of
September, 1985.
John Harm tan Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber City Clerk