10-22-84 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 382
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Making Richfield's Industrial Development
Bond Entitlement for 1984 Available to Other
Communities.
Council Members;
On August 20th, the City Council authorized a deposit of
$36,061 with the Minnesota Energy & Economic Development
Authooity (MEEDA). The purpose of the 1~ deposit was to protect
access to our 1984 IDRB allocation of $3,606,074 for as long as
practical under the law.
The full amount of the deposit is refundable until October
31, if the allocation is used or if it is not used and released
to a pool which is administered by the state. This letter
presents a proposal which would permit New Brighton, Faribault,
and Prior Lake to utilize a portion of our allocation.
The purpose in protecting our entitlement was to provide
assistance to one or two pending redevelopment projects.
However, at this time neither the Opdal project at 64th Street
ar.d Lyndale Avenue (within: the LHN area), nor the Cedar Avenue
Liquor Stare site project are definitive enough to properly use
the 1984 allocation entitlement.
The state statute contains a provision for communities like
Richfield to make their allocation available to other
communities. The other communities can thus identify a definite
source of funding and avoid problems associated with competing
for funds ir. the state pool.
New Brighton, Faribault, and Prior Lake have projects for
which additional IDRB funding is needed. New Brighton would
utilize $1,700,000, Faribault $500,000 ar.d Prior Lake $700,000.
The entitlement balance would be $706,074.
The New Brighton projects include a new retail grocery store and
an office facility. Faribauit would use its allocation. to help
fund a $2,000,000 plus rnar.ufacturing facility. Prior Lake would
utilize its authority to help finar:ce a bank ar.d medical
facility.
-2-
To permit New Brighton: and Faribault to utilize our
allocation, it is necessary to approve a transfer agreement and
a resolution approving the transfer. The agreements and
resolutions are attached. The agreements provide that Richfield
will make available to each community the amount of allocation
indicated above. Ric'field will assign to each community our
interest in the MDEED deposit in an amount equivalent to 1% of
the allocation each is receiving. Upon execution of the
agreement and prior to October 31, 1884, each community would
pay us the 10. That is, New Brig'nton would pay $17,000 and
Faribault would pay $5,000.
In return for this allocation, the agreement provides that
each community will give Richfield first priority with respect
to any excess allocation each may have in 1985• Prior Lake is
not now an entitlement community although t'ne agreement implies
that it is. To provide them with funding requires the approval
of an agreement and a resolution. Both are attached. Again,
upon execution of t'ne agreement, Prior Lake will pay us 1% or
$7,000. Because Prior Lake is not provided with a guaranteed
level of IDR~ funding ar:d all their proposals are funded
competively, the right of first priority for Richfield is not
appropriate. However, their use of our entitlement is viewed
within the context of the law as if we were using it. That is a
desirable situation.
With the approval and execution of these agreements, there
will be a balar:ce of $7,061 on deposit with MDEED. Staff will
request the return of those funds prior to October 31, thus
releasing the $706,074 in authority to the state pool.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolutions which approve the attached agreements authorizing
New Brighton, Faribault and Prior Lake to utilize a portion of
Richfield~s 1984 IDRB allocation.
R pectfu y? bmitted,
, ~
ohn G. Cart ignt~
City Manager ~
JGC/eja
c
i
Resolution No.
Authorizing the transfer of a portion of the City's IDB
Entitlement Allocation to the City of New Brighton,
WHEREAS, the Tax Preform Act of 1984 generally limits the volume of
industrial development bonds which may be issued within a state during any
calendar year to ~I50 per capita (the "State Ceiling"); and
WHEREAS, Laws of ylinnesota 1984, Chapter X82 (the "Allocation Act")
provides for an allocation of the State Ceiling among various issuers of industrial
development bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City") has qualified as an entitlement
issuer and has received an entitlement allocation (the "Entitlement Allocation"}
pursuant to the Allocation Act for the issuance of induct: ial development bonds
during calendar year 1934; and
WHERE.~S, Section 15, Subdivision 4 of the Allocation Act allows an
entitlement issuer to contract with another local issuer of industrial .development
bonds to tra*~sfer a portion of the entitlement issuer's entitlement allocation to the
other local issuer; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a request from the City of New Brighton
that the City transfer One Ylillion Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars 01,700,000) of
its Entitlement Allocation for calendar year 1984 to the City of New Brighton; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to tranfer a portion of its Entitlement
Allocation for calendar year 1984 to the City of New Brighton.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield:
I. That the City hereby authorizes the transfer of One ti4illion Seven
Hundred Thousand Dollars ~{$1,700,000) of the City's Entitlement Allocation for
calendar year 1984 to the City of New Brighton.
2. That the Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to
execute the Industrial Development Bond Allocation Agreement (the "Agreement")
in the form now on file with the City Clerk with such necessary and appropriate
omissions, modifications, insertions and additions as are not materially inconsistent
with the form of the Agreement on file •,vith the City Clerk as the Mayor in his
discretion shall determine. The execution of the Agreement by the 'Mayor shall be
conclusive evidence of such determination.
3. That the officers and other agents or employees of the City are
hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection
with this resolution and the Agreement for the full, punctual and complete
performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the
Agreement and this resolution. '
~i-
i
f
4. That this resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after
its date of passage.
Passed and Approved this day of 1984,
(SEAL)
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
i
i
-2-
INDiTSTRIAL DEVELOP:4IE~T BOND
ALLOCATION r^~Gr~EE NLENT
by and between
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, ~,E50TA
and
THE CITY OF i~EW BRIGHTON, I~11~Tia'~ESO'I'A
Dated: October , 1984
Drafted by:
Holmes c~c Graven, Chartered
470 Pillsbury Center
tiIinnea~olis, :Minnesota X3-102
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP~,lENT BOND
ALLOCATION AGREE:4IENT
This Industrial Development Bond Allocation Agreement dated as of October
1984 (the "Agreement"} is entered into oy and between the City of
Richfield, Yiinnesota ("Richfieldtt} a statutory city organized and existing under the
laws and constitution of the State of Minnesota, and the City of New Brighton,
^rinnesota ("New Brighton"), a statutory city organized and existing under the la°,vs
and constitution of the State of `Minnesota:
WHEREAS, the Tax Reform Act of 1984 generally limits the volume of
industrial development bonds 'which may be issued within a state during any
calendar year to 3150 per capita {the "State Ceiling"}; and
WHEREAS, Laws of Minnesota 1984, Chapter 582 (the "Allocation Act")
provides for an allocation of the State Ceiling among various issuers of industrial
development bonds; and
WHEREAS, Richfield has qualified as an entitlement issuer and has received
an entitlement allocation pursuant to the Allocation Act for the issuance of
industrial development bonds during calendar year 1984; and °
WHEREAS, Section 15, Subdivision 4 of the Allocation act allows an
entitlement issuer to contract with another local issuer of industrial development
bonds to transfer a portion of the entitlement issuer's entitlement allocation to the
other local issuer; and
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements
hereinafter contained the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. j DEFINITIONS.)
Act shall mean Laws of Minnesota, 1984, Chapter 582.
Entitlement Allocation shall mean the entitlement allocation provided to
Richfield for the calendar year 1984.
Department shall mean the iVlinnesota Department of Energy and Economic
Development.
New Brighton shall mean the City of New Brighton, a statutory city
organized and existing under the laws and constitution of the State of 'tilinnesota.
Richfield shall mean the City of Richfield, a statutory city organized and
existing under the laws and constitution of the State of Minnesota.
Transferred Allocation shall mean the 31,"00,000 of the Entitlement
Allocation transferred to New Brighton.
Section 2. [ALLOCATION TRANSFER.) Richfield hereby transfers and
assigns to New Br~hton One :riillion Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars (31,'00,000}
2
_
iy
of its Entitlement Allocation for the issuance of industrial development bonds for
calendar year 1984, which it received pursuant to the Act.
Section 3. [APPLICaTZON DEPOSIT.] Upon execution of this
Agreement, New Brighton shall reimburse Richfield for the application deposit of
One `~iliion Seven Hundred Thousand DollL.rs ($1,700,000) deposited with the
Department with respect to the Transferred allocation. If any or all of the
application deposit deposited with respect to the Transferred Allocation is returned
by the Department to Richfield, Richfield shall within five days of the receipt of
- the deposit, for ward the returned application deposit to New Brighton.
Section 4. [NOTICES.] If, and only if, on or before December ls, 1984,
New Brighton notifies Richfield of the portion of the Transferred Allocation which
New Brighton does not intend to issue, Richfield :,hall, before December 20, 198.1,
notify the Department as provided by Section 16, subdivision 7 of the Act that
bonds will not be issued in an amount equal to the amount stated by New Brighton
in its notice to Richfield.
New Brighton may submit the notices described in this section directly to
the Department.
Section 5, [RICHFIELD PRIORITY.] New Brighton shall give Richfield
first priority with respect to any excess allocation New Brighton may have during
the year 1985, New Brighton shall timely notify Richfield in writing as to the
availability of an excess allocation. The total amount of excess allocation made
available to Richfield under this section shall not exceed X1,700,000.
Section 6. [LNDE:4iNIFICATION OF RICHFIELD,) New Brighton shall
indemnify and hold harmless Richfield and its officers, directors, employees and
agents, from and against (A) any and all claims by or on behalf of any person
arising from any cause whatsoever in connection with the issuance of Bonds by New
Brighton under the Transferred Allocation; (B} any and all claims arising from any
act or omission in connection with any project financed by proceeds of bonds issued
by New Brighton under the Transferred Allocation; (C) all costs, counsel fees,
expenses, and liabilities incurred in connection with any such claim or proceeding
brought thereon. If any action or proceeding is brough against Richfield, any of its
officers, directors, officials or employees with respect to which indemnity may be
sought hereunder, New Brighton, upon written notice from Richfield, shall assume
the investigation and defense thereof, including the employment of counsel
acceptable to Richfield, as the case may be, and the payment of all expenses.
Richfield shall have the right to employ separate counsel in any such action or
proceeding and to participation and defense thereof, but, unless such separate
counsel is employed with the approval and consent of New Brighton, New Brighton
shall not be required to pay the fees and expenses of such separata counsel.
Section 7, [EXPENSES,] New Brighton shall reimburse Richfield for
actual expenses incurred with respect to the Transferred Allocation.
•
3
~ '
In titiitness tiViiereof, tie<<v Bri ~hton and Richfield have caused weir names t
~ o
be signed by their respective offices thereunto duly authorized and their respective
seals to be hereunto affixed, as of the day and year first above written.
(SEAL) CI'T'Y OP NET~`~ BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA
Attest:
City Clerk vlayor
(S$AL) CITY OF RICHFIELD, ti1INNESOTA
~ Attest:
City Clerk ibIayor
City Mar_ager
A
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUT~?ORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF A JOI'T POr~iERS AGR~.EMENT rriITH
THE C ~ TY OF F AP.=LAULT
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council o= the City of
Richfield:
1. The City of P.iChfield and the Ci~y o_ ~'aribault
are desirous of en a ring into a joint powers agreement
pursuant to Laws 1984, Chapter 582 for the sharing of
entitlement amounts of industrial development revenue bond
financing.
2. This Council has reviewed a proposed joint powers
agreement betwean the Cities for the purpose stated in
Section 1, and finds that the execution of the agreement is
in the best financial interest of tr,2 City of Richfield.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to execute the agreement on .behalf of the City.
4. The City Manager is directed to transmit a cer-
tified copy of the resolution to the City Clerk of the City
of F aribault.
Mayor
.ATTEST:
City Clerk
's
JOLT °OWERS AG EE~!~1T
B ET~~
nn ~T
THE CIT° OF ~?.~FIBALZT Aia~? SHE CITY CF RIC FInLD
L~DI3ST..L?L E'vELOP:~)~~~3T BCi~J E.iT1TLE:'~~v'TS
This joint cowers agreeuent is hereby entered into between. the
City of Faribault, a ;municipal corporation, hereafter refered to as
"Faribault" and tae Clty Of Richfield, a mllniCl~al COrpOr3ti0n, aer23Tter
refered to as "Richfield".
~I GP:-iEREAS, pursua.:t *_o ~f~.nnesota Statutes, Chapter `~74, Faribault and
Richfield have the power and authority to issue revenue obligations in
the form of industrial development bonds, and;
WHEREAS both Faribault and Pichfield are entitlement issuers ad
have secured their al~,ocation authority with the Department of Energy
and Economic Development through the deposit of l of the aggregate limit
of their industrial development bond issuance authority-, and;
i WHEREAS Faribault has established an October 30 1984 public hearin^,
o
at which time they will consider the issuance of industrial develoo_:ment
. bonds in excess of their allocation limit of $1,850,000.CO, and;
WHEREAS, Richfield has indicated an interest in assigning $~C0,000.00
of their allocation to Faribault.
~ u
WIT:dESS T.,~T: In consideration o.. the :nstual covenants contained
o' r 1 ~ t r
her~ln _aribau_~ and _.ich:.leld a _ee as follows.
g
Section 1. Richfield agrees to assign $500,000.00 of their prescribed
industrial development bond allocation to Faribault.
Section 2. Faribault agrees to pay Richfield the sum of l~ ($5,000'.00}
of the assigned allocation for the purpose of reinbursi^,g that party for
their entitlement deposit o. file vita the Department of Energy and Economic
~ Development.
Section 3. During calendar year 1985, Faribault agrees to provide
~ :?1Chlield tae first Op?OrLUn1tV LOr aSSlgnment of a::'~ unused 1^,duStrlal
development bond allocations.
Section 4. If on October 31, 1984, Faribault has cot approved the
1SSLi3nCe Oi Li`!e aS51~n2d allocation Oi $~OO,000.CO, the allocatlen deposlt
eauaiing 1,o Of the llnllSed aiiOCatlOn i:'$y be 52C:.red D~' ='arl'^ualllt, t~^ii tLjP_
S20art.~^ent OT Energy,: and SCO*10^:1C ~EVelOp~:.ent.
I •
I
Joint Powers Agreement
City of Faribault a City of Richfield
Page 2
Section 5. This agreement is e`fective upon. the passage and
radi~ication of the Richfield City Council ~nd the Faribault City Council.
In W1tneSS ~ tJilereOf ~ the partl.eS hereto have C2uS2d tills ]01nt pOtJerS
a~r2elRent t0 be Si~n_ed and aDprOV2d bV file proper OrilCer5 OL 2aC'tl
contracting party and attested to by the proper officers en the dates
Written below.
City of Richfield City of Faribault
BY By
Mayor Mayor
ATTEST: ATTEST:
City :?.anager City Administrator
DATED: DATED:
• RESOLUTION CIO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EYECUTION
OF A JOINT POWERS AGREE2~IENT WITH
THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield:
1. The City of Richfield and the City of Prior Lake
are desirous of entering into a joint powers agreement
pursuant to Laws 1984, Chapter 582 for the sharing of
entitlement amounts of industrial development revenue bend
financing.
2. This Council rias reviewzd a proposed joint powers
agreement between -the Cities for the purpose stated in
Section 1, and finds that the execution of the agreement is
in the best financial interest of the City of Richfield.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the City.
4. The City Manager is directed to transmit a cer-
tified copy of the resolution to the City Clerk of the City
of Prior Lake.
Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
• AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this _ day of
1984, b_v and between the City of Prior
~ o a ~ i ~
La.t~, municipal corporation in Scott Coun~.y, Minneso~a
(Prior Lake) and the City of Richfield, a municipal corpo-
ration ir, ennepin County, Minnesota (Richfield):
WITNESSETH:
I.`1 COnSiCiercitiOn of the ,mutual underta'.zi n s Set forth
g
herein, Prior Lake and Richfield a nee as follows:
g
I.
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the author-
ity granted to Prior Lake and Richfield by Minnesota Stat-
' utes, Section 471.59 and Laws .198.4, Chapter 582 (collec-
tively, Act). The purpose of this Agreement is to enable
Prior Lake to issue its industrial development revenue bonds
(Bonds) for an approved project or projects pursuant to an
allocation: made by the Act to Richfield as an entitlement
issuer under the Act.
II.
2.01. Richfield has received a final certified allo-
cation as an ' m ' ~ ~ a
en~.itle.,.en~ issuer l.. the amo~.nt or $3,606,07_.
i
2.02. Prior Lake wishes to issue its Bonds for a
project or projects in the amount of at least $700,000.
2,03. Richfield finds it is desirable to make avail-
able to Prior La.'~e from Richfield's allocation the sum of
$700,000.
zlz.
3.01. In order to induce Richfield to enter into this
Agreement, Prior Lake represents and agrees as follows:
{a) Prior Lake has before it a proposal or
proposals for a project requiring Bonds in an amount of
at least $700,000.
(b) Prior Lake intends to issue Bonds for said
project or projects prior Lo Dece*nber 31, 1984;
(c) Prior Lake will make available to Richfield
prior to October 31, 1984 a portion of the deposit
which was required by the Act in order to obtain the
allocation contemplated by this Agreement;
(d) Prior Lake shall reimburse, indemr.ifv, hold .
harmless and defend Richfield, its officials, employees
and agents for all costs, expenses, claims, damages and
losses which they may incur or for which they may be
held liable as a result of the transactions cer.ternplat-
ed herein and hereby releases Richfield, its officials,
employees and agents from any claim Prior Lake may have
arising out of the transactions contemplated herein,
{e) Prior Lake will timely and promptly notify
Richfield of all proceedings relating to the approval
of a project or projects and the issuance of Bonds
therefor.
3.02. In recognition of its undertakings under this
Agreement, Richfield represents and agrees as follows:
(a) Richfield has or will nrom~tl~; and timer-
submit to the Authority all doc~.:ments, deposits and
other papers necessary to carry out the transaction
. contemplated hereby;
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T_ _ , _
i
(b) Richfield represents that it has the neces-
sary amounts of uncommitted allocation to enable it to
~ ~ enter into this A reement;
g
(c) Richfield will use its best efforts to inform
Prior Lake oy any modification. of its allocation or of
any other facts coming to its attention which may
materially affect its ability to carry out and give
effect to the transaction cor:templated hereby.
3.03. The City of Prior Lake agrees and covenants
that, to the extent it does not need or use any entitlement
allocation it may receive from the State of Minnesota for
i
calendar year 1985, it will give the City of Richfield the
right of first refusal to use suc~ entitlement allocation,
i or the unused portion thereof, consistent witn applicable
' law then in effect.
I
~ 3.04. Richfield and Prior Lake represent to or.e
II ~ another, agree, and certify under penalty of perjury, that
the allocation which is the subject of this Agreement is not
~I ~ ,
i made in consideration of any bribe, gift, gratuity, or
direct or indirect contribution ~o any political campa_gn.
I
4.01. As used in this Agreement the terms
(a) entitlement issuer,
(b) local issuer,
(c) allocation,
(d) bonds, and
(e) project -
have the meanings given them by the Act and by Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474. The term "Authority" means the
Minnesota Department of energy a.,d ~cono:~ic Develcpment.
IN 6JIT~iESS S~IH~R~BY, Prior Lake and Richfield have
caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective
~ll1.y aUtti'1Cr1Zed Of~_CerS aS O~ tl:e date first writt~P. abOV°_.
•
CITY Or PRIOR LaK
By
Mayor
By
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
Mayor
By
City Manager
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (SERVE AS COUNCIL LETTER N0. 381)
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1984
RICHFIELD COUNCIL ADOPTS 1985 BUDGET
On September 27, 1984, the Richfield City Council adopted
the 1985 and revised 1984 budgets for city operations and
capital improvements. The council action followed a series of
three special hearings held by the council to review the budgets
recommended by the City Manager.
John G. Cartwright, City Manager, said the General Fund
budget amounts to $9,232,740 for 1985, or approximately 6
percent higher than the 1984 revised budget. According to
Cartwright, the 1985 budget will continue to provide the high
level of municipal services which Richfield residents desire as
well as meeting expected increases in labor and supply costs.
Cartwright also said the 1985 and 1984 revised budgets are
balanced. The city's financial house is in excellent condition.
The 1985 General Fund budget is based on three major revenue
categories, Cartwright told the council. Ninety percent of all
revenues will come from: property taxes (35~), state sources
(45~), and user fees (9~).
The city's share of the total property tax bill is about
15~, down 1~ from last year, with the rest going to the schools,
Hennepin County, and special taxing districts. The city's tax
rate will increase very slightly (1~) from 19.43 to 19.66 mills
($19.66 per $1,000 of assessed valuation). The combined city,
school, county and other tax districts produced a total rate of
112.4 in 1984. The city budget effect on a home with a $20,000
market value would mean an increase of about $4.60 for 1985, or
less than 1 cent per day.
During its budget review, the city council was also told
that profits from the city's liquor operations are expected to
reach the $500,000 mark for the second consecutive year,
providing funding for major park developments and other capital
projects.
Water and sewer rates will be increased 5~ in 1985 to offset
increased costs from water operations and higher charges from
the Metropolitan 'Taste Control Commission for sewerage
collection and treatment.
The Golf Fund budget continues to improve. The operation
now breaks even after meeting its debt service obligatior:s.
-2-
A record in Capital Outlay projects in 1985 totaling
$2,15,700 is anticipated. Two major projects will be the
funding of a major park development (Legion Lake) and the
reconstruction and widening of 66th Street between Newton and
Xerxes including major intersection improvements at Penn and
West 66th Street by providing left turn lanes.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 380
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Storm Drainage: Recommended Improvements
and Financing Plan
Council Members:
At the September 24, 1984, city council study session, the
staff presented data on the storm drainage study conducted by
OSM and storm drainage financing options. The council asked
the consultants and city staff to investigate t'ne extent of
previous storm damage in each area of the proposed improvements.
Capital Improvement Projects
City staff has reviewed city records in an effort to
determine the number of houses and the extent of the damage to
homes in various parts of the city. Before going into any
information obtained, it is neeessa•ry to recognize the context
under which most of this inforrnatior. was gathered. Immediately
after the August 30, 1977, rainstorm {this storm marks the
beginning of discussions on the question of the adequacy of what
was considered to be a completed stormwater control system), the
city attorney was asked to determine the responsibilities and
liabilities of the city ir, the aftermath of the storm. The case
law at the time indicated that there is no municipal liability
for insufficiency of sewers or drains to carry off surplus water
from an unprecedented or extraordinary storm or flood.
In addition, there is no duty on the city to "wholly relieve
the premises at all times from the burden of surface water,"
quoting from Dudley vs. the '~Iillage of Buffalo. The Supreme
Court of the United States has said: "The duties of the
municipal authorities in adopting a general plan of drainage and
determining when and where sewers shall be built, of what size
and at what level, ir:volves the exercise of deliberate judgment
and large discretion. and the exercise of such judgment ar,d
discretion in this election ar:d adoption of general play, or
system of drainage is not subject to revision by a court or jury
in a private actior. for not sufficier:tly draining a particular
lot of land."
-2-
Of course, there is qualifications to these court decisions.
• The city cannot be negligent in the operation of its system.
There have been claims against cities that have been negligent
However, the city has not and cannot be in a position to assure
all its citizens that it car. protect against all flooding at all
times.
Given this background following the catastrophic rainstorms
of 1977 and 1978, the city collected data on locations of
flooding problems ar:d general extent of damage. However, no
accurate data is available on the exact amount of damage for
eac'n house. Many people who experienced flooding problems did
r.ot report it to the city. What the city staff did do,
however, was to turn. all the available information over to the
engineering firm of OSM and asked them to correlate this damage
to various improvement areas and make some determination as to
the damage relative to each proposed improvement. The attached
October 16, 1984, letter from OSM prioritizes the improvements
based on property damage. Engineers from OSM and city staff
will be available to help answer questions about specific areas
and how they are affected and how the damage relates to any
proposed improvement.
OSM's list of projects that rate the highest priority in
terms of which improvements can best provide protection against
frequent structure flooding are:
1. Wood Lake Conduit System Optimization $100,000
2. Wilson. Pond Improvements $450,000 - 750,000
3. Norby's Pond Improvements $600,000 - 1,500,000
4. 66th Street and Xerxes 200,000
(Project in design stage and funding sources
are in place)
5. 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue No Estimate
6. 76th Street and Washburn Avenue 250,000
For budgeting purposes, OSM estimates an expenditure between
$1,400,000 and $2,500,000.
Financing Options
The City Council has focused their attention on three
financing options:
1. A citywide storm drainage utility fee;
2. Special revenues; and,
3. A combination of storm drainage utility fees and
special revenues.
A copy Of the September 24, 1984 study session council
letter is attached, which reviews the storm drainage utility
• finar.cir:g alternatives. The following is a list of alternative
financing mecha,:isms which were discussed and dismissed at
previous ;Meetings on stormwater control improvements:
-3-
1. Formation of a Stormwater Improvement District
This district could be formed by a two-thirds vote of the
council. A special property tax levy would be used to make the
improvements. A public hearing with individual mailed notice
would be required with each improvement project. This method of
financing does not distribute costs according to the
"contribution to the problem", rather it correlates cost to
each property to property value. In addition, the public
hearing with a mailed r:otice for each project could be a
problem.
2. Financing Improvements with Revenue Bonds to be Retired
with Liquor Store Profits
Under State law, the city is barred from issuing revenue
bonds secured by liquor profits for any purpose other than
liquor stores without holdir:g an election. Furthermare, the
special legislation that enabled the city to sell golf course
bands have used up the liquor profits as a backup pledge for
retirement of those bonds.
3. Transfer a Specified Amount of Liquor Profits to Retire a
GO Bond
Such a bond would require approval of the voters through a
referendum. Furthermore, the previous pledge of liquor profits
as a backup source of meeting bonded indebtedness for the golf
course could call into question the feasibility of having those
profits available for additional obligation.
~4. Special Assessments
This process was attempted in 1978 and 1979• Testing for
required benefit by the courts makes it doubtful that these
special assessments could be sustained.
5• General Obligation. Bonds
Again this would require a referendum.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Local government more than any ot'r,er level of government has
to recognize that infrastructure expenditures represent an
important investment in the future growth of our economy and
society for a commitment to the quality of life in our
communities.
Budget problems should not cause the public to withdraw its
responsibility to provide the community infrastructure necessary
to support responsible growth or redevelopment. This
• responsibility should be viewed as an esser;tial investment in
-4-
the future economic vitality of our cities and an important
objective in itself, not merely secondary to other goals such as
employment and education, says the Urban Land Institute
Statement on Finar:cing Infrastructure to Serve ~Iew Development.
1. A city-wide Storm Drainage Utility fee should be er:acted.
The major components of the city's infrastructure such as
the water, sanitary sewer and arterial street systems are
financed through user fees. This predictable, reliable and
equitable method of financing removes these public health ar:d
welfare issues from the annual competition far the general fund
dollar. The General Fund provides for the on-going operations
and maintenance of basic municipal services.
The City Manager and staff strongly recommend that a city-
wide storm water utility fee be enacted to finance 100 of the
storm sewer maintenance, operations .and capital improvements.
The city would immediately implement an improved 0 & M program -
-more frequent street sweeping more pond dredgings more
repairs.
To fund capital improvement projects, the city would have
the choice to either proceed on a pay-as-you-go basis or
bonding. The choice would depend upon how comprehensive the
program would be, how expensive, and how urgent..
2. The City Manager and staff strongly oppose the use of any
Special Revenue funds for the storm sewer program for these
reasons:
(a) the special revenues are needed for parks and open
space and same public services;
(b) special revenues are not great enough to meet our
5 year needs that have already been identified;
(c) the future of special revenues is ur.certair:.
Competition to our municipal liquor stores will
continue to grow. Our profits could fall ir. any
year. A major storm sewer project reeds a reliable,
dependable long-term source of funding;
(d) presently the city staff has underway a comprehensive
infrastructure study (streets, sewers, water, public
facilities). This study is bound to identify
additional capital outlay needs. As our facilities
age it will take more than maintenance money. For
example, how long will it be before the swimming pool
and ice arer:a require significant dollars to replace
or upgrade? Special revenues now used for park and
open space development may have to be spread thinner
as our infrastructure ages.
3. The Wood Lake conduit system o,otimizatior. ar.d the 5bth
Street and Xerxes Avenue improvements should be dor:e, The
ber:efits from this project are clearly worth relatively modest
costs.
-5-
4. The staff does not have ar_y recommendation: now on the
improvements at Norby's and Wilson Por.ds, The cost of
improvements are high.
5. As indicated in the OSM letter "a general plan of drainage"
involves "the exercise of deliberate judgment and large
discretion." The decision on the magr:itude of capital
improvements is left to the Council. Before the Council
decides to order Wilson or Norby Pond improvements, the
aesthetic considerations should be carefully considered. A
neighborhood meeting an each pond site would provide needed
input on the question of weighting storm water relief to some
structures and the aesthetic concerns of those properties
abutting the storm water holdir_g par:ds.
Respect~u ~ submitted,
i
Jahn G. Cartes fight
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
1 '
I ~ ( ~
}
Cons;-•'r:''9 ~n~ ;i-,~=;_s
'_~nd Surs-ev~^.~s
October 16, 1984
Mr. Mike Eastlinc
City Engineer
Ci~y o. R~c~~~ .C u
6900 Portland Avenge
Richfield, MN Sti423
Re: Stormwater System
Priorities & P,eco~Tmendations
Dear Mr. Eastling:
At the last City Council i5iorkshop regarding stormwater, We were directed to
review the identified r"loud prone locations and reccmmend improver~ent priorities
based on occurence or" structure damage on a somewhat frequer:t basis. The intent
of the priority syster~ to be developed was to focus attention on persistent
property damage areas and to put into secondary categories these flood areas
where damage has only occurred once or twice in recorded history. 4te re-examined
the data assem'~led on flood prone areas an•d have met ar,d discussed flood
frequency and severity with City field personnel who have the most frequent
contact with observed problems.
The following is a recom~~~ended list of projects directed at flood prone locations
and areas where in our opinion improve~.~ents can best provide protection against
frequent structure flooding.
1. ~'OOu LAY.E COJOUIT SYSTEM OPTI~~9IZATiON
Construct r~~anhol es and access pe i nts to the four dra i rage l i nos i n 'west
69th Street betxeen good Lake and Kn;,x Avenue. Tha construction will
d110W Cleaning Of Settled Sol1dS for the IlneS. 'his trunk drairiag°
outlet services the area west of riood Lake to include the bath and Gliver
area, the b7th and Pann area, and the loth and Pen;, .venue areas. The
eStim3ted COSt for COnStrUCtlCn Of new daUltS with access to all lines is
~IGO,~~GG~
1J2i Fd.i 17:.r1'~~:..`~'. /-'.:.'%:J° ~ vCiifG LAC r.,,., G _ ~~f'•`:'~.`c~...~ .`.?~.J ~'Ll JJ, v:b'~
Page Two
!sir. Ni i ke Eastl i ng
October i5, i98G
2, WILSON PO~iD Ii~PRO'dEh?ENTS
Past and current studies have identified ~Jilson Pond as not having design
storage volume. High seater in Wilson Pond affects a great number of
houses in the area between 72nd Street and 75th Street, Bloomington to
18th Avenue. Pond improvement will reduce the frequency of street and
property damage and allow the existing drainage system to function
better. The cost estimate for ~Jilson Pond work ranges from $G50,000 to
$750,000 dependent on actual facility design. The lower cost is for
excavation and pumping within the existing pond area. The higher cost
would involve enlarging the pond area as well as depth. The higher cost
alternative would, in our opinion be more acceptable aesthetically.
3. NORBY'S PO~tiD IMPRO`v'Ei~EitiTS
Past and current studies have identified Norby's Pond as the other Rich-
field storage location not sized for 100 year volume. High pond levels
threaten abutting properties and affect the flooding at 68th and Stevens
Streets, at 6°th and Columbus, and at 73rd Street and Ist Avenue. Pond
improvement to lower the high water level wi11 provide area-wide benefit
and allow the existing drainage system to function better. The cost
. estimates for Norby's Fond work range from X600,000 to $1,500,000 depend-
ing on the alternative solution selected. Lower costs are for pond
excavation and pumping with higher costs for the conveyance alternative.
The appearance and aesthetics of the pond will impact the alternative
selection.
4. 66TH STREET & XERXES A.VEHOE
The intersection floods °very frequently" with damage to one commercial
property, residential Property, and the garages for residential proper-
ties including one tuck-under garage. The area is being reviewed for
improvement in conjunction with i-?ennepin County work in 66th Street. The
cost estimate for the required drainage system is X200,000.
The next recommendations are placed a level down in priority because cr" less
overall area impact. They are as follows:
5. 69TH STREET & XERXES AVE~'1'JE
The area floods frequently with damage primarily in the alley area to
garages. Some remedial work in Xerxes. has been accomplished. Some
drainage improve,~~ent vrill occur ~~ith work planned in Edina. No total
solution has been identified so no firm cost estimate is available.
•
Page Three
Mr. Mike Eastling
October 16, 1984
6. 75TH STREET AND 4~'AS;~iBllRN A`JENUE
This intersection floods frequently. The primary concern is for i5th
Street being a major thoroughfare with a secondary concern for the poten-
tial for property damage. A supplemental conveyance line has been iden-
tified. The cost estimate is $250,000.
The recommendations of this letter are that the City initially address the four
items listed as 1, 2, 3, and 4. These improvements can provide i~;,meaiate benefit
by allowing the existing drainage system to function more efficiently. The
improvements have area-wide benefit to a large number of flood prone locations.
where structures have flooded.
For budget discussion purposes, a total estimate~~± expenditure of between
X1,400,000 and ~2,5C0,000 is involved. Actual costs are likel~: to be somewhere
between dependent or design alternative evaluations.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-i-fAYERON
& ASSOCIATES, INC. ~
-';John A. Harwood, P.E.
Pro,ect Engineer
JAH : nl b
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 333
Agenda September 24, 1984
The Honorable t~iayor
and
Members of the City Ccur:cil
City of Richfield
Subject: Discussion. cn Storm Water Utility for City Council
Study Session
Council Members:
At the July 25, 1983 city council rneetir:g, the staff was
directed to take steps to create a storm water utility. The
staff was to prepare rate schedules depending on the level of
service options. The September 24, 1984 study session will be
used to discuss the options available far the levels of service.
Level of Service
The storm water control service that is provided by the city
consists of three elements. First there is operatior_s. This is
the work performed to erhar:ce the performance of the system.
The emphasis is on the performance rather than the actual
physical facility. Cleaning storm sewer lines, catch basins ar:d
eutfalls are examples of operation tasks. Operation,
casts include the power to run the lift stations and street
sweeping. Street sweeping collects the silt and debris before
it reaches the catch basins ar:d drair:s ir:to-the ponds.
A second element of the storm water control service is
maintenance. Maintenance is work performed to keep up the
existing physical system. An example of this is the dredging of
whole ponds so that they do not fill up with the silt cor:taired
in the storm water. Another costly maintenance item is the
repair of the adjustment rings that support the catch basin
(street drain) castings which collect the water from the
streets. The city has beer: speeding about $20,000 a year to
maintain these rings and s'r,ould spend at least twice that to
prevent the erosion of the subgrade under our streets.
T'ne third ele!nent of storm water control service is the
capital expenditures. These capital expenditures are additions
to the system or major rehabilitation:. The er.gineerir.g firm of
Orr-Schelen-~layeror. & Associates, Inc. (OSi~f) has completed a
storm water control analysis of the city's entire system.
Engineers from OSM will be at the study session: to explain: how
the study was done and what r.ew information is new available.
This study will be helpful in the determir:atior. of which capital
projects would 'oe the mast effective.
-2-
The Rate Schedule
The attached storm water utility level of service schedule
(Attachment A) identifies three levels of service that could be
available. Level of Service A identifies tasks which are
currently performed by the city which could be assigned to the
storm water utility. Some of these functions are r.ow funded by
the sanitary sewer utility and some through t'ne general fund.
Level of Service A includes the cleanir:g of storm sewer lines,
catch basins and outfalls, power for lift stations, sprir:g and
fall street sweeping, repair of catch basir:s, and some limited
dredging.
Level of Service B includes all those services ir. the Level
of Service A plus a summer street sweeping program and
additional dredging. For approximately $15,000 to $20,000 a
summer, a street sweeper can be kept an duty far constant
sweeping. The rate of catch basin repair would be at least
doubled and the dredging significantly increased. Also included
in Level of Service B is $20,000 for capital expenditures. This
$20,000 could be used to pay off a bond far a $160,000 to
$200,000 capital project.
The Level of Service C is the same as Level of Service B
except that $200,000 would be ider:tified for debt retirement.
T'nis money could be used to retire bonds for a capital project
for between 1.6 and 2 million dollars.
The attached storm water utility rate schedule (Attachment
B) indicates the estimated cast impact of these three levels of
service on typical properties in the city.
Although no formal action car: be taken at the study session,
the staff is seeking direction. from the city council as to the
desired level of service to be provided by the utility. A
public hearing can be scheduled and information about the
utility can be prepared to be distributed to t'ne residents by a
brochure similar to the ore used by Roseville (Attachment C).
Richfield Lake cost estimates are also included as
Attachment D. The alternatives will be discussed at the study
session,. Continuing discussion: and possible action: related to
Richfield Lake pathway alternatives will also be scheduled for
the regular cour:cil agenda.
Attachment E is a letter f nom Crr-Scheler:-`~layeror. ar.d
Associates, Inc. which outlines certain: drainage problems in the
city along wit'n recommended priority of solution. implemer.tatior..
Respectfully submitted,
chr. G . Car ~wri~~lt
City Mana~er
Attachment A
STORitii WATER UTILITY ANNUAL E;CPENDITt?RES
Level of Service A B C
OPEPATIONS $ 94,000 $115,000 $115,000
MAINTENANCE $ 30,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
CAPITAL - $ 20,000 $200,000
TOTALS $124,000 $210,000 $390,000
Attachment B
• STOR.~~I WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
RESIDENTIAL - per lot (average 65' lot)
Approximately $1 annual fee per household for each $16,000
spent on utility
OR
Level of Service A B C
(Annually) $8.00 $13.20 $24.40
(Quarterly) $2.00 $ 3.30 $ 6.10
COMMERCTAL
Level of Service A B C
65' Lot:
(Annually) $24.00 $39.20 $73.20
(Quarterly) $ 6.00 $ 9.80 $18.30
One Acre:
(Annually) $116.80 $196.40 $366.00
(Quarterly) $29.20- $49.10 $91.50
ANNUAL FEE FOR ADDITTONAL CAPITAL EXPENSES
$.5 Mil. $1 ?~Sil. $1.5 Mil. $2 bfil. $3 Mil. $4 Mil.
Residential $ 3.50 $ 7.00 $ 10.50 $ 14.00 $ 21.00 $ 28.00
65' Lot Commercial $ 10.50 $ 21.00 $ 31.50 $ 42.00 $ 63.00 $ 84.00
One Acre Commercial $ 52.50 $105.00 $157.00 5210.00 $315.00 $420.00
Attachment C _
~ E
Roseville plans to use a "new" 'technique to pay a~ ,
for the costs of managing storm water runoff - ~ ~ j
• • - a Storm Drainage Utility. T'_^is leaL.~,t is prepared ~ ~
to introduce you to this new utility and answer your questions.
~Ihy do ~e have a storm draana~e system? ~ha} is a storrr't
drairia~"e uiil~t ?
~ a ~ important to control the storm ~ y
water. Storm drainage racilities
had to be built, maintained and A storm drainage utility is
renewed in order to: similar to the Familiar sanitary
• PROTECT PEOPLE sewer utility. The fee is based or.
• PROTECT PROPERTY the amount o~water that is discharged.
Before people settled in Rose- ®REDUCE INSURANCE R!SKS into the system, For instance, a
vile, the natural state of the land arkinp lot creates more runoff
was rolling prairie covered with 'IMPROVE PROPERTY than a grass area the same size, so
VALUES
grass and trees. tiVhen it rained, the it pays a higher rate. Similarly,
water soaked into the ground. or • ENHANCE THE a large parcel creates more runoff
ENVIRONMENT
flowed naturally to the rivers and than a small parcel, so it too pays a
streams. When people came to 'PROVIDE FOR SAFE higher amount. In this way, the
oseviile, they built homes, stores, TRAFFIC FLOV? citizens of Roseville will pay for
~ffices, churches, and paved the To control storm waters and the managemen t of storm water in
land witfi streets, parking lots, and receive these benefits, there is a proportion to the amount of water
driveways. lv'o~v, when it rains, the cost. The proposed storm drainage they "contribute'", not on the value of
ground cannot absorb the water as utility will spread these costs to their property.
easily, and more water flows_off. those who "create" the storm
As the development of the land water runoff.
continued, it became increasingly
~Vhy is a u~~tynee~ed? ~1hat's my share of the costs?
Recent State legislation nozo re- The expected quarterly fees in 1984 to various types.of properties are
quires Roseville to take greater anal shown below:
costlier actions to protect water PROPERTY TYPE QUARTERLY RATES
quality in our community than , , , , , , , , , , , g4.351iot
ever before. These actions will Single Family Homes and Duplexes
include Forming t~~•o new water Cemeteries and Coif Courses ~a3.25racre
management organizations and Parks and Parking Lots ................................j9.751acre
developing regional and local plans Schools and Community Centers 516.251acre
to identify problems. Multiple Family Dwellings and Churches S32.wlacre
Today, storm water costs are CommercialiIndustr~,a1 ~65.OG;acre
paid Eor using general tax money Your storm drainage Eee will be
-property :axes. These new costs, included on the same water and
when combined with the nearly sewer bill you receive each quarter.
5200,000 [Zosevilie must spend for Also, your fee can be reduced if you
ngoing storm drainage main-
o can demonstrate that vour pro-
enar.ce each year, represents a perty has on site Facilities ~,vhich
major expenditure of tax money. improve water quality or reduce its ~
Roseville must rnd a wa~ to meet c ~~y.
out:low rate. ,~~1,'
these rising costs in a fair and
equitable manner, svitheut adding ~
additional burden to the property
tax rolls.
i
Y4'na~ portion ~~o~'~ ~;il~ rr~y ~mon~~~'~e u~ ~
O ~~1f.' CflS LS I) ti`ohey is needed to operate
_ and :nai.^,tain .he present stor:p
~r~ F~'~ /it\ drain,a~esv=te--4..a,'.a:geoort:onoc
SI~~12 Tam1~y' l ~ } the stor:^, drainage fee wi'i ~e us2d.
~ ~-~7 ~ i cr,r.ar.c? ;zri: '?;:sro :tan ,~r-y
Currently, near?y fifty ^ercent :ra,?r and r?r.^,r,i floors I
OC the C!tV'NiCe COSid O; maP.3°iri~ ® lLlainta,'r. ?zai;7ig i:CT-~: ac:r:zr°; ,
I ° ° 50 iP.?~ :Dill GpeTGf2 pr7per:'1 jGr
]~OCIn Writer are reC2:V2C1 tnrOLS°ll
proeerty t~Xes to single fa_*n 1 longer p?r•oa of am?.
Z) Rosev e s a -:a..o.~ co ~
homeowners. ~ y ill c: >^•~-nv m- pia
L;nGer 3 stC)rt:l Gr31n- i'~: C? ?~:Sl:ng 5l'77'ti ,aC1 ' '25
munity, and plann!ng For the hay? h?com?;tnusaol?7~2r.`h? ~aears, '
doe utility, 'the overall sir.g:e fa.~;tiiy ,
t fut:._.. as 'r: ell as ;..",e pr=_se^. !s au2 ~o tr2 nal:lral liz:zriorat:ar
share is ,educ=d to a^out twee y-
eXtrerrlely :mporrar,t. srorrn process, f
five percen~. That mea^.s singi? 4
r dSd1P.dY',° master ;,13n. `Nil, .re :2`/e- - ~ I
ra ^?i1J snarl 7r ~fOr'.^. iLQ?Y CGSiS i5 g ~{p?2p ~tI?ei5 a>::: ylC.C :!p Seas?S, '
lODed dnG ~CeDt up CO da t° i0 ;,=r. +~-1 .I 2725 ..C; ?nt_'. fff:"
S
Cllf ;n na!' .;:::n a :lfliil'J. ' ~?t°r:~!;ne. i.9 TY!a~_r '
Other mCCe i;lie.^,S1V2;y Qe`J°- yJ~tYln.
® W'ner2 Cilar.o?s or r2~ <irs to ?sar;r.o
loped properties W111 ds5ur.1e an _ ~ °
facili es r.2?d to o? rraa?.
increased snare of these costs due
t0 the greater 3hdre OE runoff{ ti.ey ~ ~'~iterf 2TILT ;DhE',t ;;tfur? JaCt?2!'25
Credt°. .^~is0, an dQGltiOndl ten per- :Ctll E'P n??;(2Q. P~ 1
Cent of total COStS Wlll f101V De rd:~ _ • ~~itat shoal>~ >~Cn.? :0 a'~r.?Ci' Its\~~\l~ _~/+r`~~~~
by taX eXe.T.Di prC)oertles, '.vl"t0 qualtlJ J;~ ;a.'27' !n OUY 1ati25 ana J 1f 1/"~r~U
L's(1d11V paV no property taXeS, yf>ea±n~, V Ladd
- .
_ f
I ~ran~ ~,flr~ in~ca~~~~~ipni
'~j/ The Cih~ Ccur.cl plans to hcl~: a 7:!51: hear: r.; on ,r,e Sorri~
a ~ ~ ~ / Drainage Utility on ;anuary 9, 19ti= at 7:30 p.:n. at City c:ali.
//J'p / ~ o J~ Y7U :2 t':Dti?.~ :7 .^~.C;?:~.:~,ISC, ii:r`~l°r 1;liCi^13:.On C3:t`)L' ODti~-i-:.'.:a
} ~
~~Illl Id it lllttt It f1~1 ~ al.. ~.7 a a ~ ~ nt t ~
by C .11. ~ ,:1_ I~L:DI:~ 'YyOr<~ vepartmc. aL -b-z-a.~%i.
Clty 0I P.oseti'llle BUIK
_50o Civic Cence; vrive ~a,e
2ose':;ile, tilir,aesota :~.,3 ~ ~ Pt11L1
St. ?au', `.ii~n.
?=_rm„ 2-3'
•
Attachment D
RICHFIELD LAKE COST ESTIi~.ATES
Present level 114.6'
3" of blacktop added raised level to 114.9'
Fi11 to the normal ordinary high water mark of 115.8'
ESTIMATED COST $4,000
Fi11 to bring up to 116.5' (approximate high water mark of 1984)
ESTIMATED COST $19,000
Add two 18" culverts at washout
ESTIMATED COST $700
Extend twenty culverts 3' each side (6' total)
ESTIMATED COST $2,000
Rip-rap to be added at outlets and at controlled area for overtopping
path near the play features
ESTI2~IATED COST $l, 000
` Attac'rmzr, ~ E
~ ~ '
` ~
` ~ ~ ~ ORS •SCNE~~id • ~u~~ ~ ~SS~~i~T~S,
.
Consur, ~~~c cr~.;r~~.'s
L a.n ^ S~ , . ~ /C.'S
September 13, 1984
Honorable N~ayor & City Council
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Sto~;n dater Proble~
Dear Mayor & Council:
Storrr?water flooding problems have been an issue in Richfield since the
rainstorm event of Aug~.;st 30, 2977 during which over 7 inches of rainfall
occurred.
Our firm prepared a report dated Septe^ber 22, 1978 regarding problems that
occurred. The report identified 38 areas that flooded, identified various
~r,itigative or soluticn alternatives to address each problem area and made
recommendations on pending area, conveyar;ce, and other improvements to help
the Richfield drainage syste-n handle excess stormwater flow. A surr~ary of
those 38 problem areas is attached.
A number of communications have been submitted since the 1978 report regard-
ing specific areas such as Adams Hill Pond, Norby and ~lilson Ponds, Edina-
Richfield drainage problems and other specific issues.
In February of 1933, a brief document was submitted that categorized the
problem areas by type and severity of flood problems with a suggestion on a
program to follow to implement system improvements.
In recent months, in response to needs for watershed management organization
requirements and as a part of the City infrastructural analysis, a comprehen-
sive study of the Richfield drainage system has been under way involving
co:,,puter simulation of drainage flow.
Based on all o` the assembled data and on the new information provided by tha
computer modeling, the City has good information on flooding occurrences and
the ability to simulate or model any specific rainfall event to predict
drainage system performance. The analysis that has and is occurring shows
that the Richfield drainage system works well but net without prcblems. The
proble,~,s occur when rainfall intensity is greater than design flow capacity
or when rainfall volume is more than the holding capacities of ponds and
lakes. The work to date has identified and categorized the problem areas
with the reco;Tmended priority far solution implementation directed first at
areas where structures, ie residences or commercial buildings flood, and then
at lesser prcblems related to flooded private property and flooded streets.
Page Two
Honorable Mayor & Council, City of Richfield
September 13, 1934
The highest priority category where buildings are theatened or flooded, en-
compass the areas shown on the attached map. The facilities identified to
improve drainage system performance are identified as costing X4,100,000
consisting of:
A. From 65th to 70th, Penn fivenue to Wood Lake
Relief sewer at X1,700,000
B. 76th & i,'ashburn tc Adams Hill Pond
Relief Sewer at $ 250,000
C. Norby's Pond Area
Pond Improve,~~ent ar,d Associated Conduits X1,200,000
D. Wilson Pond Area
Pond Improvement and Associated Conduits ~ 450,000
E. 77th & Colfax Area
Relief Conduits $ 170,000
F. b6th ~ Xerxes
• Relief Conduit by Hennepin Co. & City of Richfield 5 200,000
G. 69th & Xerxes
Stormwater Runoff Control and ~imited Conduits ~ 130,000
The second and third categories of flooding, where property other than struc-
tures flood or when streets or alleys flood, can and probably should be fur-
ther examined once the first priority concerns are resolved. Such additional
problem areas that include city park land, individual front or hack yards or
street flooding to relatively minor depths and for reasonably short durations
are important concerns but not deemed as critical as structure flooding. The
recent data base that has been assembled for the conduit simulation and co~rr~-
puter modeling work can assist in examining these areas.
We anticipate meeting with the Council in a worksriop setting to discuss
drainage problems and the status of the current study.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-"!AYrRON
& ASSOCIATES, INC. ~
•
~hn A. Harwood, P.E.
JAH:min
~ ~ ~ r w ~ r X ~ ~ $ Ny a v 'w ~ ri
3 s d ~ a S K s . 3 3 d
s~ A
~R N ~ N U r J 1 w .e 1 ~
KERxC3 LvE •5~~=..--• - - - J. - - ~ s. T, :ER:E} Lvf
rasNeunr I~ ~ I~ , ~ ~ li; rl sHpuRN
VIRCCMT _ ' vIw CL NT
UDTIIN Il~~ i p ,I r ~ V??DR
r {._~I ;o
}MCRIO LM `I_ II !j I I 1.- ~ 7w(RIpLM
RUSSCIL I L { i ~ - _~I' ~ RUSSELL
,I II 'i li L_ _ ~ '~I I
OVCEr I ~L I. - - ~ ~.I r ~ OIICCM
~ i _ 'I _ ~ DCMN 1YE
Rf MM LYC. _.~r ~ ;r y~ II :I ~ J1(
OLtvER I _ _ LJI _ I l `1 i'. L -_'r~' 1 pLIVER
r£wTDR L~ I;-.- 1L_ t I ; ~._J - RerroR
L. _
roRCLr It- 1~ ~i r~ li I ,I ( ~ ~ ; _ ~ reRaLR
1 ,r--- II j .r / s I r
LOG LR ~ '.l ,I I' ~.,i I ~}p'~~+.yi y.y~''_ r - JI_.._:~ LOtaR
J KMOI ..L _ _~I ~.j 1. 'i I ;I i .i J! 1~ SkO]I
f ~ 1'- u I I I
uYfs ( I Il ~ ~ i I JL_ JLNEs
1 I ~ ~r 11 f.
IRVIMO '^1,-C, I ( ~ I - I .I li Loci II ' ~I •,.r -~I~;y_{r IRVINO
NUNCOLDT S~) ~ ~~SY-t}-_. ~'~j~ ~L_Jf I~rL ~~I11~ MUr EDLpT
OIRIRD V, I'cf _ JI j~ IL ~`J~__ rl__ ;l~ ~iI OIRLRp
DREtiCSKT 111`_ _ ~L. ( 1 _l-~ ~S-~.~p !~ti(%!T
Eb ER3 Ow I`-J~ 1, , ~ ,j r'~.. ~ o D~:.- - ~ ?T - \ EwER40M
OU-AMT I I •w.E°A ~ I:
rr _j - L~yp ~ I ~ ~I r
LL DR ICM ~ ~ 1~ I!-:/ l \ if //F 'yam _ C { ~I III LLDRICN
LTMOLIO lvE { ~~r -~I IL. ;I s[a•..~' ~i ~ J11~ LrwOLLE LYE.
^r LR FIE LO ~ IL ~ L , ~I OLRfgLO
I ~ ,l (1 II~'I~
HLRegT I L 1 Ij i I ~};I CT
GRLko c ; I I I'- _ i ~~'I ~~L it ' __.I E ~ I ~ oRLRo
PlE4SlkT 1 _ t--~-.1 ~.-i 1 It. ~_7( " ~~Il._ _ r-~~~i~.'~.~IL.-' ~i~ 1.--~_.I~~.i~~`lk' RIC ISIkt
jj ~-rr
PILLS8t1 Rt Il 3 ~ j I Ii tf = I ~.<< _JI l':,II) KLSOVR7
e - ~ { - 'L ~-1 i j ,11_ l( _r , rfxT.pr?x
pL LIS DELL ~Y ~ ~ ; 1- ~ ~ _ _ i _j ,I tL MSDELL
- f 1_ J
NKD<LCT lVE. C.r~- i __7~ -01~ MICOLL[T riE
~ i; ~ ;i II- JCS :~1 STEVEN!
STEvENS ` ~ - -
f .1' if 't t~_ ,I ! I ~ r
it I r I
L F- I a - t -
CLINTO« II ~ - r 1 Q ~ - ~ CL IR TOSi
11 _ L. _ I L ~ -~-j ~ ~ L_ -
~ rR
, t ~t ~ _ J^ I I ~1 II J~. Slt
F7.t TLLkO AvE ~ j~ - it Ir_ I I S! it-,'I, ( j ~".~R:LiNO Lv[
CLKL LNO I - - - - ~ I F'~ Oaal skp
it 1~ r i" I. ' ~ '1 II Ij '.I ~I
I 9 I, - II ! I ii. 'I n 'L J, ~ ' FLRq
COLD bbUS 9 II- 1 11 Ij l a i : jl ~ ^ II~
CHICAGO ~ Ax ~ I~ L I! ,I - I ,I ~ ~ ~~.I CNIC YOp
I` I~ I I' I ~ o
ELL10T I~ I I i f ' z ~ ftUOt
ID IR j. { 11 JL - _ II _ i'` 1' _ - " I.I 101t
( L_.
r3 n t iL.- l _ ~ ~ ;I ,i. 1~ _ 1 {I I ~ IS r? -
i' I' iI ~ 1 ll. .ice I 55i lore
iL JI J L_ - - Is rt
~ Ij _ 1, ~ _ _ ~ ~ EtL9YIkGTOM
RCpttIkG TCR ~ - 1 i~ It i I I r (
C - I. I- II ~I Il. Jt. _ ~ I IT IR
ITrR r I. r it 1( ~lf fi ;I
i,~-_ !i II I` J.1 ~L l _ _LT Il rt
Cf DLA Lvf. :.'_'X.__.~ - y! tr I. L.. 1 CC DLR LvE
L OLrGGf LICE _ _ _ ~-n _ _ - - - ~ 1, ~~r~
- ' Ir.. :1 ~1 *'^.~IJr. +ttl_r_t~l yLOkOFCLLOR/
RI Y . O '
~
. ~{~,JL y~~ 224
~ ~ rl ~I ---I s?LNO1sR
i l_ JL. ,lf__~ L7 r,
I ~ ~i 101 ° °t ~i
~ js ~ v i
' \ ~ I , i
l
~ . ~ , ' OAR •S~N~~~~ • ~~~~~~~0 ~ ~~SDU1~1 ~S,
i~.
Co~su;t;ng C/7y%^C°~S
~.r3,'?G' (i,~n~~~0,`S
February 7, 1983
Mayor and Council:
During the past five to six years, data has been collected on areas of the
City which experience flooding during heavy rainstorm events. These range
from minor street flooding to incidents of property da;~~age. Methods of
mitigating the flooding, and particularly the damage, have beQn described and
preli~;~inarily costed. Because the areas scattered throughout the City ex-
perience different levels of flooding severity and have a range of costs, it
is difficult to define the most cost-effective programs to follow.
The purpose of this memorandum and accompanying material is to present a sug-
gested program to follow. In the 1978 OSM Study, 38 areas known or reported
to have flooded were identified. This memorandum groups these areas into five
categories as follows:
i (1) Areas which have reported flooding of structures during rainfalls of
high intensity.
(2) Areas which have reported flooding of structures during rainfalls of
high intensity and/or volume.
(3) Areas which have reported flooding of streets and lave areas during
rainfalls.
(4) Areas which have reported only flooding of streets during rainfalls.
(5) Areas which have reported flooding but where projects ar methods have
been accor+pl i shed to mitigate f 1 oodi ng or flooding dar~~age .
Following is a tabulation of the areas by the above categories. Please refer
to map, Exhibit I, for location.
Category 1: 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 27, and 28
category 2: 12, 34, 35, and 36
Category 3: 14, 22, 26, and 30
Category 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, 20, 2;, 25, 29, 31, 32, 37,
and 38
Category 5: 21, 23, and 33
2C'L1 F85t >L",~c,?,'7ct'll;i r=V°~lJc C?l:° ~.i.`~' ~'~,'(,'l?cd7G~lS ~~^lf; tFS^i~a ~~==i3 012. 33i - ~v
In the 1978 OSN~ report, several projects are re identified. The areas generally
influenced by those projects are outlined and labeled alphabetically on
Exhibit I.
A. Consists of installing additional sewer conduits v:ith an outlet to Wood
Lake. Estimated project cost is $1,500,000.
B. Installation of an additional conduit Adman Hill Pond. Estimated project
cost is $220,000.
C. Consists of additional conduits and upgrading of Pdorby's Pond. Estimated
project cost range is $850,000 to $1,900,000, depending on final recom-
mended plan.
D. Consists of additional conduits and upgrading of Wilson's Pcnd. Esti-
mated project cost range is $360,000 to $730,000, depending on final
recommended plan.
E. Additional conduits. Estimated project cost is $160,000.
F. This project or projects depends on a joint solutior; arith Hennepin
County, Edina and the City of Richfield.
G. This project would cover the isolated or individual areas not included
i n the above pro;; ects . Estimated casts are not feasi b1 e att hi s time,
but would be small relative to the abovQ costs.
The recommendation of this memorandum is that projects A through F be placed
on a five year plan for detailed study of their cost effectiveness, final
recommended pla^, detailed cost estimate and possible construction. Project
(or projects) G should be placed in a ten year plan of study and possible
implementation.
Attached are descriptive paragraphs of each area.
~ g LOCAYION MAP -Figure Y
I! T] E I I] i] I 1 1] I i~] E T I f i I i I I I I]]] ] ] 1! E]] ~ ] S ]
~ ~ ~ r; ~ ~ ~ i E ar 1 5 e[ ti {t tp t ~ j. f # t ~ ~ s ~ r ~ t ~ ~ It ~ ] ~ t c s e E t ] s s ~ i I i ! I fit ]
i Q ~ 1 1 ~ 1 i i D ! ~ ~ y ~ ( r ~ 1 s ! E a ! 1 f ~ ~ i f s t f t f t t i t c t s L 1
_ .
• i
~
~ ~ ~ ~ -
I ~ ~ i
't'C~`' --I~ II l I ~ li 1 ~a..t ~ II i li I~ I - ~ ~ ~l!_ rr~~~l ~ ~ ~ ~j=~ -I~,~~~ / r
v w, I '
l~- --1-_~~ 1. . _ _ _ .~J~~- ~ ~ 1.~~= ~__~L- ~
_
e
.
-
I l~ It ~ I' ~ ; ~ ~ i! .1. ~ - _ ~L_I~ !,1 I _ _~I_ ~ ~
. i _ _ _ ,
I (
_ _
~y3~'J
. r _ _ . ~ _ l
~ i- . Ji
- _ I I
,f"~
_ r \4 /t- ! ~ _ _ r. : 1 _ ~ i' '-.,~,.y r~ I t-' ~ r-I ~ ~ ' CfF~G1A~ 4A:..~
J' _ _ ~_i~l~ l ~)(~l _ _ - ~ ~ J ! ~~_l ;1; 4 ~ ~ _ rJ t_7' !~~~I J~_!L_I~ ~ it - I', ....CtT~' OS' RICHFIE:..,
- ~ ~
. ll_ _
I, ~ ~ ~
~ 1~~L_il.. Iw~~~ ~ Je I- _ 11 ~l L L. )I I~~_f~ I _~._II .J'J~_ `~.ra'
_ rC
i
_ - - _ ; ~ ' I~ ~ ~ < < ~ Vii- _ . -
. .
. 1 : ~ ~ ~ , ,t ill _l~ ~i ~ ~1_ ~ _
lr Imo..
_ l _
fail !i V i!~~\ ,~i\ _ -I _ _ ~I,--- _ ~L~ - -
- - - - - -,A,.~-~- _ - - -
F 1!] i I I t T]] I] I t I t i I I E[ S t 1 i T~ i I F t I I I E! C!! 1 T] F I] I! F! ] 5]] t i I. ] T E I 5
~~~cle~:~:~~~It14itp~%?:?If~.'~~¢jC::~:. .~...t~.
~ i i ! r t t t t t. a t
- 1 - 3 - ~ -
- z -
~s
~E m~try: John A. Harwood, P.E.
cue: February 7, 1983
~ ~ r~o.: 17 5 0
YoziEas~HEP1FIE?'~dxvE. Drainage Problems
1~tMD5EAPOLIS, tdI~NESC7A 55113 C i ty of Richfield
(6227 331-abSC
City of Richfield Drainage Problems
In 1978 our firm studied reported flood problem areas in the City of
Richfield. This memo is descriptive of the type and extent of each
problem area with the intent of categorizing them in such a way that
solution systems may be more easily identified. The 197o study
exa<<ined 38 individual locations. The following comments are applic-
able to each.
Location 1 - 64th & Xerxes
This location experienced street flooding to minor depths. The
problem is that when the street floods the water flows overland,
westerly into the City of Edina and into a stormwater holding area
in Edina. The outlet from the Edina holding area is via pumps. Ex-
cess flow is greater than pump capacity resulting in overfilling the
storage area. I do not believe property damage was involved. The
City of Edina proposed to place an asphalt overlay just west of
Xerxes at 64th to contain water in Xerxes and reduce the potential
for westward flow.
Location 2 - 69th & Xerxes
This location is an alley between Xerxes and Washburn; 69th - 70th.
During the heavy rainstorms water was about 3 feet deep in the alley
causing damage to garages and flooding the walkout baseT:ents and
several houses. The problem results from the location being a
locally low spot. Local runoff and major amounts of stormwater from
highly impervious Edina commercial areas flow to this area. Water
gets to the low alley by overflowing the street on Xerxes, mid block
69th - 70th, and by coming out of a catch basin in the alley when
the storm sewer system is surcharged, The City of Edina is to do
some regrading work near b9th and York to route excess surface water
southerly on York rather than easterly along 69th to this area.
Locally it was proposed to raise the boulevard area just east of
Xerxes at the low problem area and increase catch basin sizing.
These two actions would serve to contain more runoff in the street
and accept more runoff into the storm sewer. In the alley, it was
proposed to disconnect the existing catch basin from the storm
system so that water would not escape from the system to the alley.
Alley drainage would be provided via a new catch basin connected
with a backflow preventing gate or via a pump.
Location ~ - 66th North, Xerxes Washburn & Vincent
The intersection of 66th and Xerxes floods causing damage to the
com-~ercial building south of 66th A locally low alley between
Washburn and Vincent floods causing damage to an apartment that has
a tuck under garage. The existing storm sewer i n 66th that flo~w~s to
Page Two
Memo Re: Drainage Problems - Richfield
February 7, 1983
Edina is too small for the large impervious areas. The system is in
a county road ( 66th) , with improve,~,ent controlled by the County,
There are do~,mstream flow and volume problems which have been retior_-
ted in the Point of France Pond or in Lake Edina. Two alternatives
were examined that conveyed stormwater either west into Edina or
east into Sheridan Pond and ultimately Richfield Lake, Both are
expensive and need joint action by Edina, Richfield and Hennepin
County. Locally it was proposed to raise the sidewalk at the alley
south of 66th on Washburn and to place a one way flow gate in the
manhole at the alley and in'ashburn,
Location ~ - 6700 Block of Washburn
There was street flooding without property damage. Relief at 66th
and Xerxes will make the system function better and reduce some of
the flood potential.
Location 5 - 62nd & Russell
Between Russell and Penn, 62nd to 63rd, the land is currently unde-
veloped and is locally low. Runoff from a large parking lot area
west of Penn reaches the area as well as local drainage. I do not
believe any property damage occurs, although garages along the back
lot Line of houses east of Russell are threatened. The solution is
either mare outlet capacity to the county drainage system in the
crosstown highway or development of a controlled ponding area,
Location 6 - 66th to 67th, Queen to Penn
The major problem is in the alley just north of 67th which is low,
One commercial structure has a basement level garage that has been
flooded, The intersection of 67th and Oliver has flooded. Flood
proofira the basement garage was reccnu~nended and a storm drainage
system to convey excess flow was identified.
Location 7 - 69th & Sheridan/Russell
The entire area is very flat with all street at minimum grade.
During heavy rainfalls the area had general street flooding, but to
relatively shallow depth, No property damage occured.
Location 8 - 70th & Thomas/Sher.idan/Russell/U~ton
The entire area is very flat with all street at minimum grade,
During heavy rainfalls the area had general street flooding, but to
relatively shallow depth, No property damage occured.
Location 9 - 70th ~ Penn
There are two houses mid block 69th to 70th and east of Penn, that
rave base:<<ent garages. The driveway to these basements comes off
Penn, goes between houses and down to a very low parking area in
. baci~yards. v~'ater flooded the 70th and Penn intersection and flowed
overland to fill low area. I believe this overland flow route has
been blocked by construction of a new building on the iv.E. corner of
Page Three
Memo Re: Drainage Problems - Richfield
February 7, 1983
70th and Penn. 'v~hen water gets above curb depth in Penn Avenue it
overflows the sidewalk between the houses and gets to the lcw back-
yard area. There is a sump in the backyards and a pu-np to, get rid of
water. During heavy rainstorms the pump cannot handle the ,inflow.
The best solution, not desired by the two affected residents is to
eliminate the basement garages and fill the low backyard. A proposal
was made to raise the sidewal'.~c of Penn Avenue near the problem. spot,
but this would make the already too steep driveway even worse. Flood
proofing the basements was reco.::mended.
Location 10 - 72nd & Sheridan
The intersection of 72nd and Sheridan floods to.relat__ively minor
depths. No property damage occured.
Location 11 - 76th & Washburn
The grades on 76th to this intersection are relatively steep. The
intersection floods to over 3 feet in depth. The elevation of the
intersection is only 1-1/2 feet above the elevation of the flood
level in Adams Hill Pond. The residence on the N.E, corner had flood
damage. The work done in Adams Hill Pond will imorove the function-
ing of the existing drainage system since the hydraulic grade line
fro~~, the intersection to the pond has been improved. A relief line
would be required to totally eliminate the street flood potential.
Location 12 - 66th & Newton
There is one house that has a walk out basement. The back lot areas
are lower than the street. The apartments and cor~uT~ercial structures
south of the area are built on fill. All backyard drainage from the
block comes to the low spot of the block which is just where the
walkout basement is. This basement will flood when runoff is exces-
sive, The solution would be to either flood proof the base:<<ent,
eliminate the walkout, excavate an area that would be lower than. the
walkout and large enough to hold the runoff or provide a pump for
outlet.
Location 13 - 68th & Oliver/Newton
The residences on Oliver and Newton just south of 68th have access
to basement garages via a locally low alley. Local water ponds in
the area and water overflows the boulevard of 68th to the area.
Basement flooding has occured. A new storm sewer system would
provide relief. The rasing of the boulevard on 68th would minimize
street overflows.
Location 14 - 63rd & Girard
An alley east of Girard and just adjacent to the freeway sound
barrier is low. mhe alley floods and reportedly flooded one adjacent
garage. A relief line would be under the freeway to Richfield Lake,
Page Four
Memo Re: Drainage Problems - Richfield
February 7, 1983
Location 15 - 6th & Irving
This is reported to be general street flooding without property
damage.
Location 16 - 66th & Irving/James/~:nox/Logan/Humboldt
The area on 66th Avenue from the freeway to Logan Avenue, has water
in the street during heavy rains. This a county road. South of 6bth
near Rnox and Logan, an apart~~~ent building with basement garages
flooded. No other property damage is known. The boulevard areas
could be built up to reduce overflow from the street to private
.property. Between James and Irving flow could be directed overland
to Monroe Field in such a way as to minimize problems.
Location 17 - 68th & James
The intersection floods but no residences are threatened. There is a
conduit from the storm system north to=Monroe Field. The conduit has
a flap gate to stop overflow from going to the park area. The flap
gate could be removed and use of Monroe Field as an overflow holding
area encouraged.
Location 18 - 7333 Humboldt
The church south of 73rd has a low parking lot with no outlet.
Excess water gets to the parking lot and stays until it infiltrates.
No property damage occured. The solution involves provision of some
outlet.
Location 19 - 77th & Bryant
The intersection of 77th and Bryant floods to about a 2 foot depth.
The reisdence on the N.j~~, corner has an attached garage that floods.
The water got very close to the basement level but did not flood the
house. The only solutions seem to be flood proofing or a relief
sewer.
Location 20 - 77-1/2 & Colfax
West of Colfax is a low area that at the time of the study had a lot
of animal and bird cages ir. it. When excess rainstorm floods Colfax
the water flows to this low area from which there is no outlet. No
structures were im~olved in the flooding.
Location 21 - 65 - 66 & Pillsbury/Pleasant
A relief sewer was under construction in this area in 1978. I
presume ary problems have been solved.
Location 22 - 75th & Pleasant
This is a low area just east of the railroad tracks. 76th to 76th.
The area is very flat. The higher railroad tracks block flow. The
street is low and the houses are not much above sweet level. The
street arx3 fronty[rd areas flood, but I believe not to the extent
that houses were dam=aged. The solution is a long and expensive
Page Five
Memo Re: Drainage Problems Richfield
February 7, 1983
relief line. An alternative would be to examine use of Lincoln Field
as an emergency overflow area which would require a conduit under
the tracks and development of a ditch type ponding area.
Location 23 - 66th & Stevens
This area correlates to Location 20. A relief line was under con-
struction in the area in 1978. The problem was a locally low street
and may have been solved .
Location 24 - 312 West 65th Street
This is street flooding just west of Milners Pond, Any overflow goes
directly into the pond., No residences were threatened.
Location 25 - 66th & 4th Avenue
Street flooding occured in 66th. No residences were threatened.
Overflow goes directly to Milners Pond. Overland flow to the pond
could be improved via a curb cut to eliminate the flood potential.
Location 26 - 68th & Stevens
Water from 1st Avenue, Stevens Avenue and 2nd Avenue flows southerly
ark to the 68th and Stevens area. Street flooding occurs, and when
the street water is about 1 foot deep, the flow is south between
houses to a large low backyard area. During the major rainstorms
examined in the 1978 report, the water surface in Norbys Pond was at
the street elevation of 68th and Stevens. All local water went to
the backyard area. No houses were damaged, but water came very close
to several. There is no outlet for water from this area. Improve-
ments include Norby Pond work, raising the overflow area of the
boulevard and installing a pump as an outlet.
Location 27 - Norbys Pond
Norbys Pond was at a very high elevation such that the water in the
pond was as high as the street elevations at 68th and Stevens, 69th
and Columbus and 73rd and First. The entire drainage system leading
to Norbys Pond was influenced by the high pond levels. The drainage
system was not able to work as well as it could due to backwater
influences of the pond. The pond needs work to reduce the maximum
water surface elevation during regional flood events. Only one
residence near the pond, at the N.E. corner was threatened, none
flooded.
Location 28 - 73rd & First
This intersection floods often. During the major events a residence
on the S.W. corner flooded. I understand that this house is being
purchased by the City. The intersection is significantly influenced
i by high water in Norbys Pond. Norbys Pond however, does not fully
explain the frequent flooding. The conduits leading from the inter-
section are very flat. Inspection on several occasions showed from
Page Six
Memo Re; Drainage Problems - Richfield
• February 7, 1983
4" to 8" of sand and silt in the invert. Such deposits are almost
impossible to prevent or tc keep cleaned. The only ultimate solution
seems to be a relief line.
Location 29 - 76th & Third
The intersection flooded, but ro property damage was involved. The
flooding was not reported to be Severe,
Location 30 - Columbus near 69th
A local low area between both and 69th on Columbus was flooded to
depth of 3 + feet. Narbys Pond high water influences this area. I
understand residences were closely threatened, but not actually
damaged.
Location 31 - 66th & Columbus/Chicaco Avenue
The intersection floods. No property damage occurs. Relief could be
provided by outflow created directly north to Legion Lake. A manhole
located in Columbus, mid block 66th to 67th has shown surcharge
results. The lid has been forced off several times. When the lid
was bolted down internal hydraulic forces raised the pavement area.
Location 32 - 63rd & Bloomington
One residence east of Bloomington has a driveway to a backyard
garage which is 7-8 feet lower than the street. The driveway is
located exactly at the low point of the street. When the drainage
system in the street cannot handle the storrr~water the flow is over
the sidewalk, down the driveway and through the garage. The solution
was seen as raising the boulevard and sidewalk so such overflow was
reduced. On the property, work could be done to route the flow
around the garage so it could outlet towards Taft Park near 63rd and
16th.
Location 33 - 63rd & 16th
One house abutting the Taft Park was subject to flooding. I under-
stand the house has been purchased and removed with the land now
being park. '
Location 34 - 71st Cedar
This is a very flat area. During the heavy rainfall events, general
area wide street flooding occured, The elevation of ',Filson Pond was
as high as many street elevations. Some houses were flooded not
apparently by overlar~3 flow, but when street flood water entered the
sanitary sewer system and backed up into house basements. The solu-
tions involve work to jti7ilSOn Pond and sealing of the sanitary sewer
SVStem.
Location 35 - 73rd/Bloomington
This is a very flat area. During the heavy rainfall events, general
area wide street flooding occured. The elevation of Wilson Pend was
Page Seven
Memo Re: Drainage Problems - Richfield
February 7, 1983
as high as many street elevations. Some houses were flooded not
apparently by overland flow, but when street flood water entered the
sanitary sewer system and backed up into house basements. The solu-
tions involve work to Wilson Pond and sealing or" the sanitary sewer
system.
Location 36 - 73rd and 15th/17th/18th
This is a very flat area. During the heavy rainfall events, general
area wide street flooding occured. The elevation of Wilson Pond was
as high as many street elevations. Some houses were flooded not
apparently by overland flow, but when. street flood water entered the
sanitary sewer system and backed up into house basements. The solu-
tions involve work to Wilson Pond and sealing of the sa,~itary sewer
system.
Location 37 - 77th & Bloomington Avenue
This is reportedly street flooding with no property damage. To my
knowledge it was not severe.
Location 38 - 68th & Y,'entworth
A significant amount of water runs off an adjacent school playground
and causes street flooding. Wentworth in this area slopes north to
a dead end, The flooding has reportedly caused property damage. A
conduit solution system was identified.
Signed
hn A. Harwood, P.E.
JAH:min
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 379
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Reconsideration: of Screen Wall Requirement for
Nautilus Swim and Fitness Center
Council Members:
At the October 8th City Cour:cil meeting the council heard a
request to reconsider the masonary screen wall requirements for
the Nautilus Swim ar:d Fitness Center. The property owner
indicated that the screen wall would not be necessary for the
followir:g reasons
1. That there are no r:ew delivery doors ir. the area and
that the two new businesses in the addition do not
require deliveries.
2. That there will be r.o storage of trailers or other
vehicles in the area.
3. Access needs to be maintained to the west side of
the Snyder Drug and Hauser Food stores because
deliveries are ;Wade to those stores by smaller utility
type ve'icles.
4. The construction of the screen wall would prohibit use
of the area for employee parking spaces.
5. The other developmer_ts in the area have not beer.
required to develop masonary screening walls but were
allowed to use a wood screen. fence instead, (as was
mentioned at the October 8, 1984 council meeting, K-Mart
was required to install a masonary screening wall).
The City Cour:cil took no action at the October 8th council
meeting and indicated that a number of improvements should be
completed prior to council reconsideration of the screen wall
requirerner.t. As of the date of the writir:g of this council
letter the improvements requested by the council 'nave not beer:
completed. The additional fire lar;e signs have not been put up.
However, the curb on the islands have beer: painted yellow to
indicate no parking, ar:d a sign. has been posted or: the door of
the Nautilus Swim and Fitness Club indicating that cars should
not park in driveways or entrances and that cars will be towed.
Staff observation ~r.dicates however, that cars are still par~ir:o
in the driving aisle.
-2-
The parking stall which is in the entrance area Lo the site
from o5th Street has not been painted out as requested by the
council. Also, wheel stops have been installed along the south
row of parking contiguous to Kentucky Fried Chicken
It is staff's opinion t'nat because of the small number of
deliveries in the area that the requirement for the masonary
screening wall may be unreasonable, the benefit received would
not seem to justify the expense of suc'n a screening wall.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council remove the
requirement for the masonary screening wall.
If the council believes that some screening is still
necessary, staff will work with the property owner to establish
a less expensive method of screening the area, such as, wood
screened fence, or use of landscape materials. It is further
recommended that the removal of the screen wall requirement be
contingent upon the completion of the other required
improvemer:ts in the area, such as the additional fire lar_e
signs, painting out of unneeded spaces and provision. of the r.ew
light standards.
Respectful~s ,emitted ,
~ i ~w-u--
~ohn G. Cart right
City ~Iar.ager
JGC/eja
Seote.*^r.er 24, ~ ~C4
3~.zce 5_.:.on
~'.i:o Inves ~::.en ~5
5u^^05 G1: Cacar ~.G:<e ~oac
St. ..Otl:S ?i'=:5, :~`3 ~~~Z o
~.=C J O~ ~j..^.i7C=..e.'L~
o i C~ ?C~ ~ ~ ;Q V ei'll,;e
Ri.cr~e ~ d, u~'~i 55423
?e: Consv:act~.on o~ a :l:son~`v sc_e~n__ wa1' '_cca~ad ar e rear a o.e
~Tati~:.i~::S JW'~ ~':G` eSS .,._:1~='"r _.JJ iYeS.i. Di~.:i ~=C:_=e~ :r
2'53..'L'1850~3
De3; '"x. ,.Doke:
~iS `CP.S ~..='1C ~iCP_ OC Cll. adCi ~r.CP. a%. _o L:J Jt:C_ _ i='_ ~ .".a^ .er ^ ears CCiTi-'
_J 1.etiCn, W£?r ° CtJil@rj '~Ild ~dP_C.,TOrCS C. ~1°_ C2n~err =E~1c'~5~ ~ i°_
C,'~_V I:OIL~!Sei OL ~'..C..~.E~'~ .C r°CC%Slder 32"id_'eVerS2 ~.=5 ~.°_C.sion ~J :eC'~'_=°
~ilel CCP.S~
:C~...Cn O% a ."',d50P_~.~JSC~~eni_5 '„al ~ , ~eIL :d _:id'.:~i_.:.5 ;W_.., c C
~1`.:1e55 L.ti.^.'..E~~ ~4~ ~`125~ ~OCL,^ "°3'=r ~.1C......_Eitir "e50~.-~-
RYA L°_a~`.il° COnj~.:C~_O.^_ O 0.~7iS SC~°_°_i,~.^.Cj. +Id~_ ~5 OL P~eC2S52=~7 C¢Sv~~ Oil
.~i. li".er e .-~...."'E n0 :°W C.°~_T°~~I ~,:JU =...e 3rS3. i~Gi: i...'_ i .~S dI:'.: l:~ °3~
C~ 1_ S dC ..^.Ot _'e~.:i=E r°re~i-r.'7E G°~ 1.Ve~'-c~S SS ~ 0V ~ c1.: ~.3:_. :O
~nven~or'_es o`, ~~ly k': d.
3. liteZ3 "al,l~ ;"'c .^.O S :Cr3C2^~._ _ra__erS 'JC 'i 2 _.°S ..._S
arid. %!e ~n~C.er ~r'1~j .-`31~ cam= 1135 i7E°.^. =.°..^1CTj2C ~^.G ~:.C5:8-~
:'in.^.GS3.^. d1.2= Wl.i._ ^n~ ~'°mCV?d 3P.Cr = ~i
L'. JnVGer ~r11Cj cam..^iQ JL_e= 'J3?U .1dVc~ S~:y.-.'J!_-!on_31r..°_...'Te=T7 CCOiS c:~ ~..-ta
=ear o~ ~ e 5~.,r=_s •ahyca are acc~55ab'_e cn_y _._.,1c^ _ a ~~aa
'aCer°_ .:.e SCrB°_n~ aa_: 'aC'"C ._...^5..,:C'."... .._~.C~1~C7 C.:'!geg ~'a0
.e'_._VEr'J ,..CCrS Er :5?C. 'le"y Se~C~.C~;i (C.._:7 Se'.'er3_ ~_..eS er ,~e°_.<~ r
.,`I a~~t3--:_'' _.._.._1 :T'Le i°^._...L2.Sr v^.~1.~~._~C__.... =.~:_J •,vG~_ ',V~_.=
crew? ~ L~arer.i__~.~..1-~ cra=_~.. S_...~u~_.~in.
~'~:_..G1~ ~..1e ....^SL_ ....,._CP. O~ SCr°p_.^.,: 7 "wa-- _ C°
sc~:.e ~dd~ ~'_ona_ 'e~c_,,.;ee~ : a_'c_:; s_ =..es _ ~ •acu_~
a__..+_,,,_~ ~v1iIC C.. _ .Ev_ __SJU=° V:i _'e :'a __.-.G_.~._. ~ v~• I..JP.S.._-.._.._J
J ` _ _ . _ _ _
_ vCr
Zahoce ~
y =oiz~.s au~li..ed e , ~ i.1aT-~~iue ~ - ~ , ~ _
cou:_se s 'Joss r_.
C.'_.'1 Ci ~^V P°~7r CT°~G2 C'~~ -,@ 3" .S '!%-t~-^.C=
~1
1
~ ~
Bz~sca S ~.-or.
f
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 378
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable i°layor
ar.d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation: of Certificates of Appreciation for
Outstanding Community Service to Members of the
Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435;
Mlnneapnlig_Ric}Zfield .lmeriCan Leglon PcSt 435
Auxiliary; and Minneapolis-Richfield American:
Legion Post 435 Junior Auxiliary
Council Members:
At the October 22, 1984 city cour:cil meetir_g, members of the
Minneapolis-Richfield Legion, the Auxiliary and the Junior
Auxiliary will be preser:t to accept Certificates of Appreciation
for the many hours their members donate to performing community
services.
Copies of the Certificates are attached to this council
letter.
R ectful,y s~mitted,
L_
G ~ ,
`~hn G. Cartes. fight
City Manager
JGC/eja
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE
MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AJ~IERiCAN LEGION POST 435
FOR OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE
'r1HEREAS, the members of the Minr:eapolis-Richfield American
Legion Post 435 will donate 35,581 hours this year ir_ performing
community services; and
WHEREAS, t'nese numerous community services include 'Hospital
visitations, children and youth programs; programs for crippled
children; athletic programs; school safety awards; gun safety
training; senior citizens programs; rescue squad and the
servicemen's center at the airport, to name just a few.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, Johr: Hamilton, Mayor
of the City of Richfield and the members of the City Cour_cil on
behalf of the citizens of Richfield do hereby express our thanks
ar_d gratitude to the Mir_neapolis-Richfield American: Legion Post
435 and do commend them for their outstar_ding community service.
Passed this 22nd day of October, 1984.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
RESOLUTION CIO. '
RESOLUTION1 OF APPRECIATION TO MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD
AMERICAN LEGION POST 435 JUNIOR AUXILIARY
FOR OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE
WHEREAS, the Mir_r.eapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435
Junior Auxiliary is very active in performing community
services, and
WHEREAS, these auxiliary members donate many hours of time
to children and youth programs; volunteering for various
community projects, nursing home assistance and in-home
services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton, Mayor
of the City of Richfield and the members of the City Council on
be`nalf of the citizens of Richfield, do hereby express our
thanks and appreciation to the Jur:ior Auxiliary for performing
these outstanding community services.
Passed this 22nd day of Oetober, 1984.
John Hamilton Mayor '
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
_
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD
AMERICAN LEGION POST 435 AUXILIARY FOR THEIR
OUTSTAi`IDING COMIr1UNITY SERVICE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield wishes to
express its thanks and appreciation to the members of the
i`linneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 Auxiliary for
their many hours of community service; and
WHEREAS, the Minneapolis-Richfield Auxiliary dcr:ates many
hours to programs involvir_g senior citizens, the handicapped,
community health services, school safety, blood donor programs
and meals or. wheels.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, John Hamilton, Mayor
of the City of Richfield and the members of the City Council, on
behalf of the citizens of Richfield, do hereby commend ar:d thank
Auxiliary members for their outstanding community service.
Passed this 22nd day of October, 1984
John: Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST: ,
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
CITY Or RICHrIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 377
Agenda October 22, 198
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Proclamation Designating November 11-17
American Education Week
Council Members:
The Richfield American Legion Post has requested that the
Mayor issue a proclamation designating the week of November 11-
17 as American Education Week in Richfield.
A copy of the proclamation is attached to this council
letter. Mr. George Ashwood, Commander of the American Legion,
Mr. Steve George, Education Committee Chairman, and other members
of the American Legion will be present at the October 22, 198
city council meeting to accept this proclamation.
Respectf 'ly submitted,
/ ~j
John G. Cartwrig~
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING
NOVEMBER 11-17, 1984 AS AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK
IN THE CITX OF RICHFIELD
r
WrIEREAS, the public school is critically important to our
American way of life; and,
WHEREAS, the concept of free ar.d equal education is an
American tradition and is the foundatior. of our nation's
strength; and
WHEREAS, the students of today are the leaders of tomorrow,
and everyone has a respor:sibility to support the public schools
and the individual citizenry provides ar. important facet in the
public schools.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOHN HAMILTOPI, Mayor of the City of
Richfield, do hereby designate the week of November 11-17, 1984
as AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK IN P,ICHFiELD and do urge all citizens
to support our excellent public school system.
on hi c
D e t s 22nd day cf O tuber, 1984.
Johr. Hamilton Mayor
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 376
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 for Rock Salt
Council Members;
The city council policy resolution or. 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 October 22
agenda.
Rock Salt
Under the Hennepin County Group Purchasing arrangement,
counties and municipalities join together to bid on rock salt
for deicing. For the 82/83 winter season the low bidder was
Cargill Salt with a unit price of $18.34/ton, plus $1.g1/ton for
delivery, for a total price of $20.25/ton. For the last winter
season (83/84) the low bidder was Domtar Industries, Inc, at
$16.69/ton plus $2/ton delivery for a total price of $18.69/ton.
For the current contract period of July 12, 1984 through May 1,
1985, the low bid was submitted by International Salt Company at
$21.41/ton plus $3.15/ton delivery for a total price of
$24.56/ton.
Under the joint purchasing agreement, the City of Richfield
has an obligation to purchase from the low bidder. It is,
therefore, recommended that the city council authorize a master
purchase order for an estimated 800 tor, of rock salt for ice
control from Ir.ternatior.al Salt Company for ar. estimated total
purchase price of $1q ,648 for the 1984/85 winter season:.
Respectful~:y~ ~~bmitted ,
V
John 0. Cartwright
City Manager
• JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 375
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
ar.d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject; Request for Illuminated Sign to be Located
at Pump 'N' Munch, 7301 Penn Avenue
Council Members:
Suburban Lighting Incorporated has requested an advertising
permit to erect ar. illuminated pedestal sign at the Pump 'N'
Munch Statior. located at 7301 Penn Avenue. The sign is to be a
double-faced pedestal with two signs. The upper sign is to be
7' x 7' with the 76 logo, and the lower sigr_ is to be a gas
price sign with a size of 4' x 5'.
Richfield city ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19,
Illuminated Signs provides that City Cour_cil approval is
• required f'or all illuminated signs.
The staff has reviewed this sign permit and finds that the
signs will conform to all city ordinances. It is recommened
that the City Council approve this sigr, permit application.
Respectf 1 -submitted,
i
~C~Cv
~'v~ ~
John G. Cartwrig'ri
City Manager
JGC/eja
~1 f'~i
T
GROG'N'D SIGN PEDESTAL SIGN PROJECTING SIGiv
'ZDTH ~ kIDTH ~ ~IIDTH 1?
7`
LEGEND LEGEV'D 1 ~ LEGEND
c ' 7
. ~i-,. _
Indicate Distance
~6 From The Building
U GROL^.v'~J
WALL SIGN ROOF SIGN Indicate legend on the
~*+C '.'IDTH .WIDTH the reverse side in
the space below
LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND
_ ~ _ _ .
_ _ ~
7~ 7 0,~
GROLT?~'D ~ ROOF
M F ~ L /~,er~ 5~9 i7
' Ex .~,~,vra t . i c c.. c
S ' f 7 ~9
s. s
s.
4 ~ ~6
r~<<
E1~-r'
~
. w~
Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is Eton gropers lines.
Locate any Lraffic lights within 300 feet.
DEFINITION: :'.inor Signs Single or double faced sign less than 32 sq, ft.
on a coon board
f I;~~ I CAT E
1 NORTH I ~
L:~/~/A3 4
_ _ _ _ _ y. _
f, ~ _ APPROVE DENY s~~
I D~N':, I f
City Maaager Inspecto_,J / a~-
Date Date
'II ~ AT'PROVi ~ I DE?~'Y~ 4:
APPRO~"E I X-I ~EA'Y I ~
Pl.anning`Department City Council
~l Date
Date
Route to above for special approva'_ per code Genera' Si~:':s
APPLICATION FOR AD~r'RTISL'vG PEP.~iIT
City of Richfield, .Minnesota
Date /O- /4_ ~'Y Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee
Address of Sign. ~3 O / pr`~/n/ Proprietor :vame~t,-, f,*2~ Gy' D$~?
r STD ~ Z
Siga ErectorS'v..rPu.e°_ .~/>~r~~'~ /,t/t'. Address~o99 ,C,~.~~ ~lw~ I~.-~' St~'ft~.~~-.~
Type of Sign -7- DesiQr. Weather Cover Li2htinQ
Wall ; Single Face ~ Clear Lexon ~ Constant
Projecting ~ Double Face Frosted Lexon Flas'ring
Ground Multi-Faced ~ Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof I AeriallBiimp I ~ Shaded ~ Traveling
Pedestal ~ Searchlight { { Neon Zip Lite
Changeable 1 Banner/?ennants ~ 1 Other Other(E.~cplain)
Tempo..ary' Porr~taole~_rame: ~ ~ ~ Sign Cclors
T LJJ F
Traal.er ! T A Post
T~lttm~ na ted -Yes No Watts O
J.ectrical ContractorSUtS~,~rSR,</ Address 10077 ~/,~,r Phone 41-39- 7'trs~U
AvE ..t• st~~G c..~r$s~
Property Owner or his Agent Signature ?hone
~i
Estiaated Cost ~ Sign Width ? ~ Height 7 Total Square Feet3 ~
p~er~ 5'9~ r+rE-r-.~ L. 4. ' S ~ z D
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawi.*~g with significant dimensions and attached hereto of major signs. ?riinor signs as
defined on page 2:
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anc:~oring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign copy relate solely to the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises? U ~5
Will the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
for safe access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ~ ~
App~Cant~s Signature and Title ;,;ith Firm
Date /O -/o - .
Pho e Number X39- 7~5~9
Ikt
$/$3 PLEASE SEE REy~~'.SL SIDE FOR SIGN LOCnTION SF.TCH
Sivert Hendrickson./Building 0*~icial - 8b6-SG61
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 374
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject; Request for Permit for Two Illuminated Arad
Four Wall Signs to be Located at Mr. Tire,
6544 Portland Avenue
Council Members:
Lawrence Sigr:s Incorporated has requested advertising
permits for six permanent wall signs of various sizes to be
located at Mr. Tire Service, 6544 Portland Avenue. Two of the
signs will be illuminated. Council Letter No. 373 reports on
the other Mr. Tire sign requests (see agenda item No. 10).
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19,
Illuminated Signs provides that City Council approval is
required for illuminated ground signs and signs in unusual
locations.
The staff has reviewed this sign permit application ar.d
finds that the signs conform to city ordinances pertaining to
illuminated and non-illuminated wall signs.
The staff recommends approval for the signs on canopies only
on the basis that the business does not become a gasoline
service station. Gasoline service stations may not have
advertising signs on canopies, but since this is a service
garage without gasoline pumps, the signs on the canopies
conform to Richfield ordinance. City staff recommends approval
of the six license permits.
Respectfully submitted,
ii.,. ~ \ .
• i
`John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
\ ' I /
v"~ D.. dFPROPE ~ DENS'
~ t~ I~f 11• ~
CzLY `~.anag°-'-~ insaectcr
Data I I Date /C
Plann::ng~~e7artnenc City Council
late -`r:~ Date
to aoove fer soecial approval oer code Gen=ral Sirs
~~PLZC~TIO~i FOR ;~I?VDp,TISI`tG PE~'~iIT
City cf 3ichfield `?ianeso~a
- Toning Sigr ~re^_~ed - °es ~Io :ee
°.ess of Sion%,~~~~ t~G l ~G~ii c'~ ?=opr~.etor ~ane~~"„ 12 - ~ D$~ ~i ~
,
_
FreCtOrr;~i; C`.'ii~C' ~ ~ gddreSS ~ ~ %r-' - ~O, v' +
~l > > V/G~
e oz Sign Desi?n Weat'-.er Cover Liahtin
;wall ~--°='7~''c_;" ' ~ Single race ~ I ~ Clear Le:~on ~ 1 Constant
~Pro~ectintr iYr~~ ~ 1 g o f T = ashin
J ~ ~ DOllb_e aC~ 1 _rOSted i,e:{Ol"t ~ I .1 a
T Ground uulti-:aced ~ Plastic Covered ~ ~ Revolving
Roof ~ serial/31i~p ~ i Shaded Traveling
r--
Pedestal Searchlight Veon ~ Zip Lite
ngeable ~ Banner/Pennants ~ Other S %~C (c-• ~
; c~,':. ~ ,-C-- i )
~ ( C..ne_ ~:tp~ain
~porary Portable crame: ~ i Si~~ olcrs
~ ~_azler ~ T ~ ~ ~ Post
I11umi:~ated ~`?as Vo - - Watts S ~ r
~
~.eCtrwCal ~~OL?traCtOZ ~~:'/i;;!- ~ ~CC Address~~/~</%~' / ~,~Ji PFIOP_e{~T~r_ ~S
'~'Ot.erC,! v`+~Zler Or t1:.S awe^.t ~J7,~213tllre - ~hOTle
.~C~.:cC2d COSt:i ~ ~ Si'~i2 Width o, ^:lt T_Otal Sgllare °eet
_
OS 1tiOT1 Oi ~C:Z ddVert~Se'.-_'.e:It StrLiCCLITe =P. :°lat'_OL1SE]?? t0 t}Ifl adiaC2lt ~~L'1ZG~1:?aS, 51Q2`ri~w{S,
orbs, road;~ays, overhead l2tility llrieS, Ve:?iClB '~OVeT~lent li~7eS, or pllbliC TaClll.tlzS Ori
TaW1:1~ :d7.Lil S1~nifiCa?Zt G1.IDe^.SlOI1S aild attaC.led ~leret0 Of ~o.~Or Si~:!S. ~'f1.ilOr SI~ZS a5
'e=fined on page
:`:ao '~lcepr:.nts of the s~gn, billboard, or outdoor advert_siag st_uco::re construct,on pi
a P. 3
^.C! lldl`:j 3DeC~_ ~C3C:.0[:S, ' 1SC C. Wit°_r1aiS, anC e:{V~ 1Cit 3 :C:lOr~n` Or :3.St2^,~.:1`~ et2~~ 5
0
c_^:d a CO~;+ OL C;18 $CTe53 3C2er5, C31Ct?~3t10Z1S, :.O~Or~OL Si~:1 StrTlCCtire.
ices the 31~r,~n CO~y relate SOlelV t0 t;Te buSinCSS', '_nStit.:t~.Jn, Or aCtiVlty CCi.CUCCBQ on
nl~'` 5=~^., StTuC~:1='°_, O. bi....bCar~ r2SC_'_CC a:lv cia.'1~ C1St3^_Ce t1P.Cc'T, a,0~1.^_C, Or O~'2T
sa=2 X:253 Oy pc'rSOnB destined .Or or pdSSi~.'~ _.?c' .,.iD~2C~ '~T2'.I11SeS! ,
i
' o
~a~c _
J ~
GROt,~-D STGN PEDESTAL. SIGN PROJECTING SIGN
ri J.DT'_-? .v 1~T:-! l ~ - - i*e.[ riiDT
L:.GE:ID ~ L~G%iil'~ ~ ~ LEGr.,`+D
r--~ ,
~ J~
Indicat=_ Dista,ce
1
~ ~ ,
t,/ GROT~~
W~.i.L SIG:i ROOT SIGN Indicate 1e~end on the
~.'DTH ~ > ~ WIDTH the reverse site .n
_ ~ the space oelcTa
LEGc`iD ~ LEGc,V7.1 ~ LEGEti"D
4
l~
GZOt~~`,~ `.I ROOF _
! ! J
- 5 ~ ~ 1~ ~ 1 G rte;. ~ C' ~ ~ D - ~
~_dCe 3=~^. =.._S S'cCeLC.'1 +7~:.:: C~.,~?IlC° x;70 S~?i, ~S ~_:.:"1 ~i~De. ~ j ~ _::°_S .
:.oca.._ a^.; --=_~_c __~n.s NCO _eec.
J_ ~C ~
- - ~ J `G ~T ~
+a.»r,,, q ~i'~ FiJ
• ~d~b
f
-r;.~
_
j~' _ I
4
\ 1...~~'~_ 1-~ fa 1,f~~I~ E~ ~ Eel r. T I E.
~C',r~ C,rt vir~:-~( i-~ta'. ~Z(_Pv1iPJt~i'.,ll ~ ~ i ~ 'r1 i
, ~ t
r t
_ ,
i
Ur',r,r, 4
f
~ I
- I
t_Yti.Sf . E._fVA71~7N
I
y r _,7
~S`'rt
_ I')," ~nJVIt11VVAC. l_fPl:~. ~ ~
Iii°t1Jt,?iUiVVf\C. LTGt'.~,
'T~T3~ ~ ,'r ~
_1I ly1 r, 111 „ ~ ~t ~ fi~ V i C E
I
J
_ _
.L
I ~ II
II f
11
i I~
f
I
l~,
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
i Couneil Letter No. 372
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated '~,Jal1 Sigr:
Located at Richfield Hair Care, 8 E. o6th St.
Council Members:
Sign Service Incorporated has requested an advertising
permit for ar, illuminated wall sign measuring 20' x 19' to be
located at Richfield Hair Care, 8 East 66th Street.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.49, subdivision 19, ,
Illumirated Signs provides that City Council approval is
required for illuminated signs.
• The staff has reviewed this permit application and finds
that the sign conforms to all city ordinances pertair:ing to
signs of this nature. It is recommended that the city cour:cil
approve this illuminated sign permit.
spectfu7xX, ~bmitted,
1 ~ ~
,!John G. 'Car Wright
`f City Manager
JGC/eja
•
.."j,
City :'Tana=er TnSp2CtOr,
Date I Date _
~Ov_ I ~ ~ DEti~I p~P~0~- ! DSi~'I
?_an .=.nr~. ~2DaLt~?n t • C1OV l.: L'^:C~._
Date ~ D2te
~CC4OC CO aJOV°_ S7eC_31 apprvVa~ Der COGe ~r'..-eneral S? ?T?S
?~PLICAT.ON ?0~ :~~:.~T;S=~iG ?D~'•!°T_i
City o~ R~ch~_eld, ~in,.~esota
Dat_ Zoning S~ ..rested - 'as - Rio ~ee
_ _
._ddress o= Sign - ?roorietor Va-~~e~iC~~i~~~t~~i`i'L~~~AB~
Sign -rec=or ~iC~ ri ..-~e';ZU~C .,~iVC- ~dciress - .
TVb2 Oi S1Qn Dc'Si.g?1 WeatRer COVer L1~.^.Li:1S
_ --:n~_,-:.mac-,
~ wail 51ng1e : aCe I Clear ? eXOP. ' ! COP_Stant
Pr0]eCtin£~ Double aCe I ~`:.'OSted eXOLl ~ ~ "laSi:ii:~
Greund ~ Multi-~ aced ~ ~ Plastic Covered ~ ~ Revoivi:^.~
Roor ~ Aerial/31i~p I Shaded ~ Traveling
Pedesta_ ~ Searchlight Neon I Zip Lite
Changeable ~ Banner ?ennants ~ h ~ t'
/ Ot._er 0 new (Explain)
Temporary I Portable :raWe: ~ Sign Colors
Trailer ~
T ost _
Illuainated -Yes No Watts
Electrical Contractor ~ Address Phone
~''Opr'.rtV O'w'ner CL CliS Agent Sivnat:lre ~ Pi]Cne
Esti:~ated Cost - _ ~ Sign Width. - _ 'r_eight Total Square : eet
?OS_.._OP. Oi the adVertlSeWent 3t^.:CtULe reictl.CIISh iJ tO t^,2 ad,]2C n.. ~ d y ~ '''f
e DL'=._ in?S, SiGe.G:a__.S,
C:__75, _OaCwa~'S, O'Jerhead iltility lines, Vet?iCle IIOVe.:.2nt 1_IIeg, O'" DL'bllC OdC~lit,°_S Cn
dratiy"lb :71 t:1 Si.~^-G_Cant d~eP_S.OnS and attaC;^eC :72ret0 0~ ;:,a~Cr S~~nS. '`r ~r'S aS
o ~nOr 51~.
de~iaed cn page 2.
T`.JO bluepr~P.tS O~ the Sign, bill'DOard, Or OL'tdOOr adVertiSi%~ Str~1Ct..re COIIStrL'.CtiOn plan S:
i::C1L1d1:1o SpeC~~icat:CnS, 1_St O, :uaterlalS, aid e:{v1~C1t 3nC:lOrin~ Or =aSCe^i-?j Q2ta~:5
_nd a ccpv t.te stress sheets, CalCUlat1C^S, CO1Cr O. SiCII Structure.
D02S t: e S1_,: CODy relate SO_e~ V t0 G.2 JL'S=Hess, _nSt;_...,._,,. , O: aCt;V__V CO^G.~`teG On
:e r e4iSeS 9
fi:__ the 5=~:', StrL1Ct..re, .J_ b~..__DGard reSt._,.~ anti Sl~ .:_Sta:C;. ._::de=, ._rOL^.d, Or CV`r
~Or Sale access Dy perSOP.S GeSt_:led ~O. Or paSS~^.~ t;:e^SL:J_ °C~ - =e~i SeS~ .
-~J~_`.Gl.~ I S ate.-.~~ GC __r~e w_~n _
?G
~~r Wi7 e~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 371
Agenda Oetober 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Cour:cil
City of Richfield ~
Subject: Setting Date of Hearing Regarding Licensir_g
Charges for Vending Machines
Council Members:
During the city beget hearing held September 27,1984, the
City Cour:cil adopted Resolution No. 6857 which provided fee
increases of five percent for all categories of permit ar_d
license fees, subject to any required public hearing. This
annual increase, which is normally adopted as part of the budget
process, is consistent with action taker: by the City Council in
previous years ar:d will offset increased personal services
COStS.
• Chapter 393 of the i~iinnesota State Statutes requires that
separate hearings be held on the following categories of
licensure:
6.01 Food ar.d ice vending machines;
6.11 Tobacco vending machines; and,
6.13 Soft drink vendir_g machines.
The purpose of this letter is to request the City Council
to set the date of November 26, 1984 as the date for this
hearing. A separate provision of this new law requires that
notices of this hearir:g be mailed to all persons presently
licensed in these three categories at least 30 days prior to the
public hearing.
It is recommended that the City Council set the date of
November 26, 1984 for this licensure hearing.
R~pectf~ lly ~ubcnitted,
~
John G. Ca twright'
City Mar:ager
. JGC/eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 370
Agenda October g, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign
7744 Penn Avenue
Council Members:
Leroy Signs, Incorporated has requested an advertising
permit for a 4' 10" x 5' 2" (25 square feet) sign to be
located at 7744 Penn Avenue. The sign will be located on
the pedestal below the current sign at that address.
City of Richfield Ordinance code 3.49, subdivisor. 1g,
Illuminated Signs - provides that City Council approval
is required for all illuminated signs.
• The inspection division has reviewed the proposed sigr_
ar.d finds it is in conformance with all City ordir:ances
pertaining to signs of this nature.
At the October 8, 1984 city council meeting, the city
council deferred action on this permit application and
requested that the staff provide the council with a
diagram of the proposed sign. A copy of the proposed
sign is attached to this council letter. The purpose of
the sigr, is to display the price of gasoline products.
It is recommer:ded that the sign permit be approved.
R spectf~lly labmitted,
~~,'i.y.,; ;
~ohn G. Cartwright~/
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
_ ~ _
-
_ ~Xt s--, ~ c ~ ~ ~
GROI;:,'D SIG`+ p~D~Tt~~. SIG': PROJ~ CTI.~G SIG_~;
~ Q
l~~C~ u.L-.v~r> ~
L LG~:;D LEGc,_~D L:.GL`+D
I ~ ~ ~
it
i, c n ~ ~
i
{ ~ ~ ' 1 S' ~ i,~
i
i
IP,C1Cctr_ 1~_3nCe ~
~
. I/ FrOw T a 5L:1~C_n~
W:~LL SiG~ R00: SIG_~ Indicate legend on the
'IDTti ~ j ~ ~ the reverse sid°_
~ ~ ID T H
the space 'oelo~a
L EGEtiD ~ LLG~ tiD LEGg`~~J
t~
i
GROL'`.?J 1.~ ROOr
?~aC_ IOC: ~_.,~.v_ Ste'?"' On C~:1S S:{c''rC:? Thlt C:SC~':1Ce C.^.e S1~T1 '.S C?"0 ~ YOB --j ---'eS.
Lcc=;.e 3n~ ,._,_.:_ic 1i~ .ts ~it~in 300 Leet.
_~,i-,.1:.,. .._n0. J1~.^:S J1.^.~~~ 0=' C0~10_° .dCeQ S_~:1 _2S~ C:3i1 30
on a co~..on ~oaY~ ~
~ ~ ~ T
:~`~T.. ~
i
_ - _ _ r _ -
1 ~
r _ ~ f
z -
= _ , I I ~ My a~ Inspector
- City •n~~er ' J~Z~,`"S~-
T~ ~ Date Date ~
_ i
" ~--.~OV~ i ~cti~'~ i;_ Ji A?p30V.. I DE.~;1+
- ' ?lannir.g Uepartr:ent City Count; l
Date -~.i Date
,
RGUr°_ t0 a'DOVe Or S7eClal aD~rOVa~ per CO~e Ce^_°:2'_ S1^^S
c'1.PDLIC:iTiO`; c0°. ~.JTD~T7SI~~G ~c~`f__
City of Rich~ield, ;~finneso~a
Date { ~ 1 11 ~ ~l Zor.in? Sign ~recte~ - Yes iro ~ _ ee /7. C%C~ v+7 '~-'~~C.
i ~
T
?:dCress o Sig:: ~ ~7 ~y ~ `~u,v {~v~ J ~ ?roprietcr :~a4:~ l~'r i , c, D3a
J J
T'~'02 Oi Sl~n Des~~n tie=`^.e~ Cave-- L~^hc~~~
t~'all ~ I Single Pace ~ ~ Clear Le:~or. ~I
Cor.stanr
~rO~eCting :_L/DOL'Ole Pa Cc I ~rGSte~ Lc:;Cn 4 :lGJ'i:i^.~
_ ?laSt1C CO'Jere~ I I~'P_VO'~V1n~
C='OL'•7'~ :'ityl t1-;'aCe.~ ~
a
_ Roo: I ?erial/Bli:~p Shades ( ~ Trave_ing
V Pedestal ~ I Searchlight Neon ~ Zip Lite
Changeable I ~ Eanner/Pennants Omer Other(~:;plai^)
_ TeP.;DCrarV I I pOrt3~0 i e rra:ae: I Sign Colors 1~,~ ~-rC ~'c~~-;~.G- ,
Trailer ? ? ? ~
~ T ? ~ ost "~v~C,~~.. tiur...~. ~2ra'-
~I1lutiinated Ye
Js :Io watts ~
ctrical Contractor:. _r~~ti Si~~.'aS Address(~.5-7~ 1
~`[-CC-,'ytc. ~'/c ?ho:-ie ,5.3:~ "~~u<`'
I~rop.erty 0~-ner or iris agent Signature Phone
tStiCL-?CeQ COSC ~E-.h!~.C C S1C*1 1ti'iCCi'.~'~)~~~ c~i~~ C ~i~ TOCa~ J^llidre i'eet r-~~~
PO$itiOn O?' the advertise:tent structure In relatlCnSf1;~.~ t0 tCle ad]aCenC blllldln=S~ SldeCv3l'.KS~
CllrbS, rOaC:?aVS~ OVerilead :It;.liry l1neS~ Ve(11C1e ~OVe^.;e:1t ~1:1PS, Or aubllC laCil~tleS On
cra::ing S~'it[1 Sign=i~lCaP.t di.^:.enSiOnS and atCaciaed {';ere CO Oi Cia]Or SiC'.75. '.':1nOr SigP,S aS
defined o:; page 2. v
Two Dllie~r~~1t5 O: tt'ie S1gr., 'D1libOard~ Or OlltdOOr adV2rC1S~^.~ St,~~_.:re COnSCrLiCtlOn ^lanS.
1nClUding S~2CiiiCdtiOnS~ 1St Of materials, and e};T~liCiC anCi10r1n~ Or ~aSC2ning CeCailS
and a copy O: CCIe StreSS SheetS~ CalCllldtiORS~ COIOr OI Slg: StrUCture.
DOeS Cae S1Qn COD'? relate SOleiV CO the OllS1neS>> iP.SC1tllC10^.~ Or ?Cti'?1C~J COnCl:C=2G O^
the premises? 5
v;11I _~';e S1a^~ S..__.._llr_~ Or tiJj.I1~JOar'~. reStrlCC aP,y Slg; t u~S:c~::..- I;P.C~'~ ?rOli_.-~ OV2r
IOr Sai°_ a^_CeSS D; aerSOnS CeSt_..ed Or ^.aSSing t.'le Sllb~?Ct are ~_SeS~ u,~
app? icG:;t J Jam.=..at~lY7! r~~ie .v__.l _r
J
Dare ~ j l ~ `
Sl~,'2.T:. ..C....._~C'.-:SO^.~ ~L_;."..1.:1~ hr:iCia;. ~ HOC-_......
e ~ _
& =~~y~:"
j _ ~ ^Z^<~ J r.
y
i I
i
- i, ~ j
f
~`ti~ ~ 7 ~
3} ~ r D~~/:
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~t~ Grit
R 1 ~ ~ FOf? Dpi
i ~ ~ I~~
. , ly ~
~ ~
i
~ ~ , I
_ 1 ~ ~ t
~ i -
, ~
~ - - Wis..---~
y~ , : 3
' ~ /i
$ SCE C - ' r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 369
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
ar.d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendment to the Municipal Code of Ordinances
Relating to the Consumption of Beer and Wine On
Statewide Election Days, Second Readir:g,
Council Me,~,ber s:
State law permits the sale of wine and 'Deer at liquor
establishments on state election days. However, our
ordinances prohibit the sale of nonintoxicating malt liquor
and wine between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the day
of any statewide election.
Attached to this council letter is an ordinance amendment
which would permit the selling of such beverages on'election
days and bring our city ordinances into conformance with
state statutes.
This ordinance amendment was given first reading at the
October 8, 1984 city council meeting, with the public hearing
scheduled for October 22, 1984.
Before 1983, state law prohibited the sale of beer and
intoxicating liquor before 8:00 p.m. on the day of ar,y statewide
election. Chapter 259 of the Laws of 1983 amended M.S. 40.034,
subdivision 1, and M.S. 340.11, subdivision 1, eliminated these
provisions. Therefore, state law no longer forbids liquor sales
on election day.
In the Richfield situation, our ordinance provisions
governing liquor, wine and beer conflicted with each other as to
the sale on statewide electior. days.
The liquor ordinance provides that it may be sold when
authorized by law. With the 1983 charge to state statutes,
liquor can be sold on statewide election days without any action
required of the City Council.
On the other 'nar:d, the ordinances regulating beer (11.02,
subdivision 8, paragraph (4) and wine (11.08, subdivision 16)
prohibit sales on election days.
• -2-
• Therefore, to have the same regulations for beer, wine and
liquor, the amendments have beer. prepared to provide that these
products may be sold ".....only during the days ar:d hours and to
the extent that the sale of wine (or beer) is authorized by
law."
The regulations in the P,ichfield Code of Ordinances on the
sale of wine also includes the prohibition for the sale of wine
or. local election days as well as statewide election days.
This language will, if adopted on second reading, keep our
regulations the same as provided for by state law.
Respeetfully;'submitted,
i
i - _ ~ -
1~
j
j ~~~~L~"Li ~~G~i~'ZC'.-1 tom{,/1
f~John G. Cartwright"
City Manager
JGC/eja
_ y,. ..J~~ ~ _ W
ORDINANCE N0.
ORDINANCE PuJI.ENDING SECTIOLi 11 , 02 ,
SUBD. 8, PARAGRAPH (4) AND SECTION
11.08, SUBD. 16 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF P.ICHFIELD RELATING
TO THE CONSUMPTION OF BEER %iND GvINE
CITY OF P.ICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 11.02, Subd. 8, Paragraph (4) of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield relating to the consumption of
nonintoxicating malt liquor is amended to read:
"(4) ~7onintoxicating malt liquor shall r~et be sold
bet~aeea-?-:-99-~'~?-and.-S-d9-Phi-en-the-day-ems-any-etate~ar~e
e~eet~e~ only during the days and hours and to the extent
that the sale of intoxicating liquor is authorized by law."
Section 11.08, Subd. 16 of said Ordinance Code, relating to
the sale of wine, is attended to read:
"Subd. 16. Hours and Days of Operation. The sale of
wine in conjunction with the serving of food shall be
permitted between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on weekdays and
until 1:00 a.m. on Sunday morning, and between noon and
midnight on Sunday, unless such Sunday sale is prohibited in
the license. Sale-ef-wlee-at-ti-nes-etHe~-t?~an-t~aaee-pe~-
:~~~+~ee~-l~-t:als-e~tbd~y~elar~-le-t~ala~aful---Wlt~e-ekall-ae=-be
sell-at-a~:y-ee tasl~ehxte~st-lieez~sed-l~ereu~def-be~Faee~-1-99
a : ~--art~t-8-89-p-~t--ems-tire-day-af-any-leeal-e~-etatebalde
e~eet.~en- Wine shall be sold only during the days and
hours and to the extent that the sale of wine is
authorized by law."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
_
_ - ,
i
:~`iust liquor stores close on responding state lz~v. In such cities, Cities still can establish shorter vot-
election day? liquor sales on election day' wzil coati.,- ing hours for local elections. The only
tie to be illegal unless the cities amend requirement is that the polis be open
Before 1983, state lays prohibited the ordinance. Cities wishing to zlloty for at least three hours. To change the
the sale of beer and intoxicating liquor liquor sales on election dzy should pcliing hours for municipal elections,
before 8:00 p.m. on the day of any rel-ie~~• their ordinances and repeal or the council must pass a resolution
statewide eiec~~ion. Ch. 259 of the amend any ordinance provisions winch before giving notice of the election.
Laws of 1988 amended M.S. 340.034, would prclubit such sales. Also, the city must certify tl:e election
subd. 1, Wad ~ ~.S. 40.11, subd. 1
eliminatin these rovisiors. There Hours to tine county zuditor ~~,~hen it
g p Hopi' loner must the polls Star' gives its notice of the election. Of
fore, state law no longer forbids liquor ~ ~ cow se, such changes wiL affect only
sales on election day. open on election day. local elections; the extended bows for
Despite the repeal of the state law, For state elections, the polls must voting wider M.S. 204C.05 apply only
man}, cities st>ll have ordinance pro~~- remain open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 to state elections.
lions which prohibit the sale of liquor p.m. This requirement applies to all
or beer on election day. It has been voting districts. Formerly, cities with a
fairly common to include provisions for population of lass than 1,000 outside u'-l7en Should cities pass
bows of sale in these ordinances. Often the metropolitan area cotild estzblish ordinances Changing Council
. the ordinance provisions simply repeat shorter voting bows, but the Legala- Salaries?
those of the state law but sometimes tore repealed this pro~~sion m 1983. M.S. 415.11 permits the council of
they a_re more restrictive; for example, (See h1.S. 204C.05.) any city, except cities of the first class,
some ordinances prohibit liquor sales Because of this change, many cities
on the day of any election, not just will have to keep the polls open longer to set the mayor's salary- by ordinance.
state~~~de elections. for this year's state election. These The city may pass an ordinance chang-
If a city`s ordi:,ances contain such cities may want to consider appoul*.ing mg the mayor s and counciimembers'
provisions, they will continue to be more election judges than in previous salaries at any- time, but the change
effective despite the repeal of the cor- years. does not take effect until after the next
municipal election. Tins is the only
- _.~:Ns ~R~.. ~ . ~ a procedure a Statutory city can use to
change council salaries. Some charter
cities provide other methods for chang-
ing the governing urut's salaries in their
~ - _ - - chal-ters.
- ~ M- Any statutory cit}- which is on the
1 ~ even-year election schedule should
_ * ~ ~ f ` c r ~ review the salaries of the mayor and
1_ , / ~ . ~ ~ ~n < ~ ~ ~ council. LF a change is war. anted. the
_r.,_,i~ ~ ~ ~~h~_ ~ ~ }r ~_s council should pass an ordinance
r ~ ~ ` ~ ~ a:,,ending the ' p..
saaries and ~~blish it
E~ ~G F ~ before November o. If the cin~ doesn't
INSPECTION Or WATER TC1~^?c~ IN T ERi ~~S \r'~JTH F c .
~''c:"==' r, i F_ pass the Or^.;713I1Ce beiGre eieCiiun day',
_ CLOSED CIR,.,Ui
T TELE~,~~ON _
..!.~~4~. _
F"- w_-=~ ooncied and Insured ~ ~~oiasn;~e ~ croe^a~ S-e~.~~ the CIh' eIfeCIIVely C3ILnot Cila7lge Coun-
~ Frc:st Jaaxets ~^oxy C a~ncs .=.nrx;a; Serv~,c,.. C:,~.~-z~~ C:l Salan~5 iintL aiier L.`:e n?xi n;~,;~Cipal
` 2G Yr..aR GUt,~::NT~_ u~'~' c?OXY ~0:.: = ele:.ticn in 1986.
[ = OVcR 40 YEARS ~F u~r~~,1D~BL~ S=,= 4';C~ - Charter cities ~+ith cit} election, this
E Prompt Servics or. ~merpency L:~in~sr ii`~rk
- year should also re~;ew their councu
t TEL PHONc [o~~~ 33G--~c,C7 OR (cs05~ .~-•-cr` s _ _ it •iC e o~ ld Or C~ r.,~,
~~'~~-~e~ ~ef~rP elecao>7 ca~~. u
~ s
= - N ~ - Y
~ ? e thF Cha:
; r Jr °S Q::i?r eni
q ~ 3 t H~ u~ F->
~ ~ " ~ ...r 1 ~ ~ b. r ~ - ~ i E~ I'.:2t:?ov 0: iT7C'eaSLn~ SaarieS, tliC' :.lt'~
t __r.,_. ~ ~~_.-~ro~. _.M.,~.a_.~_~ 1~'~ pre:er i0 ~~rvCceO under t.']e C~;~.."'i-
BOX. ,o_, SiO;_;X rAl___, ~OuTr ~^,AKG'-- .=„'OS C: : at,iCr t..~rl u:Ider '~'I.~. <?1J.11.
..E~
~.ze., -
~Sinnesota Cities
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CP
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 368
Agenda: October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Cour:cil
City of Richfield
Subject: Gambling~Licer_se Application-
Richfield Intermediate School-PTA Organization
Council Members:
On October 3, 198+, the Department of Public Safety received
an application for a~gambling license,on behalf of the Richfield
Intermediate School Parent-Teacher Organization, to conduct a
raffle. A letter accompanied the application, signed by
Genevieve Orr, Principal of the Richfield Intermediate School,
stating that the purpose of the raffle is to raise funds to send
some sixth grade students to th Environmental Learning Center at
Isabella, Minnesota. They would like the raffle tickets to go
on sale October 15, 1984, and the raffle would be held on
December 12, 1984. This is the fifth year that the Richfield
Intermediate School has applied for a gambling licer:se to hold a
raffle, and it is the second application this year. The first
application, was March 30, 1984, when the school raised funds to
defer the cost of conducting their summer school program. In
the past, the city cour:cil has waived both the license fee of
$225, as well as the gambling bond requirement.
Those individuals applying for licensure to hold this raffle
event are Genevieve Orr, Principal; Rosamer Holl, Teacher;
Barbara Kraker, Teachers Aide; also, Robert Burkard, Teacher
and designated gambling manager for the event. The Department
of Public Safety has conducted the necessary background
investigation and finds no known criminal history on any of
these four individuals.
Based upon the information. supplied by the applicants and
the investigation conducted, there appears to be no basis for
denial of this gambling license request. Therefore, it is the
recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I
concur, that the members of the city council give favorable
consideration to the approval of this request by the Richfield
Intermediate School for a gambling licer:se, also their request
for the license fee and gambling bor:d requirement to be waived.
Respectfully ubmitted,
~ohr: G. Car wright;~~
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 367
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Recognition of Liquor Store Employees for
Their Efforts in Making Richfield Municipal
Liquor Operations the Most Sucessful in the
State in 1983
Council Members:
The Richfield Municipal Liquor Operations had net sales in
1983 of $5,461,598 and a net profit of $520,1b3; the highest net
profit for municipal liquor operations ir. the State of
Minnesota. This net profit was achieved even though liquor
sales in 1983 declined statewide for the third straight year,
and expenses increased, resulting in low profits or even losses
for many municipal liquor operations.
The Director of Liquor Operations and the store managers are
to be commended for their consistent good management practices
which resulted in a highly profitable year for the City of
Richfield. Out of the $520,163 profits, $400,000 was made
available for city public improvements.
A resolution recognizing the efforts of the liquor store
employees has been placed on the October 22, 1984 City Council
agenda. The following liquor store employees will be present at
the October 22 council meeting to receive this resolution:
Bill Fillmore, Liquor Operations Director; Briar. Wetternach,
Manager Lyndale Store; Mark Sims, Assistant Manager Lyndale
Store; Scott Swanson Manager Penn Store; Bonnie Wetterberg
Assistant Manager Penn Store; Wayne Kilgren Manager Cedar Store
and Peter Matthias Assistant Manager Cedar Store.
Respectfully submitted,
i
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
W.~.....:_ .
_~u~_~~_____.~u_:.s~,~.,::
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RECOGNI7_ING EFFORTS OF MUNICIPAL
LIQUOR STORE EMPLOYEES WHICH HAS LED RICHFIELD TO
BE RANKED AS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE OPERATION Ind THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA DURING 1983
WHEREAS, liquor sales at municipal liquor operations are
steadily declining and expenses are increasing all over the
state; and
WHEREAS, the employees of the Richfield Municipal Liquor
operations are dedicated to good management practices , friendly
service, and competitive prices; and
WHEREAS, Richfield Municipal Liquor Operations earned the
highest net profit of all Minnesota municipal liquor operations
in 1983 of $520,163; and
WHEREAS, $400,000 of these profits have been allocated to
public improvements, without burdening the taxpayers of
Richfield.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield that the following employees of the Richfield
Municipal Liquor Stores are to be commended for their efforts in
having Richfield recognized as the mast successful Municipal
Liquor Store Operations in the State of Mir.r.esota:
Bill Fillmore Director Liquor Operations; Brian Wetternach
Manager Lyndale Store; Mark Sims Assistant Manager Lyndale
Store; Scott Swanson Manager Penn Store; Bonnie Wetterberg
Assistant Manager Penn Store; Wayne Kilgrer. Manager Cedar Store
and Peter Matthias Assistant Manager Cedar Store.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
22nd Day of October, 1984.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 3b6
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation by South Hennepin Human Services
Council Relating to Request far Additional
Funding for the H.O.M.E. Program
Council Members:
Debbra Determan, H.O.M.E. Program Coordinator for the South
Hennepin Human Services Council, has requested an opportunity to
appear before the City Council regarding a request for
additional funding for this program for the remainder of 1984.
The H.O.M.E. Program was started several years ago when it
was determined that there was a need for this service in the
• South Hennepin Area. The H.O.M.E. Program provides home
maintenance and housekeeping services to senior citizens and
handicapped persons. Charges are on a sliding fee scale
based upon ability to pay. The H.O.M.E. Program serves
appoximately 700 households in the Richfield community each
year. The purpose of the program is to aid these households so
that they may remain in their homes.
The majority of funding for the home maintenance portion
of this program originally came Community from Development Block
Grants (CDBG) of South Hennepin area cities and from the
Metropolitan Council. However, earlier this year, the
Metropolitan Council cut off funding to the South Hennepin Humor:
Services Council and instead provided funds to the Metropolitan
Council of Churches to coordinate this program in the
metropolitan area. The intent of the Metropolitan Council
according to Determan was to cut back on the administrative
costs for the home maintenance program by finding a church or
volunteer agency to administer the program with volunteers
ir. place of the SHHSC paid staff.
Unfortunately, the Metropolitan Council of Churches has been
unable to find a churc'n or volunteer agency in the South
Hennepin Area to take on this responsibility. Therefore, unless
additional funds are received this year, the program will have
• to be cut back and fewer Richfield residents will be able to
receive this service. As we understand it, South Hennepir: Human
Services is negotiating with the Metropolitan Council and the
Metropolitan Council of Churches to work out an agreement for
1985.
-2-
. The Youth Employment Service of the City of Richfield also
operates a home care program. However, chores are preformed by
students, and they perform only yard work and light
housecleaning tasks. The Y.E.S. program frequently utilizes the
services of the South Hennepin H.O.M.E. Maintenance Program for
those households that have maintenance requests (such as
electrical, plumbing, roofing, etc.) that Y.E.S. is unable to
undertake.VEAP provides similar services to persons with very
low income but only on a once or twice basis to the resident
rather than on a continuing basis throughout the year. The
Paint It - Fix It program will end in December of 1984.
Debbra Determan estimates that approximately $5,000 in
additional funding is needed for 1984. The City of Edina has
agreed to contribute an additional $6,000. The City of
Bloomington has been asked to contribute $7,000. Bloomington
officials have contributed 50~ of this amount and will consider
the other 50~ after they learn what Edina and Richfield decide
to do. Eden Prairie residents have little or no involvement in
the H.O.M.E. services and the City of Eden Prairie has not been
asked to make a supplemental contribution. The H.O.M.E.
Maintenance Program has projected expenditures of $106,932 and
projected revenues of $102,783. The $102,783 revenue figure
includes the $6,000 Edina and $3,500 Bloomington supplemental
payments.
The following sources for funding t'ne $5,000 request have
been identified:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
EXPEND. OR
ACTIVITY BUDGET ENCUMBRANCE BALANCE
1. Removal of Arehit.
Barriers $ 25,000 $25,000 $ 25,000
2. Economic Develop. $141,243 0 $141,243
(L/H/N)
3. School Reuse Study $ 15,510 $14,400 $ 1,110
4. Econ. Dev/ACQ $ 20,000 0 $ 20,000
The above four CDBG activities are the most likely
activities which could be tapped for a $5,000 transfer to meet
the SHHSC request.
For the three most recent CDBG program years (VIII-X), the
financial status of all CDBG funds are (as of 9/30/84):
Budget $1,219,148
Expended or Encumbered $ 626,345
Balance $ 592,803
-3-
• If the City Council wishes to fur_d a supplemental allocation
of $5,000 for the SHHSC H.O.M.E. program, the City Manager
recomrnends that the amount be taken from the Economic
Development (L/H/N) activity, subject to the approval of
Hennepin County of the fund transfer.
Ms. Determan will be present at the October 22, 1984 city
council meeting to discuss this matter and answer ar.y questions
the council may have.
Respectfully submitted,
~ Y
John G. ~rtwr~i.ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
PLANNING AREA I -PROJECT STATUS REPORT
SEPTEMUER 30, 1984
Cunununi ty: RICIII~ IEI_D
Year Appl # Proj # Activity ERS Encuntibered F3udget Expended Qalance
,v
VIII 006 SCATTERED SITE/ACQ CT 3250 3250 3250 Y`' -0-
VIII 55G 190USING RE1fA8ILITATION CE - 94035 94035 17429~~ 7G,606
VIII 701 IIANDI ACCESS Pl_AN CE 6000 6000 fiUUO -U-
VIII 778 PUflL1C SERVICES CE 3323 3323 3323 -0- ~
VIII 805 ADM I N I STRAT I Ohl EX 20000 20000 17421 _ S 7 3 2 , 579 '~iy~
IX OOG ACQ (SCATTERED SITE) FR 137786 377662 137786=~~~~ 239,1176
• IX 352 CLEARANCE (SCATTERED SITE) f=R 0 4200 0 4,2()O
IX 50?_ REMOVAL ARCH BARRIERS . CE/EX 0 25000 O 25,000
IX 556 REIIA(3 PRIVATE PROPERTY CE/EX 117284 117284 0 117,284
iX 778 PU(1LIC SERVICES CE/EX 13660 32800 13660 19,140
IX 919 COIYIMUNITY SR CITIZEN CENTER CE/EX 112050 123000 3105 119,1195 r,'
IX 920 ECON DEVELOPMENT (LHN) CE 0 141243 0 141,243
IX 923 SCIIOOL REUSE STUDY EX 15510 15510 14400 1,I10''~
IX 924 COIdPREFIENSIVL- PLAN EX 4491 4491 0 4,491
IX 940 ECON DEVELOPMENT/ACQ AR 0 2.0000 0 20,00(1
- X 004 ACQUISITION (SCATTERED SITE) FR 0 49294 0 n9,29-1
X 052 SENIOR/COt~1 CENTL"R REMODELING CE 0 25000 0 25,000
X 556 REUA13 Of PRIVATE PROPERTY CE/EX 98956. 98956 0 98,956
X 701 RECYCLING ~ CE 0 10000 0 1U,000~`"~"
X 779 PU[1LIC SERVICES/AUh1INISTRATION CE/EX 0 3100 0 3,100
X 780 Pl)11l_IC SERVICES/CHILD CARE CE/EX 0 17800 0 17,800
X 781 PUBLIC SERVICES/ff.O.M.E. CE/EX 0 7200 0 7,200
X 936 SENIOR & IIANDICAPPED STUDY 0 20000 0 20,000
Subtotal 626,345 1,219,148 216,374 1,002,774
I-VII 000 13ALAPJCE YEARS I -VII 1747752 1747752 1747752 0
TONAL 2,374,097 2,966,900 1,964,126 1,002,774
Drawdown (Years VIII - X) 18`,K
~ j Drawdown (Cumulative) 6G'z
I
.
H.O.M.E. (HOUSEHOLD AND OUTSIDE fv1AINTENANCE FAR ELDERLY)
Homemaker Program
July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985
Projected Expenses
Personnel $ 71,637
Travel 1,765
Building Space 1,160
Communication & Utilities 884
Printing and Supplies 916
Equipment -0-
Other 2,353
Total S 78,715
Projected Revenue
In Kind Services $ 10,700
Non Federal Cash:
Hennepin County 10,600
Municipalities 6,520
Customer Contributions 23,075
Metro Council Title IIIB 27,820
Total $ 78,715
H.O.M.E. (HOUSEHOLD AND CUTSIG~ h1AIPlTEN,ANCE FOR ELDERLY)
Chore/Home Maintenance Program
July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985
Projected Expenses
Personnel $ 91,845
Office Supplies 364
General Supplies 300
Advertising 150
Maintenance & Repairs 240
Mileage 5,335
Postage 320
Printing 700
Building Rental 1,375
Communications - 928
Equipment/Materials 3,300
Conferences 150
Insurance 750
Miscellaneous 1,175
Total $106,932
Projected P,evenue
In Kind Services $ 9,583
Jon Federal Cash:
Hennepin County 10,600
Bloomington 10,500**
Richfield 3,600**
Edina 10,000**
Eden Prairie 2,500**
Richfield Fix & Paint 8,000**
Edina Fix & Paint 10,000**
Customer contributions 21,000*
Federal Cash:
Energy Assistance Emergency
Repair Program 17,000*
Total X102,783
* not guaranteed
based on work completed
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 355
Agenda October 22, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign
801 West 77 1/2 Street
Council Members:
Attracta Sign, Incorporated has requested ar,
advertising permit for a double-faced, illuminated
sign measuring 18' x 8' (144 square feet) to be
erected at Hagen Office Equipment located at 801 West 77 1/2
Street.
City of Richfield Ordinance Code 3.49,
Subdivisior: 19 - Illuminated Signs provides that City
Council approval is required for all illuminated signs.
The staff has reviewed the sign application and finds that
the sigr, conforms to all city ordinances pertaining to signs of
this nature. It is recommended that the City Council approve
the illuminated sign permit at this location.
Respectf y ~abmitted ,
~ /
' `jij'G~L L L'?L'L /~j r
% V
~hn G. Ca wrig '
City Manager
JGC/eja
i
~ Li
r ~Author~zed Dealer ~u-.~-~,-~-~
5~~~ `Y ~Mme..
a~ ,o,,
S , .
~~s
A~,provc Deny 1~ Appr~vc ~ Dcnv ~ ~~~-s,cC.~-~
City Manager Inspector
Date Date Z/~f-
4r~'c Deny ~ " L T t~ I~ A ~ rnve Den
~~-~-I, c(?t f P Y
Pl annin~ D'rpt. Ci t~ Coimci 1
Date 101 ~ Q,~ Pate
~ ,
Route to above for special
apnreval per code General Suns
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PFR'fIT nartsl
City of Richfield, ?Minnesota
Drite 10-3-84 Zoning Sign Erected - Yes X No Fee 37.00
Address of Sign 801 W 77 2 St. Proprietor Name Brian Hagen DR.4 Hagen Office_
Equipment
Sign Crector Attracta Sign Address E417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield, MN
Type of Sign Design heather Craver Liphtin,
4~'al l ~ J Single face -.1 Clear Lexon X: Cnnstan*.
Projecting ~ Double face _ Frosted Lexon Flashir~R
Ground i-- Multi-faced Plastic Covered Revolvinn•
Roof ! ~ Aerial/Blimp `Shaded Traveling
.XI Pedestal Searchlight Neon ?ip-lite
angeable Ranner/Pennsnts Other Other (F.xnl.)
~mnorary Portable Frame: Sign Colors Black & G4hite
I Trailer T~ A.~~ Posh Apple colors - Green, oranges,
_ ~l -=°~=r= ~ purple &-_-blue
If Illuminated - Yes X No --`_`'•~latts - _
Electrical Contractor/~Vl,~. ./~~--~--~C: ~~,'G~c-~' Address Phnne
Property Owner or his Agent Si~-nature Phnne
Estimated Cost 7,000.00 Sign Width 18' Height 8' Total Sq, Ft. 144
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sideways,
curbs, roadwa~•s, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of maior signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations color of sign structure.
'~Oocs the sign copy relate to solely the business, institution, or activity conducted on
the premises'. es
Will the sib, structure, or billboard restrict any sil;ht distance ~^lder, aro~~d, or over
fo fe access b,y persons destined for or passing the subject premises' No
, . ~ .s~
! r'` T
-
i.Appli,Cant s 5i~;nature and Title w•Lth Firm Date ~?J7
r gone .Number 866-3047