Loading...
02-27-84 agenda #iyG • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 85 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Advertise - Richfield Lake Improvements Council Members: Neighborhood meetings have been held over the last several weeks regarding Richfield Lake. Inasmuch as the pathway, vistas and clean-up of existing site landscaping has previously been approved by the city council, discussion at the most recent neighborhood meetings has focused on the mini-park or ."pocket park" area of Richfield Lake and new landscaping. The final neighborhood meeting was held February 1 at which time the neighborhood reached consensus on the park area and landscaping of Richfield Lake. The concept • approved by the neighborhood was discussed at the February 14 meeting of the Community Services Advisory Commission, which unanimously recommended approval of the plan by the city council. Landscaping was the primary interest of the neighborhood and to that end landscape architect Jim Robin prepared a plan which calls for clean-up of the area, (already in progress,) and a series of new plantings. The concept is to provide a transition of experiences along the pathway making use of a variety of plants from conifer to deciduous to herbatious. In many instances, the conifers would be planted for the purpose of eventually providing screening. Other plants used could be an attraction for particular wildlife. The mini-park area is proposed to include play equipment to be nestled in an existing stand of trees in the northwest sector of the site, a small hardcourt area the size of a basketball half-court with one standard, and a well with the old fashioned type farm pump to provide a sort of drinking fountain on the site. 0 Council Letter No. 85 -2- February 27, 1984 It is hoped that much of the landscaping/planting can be done this Spring. However, some plants may need to be planted in the Fall. The park area is also proposed to be completed this year. Basically construction will take place throughout the calendar year, but the majority of work is anticipated to be complete about September 1, 1984. The Community Services Director will be present at the February 27, 1984 city council meeting to discuss the plan and to answer questions. It is recommended the city council approve the plans and authorize advertisement for bids for the remainder of the Richfield Lake project. Respectful. submitted, John G. Carwr i City Manager JGC/eja • 0 #/Y T- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 84 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract for Golf Course Well Repair Council Members: On February 16, 1984, bids were opened for Renovation Work on Rich Acres Golf Course Well and Pump in accordance with the city's legal requirements • for bids. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulation is attached for council review. As mentioned at the budget hearings last Fall, sand has been a problem with the non-potable well at the golf course. The water from this well is used primarily for the irrigation of the course. This contract calls for placement of a sleeve into the existing well shaft, extending the well shaft an addtional twenty feet (201) to reach the Jordan Aquifer (which is limestone,) sealing of the well shaft to prevent seepage from the sandstone level the well is now in, and testing the new well upon completion of this work. Depending on the results of the tests following work under this contract, additional work may be needed to renovate or improve the well pump and bowls. The work of this contract is to be complete by April 1, 1984 with testing and other renovation or improvement to be complete by April 15, 1984. Six (6) bids were received for this work. It is recommended the city council award the contract to Renner and Sons in the amount of $137395. RespectT ubmitted, John G. i t City Manager JGC/eja • • Renovation Work on Rich Acres Golf Course Well and Pump CITY OF RICHFIELD BID OPENING February 16, 1984 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Renovation Work on Rich Acres Golf Course Well and Pump, as advertised in the official newspaper on February 1, and 8, 1984. Present: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Ron Rankin, Administrative Services Director Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR BID SECURITY TOTAL BID Layne of Minnesota, Minneapolis B.B. 5% $17,450 McCarthy Well Co., Minneapolis B.B. 5% $31,395 E. H. Renner & Sons, Anoka B.B. 5% $13,395 Bergerson-Casell, Maple Plain B.B. 5% $15,870 Thein Well Co., Clara City B.B. 5% $22,155 Keys Well Drilling, St. Paul B.B. 5% $14,750 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the February 27, 1984 city council meeting. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk -?? lq?0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 83 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron for Services Related to Storm Sewers Council Members: As discussed at the city council study session of February 7, 1984, the city has a number of issues pending related to storm water management. These include the storm sewer system aspects of the city's infrastructure study, the creation of a new storm sewer utility fund, and surface water management plans for the city and three watershed districts or management areas. It is recommended by staff that the city enter into agreement with Orr-Schelen- Mayeron and Associates for these engineering services as discussed at the study session. This agreement would be supplemental to the master agreement approved by the city council earlier this year and would be based on the 1984 rate structure of the master agreement. The total cost of this particular memorandum agreement related to storm water would not exceed $20,000 without additional city council authorization. It is recommended that the city council authorize execution of a supplemental agreement as outlined above. Funds have been budgeted for this purpose in the Sewer Utility Fund. ' ectfully submitted, C John G. Cartwri City Manager JGC/eja 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 82 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Authorization to Apply for Federal Aid Urban Systems (FAUS) Funding Council Members: At the February 7, 1984 city council study session, discussion was held related to traffic movement, traffic volume, traffic control and other traffic issues in the vicinity of 76th Street and Penn Avenue South. The study session focused on several concepts regarding these problems and potential solutions. As discussed at the study session, the Richfield city council will be requested in the near future to endorse a concept for the project which will be accompanied by a request for FAUS funding. Hennepin County is the lead or coordinating agency for the funding request. It is therefore recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution authorizing an application for FAUS funding and endorsing the need for this street improvement project. Respectful submitted, Z??/77 A4V - 47 John G. Cartwrig City Manager JGC/eja is 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPROVAL OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FAUS PROJECT SUBMITTAL IN 1984 FOR PROJECT IN AND NEAR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD Hennepin County Project 8334 County Road 32 (Penn Avenue) at I-494 Interchange WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, the City Council encourages and participates with improvements to obtain adequate transportation facilities in the metropolitan area, and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation submittals for FAUS projects during 1984 include a project in and near the City of Richfield, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield concurs with the subject FAUS project submittal by Hennepin County of County Project 8334, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined this project to be warranted and desirable for improvement through the Federal Aid to Urban Systems Program, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Transportation Advisory Board, the Metropolitan Council and other boards and commissions associated therewith are hereby advised that the City of Richfield supports approval of the Hennepin County FAUS project submittals for Country Project 8334, a project in and near the City of Richfield, in 19814. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 27th day of February, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: is Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield #9 Council Letter No. 81 Agenda February 27, 1984 Subject: Street Light Assessment Policy, 66th Street Penn Avenue - Xerxes Avenue Council Members: The reconstruction of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection has been on the capital improvement program for a number of years.. At the time the special assessment hearings were held on the intersection project for street lighting and sidewalks, Federal Aid Urban Systems (FADS) funding was not available. FAUS funding and gas tax monies are now available to fund all of the construction costs on 66th Street from Penn Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. If FAUS funding is used for improvements, any special assessments previously authorized for such improvements could be rescinded or cancelled. At the • February 7, 1984 city council study session, the project was discussed along with several options for approaching the project. Questions addressed included: 1. Whether the proposed project is designed to improve traffic capacity (mobility) rather than to improve the street for adjacent property owners (accessibility). 2. Whether the project will be financed by FAUS monies (75%) and local MSA monies (25%), and not by special assessment. 3. Whether the city staff should continue with plans to hold neighborhood meetings on this project. Based on the study session discussion, the consensus of the city council was to expand and upgrade the lighting system and other improvements on 66th Street from Penn Avenue to Xerxes Avenue using city/state/federal funding sources, and not special assessment funding because the project is designed to improve traffic mobility. Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager 0 JGC/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 80 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Public Hearing - Additional Alley for 1984 Alley Paving Project Harriet and Garfield Avenues Between 71st - 72nd Streets Council Members: At the February 13, 1984 city council meeting, the council scheduled a public hearing for February 27, 1984 to consider the concrete paving of one additional alley as part of C.P. 793, 1984 Alley Paving Project: Alley Between From To Harriet Avenue and Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street • It is feasible to add this alley to the 1984 alley project. The estimated residential assessment is $19.75 per assessable foot. The estimate for a 50 foot residential lot is $987.50. At the close of the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution ordering the project. Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager JGC/eja 0 i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF ONE ADDITIONAL ALLEY AND PREPARATION OF PLANS C.P. 793A WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement by concrete paving of the following alley: Between From To Harriet Avenue and Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street. AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice of the hearing and two weekly publications of the required notice was given as required by law, and the hearing was held thereon on the 27th day of February, 1984, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the 0 council resolution adopted the 13th day of February, 1984. 2. Michael J. Eastling, City Engineer, is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. 3. That this alley improvement shall be included as part of City Project No. 793 and hereafter-be known as C.P. 793. Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of February, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager -7 c2? Council Letter No. 79 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Subject: Presentation by Representative CDBG Planning Area 1 Citizens Advisory Committee 0 Council Members: Last year the city council appointed Betty Carr as the city's representative to the CDBG Planning Area 1 Citizen's Advisory Committee (PACA). Since that time, Ms. Carr has been an active participant in the activ- ities of the committee. It has recently come to her attention that certain communities in western Hennepin County are contemplating a request to change the formula for the distribution of block grant funds for various Hennepin County subgrantees. If the formula were to be changed, it would appear to function to Richfield's detriment. At the present time, Richfield is operating under a multi-year contract with Hennepin County so the change, if made, could not be implemented for a couple of years. It is important that Richfield carefully monitor potential program changes of this nature. Ms. Carr will be present at the February 27, 1984 city council meeting to give the city council a report on this matter, as well as a brief update on the other activities of this committee. - -- Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager JGC/eja 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA l / Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Letter No. 78 Agenda February 27, 1984 Subject: City council Endorsement of League of Minnesota Cities Proposed 1984 City Policies and Priorities Council Members: The League of Minnesota Cities, through its legislative study committees, has developed the proposed 1984 City Policies and Priorities for consideration by the LMC membership. These policies and priorities will form the basis for the LMC 1984 legislative program. City officials are scheduled to take action concerning the legislative policies at the LMC Legislative Conference on Tuesday, March 13 at the St. Paul Radisson Hotel. As noted, the policies are developed through the legislative study committees of the LMC. Richfield staff members have had the opportunity to participate on several of these committees and thereby provide direct input to the policy development process. The following is a summary of the top priority policies of the LMC in each subject area: I. Public Health and Safety: PHS-1. This policy identifies issues regarding law enforcement licensing requirements and the need to continue to allow flexibility in local standards for performance and conduct, and to maintain local representation on the State Post Board. The policy also encourages flexibility for cities to recruit licensed police officers from reservists and part-time officers. PHS-2. This policy is intended to clarify the issue of policy authority, supports allowing police officers to carry weapons while off-duty, but opposes additional arrest powers for officers outside their jurisdiction. II. Personnel, Pensions and Labor Relations: PPLR-1. This policy has to do with the Minnesota Public Employee Labor Relations Act and recommends several changes to the Act in order to improve city flexibility in labor relations and to maintain strong management rights under the provisions of the Act. Council Letter No. 77 -2- February 27, 1984 PPLR-2. This policy has to do with PERA and other statewide pension . plans, recommending a conservative course in considering any increase in PERA benefits. It opposes the "Rule of 85" and other proposals to encourage early retirement by public employees. This policy also recommends certain changes which would improve management of PERA investments. Importantly, this policy also recommends a change in the pension system from the present defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan which would help lower municipal contributions over the long-term. PPLR-3. This policy recommends that PERA contributions should not be subject to either state or federal income taxation, and should not be taxed until the benefits are actually received. PPLR-4. Recommends strengthening the requalification criteria for unemployment compensation, and limiting the benefits for persons who have undertaken temporary employment of specific, limited duration. PPLR-5. This policy would require the funding of any liability creat- ed by providing fringe benefits to retirees. • PPLR-6. A policy was considered concerning the issue of comparable worth, however, a legislative policy could not be agreed upon by the LMC Board of Directors. Since this matter is a very important issue and is likely to receive considerable attention in the 1984 legislative session, a policy on comparable worth which could be supported by the city of Richfield is discussed below. III. Government Structure: GS-1. This policy recommends certain additional situations that should be allowable for a local governing body to meet in executive or closed sessions. GS-2. This policy opposes mandatory publication of city council minute summaries and annual budgets beyond the requirements of local charters or ordinances. GS-3. This policy supports the updating and redefinition of the statutory duties of City Clerks and Treasurers. GS-5. Supports action to allow City Clerks to validate absentee ballots. GS-6. This policy would allow small cities to be permitted to publish summaries of their annual financial reports. 0 IV. Revenue Sources: RS-1. This policy recommends that the legislature repeal the Levy Limit Law because of the laws's restriction and inflexibility, and the lessening of local self-government and accountability. • Council Letter No. 77 -3- February 27, 1984 RS-2. This policy recommends restoration of the $3.5 million short- fall to achieve full funding of the 1984 Local Government Aid allocation, and recommends full LGA funding for 1985. RS-3. This policy recommends the repeal of all state maximum fees for liquor licenses, to allow all such fees to be determined locally. RS-4. Special assessment financing laws are recommended to be changed to allow cities to charge an interest rate on speical assessments at least one percentage point higher than the rate payable on the bonds financing the assessment. This would allow greater flexibility in the timing of bond issues. RS-5. This policy would allow cities to issue five-year equipment certificates up to a certain maximum in any given year. RS-6. Recommends repeal of interest rate limitations on general obligation and revenue bonds, to allow local officials to have greater flexibility in financing decisions. V. Land Use, Environment, Energy and Transportation • LUEET-1. Recommends a variety of legislative actions concerning solid and hazardous waste management, including planning requirements, local participation in the planning process, incentives for host communities of solid and hazardous waste facilities, and reimbursement from the "superfund" to cities for cleanup costs. LUEET-2. Recommends that the state finance certain waste-water treatment projects and limits the local share of such costs. LUEET-3. Recommends local responsibilities for surface water manage- ment, and a variety of concerns that should be taken into account in any further surface water management legislation. VI. Development Strategies: DS-1. This policy opposes changes in state law that would limit cities abilities to carry out community development activities, and establishes principles to be taken into account in considering any legislative changes. DS-2. Recommends establishing authority to create municipal service districts for financing certain public services and improvements, as an alternative to special assessments. This policy is recommended as a result of recent court decisions concerning special assessments, which have made it more difficult for cities to use this means of financing improvement projects. • DS-3. This policy supports legislation to eliminate the three-year time limit on the tax exempt status of land used by cities or HRA's for later resale for economic development purposes. Council Letter No. 77 -4- February 27, 1984 VII. Federal Legislation: FL-1. This policy supports maintaining the tax exempt status of state and local bonds, and to encourage a healthy market for municipal bonds. FL-2. This policy supports continued availability of small-issue industrial development revenue bonds (less than $10 million) and opposes any prohibition or cap on the volume of small issue IRB's. The policy does, however, recommend that local guidelines be followed to insure that projects are part of an overall economic and physical development plan for the city. FL-3. This policy supports increased federal funding of the cost of rehabilitation, repair, upgrading and new construction of waste water treatment facilities. FL-4. This policy opposes any legislation which will diminish local control of cable television. The policies highlighted above and other policies of a lower priority have all been reviewed by Richfield city staff. It is recommended that these policies be endorsed by the Richfield City Council and that city representatives at the Legislative Conference be directed to support such policies at the March 13, 1984 Legislative Conference. ® As noted above, the LMC Board of Directors was unable to agree upon a legislative policy concerning the issue of comparable worth. This is an important and often emotionally charged issue, and one which is likely to receive substantial attention in the 1984 session of the legislature. Attached are two draft policies which have been prepared by the Municipal Legislative Commission (a group of 14 cities which have joined together for the purpose of lobbying on certain legislative issues) and the Comparable Worth Task Force of the LMC, which is attempting to devise a policy to be endorsed by the LMC Board of Directors. It is believed important that cities support a policy on this issue, due to significant concerns about the possible effects of a state mandate to address the issue of comparable worth. For example, there is concern that a state mandate could create the need for immediate expenditures by local governments to adjust wage rates for certain public employees. There is additional concern that a state mandate would not take into account the effect of external market relationships for public employment jobs, and that wage levels may be linked to the results of binding arbitration for certain employee groups. Each of the attached policies attempt to point out the importance of considering the external forces of supply and demand as well as internal job content analysis. These policies also point out the importance of considering external market relationships and the need for a reasonable time period of phase-in implementation of a comparable worth program. The policies note the need for the legislature to spell out the specific goals of any comparable i Council Letter No. 77 -5- February 27, 1984 worth pay equity program, and to allow for local flexibility in implementing such programs. The policies also recommend indemnification of cities for any back-pay lawsuits as a result of implementing new pay equity programs. Staff has reviewed these policies and recommends that the Richfield City Cocil endorse the draft policy prepared by the LMC Comparable Worth Task Force. It is believed that this policy is more comprehensive and that it appropriately addresses issues that Richfield would be concerned about in any proposed state legislation. City staff recommends City Council endorsement of the legislative policies as noted above, and is prepared to respond to any questions the City Council may have concerning the LMC proposed 1984 City Policies and Priorities or recommended action concerning the issue of a comparable worth legislative policy. expect ?submitted, v? John G. Cartwri ht City Manager JGC/eja • • 1 Municipal Legislative Commission Draft Policy 0. COMPARABLE WORTH The-Municipal Legislative Commission supports efforts to address the issue of comparable worth at the local level of government and believes that cities and other local units are in the best position to address compensation inequities within the context of ability to pay. We further believe that comparable worth is more than a gender issue and has the potential to affect compensation programs for all public employees. Wage rates for various classifications should be based on job content, as well as an external relationship with the market place. That content anlysis must take into account internal equity comparisons, but also must allow for some comparison with the external job market.. Further, it is our strong belief that such a comparable worth program cannot be successful as long as our communities are forced by lkw to set wage levels through binding arbitration for certain employee groups. The Municipal Legislative Commission recommends that legis- lative action be taken in 1984 to promote wage equity through a determination of comparable worth and that the following principles should guide this legislation. (1) Any system of job evaluation and job content should relate to the external forces. of supply and demand. (2) Existing labor relations laws which mandate binding arbitra- tion for certain employee groups must be modified to allow • for implementation of wage structures based on comparable worth. (3) The legislation should allow not only for the upgrading of • certain classes of work in the wage structure, but also provide for decreases in pay where job evaluations indicate that is appropriate. (4) Cities should be protected from any legal action that is brought for the purposes of obtaining back pay as a result of the implementation of comparable worth programs. (5) Legislation should allow a reasonable time period to accom- plish the implementation of such programs. We would suggest a minimum of three years. (6) The state legislation should involve the adoption of a philo- sophy and definition of specific goals for pay equity pro- grams and allow cities some degree of latitude in the analysis 0 and implementation of those programs. • -2- COMPARABLE. WORTH--TASK FORCE DRAFT POLICY The.League recommends that the Legislature allow a reasonable period of time for local units of governments to address the issue-of comparable worth at the local level before mandating compliance with a state-wide program. Cities and other local units of government are in the best position to address possible internal salary inequities without exceeding local budget constraints. Comparable worth is more than a gender issue, being inextricably linked to the proposition that positions should be classified on the basis of job content and that wage rates for similarly classified positions should bear a rational relationship to the changing requirements of the marketplace. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the philosophy of pay equity on the basis of both internal job content comparisons and external supply and demand comparisons. A wage structure based on job content cannot be realized, however, in an environment where wage rates can be established either by arbitration awards or negotiated with labor organizations operating within the allowances of the labor relations laws. The League recommends that legislative action be taken at this time to facilitate and encourage local units of government to develop compensation programs based on job content. The following principles should guide this legislation: Drafted by: Joel Jamnik . Committee: Comparable Worth Task Force Date Presented: 1/31/84 Date Adopted: 1/31/84 Draft Number: 1 Priority: Page 1 of 2 1. Comparable worth programs must balance internal pay equity with external supply and demand considerations. 2. Existing laws, which limit the power of municipal governing bodies and managers to implement wage structures based on comparable worth, including .but not limited to collective bargaining and arbitration, must be modified accordingly. 3. Implementation of internal pay equity programs must incorporate the concept that decreases in pay as well as increases may be necessary. 4. Because of the costs associated with the implementation of comparable worth, the state should make available special assistance and funding mechanisms for program implementation. 5. Pay equity implementation should not be required to be completed in less than a three to five-year period. IS 6j The state. should shield or indemnify, including providing or paying for defense costs, any city which is sued for back pay as a result of the implementation of the pay equity programs. 7. The state should define the goals of comparable worth, but allow cities to choose the methods of analysis and implementation of pay equity programs.. 8. A fiscal note identifying any local government costs to be incurred in implementing any legislation must be included. Drafted by: Joel Jamnik Committee: Comparable Worth Task Force Date Presented: 1/31/84 Date Adopted: 1/31/84 Draft Number: 1 Priority: Page 2 of 2 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 77 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Discussion on Possible Weight Limit and Street Improvements for Longfellow Avenue from 68th to 69th Street • • Council Members: This item has been placed on the agenda to arrive at a process to decide what should happen to the roadbed for Longfellow Avenue between 68th and 69th Street. This one block section of Longfellow Avenue functions as part of the east frontage road for Cedar Avenue. In 1959, an agreement (copy attached) was signed between the Minnesota Department of Highways and the City of Richfield. Under this agreement, the state agreed to construct the road surface as it exists today. In addition, the state retained ownership of the roadway. In return, the city agreed to maintain the roadway at city expense. Maintenance is defined as "keeping the roads smooth and in good repair for the passage of traffic including snow removal." The city has plowed snow and, as necessary, repaired low spots with asphalt patching. Over the past two years, the city has also jackhammered out cracked sections of the street and replaced it with new blacktop. However, the street is showing its 25 years of wear. The street is no longer practical to maintain cost effectively. Some significant upgrading is necessary. City staff has been requesting the state to upgrade the street to city standards. This standard is the standard used for our residential streets (curb and gutter with seven ton asphalt design). The state staff has maintained that this is not a justifiable state expenditure. In January, 1984, the state suggested that they would consider overlaying this section of Longfellow Avenue if the city would accept jurisdiction. By accepting jurisdiction of the roadway, the city would be responsible for all future expenses. Another issue raised by the homeowners along Longfellow Avenue is bus and truck traffic. Due to the deterioration of the surface, the state is willing to post the roadway at a five ton weight limit, thus eliminating bus and over five ton truck traffic. The attached letter from MnDOT outlines a proposal to post the road at five tons if the city would overlay the area in question. In a follow-up call to Rod Pletan of MnDOT, the city staff stated that the state should participate in any reconstruction or upgrading of the road. They are expecting a written proposal to that effect. So the problem is not only a road surface problem, but a traffic problem. Approximately one year ago, the city • Council Letter No. 77 -2- February 27, 1984 requested MTC and the City of Minneapolis to have their vehicles use an alternate route. Generally this request has been honored. The council will also note that Bloomington's Met Stadium traffic plan proposes an exit ramp at 76th Street and the possible closing of this frontage road at 76th Street. ALTERNATIVES 1. The council could make a formal request of the state to resurface the frontage road and have the city assume all future responsibility for maintenance and improvements; 2. Request the state to post the frontage road at a five ton load limit (eliminating truck and bus traffic) and to have MnDOT resurface the street; • 3. The road could be reconstructed with curb and gutter using a combination of special assessments, state highway funds, and municipal state aid money. The funding would depend upon the state's willingness to use state highway funds. In addition, a variance may be required from MSA standards for roadway width in order to use municipal state aid funds. The variance would be needed to retain the existing trees along the roadway; or 4. Request MnDOT to resurface Longfellow and barricade the street to prohibit southbound traffic. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that Longfellow Avenue be posted with a five ton weight limit or the street be barricaded to prohibit traffic south of 69th Street. Also, the city staff recommends that a neighborhood meeting be arranged in cooperation with MnDOT to ascertain neighborhood interest in what type of street improvement project would be best and what support there would be in financing needed improvements. JGC/eja sp etf(f ?ubmitted , John G. Cartwright City Manager 0 Minnesota . Department of Transportation District Five 5801 Duluth Street of Tai Golden valley, Minnesota 55422 January 9, 1984 (612) 545.3761 Mr. Michael J. Eastling Richfield City Engineer , 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re; S.P. 2758(77=279) E. 66th St. to T.H. 494 s East Frontage Road Routine Maintenance Agreement r Dear Mr. Eastling: It has been brought to the attention of the District Office that the portion of the east frontage road of T.H. 77 between the above referenced limits coninues to experience pavement deterioration. The one block adjoining the re.,idential properties between E 68th and 69th Streets has generated sev ral complaints from abutting landowners;. In an effort to resolve this nuisance, at least on a temporary basis the District Office proposes to establish a year around weight limitatior on the subject frontage road between E 67th and E 75th Streets. Based on the pavement structure inplace, it is recommended that a five ton gross vehicle weight limitation be es_ablished. The Department of Transporation would be zmenable to establishing this restriction contingent upon the placement of a thin bituminous overlay by the City on the one block segment of the frontage road between E 68th and 69th Streets. Should the City Council be supportive of this proposal, State forces will erect the necessary signing as soon as practicable. Please direct any questions pertaining to this matter to the District Maintenance Engineer, Rod Pletan. Sinc, ely; W. M. Crawford, P.? y District Engineer - is ?" zh + 3i: I . .a ,. ._ E 67th 3T { L 33 x I 33 E 69th. ST x 2 E Cth ST r ` '? • .... 7151 ST 4 - S BEET PAVIt?G ((?lDEX %1AP E 12nd ST j OFFICIAL MAP + -? OF -, r HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA , Public Works Department 74th 'T Engineering Division _ T , EtiG '4EE?? ?„ ? ? 51x; rKXi 501, i x...I_ ti FE' lie o -.._? ... , ST :?A• 9 s '8t'h ST, a a a a _. a ? c a ?orft 544S 0 , EST. AM'T. RECEIVA= : N 0 N E DEPT. IDENT. MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMEXT ITEM AUNT. qM. FUND :1c o'i t blatwo:n th3 C,!? and ?'-? e :•?ZE2 ti3? i:.'.IL.EtdG:tg? Res .14--surfacing of T.K. 201 AQr.nr ?trvIr AGRED4LE T No. AMOUNT ENQo`AL = N 0 Pl E S. P. No. 2753-03 PROGRM - THIS 3J_R:OIMM nado and stand into by and bmtwen the State of Au masts, ugpsrtmont of U&-wAyor hor+ L-wi`ts?' rsfarr6d to u the !3ta te"t and tb* V111a e of uchf'ieid, ju==t # actinZ by atd throat ,t its Villago Council, haroL-Amer rororrod . to as the "1?1llap?r". Vr-'*ZAS t orary Trunk Hi =y to. 3$ is gently routed Geer Cedar Avg bad Via limit$ a Rich iold an+d 733th Straet, the Scuth u=its of P.ichfiald, ar?d :es :A the Statra is 0=tra:tirig Trw..k Rid-rW U. % xithin tLa =.Pomto L.eits along a my loca,tian, w tarly ar?9 pay-allal to Codar Av g, ?d Vcn rcl"Pl.atiw aS the c=stmaiou of raid Tr=k ni&"V 304 36 alm, t afvreva1d rwa loc4tkan, portions at tmPar=7 Trunk r ??. 36 (C ar Avtsrtuo ) loc°at 3 Yithl" tho + i Z;ht. of uuy ].i_-s1•.a of new Tr=k iii&.? V I10. % ui12 as cued an a Lrtimk hi f; £rIOntaco raad+ wad portions loczatod outoide of the maid rizht of W viii ravort to the VillaM as a villas atraoto w3d WL' 1=3 it is the statutory duty for the State to =intain rilluga atroots Oyer tidy ?h trur?c h1. arw routed durinZ th,* tiro VW arv sa doai,,aated, and, 0 WHEREAS temporary Trunk Highway No. 36 located upon and along Cedar Avenue within the corporate village limits is in need of Maintenance work theeon, and the St,R.te, to fulfill its maintenance obligation, did provide for the placing of a bituminous level- ing course and bituminous wearing course upon said temporary trunk Highway No. 36 (Cedar Avenue) as part of the plans and specifications for the surfacing of newly located Trunk Highway No. 36, said plans and specifications being designated as State Project No. 2758-08, and WHEREAS the State is about to award a contract for the construction of said State Project No. 2758-08, and it is desired that upon completion thereof the Village thereafter shall maintain the Cedar Avenue frontage road and other frontage roads con- structed by the State in accordance with said plans, and WHEREAS certain of the frontage roads comprising a part of said State Project No. 2758-08 are not within the corporate limits of the Village of Richfield. • IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: • Z The State shall place or cause to be placed a bituminous leveling course and bituminous wearing course upon and along temporary Trunk Highway No. 36 (Cedar Avenue within the corporate Village limits as part of the construction of paving and bituminous surfacing of newly located Trunk Highway No. 36, including fron- tage roads, within the corporate Village limits in accordance with approved plans therefor dated August ii, 1959, on file in the office of the Commissioner of Highways at St. Paul, Minnesota, the same being designated as State Project No. 2758-08, the Specifications for Highway Construction dated May 1, 1959, and the special provisions and specifications for said State Project No. 2758-08 on file in the office of the Commissioner of Highways at St. Paul, Minnesota; and said plans and specifications and special provisions are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully ugh ally set forth herein. -2- ' a -3- zr iflns of temporary ?svr Hig'wV NO. 36 (C iar Avvrmo) lcaated bet-.,t;= -,rZLjftM Stag 154+92 mid Station 171+40 and betwun Fn'vjnc*rs Station 273+64 wd station 1?13+I arnd abc-m in red on the Pl= shoot attached hereto wid a=ced Exhibit *An twill ravart to taco Villas. u;xxz ca'Vlati= by the 5tata of t3;0 VOrk Mated herein tho Vi11age s to thQr iftor maintain said portions of Coder Averme without cost or expen3a tQ the state., .0 13? onna ,10-0rMti = Of con.atr=tion by the State of the frontage roads uhown in 1, - on said plan cheat Exbi bit mA" 3' thn Village agrcca to alter maintain the s=2* xd,thcut cost or axpesise to the Stato. Such nsintenance shall, gist of keeping thaoo rc r smocath tad in Caod repair for the passage of tra=o and fro* fit all: cbstructi=x iwAdiaent$ to traffic iztaIW- V envy r =oral. it is. t132'ther agreed that xW and all wtpjcrj ea of tba Y illago and aII other 'eft. ploy0es Idxile enpZod iA the perfoz=co of az? vork or services raquired op providad for herein to be perlorced by the Vill.Ze shall not be considered a pl.oye0a of the state* aai that ' J and all chins that many or mi&ht arise =der the Iio e' C naation Aa of the State of 1fitzr esota on behalf' of said arYplo;mos 4als so enzagad aM any and all claims a by any third paa-ties as a conaaq=ce of are, act or omission on tho part of 94W emIoyoes while ao enzzr, i on MY of the work or Am-vices Provided to be r+erndared haroin shall in no vay be the obliCation or rospon$it7ility of the State. V Before this Amt ahall bwme binding and effootivet it shall bo APPMved tar raaolutica of the Villcgs Council of ail,d Yia9 and aball also roc rive the approyal of • Mch State ofnc*n 48 the 1AW =7 provide La axIation to the Cooaissionorcf Iii . • • vi This agreement shall not bind the Villaga--,of Richfield to sa;-Main a+17 frontage roads which are located outside the corporate limits of the Village or Richfield. IN TESTIMONY ?y' REOF the ga.itias have duly executed this Agreerant by their duly authorized ofzicers and caused their respective sews to be hereunto affixed. (Villa g0 seal) V:U-,LIGE OF RICHT X10 : SEAL Not Encumicerad State Auditor By N. E. Balenger /a/ Date 10/9/59 DEP,iRTMEM OF ` HIGHWAYS : Recommended for. Approval : ,. J, i?cCubr? Is/ District Engineer APIPROVED J. C. 'Robbers 131 Assistant C'nief Engineer By 1. R. Keldsen Isl Mayor By. 0. R. VsnKrevalen /sI -"'-anag?r STATE OF ? LIESOTA : By_ L P Zi. me;w CorZsioner of nigh-;ays SEAL Data October b, 1959 Approved as to form and executions D. P. Kane Isl Special. Assistant Att6rnery -General Approved Derartmant of Admi:nistration Oct. 8, 1959 By R. T. Duncan /s/ Authorized Signature CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 76 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Chapter III of the City Code Relating to The Building Code. Second Reading. Council Members: At the February 13, 1984 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading to an amendment to the building code ordinance so that the city's building code conforms to the Minnesota State Building Code and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. Since recent changes affected every paragraph of the chapter, the city attorney has elected to make the changes by repealing the existing chapter and replacing it with a new chapter. This chapter of the city ordinances has not been revised in its entirety since 1968. At that time, the Uniform Building Code was adopted by the City of Richfield and was superseded by the Minnesota State Building Code pursuant to state law in 1972. The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code was adopted by the city in 1979. The 1968 ordinances had already addressed some of the issues in the later-adopted building and fire codes, creating some measure of redundancy and conflict between the ordinances and the two codes. Further, the model build- ing code and the model fire code which are the basis of the state building and fire codes have been revised every three years. We have found that much of the terminology used in 1968 has been changed through the several revisions of the two model codes, in some cases creating a conflict between the existing city ordinances and the most recent state building code and fire code. In order to reduce the conflicts and ambiguities which now exist, we have deleted city ordinances in those cases where the model code language serves the same purpose. For those code provisions which have not been deleted, we have made the necessary language revisions to bring them into conformance with the new provisions of this proposed code amendment. For example, the existing ordinance sections use designations for the Building Official and Fire Division chief which have been changed since the reorganization of the Public Safety Department in 1980. The new language in the revisions reflects both the city reorganization which has been implemented and the current language in the State Building and Fire Codes. The ordinance provisions governing the issuance of permits for electrical, plumbing, and heating installations has been revised to make it clear that 0 Council Letter No. 76 -2- February 27, 1984 owner/occupants of a single family residence may be issued permits for work done in or on their buildings. This provision has been the practice since the adoption of licensing regulations in the city. The city ordinance provisions governing the records retention schedule has also been revised to reflect the current city retention schedule. In Section 3.02, subd. 2, subsection 13, Appendix "E" to the Minnesota State Building Code has been added to provide for a higher level of on-site fire protection systems, which the city council has historically sought through stipulations in special use permits and developer agreements. The new language will allow for a more consistent enforcement procedure without the need to include the requirements in developer agreements. At the February 13, 1984 city council meeting, Council Members asked if the proposed revisions were more strict than the existing ordinance. The revisions are not more strict than the existing ordinances, and in some cases, are less restrictive. For example, the revisions allow homeowners to build bedrooms in basement areas, which the present ordinance prohibits. The State Building Code changed to the less restrictive language several years ago, and the purpose of the revision to the city ordinance is to bring them into compliance with the State Code. The revisions have one item that is more restrictive than the present ordinance. The revisions contain an Appendix to the building code allowing the city to require more stringent sprinkler regulations than the state building code. Futhermore, the appendix specifies those requirements. The requirements apply to new construction, and only cover existing buildings if they are being expanded beyond the square foot limits that apply to new construction. Also, if the nature of the occupancy changes in an existing building that is already over the square foot limits for new buildings, then it might require sprinklers. For example, if a retail store in a large existing building were to be changed to a restaurant, we would require sprinklers if they would be required in a new building of the same size. On the other hand, if the retail store in the same building were to be remodeled and remain a retail store, it would not be required to add sprinklers. It should be emphasized that while this revision is more stringent than the present ordinances, the City of Richfield has in the past required more stringent sprinkler regulatins than are proposed in the revisions. The City Council has supported the concept that since new construction and expansion of existing buildings is likely to increase the demand for fire protection, and that since an increase in the Fire Division's service level would mean an in- crease in cost to all Richfield residents, the council should require sprinklers in those buildings through conditions set in special use permits or developer agreements. While the proposed language is slightly less restrictive in some cases, in general it is very consistent with the require- ments which have been set by the City Council in the past. • Council Letter No. 76 -3- February 27, 1984 • The merit of the new language is that developers will be aware of the city's requirements at the onset of a project. At present, they often do not become aware of the additional fire protection requirements until after a considerable amount of planning has been done. The slightly less restrictive provisions in the new language will not pose a problem for the Fire Division, and will not create a need to increase our service level in the future. In general, this proposed amendment is "housekeeping" in nature to simply update our code to be consistent with the related state codes under which we operate. It is the recommendation of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that the council hold the public hearing and approve second reading of this ordinance amendment. Additionally, it is recommended that the council, by unanimous vote, direct that publication of this ordinance be in summary form rather than in its entirety because of the publication costs this lengthy document would incur. Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager 0 JGC/eja 0 RICHFIELD SUN NEWSPAPER - Wednesday, July 13, 1983 Code' violations won't leopardi.-ze progra s By DIANE E. CHILDS According to Su The Richfield Fun Club, HTC-CETA, Storefront Superintendent each of Youth Action and several other non-profit organiza- 'the school district's buildings, nt ngs, Lowell including Larson, those tions now renting space in former Richfield school currently used as, schools and former elementary buildings will not be threatened with being shut down school buildings of Elliot, Lincoln Hills, Central and this fall, thanks to a cooperative effort between the city Portland, have some code violations. of Richfield and the Richfield School District. Currently, the school district is in the process of Legally, the city could close down these programs if wring a consulting firm to pinpoint the district's code the school district did not make changes to comply with compliance needs, the costs of any changes and to help several city fire and building codes and zoning set-up a schedule of those changes that is "com- ordinances by fall. fortable" for the City and "affordable" for the finan- However, closing down these programs "is not the cially-strapped school district, Morgan said. approach we're takin The district's most pressing needs, according to g," according to Tom Morgan, Morgan, are at the former school buildings of Central acting city manager and director of Richfield Public and Elliot, now both occupied by various non-profit organizations. He said a "whole variety" of changes - "The district takes every safety are necessary to bring these buildings up to code, y including emergency lighting, fire doors, fire walls to precaution it can in its operation.'. break-up large open areas, changes in the ventilation system and sprinkling systems. - Jerry Kjorlien "The buildings themselves are masonry, so we're only concerned about the spread of fires," he said. Morgan stressed that violations resulted primarily Safety Department. Morgan stresses the cooperation from changes in use of these buildings. He said that going on between these two governing bodies in this when Elliot and Central, for example, were closed as matter. schools and then rented-out, the use classification City fire and building inspection officials informed changed and current codes took effect,as well as school district administration of several violations of zoning ordinance violations. city codes in June. The violations apparently resulted from changes in building use and retroactive code VIOLATIONS To page 3A changes since the school buildings were built in the 1950s. VIOLATIONS From page 1 A As far as zoning violations go, city staff is currently primary concern at this time, Morgan added that the studying language revisions in the current city code to School Board upon learning of the code violations, update it to include use changes in school buildings. decided to embark on a "total program" for its nine buildings.. As Jerry Kjorlien, district business man- Currently, the Richfield Community Education pro- ager, said recently, "The district takes every safety gram is housed at the Elliot facility, with a YMCA precaution it can in its operation." daycare program planned there this fall. Central Superintendent Larson explained that the district houses a number of tenants, including HTC-CETA, makes annual changes to improve its safety record, • Project 7001, Storefront, cable television and a nursery most recently a Sm,ooo sprinkling system at the high school program. Lincoln Hills houses the Richfield school. He added that the school buildings are also Chamber of Commerce and a summer YMCA pro- inspected annually by the district's insurance consul- gram. And the Portland school is the home of District tants, as well as city officials. These inspectors 287, a program for the handicapped. "specifically look for hazardous situations," Larson Although the former instructional buildings are of said. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 75 Agenda February 27, 19814 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Richfield Youth Employment Service's Year End Statistics • Council Members: Attached to this council letter is a summary of Richfield Youth Employment's statistics for the years 1983 and 1982. The dramatic increase in 1983 over the statistics of the previous year reflects the Richfield Youth Employment Services' emphasis on aggressively pursuing contacts with employers and youth. The improvement in the economy has also been of help. This information is placed on the February 27, 19814 city council agenda for receipt and file by council members. Re ectfully uttedYG?/hn , . C rtwr?ight /City Manager JGC/eja 0 i • ! 1983 STATISTICS YOUTH EM PLOYM ENT SERVICE SAN _ FEB _ MAR _ APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL Number of youth served 76 76 208 131 195 182 148 114 121 75 100 60 1,486 Number of job orders 6 19 31 15 66 32 31 48 53 30 36 22 389 Number of referrals 62 73 248 114 211 224 128 129 117 58 64 64 92 1 04 Number of placements 6 13 36 24 54 36 32 26 28 10 26 13 304 TEMPORARY JOB SERVICE Number of new registrants 5 Number of residents served 22 Number of referrals 87 (Based on 3 per referral) Number of placements 15 15 7 27 19 15" 32 11 15 42 9 52 48 24 32 19 25 38 149 34 204 183 71 100 65 89 169 9 23 3 38 39 19 24 24 17 29 11 13 185 86 60 457 353 258 1,762 55 41 321 OTHER YOUTH SERVED Job Skills and Girl Home Service Scouts 12 26 Tra fining 14 6 ?rRed Cross Bab sitting 26 '39 ls3 18 ?_, ?' ?E; 245 - ' - - - - - - .?._._ -- 6 s eig_._.-_.? 1982 STATISTICS YOUTH EM I'LOYM ENT SERVICE JAN _ FEB _ MAR _ APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP _ OCT NOV DEC TOTAL Number of youth served 22 32 67 26 75 169 53 72 65 70 77 52 780 Number of job orders 14 10 38 12 15 42 5 21 14 16 11 10 208 Number of referrals 26 43 66 53 61 164 35 94 76 76 98 42 834 Number of placements 5 6 6 2 7 45 11 8 8 10 9 9 126 TEMPORARY JOB SERVICE Number of new registrants 1 8 10 8 9 16 13 12 13 9 9 12 120 Number of residents served 28 8 4 33 30 19 25 15 24 34 18 31 269 Number of referrals 95 23 12 132 106 64 76 56 97 127 83 132 1,003 (Based on 3 per referral) Number of placements 15 2 1 26 25 15 26 12 11 16 9 25 183 OTHER YOUTH SERVED Home Service Training 4 Childcare Traininq *Career day at East - 4 4 4 14 14 44 17 60* 17 12 106 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 74 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Purchase in Excess of $5,000 Council Members: The city council policy resolution on purchasing provides that the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $5,000, the authority to purchase shall be submitted to the city council for consideration. There is one item on the February 27 agenda. Fourth of July Fireworks There are two firms in the metropolitan area that provide fireworks displays complete with staff to do the fireworks display. One of the firms, • Americana Fireworks, provides a better show, and has been used for the Fourth of July fireworks for the past two years. Americana has submitted a contract to provide the fireworks for the Fourth of July celebration again in 1984. The amount of this contract is $5,400. The cost of fireworks in 1982 and 1983 was $5,000. It is recommended that the city council authorize the city manager to execute a contract with Americana Fireworks in the amount of $5,400 to provide the fireworks for the Fourth of July Celebration in 1984. Respe ,tfully submitted, John G.?Cart? fight City Manager JGC/eja • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 73 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Resolution In Support of the Metropolitan and Community Development Committee of the Metropolitan Council Position that the Selection of a Race Track Site Will Not be Based on the Assumption that Existing Flight Patterns will be Diverted at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Council Members: The Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee has recently been considering reports and recommendations dealing with the review of potential Class A racetracks in the metropolitan area. One of the proposed locations is in the City of Eagan. • At the committee meeting on January 5, 1984, a resolution was passed by the Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee that "the selection of a site should not be premised on the assumption that the Metropolitan Airports Commission or the Metropolitan Council will make fundamental changes in any plan or regional system such as diverting existing flight patterns of airplanes in such a manner as to impose burdens on properties not presently burdened." This resolution was introduced by Gertrude Ulrich, Richfield resident who is a member of the Metropolitan Council, because of her concern that if a racetrack were to be built in Eagan, it could result in actions taken by the Metropolitan Airports Commission to change approach and takeoff patterns at the airport so that the noise of aircraft would not affect race horses. This would result in more aircraft noise for the City of Richfield. A resolution requesting that, if Eagan, or some other race track site near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport is selected as the site for a Class A racetrack, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission not change any aircraft patterns that would increase noise levels over the City of Richfield. The resolution also expresses the city's request that no changes be made in regional plans or systems in the Metropolitan area that would benefit the site selected for the racetrack to the detriment of neighboring communities. A copy of this resolution is attached to this council letter and has been placed on the February 27, 1984 city council agenda for city council action. 41 Respectfully submitted, John G. Cartwright City Manager • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL POSITION THAT THE SELECTION OF A RACE TRACK SITE NOT BE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EXISTING FLIGHT PATTERNS WILL BE DIVERTED AT THE MPLS.-ST. PAUL INT'L AIRPORT WHEREAS, several cities have presented proposals to the Metropolitan Council that they be considered as a potential site for a Class A Race Track in the Metropolitan Airport; and WHEREAS, THE City of Richfield is in close proximity to the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport and an area affected by aircraft noise; and WHEREAS, aircraft noise may have a detrimental effect on race track operations which may lead to requests for changes in aircraft flight patterns over race track sites; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Committee of the Metropolitan Council has recommended to the Metropolitan Council that the selection of a race track site should not be premised on the assumption that the MAC or the Metropolitan Council will make fundamental changes in any plan or regional system, such as diverting existing flight patterns of airplanes in such a manner as to impose burdens on properties not presently burdened. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Metropolitan Airports Commission is hereby requested not to make any changes in aircraft flight patterns to accommodate any race track site that would increase the amount of aircraft traffic and aircraft noise now borne by the City of Richfield. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield requests that as the Metropolitan Council considers proposals for race track sites in the metropolitan area that the recommendations of its Community Development Committee contained in Business Item 3-4 be endorsed. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of February, 1984. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager 97 • Council Letter No. 71 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Sauna License Requirements Second Reading. Council Members: In reviewing the proposed Nautilus Swim and Fitness Club proposal for an addition to the north end of the Hauser/Snyder structure in the Hub Shopping Center area, it was determined that the proposed club would need a sauna license because a sauna was included in the design of the structure. This pre- sented a hardship to the Nautilus Club developers because of the investigations and fees involved and because the one sauna licensee authorized by our ordin- ance has already been issued. It is staff's belief that the intent behind the ordinance was not to regulate a physical fitness club which includes a sauna among the many facilities provided to its members. • Attached for your consideration is an ordinance amendment drafted by the city attorney's office which would change the language in the existing ordin- ance such that a sauna must be a substantial part of the business enterprise before a sauna license would be required. This would eliminate the require- ment that the Nautilus Swim Club obtain a sauna license because the sauna is not a substantial part of the business. The Director of Public Safety has reviewed the ordinance and indicated that the ordinance amendment met with his approval, and that staff will monitor the impact which the ordinance may have. The other alternative ordinance amendment would be to increase the number of sauna licenses which could be issued and require that the Nautilus Swim and Fitness Club obtain such a license. At the February 13, 1984 city council meeting, the city council approved this ordinance on first reading, and scheduled the public hearing for February 27, 1984. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and approve second reading of this ordinance at the February 27, 1984 city council meeting. Respectfully subri ?ted, John G. Cartwright City Manager ,J • AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, SECTION 5.25 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter V, Section 5.25 of the Ordinance Code entitled "Regulation of Saunas and Massage Parlors" is amended by amending paragraph (2) of subdivision 2 thereof to read as follows: (2) No person shall engage in the business of operating a sauna or massage parlor either exclusively or in eenneet4ieft-w-ith as a substantial part of any e;:ier business enterprise without being licensed as provided in this. section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1984. John E. Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ?S Council Letter No. 70 Agenda February 27, 1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improve- ments. Second Reading. 0 In October, 1983, the city council various city activities. Included in provement budget, which covers several Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). jects were: Project 1983 Budget Memorial Park Plg. $10,000 Ice Arena Improve. $35,000 Fire Vehicle Resv. $ 0 $45,000 approved the 1983 revised budget for that revision was the 1983 Capital Im- projects funded by monies from The The revisions for the following pro- 1983 Revised $ 0 $15,000 $40,000 $55,000 Net Change $(10,000) $(20,000) $ 40,000 $10,000 With this revision the total 1983 Special Revenue expenditures for capital improvement purposes were $304,000. It is recommended that the city council give first reading consideration to the attached transitory ordinance revising the appropriation of monies from the Special Revenue Fund for these projects at the February 13, 1984 city council meeting. The city council gave first reading to this Transitory Ordinance at the February 13, 1984 city council meeting, and scheduled the public hearing and second reading for February 27, 1984. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and give second reading approval to this Transitory Ordinance at the February 27, 1984 city council meeting. Respectfull uses bmit ed, John G. Cart fight ? City Manager`. JGC/eja lJ TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS f City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City of Richfield to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section '2 The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, subd. 2 of the City Charter as approved in the 1983 revised budget are as follows: Increase: Fire Truck Reserve $40,000 Decrease: Ice Arena Improvements $20,000 Memorial Park Planning $10,000 Net Increase $10,000 4 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of February, 1984. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk 40 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 69 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Agenda February 27, 1984 Subject: Ordinance Amendment To Chapter IX, Section 11.01, Creating and Regulating the Municipal Liquor Stores. Second Reading. Council Members: At the February 13, 1984 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to regulation of the city's municipal liquor store operation, and scheduled the public hearing for the February 27, 1984 city council meeting. The amendments are: 1. Wherever the job title of "liquor store manager" appears, it is corrected to read "liquor operations director"; • 2. The provision that provided for the liquor store manager to serve at the pleasure of the city council has been deleted. This means the hiring decision would be under the terms of the city charter and personnel ordinance, or in other words, under the authority of the city manager as it is for the other department heads; 3. Adds that other items in addition to liquor may be offered for sale. State statutes provide that municipal liquor stores may sell cigars, cigarettes, ice, all forms of tobacco, non-intoxicating malt beverages and soft drinks at retail; and 4. The present prohibition against credit sales is amended to allow the sale of goods when a valid nationally recognized credit card is used. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and approve this ordinance on second reading at the February 27, 1984 city council meeting. Respectfully ??n G. Cart City Manager 40 JGC/eja -fight / J AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI SECTION 11.01 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD City of Richfield Does Ordain: Chapter XI, Section 11.01 creating and regulating the municipal liquor stores is hereby amended in the following respects: A. By amending paragraph 2 of subdivision 1 to read as follows: "(2) Liquor Store Manager Operations Director means amy the person who is designated and employed by the city to have charge of the operation of the municipal liquor stores." B. By amending paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of subdivision 4 to read as follows: "(1) The municipal liquor stores shall be in the immediate charge of a the Liquor stare manager Operations Director, who shall serve under the supervision and direction of the city manager. All i policies relating to the operation of such liquor _ stores shall, be determined by the council." "(2) The liquor store manager operations director shall be assisted by such other employees as the council may authorize, provided however, no minor may be authorized to be an employee. A3-i-empleyees; ?ne?tid?ag-tine-??gner-store-?rtanager ; -?iei-e?-thei-r pes?t?ens-at-the-is?easttre-e?-the-eotsne??:" "(3) The liquor stare manager operations director shall have full charge of the liquor store and shall have authority to purchase supplies as are necessary." 11(5) No business other than the sale of liquor and other items offered for sale at the liquor stores shall be carried on by the liquor stare manager operations director and employees while they are so employed." 4 t .. - ..• ? ,. _. is ?? - -._ ;: "r'; rn .... .- - .,.. , ...y?-:. .. .. _.... __. tie-?igtzer-eha??-be-ee?d-en-credit;-bnt-check S- may-be-accepted-?n-±?ayment , - Win-tire-e}z3cret?en-e£ tine-+±gtaer-atere-manager-fer-tre-gtzrc ?aee-?rzc Checks may be accepted in Payment for merchandise, in the discretion of the Liquor Operations Director, provided such checks are for the urchase price of the merchandise onlyr. Credit casissued by national credit companies which have entered agreements with the cite, may also be accepted in Payment for merchandise, in the discretion of the Liquor Operations Director. No other form of credit may be advanced by the municipal liquor stores. Passed by the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1984. John Hamilton Mayor • i i d i i S ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk r . i ? C ASS f' V ~? - • " ? tit ? ? • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 68 Agenda February 27,1984 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Application to Join National Organization to Insure a Sound Controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E.) Council Members: Council Member Don Priebe has given the City Manager a communication from N.O.I.S.E. which includes an application for membership to this organization. According to the population category, our annual dues would be $750 for 1984. The application form indicates this would be a renewal membership. At the February 13, 1984 city council meeting, the city council deferred action on joining this organization pending further information regarding the city's past membership in the organization. The City of Richfield belonged to the N.O.I.S.E. organization when it was first formed in the 1970's, and contin- ued its membership until about 1978. Former Mayor Stanley Olson, who also served as Richfield's representative to MASAC, was a very active member in the N.O.I.S.E. organization. Membership was renewed in 1982, but no dues were paid in 1983. However, $750 has been budgeted in the 1984 budget for the city council for membership in this organization. N.O.I.S.E. is local government based. Its existence is based on the concept that, by themselves, cities around airports cannot influence or change national policies that benefit noise affected communities. However, through N.O.I.S.E. working in Washington, they can. Walter "Rocky" Rockenstein, chairman of MASAC, serves as Vice President for Legal Affairs to N.O.I.S.E. Mr. Rockenstein says the purpose of N.O.I.S.E. is to lobby at the federal level. The two principal objectives involving noise coming from aircraft are: (1) promote quieter aircraft; and, (2) obtain funding from the federal airport trust fund to conduct noise studies and provide funds to soundproof buildings (i.e., schools, community facilities) MASAC is a member of N.O.I.S.E, although its officials do not take a lead role in the organization. 0 Council Letter No. 68 -2- February 27, 1984 Right now, N.O.I.S.E. is urging Congress to prohibit the further sale of stage 2 aircraft which is noisier than stage 3 aircraft. Boeing Aircraft still produces stage 2 aircraft engines for some 737 and 747 aircraft. Northwest Airlines is only purchasing stage 3 aircraft engines. According to Mr. Rockenstein, N.O.I.S.E. has been extremely effective. Recently, they successfully lobbied for an 8% set aside of airport trust funds (a tax levied on every airplane passenger ticket) for noise related concerns. It will take continued lobbying to preserve this 8% set aside he said. In Minnesota, the member cities to N.O.I.S.E. have been traditionally Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington and Richfield. N.O.I.S.E. meets about three times a year. Two of these national meetings are held in conjunction with National League of Cities meetings in order that city officials can help keep travel costs to a minimum. At the February 13, 1984 city council meeting council members asked when Richfield had been a previous member of N.O.I.S.E. and what accomplishments has N.O.I.S.E. achieved in the past that would support continued membership? Provided in your backup is Council Memorandum No. 118, dated September 3, 1982, and supporting communications which address these council concerns. Based upon the importance of Richfield being a leader in the airport noise regulation issues, the City Manager recommends renewal of our membership at an annual fee of $750.00. Respectu?-ly submitted, John G. Cartwri t City Manager JGC/eja 9