02-13-84 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 67
Agenda February 13,1984
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 applcation form indicates this would be a renewal membership.
The city manager does not have any experience with this organization, and,
therefore, I have sought out several sources of information to see if the city
• should consider a renewal membership.
The Metropolitan Council during 1983 began a 12-18 month reevaluation of
the Regional Aviation System, including the role eight regional airports
play in local economy. The study will identify the twin cities economic needs
for air transportation and balance those needs against environmental concerns.
As the Metropolitan Council says, depending on how you travel or where you
live, you may like airports or hate them. Neighbors of airports often find
noise levels too high for conversation or other daily activities. To travelers
and freight handlers, they are a lifeline.
The Metropolitan Council during 1983 approved noise guidelines that some 20
potentially affected cities can use to make land uses compatible with airport
operations. Cities in the metropolitan area are currently exploring the need
to amend their comprehensive plans to meet the guidelines.
The guidelines which have been adopted by the Metropolitan Council,
indicate various noise levels around the airports, what the compatible land
uses would be, and suggest possible solutions. The council is presently
working with MAC and local governmental units on a noise ordinance to insure
that buildings within aircraft noise zones meet acoustic standards.
Council Members will recall that the city recently submitted an application
for Federal funds to conduct airport noise related planning. We are waiting
word on our application,at this time. If the city receives approval of the
federal funds and can proceed with the report, the city will be working with
the Metropolitan Airports Commission in order to develop plans of action which
are due to the Metropolitan Council by May, 1984.
Council Letter No. 47 -2- February 13, 1984
• The Metropolitan Council is not a member of N.O.I.S.E. Walter "Rocky"
Rockenstein, chairman of the MAC Noise Abatement Committee, 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)
He said that representatives of the Metropolitan Council do not attend
N.O.I.S.E. conferences. MAC is a N.O.I.S.E. member,but its officials do not
take a lead role in the organization.
Right now, N.O.I.S.E. is urging Congress to prohibit the further sale of
stage 2 aircraft which is noiser than stage 3 aircraft. Boeing Aicraft still
produces stage 2 aircraft engines for some 737 and 747 aircraft. Northwest
Airlines is only purchasing stage 3 aircraft engines.
According to Mr. Rockestein, 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.
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.
JGC/eja
is
I
c5kahonal Organization to Insure a `found-controlled `Environment, Inc.
City of Richfield
Councilman Don Priebe Tax I.D.# 52-0983418
6700 Portland Avenue Sotuh
Richfield, MN 55423
L_
MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL OR ORIGINAL APPLICATION
We want to join other Municipalities, Counties, concerned organizations and concerned individuals in a National
effort to combat the growing menace of Noise Pollution. It is understood that full membership in N.O.I.S.E. entitles
the member to all privileges and benefits of the organization and associate membership entitles the member to all
privileges and benefits of the organization except voting rights at general membership meetings.
SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL DUES FOR N.O.I.S.E.
Associate members
BY POPULATION CATEGORY:
1 to 5,000
5,000 to 10,000
10,000 to 25,000
25,000 to 75,000
75,000 to 100,000
100,000 to 250,000
250,000 to 500,000
500,000 to 750,000
750,000 to 1,000,000
Over - 1,000,000
MEMBERSHIP FOR iYEAR? 1 9RLL NEW
NAME OF APPLICANT City of Richfield
APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE
APPLICANT ADDRESS
;FOR N.C.I.S.E. CORRESPONDENCE)
POPULATION
AMOUNT ENCLOSED
$ 100.00
100.00
250.00
500.00
750.00
1,000.00
1 ,250.00
1 ,500.00
1 ,750.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
RENEWAL X
DATE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE FOR APPLICANT
Mark Mahon
Please enclose check payable to: N.O.I.S.E., INC. Treasurer -8435 Portland Ave. SO.
•
\.O. I. So E*
I am writing to you on behalf of the Board of Directors of N.O.I.S.E. to request
your renewed support of this organization and to urge your community to participate
again as a full, voting member. The problem of airport and aircraft noise is not
diminishing significantly. In fact, there is every indication that noise is receiv-
ing less of a priority. We can be truly effective only if every city affected by
aviation-related noise unites and works together to help resolve our mutual problem.
In the past year, N.O.I.S.E. has been helpful in the first non-airport proprietor
city obtaining an ADAP grant for noise mitigation. They have been involved in the
denial by the F.A.A. of a waiver for a transcontinental flight by a concord air-
craft and they are in the process of pressing the F.A.A. to develop a rule-making
procedure to prohibit production of Stage II aircraft by the end of 1985. This
latest effort would have significant short-term and long-term benefits for all of
us who are impacted by aircraft noise.
For your convenience, I have enclosed an invoice indicating the dues that would
allow your city to become a member of N.O.I.S.E.
I have also enclosed our brochure that briefly and clearly describes our reason for
Even though we maintain only a part-time Executive Director in Washington, and keep
other expenses to a bare minimum, our overall program costs money. Our costs have
risen with inflation, and we are constantly in need of additional funds to maintain
and expand our efforts.
• existence and our long-range objectives. We are active on many fronts - working
with congressmen and congressional committees, serving as a clearing house for
ideas and information on noise abatement efforts around the country, and publishing
a newsletter which keeps members up-to-date on current aircraft noise abatement
efforts.
Please take the application form in the brochure and rejoin our fight by sending it
with your dues to our national headquarters. We need you!
a
Sincerely,
PAUL E. TAUER
City Councilman,
City of Aurora, Colorado
President, N.O.I.S.E.
PET: rlb
Encl.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA!
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 66
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Rezoning of a Portion of 6832 Penn Avenue from "R" to "C-2"
and a Request for a Variance from the Sideyard Setback Re-
quirement to Allow for an Addition
is
Council Members:
The city council has referred a proposal to the planning commission to
consider the initiation of a rezoning process of the above-mentioned property.
Under consideration is the rezoning of the north 38 feet of the property loca-
ted at 6832 Penn Avenue. If this rezoning were to occur, it would increase the
size of the "C-2" zoned property now occupied by Penn Cycle. Rezoning would
ensure that the parking area for the commercial use is within a commercial
zoning district and that it is in conformance with the Richfield Zoning Ordin-
ance.
construction.
In addition, Mr. Elmer Sorenson, the owner of Penn Cycle, has requested a
variance from the required 15 foot setback from the north lot line of 6824 Penn
Avenue. (A 15 foot setback buffer is required whenever a "C-2" zone abuts an
"R" zone.) The existing structure is located only 4.9 feet from the "R" zone
to the north. The request is for the purpose of constructing an addition which
would also encroach to within 4.69 feet of the north property line. A 10.31
foot sideyard setback variance is required to allowed the proposed
On November 22, 1983, Mr.-Sorenson requested three variances for a building
addition which would encroach into three required setback areas. The planning
commission recommended denial of these variances. It also recommended tha the
council look at the overall use of both the commercial and residential parcels
and attempt to bring the use into compliance with city ordinances.
Consequently, the proposal was revised to its present form and presented to the
city council on December 12, 1983. Council deferred action on the variance re-
quest and referred the matter to the planning commission to consider initiation
of a rezoning process, which it did on January 23, 1984.
0
- *,n. 66 -2-
Ordinance Regulations
Section 3.42 outlines the procedure to be followed when processing zoning
amendments within the city. Section 3.33, subdivision 6, paragraph 1, requires
a sideyard setback of 15 feet when a "C-2" zone abuts an "R" zone. Section
3.40, subdivision 6, stipulates three conditions which must be satisfied before
a variance may be granted.
The rezoning of the residential parcel would not reduce its dimensions or
area below current "R" district zoning standards. Setback standards would also
be met. (Lot area would be greater than 6,750 (8,264 proposed). The lot line
would be located two feet from the garage and five feet from the residence.
(Both setbacks are permissible).
As long as both parcels remain under single ownership, access to the resi-
dential property is possible via the commercial property. In order to
guarantee access to the residential property, an easement should be granted
when the property is subdivided.
Rezoning the northerly 38 feet of the residential parcel to general commer-
cial will in reality, not expand the commercial intensity of the site, but it
will increase the size of the commercial parcel. It will also change the
status of the existing parking by legitimizing the use.
Variance
Staff has reviewed the variance proposal against the three conditions which
must be present and found the following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this
land not common to other properties in this or similar district.
The city permitted construction of Penn Cycle in 1966 with site and
building plans clearly showing a + 5' sideyard setback. Permitted
also were building additions in 1970 and 1979, neither of which
addressed the north sideyard setback question. The city has, there-
fore, in practice, allowed this variance from the required 15' set-
back. Staff questions whether this fulfills the special circumstance
condition required in variance cases.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the pre-
servation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
It is staff's opinion that denial of the variance will not preclude
reasonable use of the property. The present use may continue.
3. That the granting of the application will not materially and ad-
versely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood and will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to improvements in the neighborhood.
0
Council Letter No. 66 -3-
Staff questions whether this condition to be substantially satisfied.
• The applicant has indicated that he would construct an eight foot
high fence on the west side of the commercial property and a six
foot high fence on the west side and a portion of the south side of
the residential properties. The applicant also indicated a willing-
ness to provide additional landscaping on the adjacent residential
property to discourage customers from shortcutting across neighbor-
ing properties. The expansion of the commercial building will also
make it possible to shift office and storage uses occurring on the
residential property to the commercial property which brings the
site in compliance with Richfield ordinance. However, the intrusion
of this commercial use into a residential area will continue to create
problems for contiguous residential properties.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously reommended denial of the variance re-
quest to allow an addition to the Penn Cycle building. On a 5-3 vote, the
commission recommended approval of the rezoning, with two stipulations. First,
that an easement be granted over the "C-2" parcel for access to the "R"
parcel. Second, to grant the rezoning only after the comprehesive plan is
amended to allow such a rezoning.
On a separate motion, which carried 7-1, the planning commission expressed
its uneasiness with the spot zone and its preference for a contiguous
commercial zone. They recommended that if the council approves the rezoning of
the 38 foot strip, that a study be done to consider the advantages and disad-
vantages of rezoning the property north of the site to C-2 to eliminate the
spot zoning in the area.
If the council decides to give further consideration to the additional
rezoning proposal, it is recommended that they also consider a longer range
solution to the problem, i.e. relocating Penn Cycle elsewhere in Richfield and
rezoning the present "C-2" property to "R-residential". It is possible that a
more desirable location for Penn Cycle could be found in the L/H/N Redevelop-
ment area or on Penn Avenue from 62nd Street to 66th Streets. If this loca-
tion were to occur, then the existing Penn Cycle business and the residential
property at 6832 Penn Avenue could be used for either single or two-family
residential use. This type of use would be much more compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. The staff could also be instructed to explore the
possibility of using CDBG funds and making the residential properties available
to low-moderate income families.
If the property north of 6824 Penn AVvenue is rezoned to C-2, then the
owners of Penn Cycle could expand their existing building as proposed be-
cause there would not be the requirement for any sideyard along the north
property line of 6824 Penn Avenue.
0
Council Letter No. 66 -4-
Mr. Elmer Sorenson gave these points in support of his request:
• 1. Penn Cycle is trying to improve the appearance and utilization
of the site. His proposal calls for moving the office from the
private residence to the store site (second floor addition over
existing commerial building). He says he is not trying to expand
the business at this site.
2. Penn Cycle plans to open a third store in the Ridgedale suburban
area. They anticipate business will decline at the Richfield
store because of the limited site.
The city manager has encouraged the owners to consider an alter-
native site (that has room for expansion) that will aid the
Richfield store to be even more successful.
3. The owners objective is to make the present site as efficient as
possible by adding a two-story addition to provide repair services.
It is anticipated that customers could be served better if there
were two distinct service areas - one for new bike sales and
another service area for repairs.
•
4. The practice of renting six employee parking spaces across the
street at the rear of the lots at the northeast corner of Penn
Avenue and 69th Streets will be stopped according to Mr. Sorenson.
This practice is a zoning violation.
Mr. Sorenson is trying to rent parking space from one of several
commercial stores north of his site for his employees. He is also
advising his employees not to park on the adjacent residential
streets.
5. In an effort to reduce the amount of congestion at Penn Cycle,
plans call for widening the driveway curb opening and the
driveway apron.
6. On site storage will be increased by 500-600 square feet and this
would make it possible to separate repairs from sales.
0
Council Letter No. 66 -5-
It is recommended that the proposed rezoning be approved to bring the
usage of the site in compliance with Richfield Zoning Ordinance subject to
the requirement that the property be resubdivided so that the property lines
coincide with the zoning district boundary. It is recommended that the
council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance and schedule the
public hearing and second reading of the ordinance for February 27, 1984.
The proposed addition would not be detrimental to the public welfare and would
bring the usage of the two sites in compliance with the city's zoning ordinance.
However, because the variance request does not meet the three conditions nec-
essary for granting variances, staff cannot recommend approval of the
variance.
ReS-pectfully submitted,
' ohn G. Cartwright
City Manager \
i
JGC/eja
•
•
•
REVISED PROPOSAL
C-
•
8'
R
t
G' Ft*n/Ce
2nd F1oo r Addn.
2 Story Addn.
Proposed Relocation of
South Property Line
Parking
Proposed Rezoning to 0-2
i7.k? (3?? 2 i.7- -
'P 6011
_,!;41 kc a
16609} 60'1)9
-.5C ;0 10 --
5
.. N.
50;9
Land Use and
f 23(03 2
22 3
2 t -
'AS) 41
20!?? ---5 17*
r 9 ?59, 5 r
1 9(58i'?}f? 7
T,Sr)
?ISr54? '(5p?,p
2 3 r
= \ti5? J
L ---
? -r
251 (!)
j . a?A1 ???? 6
GENERAL
Zoning Map
1 I 71?:?'37 /,24? 8
16631-) r?2S? 9
LLI 15 ?`?3 lZb?i p ui
Q 146'PI y,2? ); M Q
?43 ?, ?•? 1! &? o?
....
STREET
\
` l
?
7
n X97 :
S TREE7
i
I
u
i
e
n
Lo
T'
12
?h c 1 v ?: ri
2 2 n
21 2
21 ??' 41-
[ 0 ?(l5 3
s U
C
6e
sit
1 7(10), '(S a . ..........:....
i6(3}) ,`?O> 9 1 C( 'J=,
13 !; 11 u
rUSg1 STREET C
Tr3
-- 2?\ - 3 1 2
2tC15 4`\"rr 1 21(\I'))' 4(1
2V(15 5?1??? W C'?x205G1?2
6(a
3?o
d ?
A 8?? 7
COMMERCIAL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
r.(A5 7 -
° a 15 alp -
`J
s
4(Q11
u
a ?a?l
WEST
Q
?r
o"
F
vZ
°7 a rr
4^? r
J
0
318 '
Gi'+y
3l=
3 I?1
20
19 5
h7 T
fig
To
7,
11 ro
e (S11
;•,t?)
W000 a
A i`'j
z 17 HI NILAN2/,
g3)n 2 Fly
yam, 13
-
I I? i2
Y?
. s X41
c^
C? '
1 ,
BILL NO
ORDINANCE NO
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning"districts
of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28,
Subdivision 2, of such code is hereby amended in the following
respect:
Appendix C, Section 3, paragraph 24 is amended to
read as follows:
(24) The north -1zi- 113 feet of the south 986 feet
of the east 166.3 feet of the southeast quarter of
Section 29,,Township 28, Range 24 except Penn Avenue.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
AT -77-ST :
•
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Letter No. 65
Agenda February 13, 1984
Subject: Recommendation to Establish and Fund the Position of Video
Production Manager/Public Information Officer
•
Council Members:
Recommendation
The city receives a 5% cable television fee from cable revenues to admin-
ister the cable tv franchise and to provide local public access programming.
There are adequate ($62,193) revenues from the 5% fee to fund 100% of all the
costs for this position. The city does not have a professionally trained
person with the skills in program development, scripting, shooting, and
directing video productions. Therefore, it is recommended that a position of
Video Production Manager/Public Information Officer be established and be fully
funded from cable tv franchise fee revenues. The Program Directors want to
utilize public access to a much greater extent, but are unable to do so because
there is no one person available to manage the effort on a first priority
basis.
Significant Facts
1. The qualified applicant will have a strong background in journalism for
preparation of scripts, news releases, newsletters, etc.
2. The current practice of using city staff who are not trained in video
productions can be reduced and the skills of a professionally trained
person in mass communications, broadcasting and video communications
can supervise all departmental efforts.
3. The city will have a position that can be responsible for increasing
as well as improving upon all efforts to communicate with our citizens
(stockholders of our public corporation).
4. The position will be assigned to the Department of Administrative
Services. The probable salary range will be about $16,000-$28,600.
The objective is not to recruit a beginner in the field, but to attract
an experienced (3-5 years) person.
0
Council Letter No. 65 -2- February 13, 1984
5. The qualified applicant will possess a high degree of journalism,
coummunication and organizational skills; will be a professional and
enthusiastic individual with the ability to work in a progressive
municipal government. Additionally, the qualified applicant will
possess the desire to work with and maximize the potential'of the
city's municipal access channel for the city; and will promote an
awareness and understanding of city functions and services.
6. The individual's performance will be evaluated at least annually using
management by objectives approach. Unsatisfactory performance or re-
sults will trigger termination of the individual and/or position.
7. The Video Production Manager/PIO will produce, write and tape video
productions for all city departments. Duties will include supervision
of volunteers and the recruitment of crews to produce video programs.
8. Applicants will be evaluated according to training and experience. An
oral examination will be held. Applicants will be required to submit
_ examples of written material and program projects with specific
responsibilities described.
9. An alternative approach to establishing a city staff position would be
to develop a comprehensive set of specifications and objectives for the
services and contract for a 12-month period.
10. The 5% franchise fee that is paid by Rogers Cablesystems for municipal
cable administration and access programming generated $70,000 for
fiscal year 1983• In 1984, the five percent franchise fee should in-
crease approximately 25%. The estimated 1984 fiscal year franchise
?Y fee revenue is $87,500 (the 1984 budget estimate is $70,000).
The franchise fee received by the City of Richfield can only be expended
for cable tv administration and access programming. Unexpended 1983 franchise
fee revenues are automatically carried over into FY 1984.
CABLE TV BUDGET
FY1982 FY1983 FY1984 (Est).
Funds Available 1/1 0 $10,896 $44,693
Franchise Fee Revenue $34,126 $70,000 $87,500
Interest Earned $ 1,728
TOTAL RESOURCES $34,126 $82,524 $132,193
Expenditures:
Personal Services $10,033 $15,994 $29,400
Other Ser./Charges $ 824 $ 4,432 $19,847
Supplies $ 360 $ 1,939 $3,100
SW Sub. Cable Comm. $12,013 $15,566 $17,653
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $23,230 $37,931 $70,000
FISCAL YEAR SURPLUS $10,896 $44,693 $62,193
RICHFIELD: 1983 PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
..,
During 1983, Mary Remole, Access Coordinator for Rogers Cablesystems, re-
corded a total of 959.25 hours spent to produce 38 programs, 12 public service
announcements that placed approximately 16.5 hours on the public access
channel. City staff have advised the city manager that there are many addition-
Council Letter NO. 65
-3-
February 13, 1984
r
al hours not accounted for, but were spent by city employees on preparing for
_
.a
,
. possible cable programs. The 959.25 hours is the equivalent of one person
working full time for 23.9 weeks or just about one half
ear
The
eo
le who
y
.
p
p
? worked on City of Richfield programs included Mary Remole, Rogers Cablsystems;
Program Directors, professional city staff, part-time employees and interns.
Breakdown of Hours by City Department and Programs
Programs on TV
City Function People Hrs. No. Hours PSA
Golf Course 316.5 18 7.5
Wood Lake Nature Ctr. 254.5 4 .6 4
Community Center 210.0 3 .4 2
Public Safety 31.0 0 2
Community Services 3.25 0
Community Development 1.5 0
4th of July, Events 4.5 2 1.5 4
Mayor Snow 19.0 10 5.0
Board of Healtn 13.0 1 1.5
Human Rights Cam. 5.0 0
Parks and Recreation 1.0 0
TOTALS- 959.25 38 16.5 12
Notes: M-_Total program hours does not include re-runs
(2? Public Service Announcements (PSA) are 28 seconds each.
CITY OF RICHFIELD CABLE TV PROGRAMS
Richfield Reports (Mayor)
12/82 Service Organizations
2/83 Marriage
3/83 Public Safety
4/83 Metropolitan Airport Commission
Storefront/Youth Action, Inc.
Richfield Job Seeking - Part I
Richfield Job Seeking - Part II
7/83 Richfield Fire Division
11/83 Richfield City Manager
12/83 Richfield Energy Commission
Board of Health: Symposium on Breast Cancer
Wood Lake Nature Center: Flight of the Raptor
Community Center: Looking Back:- Richfield Remembers
Fourth of July Parade: Happy Birthday Richfield
Fourth of July: An Afternoon in Augsburg Park
Community Center Faces
Wood Lake Nature Center: All About Owls
Golf Course: Fundamentals of Golf - Six 15-minute shows
Golf Course: Twelve Golf Talk Shows
Wood Lake Nature: Kick and Glide:. Anyone Can Ski
Public Safety Public Service Announcements: (a) bus safety (b) leaf raking
Wood Lake Nature PSA's: (a) winter activities (b) pre-school classes
(c) snowmobile boots (d) spring prom
t
Council. Letter No. 65 -4- February 13, 1984
Community Center PSA/s: (a) adaptive recreation (b) community center
information
Wood Lake Nature Center: Build A Quinfee
Community Center: Adaptive Recreation
Respectfully
ztit.
?John G. art'
y Manager
JGC/eja
•
-submitted,
fight
*,I
i .
t
f
;i
I?
(602) 994-2491 ... Human Resources (602) 994-2335 ... Public Information
1
R S CO>>
JZ OM!
•
DEFINITION:
TITLE: VIDEO PRODUCTION MANAGER
CLASS ORIGINAL DATE: REVISED DATE:
SPECIFICATION
CERTIFIED BY:
Under general direction, incumbent manages all aspects of day-to-day operations
of the municipal access cable television channel and the City's video production
activities and facilities; acts as video producer/director; is responsible for
the development and carrying out of an approved programming plan, scripting,
editing, program development and scheduling; and performs related work as
required.
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS:
The incumbent performs all duties required of the City's video production acti-
vities and the operations of the cable television municipal-access channel.
The incumbent works under the direction of the Public Information Officer,
exercising a great deal of professional and creative judgment in the production
of video programs consistent with City policy. The Video Production Manager
can be distinguished from the next higher class (Public Information Officer)
by the latter's broad administrative responsibility for the City's Public
Information Program.
EXAMPLES OF WORK (Illustrative only):
1) Creates and ensures the quality of all municipal programming. Directs and
shoots location, as well as studio, productions; maintains an extensive library
of municipal programming; and programs a character-generator daily, as a
municipal information outlet.
2) Assists staff from various departments in developing formats for City
programming. Manages an appropriate system for interdepartmental use of video
equipment and facilities. Works closely with and assists City staff from all
departments in program development, camera operation and video equipment.
Recommends and drafts procedures and production manuals for City staff use of
equipment and facilities, and for the production and scheduling of municipal
programming.
3) Seeks outside sources for programming grants and volunteer production
assistance. Submits a weekly activity report reflecting the status of an
ongoing programming production plan.
4) Recommends the purchase of all production hardware and other items necessary
for municipal programming operations; promotes the use of municipal programming
equipment and facilities by City staff for cablecast or noncable video training
productions.
0
r
a
5) Determines the level of proficiency of interns, volunteers and City staff
producing municipal programming. Directs a constantly-changing crew of staff
and production volunteers from various departments. Recruits volunteer interns
from community colleges and the university.
6) Evaluates job-related seminars, conferences and training programs which
would benefit municipal-access programming. Conducts workshops for employees
who do not normally use video equipment. Attends Public Information Office
staff meetings.
7) Identifies audiences and establishes systems of audience analysis for the
City's access channel. Maintains effective relationships with the community's
cable television company, and other agencies and resources; develops the full
potential of the City's municipal access channel.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
Requires 5 years' recent experience in the cable TV industry, a television
station, network or municipal access CATV environment. Requires training and
experience in the use of a wide variety of TV production equipment and a back-
ground in design of television or videotape programs. Requires the ability
to organize and direct a staff of interns or volunteer production assistants.
A 4-year degree in Mass Communications, Broadcasting or Video Communications,
with graduate coursework, desirable. Experience in the operation of studio
and remote cameras, editing equipment, public service or news-production,
desirable. A combination of training and experience may be considered in
meeting the stated minimum requirements.
Further, requires a knowledge of porta-pacs, 1/2" and 3/4" recorders, systems
editing, and other portable and studio equipment and CATV operations.
Requires the ability to perform effectively in a municipal environment, and
work with City staff to accomplish the objectives of the City's Public Infor-
mation Office.
Requires the ability to direct remote shoots, to perform light maintenance and
repair of video equipment, to transform ideas and concepts into finished pro-
gramming with little supervision and assistance, and the ability to "de-bug"
technical problems; set up, tear down and transport remote equipment.
Requires a high degree of communications and program development skills,
scripting, shooting, directing and editing video productions. Must possess
creative-writing skills for scripting a wide variety of effective and interesting
municipal programs.
0
_1± //
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 64
Agenda February 13, 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. First Reading.
Council Members:
It is herewith proposed that Chapter III of the city ordinance code be re-
vised in order to conform with the current editions of 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 with the 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
• Council Letter No. 64 -2- February 13,1984
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.
The language in Section 3.21, governing housing codes for existing
residences, has been revised to remove conflicts with the current State Build-
ing Code. As the city ordinance exists, the housing code has more restrictive
provisions for existing housing that would be applied to new housing. For ex-
ample, the current city housing code precludes the use of basement areas for
habitable space, while the state building code allows such use in new resi-
dences. Also, the city ordinance provision which requires minimum light and
ventilation in habitable rooms has been changed to bring it into conformance
with the current state building codes. This change will provide for more
• energy conserving structures.
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 give favorable first reading approval to this ordin-
ance code amendment. Additionally, it is recommended that the council also
pass the attached resolution to provide for the publication of this proposed
ordinance amendment in summary form rather than in its entirety because of the
publication costs involved.
espectfulZy sVbmitted,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
J
JGC/eja
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
The following summary of the amendment to Chapter III of the
Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield has been approved
for publication in lieu of the amendment which is on file in
the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection
during regular business hours Monday through Friday.
SUMMARY
I. PART I. BUILDING AND MECHANICAL REGULATION. Part I
adopts and confirms the Minnesota State Building Code
as the building code of the City of Richfield and
adopts by reference various building, electrical,
plumbing and housing codes and appendixes thereto.
Part I also authorizes the Building official to administer
and enforce such codes and requires that permits be
obtained and fees paid prior to the commencement of
activities regulated by this part. Standards for
granting permits and licenses are also contained in
this part.
The amendment also adopts, with certain exceptions, the
Minnesota Uniform Fire Prevention Code, establishes the
duties of the Fire Division, provides for the establishment
of fire lanes, declares certain conduct to be a crime
and removes building and fire code appeals from the
uniform enforcement provisions of Section 3.10 of the
Ordinance Code.-
II. PART III. Section 3.21 entitled "Regulation of Supplied
Facilities; Maintenance and Occupancy of Dwellings and
Dwelling Units" by repealing parts of certain paragraphs
or subparagraphs as follows:
1. Paragraph (2) of subdivision 1
2. Paragraph (5) of subdivision 9
3. Subparagraph (6)(c) of Subdivision 9
II. PART III. Section 3.21 entitled "Regulation of Supplied
Facilities; Maintenance and Occupancy of Dwellings
and Dwelling Units" by amending the definition of
"plumbing" contained in paragraph (16) of subdivision 1
thereof and by amending the window or skylight requirements
contained in paragraph (11 of subdivision 7 thereof.
ATTEST:
•
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
AMEND
_ MENT TO CHAPTER III
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter IIZ of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota entitled: "Building, Health, Zoning and Land Use
Regulations" is hereby amended in the following respects:
I. Part I thereof is repealed.
Ii. By adding the following new part to read as follows:
"PART I. BUILDING AND MECHANICAL REGULATION.
3.01. SCOPE. OF CHAPTER. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide minimum standards to safe-
guard life and `limb, property and public welfare
by regulating and controlling the design, construc-
tion, quality of materials,. use and occupancy,
location and maintenance of all buildings and
structures within the city and certain equipment
specifically regulated herein.
3.02. ADOPTION OF MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE
AND UNIFORM HOUSING CODE.
Subdivision 1. Building Code. The Minnesota
State Building Code, one copy of which is on file
in the office of the city clerk has been adopted
by Minn. Stat. 16.851 (1971) as a uniform building
code applicable throughout the state. Such code
is hereby confirmed as the building code of the
city of Richfield and incorporated in this chapter
as completely as if set out in full.
'Subd. 2. Adoption by Reference. The 1980 edition
of the State Building Code as amended adopts by
reference certain codes, appendices, standards and
supplemental materials. The following codes,
appendices, standards and supplemental materials
are hereby adopted by reference and incorporated
into this section as if fully set out at this
point:
(1) 1982 Edition of the Uniform Building Code,
identified as "UBC";
(2) 1981 Edition of the National Electric Code,
identified as "NEC";
I. 1
(3) 1978 American National Standard Safety Code
for Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators and
Moving Walks, identified as ANSI A17.1-19.78
and Supplement, ANSI A17.la-1979.
(4) 1979 Minnesota Plumbing Code identified as
MHD 120 through MHD 135.
(5) "Flood Proofing Regulations," June 1972,
Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army.
(6) 1976 Minnesota Heating, Ventilating, Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Code, iden-
tified as SBC 7101 through SBC 8505.
(7) 1984 Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning
and Development, Energy Division rules, 2
MCAR 1.16007-1.16008.
(8) 1982 State of Minnesota Manufactured Home
Rules identified as 2MCAR 1.90450, instal-
lations and related definitions in 2MCAR
1.90103.
(9) Standards of Performance for Solar Energy
Systems and Subsystems Applied to Energy Need
of Buildings, 1977 Edition, identified as
2MCAR 1.16101 through 2MCAR 1.16108.
(10) Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters,
identified as Minnesota State Building Code
Appendix A.
(11) Variations in Snow Loads, identified as
Minnesota State Building Code Appendix B.
(12) Minnesota State Building Code Appendix C.
Abbreviations and addresses of Technical
Organizations.
(13) Minnesota State Building Code Appendix E,
Automatic Fire Suppression Systems. 2MCAR
1.10020.
(14) 1982 Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapters
1, 35, 55.
(15) Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendices B, C and
D.
Subd. 3. The 1982 Edition of the Uniform Housing
Code is adopted by reference.
2
Subd. 4. Building Official. For purposes of this
chapter the term "Building Official" as used in -
the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Housing
Code and the Uniform Building Code Standards
herein adopted shall mean the building official of
the Inspection Division of the Department of
Public Safety, or duly authorized representative.
Subd. 5. Administrative Authority. For purposes
of this chapter, the term "administrative authori-
ty" as used in the Minnesota Plumbing Code herein
adopted, means the Building Official of the
Department of Public Safety of the City.
Subd. 6. Permits Required. It is unlawful for
any person to perform any plumbing work regulated
by this Code without first having obtained a
permit as provided in Section 3.06 and paid all
applicable fees contained in Appendix D of this
Code. Permits required by this section may be
issued only to persons duly licensed by the State
of Minnesota as provided in Minnesota Statutes
326.37, et. seq.
Subd. 7. Plumbers. There is no fee for licensing
of plumbers in the city; provided, however, that
no person shall practice or engage in the business
or trade of plumbing within the city unless such
person is the holder of a valid and current
license from the State of Minnesota.
Subd. 8. Regulation of the Installing of Water
Softening Devices. The installation of water
softening devices shall be subject to the follow-
ing regulations:
(1) No person shall engage in the business of
installing, leasing or servicing water soft-
ening devices which shall be connected with,
or used in connection with, any water pipe or
main connected with the water supply system
of the city, or any private domestic water
supply therein without being licensed to do
so by the State of Minnesota.
(2) All installations and connections of water
softening devices to any pipe or main con-
nected with the water system of the city
shall be so made as to comply with any
applicable provisions of the Minnesota
Plumbing Code.
(3) Permits Required. It is unlawful for any
person to perform any work regulated by this
3
section without first having obtained a
permit to do so, and paid all applicable fees
contained in Appendix D of this Code.
Subd. -9. License and Permit Fees; Heating and
Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration.
No person shall engage in the business of heating,
cooling, ventilating or refrigeration construction
or installation unless. licensed to do so by the
city after demonstration of competency, and
submittal of certificates of insurance and a bond
in the amount of $1,000. The annual license fee
for heating and ventilating cooling and refrigera-
tion cc struction and installation shall be as
provided n Appendix D of this Code. It is
unlawful for...any person to perform any heating,
cooling, air conditioning or refrigeration work
regulated by this Code without first having
obtained a permit to do so and paid all applicable
fees contained in Appendix D of this Code.
Subd. 10., State Electrical License. There is no
license fee for electrical . construction and
installation; provided, however, that no person
shall practice or engage in the business or trade
of electrical construction and installation within
the city unless such person is the holder of a
valid and' current license from the State of
Minnesota, nor shall any person engage in the
business of electrical contracting within the city
un-lp - such person is the holder of a valid and
current electrical contractor's license from the
State of Minnesota. It is unlawful for any person
to perform any electrical work regulated by this
Code without first having obtained a permit to do
so. All fees required for permits issued pursuant
to this. subdivision shall be as contained in
Appendix D of this Code.
Subd. 11. Permits to owners. Notwithstanding the
requirements of Subdivisions 6, 8, 9 and 10 of
this Section, permits may be issued to persons who
own and occupy single family dwellings for work
performed within or on said dwellings.
3.03. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITS: ISSU-
ANCE AND PROCEDURE.
Subdivision 1. Procedure Upon Application. The
procedure for issuance of building permits shall
be as provided in U.B.C. Chapter 3, as amended in
2MCAR 1.10111.
4
Subd. 2. Other Permits. If any other type of
permit is required for such building or structure
besides a building permit, such as, for example,
an off-street parking permit or a special use
permit, the building permit shall not be issued
until the building official is satisfied that such
other required permits (1) have already been
issued, (2) will be issued at the same time, or
(3) have been authorized and will be issued.
CROSS-REFERENCE: See Chap. III, Part IV, Sec.
3.41, for special use permit provisions.
See Chap. III, Part IV, Sec. 3.38, for provisions
relating to outside parking and storage.
See Chap. III, Part V, Sec. 3.47, for sign and
billboard permit provisions.
Subd. 3. Plans and Specifications-Retention.
When a building permit is issued the building
official shall return one set of the plans and
specifications to the applicant and one copy shall
be kept in the office of the building official as
designated in the current records retention
schedule'.
Subd. 4. Conditions Governing Issuance. The
following conditions shall govern issuance of a
permit:
(1) It is hereby determined and declared that a
substantial depreciation of values in the
neighborhood occurs upon the construction,
moving, alteration of or repair to structures
described in this section.. The building
official, therefore, except as otherwise
provided in this section, shall not issue a
building permit for any structure for which a
building permit is required if the proposed
structure will have a front or side abutting
upon or visible from a public street, which
contains exterior facing materials which are
not of a permanent nature or have a tendency
to deteriorate rapidly, or which for any °
reason are or quickly may become unsightly in
appearance. The following are examples of
such materials: Concrete masonry units,
common clay brick, sand lime brick, concrete
brick, unfinished structural clay tile, sheet ,
metal, either corrugated or plain, and
exposed unfinished concrete. Such materials,
however, may be used in a special arrangement
5
or combination with other materials of a
permanent nature with good architectural
design and appeal if in compliance with the
following paragraphs of this subdivision.
(2) In the event an owner, intending to apply for
a building permit, desires to use any of the
materials excluded under the foregoing
paragraph of this subdivision as exterior
finish materials, such owner may present to
the building official a request for prelimi-
nary approval for the use of such materials
prior to the preparation of final drawings
and the application required by this section.
Such request for preliminary approval shall
include any sketches and other information
necessary to indicate accurately the use to
be made of such materials and the appearance
of the exterior of such structure when
completed.
(3) If such request for preliminary approval of
materials is granted by the building official
the sketch and other information shall be
properly marked for identification and by him
filed in his office and such data shall
become a part of the building permit applica-
tion when filed. Upon the filing of the
application for building permit, together
with the additional information required by
this Code, showing compliance therewith, and
in conformity with such approved sketch
without substantial change therefrom, the
building official is hereby authorized to
issue a building permit.
Subd. 5. Denial of Preliminary Approval. In any
instance where the building official denies a
permit or a request for preliminary approval, the
applicant may submit a request based upon the
plans and other papers on file in the office of
the building official for granting of such request
or application to the council, without payment of
additional filing fees of any kind.
Subd. 6. Relationship to Zoning Regulations. The
provisions of this section shall be deemed supple-
mentary to the zoning provisions contained in this
Code and shall be enforced in harmony and conjunc-
tion therewith. The council, in determining
whether or not to permit the use of anv such
material, shall not grant any permit therefor if
it finds that the structure for which the applica-
tion is made, or other properties in the
6
neighborhood, will be depreciated in value by
reason of the use of any such materials.
CROSS-REFERENCE: The Zoning Code is found in
Chap. III, Part IV, of this Code.
Subd. 7. Screening Mechanical Equipment. Any
mechanical equipment and ductwork located on the
roof, exterior wall or grounds adjacent to any
structure, other than a single family residence or
its accessory buildings, shall be enclosed in a
screening, enclosure. Such enclosure shall be
designed to provide a safety shield around such
equipment and ductwork and shall conceal it from
public view and from view from nearby premises.
Such enclosure shall be architecturally harmonious
with the structure involved. Plans for such
enclosure shall be shown on construction plans.
The requirements of this subdivision shall not be
applicable to window air conditioners or to
stacks.
Subd. 8. Permit Fees. A fee for each permit
required by this chapter shall be paid to the city
clerk in the amount provided in Appendix D of this
Code. It is the intent of this section that the
fees provided in Appendix D of this Code are to
supplant and supersede corresponding fee require-
ments in any code or ordinance adopted by refer-
ence in this chapter as well as any fee schedules
provided in the State Building Code.
Subd. 9. Amendments to Fee Schedules. Whenever
fee schedules are fully set forth in Appendix D
these schedules shall supersede any schedules and
fees contained or included in codes or ordinances
adopted by reference in this Code.
The city council may waive the city's portion of
building permit and plan review fees chargeable to
another political subdivision of the state if the
council finds that such action is appropriate by
reason of unusual circumstances unique to the
particular project involved and that the public
interests of the city will be served thereby.
Subd. 10. Housing Inspection Fees. A fee for
each house inspection as provided in Appendix D
shall be charged by the city.
3.04. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION PERMITS: CONFOR-
MITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
AND URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES.
7
Subdivision 1. Permit Application. The building
permit application shall contain the necessary
information so that it can be determined whether
the proposed construction will be in conformity
with the comprehensive plan and any redevelopment
plans or urban design guidelines applicable to the
district in which the proposed construction will
be located.
Subd. 2. Review by Building Official. If the
proposed construction lies outside of any redevel-
opment district, is not subject to urban design
guidelines, and is, in the opinion of the building
official, in conformity with the comprehensive
plan of the city, the requirements of this section
shall be deemed satisfied.
Subd. 3. Review by City Manager. All applica-
tions involving construction in redevelopment
districts or districts subject to urban design
guidelines and all applications as to which the
building official does not make a finding of
conformity with the comprehensive plan shall be
processed as follows-.,
(1) The application shall be referred to the
Community Development Department for its
review. The review shall be based upon the
material submitted in the application togeth-
er with any other information which the
department believes will assist in the
review.
(2) Upon the completion of its review, the
Community Development Department shall make a
written report of its review to the city
manager. The report may contain, and shall
contain, if requested by the manager, a
recommended finding.
(3) Upon receipt of the written report and not
later than 30 days following the date the
matter was referred to the Communitv Develop-
ment Department the city manager shall make
his findings concerning the proposed construc-
tion. The findings shall contain one of the
following conclusions:
(a) The proposed construction is in confor-
mity with the comprehensive plan and any
applicable redevelopment plans or urban
design guidelines.
8
(b) The proposed construction is not in
conformity with the comprehensive plan
or any applicable redevelopment plans or
urban design guidelines.
(c) The proposed construction is not in
conformity with the comprehensive plan
or any applicable redevelopment plans or
urban design guidelines but such noncon-
formity will not lie likely to jeopardize
or adversely affect the orderly planning
and development process for the district
in which the construction would be
located.
(4) If the city manager makes the finding de-
scribed in paragraphs (3) (a) or (3) of this
section he shall report that fact to the
building official and the requirements of
this section shall be deemed satisfied. If
the city manager makes the finding described
in paragraph (3)(b) of this section, he shall
notify the applicant of such determination.
The notification shall also inform the
applicant of- applicant's right to appeal the
city manager's decision to the city council
and that the applicant has 10 days from the
date of notification to deliver a written
request for an appeal hearing to the city
clerk. If no appeal hearing request is made
within the time period, the manager's deter-
mination shall be final. The building
official shall be notified and no building
permit shall be issued.
Subd. 4. Appeal to Council. The appeal shall be
heard at the first regular council meeting which
is at least 14 days following the date of a timely
received appeal hearing request. The council may
review the report and recommendations of the
Community Development Department, the building
permit application, and the findings of the city
manager. The applicant shall be given an oppor-
tunity to appear and offer evidence to the coun-
cil. Within 30 days of the close of the hearing,
the council shall make its findings. Such find-
ings may take one of the following forms:
(1) Sustaining the city manager's determination..
(2) Rescindir_a the city manager's determination.
(3) Sustaining the city manager's decision but
placing certain conditions or stipulations
9
' upon the construction or upon the use de-
signed to remove adverse impacts upon the
orderly planning and redevelopment of the
district.
The council's findings shall be reported to the
building official by the city manager. If the
finding is as described in paragraph (2) of this
subdivision, the requirements of this section
shall be deemed satisfied. If the finding is as
described in paragraph (1), no building permit
shall be issued. If the finding is as described
in paragraph (3) of this subdivision, the require-
ments of this section shall be deemed satisfied
only if the conditions are met within the time
period set by the council. Otherwise, no permit
shall be issued.
3.05. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. It shall
be the duty of the manager to insure compliance
with the provisions of this chapter.
3.06. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PART. It is unlawful
for any person to construct, alter, repair or use
any building in the city contrary to or in viola-
tion of any provision of this part. It shall also
be unlawful for any person to perform any plumb-
ing, electrical, gas piping, heating or ventilat-
ing work in the city contrary to or in violation
of the provisions of this part.
3.07. FIRE PREVENTION CODE.
Subdivision 1. Adoption of Fire Prevention Code.
The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code including the 1982
Uniform Fire Code as amended including the 10
volume National Codes, Volumes 1-10 of the Nation-
al Fire Protection Association (1982 Edition) are
hereby adopted by reference as though fully set
out at this point.
Subd. 2. Exceptions to Adoption. The following
provisions of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code are
not adopted and made a part of this Code:
(1) 214CAR §1.5113.
(2) 2MCAR 51.5115.
(3) 2MCAR 51.5126.
0 (4) 2MCAR §1.5149.
10
Subd. 3. Establishment of Duties of the Fire •
Department.
(1) The Fire Prevention Code shall be enforced by
the Fire Division of the city under the
supervision and direction of the Chief of the
Fire Division. The officer or officers
specifically in charge of the administration
of this Code shall be known as the Fire
Marshal or Marshals and shall be given
authority for this purpose by the Chief of
the Fire Division.
(2) The Chief of the Fire Division may detail
such members of the Fire Division as inspec-
tors, working under the Fire Marshal or
Marshals as shall from time to time be deemed
necessary. The Chief of the Fire Division
mav_ recommend to the manager the employment
of technical inspectors who, when such
authorization is made, shall be selected to
assist the Fire Marshal or Marshals.
(3) In addition to the Fire Marshal or Fire
Marshals the Fire Prevention Code may also be
enforced by the City Health Officer or
Building Official whenever appropriate and 40
after- consultation with the Fire Marshal or
Marshals.
(4) A report by the Fire Marshal shall be made
annually and transmitted to the manager; it
shall contain all proceedings under this
Code, with such. statistics as the Chief of
the Fire Division may wish to include there-
in; the Chief of the Fire Division shall also
recommend any amendments to the Code which,
in his judgment, shall be desirable.
CROSS-REFERENCE: See Chap. II, Part IV, for
specific Fire Department Personnel regula-
tions.
Subd. 4. Prohibition of Storage of Flammable
Liquids in Outside Aboveground Tanks; Bulk Storage
of Liquified Petroleum Gases; and Storage of
Explosives Blasting Agents. The city is developed
primarily with residential, multiple-residence,
commercial and light industrial uses. The limits
referred to in sections 79.501 and 82.105(e) of
the Fire Prevention Code include all of the city,
and the storage of the substances referred to in
such sections, in the manner referred to herein,
is prohibited.
11
Subd. 5. New Materials, Processes or occupancies
which may Require Permits; Committee of Review.
The manager, the Chief of the Fire Division, the
Building Official and the Fire Marshal shall act
as a committee to determine and specify, after
;giving affected persons an opportunity to be
heard, any n-ew materials, processes or occu-
pancies, which shall require permits, in addition
to those now enumerated in the Fire Prevention
Code. The Fire Marshal shall post such list in a
conspicuous place in his office and distribute
copies thereof to interested persons.
Subd. 6. Permit Fee. The annual fee for any
permit required under the provisions of this
section shall be as provided in Appendix D of this
Code. Such permit fee shall be paid to the clerk
and such annual permit fee shall not be prorated
for any portion of a year. Permits are issued-on
a calendar year basis.
3.08. ESTABLISHMENT OF FIRE LANES.
Subdivision 1. Orders Establishing Fire Lanes.
The Fire Division is hereby authorized to order
the establishment of fire lanes on public or
private property as may be necessary in order that
the travel of fire equipment may not be interfered
with, and that access to fire hydrants or build-
ings may not be obstructed.
Subd. 2. Signs and Marking of Fire Lanes. When a
fire lane has been ordered to be established
pursuant to subdivision 1 of this section, it
shall be marked by a sign bearing the words "No
Parking - Fire Lane" or a similar message. When
the fire lane is on public property or a public
right-of-way, the sign or signs shall be erected
by the city, and when on private property, they
shall be erected by the owner at his own expense.
Subd. 3. Parking- or Otherwise Obstructing Prohib-
ited. After a sign or signs have been erected in
accordance with subdivision 2 of this section, no,
person shall park a vehicle or otherwise occupy or
obstruct the fire lane.
3.09. OTHER PROHIBITED ACTS.
Subdivision 1. Protection of Fire Hoses. No
person shall drive any vehicle over a fire hose
except upon specific orders from a member of the
Police or Fire Divisions of the city, and then
only with due caution.
12
Subd. 2. Parkinq Near Fire Equipment. No person
shall park any vehicle or place any material or
other obstruction within 20 feet of the entrance
to any fire station or within 10 feet of any fire
hydrant or fire cistern nor shall any person park
any vehicle within 300 feet of a place where a
fire requiring fire fighting by the Fire Division
is in progress.
3.10. UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE; APPEALS.
Subdivision 1. Scope of Section. The provisions
of this section shall also apply to the regula-
tions contained in Parts III and IV of this
chapter. Whenever any person is deemed to be in
violation of any provisions of this Code to which
this section is made applicable, the city offi-
cials vested with the responsibility of enforcing
such provisions shall employ the procedures
delineated in this section. To the extent that
any of the following provisions conflict with any
other provisions adopted by reference in this
part, the provisions of this section shall con-
trol.. This section does not apply to situations
governed by the administrative provisions con-
tained in the state building code or the state
uniform fire prevention code.
Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this sec-
tion:
(1) "Enforcing Officer" means and includes the
following administrative staff members of the
city:
(a) The Building Official of the Inspection
Division;
(b) The health officer or sanitarian of the
Health Division; and
(c) The Fire Marshal or Marshals of the Fire
Division.
These staff members are vested with the primary
enforcement responsibility.
Subd. 3. Notice of Violation. Whenever the
enforcing officer determines that there has been a
violation of any one or more provisions to which
this section applies, he shall give notice of such
alleged violation to the person or persons who are
I- 13
or may be responsible therefor, as enumerated in
subdivision (4) below. Such notice shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) particularize the violation or violations
alleged to exist or to have been committed
and the repairs or improvements required to
bring the condemned building, dwelling,
dwelling unit or rooming unit into compliance
with the provisions of this part;
(3) provide a reasonable time, but not less than
10 days in any event for the correction of
the violation or violations particularized;
(4) be addressed to and served upon the owner of
the property, the owner of the building, the
operator of the dwelling, and the occupant of
the dwelling unit or the rooming unit con-
cerned, if the occupant is or may be respon-
sible for the violation; and
(5) inform persons concerned of their rights of
appeal.
Subd. 4. Service of Notice. Service shall be as
provided for personal service by the rules of
civil procedure for courts of record in Minnesota,
or by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, delivered to the addressee only. If
service is made by registered or certified mail,
the enforcing officer shall make a record giving
details regarding the mailing. If one or more
persons to whom the notice is addressed cannot be
found or served after diligent effort to do so,
service may be made upon such person or persons by
posting a notice in a conspicuous place in or
about the building affected by the notice, in
which event the enforcing officer shall include in
a record a statement as to why such posting was
necessary.
Subd. 5. Imminent Hazards--Temporary Condemna-
tion. Whenever the enforcing officer finds any
building, dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit
which is in violation of any provision of the Code
to which this section is made applicable, and
further finds (1) that by reasons of such viola-
tion it presents an imminent and serious hazard to
public health, or to the physical and mental
health of the occupants therein, and (2) that the
repairs or improvements required to remove such
hazards do not appear reasonably possible within a
14
time which will be adequate to eliminate such
imminent hazard, the written notice of violation
provided for in subdivision 3 of this section
shall also state that the premises are dangerous
and unfit for human habitation and shall order
that such dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit
be vacated either immediately or after such period
of time as the enforcing officer shall find
reasonable in view of circumstances, pending the
completion of action to eliminate such hazards.
In such case the notice shall be served by de-
livering a copy thereof to any occupant of suit-
able age and discretion and by posting the same at
a conspicuous place upon the structure. In the
case of a hazard which affects more than one unit
in a multiple residence, service shall be made
upon such an occupant of each unit, except that
the failure to make service upon an occupant of
one unit shall not affect the validity or effect
of service of notice upon an occupant of other
units. Such notice shall also state that persons
aggrieved may appeal such notice to the board of
building and health appeals by filing a notice of
appeal with the clerk and may be heard on such
appeal within one (1) week after such filing, as
more specifically provided in this section.
Subd. 6. Failure to Correct Deficiencies.
Whenever notice has been given in accordance with
subdivision 4 of this section and the person or
persons responsible have failed to correct the
deficiencies specified therein within the time
allowed, the enforcing officer may either:
(1) In writing upon a showing of good cause,
extend the time for correction of the defi-
ciencies; or
(2) Serve upon the owner and occupant a written
notice requiring that such building, dwelling
unit, or rooming unit be vacated because
unfit for human habitation. Such notice
shall:
(a) particularize the violation or viola-
tions which remain uncorrected; and
(b) provide a reasonable time, but not less
than 30 days, within which to vacate the
premises. Such written extension of
time or notice to vacate may be served
personally or by registered mail in
accordance with the procedures set forth
in subdivision 4 of this section.
15
Subd. 7. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a
notice issued pursuant to this section may, within
15 days after service of the same, appeal there-
from to the board of appeals by filing a written
notice of appeal with the clerk. In the case of
an appeal from a notice to vacate pending elimina-
tion of imminent hazards issued pursuant to
subdivision 5, the subdivision 7 hearing appeal
shall be heard within one week from the time of
filing thereof unless the appellant requests a
hearing at a later time convenient to him and to
the board. In the case of appeals from other
notices, the appeal shall be heard at such time as
may be established by the board, but the taking of
an appeal from a notice other than one to vacate
pending the elimination of imminent hazards issued
under subdivision 5 shall, during the pendency of
such appeal, restrain the city and its officers
from proceeding in any manner to enforce the
notice.
Subd. 8. Board of Appeals. The council shall
serve as and constitute the Board of Appeals. All
appeals under this section shall be heard by the
board. The city manager, the building official
and the health officer or sanitarian and the fire
marshal or marshals may serve in an advisory
capacity as ex-officio members of the board. At
hearing conducted pursuant to this section, the
enforcing officer shall present the evidence with
respect to the existence of a violation, and the
appellant and his attorney may call and cross-
examine witnesses and make such argument with
respect to the facts and law as may be relevant to
the alleged violation. The board 'may obtain the
advice of the attorney or his designate in connec-
tion with the conduct of the hearing or the action
to be taken. The board may act in the absence of
any one of its members if such member is not
reasonably available, but in no case shall it act
without the affirmative vote of any two. The
board may, upon the hearing, affirm in whole or in
part or deny the existence of a violation of this
part, and, if a violation is found to exist,
confirm or modify the corrective action to be
taken or the other requiring vacation of the
premises and the time allowed therefor.
Subd. 9. Correction of Violation by City and
Assessment of Cost. In all cases of violation to
which Minnesota Statutes Section 145.22 to 145.23
are applicable, the enforcing officer may proceed
as therein provided to abate or remove the viola-
tion and, if deemed necessary, to have the cost
16
thereof specially assessed against the lot, or
parcel where the violation was located. In
suitable cases, said statutory remedies and
procedure may be used either concurrently with, or
separate from, the procedures prescribed in this
part.
Subd. 10. Unlawful to Resume Occupancv. No
building, dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit
which has been designated as unfit for human
habitation and placarded as such shall again be
used for human habitation until written approval
is secured from, and such placarding is removed
by, the enforcing officer. The enforcing officer
shall remove such placard whenever the defect or
defects upon which the designation and placarding
action were based have been eliminated and the
building, dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit
has been made to conform to the standards estab-
lished by this part.
Subd. 11. Unlawful to Deface Placard. It shall
be unlawful for any person to deface, remove, or
obscure any placard affixed under the provisions
of this part."
III. By repealing the following provisions of Part III,
Section 3.21 thereof entitled: "Regulation of
Supplied Facilities; Maintenance and Occupancy of
Dwellings and Dwelling Units":
(1) Paragraph (2) of subdivision 1.
(2) Paragraph (5) of subdivision 9.
(3) Subparagraph (6)(c) of subdivision 9.
IV. By amending paragraph (16) of subdivision 1 to
read as follows:
(16) "Plumbing" shall mean and include all of the
following supplied facilities and equipment:
water pipes, garbage disposal units, waste
pipes, water closets, sinks, installed
dishwashers, lavatories, bath-tubs, shower
baths, installed clothes-washing machines,
catch basins, drains, vents and any other
similar supplied fixtures, together with all
connections to water or sewer lines.
V. By amending paragraph (1) of subdivision 7 thereof
to read as follows:
V 17
(1) Every habitable room shall have at least one
window or skylight facing directly to the
outdoors. The minimum total window glazed
area for every habitable room shall be 8
percent of the floor area of such room.
Whenever walls or other portions of struc-
tures face a window of any such room and such
light-obstruction structures are located less
than 3 feet from the window and extend to a
level above that of the ceiling of the room,
such a window shall not be deemed to face
directly to the outdoors and shall not be
included as contributing to the required
minimum total window area. Whenever the only
window in a room is a skylight-type window in
the top of such room, the total window area
of such skylight shall equal at least 15
percent of the total floor area of such room.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of 198
0
John E. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
18
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 63
Agenda February 13,1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit at 7001 Elliot Avenue to
Expand Day Care Operation
Council Members:
The Southdale YMCA has requested a special use permit to allow them to ex-
pand their day-care facility located in the former° Elliot Elementary School.
Presently, a special use permit is in effect which allows for a maximum of 16
infants. Requested is an expansion to allow for a total of 66 children (in-
fants, toddlers and preschoolers).
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subd. 3, requires that day care centers for more than 10
children obtain a special use permit. Section 3.41, subd. 5, outlines the
conditions for granting special use permits.
Staff Review
The proposed day care center should not be detrimental to the neighbor-
hood. Adequate parking and "drop-off" space exists on the site to handle the
proposed increase in use.
Public Safety will be inspecting the structure in the immediate future for
compliance with fire code regulations.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
special use permit providing any fire code violations be remedied to the satis-
faction of the public safety department.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the special use permit be approved, with the stipu-
lation that any fire code violations be remedied to the satisfaction of the
public safety department.
Respectful) submi ed,
'John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
J
0 C I T Y O F R I C H F I E L D, M I N N E S O T A
C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
Item # 1
Case 1184-SP-1
Agenda of January 24, 1984
Planning Commission
City of Richfield
Dear Commissioners:
Subject: Special Use Permit at 7001 Elliot Avenue
P R O P O S A L The Southdale YMCA has requested a special use
permit to allow them to expand their day-care
facility located in the former Elliot Elementary
School. Presently, a special use permit is
effective which allows for 16 infants. Requestec
is an expansion to allow for a total of 66
children (infants, toddlers and preschoolers).
Z 0 N I N G O R D I N A N C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S
1. Section 3.30, subdivision 3 requires that
day-care centers for more than 10 children
obtain a special use permit.
2. Section 3.41, subdivision 5, outlines the
conditions for granting special use permits,
S T A F F R E V I E W
1. The proposed day-care center should not be
detrimental to the neighborhood. Adequate
parking and drop off space exists on the
site to handle the proposed increase in use.
2. Public Safety will be inspecting the
structure in the immediate future for
compliance with fire code regulations.
S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
It is recommended that the special use permit be
approved, with the stipulation that any fire
code violations be corrected to the satisfaction
of the Public Safety Department.
0
•
ITIV
YY 66?? •
Mtio
12
•
r
. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
•
TO Property owners within 350 feet of the property
located at 70,01 Elliot Ave. So.
APPLICANT Southdale Branch YMCA
LOCATTCN
OF PROPERTY That part of the N 5 acres of the NE 1/4 of the
NW 1/4 lying E of the W 355 3/10 feet thereof
(7001 Elliot Ave. So.)
PURPOSE To hear a request to expand current day care
operations serving 16 infants to serve 66 infants,
toddlers and preschoolers. Expansion requires
issuance of a special use permit.
TTME OF HEARING 7:10 PM, Tuesday, January 24, 1984
PLACE OF HEARING Council Chambers,City Hall, 6700 Portland Ave.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE 1. Attend the hearing and give testimony for or
against the proposal.
2. Submit a letter to the Planning Commission
expressing your views in writing.
ANY CLEST IONS Bill Turnblad
Planning intern
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
869-7521 x512
MAILING OATS Janu 14 Q i
TC'
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA 9
/
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 62
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Sauna License Requirements
First 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.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading consideration
to the attached ordinance amendment and schedule the public hearing and second
reading of the ordinance for February 27, 1984.
ReSPectfully submitted,
ohn G. Cartwright
City Manager
• JGC/eja
•
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 tft
eer??eA 3e -ba h as a substantial part of any ether
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
Council Letter No. 61
February 13, 1984 Agenda
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: City Council Discussion and Decision on the Interchange Design
at 76th Street and T.H. 77 in East Richfield
Council Members:
A transportation element is being prepared as a part of the Airport South
Environmental Study in Bloomington. At an earlier stage in this process, the
city council discussed potential interchange designs at 76th Street and Trunk
Highway 77.
The staff from the Metropolitan Council and the Airport South Study are at
a point where they would like the Richfield City Council to give some indica-
tion of their preference for the design of this half-diamond interchange. The
three alternative designs that appear to be possible at this time are:
1. design the interchange with 76th Street in such a manner as to
prevent access, either now or in the future between the two roads;
2. design the interchange in such a way as to not allow immediate
access at this point, but allow for a connection later, if it is
deemed desirable; or
3. design the interchange in such a way as to allow ready access to 76th
Street at the time the interchange is constructed.
It would be possible to redesign E. 76th Street in such a way that if an
interchange were to have access to Cedar Avenue the traffic would not be
allowed to go westward on 76th Street, but could only go southward to the
frontage road along I-494. This and other design considerations will be dis-
cussed at the city council meeting.
Council members may also want to raise the question about the alignment of
the frontage road along the east side of Trunk Highway 77 where it is
contiguous to the golf course. If the frontage road is moved to the east at
this location, it might adversely impact the golf course.
Representatives from either the Metropolitan Council or the Minnesota
Department of Transportation will be in attendance at the city council meeting
and will be available to answer council member's questions.
0
•
Thecity manager recommends that once council members have had an
opportunity to hear the presentation and ask questions, that they support a
recomendation that keeps the options open for the future. Future redevelop-
ment may be dependent upon access at this interchange. Staff believes that the
best present course of action is to endorse alternative No. 2 above, in order
to preserve the future opportunity to allow access at this location. It is
also recommended that the city council refer this matter to the Richfield
Planning Commission for their review and comment.
Council Letter No. 61 -2- February 13, 1984
R?spectfull,rbmitted ,
ffl
John G. C rtwr'ght
City Manager
•
JGC/eja
0
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /v
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 60
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for Certain Capital Improve-
ments. First Reading.
0
In October, 1983, the city council approved the 1983 revised budget for
various city activities. Included in that revision was the 1983 Capital Im-
provement budget, which covers several projects funded by monies from The
Special Revenue Fund (liquor profits). The revisions for the following pro-
jects were:
Project
Memorial Park Plg.
Ice Arena Improve.
Fire Vehicle Resv.
1983 Budget
1983 Revised
Net Change
$10,000
$35,000
$ 0
$45,000
$ 0
$15,000
$40,000
$55,000
$(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.
These revisions will bring the Capital Improvement Budget current through
year-end 1983, consistent with previous council actions.
_ ,
/ pectfully s ubmitted,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
•
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF
MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
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
•
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
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 59
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contracts for
Tractors and.Street Sweeper
•
On February 13, 1984, bids were opened in accordance with legal require-
ments for two industrial-type tractors and one three-wheel mechanical street
sweeper. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city
council review.
Industrial Type Tractors
The adopted 1984 budget includes an appropriation for two industrial type
tractors to replace fully depreciated units primarily used for park maintenance
activities. The budget was based on the estimate that two tractors would cost
approximately $13,000 each for a total price of $26,000. In this instance, a
trade-in was anticipated rather than placing the old units up for auction.
Five bids were submitted by four vendors. The lowest bid meeting specifica-
tions was submitted by Carlson Tractor of Rosemount in the amount of $24,892,
less a trade-in of $4,100, for a total net cost of $20,792.
Tractors
Budget
$26,000
(8,000)
$18,000
Actual
$24,892
(4,100)
$20,792
It is recommended the council authorize the purchase of two industrial type
tractors from Carlson Tractor for a total net cost of $20,792.
Three-Wheel Type Mechanical Street Sweeper
A street sweeper, fully depreciated in 1979, is scheduled for replacement
in the 1984 adopted operating budget at a unit cost estimate of $65,000. The
existing unit was to be traded in rather than placed on auction. Three ven-
dors submitted bids, one of which did not include the required bid security
0
•
Council Letter No. 59 -2- February 13, 1984
and, therefore, was not considered. Of the two bids meeting specifications,
McQueen Equipment of St. Paul submitted the lowest bid. It is recommended the
city council authorize the purchase of one three-wheel mechanical street
sweeper from McQueen Equipment in the amount of $69,000, less a trade-in of
$11,950 for a total net cost of $57,450.
Street Sweeper
Budget Actual
$65,000 $69,400
(5,000) (11,950)
$60,000 $57,450
Summary
Budget (net total) Actual (net total)
•
Tractors $18,000 $20,792
St.Sweep. $60,000 $57,450
Total $78,000 $78,242
?Respectfu y'submitted,
Q ez
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
J
JGC/era
is
•
•
Two Industrial Type Tractors
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
January 24, 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 Two Industrial Type
Tractors, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 11, 1984.
Present: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Coordinator
Eileen Anderson, Administrative Assistant
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
Carlson Tractor &
Equipment
Kortuens
LESS
BID SECURITY BASE BID TRADE-IN TOTAL
B. B. 5%
B. B. 5%
Lake State Equipment ----- B.B. 5%
Long Lake Ford Tractor B.B. 5%
$24,892 $ 4,100 $20,792
$29,338.68 $ 4,664.08 $24,674.60
$42,844 $12,450 $30,394
$27,648 $ 5,800 $21,848
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at
the February 13, 1984 city council meeting.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
0
•
•
One Three-Wheel Type Mechanical Street Sweeper
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 One Three-Wheel Type
Mechanical Street Sweeper, as advertised in the official newspaper on January 11,
1984.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
BID OPENING
January 24, 1984
Present: Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Coordinator
Eileen Anderson, Administrative Assistant
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
VENDOR
BID SECURITY
LESS
BASE BID TRADE-IN TOTAL
Sweeney Bros. Tractor, Inc. B.B. 5%
$74,378 $ 7,529 $66,849
MacQueen Equipment, Inc. B.B. 5% $69,400 $11,950 $57,450
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at
the February 13, 1984 city council meeting.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 58
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation of Award of Financial Reporting Achievement from
the Municipal Finance Officers Association (MFOA)
•
Council Members:
Richfield was recently notified that the city has again earned the
Certificate for Conformance in Financial Reporting. This Certificate is
awarded for meeting all MFOA conformance standards in Richfield's comprehensive
annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1982. Richfield
has previously earned the MFOA Certificate in 1976, 1978, and 1981. The
Achievement Award is to be given to the person most directly responsible for
Richfield earning the Certificate. In Richfield's case, this person is Jean
Mitchell, Finance Coordinator.
The MFOA Certificate is an important continuing achievement for Richfield.
The Certificate is a well-known award, and helps let bond-rating agencies and
other outside agencies know that Richfield's financial reporting and accounting
systems are well managed, and meet all accepted financial reporting standards.
It should also give the community confidence that the city's financial systems
are in excellent order.
The MFOA Certificate is earned by relatively few cities. In Minnesota, it
was earned by only 24 cities, counties, and other jurisdictions.
It is recommended that this presentation be made at the February 13, 1984
city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
?,/John G. Cartwright
City Manager
cc: Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
0
The Municipal Finance Officers Association
let
' of the United States and Canada
kk
presents this
AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT
to:
JEAN MITCHELL
FINANCE COORDINATOR
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
7
The Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is presented by the Municipal
Finance Officers Association to those individuals
h
h
b
I
t
l i
w
ave
o
een
ns
rumenta
n
their governmental unit "hie v'n a Certificate of Conformance in Financial
Reporting. A Certificate of Conformance is
resented to those
v
m
l
t
' p
go
ern
en
a
units whose com rehensive annual financial reports (CAFR's) are judged to
substantially conform to program standards.
?
Executive Director /?
Date JANUARY 11 1984
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 57
Agenda February 13,1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Agreement with Hennepin County for Services Provided
Pursuant to the Minnesota Emergency Development Act (MEED)
Council Members:
In 1983 the Minnesota State Legislature enacted the Minnesota Emergency De-
velopment Act (MEED) which provides for the creation of job opportunities in
both the private and public sectors.
Under MEED, public sector jobs can be created which would provide needed
and long-term benefits to the community. The cost of such MEED participants
(employees) is funded totally by the County, for a period of up to 26 weeks of
full-time employment, including workers' compensation liability. After the
completion of such funded time span, the city has no obligation to continue the
employment of MEED participants.
The city has evaluated information presented by the county regarding this
program, and find that there are opportunities in the city where MEED
participants could be utilized. Requests have been received for MEED employees
to work as a Finance Account Clerk, a Community Center Clerk-Typist and as an
Interpretative Naturalist at the Wood Lake Nature Center.
However, before MEED participants can be assigned to the City, Hennepin
County must have a signed agreement with the City, indicating our willingness
to participate in the program. The attached agreement has been reviewed by the
Personnel Division and the City Attorney's office and it is satisfactory. It
is recommended that the City Council authorize execution of the attached
agreement with Hennepin County.
Respectfully submitted,
/John G. Cartwright
?/City Manager'
i
JGC/eja
0
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NON=PROFIT AGREEMENT
FOR THE DELIVERY OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES
MINNESOTA EMERGENCY EMPLOY2U;NT DEVELOPMENT ACT j,
This Agreement made and entered int?by and be?teen ?ETC ?, C f?rt ?,'; hereinafter
referred to as the "VENDOR", and it h Trhereinafter referred to
as the "WORKSITE AGENCY" with Hennepin County through its Department of CETA Services,
hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", acting as the disbursing agent,
WHEREAS, Funds have been made available to the VENDOR from the State of Minnesota.
Department of Economic Security and Hennepin County's Department of CETA Services, for the
purpose of administering and directing employment and training programs under the
Minnesota Emergency Employment Development Act, Statute Chapter 268, Sections 1-19,
hereinafter referred ta'a,s "NEED";
NOW, THEREFORE, The?iVENDOR and the WORKSITE AGENCY agree to the following:
1
?l
1. TERM OF AGREENSHT
0
The WORKSITE AGENCY is„?ereby authorized as an employment and training worksi.te for
eligible persons from through
2. PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
The WORKSITE AGENCY agrees to place eligible applicants into the positions listee,
and the COUNTY will pay the wages specified in ATTACHMENT A pursuant to this
Agreement. The VENDOR will provide the WORKSITE AGENCY with a reasonable number of.
eligible applicants that the WORKSITE AGENCY may review and place into the positions
referred to above. WORKSITE AGENCY will notify the VENDOR within 3 working days of
WORKSITE AGENCY'S decision to place an eligible applicant. WORKSITE AGENCY further
agrees that it will not be authorized to place any employee that is not referred by
the VENDOR or for any position that is not listed in ATTACHMENT A.
WORKSITE AGENCY agrees to provide temporary employment to the eligible applicants
that it chooses to place in accordance with the MEED Act and all applicable federal,
state, and local laws, rules and regulations and written policies of the VENDOR and
of the COUNTY. The WORKSITE AGENCY shall have no obligation to place any eligible
applicant referred by the VENDOR after the subsidy period.
3. WAGES AND REIMBDRSEMM
The WORKSITE AGENCY agrees that all participants placed at the WORKSITE AGENCY shall
be employees of the COUNTY. The COUNTY agrees to pay the MEED employee $4.00 for
each hour worked. WORKSITE AGENCY understands that the COUNTY will not pay the
employee for more than 1040 hours or for more than 26 weeks, whichever comes first,
Part-time positons are allowable for persons enrolled in a job training program with
a VENDOR, but the COUNTY will not reimburse an employee who is enrolled in such a
program for more than 1040 hours or 52 weeks, whichever comes first. All payment,
shall be made in accordance with the Hennepin County Department of CETA Services
Payroll, Compensation and Check Distribution policies for MEED employees. Workers'
Compensation shall be paid for and provided by the COUNTY. WORKSITE AGENCY further
agrees to submit copies of time cards which must be signed by the eligible employee
and authorized supervisor of the WORKSITE AGENCY at times prescribed by the COUNTY.
4. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES
WORKSITE AGENCY agrees that, in the event that the WORKSITE AGENCY terminates an
eligible employee, it will notify the VENDOR, in writing, within 5 working days of
such termination. The written notice must include the cause for termination
12. UNION CONCURRENCE
WORRSITE AGENCY shall obtain union concurrence for the hiring of eligible applicants
where appropriate.
13. LABOR DISPUTES
WORRSITE AGENCY shall not allow eligible employees to remain or be placed on a job
affected by a labor dispute involving work stoppage and/or layoff.
14. JOB SEARCH
WORKSITE AGENCY shall allow MEED employees to participate in a scheduled,
pre-arranged, authorized job search activities sponsored by the VENDOR.
The following parties understand and agree to abide by the terms of this agreements
WORRSITE AGENCY Authorized Signature Date
VENDOR Authorized Signature Date
COUNTY Authorized Signature Date
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 56
Agenda February 1, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Public Hearing, 1984 Alley Paving Project C.P. 793
Council Members:
The city council established a policy for the paving of alleys in 1980.
This policy stipulates that a petition signed by property owners representing
more than 50% of the abutting footage is necessary for an alley to be paved.
The projects are initiated on a yearly basis. In the first three years of this
policy, 46 of the city's 96 graded alleys have been paved as a result of the
petition process.
Pursuant to this policy, on January 23, 1984, the city council accepted the
preliminary engineering report and ordered a public hearing to be held on Febru-
ary 13, 1984 for the proposed paving of the following alleys:
0 Alley Between From To
4th Avenue & Clinton Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Washburn Avenue & Xerxes Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
Washburn Avenue & Xerxes Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Washburn Avenue & Vincent Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Augsburg Avenue & Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street
Nicollet Avenue & Blaisdell Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street
Grand Avenue & Pleasant Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Sheridan Avenue & Thomas Avenue 67th Street 68th Street
Aldrich Avenue & Bryant Avenue 63rd Street Mildred Drive
Sheridan Avenue & Russell Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
Sheridan Avenue & Russell Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Penn Avenue & Queen Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
The petition received for the alley 68th Street to 69th Street, Penn Avenue
to Queen Avenue (a short alley) represented 38% of the abutting footage. The
signers of the petition asked that the petition be considered by the council.
This petition was included in the preliminary report. Minnesota State Statute
429.031 provides that the council may order such a petitioned project by a
majority vote if presented with a petition of more than 35% of the property
owners.
0
Council Letter No. 56 -2- February 13, 1984
The Richfield alley assessment policy for new construction is:
•
A. in a 100% residential land use block, each side of the alley
pays 50% of the running foot cost (50% of $39.50 = $19.75);
B. in a block where one side of the alley is all commercial, the
commercial property pays 75% and the residential property pays
25% of the running foot cost.
•
The estimated 1984 assessment rate for residential abutting property where
all property in the block is residential use is $19.75 per foot. In a block
where 50% of the land use is commercial, the estimated assessment rate for
commerical abutting property is $29.63 per foot (residential assessment is
$9.87). The assessment can be prepaid in full or payment may be spread over a
20-year period in equal installments with interest. Partial prepayment may be
made with the unpaid balance spread over a 20-year period. A deferment may be
granted to persons over 65 years of age or persons permanently and totally
disabled provided that certain conditions are met.
The staff recommends that, at the close of the public hearing, the city
council adopt the attached resolution ordering the project and the preparation
of plans and specifications.
Respectfully submitted,
/'John G. Cartwright
City Manager
JGC/eja
RESOLUTION NO.
•
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PAVING OF
ALLEYS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS
FOR CP 793
WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted
of January, 1984, fixed a date for a council hearing on
improvement of the following alleys:
Alley Between
4th Avenue and Clinton Avenue
Washburn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue
Washburn Avenue and Xerxes Avenue
Washburn Avenue and Vincent Avenue
Augsburg Avenue and Garfield Avenue
Nicollet Avenue and Blaisdell Avenue
Grand Avenue and Pleasant Avenue
Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
Aldrich Avenue and Bryant Avenue
Sheridan Avenue and Russell Avenue
Sheridan Avenue and Russell Avenue
Penn Avenue and Queen Avenue
From
66th Street
69th Street
67th Street
66th Street
71st Street
72nd Street
68th Street
67th Street
63rd Street
69th Street
66th Street
68th Street
the 23rd day
the proposed
To
67th Street
70th Street
68th Street
67th Street
72nd Street
73rd Street
69th Street
68th Street
Mildred Dr.
70th Street
67th Street
69th 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 13th 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
council resolution adopted the 23rd day of January, 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.
Adopted by the council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of
February, 1984.
ATTEST:
John Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
is
for this proposed special assessment project is scheduled for Monday, February 13' y
1984. There have been some questions and concerns from the city council regarding
the procedures.or management of the actual construction, specifically with the
areas adjacent to the alley. This memorandum is intended to provide some back-
ground information related to certain procedures used during the construction of
new alleys.
3
The intent of the alley paving program was to provide a concrete paved alley
surface. In dealing with the area immediately adjacent to the new concrete
surface the intention was to replace any area that was excavated or disturbed
• immediately adjacent with the same material as was existing before, the project
.began. For° driveways, if a driveway was concrete, concrete would be used to
match back into the new aTley. If the driveway was blacktop, blacktop would
be used to match into the alley and if the driveway was gravel, gravel would
be used. In areas between the new alley and the existing garages, blacktop
is placed if the space between the garage and alley is three feet or less.
This provides a more servicable and maintainable area than if sod. is used. If
this space between the garage and the new alley is greater than three feet
and blacktop or concrete did not already exist, sod is placed. This greater
than three foot distance normally provides a maintainable and aesthetically
viable area that sod can be used in. In'addition, after some experience with
these projects, it became apparent that people with fences adjacent to the
alleys preferred blacktop rather than sod. Therefore, blacktop is.now:placed ,
along fences that are within three feet of the new alley. In areas that are ?
between a garage and alley or driveway areas, the material that is used
matches the existing material that was there. s
1 'Using these general criteria we are attempting to be equitable and fair to•each'
property owner while at the same time keeping the cost to an acceptable and
a >3° -L reasonable level. The staff and inspectors work with the individual property
owners to make any needed adjustments that are both fair to the project as a
whole, to the property owner, and to the city to best balance the cost and at
the same time have a good job. There are, of course, unique and different
circumstances in every alley and every property presents its own situation. By
working with this general set of rules, equity and cost effectiveness can be
maintained while at the same time having the ability to make the needed field
adjustments that will best suit the property owner and the project. Prior to
excavation of the alley pictures are taken of every property, driveway and
garage area so that once excavation has taken place the inspectors on the job
have a log of each property and what situation and materials existed. Once
the new concrete alley is in place the staff person works with each contractor,
blacktop, concrete, gravel and sod crews and directs them as to what material
to place. The use of the pictures and notes of the inspector are critical to
.the correct placement of material. In addition, having an inspector on the
site during the work, he is able to deal with any questions and concerns the
citizens have at that time. The inspectors serve a critical function in this
process. The methods used in these alley projects have proved to be very
successful. Forty-six alleys have been paved requiring dealing with over 1,000
individual properties and property owners. Dealing with this magnitude of
project and the individuality of each of the properties, we have had a very
good track record of satisfied citizens. The process is working well and we
will continue to fine tune it as each project occurs.
a
Don Fondrick, Director
Community Services Department
0
/ 6 C--.,
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 55
Agenda February 13,1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Authorization to Purchase Vehicle
Council Members:
Since his arrival last fall, City Manager Cartwright has used a city
vehicle for transportation. The vehicle being used is a 1981 Chevrolet Malibu
which was originally used as an unmarked car for Public Safety. For public
safety purposes, the vehicle should be replaced. The Malibu had previously
been damaged, the front end was rebuilt, and the vehicle was scheduled for
auction last fall when the decision was made to make it available to the City
Manager.
The City Manager has indicated a preference for use of a city car instead
of a mileage stipend for use of his personal vehicle. The City Manager's
employment agreement provides an option to the City Manager to elect either a
monthly stipend or the use of a city furnished vehicle. If a city vehicle is
provided for the City Manager, the number of vehicles assigned to the motor
pool would increasee by one, and staff would begin to look for a new or newer
vehicle. Recent purchases through the Hennpin County joint purchasing agree-
ment have provided three public safety vehicles from Avis. A 1983 Buick
Century four door sedan cost $8,300. Two Chevrolet Celebrity vehicles, con-
sidered to be mid-size, were also purchased at costs of $7,500 and $7,810. If
a suitable vehicle could be found, it is believed the estimated cost would be
between $7,500 and $8,500. Typically, a vehicle is retained by the city for
two to three years and is then replaced.
It is recommended that the city council take the following actions:
1. Authorize the city manager use of a city vehicle in lieu of stipend.
2. Authorize the purchase of a replacement vehicle, at an estimated
purchase price of $7,500 - $8,500, with the 1981 Chevrolet Malibu
to be placed in auction.
respectfully submitted,
• / John G. Cartwright
City Manager
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Additional Alley Petition
•
Council Members:
The city staff has received one additional alley petition containing more
than 50% of the abutting property owner's signatures, requesting concrete
paving in 1984 for the following alley:
Alley Between
Harriet And Garfield Avenue
To
71st St.
Council Letter No. 54
From
72nd St.
This alley project can be included as a part of the 1984 alley improvement
program. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council take the follow-
ing action:
1. Adopt the attached resolution ordering the preliminary report for
the proposed paving of this alley;
2. Adopt the attached resolution receiving the preliminary report and
calling for a public hearing to be held on February 26, 1984.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cartwrr-ght
City Manager
JGC/eja
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ALLEY PAVING
CITY PROJECT NO. 793A
WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the City Council adopted
February 13, 1984, with reference to the improvement of the
following alley by concrete paving:
Alley between From To
Harriet Avenue and Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The preliminary report on the proposed City Project No. 793A,
dated the 13th day of February, 1984, prepared by the city engineer,
is hereby received and ordered to be placed on file.
2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby
called to be held on February 26, 1984, commencing at 7:00 p.m.
in the council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South,.
Richfield, Minnesota, at which time the council will consider the
improvement of this alley in accordance with the report and
assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of
the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, at an
estimated cost of the improvement of $24,095.00.
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner
required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th
day of February, 1984.
ATTEST:
John Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY
REPORT ON PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ALLEY PAVING, CP 793A
WHEREAS, a petition requesting the permanent paving of the
following alley has been received:
Alley between From To
Harriet and Garfield Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street
And the petition has been signed by the required percentage of
'owners of abutting property necessary to proceed under Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429;
BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City council finds it appears necessary and desirable that
the city make the assessable public improvements of concrete
surfacing of the above mentioned alley, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429;
2. A preliminary engineering report on such proposed assessable
public improvement is required by law in the event that said
improvement or any part thereof is specially assessed against
the benefited property within the city. The city engineer is,
therefore, authorized and directed to prepare a preliminary
report of such proposed improvement and to submit the same to
the City Council at the earliest convenient time;
3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed
improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improvement
is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or
in connection with some other improvement;
4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known and designated
as City Project 793A.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th
day of February, 1984.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
0
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 793A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
I. TYPE OF WORK
Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield.
II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
The alley identified as Number 1 in Item No. IV was requested by
petition representing greater than 50 percent of the abutting footage.
This alley is proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield
to provide concrete alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties.
III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
February 13, 1984
IV. LOCATION
Alley Between
From
To
1. Garfield and Harriet Avenue ,
71st Street
72nd Street
V. FEASIBILITY
The alley paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as
proposed and not in conjunction with any other project.
VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
All that property abutting the alley previously described in Item No. IV.
VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
11' Wide Concrete Alley
Estimated Construction Cost
Administration, Legal, Engineering,
and Insurance (25%)
Cost of Alley No. 1
$19,276.00
4,819.00
Estimated Project Cost
$24,095.00
s
-2-
VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Property abutting alleys will be assessed for alley construction
according to the assessment policy established in City Council
Resolution No. 6345.
Alley No. 1
Total Assessable Alley Frontage 1,192
Total Project Cost
Less City Cost
Assessable Cost
23,542.00 : 1,192 = $19.75/assessable foot
Typical Assessment for 50' lot = $987.50
Typical Assessment for 75' lot = $1,481.25
•
$24,095.00
- 553.00
$23,542.00
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
ael EDate: Registration no. 15066
0
#? i6 A
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Letter No. 48
February 13, 1984
Subject: Senior Citizen/Handicapped Commission Community Center
Parking lot Needs
•
Council Members:
Attached to this council letter is a copy of a letter from the Chairperson
of the Senior Citizens/Handicapped Commission, Ms. Myrna Hammer. Ms. Hammer
indicates in her letter that the Senior Citizens/Handicapped Commission is in
agreement with the recommendations made by the city staff to provide adequate
parking at the community center.
The only action the city council need take regarding this letter is
to receive and file it at the February 13,1984 city council meeting.
John G. Curt
City Manager
JGC/eja
.ova a ? ?.cu,
t
v
0
•
RECONMMATION TO THE
RICHFIELD CITY CCUNCII,
January 27, 1984
The Richfield Senior Citizen/Handicapped Commission approves the implementa-
tion of the following recommendations to provide adequate parking at the
Richfield Com=ity Center.
1) Restrict the community center parking lot on YDndays - Fridays,
between the hours of 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. only to persons
attending an activity at the ccnxnunity center. This would free
up approximately 20 parking spaces for exclusive use between
those hours for those persons attending activities at the community
center.
2) Support a proposal to provide a bus lane turnout arrangement along
70th Street for the community center bus. This action will free
up about three handicapped parking spaces in the community center
Parking lot which are now used to park the community center bus.
The Richfield Senior Citizen/Handicapped Commission wishes to cormrend the council
and staff on their prompt response in addressing the available parking space
at the center.
Sincerely,
Myrna Hammer
Chairperson
Senior Citizen/Handicapped Commission
/fb
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 53
Agenda February 7, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Metropolitan Transit Commission Update
Council Members:
Over the past the years the Metropolitan Council and the
Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) has been looking into the
idea of subregional transit. The MTC bus system is primarily focused
on the downtown and central city areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
However, in suburban areas the majority of trips made are within
outlying subregions and not focused on the downtown areas. The
intent of the subregional transit study was to determine if a transit
system could be developed to better serve subregional transit needs
of suburban areas.
To test the subregional concept the MTC chose one subregion to
do a detailed study as a demonstration project. The subregion
chosen was subregion 3 which includes Richfield, Bloomington, Edina,
part of St. Louis Park and the southern part of Minneapolis. Eden
Prairie was recently added to subregion 3, but was not included
in the subregional transit planning study.
The first part of this study was completed in October, 1981.
This study concluded that it was possible to increase subregional
transit focusing on Southdale and maintain peak hour service to the
downtown Minneapolis without major increases in operating subsidies
or requirement for additional buses. Off peak midday service to
downtown Minneapolis would have to be cut to pay for the increased
service focused on Southdale. The study recommended that six new
subregional routes be instituted, one existing route would be ex-
tended, and midday service to downtown Minneapolis be discontinued
on three routes in the subregion. The effect of these changes on
Richfield include the elimination of midday service to downtown
Minneapolis on Lyndale Avenue, on Nicollet Avenue south of 66th
Street and on Portland Avenue south of 77th Street. Also included
would be the institution of two new subregional routes. One route
would run between Southdale and the charter terminal at the airport
on 76th Street in Richfield. A more detailed description is included
in the attached backup material as Exhibit A.
The second phase of the study involved testing public reaction
to the subregional planning concept and the service plan recommended
Council Letter No. 53 -2-
in the first phase. Through surveys of transit riders and house-
holds in the study area, the market for the proposed transit plan
was re-examined, costs were refined, and an implementation schedule
was identified. The second phase study found that the benefits
of the new plan (attraction of new riders and savings from dis-
continuation of non-productive service) would equal the costs of
the new service and the loss of existing passengers. Community
reaction to the proposed new service plan was that the new service
was warranted, but that existing service should not be cut.
In trying to develop an implementation plan the study con-
cluded that it was economically feasible to add all new services
without altering existing services, but that the integrity of the
service plan should remain the goal. However, because of the strong
opposition to proposed cuts in some existing service, it was con-
cluded that cuts should only occur at such time as the new routes
are proven viable. Implementation should proceed in stages. The
first phase includes the introduction of three new routes, one of
which would be the 76th Street route in Richfield. Also included
in the first phase would be an aggressive marketing program for the
new routes. No service cuts would occur. The introduction of this
new service should not occur until such time that MTC is financially
capable of providing the additional services. A more detailed
description of the recommendations of this study is included in the
attached backup as Exhibit B.
Rick Jopke, City Planner, represented Richfield on the MTC
project management board which dealt with these two studies. Mr.
Jopke will be present at the February 7 work study session to talk
about these studies and answer questions which the council may have.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cart ight
City Manager
40
Vercropa itan "ransit Commission
801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/221-0939
December 22, 1983
Mr. Karl Nollenberger, Manaaer
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mr. Nollenberger:
You are invited to attend a meeting of public officials to discuss
transit in the cities of Richfield, Bloomington, Edina and Eden
Prairie. This meeting, open to the public, will give you the
opportunity to meet and to talk with Peter Stumpf, Chairman of
the Metropolitan Transit Commission, and myself.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 5, at 1:30 p.m. at
the Southdale-Hennepin County Library, 7001 York Avenue South.
The near southwest suburbs have been receiving considerable
attention by transit planners in the last two years. This area,
which the Metropolitan Transit Commission has labeled "Subregion 3,"
may be the site of an MTC demonstration of the feasibility of
improved circulation service.
The meeting will focus on recent transit plans that affect your
community and will provide a forum in which the future of transit
in the southwest suburban area can be addressed.
As the Commissioner appointed to serve most of this suburban area,
I look to you for guidance as to the correct course for transit
in the future and look forward to this meeting.
Sincerely,
Alison Fuhr
Commissioner,
Metropolitan Transit Commission
id
0
-TT
fi
, ;
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
In 1981, the Metropolitan Transit Commission completed a study entitled:
Subreqional Transit Planning Study: Subregion 3. The study was a
comprehensive examination of a suburban application of the subregional transit
planning concept. Subregion 3, shown in Figure 1, includes the communities of
Richfield, Bloomington and Edina.
Summarized, the subregional transportation policies state that:
Transportation services should be focused upon major activity
centers; and
Equal emphasis should be placed on transit services and
transit investment within the subregion, as between the,
subregion and the metro center.
The Subregion 3 Study tested the concept through the development and
evaluation of a transit service plan for the subregion. During the course of
the evaluation, the following categories of travel demand were assessed:
- Peak service to metro centers
- Peak service within Subregion 3
- Off-peak period non-work travel within Subregion 3
- Off-peak period work travel to metro centers
- Off-peak period work travel within Subregion 3
The assessment concluded that, in Subregion 3, sufficient off-peak travel,
originating and remaining in the subregion, existed to warrant additional
transit investment. A full range of transit and paratransit alternatives was
then developed and evaluated. For the purpose of the analysis, subareas were
identified and the most appropriate options were developed for each. The
outcome of the alternatives development and analysis was that:
Transit deficiencies in the Edina subarea of the subregion
would best be satisfied by implementation of a checkpoint
paratransit service referred to in the report as "Edina Demand
Responsive Transit."
- Transit service deficiencies in the Bloomington and Richfield
portions of the subregion would best be countered by the
introduction of six new routes and by alignment changes in two
existing routes (Appendix 1.0).
To partially offset the costs of the additional service, and
to avoid service duplication and over concentration, midday
off-peak service on Routes 5, 18 and 47 should be discontinued
in the area south of 66th Street.
•
PIG.
I A N YI n
f 7:
,y. .1., , ? ;?"'+?7 •.•.R. S-? ?? i' r ` ? ?•?• 4:1 11 .( " . - ?{y-a?>'• • Y `? x,'t, ''.. 't ?iij•; ? •.n 1 s. ,... ?t
Ist
j ark??S? , #r ll o?C ` i/ I1 1 .Jj )a
,
,; J. _ Jmi 1n@c7IJOI}?J? CJ1 1P
?? . ti • 1. 1 '} , t 1)01 Ar'1
?'••.. J '?'•...-
"r •w 16 -:;?. .,3r t 61 ' u.l •. _. - '( ,. I? , _ f. _ l; '?,??`' .
7 1'
l Sri ?
;.., \
.\ ?, 'lay \M„„rhab• -?, ,.- ,,r:..•-- ai - 4Ir I- 7i ?'1Nt .. ...
1 Q 57
x 1 It
c. :I <,
I} uB ,
Yr, r „•.nn .. .. 1c ; I? ..... ar n.d ?JG} I 466
?,r 11 ,
r J, ..t _ °_ 'I Yt 1 YY b. ,nY .G ' 104 If 1 (A(1)
' A',,n , . • , -?..
I^?;IA,1 ?':?.'? , • • f : •tI••? E d } n<l\
77 ? .\ .rB !- ? Y , , Y r" 4•n q ? 1.!.nnr ..t .. 1? } ', - ' I I ._`:\I I?:
let nkp.
}, (>>j i I }?? 1
• ? Y Y 1 Yr I H.? ?•
t
,
`' '•-IY,•.-. \6' A •?I ,'T;>r, r'S a. ... ?, 'l• ...,??1M ,er.7
. 1
??. IL 'lp \ ",o% \ , t, ?l .?1 , r 1 ' } 8:3:'... \ ?.,tr ' r.Yrl y w..y?.••,. ?? n.w / •!4: -. ,?
1? 1
Y?
• ? t k C I. I o t.
?, ; , • ? ?n ( '? . ---.. 1= _...- . ,,.....,? . i fie d ; "J _
. IYYn" .). EC„n''M Pnd
i
65
Y ' ? linigl
Figure 1 r ....
• son ... ., 1 I. , -- '
1
„ 11
STUDY AREA
Study Area Boundary
fit ' i r /I..,,,. { • ..... t?'
Metro Confer J
/
? B. ?1:7/IY. ??.: ((( Y4 ? (/(. ? ..• j57 a la }? .?`?Z4
l
Maim Aclivlty Conley
Oil
,l
,
\.,. ,
W
. 1 ? I ? I' 1? I ,,?I I i I I_ f '% ? 1^.. ^ ? r,sl nYr ? ? C".•r r. i •. ._
nn ?{ ``i?Tn
li n( 'x 11 )Y
r„/ Sl :.'6•"?4! J DAKOTA'
! "? Ctf R^'
./!'\ i i'
,
Y Burnsville
1LJ
-2-
s
a
The service recommended in the final report of the Subreqional Transit,
Planninq Study: Subregion 3,was the result of a planning exercise aimed at
determining the most cost-effective service delivery method. The study did
not survey the opinions of the residents of the community relative to the
subregional concept or the service plan recommendation. This empirical
approach was justified, since the objective of the study was to test the
"subregional transit planning concept.
While the Metropolitan Transit Commission approved the service plan
recommendation contained in the 1981 report in theory, it did not approve an
immediate implementation of the service plan. Implementation and staging of
the services were left contingent upon further investigation of the costs of
the services and market viability of the plan.
Purpose of Addendum Report
This follow-on study to the Subreqional Transit Planninc Study: Subregion 3
has been developed to more completely assess the ridership gains and losses
that would be experienced if the recommended service plan for regular route
transit were to be implemented. The approach to the task has been, first of
all, to find answers to two questions left unresolved in the original study:
1. What would be the reaction to the service plan of those
persons presently using the midday downtown-oriented services,
proposed to be discontinued?
2. What would be the most accurate method of forecasting the
ridership generated by the new routes?
The project was completed under the guidance of an interagency project
management board. As with the original study (Subregional Transit Planning
Study: Subregion 3), virtually all decisions made during the course of the
analysis were initiated and approved by the Project Management Board. The
board was made up of technical staff representatives of the following:
Metropolitan Transit Commission
City of Bloomington
City of Richfield
City of Edina
City of Minneapolis
Metropolitan Council
Transportation Advisory Board
The board determined that the approach to the implementation analysis would be
to conduct separate surveys of the passengers of the services to be
discontinued, and of residents along the tentative alignments of the new
routes. Using the data obtained from the surveys as a springboard, the
following plan elements were addressed:
• refinement of route alignments
® market potential of new service
• ridership decline resulting from service chance
a refined financial program
• marketing program
• service staging considerations
0
0
0
r
J
r
r
i
J
V. Recommended Transit Service Plan
BACKGROUND
The major objective of the Subregion 3 Transit Planning Study is "to test
the subregional transit concept through the development of a transit ser-
vice plan and implementation schedule for one Subregion, based on the
Transpprtation Plan Policies."
The study evaluated three types of service: local, express, and
paratransit.
The local fixed transit service within Subregion 3 has been evaluated along
with three alternative local fixed route systems. The fixed route system
alternatives include the following:
Alternative AM - provides additional routes with one-hour frequen-
cies focusing on the Major Activity Center. In addition, it discon-
tinues midday service on some north-south routes.
j4
• Alternative A(2) - also provides additional routes with 30-minute
frequencies focusing on the Major Activity Center. However, it con-
tinues to provide current service on the north-south routes.
• Alternative B - Timed-Transfer service is focused on the Major
Activity Center and the HUB in Richfield.
TheNparatransit alternatives include:
• Demand Responsive Service for Edina
• Demand responsive Service for Bloomington
RECCOMMENDATIONS
Analysis of the fixed route and paratransit alternatives together with the
special route productivity survey provided the bases for the following
recommendations. The recommendations concern fixed route service,
paratransit, demand responsive transit service, and the Southdale Transfer
Center.
1. It is possible to increase the focus of fixed route transit on the
Major Activity Center and maintain peak hour service to the Metro
Center without major increases in operating subsidies or requirement
for additional buses.
Therefore, Alternative AM should be pursued by the *TC es a vic~le
alternative. Alternative A(1) will support the principal of the
Transportation Policy Plan as it relates to subregional transit
service, as well as provide the current peak hour service to the *'etro
Center.
79
2. Southdale is an auto oriented center and is a major generator of vehi-
cular traffic. Southdale was second only to the Minneapolis Central
'Business tDistrict in trip generation in the Twin Cities area in 1970.
While this Major Activity Center provides many of the same shopping,
medical and entertainment opportunities as the Metro Centers, several
problems related to attracting more transit passenaers must be
addressed and resolved.
Transit service can be focused on one destination within the Major
Activity Center such as the Southdale Terminal, or alternatively can
focus on the Southdale terminal and provide collection-distribution
service for other destinations throughout the.Southdale Area.
If the bus routes serve only the Southdale terminal, the travel times
will be better for those riders who are destined for Southdale
shopping, but because of the lack of pedestrian facilities in the
greater Southdale area the service will attract very few transit riders
who have destinations other than Southdale.
The converse of this situation is to have the bus routes provide a
collection and distribution service through the Southdale area before
and/or after going to the Southdale Terminal. While improving the ser-
vice to the non-Southdale destinations it would require longer travel.
times. The detailed planning for the Southdale Terminal will address
this issue and reach a conclusion.
3. The Minneapolis Metro Center offers a wide variety of opportunities and
provides a climate-controlled skyway system for transit passengers to
reach their desired destinations.
1
At the Southdale Major Activity Center, the pedestrian facilities are
much more limited. In addition to the lack of a climate-controlled
facility, the distance between the various retail opportunities is con-
siderably farther than in the Metro Center. To stop at Southdale,
visit the library, and go to a doctor is extremely difficult in the
Southdale Major Activity Center. Therefore, it is recommended the
pedestrian system within the Major Activity Center be improved if tran-
sit usage is to be encouraged and increased..
4. If transit service from the subregion to the 14ajor Activity Center is
increased, additional service should be provided between the 'Major
Activity Center and the Metro Center. This will provide opportunities
to those transit passengers who cannot meet all their needs at the
,Major Activity Center. Therefore, it is recommended that increased
service be provided by modification of Routes 4 and 18G as described in
Alternative AM.
5. The current system provides several express routes from the subregion
to the Metro Center. These routes are designed to pick up passengers
in the neighborhood, then operate in an express mode to the IMie ro
Center via the freeway.
80
This service should continue and be supplemented by additional express
service from the Major Activity Center for park-ride passengers, and
those passengers who have service to the Major Activity Center but are
not provided Metro Center express service. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that the additional service be provided during the peak periods
by routing Route 35T through the Major Activity Center. However, since
Route 35T is currently running at capacity, it is recommended that
additional peak hour service be implemented when the Southdale terminal
facility is completed.
6. The Edina Demand Responsive transit service alternative has good poten-
tial when compared to fixed route service. However, before proceeding
with implementation the results of the Dakota County CheckPoint Transit
Demonstration Project, now underway, should be evaluated.
7. Because of the potential for demand responsive transit In the Edina
area the Southdale Transit Terminal Center should be designed to accom-
modate the requirement of a demand responsive transit system in Edina.
8. Because of the benefits and minimal cost, the Minnesota Rideshare
programs should continue to be implemented in Subregion 3.
9. Because of the reorientation of some longstanding routes and the modi-
fication of others, extensive discussion of the recommended services
alone should be held in the subregion prior to formal public hearings.
FIXED ROUTE SERVICE PROFILES
Presented in this section are the detailed route profiles for the recom-
mended fixed routes in Subregion 3. Each profile contains the following
information:
at Description of the area served and recommended route and service
changes
• Description of recommended service frequencies
• Vehicles required to provided recommended service
• Anticipated annual rideship (range)
• Anticipated annual operating ratio (range)
• Route map illustrating recommended service coverage
Route C - Southdale to Masonic Home (Figure 22)
Description of Route and Area Served:
This route is proposed to connect Southdale and Southtown with south
Bloomington. The service should operate between the Masonic Home and
Southdale via France Avenue, 102nd Street and Penn Avenue. Limited peak
service and off-peak weekday, Saturday and Sunday service is proposed.
81
Route F - Airport Terminal to Southdale (Figure 23)
Description of Route and Service Area:
This route is proposed to connect the Airport Terminal to
southern Richfieldv The service should operate between t
Termina'I, East 79th Street, east and west 76th Street and
Southdale. Limited peak, off-peak, weekday, Saturday and
proposed.
Service Characteristics: Peak Midday
Headway in minutes 60 60
Number of trips 4 11
Southdale via
,e Airport
York Avenue to
Sunday service is
Saturday Sunday
60 60
12 4
Vehicles Required: 1
Anticipated Annual Ridership: 118,000 to 140,000
Anticipated Operating Ratio: . .24 to .28
Route M - South Bloomington to Southdale (Figure 23)
Description of Route and Service Area:
This route is proposed to connect Southdale, central Bloomington and
central Richfield with south Bloomington. The service should operate on
Nicollet Avenue and 66th Street to Southdale. Limited peak, off-peak
weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service is proposed.
Peak Midday Saturday Sunday
Service Characteristics:
Headway in minutes 60 60 60 60
No. of trips 4 11 12 4
0
Vehicles Required: 1
Anticipated Annual Ridership: 71,000 to 84,000
Anticipated Operating Ratio: .24 to .28
Route N - Central Bloominaton to Southdale (Figure 23)
Description of Route and Service Area:
The route is proposed to connect eastern and central Bloomington with
Scuthtown and Southdale. The service should operate over 90th Street, Penn
P,venue, 76th Street and York Avenue to Southdale. Limited peak, off-peak
weekday, Saturday and Sunday service is proposed.
Se-vice Characteristics Peak Midday Saturday Sunday
Headway in minutes 60 60 60 60 •
4 11 12 440
No. of trips
84
t -29- EXHIBIT B
1 V. RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN
In summary, the purpose of the investigation was to:
1 D
.J etermine the reaction of users of the current downtown-oriented
midday services to the proposed operating scheme.
2. Determine the most accurate method of estimating the new
j ridership that would be generated by the addition of six new
! routes serving Southdale and the extension of Route 18G.
The major portion of the analysis, the surveys of the current transit
passengers and the potential transit market and the development of a control
group concluded that:
_? • The household characteristics of the Control Area are similar
to the Richfield and Bloomington samples. Therefore, the
performance of Route #48 could reasonably be used as a tool in"
projecting ridership.
• The Bloomington and Richfield areas surveyed made more trips
to Southdale on a trip/household basis than the Control Area.
• The ridership productivity (transit users/household) from the
Control Area was used to forecast ridership.
• Of those persons who feel Southdale should be serviced by bus
(638 of total), 44% rated the bus service fair to poor.
• The trip purpose of the largest number of off-peak trips is
for work, 288. Present MTC users traveling to and from work
in the off-peak would be adversely affected by the
• modification of existing routes.
• Approximately 808 of the present users indicated that their
trip purpose could not be completed in the subregion;
therefore, these trips may be lost with the implementation of
the subregional transit plan.
• 458 of the present users indicated that it was desirable to
_ provide bus service to Southdale.
The refinement of the cost and ridership estimates for the service plan
proposed indicates that the benefits (attraction of new riders and savings
from discontinuation of nonproductive service) are stalemated by the costs of
the new services and the loss of existing passengers.
The public involvement program wherein the Advisory Committee on Transit, the
Bloomington Traffic and Transportation Advisory Commission, and the Richfield
City Council expressed their views on the service plan proposed in the 1981
_ study and on the activities during this analysis yielded a strong consensus
that:
1. The provision of new subregional services is warranted.
2. The existing service should not be reduced or otherwise
curtailed in the subregion.
Minutes of meetings at which the plan was discussed and related correspondence
are included in the appendix to this report.
Al
-30-
The utilization of implementation scenarios wherein various strategies of
action were assessed, yielded several conclusions:
• that it is economically infeasible to add,all of the proposed new
services without altering the existing services.
• that the integrity of the service plan should be preserved, even
though some routes are more promising than others.
• that marketing alone will not counter the deficiencies in the system
that exist in Subregion 3, but should be a major element of any
program that is instituted.
Based on the conclusions drawn from the survey results, the refinement of
ridership and cost estimates, the community involvement program and the
scenario exercise, an implementation plan was shaped that resolved the issues
that had anteceded this analysis. Summarized here are the major points of the
-, implementation scheme adopted by the Project Management Board and the
Metropolitan Transit Commission.
INTEGRITY OF THE SERVICE PLAN SHOULD BE PRESERVED. The analysis of the
transit alternatives shown in the Subregional Transit Planning Study:
Subregion 3 was comprehensive and the selected service plan is warranted.
Therefore, implementation of the entire service plan, as refined, should
remain the goal. However, in deference to the strong opposition to the
element of the service plan that proposes discontinuation of some existing
services, it was resolved that implementation of that element should proceed
only at which time that the new routes have proven viable.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME SHOULD PROCEED IN STAGES. The decision to proceed with
the implementation of the service plan in defined stages in order to:
• Create a "splash" - the stronger emphasis on suburban travel will
require changing some of the attitudes currently held by the transit
riding public. In recognition of this, chan_ges_made during the
initial stage of the service implementation should be of a magnitude
sufficient to warrant a marketing effort and to attract media
coverage.
7
J
I
7
• Proceed in a logical manner - the decision regarding which of the
new services should be implemented in the initial stage must
recognize that:
1. Service to the Airport and to the employment adjacent
to the Airport should be provided.
2. Routes should be spaced to afford optimum travel opportunity
within the subregion.
3. Cost-effectiveness should be a major consideration.
Based on these criteria, it was determined that the first phase of the
implementation would include the introduction of Routes D, E and F, coupled
with an aggressive marketing program. These routes provide the best
geographical dispersion of services and therefore offer the subregional
transit travel opportunities to the greatest number of residents of the
subregion.
7
?s
-31-
SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD NOT CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR THE MTC. The Project
Management Board also determined that the implementation of the service should
not occur until such time that the MTC is, financially capable of providing
additional service miles.
It will be the responsibility of the Service Planning and Scheduling Section
of the MTC to monitor the operating budget of the agency in order to determine
when the first phase of the service implementation is to take place, and to
monitor that phase in order to plan for subsequent phases of implementation.
The Metropolitan Transit Ccnmission, the Metropolitan Council and the affected
_ municipalities will continually watch for new funding sources, not available
at the time of this report, that might be appropriate for this demonstration.
7
7
J
3
793/njh
PROPOSED BUS'ROUTE CHANGES
40
f 2 W < T <
OC Z > 11-- ) ~ J 1-. p N >
< Z Z O k Z O 2 Z ? J 1,1 N 2 p O 2 < 0
X 2 u O i 0: N W 2 W F a Z N O O N X 2 U J W W p q O >t O y2? < _ ~ q W p
C N 2 F O W N W 2 > ; C p i > < W O Q } O O K C < y<j ry7 i y O y>j IE s J Y O {al J? s d O = w w, C z o
W a - 6 S S 7 3 W J W O L C Y y < f or J W j V h s J< S J O- N 1n O Y1 ?O P O g 01 L1 `
x 3 > > 1- N y O 6 O 2 2 J Y 7 - I a usi O m Q J a i a 6 O 3 i. iA Al A U f h ` V W c- - U N N N N
CROSSTOWN 1/WT 62M ST
62nd ST --
63.d ST 5 " I I f ; r '_ ;%'' t Jrrr?i f?C- ? ---' ??? ,
63#d ST
_1 _- I _L. _ _ _.. ._. _?[ •1 __ L. LEGION _ ?_ D[?D? n ]LJL-IJ[. ?- 6411, ST.
6411, ST.." _.•
Z? IIICNTIELB - LAME
651h sT r- n - -n 11 ..? r?r-Trlnnn - r M. ??c'31-1 6511, ST.
661h ST.
6711, ST. ?-
6B1h ST. J-1?[. '1L1[ I iff
T -I
6911,
7011, ST.
7014 Si. ?1C. a... l(I_ ?[.. ..: .._.
71st S7.
7", 57. 11- --.
.. .([.--•
7214 ST ; L-1
I
?: ?1
73ro sr.
1
7411, ST
751h ST. ... ... [_?_
761h ST.
7711, ST.
?Bob ST.
1-494
W z t z w z J 2 Z 2 2 X N a f p
O W F O W W > F u' 2 Z<
go u IL
y1 S 2 O 2 W O O 2 O W O O Y 7 i m R
W > ~ I S i 2 j a
? ; N A S
x
0 0 J Q Q W q < O w 1,1
p O V Q m O p
U J W t Q' a m; a W
W O m Q J a 2 J J 2 J J
C 0 6 ; m J
2 s_
J i
rrrrrrrrrrr EXISTING ROUTES
NEW ROUTE
asN MIDDAY SERVICE CUTS
H
N
u
?(L?JLJ?? (?? ?? ? ..- n?1 -- :-- ?.: /741h ST.
751h ST.
7611, ST.
Lin I
7711, ST.
------ -------- " -- __? 70 Ih ST.
1-494
W O Y N O f c « < Z c c W ;
> 2 C a O 0 ->
q Q m Q o - N 14 v n? r at Q a
I
_661k ST_
671h STj
T-
iBU ST.
91h ST.
J uQ u - - - - - - a '-° - - J. CITY OF
g o o W Q RICHFIELD
u u HENNEPIN COUNTY. MIN
n
+ . :'1 RP.Mitt.. w. 't .n1,. .. .w.MM• IWb,M
• 4+.6iGY? 14?..., _ .: W?ww:11 Inrl. ;.,.w tI?m611irl ?1'r(rtwl rlta1ti11
.-f,_..IWM.J#.::N.r1/11.1.1.V.i,t? yyH N16;iLaL IYJ6kr:4.,a6.,16!JiY?y'?yV{/r61WL1r/?'wSYY.I11r? ?6r?A y?,?y•
r?: .: 61,'! ?_?.. L/ .. - -_.. qll. 5i....._._.... `1.•.??wrl0tilir' *MIW
a , id
' i/ 1 1 u b ? f •r? ` `? (,u1•town/io`.1 CA ^ •l \V?_-??? ?yr,?? -
-- ?.1!•?a,?w
f'?? •61?ai ` I ' ?• 'rte .a •.._-_ ?r? _ '.6hd k
?: c,r,.,! (tlCh Irld .• tlc(Jf?n 1 \ ?i
. /J ?T
? r !
-•j-,_i 6111, y1 .01 Paul
L t o Minne U11S _ 1 41
I tom.. a k e it
o i.. i,•
ti w t l y ttu 1 s(` - RQl17E M e e ar.rn t 6611, s -° v I 1 /? .•
ga,ky v r m Inlrrnalwn:ll Al purl +ICntlul•
f! ?OOI L,I((p •`11r1rk -Y gUUTHDAIE f3 fi-' T \ ?• a '%. 44
A ?
CornfGak.j ?, I) f i I c1= _ r t Sne 141 ?f1
' r'J Yln `? ._.
K w au. s! .l. 4 /Yood// 7 t o loth $I rr.n, of Ukl 7'/ ?J _
\ f
a kptl : I ilk l. , Ir t °?• i ForI a Uti .r
•I. r4 o I
SI1C 11111(?O
Laktr { r..-._ t ,lfA st o H ' ?rF P'?n U IMencl :
J '.. . r- PI JIIGniII '
" I l% (fill it 65 r< ,c
Cemetery lub -NCI( I`
w. t :1.. -HOUTE F r ,6th eke
51 Irk- M% I
t
r -NI u I M1 S1•, ?R 71 nelliny S,la Ti
C IT
o {I; _
94
,ir,!/
?':. eou, s1 r rl 1-1 Pis In
{ a
x > Park ? t• .
a turn
?
tub Wa 6,nr1 s1 41E CONTROLDATA
Hugh.,.../
?•. ?` tin
w{ e+in s! Qr. a Club rtvt(3 ?l
r \J
z Ixc .r ml eke
;.? Crock ? '? - o :-
y__ earn sr t 11611" 11 s! ` N
Long a, t 1.
Penn (r c 26
it nk e y ` ?? ?- a L'0 rr
rld !`off:-- K i ]o°
-Mm sl
'il
4) no
ROUTE N j
t• v11t SI • ?P ° W
LM FIGURE 23 e'
B I o o 1 1 i n qto 11 :., oxnoro. ea6oW
t = NEW FIXED ROUTE SERVICE
'ark
!1'?.•._ .: 1 ... \` -
I ROUTES F,M,N
r, r
Jt w 10,"d S1 . 4xR711TE M Lake ?.\\
e it 10.11
%pw
06
w. 110411N St. Mound N1"
S
?? f N w -1061"' ,.j_ 31 - •?• -
Spring
flits
1 z 1tn
-cl
i W 11011, sl
(Creek 10,u 1:I?ult rrelV.l (23 c'
nj U0
oil
(1U1" NA a Rrve? ? (t p ?_.? 1
A 1 0 TA
3sw 32 cnn Ada TRANSIT PLANNING STUDY
1.--?•rr..:rc?..ewr..c.L4,a. r?a•y?::.:g.?+:i. - • nutnxr.•.!.:i:.-: ri«.•ta.:a.t...,yu arr•wuuui:n? ratu,?,rJY? .:c:.eruia/aL•,:+mc.. ..Yflw6?+.re6wiwixa!rar><s?enrrurreaiw..e+rr a .,..?. ......................._.-.,-..... .,..,.._....... ................ .. ..... _..... I) ?
Bulk Rate
u S Postage
PAID
Mpls , Minn.
Permll No 1610
Metroo-,,--
MR. JOHN G CARTWRIGHT
r
MANAGER 1
A Publication of the M e t r o p o l i t a n Council V o l . V No. 8 C I T Y OF R I C H F I E L D
6700 PURTLAND AV
RICHFIELD MN :5423
.,.A_ ..... .... .a...::.>..:r;.. _..,.w<..,:;iu.'Y..,„,.w...,._ .?.,c, y.l?jl2nr u_ms.C:adA, s< .. ;. .?.«ut'.'.C.::-. '•':ctl: ?.?:.if..K U..t ;s,.., -.: ?:a..:: ):... _. _._ ...... .__ _.. ?. ?. ._...- .. _.... .. .. .... _. ...... __., _.. ... .. _
Less ri s rr,
Despite all the efforts to encourage car
pools and van pools in the Twin Cities
Area, fewer people are sharing rides
today titan 13 years ago.
In 1970, cars averaged 1.S riders; today,
it's only 1.3.
That's a maior finding of a survey of
travel behavior in the Region conducted
in 1982 by the Metropolitan Council.
The Council needs the data to plan for
the Area's highway and transit needs for
the next 20 years. The last such survey
was in 1970.
Why the decline in ridesharing? No one's
s? today than
sure, but Ann Braden, Council trans-
portation planner who wrote the report,
speculated on several reasons. Fewer
riders use car pools to go to work than
for other reasons. More . of the trips
being made today are for work, so lower
overall occupancy may be one result.
IF IT'S NOT YOUR TURN
"It could also reflect changes in the
labor force," Braden said. "In more and
more families, two people are working,
and their schedules don't adjust to driv-
ing straight to and from work. They're
stopping to drop a child off at a day-
care center and to shop. They like to use
e
0
in 190"h7ur"k. --travel
the car at noon to run an errand or go
to a restaurant-things you can't do if
you're in a car pool and it's not your
turn to drive."
Even though the cost of fuel has gone
way up in the last decade, Braden added,
transportation costs "haven't increased
that much as a portion of most people's
budgets. They're apparently willing to
spend for parking and fuel for the sake
of flexibility and independence."
Irregular work hours, irregular work .
location and "don't know anyone" are
F
101
.1 1
"" q frinds
the principal reasons people give for not
car pooling, national studies show.
The Council survey showed some other
interesting characteristics of Twin
Citians' travel behavior. For one thing,
they're driving mitre these flays than
they did in 1970. And it's nu wonder--
they have nlure 4_11
In 1970, one tliilil t)I Illc households in
the Seven-Cuunty Arcd had two or more
Continued on page S.
1
R
•
0
Travel behavior
.Continued from page 1.
vehicles. Twelve years later, it's more
than half: 54 percent.
With so many households having two-
plus cars, those with none or one have
dropped. In 1970, 52 percent of the
households had one car and 15 percent
had none. The 1982 figures are 36 and
10 percent.
TRIPS UP 1.6 MILLION '
Another sign that Twin Citians are
traveling more: the total number of
trips made each year in the Metropoli-
tan Area increased by about 1.6 million
in the 12-year period, from 5.1 million
in 1970 to 6.7 million in 1982. Some of
the increase, about 400,000 trips, re-
flects a population increase.
"The other 1.2 million increase is simply
that people are traveling more," said
Braden. She added that the larger per-
centage of people working could account
for some of the increase. About 30 per-
cent of all 1982 trips were work-related.
One positive trend, Braden said, is that
a greater proportion of trips are being
made during peak travel times (6 to 9
a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m.): 35 percent, as
against 30 percent 12 years ago. "That
suggests people are cutting down on
nonessential travel," she said, "and put-
ting a higher priority orywork trips."
Twin Citians averaged 3.37 trips per day
in 1982,. the survey says, up from 2.72
in 1970.
For the study, a trip was defined as
made in a vehicle, with a starting and
stopping place; it didn't take length into
account. If you stop on your drive to
work to drop a child at a day-care cen-
ter and then drive to the office, that's
two trips. If you stop on the way home
to pick up cleaning, that's another two
trips. Included in the daily person-trips
are car drivers and passengers, and bus
r iders.
BUS TRIPS UNDER 4%
Even though 58 percent more bus trips
were made in 1982 than in 1970, the
percentage of total trips made by bus
went up only slightly: 3.8 percent in
1982 versus 3.2 percent in 1970. For
1982, that means one in every 26 trips
was made on a public bus.
Other percentages: 69 percent of 1952
trips were made as drivers (59 percent in
1970); 20 percent in 1982 as car passen-
gers (31 percent in 1970). In both years,
6 to 7 percent of trips were by other
modes, primarily school bus.
Travel also reflects economic status,
Braden said. People who earn more
Households with an annual income
under $7,500 only generate 1.8 trips
per person per day. Households earning
between $7,500 and $20,000 generate
around 3.1 person-trips a day. And for
those over $20,000, it's about 4 trips a
day.
P.M. RUSH HOUR LONGER
Wonder what time of day the most
people are on the road? If you're a rush-
hour driver or passenger, you're prob-
ably half aware that highways seem.
more crowded for a longer period in the
afternoon than in the morning-and
you're right. The number of "trip starts"
peaks at 7 a.m. with 300,000 starts.
Roads are most crowded between 7 and
8:15 a.m. (Trip starts include trips by
drivers, passengers and bus riders.)
In the afternoon, the peak hours stretch
over a much longer period. Trip starts
reach the 250,000 mark about 2:30 p.m.,
hit the first peak of 310,000 starts at
3 p.m., drop off slightly, then hit
another peak-330,000-at 4:30 p.m.
It's 6 p.m. before traffic flow drops
below 250,000 trips.
If you think you notice a difference in
ruff
970
j. ; J
a
traffic 'load, on different days of the a
week, you may be right again. Friday's '
heaviest, Wednesday's lightest-but not
by very much. One explanation for
Friday: weekend shopping and travel
begin that day.
Noncy Ann /omes
52 Yo
Minnesota
Lac a
YCZ I 11fli-J U By DIANE E. CHILDS
In a few weeks, many Richfield
residents will be receivLng surveys
by mail from the :l:etropolitan
T, ansit Comrn*ssion (MTC) asp
their opinions of current bus service
and several new changes in area
service now being s'adied.
The results of this survey will be
one more step toward alleviating
the frustration the NITC is experien-
cing in planning better service for
Subregion Three, an area encircl-
ing the "major activity center" of
the Southdale area and including
Richfield, Bloomington, Eden
Prairie and Edina.
Dropping midday north-south
bus routes at 66th Street and focus-
ing midday service on east and west
and the Southdale area with six new
routes were major considerations
in NITC service plans aired Jan 5 at
a meeting for Subregion Three.
But the frustrations of meeting
the transit needs of residents of
Richfield and the other Subregion
Three cities. amid many obstacles
and opposition to some plans, was
the meeting's major thrust.
The meeting, held at the South-
dale Hennepin Library and pre-
sided over by b1TC Comm:-Sio..c.
Alison Fuhr. was attended by ar _a
legislators and. city officials from
throughout the subregion. '!c-
attending from Richfield :- d
city manger John Cartes r. .:..
planner Rick Jopke and L.
direc*.oro:.he Richfield Cr .:".:..
rr?Spi.e the fact the j: T`._ ... _
ir! ed a survey of 300 c :r ...
riders in this area in
eid meetings to gather morte
'0 alized input in planning, and has
d-::wvn-up plans and an implemen-
tation analysis (released in Au-
oust). more changes to Subregion
Three proposed plans appear nec-
r or example, mi-C sunreo onal
service glans focus midday service
on a "major activity center," in this
subregion's case. the Southdale
area. 3ITC studies have found that
30 per cent of bus trips.taken by
those within a subregion remain
within that subregion. And the ITC
.'should respond to this demand,"
said Dorene Roeglin, MTC planner.
But between 72 and 30 per cent of
those midday riders surveyed on
Routes 5, 18 and 47 said they could
not accomplish the same tasks at
Southdale that they do now by
taking their bus trips downtown.
These residents surveyed, a ma-
jority of which ride to reach their
place of employment, oppose the
elimination' of midday norh north-
south service, according to Jim
Wolsfeld of Bennett, Rjngrose.
Wolsfeld, Jarvis and Gardner, Inc.,
the firm that compiled the Sub-
region Three studies for the vITC.
Former Richfield City Manager
Karl Nollenberger responded to the
.YtTC's proposed plans for the area
last January in a letter to Roeglin
saying, "The City of Richfield sup-
ports the implementation of a new
_; :1:•<__:i in a : aeeks and
• n•':.1 :.eel :ngs.
he bis wave of problems" fac-
:-g ;he "J"'C in SubregioD Three
-her l-,strat.edbythe
r.ebiiity to obtain Iand at
S?.t_hdaie for a bus transit center,
=other cart of the Subregion Three
:Ian. said Roeglin. She. explained
that the metro centers of `finne-
apcdiS and St. Paul consider transit
..tegral to Cct'ziUp; tent." w-nile
S:)uthcla'le apparentiy considers a
transit center "detrimental to de-
Youte F along 76th, Street in Ric'--
field but strongly opp_.,Ses any cut-
back in the existing service level in
Richfield."
4 olsfeld said any Citt: rsrY 1,
north-south service would .Like
placle after new routes were .n.--
:grid express service would rem a:r.
during peak hours of the day
Realligning midday sere--;;e
the Southdaie area. he said. v-oui
generally "have little effect on -,:,.-a:
passengers carried in the Sub-
region." He said what will be incon-
venience for some current riders at
midday may be balanced-out with
:,ever service for the whole area.
..Survey analysis indicates ser-
:i•?_ dU blast iI, 1?:,,h-
?a an:' according
e S -ee 4z udy text.
4 ' _ L -_71Z of tae present bus
rdicated that _er-
ta... _ ut.._ uie area ir, r.eces-
=sr X('c -,eic S::id. Ifa passenger
. as a c-noir:e of a :3 minute ride to
Sou hdai- or a 30 to 33 minute ride
dc-.%vntc•,vn. more would probably go
to Southdale. he continued.
Wc lsfeld added that "in terms of
total cost. revenge and subsidy, .
!Subregion Three plans proposedY
would basical-1 a %vash." be-
tween the aura•:-ion of new' riders
and the discontinuance of non-prod-
uctive service and the loss of exist-
17112 passengers and the cost of new
1
service.
"art agressiye mari:eting pro-
gram" is planned to inform those'
residents of Subr--7,o:lol Three of
MTC plans. w'el as t^e ice
velopment" in the area.
Wolsfeid said the IN1TC had ob-
tained federal funds for the center,
but the one acre parcel at Southdale
..was not for sale at any c ,st"
The high socio-economic cl.arac-
teristes of Subregion Three, as well
as the abundance of free parking is
also a detriment to transit plans for
suburban areas.such as Subregion
Three, he said.
"Der?and-responsive" transpor-
tation is another obstacle facing the
NITC in providing better service in
this Subregion. This "more person-
alized service," which includes
doorstep and checkpoint pick-up
and Community Center Trar-spor-
tatinn. however. is cost-prohibitive.
P,jcr:;ield City Manager John
Cartwrght used the Ric.hreid Bank '
and Trust's mini-bus for its cus-
tomers as an example of how
private enterprise could help to
provide transit service jn the area.
He asked whether the Hub Shop-
ping Center in Ric Leld or Stuth-
dale could be encoura?ed to sub-
sidize some transit -service to and
from their facilities.
State Senator Don Storm of Eder.
Prairie said. " Conceptually. we"re
being challenged to be more
creative." He questioned whether
the MTC has studied v.-hat the
"ideal" transit service for t`is a-
would be.
Further cbrsideratiors
voiced by Commissioner ....
"All the routes are set.°;ed
nobody- ;vants to give up their Munn
Now, too. we've got it compiic•atee
because East Bloominc-tor, is beinE
studied with the Airport South
study. And we've got Hiawatha
Avenue coming down. which has
been approved by Minneapolis. and
maybe ;we're going to have light rail
there. Is that going siphon-of what
we've got here?"
•
C U
By DIANE E. CHILDS
In a few weeks, many Richfield
residents will be receiving surveys
by mail from the Metropolitan
T ransit Commission (NITC) asking
their opinions of current bus service
and several new changes in area
service now being studied.
The results of this survey will be
one more step toward alleviating
the frustration the MTC is experien-
cing in planning better service for
Subregion Th;-ee, an area encircl-
ing the "major activity center" of
the Southdale area and including
Richfield, Bloomington, Eden
Prairie and Edina.
Dropping midday north-south
bus routes at 66th Street and focus-
ing midday-service on east and west
and the Southdale area with six new
routes were major considerations
in MTC service plans aired Jan. 5 at
a meeting for Subregion Three.
But the frustrations of meeting
the transit needs of residents of
Richfield and the other Subregion
Three cities, amid many obstacles
and opposition to some plans, was
the meeting's major thrust.
The meeting, held at the South-
dale Hennepin Library and pre-
sided over by NITC Commi=sioner
Aiison Fuhr, was attended by area
legislators and. city officials from
throughout the subregion. T arse
attending from Richfield inc : d d
city manager John Cartw-ri c." ,
planner Rick Jopke and
director of the Richfield
tv Center.
Dvsuite the fact the MTC
conducted a survey of 800 cur
than it riders in !his area in May
14'2, held meetings to gather more
localized input in planning, and has
drawn-up plans and an implemen-
tation analysis (released in Au-
gust), more changes to Subregion
r or example, M7't sunreglonal
service plans focus midday service
on a "major activity center," in this
subregion's case. the Southdale
area. MTC studies have found that
50 per cent of bus trips taken by
those within a subregion remain
within that subregion. And the NITC
"should respond to this demand,"
said Dorene Roeglin, MTC planner.
. But between 72 and 80 per cent of
those middav riders surveved on
Routes 5, 18 and 47 said they could t
not accomplish the same tasks at
Southdale that they do now by
taking their bus trips downtown.
These residents surveyed, a ma-
jority of which ride to reach their
place of employment, oppose the
elimination of midday norh north-
south service, according to dim
Wolsfeld of Bennett, Ringrose,
Wolsfeld, Jarvis and Gardner, Inc.,
the firm that compiled the Sub-
region Three studies for the MTC.
Former Richfield City Manager
Karl Nollenberger responded to the
I,TC's proposed plans for the area
last January in a letter to Roeglin I
saying, "The City of Richfield sup-
ports the implementation of a new
.route F along 76th Street in Rich-
field but strongly opposes any cut-
back in the existing service lo've'. in
Richfield."
'Noisfeld said and c,,ttbacks in
north-south service would take
placb after new routes were intact
Arid express service would re:r
during peak hours of the day.
Realligning midday servi_e tc
the Southdale area. he said. %vouid
generally "have little effect on total
passengers carried in the sub-
region." He said what will be incon-
venience for some current riders at
midday may be balanced-out with
better service for the whole area.
"Sun ev aralvsis indicates ser-
?ice defi cen?::;?s duexist ir,
:; !a 3n it "ori ' according
ne S _- Three tudy text.
. _nd ce_m of the present bus
cr: sur,. - indicated that ser-
tc luthc?le area is neces-
s ?? cls:`eld said. If a passenger
-as a c'.oice of a 12 minute ride to
Southdale or a 30 to 35 minute ride
downtown. n-:ore would probably go
to Southdale. he continued.
Wolsfeld added that "in terms of
total cost, rep enue and subsidy, .
fSubregion Three plans proposed)'
would basicali. be a wash." be-
tween the attranon of new-riders
and the discontinuance of non-prod-
uctive service and the loss of exist-
ing passengers and the cost of new
service.
An agressive marketing pro-
gram" is planned to inform those'
residents of Subregion Three of
-ur, e} mailing in a few weeks and
e ;pen hearings.
"The bia wave of problems" fac-
?.ns the MTC in Subregion Three
fui-Lher -ill) ed by the
`. T C's :nabihry to obtain land at
Southdale for a bus transit center,
another part of the Subregion Three
plan, said F.oeglin. She explained
that the metro centers of Minne-
apolis and St. Paul consider transit
"integral to development," while-'
South dale apparently considers a
transit center "detrimental to de
velooment" in the area.
Wolsfeld said the MTC had ob-
tained federal funds for the center,
but the one acre parcel at Southdale
"was not for sale at any cast."
The high socio-economic char ac-
teristcs of Subregion Three, as well
as the abundance of free parking is
also a detriment to transit plans for
suburban areas.such as Subregion
Three. he said.
"Demand-responsive" transpor-
tation is another obstacle facing the
MTC in providing better service in
this subregion. This ":Wore person-
alized service," which includes
doorstep and checkpoint pick-up
and Community Center Transpor-
tation. however. is cost-prohibitive.
Richfield City Manager John
Cartwright used the Richfield Bank '
and Trust's mini-bus for its cus-
tomers as an example of how
private enterprise could help to
provide transit service in the area.
He asked whether the Hub Shop-
ping Center in Richfield or South-
dale could be encouraged to sub-
sidize some transit service to and
from their facilities.
State Senator Don Storm of Eden
Prairie said. "Conceptually. we're
being challenged to be more
creative." He questioned whether
the 3ITC has studied Ahat t`,-
"ideal" transit service for this area
would be.
Further considerations ere
voiced by Commissioner F
".All the routes are settied an
nobody wants to give up their roue.
Now, too. we've got it complicated
because East Bloomington is bei:;E?
studied with the Airport South
study. And we've got Hiawatha
Avenue coming down, which has
been approved b\--Minneapolis, and
maybe we're going to have light rail
there. Is that going siphon-of what
we've got here?"
0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 52
Agenda February 7, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Discussion Item: Watershed Management Organization
(WMO) Organizational Meeting February 13, 1984
Council Members:
At 6:00 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 1984, at the City of
Bloomington, the Richfield/Bloomington Watershed Management Organ-
ization will hold its organizational meeting. Because the Richfield
City Council has a regular meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. that same
evening, time will be limited for the organizational meeting. Agenda
items set for the organizational meeting include:
1. Adoption of by-laws. A copy of the by-laws is pro-
vided in your backup.
2. Election of officers. The Board shall have and elect
a chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and treasurer.
The officers may be from either city council, but the
chairman and vice chairman shall be from different
city councils (Section 3.1, by-laws)
The seven council members from Bloomington and the five
council members from Richfield will each serve as a
Commissioner on the Water Management Organization Board
(Section 1.3, by-laws).
3. Appointment of an Executive Director and Assistant
Executive Director (Section 4.1, by-laws). These two
positions are to be filled from the staffs of the two
cities. The two appointees shall be from different
cities. It is expected that the city managers from each
city will be appointed to these two positions.
4. Preparation of a water management plan for the watershed
district, with a status report or update of the plan
scheduled for the annual meeting to be held in January,
1985. It is expected that the city staffs will be dir-
ected to prepare this plan.
It is recommended that each community prepare a storm water
Council Letter No. 52 -2- February 7, 1984
management plan as it relates to the affected land area in each comm-
unity and identify questions and concerns to be addressed at the
annual meeting. It is expected that the two portions of the plan
will be consolidated or coordinated into one plan for the watershed
at the annual meeting or at a subsequent time sufficient to meet
the mandated completion date of December 31, 1985.
Therefore, it is timely that the council discuss these matters
at the February 7, 1984 study session so as to be prepared for the
February 13, 1954 organizational meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
John G. Cartwright
City Manager
•
JGC/ej a
Note: Section 2.7 of the by-laws provides that Board action shall
be by a majority vote of the entire board unless other specified
in the Joint Powers Agreement.
Section IV, Subdivision 4, and Subdivision 9, of the Joint Powers
Agreement provides that a 2/3 vote is required to:
(1) adopt or amend the by-laws; and
(2) recommend approval of operating budgets and capital improvements.
A 2/3 vote requires 8 votes (2/3 x 12 = 8). There are 7 Bloomington
Commissioners and 5 Richfield Commissioners on the Board.
The city manager believes the authority to levy a property tax should
also require a 2/3 vote if this is not already provided for in Section
4, Subdivision 9, of the Joint Powers Agreement.
•
PROPOSED JOINT
POWERS
,
AGREEMENT BETWEEN I I N
RICHFIELD & BLOOMINGTON I Q CH (STIANI PARK
-
d
l I
w li
o i! I !
2;:
Z:i SON PARK
° MINNEHAHA!' CREEK
WATERSHED, DISTRICT I
M. A. C.
1 P ROPERTY
76TH ST.
J
R I CH FI
E ®
& 'J
-
oa
B ?0
IN GT
L M 0 N
1 SMITH PARK
POND ? I =
1
I r- J
I ??'_ J !
I I
1
1
T
1 WRIGHT'S LAKE
.
i 86TH S
>! i
J
?---- -? Qi EXISTING
! v;l STORM SEWE
\\
90T.H ST. I U;I '_ i
I
NINE MILE ' CREEK II PROPOSED ME'A®ow
WATERSHED DISTRICT I " BOUNDARY /' \\ LAKE
DRAINA GE DIVIDE
it
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
ESTABLISHING AND EMPOWERING
THE
RICHFIELD-BLOOMINGTON WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 19th day of
December 1983 by and between the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ("Bloom-
ington"), a municipal corporation and political subdivision of
the State of Minnesota, and the CITY OF RICHFIELD ("Richfield"),
a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of
Minnesota.
• WHEREAS, a portion of each City lies within the geo-
graphical area hereinafter referred to as the "Richfield-
Bloomington Watershed", which watershed is illustrated and des-
cribed on "EXHIBIT A", attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes § 473.875 to 473.883,
inclusive, require that there exist a watershed management organ-
ization which will perform some or all of the functions of a
watershed district for the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed; and
WHEREAS, each City has the authority to manage surface
waters within its boundaries pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
§ 447.075, and § 462.357, Subd. 1; and
WHEREAS, each City may jointly exercise common
0 authority by adopting a joint powers agreement pursuant to Minn-
esota Statute § 471.59; and
WHEREAS, by means of a joint powers agreement, the
cities may establish a water management organization pursuant to
M.S.A. 473.875 to 473.883, inclusive; and
WHEREAS, each City is desirous of jointly creating a
watershed management organization which would fulfill the mandates
of Minnesota Statutes S 473.875 to 473.883, inclusive, with respect
to the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed and which would otherwise
manage the surface water within said watershed in order to achieve
various goals with respect to natural water runoff and retention.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual under-
takings herein expressed, the City of Bloomington and the City cf
Richfield agree as follows:
0 SECTION I
ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
The Richfield-Bloomington Watershed Management Organi-
zation is hereby established; the operation of the Organization
shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
SECTION II
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to create a Water-
shed Management Organization which would fulfill the mandates of
Minnesota Statutes 5 473.875 to 473.883, inclusive, with respect
to the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed and which would otherwise
manage natural water runoff and retention in order to achieve
the following goals:
0
-2-
. (a) Reduce to the greatest practical extent the
public capital expenditures necessary to control
excessive volumes and rates of runoff;
11
(b) improve water quality;
(c) prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows;
(d) promote groundwater recharge;
(e) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and
water recreational facilities; and
(f) secure the other benefits associated with the
proper management of surface water within the Richfield-
Bloomington Watershed.
SECTION III
DEFINITIONS
• For purposes of this Agreement, the terms used herein
shall have the meanings as defined in this section.
Subdivision 1. The "Organization" means the Richfield-
Bloomington Watershed Management Organization established by thi s
Agreement.
Subdivision 2. The "Board" or "Board of Commissioners"
means the governing body of the organization.
Subdivision 3. "Council" means the governing body of
the City of Bloomington or the governing body of the City of
Richfield.
Subdivision 4. "Richfield-Bloomington Watershed" or
"Watershed" means the geographical area described and/or illus-
0 trated on Exhibit "A" attached and made a part of this Agreement.
-3-
• Subdivision 5. "Commissioner" means a member of the
Board of Commissioners.
Subdivision 6. "Cities" means the cities of Richfield
and Bloomington.
SECTION IV
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Subdivision 1. The Organization shall be governed by a
Board of Commissioners composed of all the members of the City
Councils of Richfield and Bloomington.
I
Subdivision 2. Each Commissioner shall have one vote
with respect to Board actions.
Subdivision 3. Unless otherwise specified by this
• Agreement, substantive Board action shall be by a majority vote
of the entire Board.
Subdivision 4. At its first organizational meeting,
or within a reasonable time thereafter, the Board shall adopt
•
bylaws not inconsistent with this Agreement concerning its pro-
cedures, meetings, and other appropriate matters affecting the
operation of the Organization, Such bylaws may be amended from
time to time in either a regular or special meeting of the Board
provided that notice of such proposed amendment has been given to
each Commissioner at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at
which the proposed amendment will be considered. A two-thirds (2/3)
majority vote of the entire Board shall be necessary to adopt or
amend such bylaws.
-4-
• Subdivision 5. All meetings of the Board shall be
subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.
Subdivision 6. At the organizational meeting of the Board
and in January of each year thereafter the Board shall elect from
its Commissioners a chairman, a secretary, a treasurer and such
other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings
and affairs.
Subdivision 7. A majority of the entire Board shall
constitute a quorum, but less than a quorum may adjourn a
scheduled meeting.
Subdivision 8. Each City may compensate the Commissioners
it appoints, but the Commissioners shall not be compensated by
• the organization or have expenses reimbursed by the Organization.
Subdivision 9. Board recommendations regarding operat-
ing budgets and capital improvement projects shall require a two-
thirds (2/3) majority vote of the entire Board.
Subdivision 10. The Board shall maintain a business
office at 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota
55431. All notices to the Board shall be delivered or served
to such office.
SECTION V
POWERS AND DUTIES
Subdivision 1. Except as otherwise qualified or modi-
fied by this Agreement, the Organization, acting by its Board of
Commissioners, shall have and perform all the powers and duties
• expressly set forth in and reasonably implied from Minnesota
Statutes § 473.875 to § 473.883, inclusive.
-5-
Subdivision 2. The organization may, within the scope
of this Agreement, accept gifts, apply for and use grants or
loans of money or other property from the United States, the
State of Minnesota, any unit of government or other governmental
organizaton, or from any person or entity for the purposes des-
cribed herein and may enter into any reasonable agreement required
in connection therewith; it may comply with any laws or regula-
tions applicable thereto; and it may hold, use and dispose of
such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift,
grant, loan or agreement relating thereto.
Subdivision 3. To the extent of funds acquired by
grant, donation, or otherwise, the organization may adopt an
• operating budget, enter into contracts and expend such funds.
Any disbursements shall be made in accordance with the principles
of Minnesota Statutes § 471.38 et seq.
To the extent that the Organization lacks funds, how-
ever, the Cities shall directly bear the expenses of the Organ-
ization and/or shall provide in-kind assistance (e.g. personnel,
office or meeting space) to the Organization. Except for such
capital improvements as are to be paid with organization funds or
via certification to the County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
§ 473.883, the Cities shall also be responsible for the cost of
any capital improvements.
The Board shall determine how specific costs,personnel
requirements, contracting and bid responsibilities, and other
•
-6-
expenses and requirements shall be shared by the Cities. How-
ever, to the extent possible, costs and responsibilities which
can.-be split geographically in a sensible manner shall be divided
between the Cities on that basis.
Whenever personnel of the Cities is utilized by the
Organization, such personnel shall remain the employees of their
respective Cities for all purposes, including salaries, benefits
insurance, and workmen's compensation. No charges for the ser-
vices of employees of the Cities shall be paid by the Organiza-
tion unless expressly agreed upon by the Cities.
SECTION VI
DURATION
Subdivision 1. The Organization shall continue in
• existence until the termination of this Agreement. This Agree-
ment may be terminated by either party, upon one year's written
notice to the other party, or at any time upon agreement of
both parties.
Subdivision 2. In the event of the termination of
this Agreement and the dissolution of the Organization, all
improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement shall be-
come the property of the party within whose boundaries the im-
provement is located. Any unencumbered funds or other assets
possessed by the Organization shall be distributed equally to
the parties.
•
-7-
Subdivision 3. Termination of the Agreement and disso-
lution of the Organization shall in no way affect or terminate
Richfield's present rights to dispose of its storm water through
connectors to Smith Pond in Bloomington.
SECTION VII
EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement shall be in full force and effect on
the date by which both Cities have adopted resolutions approving
said agreement.
SECTION VIII
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
The Board's first meeting shall take place at Bloomington
City Hall, 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota
on the third Thursday of the month that occurs following a lapse
of thirty (30) days after the effective date of the Agreement.
SECTION IX
MISCELLANEOUS
•
Subdivision 1. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless the other party for liability for damages for personal
injury, death, or property damages occurring as a result of
improvements or systems which are constructed solely within the
boundaries of the indemnifying party.
Subdivision 2. Unless specifically provided by this
Agreement, nothing herein is intended to alter or amend any
existing agreement between the parties.
-8-
IN WITNESS WHEREAS, the Cities have hereunto set their
hands the day and year first above written.
Upon proper execution,
this-Agreement shall be
a legal and binding obliga-
tion upo the City of
Bloomin on.
j?-t:?y Att 'ney
t
/r
• Upon proper execution,
this Agreement shall be
a legal and binding obliga-
tion upon the City of
Richfield.
0
C j(!y Attorney
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
By
-,,/Mayor
By: r iager
(SEAL]
CITY OF 7CHFI.
BY
< L ?r ltd! n..?
May r
By /?iL?/lU`ZU
City M pager
-9-
( I [JEAL I
EXHIBIT A
RICHFIELD-- BLOOMINGTON
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 70 Th. St
AREA W
a
0
Z
J
W
75 Th. St.
76 Th. St.
RICHFIELD - BLOOMINGTON
CORPORATE BOUNDARY
SMITH PARK
POND
1--4 9 4
1
•
86 Th. St.
90 Th. St.
•
67 Th. St.
W
a a
s CHRISTIAN PARK
E-
?Q ?
}
a
m
O
U
WILSON
PARK W
v
12000,
BLOOM. CORP. BOY.
H
WRIfHT'S LAKE
ui
a
z
a
0
W
U
D
J
O
w
> C oP0
Q J
1- O N Q??
W
J Q PLO
O
V ?
O
ass
98 Th. St. AREA 80UNDARY
#t 8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MM N ESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 46
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subj ect: Ordinance Amendment Relatina to On-Sale
Liquor Licenses. Second Reading.
Council Members:
At the January 23, 1994 city council meeting, the city
council cave f-irst reading to an ordinance amendment which
would require on-sale liquor license applicants to be present
at the council meeting at which their liquor licenses are con-
sidered. The public hearing was scheduled for February 13,
1984.
. A copy of the ordinance amendment is attached to this
council letter, and has been placed on the February 13, 1984 agenda
for the public hearing and second reading consideration.
pectf,illy? ubmitted,
ohn G. Cartwright 1
City Manager`
J GC/ ej a
0
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.06,
SUBDIVISION 9, PARAGRAPH (2) OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Paragraph (2), Subdivision 9 of Section 11.06 of the
ordinance code of the City of Richfield relating to on-sale
liquor licenses is hereby amended to read:
11(2) Upon completion of the manager's preliminary
report thereafter, the manager may recommend to the council
that a public hearing be held upon the application. The
council shall then instruct the city clerk to cause to be
published in the official newspaper 10 days in advance, a
notice of the hearing to be held by the city council, setting
forth the day, time and place when the hearing will be held,
the name of the applicant, the premises where the business
is to be conducted, and such other information as the council
may direct. At the hearing opportunity shall be given to
any person to be heard for or against the granting of the
license. The applicant or applicant's representative must
be present at the hearing to provide such additional
3 information as may be required ?aZ the council. Failure to
be so represented at the meeting shall be grounds for denial
of thie application After the hearing the council may
either grant or deny the license. If the license is granted, the
council may withhold its issuance until the applicant has
qualified in all respects for the license. If the premises
to be licensed are not complete at the time that the hearing
is conducted the council may grant the license but shall
withhold its issuance until the premises have been completed
in accordance with the representations made by the applicant.
If a license has been granted but its issuance has been
withheld pending completion of the premises to be licensed,
and if the licensee does not proceed with reasonable dispatch
to ready the premises, the council may rescind the action
granting the license. Such action shall not be taken,
however, without giving the licensee at least eight days'
notice of the time and place of a hearing on the proposed
rescission."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, this day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
John E. Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergn, City Clerk
-It /C;_)?
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter \ Jo. 45
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to Chapter XI, Section
1 1.01 , Creating and Recaulatinq the Municipal
Liquor Stores. First Reading.
Council Members:
Durina a review of the municipal ordinance code, city staff
noted that Chapter XI, Section 11.01, which creates and regulates
the municipal liquor stores, required several housekeeping type
amendments.
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 hirina decision would be under
the terms of the charter and personnel ordinance; or, in
other words, under the authority of the city man alter 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 recog-
nized credit card is used.
These ordinance amendments are listed for first reading on
the February 13, 1984 city council agenda. It is recommended that
the city council approve the first reading and schedule the public
hearing for February 27, 1984. ?-
/Res?
Sohn
City
e7ctfu+lly submitted,
G. Cartwright
Manager
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 Stere Menager Operations Director
means any 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:
11(1) The municipal liquor stores shall be in the
immediate charge of a the Liquor store manager
Operations Director, who shall serve under the
supervision and direction of the city manager. All
policies relating to the operation of such liquor
stores shall be determined by the council."
"(2) The liquor stare reneger 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. Aii-e*np?eyees;
iaeieding-the-iigtxer-stare-r.?er?eger ; -3?eie?-their
pesitie:?s-at-the-pieast?re-®t-the-eersneii-""
"(3) The liquor store manaeler operations director
shall have full charge of the liquor store and shall
have authority to purchase supplies as are
necessary."
"(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 store
manager operations director and employees while
they are so employed."
•
St
t
?• g
T
- `
,. Y,
ft
s ?
? nom
5
?...?.. .a_?a`rL...w._J+te1 .. ?e??.? _a..?....`........wr... .""`??.._:i..i...... ?.>. .1-i_a. _?..a?:.JL•..:.e 2.ri .z .„. .?... .,.
(F) P3®-}iquer-sha}}-ire-se}d-en-credit;-bitt-check
may-see-accepted-tn-payment;-in-the -dtscret}en-ef
the-}?gnar-stare-manager-fer-the-parehase-pr}ee-
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 only. Credit cars issued b national
credit companies which have entered into crept
agreements with the city, 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
ATTEST
•
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
mayor
.77
?t 7
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 44
Agenda February 13, 1984
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relatina to Residential
Kennel Licensing. Second Reading.
is
Council Members:
The present ordinance for licensing of dogs and cats, pro-
vides that a person must obtain a residential kennel license if
he has more than two dogs or two cats over the aae of six months.
The ordinance further provides that the city council may waive
this residential kennel license fee under certain conditions.
At the January 9, 1984 city council meeting, the city council
gave first reading to an ordinance amendment that would delete
the provision that residential kennel licenses may be waived.
Second reading and the public hearing were scheduled for the
February 13, 1984 city council meeting.
Durina 1983, approximately 18 residents applied for resi-
dential kennel licenses. Of these, only two requested a fee
waiver, both of which were denied by the city council.
A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached to this council
letter and this item has been placed on the February 13, 1984 city
council agenda for the public hearing.
JGC/ ej a
cc: City Clerk
RspectfLrlTy ubmitted,
John L (,.,Ca twriaht /
City Managen
0
0-
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.28, SUBDIVISION 3,
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Subdivision 3 of Section 5.28 of the Ordinance Code of
0
the City of Richfield relating to residential kennel licenses
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Subd. 3. Approval of Contiguous Property Owners. The
application for a residential kennel license shall be accom-
panied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants
of privately owned real estate abutting the premises on
which the kennel is to be located. Whether or not all of
the occupants of abutting property approve the application,
the council may grant or deny the license. The license
shall not be granted unless the council finds that the use
of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not
have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse effect upon
adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not
constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. The council may
impose conditions upon the granting of any residential
kennel license.
ORDINANCE NO.
6dhen-as-app??eaat-i?aa-m®?e-tkaa-tae-degs-ems-tire-eats-e?e?
six-xge?tt}3e-eE-age ; -ttzt-a®-we a°than -€etle-etieh-aeiata?-s 7- anel
the-e t -settrte -4eteL-ai4:nee-that-keeep?6aq-15t3eh-ars4::ftaie-ripen
the -app-1
??ke??*-to-?ta?e ; -$??*-ae??e?9e-e?€eet-ripen-ad3aee?t-p?epe=ties
er-the-eeetipaney-the L-ee= ; -the-eeldneA-? -stay-Wft-;L *e-the-reqttire-
Fftent-€e -a- elide t a?-}?er?ae?-?- eeese-€ee-"
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
•
Minnesota, this
day of
, 1983.
John E. Hamilton,
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
Mayor