02-28-83 agenda~'+ /
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 66
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
an d
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Use of Community Development Block Grant
Funds for Social Services
At a recent city council meeting, the city council considered
the potential use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
far financing a program to reduce costs of day care for low in-
come Richfield residents under a structure set up by the Minnea-
polis Day Care Association, on a sliding scale fee basis. The pro-
gram differed greatly from the original day care subsidy recommend-
ed by the staff and approved by the city council of a one-time
• grant to expand day care in the community.
During the last enactment of the Community Development Block
Grant legislation, authorization was allowed in the bill to pro-
vide up to 10% of funding for social services out of these monies.
The authorization was made in light of the significant amount of
cutbacks which were being made on the federal level for social
service funding. The amount of CDBG funds available to communities
has been reduced also in the past couple of years, especially when
inflation is considered.
The City of Richfield participates in the Community Development
Block Grant Program by being a member of a joint powers agreement
with a number of other communities in urban Hennepin County. Three
cities (Minneapolis, Hopkins, and Bloomington) continue to par-
ticipate on their own entitlements. Through the CDBG Richfield
has received in the neighborhood of $300,000 in the past three
years. The enabling legislation which allowed up to 10% of the
CDBG funds to be used for social services did not make any recommend-
ation or suggestions that these funds .should be used this way,
but only authorized local communities to make that determination.
Most cities in Hennepin County have not funded social services due
to the concerns that were expressed at the city council meeting.
Those concerns are that the program is more a bricks and mortar
type of program, especially in light of its potential lack of re-
newal after each three-year entitlement, which is to be consider-
ed by Congress again ire 1983. In addition, most communities
have been extremely concerned about funding of unlimited need of
social services in light of a limited amount of funds available
Council Letter No. 66 -2-
February 28, 1983
in the 10 percent limitation and feel that these services
should be provided by the county government, where the vast
majority of social services are provided in order to allow for
a prioritizing system of needs. City governments have histor-
ically not been heavily involved in social services and as a
result lack certain abilities in prioritizing these services.
It is generally recognized that a disjointed method of pro-
viding these services can easily result in a system lacking
continuity and perspective.
Three years ago, the City of Richfield helped to fund a study
by the South Hennepin Human Services Council to assess the
social service needs in the four city area. A lengthy document
was produced and reviewed by the city council in conjunction
with the study group. Tree council subsequently asked the Ad-
visory Board of Health to take the document and provide a summary
of the needs for social services within our community. That was
transmitted to the city council at the joint meeting with the
Advisory Board of Health on December 13, 1982. A copy of their
recommendations is enclosed for your. consideration.
The ten pages of specific recommendations from the Board of
Health include the following areas:
Senior Issues
Mental and Fiscal Disparities
Special Needs for Transportation
Mentally Ill and Emotionally
Disturbed Issues
Chemical Dependency Issues
Family Violence Issues
Community Education/Prevention
Child Care
Public Health Issues
Information Referral and Access
Other recommendations were made directly to the county and the
South Hennepin Human Services Council. Each one of the issue
areas has a number of discussions concerning the social service
needs in that area. All of these issues must be taken into
account in any decision the city council makes concerning fund-
ing of social services. Under the specific child care issues
there are four needs noted by the Advisory Board of Health.
Those issues are:
1. Child care after school that is affordable and of
high quality;
2. Single mothers that are the total support of them-
selves and their children, have great difficulty
paying $70 per month for Latch Key;
3. Change in criteria for Community Development Block
Grant Funding at the federal level;
,Council Letter No. 66 -3- February 28, 1983
4. Day Care Center and/or More Licensed Child Care
Homes encouraging the city to stimulate day care
development in Richfield.
The city council is in the position of having to determine
what levels of social services to fund as well as which areas
of social services are of the greatest priority. If child care
ends up being the highest priority, the specific needs re-
lating to child care also have to be analyzed.
It has been the decision of the city council in the past
(both in goal statements and specific decisions), to encourage
the fourth need described, of encouraging day care development
in Richfield. Difficulty in meeting the requirements of use
of the monies for low income persons stymied this need for CDBG
funds.
The City Council is faced with a critical decision at this
point. I would provide two alternatives for consideration:
Council Letter No. 66 -4- February 28, 1983
care opportunities in Richfield, particularly
in the area of infant care. This would eliminate
the low income requirement, yet meet the council's
original intent of expanding day care possibilities
for young families in our community. A grant to
finance the formidable front end costs of a day
care facility provides a lasting benefit to the
community as an investment in day care and in-
creases the likelihood of program development. While
the level of the grant needed is unclear at this
point, it is estimated that start up costs for an
infant day care facility would be somewhere around
$7,000 - $8,000. I hope to have more information
on this by Monday night.
1.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
_ Karl Nollenberge
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
Community Services Director
~' ~
~~
y ~~.
J
~~ (r
/ JJ
P
~ ~ ~
s `~ C
c~9 9'
fff ~ ~7
``A,,
V
~ ~
r~ ~
D ~,,, ~
~ ~ f
Q ~
D ~ Cc~ ~~J
6 ~~ ~ ~ S
,~
r~
~ ~ y~'
-J
c y'
~
~
~
CCU ~
.
c am
N ~~
~~
Q
~j
Vc,.3DS ASS=.SS:~.=~tm SLii20R ISSL'~S
Recommendation 8 (9aae 8I) and Recomrtencatior_ 1 i
?) Veed:
O~ ZtS
Respite care for elderly to relieve f~ailies caring for
aged in their homes. Recommend an evaluation..of need
and possible ways to implement meeting this need through
the Senior Citizen/&andicapped Corraaission. VE.~ identi+ies
it as a need that c•.irrently they are unable to meet.
V"r.AP will List openings for volunteer/Jobs. Complex because
nature:
Z) Volunteers need some type of insurance coverage.
2) No reimbursement from government to cover ex^ense
of respite is available. '
Recommendation I l (Paae 5 2 )
=) Geed: Coordination of se=vices offering same components of services
as 8.0.:4.E. with public ecucation of available services.
. Refer SAS. Recommend t.~te city cantirue to supao.rt
Richfield ~outa employment and Richfield Home Chore Service
as well as 3..O.M.E. The Richfield agenc_es receive IO-15 .
recuests each week for some Chore Services. They follow
up on euality and reliability of workers.
Recommendation 5 (Pace 50) and 3ecomiaerdation 4l"
Education and promotion is ongoing at tae Senior Center.
3) Veed: ?ar•t tine coordinator to give tote ongoing programs some
continuity and to evaluate changing needs in this important
preventative area.
3ecommendation ? -? 1 (Paces 81-84)
~) Veed: :fordable :iousi_:g. This need ? s not icenti:°_ed in the
study. Rowe~rer, it has come to t.~e attention of this
coroaittee is Identified as a high priority item. The
Richfield Towers has a raaiting list of approximately
700 persons. The Lakeshore Condominit.~s are nearly
2/3 occupies. The Lowest Brice is 541,000.
Recom~:end t.`:at t.:e Richfield Manning Commission contir_ue
to address tzis ^.eed and follow t::e guidelines _eccz~e.^.ded
in t:.e SAS Veeds _~ssessment Study as guidelines to
ass:zre citizens cual~ty _.: subsidize ;:ousi.:c that a
needed =.: Rich~ielc.
-I-
•~.
.~'
Senior Issues
3eccmmendation 1 (Pace 50)
=) Yeed: Clinics and physicians do not provide data about preventative
public Health services available.
3asic Veed: 'Io educate clir~cs and physicians about tl~e availability
of public health se~'vi ces and. to ask thez~ to disseminate
data as appropriate to tzeir clients.
~ecor.~mend : _
Sugsest directorv uses to be iz:
~• Si~1e tBZ~Y,illolocy understandable by consumers .
3. In alphas~eticaT order.
:~ecommerdation 11~ (Pane 5 2 )
5) Veed: educate t:Ze public about services available. (~11 services
mat have the same eomnonents as ~ . 0 . M. ~.. )
%) Veed: ,Monitor standards of wort being done, reliability, and
of f ordabilit•,~ .
~) Veed: More coordination of serv_cas?
~ecom~e_^.ca tion ? 4 (?aae ~ 7 )
~) :teed: 3es~ite ::or abused elderly. ~efar_ed to c+u=c:~es tnrouga
Charles Jones . Rec^rmze*:d _.~ a SAS Committee on f ~.~,~
violence include tzis issue is tae~~° study and p~1.an and
inplementation of t.'~eir plan for all cities.
•
-\
~~
~ -2-
:^.E:iT.~L ~y0 PS~_'SIC.=u, DIS~3II~=^IES
3ecommendatioa L (Pace 65)
?0) Veed: 1 Zocal.i.zsd case management services similar to 2200
on the Mall in St. Louis Par'c. Recommend the hiring
of a grant writer on a one year program to create a
coordinat=.~g commission to perfarA tasks. The writer will
be reimbursed from the grant. 0500.00 may be ne4ded for
riri.*~g t.4e grant writer) .
3ecommendatior_ 7 (Pace 6 7 )
L+) 3ecommend the city continue to support the concept of semi-
s.ncepencent living far mentally retarded adults.
Recommendation 29 (Page 74)
ZZ) Recommend t+~e city continue to encourage private builders to
bui d barrier free buildings in Ric.~ifield.
SPECI.~.L YEEDS T~IVSPORTATIOI`I
Recommer_dations 2 (Pace 76) , Z2 and I4 (Pace 78)
?3) .Recommend continuation of Ketromobility and Share ~ Ride Services
i.~' Richfield. Recommend that the Senior/Eandicapped Commission
appoint a new .task force to study transportation using all methods
of transportation oriented toward information and suppor= from
3andicapped a.~d Senior Citizen Transportation Service. Recommend
t,~:at available bus service be a consideration far all s-sbsidizec
nousizg, be it seniors, mentally retarded, or nursing homes.
TALLY I?~L/~ OTIONr~..rLY DISTT~RBED
Recor.~endations ?, 2, 6, 7, 29 (Paces I-10)
? ~} Veeds are varied in ~'~e area of mental ~izstabil:.ty and czemical
dependency. Recommend the city continue to support Storefront.
T!:ey are doing an excelle.~t job of accent_ng referrals,. couseli.:e
youtz and families, and ref erring,to appropriates sources of beta.
Recommendation 4 (Pace 2)
5) YeeZ : =x?and crises interventions services a.~d deve? oc_ der Zcd..C
• crisis intervention traili:Z~ for police farce. Racom.~;e::d
~-- traiain g is crisis izterverticn and dialogee with crisis
i.~tervention wor:cers as apart of the regLla= _nse_~ice
education o our police officers. Comrsend Ric_eld ?olice
'or follow-up action of fishing :ZOmes after =amity vioZ_nce
i.zcidents. Recommend use of alternative choices to RC_`?C
Crisis i~zte_ reTtlon for some persons . Scr.:e o: the
alternate*res are ;
~.
~) ~GLlt,'Z Side iurnister~es
2) South Central :`2=nis ter ies
3) St. Joseph's
4) Others: Contact ?pls. Palece Chaplen for Ziste~:g
Recommend contact prior to need to use these alternateve
sources or assistance.
Recommerdaticn 5 (Pace 3)
I6) v2ed; ~espete center or shelter fvr battered •~romen, cheldre3, and
older adults. Recommend support of a shelter in South
Reanepin area, Siz3S, C:zurches, and otaer organizations
are looking at the possibilities.
Recommendation 20 {Dace S)
~~7) Veed: Available resource guide. Recommend the directory, now
in the process, be examenec to determine if it wi11 meet
this need. Recommend it be a single sour-ce ane^<etatec: •
beblecgraphy~"`"-'s ~"e Iaa3uage, i:~. alph~bet~.cal order,
and poctictbovk size to be used by ,o~olice, firefi:cht_~rs, ~ - ~
city ~ta~-=, soh ocl, social •:~or:~ers, counselors, a,.*zci ~~
psychol®gist and any other persons i.*t need of such a
resource guide. 3ecorimend same commi.sseon, perhaps the
Advisary Board or Realth, be designated to wort with ot:~er
cities , St'~S , or :Jiloever is i~tC:rested i~'Z such a fro j ect .
C.3~2I C~ D E~ ~YD E~iCY
Reco~cmer+dat_ons 10-22 {Paces 20-22)
~3) Veed: Preve3teon of future caema.cally dependant adults. Rec.,
cont.izuizg and expansion o f Project ,-~ i ,. ^mmend
C.ha...-ie n ou_ sc:~ools .
Recommend t~tat l~ of t~.e revenue from tze municipal iecuor
~~:+'lcs be designated for tote continuing of Pro; ect C.`~ar? ee
programs i3 our schools . T:tes is an irives+~eret i:b tae
suture of this community. Tb.e fact that our teachers are
interest`d e.*~ough to be trained ~ this concept is evidence
of interest and success in promotencr good mental health.
Recommend tae teachers t::at have volunteered to assist with
this project be corra~ended by t:~se city .
•
t'Z1~tT, jV ~7IOi,~TC ='
.~
Recorr,~.te.^.datcns 25-32 {Paces 2^:-32)
°) =eco...-~endateons ha~re beer. .:jade earlier ~ this report. 3ecoac:.er_d
^ 1
t.:at Sr~~S . aa:i_y Viol~nCe CCmm3.ttee r3COm~e.^.dateoAS e -evie*e7e d
o L ~eeti. g ~ e
acul ~s
J
~:~e ~.cv=sort' 3oa_c of _ea,i.~ LO eVc1 udte .iiet~~Ods
_eecs o~ ~ich~ieic ci~ize~s: es~ecia?ly in
snel~== or bat~ered *aenen, c:~_?cren, arc olcer
-~-
~-
. CC,'~!ML'NIT`_' F.DGCAT_ON/P~~~';~T=GN • .:
3eccmne.^.da_iors ~-2~ {Paces ?3-39)
20) Veed: Continues to be a need dor adult education at all levels,
indormal, and doraial< Recamrrend continuing educational
ofderings at all levels including vocational and university
as well as speakers, seminars, and discussion grouas.
Recommend coordination of these programs to meet t?~e cranging
r.eesis o= our citizens. Suggest dialogue between community,
city, and school to dete~ize :cost cost elective wav of
caordnati_:g educational ofderings. '
21) Veed: Junior Sigh and high sc.'~ovl students need in.dormation to
help salve problems od chemical dependenc+a, abuse,
emotional changes, and family problems. Recommend that
sell-help brochures and also resource materials be
readily available to these students.
22) Veed: Low or no cost recreational cutlet for adults and children.
~•~me~ t~ze city and schools continue to open their
rac~lities .or recreation as well as education.
C~IhD C~ `~
Recommendations 1'-43 (°ages 100'-109? ~ ~.
23) Need: Child care alter school that is addordable and oL high .
quality. Recommend latch key program be continued
and
.
assisted by bath the city and the schools. (The
.existing program has doubled in one year and i,s expected
to double again next year. The projected number dor 1982
and
1983 i
.
s 2,110 children, grades ki~-tdergarten through
the sixth grade. It is estimated that 50-55~ or the
mot~zers oy school age c.hs.ldre.*~ work outside the tome) .
2~) Veed: Single mothers ',.hat are total suaport ad themselves and
their children have great did=iculty paying $i0.00 per
~
mon
~.h for Latcz key .
73) Veed: C :znge iz criteria Ear Community 31oc.~C Grant r ending at
the Federal Zevel. Recommend t:~ie city CDUnC11 supDOrt
changes in Community 31oc:~ Grant regulations and also
,
as:~ t,+e County Commissioners to address this need.
28) Veed: Oar care center and or more licensed czild car=_ Tomes
.
Recommend ~'~at t.:e city encourage day cars ce_zter
develc~.ment in Richdield.
' PG3L.C '' .~;.,T~
2~) Veed: P.asent :rog~ams provide an ed.°ective se~ice to the co.~ unity
.
:~ecommerd t e addition od de_*~tal .xaa to pr_sc hoof screening.+
~J
2g) Veed: Srdor_ement o_ er+vi_or..^ental ordinances. Recommend
pu5licity o~ present ordinarces on a periodic basis.
Recommend monitoring by all commission me.*nbers and re=er
non-comDl~ance to city. Sometimes the 3oard me:~ber
can educata the od_ender and avoid unnecessary reporting.
29} Vied: Consistency in prescription Drug labeling. Should include
both t.~e name or the drug and pu_~-pose. ~ntithout this
labeling, peflpie may take drugs `or the wrong mason.
Recommend tzat t:~e Advisory 3oard o Realt:~ exalore t.'~is
.ssue ana address it in cooperation ~ait.~i the pharmacies
i n Rich=field .
•
1 _
-,
-7-
-~~ - - - - recess
arcial and Vo.Lunteer ~ssistance ?rocrams :n=ormation ,= ,-,.
and access - Re-e_~al
City Recor~erdations:
30) Veed: 'moo increase program visibility and access.
Re_omrRer~atT or t _ L
~ Ci ~y is e.~couraged to become '
( age 93) the capa.bil ' L; ~ ~t..:owledgeab t e and use
i ~__s o the South ~e :nep i _Z Information
and Referral o :lice, a.*~d r first Call r ar Help
atic=ofic:ze system.
3?) Veed: 24 hour 7 da weo
Y ...~t coverage for emergencies
3ecommendation 6-City offices should ensure t.~: r
(page 94) recorded message inferms re gat thei_ af~er hours
e:~ergency assistance s-den,•s of the 24-hour
and Referral agencies, and of the Information
services available during regular
working hours.
32) V2ed: City receives melt calls and need informs ;
t_oa and raining.
Recommendat_or. 7-City -n
--cept_onis`s and switc.~,board apebators s.'~ould
(page 94) b~e trained in identid
.and appropriate a~ Y_.zg Human se='vice Problems,
r__erral.
recommendation 8-City emplo ea ,. -
Gage 94) ~ ,~ Y s should ~.erer Problems not appropriate
nor ci~y sere=ces to ,_ormal In_ormation and Referral
providers.
33) Need: ~o coordinate se:.'vices
~ecomme~c,+~, on , ~_ sta.f~ should -
(?age 95) agencies s ~amil.~.a=ize ~':easaZves ~ri,tb area
g and r..sou..ces oy participating in, a.~td
Orese.'tting '?'~;N d r,.
- iday ~f Ormational uZeet3.AgS , eLC .
°COI:~:ie*!day; ~„ 77_~*~e Ci~-~ n
(gage 97) Council shcu~~eIIOies and iout'~ ?en.~epin uma.~ Se: ricer
t ^'_x.11 she cable T.V. compa•11es to
develop appropriates public service ar..ZOUnc`me:~ts
regard~g public heal ~, social, and city =ces.
sere '
'-'=-: =nanc:.al a.*td Volunteer ~ssistanc..
. ?racr ~s
4) Veer:: ?romot
e volunteerism
?ecomme::datior. 7-City' in+ormaticn ~ o=~,.:
(?ace 38 L' ,~ ..nd r_:._- 31 '_t`rat:~rs ,:
) ~.Ze Seti~.~ iie.*utepi:~ : = shoLl.. inch •
~~ ~ ?ir_arcial Sertr n =.;_ormation and deferral of_ice and
after ^ours .^.u.:.bes- ~ s` Call 'or .elp, and aporapr_ate
"~ such as ~e=u:epin Cow:t_r .mergeacy
Scc' al Se: r=ces .
~`~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 65
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Relating to Airport System
There is an item on the February 28, 1983 city council
agenda providing for council consideration of endorsement of
a resolution recommended by the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound
Abatement Council. A copy of the resolution is attached.
Basically, the resolution expressed the concern of MASAC,
and other agencies supporting the resolution, with action in
the 1980 State Legislature to designate the Anoka County Air-
port as a minor role facility. The designation of airport
_ classification relates to future funding possibilities which.
may be available for development of various airports within
the Metropolitan Airports System. The resolution supports desig-
nation of the Anoka County Airport as an intermediate facility,
which would enable it to be further developed, to some, extent,
to meet excess needs of the aviation network in the metropoli-
tan area. Designation and establishment of such an inter-
mediate facility could have some long-range possibilities for
diverting aircraft operations from the metropolitan airport
facility, and thus limit the noise impact of those aircraft
operations on Richfield.
Council Members Don Priebe and Martin Kirsch represent
Richfield on MASAC and can address the matter further at the
council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING DESIGNATION OF THE ANOKA
COUNTY AIRPORT AS AN INTERMEDIATE FACILITY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield as a representative of the
Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, has continuously
studied methods of reducing aircraft noise impact; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Aircraft
Sound Abatement Council strongly support the concept of a secondary
reliever airport system to serve as a reliever to the Minneapolis/
St. Paul International Airport guaranteeing the viability of Inter-
national as an air carrier facility, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Aircraft
Sound Abatement Council recognize the need for a system of reliever
airports in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to meet the needs of
air carriers, business operators, and private aviation activities,
and
WHEREAS, the growth of general aviation in the Twin Cities
metropolitan area has continuously grown requiring a system of
reliever airports to reduce pressures on Minneapolis/St. Paul In-
ternational, and
WHEREAS, the Anoka County Airport is the only facility capable
of limited development to meet the increased aviation needs of the
northern metropolitan area communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield
strongly objects to the designation of the Anoka County Airport
as a permanent minor role facility limiting the airport's regional
potential in meeting the needs of general aviation, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield strongly ob-
jects to the downgrading of the Anoka County Airport as a secondary
reliever airport.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Richfield strongly
urges the Legislature of the State of Minnesota to permit the
appropriate development of the Metropolitan Airports Commission
systems of airports as outlined in the Metropolitan Council Develop-
ment Guide to meet the needs of the metropolitan area as a whole
by designating the Anoka County Airport as an intermediate facility.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th
day of February, 1983".-
John Hamilton ~ Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, ''ity Clerk
~~ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 64
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Ratification of Labor Contract with Richfield
Police Supervisors Association
There is an item on the February 28, 1983 city council agenda
providing for council approval of a labor contract agreement
which has been negotiated with the Richfield Police Supervisors
Association, to cover the period from January 1, 1983 through
December 31, 1984.
The Richfield Police Supervisors Association is the officially
recognized bargaining unit for police division personnel assigned
to the ranks of Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant. There are pre-
. sently eight positions within. this unit of the police division.
The major changes in the 1983-84 contract with the Police
Supervisors Association are as follows:
1. Effective 1-1-83, a flat dollar per month increase
for ali steps of each classification as follows:
Sergeants - $158 per month
Lieutenants - $160 per month
Captain - $162 per month
The above wage increase represents a 6 percent increase
for sergeants, a 5.7% increase for lieutenant, and a
5.3% increase for the police captain. The wage rates
and structure negotiated recognizes wage rates paid
to personnel in positions performing similar jobs in
comparable area communities.
2. A 5 percent adjustment in 1984 wage rates over- 1983
wages, for all steps in each classification.
3. An increase in the city's portion of the premiums
paid for life and health insurance, from the $115
• paid per employee per month in 1982, to a maximum
city contribution of $135 per employee per month in
1983, and $145 per employee per month in 1984.
Council Letter No. 64 -2- February 28, 1983
4. The clothing allowance has been increased to $300
per year per employee commencing 1-1-83. In 1982
the clothing allowance was $250 per employee;
5. A change in the Injury-On-Duty language now provides
that an employee may not earn more net salary on
such leave than he/she would normally earn while
working .
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution approving this labor agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Noller~berger
City Manager
KN/ej a
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD AND THE RICHFIELD POLICE SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION
BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 1983 & 1984
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Super-
visors Association Bargaining Unit have reached a complete
understanding concerning rates of pay, hours and other conditions
of employment for the years 1983 and 1984, and
WHEREAS, the personnel ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by
City Council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Rich-
field and the Richfield Police Supervisors Association for the
years 1983 and 1984 and orders the provisions of the labor
agreement to be implemented effective January 1, 1983
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
28th day of February, 1983.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
-~ '
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 63
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Preliminary Report - 1983 Sidewalk Con-
struction
At the February 14, 1983 city council meeting, the city
council ordered the preparation of the preliminary report for
the 1983 sidewalk construction project. A copy of the report
is attached. The report lists the segments of sidewalk identified
in the 1980 sidewalk policy which needed to be constructed. The
segments are listed below:
`Lyndale Avenue
73rd Street
Diagonal Bl~id.
65th Street
65th Street
'Xerxes Avenue
Rae Drive
Vincent Avenue
78th Street
78th Street
78th Street
Bloomington Avenue
77th Street
18th Avenue
69th or 70th St.
76th Street
West 74th Street
North Portland Avenue
North 12th Avenue
North Penn Avenue
South Upton Avenue
East 62nd Street
West 65th Street
East 65th Street
North 12th Avenue
North 12th Avenue
North 14th Avenue
East 75th Street
South Nicollet Avenue
West 70th Street
South Xerxes Avenue
South Xerxes Avenue
76th Street
12th Avenue
Cedar Avenue
Russell Avenue
Xerxes Avenue
65th Street
66th Street
I 350' South
+250' West
13th Avenue
Cedar Avenue
76th Street
+ 130' West
Diagonal Blvd.
Humboldt Avenue
Sheridan Avenue
Special problems are introduced on several of the segments:
•
69th or 70th Street between Humboldt and Xerxes Avenue
A sidewalk on either 69th Street or 70th Street between Hum-
boldt and Xerxes Avenue would provide an east-west pedestrian link
through the center portion of the west end of the city. The 66th
Street and 76th Street sidewalks are remote for many residents on
the west end of town and a significant pedestrian attraction ex-
ists in the Southdale complex. There are advantages and disad-
vantages to the 69th Street vs. the 70th Street sidewalk location.
Council Letter No. 63 -2- February 28, 1983
69th Street from Xerxes to Penn is a state-aid road, and the
state will reimburse all costs for sidewalk construction on a
state-aid road. The terrain along 69th Street is so hilly that
extensive retaining walls would be required. On the other hand,
along the north side of 70th Street there is a virtually flat
and uninterrupted boulevard area that would accommodate the side-
walk. In addition, the Hennepin County Library is on 70th Street
at York Avenue. Edina has a sidewalk connecting the library to
the Richfield border along 70th Street. There are no sidewalks
on 69th Street in Edina.
The latest traffic counts at the intersections of 69th Street
and Penn Avenue and 70th Street and Penn Avenue indicate that a
signal is very close to being warranted at one of these inter-
sections. A signal warrant is closer to being met at 69th. Street
and Penn, and if a signal is installed at this intersection, it
would attract traffic away from the other intersection. A signal
warrant is a guideline, and does not necessarily mean that a
signal should be constructed. When a traffic signal warrant is
met, it means that it is more likely that there would be fewer
accidents with a signal that without a signal. There would also
appear to be a conflict between upgrading the intersection and
attracting traffic to 69th Street and the residential concerns
of increased traffic.
On one hand there has been a request for better traffic
control at the intersection so as to prevent more accidents and,
on the other hand, there has been a request for a reduction of
traffic on 69th Street. A traffic signal would relieve some of
the safety concerns, but exacerbate the concern over increased
traffic. The staff is not prepared to recommend that a signal
be constructed at either 69th or 70th Street and Penn Avenue.
However, if one were to be constructed, 69th Street would be a
more likely location. It presently handles more traffic and has
a sign if icantly higher left-turn count than 70th Street.
Despite the fact that 69th Street, may at some future date,
have a traffic signal, the staff recommends that the sidewalk be
constructed on 70th Street between Penn and Xerxes Avenue rather
than 69th Street. The higher project cost of the 69th Street
segment, as well as negative feelings by neighbors because of
the retaining wall reconstruction, makes 70th Street a more favor-
able alternative. There is also a retaining wall at the north-
east corner of 69th and Vincent which would be too expensive to
move. This would mean a portion of the sidewalk on the north
side of 69th Street would have to be left out, or placed on the
south side, if the 69th Street alternative were to be chosen.
The choice between 69th and 70th Street west of Penn should de-
termine the sidewalk location east of Penn Avenue.
• South Side of 76th Street between Sheridan and Xerxes
This segment was deferred from the 1982 sidewalk construction
project until the 76th Street traffic study was completed. That
study was completed last winter so the segment is up for consid-
eration again this year. The segment of sidewalk is on an arterial
Council Letter No. 63 -3- February 28, 1983
street and as so is covered by the sidewalk policy. Although
this segment does riot connect to any sidewalk in Edina, the por-
tion of Edina near 76th and Xerxes is scheduled for redevelopment.
This segment of sidewalk would require sonic retaining walls and
the removal of several trees.
73rd Street from Portland Avenue to 12th Avenue
The installation of sidewalk on 73rd Street from Portland
Avenue to 12th Avenue would require that at least 15 trees be re-
moved or replaced. There is a possibility that more than half
of the trees could be transplanted onto adjacent private property
if the property owner would give permission.
Xerxes Avenue between 62nd Street and 66th Street
The sidewalk along Xerxes Avenue between 62nd Street and 66th
Street was considered a part of last year's project. Hennepin
County would not allow the narrowing of the parking lane in the
6400 block of Xerxes Avenue, as it was their opinion that the
parking lane would become too narrow and the sidewalk would cause
conflicts for snow removal if placed so close to the roadway.
Unless a sidewalk easement can be obtained from all the prop-
erty owners in the 6400 block of Xerxes Avenue, the trees will be
removed.
Diagonal Boulevard at 12th Avenue
There is a high retaining wall on Diagonal Boulevard at 12th
Avenue that cannot be moved. The staff recommends that the side-
walk be omitted along this wall. A three foot wide blacktop strip
will act as the s idewalk in the summer .
Project Cost Estimates
The Capital Improvement budget estimated the 1983 sidewalk
project would cost $150,000. The Xerxes Avenue and 76th Street
sidewalks are carried over from last year's project. The prelimin°
ary cost estimate for the 1983 sidewalk construction is $330,000.
State Aid (gas tax) will pay for between 45% and 70% of the pro-
ject cost depending on the 69th/70th St r eet decision, ar.d the
decision of the state on the eligibility of the Xerxes Avenue
sidewalk. Xerxes Avenue is not on the Richfield State Aid system,
but the sidewalk may still be eligible. Special assessments will
pay about 20 percent of the project costs.
The staff recommends that the city council pass the attached
resolution which receives the preliminary engineer's report and
schedule the public hearing for the March 14, 1983 city council
meeting.
• Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST
1983 SIDEWALK AND APPURTENANT WORK
CP 782
I. TYPE OF WORK
Concrete sidewalk and handicap ramp installation on designated
roadways in Richf field .
II REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
Integration and completion of pedestrian system as identified in
Richfield's sidewalk policy.
III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
February 28, 1983
IV. LOCATION
Sidewalk construction with handicap ramps
ON SIDE FROM TO
1. Lyndale Avenue West 74th Street 76th Street
2. 73rd Street North Portland Avenue 12th Avenue
3. Diagonal Blvd. North 12th Avenue Cedar Avenue
4. 65th Street North Penn Avenue Russell Avenue
5. 65th Street South Upton Avenue Xerxes Avenue
6. Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 65th Street
7. Rae Drive West 65th Street 66th Street
8. Vincent Avenue East 65th. Street I 350' South
9. 78th Street North 12th Avenue ± 250' west
10. 78th Street North 12th Avenue 13th Avenue
11. 78th Street North 14th Avenue Cedar Avenue
12. Bloomington Ave. East 75th Street 76th Street
13. 77th Street South Nicollet Avenue ± 130' West
14. 18th Avenue West 70th Street Diagonal Blvd.
15. 69th or 70th St. NORTH Xerxes Avenue Humboldt Avenue
16. 76th Street South Xerxes Avenue Sheridan Avenue
V. FEASIBILITY
The sidewalk and handicap ramp project is feasible and can best be
accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other
project.
VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
• A11 that property abutting the streets and avenues as described
under sidewalk construction in item number IV above.
-2-
VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
• a) Construction of approximately 20,022 lineal feet
of 5' concrete sidewalk improvements
Estimated Construction Costs $211,432.00
20 percent indirect cost 42,286.00
253,718.00
b) 100 handicap ramps with new sidewalk
Estimated Construction Cost $ 21,450.00
20 percent indirect cost 4,290.00
S 25 , 740 .00
c) Construction of retaining walls, tree
removals, and tree relocations
Estimated Construction Cost $ 49,500.00
20 percent indirect cost 9,900.00
$ 59,400.00
Total Estimated Project Cost
a) Sidewalk Construction $253,718.00
b) Handicap Ramps with Sidewalk 25,740.00
c) Retaining Walls, Tree Relocation/
Removal 59,400.00
$338,858.00
VIII ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
The cost of this project is proposed to be assessed partially to
the abutting property owners and the remaining cost to be paid for
by State Aid Funds.
Estimated cost of sidewalk construction:
$253,718.00 = 20,022 lineal feet = $12.68/lineal foot of sidewalk
Residential Assessment
512 .68/L.F. x 20% _ $2.54/assessable foot
In the residential areas the assessment will be figured from the
short side of the lots that abut the improvement.
Typical Assessment for 75' lot
75' x $2.54 = $190.50
-3-
• Multiple and Commercial Assessment
512.68/L.F. x 50% = 56.34/assessable foot.
In multiple and commercial areas the assessment will be figured on
the total length of lot abutting the amprovement
Typical assessment for lot with 200' abutting improvement:
200' x $6.34 = 51,268.00
I hereby certify this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered
Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Michael J. Eastling, P.E.
Date: February 28, 1983
Registration No. 15066
C7
RESOLUTION NO.
•
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELI`~INARY REPORT AND
CALLING OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1983 SIDEWALK
CONSTRICTION - C.P. 782
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6720 of the council adopted
February 14, 1983, a report has been prepared by the city engineer
with reference to the improvement of the following streets by
construction of sidewalk:
Lyndale Avenue
73rd Street
Diagonal Blvd.
65th Street
65th Street
Xerxes Avenue
Rae Drive
Vincent Avenue
78th Street
78th Street
78th Street
Bloomington Avenue
77th Street
18th Avenue
69th or 70th St .
76th Street
West 74th Street
North Portl and~Avenue
North 12th Avenue
North Penn Avenue
South Upton Avenue
East 62nd Street
West 68th Street
East 65th Street
North 12th Avenue
North 12th Avenue
North 14th Avenue
East 75th Street
South Nicol let Avenue
West 70th Street
North Xerxe s Avenue
South Xerxe s Avenue
76th Street
12th Avenue
Cedar Avenue
Russell Avenue
Xerxes Avenue
65th Street
66th Street
1350' South
± 250' West
13th Avenue
Cedar Avenue
76th Street
± 130' West
Diagonal Blvd.
Humboldt Avenue
Sheridan Avenue
And this report was received by the council on this 28th day
of February, 1983.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1. The council will consider the improvements of such streets
in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property
for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement
of $ 338, 858.00 .
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement
of such streets on the 14th day of March, 1983, in the council
chambers of the city hall at 7:00 p.m, and the clerk shall give
mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as
required by law. ~_
Adopted by the council this 28th day of February, 1983.
r
ATTEST:
John Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
S Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 62
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Bus Route Change in West Richfield
The Metropolitan Transit Commission has requested that
the city council approve a bus route change in West Richfield.
Currently, two bus routes go west on 76th Street, south on
Sheridan Avenue, west on 77th Street, south on Thomas Avenue,
west on 494 frontage road, and then south on Xerxes Avenue.
The MTC has indicated that they would like to change the routes
so that the buses would continue west on 76th Street to York
Avenue, where they would turn south. The MTC has indicated
• the present route causes delays and schedule adherence prob-
lems.
The proposed change would be consistent with good transit
planning principles which indicate that buses should travel on
arterial roadways rather than on residential streets. The
proposed change would result in 20 fewer one-way bus trips
through the residential area south of 76th Street and would
transfer them onto 76th Street west of Sheridan Avenue. In
that area 76th Street is designated as an arterial roadway.
The proposed change would increase the walking distance for
people living south of 76th Street using bus service, but would
decrease the walking distance for those people living north of
76th Street.
It is the recommendation of the c
council approve the proposed bus route
council may want to conduct a public h.
prior to making a decision in light of
dents along 76th Street have about inc:
Street.
ity staff that the city
change. However, the
paring on this matter
the concern that resi-
~eased traffic on 76th
Respectfully submitted,
~~~.,~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ ej a
•
•
Z
Q
2
U
O
W
/~
V J
O
^O
~.is
a n a - a
~o ~a ~o u w m ---P•-~-
P. £Z
NSlONVLS
P1+ ZZ
Ix iZ
v10Z
x161
NIO'113 i0N01 _
3AV av037 ~~
vl BI
v/ll '.
vl gl r
NOLONIwOQ18
4/ SI
41 bl
41 41 :~~
~.~
41 21 =
4111
11 01
101113 ",
OOV01N7 ~.,
Sn8w n107 ~,
xavd ~Ilr--~',
r:'~
ONVl~IV0 1
ins ONalla0d .'~~
VIS
vl b ~
NO1N117 ~4~
01 f d ,---
Z
2
.~. ~ ~
r ~"
LL ~ Z
O ~ ~
r i O 8
~ ~ U
v U Z
a
w
_ ~ z
__
~~ ~ i. ~ ~ ti ~
n . n < W
-------" _ _ __
______________ _________ ________ Z:_13______~__
___--__'__---_'--_ ~.,-~~.-~,,
_ MOl13iON01
3nv av 037
.
----__ _, ~ v191
~_~-,_ ~^
- -% ~ ~~_~~__
~~ _
~r-- - _
~i _~ ~ _ -
I-_ ~
,~~i
i
--
_ ~~.' ~ VI LI
1 91
~~
~ '
~
~---_--_-
.~''
' -'- ~ 19
NOlONl W00
~
~
~~ ~.~ ~
1
_ _ ~- Vlsl
4l b 1
~~
~- ~ 1~
'
- ~
-- ~ VI sl
V! 21
- ---- __--.-i
-- ~____ -
- _
~
- ^-~
~ lOlll3
~-
_~-
= - = - - - OOV01N7
~~ - '-- ~
~~~-;-
_ 3nv ON VIl!!Od
--- ~-'~ - -' NOl Nll7
SN3n315 ~ .-~~~=- ~= 'I'-~,~~ -,=! ~ SN3n315
~ //
3nv 13T071N ~~,~ --`-I ~-~-r ~J ==---`-L^ 3nv 13110]IN
113057v1B :, ~ `- -~~JL-.~ -'~Tr~~^. ..... ~;i 11305tv19
~- i = ~- •-
NLa0M1N3M ~ ~~I'. ~I /"'~ =-= ~ =:^^~"M NLa0M1N3M
laneslvd ' --~~~ ' - -""~ ~ --"'-"-'-,',i Laneslvd
1N a5v31d ._~ ~?-~~:~r - - - = s..e~ _ - _ - ___ ~~.~ '_~ ~`_ _ _ _ _ :~ :NV$v 31d
~~ '
131tla bN b, =_ • ,~-~ ~~~u~ --~_~,~= -~- =:~ 131tlavN
~~ >_
Ol31ia 09 -j ~, ~i i ~^-`-~ -~_-'. _.-. ,%i;~ 0131dav9
3nv 3lvONAI 3=^.`~ ~;~ /,p/~ \~~`~~~_^-.~-~~ .`-~-• 3nv 3lvO NA1
N71a01v ~~ ~~v ~/,~d.~ ~_ ---~.~-~= '_ 'i j~, N7laaly
1NV~ae -~'~., ~~ r/ ~~~~~-''' - === °' ~~ lNOla9
q - -{- ~
xvdlo7 ,;~ _-~-~ W ~ g,,, '~_,,._---_ ~ xvala7
1NOdn0 ,~~ - ~ '~~T,r~ \ ~. O Y ~ -'. -~_' 1NOdn0
O ~ f NOSa3w3
LNOr+3ad = F ~-~ ~~~_:"+~ ~ =_ = - ~ 1NOw3ai
~~._,~ ~;. _~J
LOloewnl4 I=_ --_=_-~~_ -----__ __--~_--- - -_-- ~ laloewnN
~ xoNN
=%8':~ ---~ Nvoaow
NveaaW -_ .,.-_- ---
VO1M3N -_ -,_' ~~~ ------- rz --- NOLM3N
3nv NN3e ----= 3nv NN3d
N33n0 ~ Y - - - _ - __ N33n0
n3ssna t;- ---__~~= --_ - ---_ - _-~ lhssna
Nv01a3N5 I~ --_ /--l - - -~_~-_ _- --_- NvOia3Ns
Svwa Nl It-. -__-_ = i,_,~ = ,~ __ _- -_ _ -_ __.- - -_- .- $vwONl
NOldn - - - - .-_ __~- ~ ~-~- __-.-._ _- _---- ~-_- NOldn
LN37NIn _. _.-- _~~.~_-~~=._.~~ _ __ ,i\~ - _- -~ L.V3JNIn
V anBNSCM _-_..--_- _ ____ _ --. - _ Y -.----- ,~T~i'_ .v an9N$tlM
3nv 53xa3x •--^-- .-- -.. .---__.---._-_.-_-_-- -- - -:--='-r=-°-- ~7nv s3xa3x
~1111111~
of .n Jf N v~ ~n N N n .n N N N s N n .n N n~
W
!-
3
W
Z
F..
C7
X
tiJ
2 ~ n P ~ ~ ~ O _ - _ _ n _ _
? 'D ~ ~D D d ~ L D ~ ~ r + n ~ r
O
S
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 61
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: 1983 Alley Paving CP 786 Preliminary Report
In November, 1980, the city council established a policy
for the permanent improvement of alleys by paving. This policy
stipulates that if an alley is to be paved, a petition signed
by property owners representing more than 50 percent of the
abutting footage is necessary. The policy also calls for a
minimum of six alleys in one area, or ten citywide, for a project
to be initiated. Although this number was not achieved, it
appears feasible to do this year's alley paving project as a
combined contract with the sidewalk project.
The engineering division has received six petitions with
the necessary property representation:
Alley Between From To
Garfield and Lyndale Ave. 68th Street 69th Street
Garfield and Lyndale Ave. 7d Street 73rd Street
Grand and Harriet Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Thomas and Upton Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Vincent and Upton Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Vincent and Upton Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
In addition, a petition representing exactly 50 percent of the
abutting footage, was received for the alley between Nicollet
Avenue and First Avenue, 72nd Street to 73rd Street. It is re-
quested that the council consider including the alley in the 1983
project. 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 percent of the property owners.
The staff has included this alley in the preliminary report if the
council elects to pave this alley.
The attached preliminary report includes the estimated costs
and assessments for the proposed project. The staff recommends
that the city council adopt the attached resolution accepting the
preliminary report and scheduling the public hearing for March
14, 1983.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
RESOLUTION No.
• RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING
CITY PROJECT 786
WHEREAS, the city engineer has prepared a preliminary report
with reference to the improvement of the following alleys by
permanent paving:
Alley Between From To
Garfield Avenue and Lyndale Ave. 68th Street 69th Street
Garfield Avenue and Lyndale Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street
Grand Av enue and Harriet Avenue 68th Street 69th Street
Thomas A venue and Upton Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue 69th Street 70th Street
Nicollet Avenue and First Avenue 72nd Street 73rd Street
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The preliminary report on proposed City Project 786
dated the 28th day of February, 1983, 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 March i4, 1983, 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 these
alleys 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
$178,656.14.
3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give
published and mailed notice of such hearing in the
manner required by law.
4. Such proposed improvement shall hereafter be known
and designated as City Project 786.
•
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
28th day of February, 1983.
ATTEST:
John Hamilton, Mayor
Sylvia ri. Bergh, City Clerk
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND
ESTIMATE OF COST
ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 786
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
I. TYPE OF WORK
Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield.
II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT
.The alleys identified as Number 1 through 6 in Item No. IV were
requested by petition representing greater than S0 percent of the
abutting footage. ~o. 7 was requested by a petition representing
50 percent of the abutting footage. These alleys are proposed as
a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide permanent
alley. surfacing to benefit abutting properties.
III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT
February 28, 1983
IV. LOCATION
Alley Between From
To
1. Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue. 66th Street 67th Street
2. Vincent Avenue and Upton Ave. 69th Street 70th Street
3. Upton Avenue and Thomas Avenue 66th Street 67th Street
4. Lyndale Ave. and Garfield Ave. 68th Street 69th Street
5. Lyndale Ave. and Garfield Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street
6. Harriet Avenue and Grand Ave. 68th Street 69th Street
7. Nicollet Avenue and First Avenue 72nd Street 73rd 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 alleys. previously described in
Item No. IV.
•
-2-
VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
11' wide Concrete Alley
Estimated Construction Cost
Administration, Legal, Engineering,
and Insurance (25%)
Estimated Project Cost
•
Cost of Alley Cost of Alley
1 thru 6 1 thru 7
$123,587.61
39,896.90
$154,484.51
$142,924.92
35 , 731 .22
$178,656.14
VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT
Property abutting alleys will be assessed for abutting alley
construction according to the assessment policy established in the
City Council Resolution No. 6345.
Allen 1 thru 6 Alley 1 thru 7
Total Assessable Alley Frontage 7,087.59 8,283.47
Total Project Cost 154,484.51
Less City Cost 14,504.60
Assessable Cost 139,979.91
139,979.91.= 7,087.59 = 19.75/assessable foot
163,598.54 = 8,283.47 = 19.75/assessable foot
Typical Assessment for 50' lot = $987.50
Typical Assessment for 75' lot = $1,481.25
178,656.14
15,057.60 •
163,598.54
•
RESOLUTION Vo. 623
RESOLUTION ESTaBLISciI~IG A~1 ALLEY POLICY
(Resginding Resolution No. 0'345)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ci t of Richfi 1
Minnesota, as follows: y e d,
1. All costs involved in maintaining an alley will be assessed
against tze property abutting the. alley.
2. An alley paving project may be initiated on an alley by a
petition signed by the property owners of more than 50 percent of
abutting property.
3. All costs involved in the paving of an alley will be assessed
. against the abutting prcperty except that residential property will be
assessed only for the shorter of the t=ao primary sides.
4. The maximum amount to be assessed against residential
properties will be 50 percent of the cost of paving full width of the
abutting alley. However, if theyresidential property is located in
a block which contains some commercial property, the residential
assessment will be Less than 50 percent. In this particular instance,
the commercial assessment will first be levied against the commercial
property in the block and then the residential property will be
assessed a prorata share of the remaining portion of the assessment.
Under no circumstances shall the residential assessment be less than
25 percent of the cost of paving the alley. '
~:,
5. Commercial alleys will be assessed_zor three-fourths of the
cost. of~paving the actsal full width of the alley, except that should
the total assessment collected on a~block using. the aforementioned
procedure amount to more than the cost of the alley, the commercial
assessment will be prorated by abutting footage.
6. The City of Richfield will pay the costs of paving an alley
not abutting assessable property.
7. The type of surface will be chosen at the time the contract
is awarded on the ~irs~ alley paving project.
8. A minimum of six alleys in one cluster (as defined by the
city engineer) or ten alleys regardless of cluster is required for
a project.
9. The deadline for the submittal of petitions is February 1st
of each year.
10. The maximum assessment for commercial properties in a block
will not exceed 75 percent of the cost of the alleys to be paved
and the minimum assessment shall be at least 30 percent of this cost.
11. If a commercial lot has an alle~~ on two primary sides, the
commercial prcperty will be assessed only for the longer of the
two sides.
-2-
Passed by tre City Cour_cil of the City of Rich~ield this 11th •
day oL May, 1981.
Donal J. Prie~e, Mayor
3TTEST:
Sylvia ~. 3ergh, City Clerk ~
,~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 60
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Permitting the Con-
struction of Entry Additions Within
Frontyard Setback Areas. Second Reading.
At the February 14, 1983 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment
which would permit entry additions to project a maximum of
six feet into a required frontyard, and set the public hearing
for the February 28, 1983 city council meeting.
This ordinance amendment provides that entry additions
could project a maximum of six feet into the required front-
yard, and could be no more than eight feet in width and no
~~
; more than one story in height. It is felt that these types of
N; additions help energy, are small and would not adversely affect
~~ ~ a neighborhood .
J
..
` A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached to this
council letter, and it is recommended that the city council
hold the hearing and give second reading approval to this ordin-
ance amendment.
Res ectfully submitted,
~ ~ sL~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ e j a
•
Bill No.
Ordinance No.
[~`'IENDIIENT TO Sc,CTIONS 3.30 SliBDIVISION 5
• AND 3.30A SUBDIVISION 5 TO ALLOti+l ENTRY
ADDITIONS ;dITHIN T:~?E REQUIRED FRONT Y_~.RD SETBACK AREA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Sections 3.30 and 3.30A of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, vinnesota outlining the regulations of the R and R-1
Residence zoning districts are hereby amended in the following
respects;
(1) Section 3.30 Subdivision 5 is amended by adding the
following new paragraph (i):
(i) Entry vestib-ides may Dro'ect a maximum of six
feet into a required front yard. Such addi-
tions shall be no more than 8 feet in width
nor more than 1 story in height.
(2) Section 3.30A Subdivision 5 is amended by adding the
following new paragraph (e):
(e) Entry vestibules may project a maximum of six
feet into a required front yard. Such addi-
tions shall be no more than 8 feet in width
nor more than 1 story in height.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1983.
Johr_ Hamilton, ~~lavor
ATTEST:
Svlvia i{. 3erch, City Cler{
~~
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of C ity Manager
Council Letter No. 59
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Certificates of Appreciation
There is an item on the February 28, 1983 city council
agenda providing for the presentation of Certificates of
Appreciation to outgoing advisory commission members. The
following persons have been invited to attend this council
meeting:
Dr. W. Bittick, four terms - Advisory Board of Health
Charlene Swanell, three terms - Advisory Board of Health ~'.
Sharon Thomas, one term - Advisory Board of Health /
Pete Patzke, one term - Advisory Board of Health
David Giese, one term - Community Services Commission
Shirley Johnson, one term - Community Services CommiSSion~/
Herb Ketchum, three terms - Planning Commission
Terrill Anderson, one term.- Planning Commission
John Takekawa, one term - Senior Citizens/Handicapped Comm.'
Wilma Peterson, one term - Senior Citizens/Handicapped
"Service Recognition" paperweights will also be available
to be presented to these persons as a gesture of the council's
appreciation of their past service. With the exception of Dr.
Bittick, it is expected that all of the above persons will be
present at the February 28, 1983 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,.
~~ ~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Program Directors
KN/eja
aJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 58
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Presentation of the "Gene Jacobsen" Citizen
of the Year" Award
Each year the Richfield Human Rights Commission pays trib-
ute to an individual within our community and publicly recognizes
that person as the "Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year."
This year, the Richfield Human Rights Commission has selected
Rosie Nielsen for this award. The presentation will be made at
the February 28, 1933 city council meeting, when a plaque and a
proclamation will be presented to Rosie. Thomas Hanson, of the
commission, will be present at the meeting to make the presents-
tions in cooperation with the city council members. After the
presentation, a reception will be held in the conference room to
give friends and family an opportunity to congratulate Rosie and
share the moment with her.
Attached to this council letter is a list of accomplishments
that lead to Rosie's selection for this award.
Respectfully submitted,
T~ ' V ~9-~ ((~~ 1
.Y~.~c~Z
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
1982 - Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year Award
Rosie Nielsen
6316 - 21st Avenue South
Rosie has worked in Project Charlie III for over four years
serving as Chairperson and President. When she first joined the
group, it was floundering. Through her leadership and perseverance
she overcame many obstacles. Her main goal was to create an aware-
ness of the drug problems in the community.
Rosie has worked towards chemical awareness and drug education
for all. She initiated panels of counselors and groups of young
people who have been on drugs to make presentations to both the middle
and high school students. She has presented the topic of prescription/
non-prescription drugs to the elderly.
The chemical problem is often not recognized and dealt with.
It is a problem that many people would prefer to ignore. Thanks to
• Rosie, the chemical dependency problem is being identified, and most
important, it is getting the needed attention and support in the city
of Richfield.
Rosie has been very active in the Richfield AFS (American Field
Service) program. She was Vice President for six years, and through
this program, she gave the leadership to foster a better cultural
understanding in our community. The Neilsen's have opened and shared
their home to six foreign students.
Rosie was born in Richfield and has been a lifetime resident,
except the year and a half she accompanied her husband, Walt, to
Bolivia, South American, where he participated in a special work
project for his company.
• GRS
2/17/83
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 57
Agenda February 28, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for a Variance to the sideyard
Setback Requirements to Construct An
Addition, 6612 Knox Avenue
Proposal
Mr. Timothy Lindgren has submitted a request to reduce the
sideyard setback requirements for a single family interior lot
from five feet to three feet to allow the construction of a new
addition to his home. The space for the proposed addition is
currently occupied by a porch which exceeds the required five
foot setback requirement. This porch will be removed. The
proposed addition will measure 21 feet x 10 feet and will extend
two feet into the required sideyard setback. The property is
zoned R-Single Family Residence.
Staff Findings
The staff reviewed the three conditions for granting variances
outlined in Section 3.40, subdivision 6 and found the following:
1. It is the opinion of the staff that no special con-
ditions exist on the site. The site configuration
is common to the surrounding district and similar
districts;
2. It is the staff's opinion that denial of the variance would
not prevent reasonable use of the property. The
applicant could continue the existing residential
use of the property. The applicant could redesign
or relocate the proposed addition, meeting the side-
yard setback requirement;
3. It is the opinion
addition will not
health or safety
• owners, except if
immediately south
build within five
of the staff that the proposed
materially or adversely affect the
~f surrounding and adjoining property
the owner of the property located
of the property were to choose to
feet of the property line, public
Council Letter No. 57 -2- February 28, 1983
safety vehicles could have a problem gaining access
to the rear yards of these properties. r_,-~ ~~,5~.~~-c
tl '. G.
Staff Recommendation 1 ~, ~ .,e 5~'~`Je ~~ ~°~<< ~`r`~
.~ ~ ( ~ `~-n~~
,~ ~ .~ ~ ~..,C r:zavr S oa
Because the three conditions for granting a variance have ~,,_~
not been met, the staff must recommend denial of the variance ~~~ ~ ~~
~, ,. .
request. Mrs. Carl Thorberg, 6615 Logan Avenue, has telephoned
the city staff to voice her support for the proposal.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission, by a 4-3 vote, recommends that
this variance request be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
•
~
• t
~
..~.
0
s ~ `~
, . ~. c j
i ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ -~
v ~`'
~
~ r
! ~ y o ~ ~,
~ ~J j 4
I
~
.' f `i t
f ~ ~ ~
Q
~
-1 ~ ~
'~
,
~
~~ ~
~
~
i `
~ ~'I
`~ r ~ ~
~~
~~
' `
~
I ~
i ~ \
~ y
O ~
v
~ --'
~"1
t
i
~.• _.
~"'`
•
~~-`tr --. ...ST~`-_r-- -- --- _. ..
----, _ = -
. ~
J
i 1
w ~ ~ J ,
n ~. Q ~~, ,
~~ - ~
:r ~~.~\ i~~~
. _ ~
'~ ~ I ;~
Y ~ '~
1 ~ Z ~
~~ ~~ ..
J __ ..
'1 1 Tom.
S tl_ ,
~Q.
~. = . .
-- --- L--- --- ~- ---``"~--~~ ___~ __ '
. _
. ~~ PETITION SIGNERS AND
TELEPHONE SLPPORT
i