01-10-83 agendaX17
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
is Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 25
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: City Manager Compensation
An item has been listed on the January 10, 1983 city
council agenda for consideration of the compensation package
of the city manager. The normal date of salary review is
scheduled for January 1 of each year.
I have enclosed a salary survey showing the existing salary
situation in cities over 25,000 population in the metropolitan
area. In addition to salary, it is necessary to look at the
• pension contribution for city managers, since some cities con-
tribute more or less than the normal contribution as deferred
compensation to their city manager. While the 1982 salary of
the city manager in Richfield is 2.8% behind the average of
these cities and ranks 12th out of 15, the salary plus retire-
ment contribution is .3% behind the average and ranks 9th out
of 15. In order to meet what appears to be the 1983 average
salary, it would require a 8.5% salary increase; however, a
5.9% increase, or $3,13J,is needed to meet the salary plus
retirement average'.-That would leave the ranking as 9th out
of 15. Richfield is the 6th largest city in this group.
On an internal comparison basis, our management pay plan
was adjusted by an average 5.2% for 1983 with the lower end of
the plan receiving 5.5% pay increases, and the highest end re-
ceiving 5.0 %. This means that high level employees who are in
the mid -point of their salary range (such as I am as it relates
to city manager positions), would be eligible for pay increases
as follows:
Unsatisfactory 0%
Adequate 3%
Standard 5%
Above Standard 7%
Outstanding 9%
Very few employees are rated as outstanding. There are a
number of areas of compensation that the council might like to
•
•
Council Letter No. 25 -2-
January 10, 1983
consider; salary, retirement contribution, car allowance,
vacation, civic organization memberships, and health /dental
coverage for deductibles. I would suggest that the city
council not increase the salary by more than 3 %, and allow
any additional increases in these other compensation areas.
Respectfully submitted,
kLL
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
U
-7.77
\j
oro x m 3 n ro 3 (n n m x w m ro w
Cn C (D N N SL O t t i N• rt t l �-t O (:= 0i
W Ai (D ri n SL NO O N O �:5 '•C O (n i-t N. '•C O
PI n ::; . H. N =5 �, O (n O (D �z 5 O K
SL (D P-h :n (D N X' (D r rh x C U1 Aj O �l
PI (D rr O Di I-j
`< K N• rr (D O l< O C N- rr
�-h ::),4 a a m (D rr
o �-h (D a n ro (D o
C n N• C to (D ro a
* F- c n
( n x
• �lm a (D x
(D n n
N a (D
(D 4
m
N• N• w N N W w W W XA N A W W n W Cc I�j
rr (n J l0 J Gl O O Co N u-1 W un Gl Gl N O
(D P W O Gl N \0 Co In N 110 CO N O .A J
(n J Gl
0) O l0 W P ui W Co CC �,o L~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o C o O y
O H
rr O
O
Sv z z z z
ro
F 0 0 0 o m c 0 o (D (D (D o (D 0 (D
>
N
(D +
a
fL J u, un � N X, A Z v, 2 z H
J U� U1 C O O O O O O O (-n O O O
0 do do O\P 0\0 do do do do do do
�-h I
C-1
n
Al N U'i IA W O �o CO J G1 v-1 p w 2,ANK
rt
rn
J 00 LO O o -> - N W A l0
c _ _ t-4 110
w 00 m CD cv w � co C O .p X, o � am o > co
• d° — O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
In J O O O O O O O O Co O O o O
(n
I� l0 In W cc N - O J C) In XA N W RANK
S
4. (/? 1V)
Ul U'7 aA In U i Ln In Ln U 7 Ul Ul U p ull U1 dl C�r1 r l0
N W W In l0 O W N N W w �A �A Q1 G1 N
w �-3C00
¢' do 01% Ul �.o w -' Co O O N N Co CO J N
W O 00 O w .A O W A O N w G) G, 00 •i. '.t7
In .!A w N ON w .A N O In J Ln o u7 V1
rr
r
a
N a u, u-, L" to L n cn u� Ln u, U" U, ui n rn (n
[n 00 l0 w C N w W A A � Ui J l0
r 0o
rr Ln rn m v, W CO M o � � — "o o O w
�' do -� N O W O Gl .A .A U, C1 00 110 N In J O
(D In .A w Co �A U'1 00 Oo O o O N O N G) O K
A�
•f•r Ul Ul X, Ul U'1 U•i lJ7 Ul In Cn In U'l u7 Ul (r Ol
F •
Ul w O1 01 N W 0) Ln Ol 'G1 J -j J co �0 O �A C17 r �0
n H C 00
I l0 A U1 to Co w Co N O 110 O A IA — C -� w H (n w
rt, do w �1 U-I l0 Ul w -1 O .A W J CJ Ul N �.0 In CT1 m In O -� O1 0) O N O w Gl 0 N 0 - Ui 3 m
m n r
a z y
y �
K
n
�• n
rt' H
F,. y
O >
N �7
Ln
Cn
O >
O r
C >
z
'd K
O
S✓ �
rat �
N• �-C
O
0
co
w
M
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 24
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to the Cable Television
to Provide for Administrative Variances in
Certain Instances. Second Reading.
A public hearing and second reading consideration of the
above noted cable television franchise ordinance amendment has
been scheduled for the January 10, 1983 city council meeting.
• Since the introduction of this ordinance amendment in November,
1982, some of the other cities in the Southwest Suburban Cable
Commission have expressed concert, with some of the language
contained in this ordinance amendment, and have requested that
the matter be returned to the cable commission for further re-
view and study.
Therefore, it is recommended that no council action be taken
at this time. Once the ordinance amendment has been reviewed by
the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission and the appropriate
changes made, it will be brought back to the city council for
first reading consideration again.
KN/ ej a
•
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
• ORDINANCE NO.
•
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE IN
CERTAIN INSTANCES AND DESCRIBING FINDINGS REQUIRED;
ADDING NEW ARTICLE XV. TO ORDINANCE NO.
The City of hereby ordains that
Ordinance No. of the City is amended by adding
Article XV thereto as follows:
ARTICLE XV*
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURE
Section I. Purpose and Intent.
It is the purpose of this Article to establish a procedure
that will provide flexibility in the administration and enfor-
cement of this Franchise without the need for costly ordinance
amendments and delays. Changes in the Offering of Grantee that
are not inconsistent with the requirements of this Franchise may
be approved by the Council pursuant to this Article.
Section II. Matters Subject to Variance Procedure.
Any change, alteration.or substitution in the Offering shall
be made only after compliance with the provisions of this -
article. No changes, alterations or substitutions may be made
pursuant to this article except those relating to:
A. Construction techniques, equipment, materials; and /or
the design and development of buildings, appurtenances, or other
real or personal property incident to the cable system;
B. System design and configuration, technical standards,
performance tests and maintenance procedures;
C. Services and programming tiers;
D. Public access or local origination equipment, personnel,
facilities, and operating procedures;
E. Subscriber practices, including complaint procedures,
subscriber contracts, repair service, and information to"
subscribers; and
-1-
F. Amounts of insurance, performance bonds, security depo- •
sits or letters of credit, and accrued interest.
Section III. Procedure.
Application for Variance
Applications for variance shall be filed with the
Administrator on forms provided by the Administrator and subject
to the following procedures:
A. The Franchise fee collected by Grantor shall be used to
cover the expenses incurred by Grantor in processing the applica-
tion for variance.
B. The Administrator shall give notice of the application
to the Council, cities having a similar franchise, and Grantee of
the date, time and place of the hearing on the application.
Notice of the hearing shall be published once in the official
newspaper at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. The
hearing shall be held no more than sixty (60) days after the date
of receipt of the application.
C. The Administrator shall review the application and pre-
pare a recommendation to the Council prior to the date of the
hearing.
D. Following the public hearing, at which all persons shall
have an opportunity to be heard, the Council may grant a
variance..
E. Upon a vote of two-thirds-(2/3) of all the members . of
the Council, the variance application may be approved.. In
granting a variance, the Council may amend the variance sought in
the application and may attach such conditions.to the granting of
the variance as the Council deems to be in the public interest.
Section IV. Findings Required.
No variance shall be granted unless, in the sole discretion
of the Council, all of the following circumstances, where , appli -
cable, are found to exist:
A. The requested variance is a minor deviation from the
Offering and is consistent with the Franchise.
B. Strict compliance with the terms of the Offering may
result in a hardship to the applicant and granting a variance
will not be detrimental to other affected parties, the City, or
the public.
0
-2-
•
•
C. Due to expense or delay, it would be unreasonable to
perfect such change by ordinance amendment.
D. Undue delay, expense or other adverse results will not
occur as a result of approval of the required variance.
E. The variance will not result in a reduction in technical
standards or cost efficiency.
F. The variance will not result in a deviation from the
requirements of the MCCB or FCC or any other rule or law.
G. The variance is not subject to approval of a city having
a similar franchise.
-3-
RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY
TO THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
TO ACT AS HEARING OFFICER FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCEDURE
AND TO GRANT VARIANCES
TO THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
AFTER REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT
WHEREAS, the City of has entered into a
Joint and Cooperative Agreement to create the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement, City has delegated authority to the Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission to enforce and administer the cable franchise
operating in the City; and
WHEREAS, the member cities and the Commission have estab-
lished an administrative variance procedure to review requests
for variances from the franchise ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in the interests of efficiency, the Commission is
the appropriate entity to review variance requests on behalf of
all of the member cities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council in a regular
meeting assembled that the Commission is hereby authorized to act
on behalf of the City to perform the functions of a Hearing
Officer to review and process requests for variances from the
cable franchise ordinance that affect two or more member cities;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission is hereby
authorized to grant variances to the franchise ordinance, after
proper review and consideration of findings of fact regarding the
variance when said variance affects two or more member cities;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that City is hereby authorized to
grant variances to the franchise ordinance, after proper review
and consideration of findings of fact regarding the variance when
said variance is unique to City and does not affect other member
cities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Secretary
day of , 1982.
By
Its:
0
Ll
r
Y
SAW
I
s
lit
's
l t
sj
OWN
1
a
too, son i t
r
n
�'r1 �
e,L
_i
3
N;
(I
J 4
not
Y
SAW
I
�C
lit
"
l t
i
a
Y
SAW
I
J
l t
i
a
n
�'r1 �
e,L
_i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 23
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Outdoor Advertising Display (Billboard)
Regulation Ordinance Amendment. Second
Reading.
On November 22, 1982, the city council gave first reading
to an ordinance amending the sign ordinance provisions pertain-
ing to outdoor advertising displays (billboards). Second read-
ing and the public hearing on this matter have been scheduled
for January 10, 1983.
SThe city staff has continued to refine the ordinance through
meetings with representatives of Naegele Outdoor Advertising and
the city attorney's office. The following is a summary of the
major changes which have been made since the ordinance was given
first reading:
1. All references to "billboards" have been changed to
"outdoor advertising displays ";
2. Notice of the public hearing required before the
issuance of sign permits for outdoor advertising
displays will be sent to property owners instead
of occupants;
3. Sign permits issued for outdoor advertising displays
will no longer be subject to renewal after 5 years;
4. The maximum sign area for each sign face of an out-
door advertising display has been reduced from 825
square feet to 750 square feet;
5. The spacing requirement of outdoor advertising dis-
plays from residentially zoned properties has been
clarified to say that the sign faces of outdoor ad-
vertising displays cannot be visible from the bound-
ary of any residentially zoned properties within 300
feet of the outdoor advertising display;
• 6. The maximum height of an outdoor advertising dis-
play which the city council could approve if certain
conditions are present has been increased from 40
feet to 45 feet;
Council Letter No. 23 -2- January 10, 1983
7. Non - conforming outdoor advertisin g displays
be "grandfathered in ". They will nolonger have
to be removed within five years of the effective
date of the ordinance.
It is recommended that the city council conduct the public
hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the
attached ordinance.
`Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
KN /eja
0
•
0
0
9 O
Al`4END`IE'NT TO CHAPTER III ,
PART V, OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Chapter III;. Part V, of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield entitled "Signs and Billboards" is hereby
amended as follows:
I. By amending Section 3.47 thereof in the following
respects:
1. The first sentence of Subdivision 1 thereof is
amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this section and in sections
3.48 and 3.49 of this Code:
2. Paragraphs (2), (4), and (5) of Subdivision 1 are here-
by amended to read as follows:
(2) "'Advertis nn Sign, -- dveYti-s_ng' means a sign the primary
unction of which is to direct attention to a commercial
product,_commercial service or commercial activity that
is sold et offered, or conducted either elsewhere or
upon the premises where such sign is located, or to
which it is affixed.
(4) "' Situs Sign;- ?ne?eat €eater' means a an advertising
s e- ident.gy -a
res- elent4!al,- eeniteee -aI; -er -pe lie- er -se.,CRe-
etzi�� e- ese- deeate-d-area- the- gremTSes- where- etdei: -e-1:g�t
�s- ?eea*�e�;- er -te- Katie- sttei�- see-- e- a- = ==�e�. which is
located upon the premises where the advertised business
activity, use, product, services, entertainment, commod-
ities are sold, conducted or offered and which does not
come within the definition of "outdoor adverti ing -is
play" as defined in paragraph (5) or this subdivision.
S�g�s- �eer:te €� }rig- ee�.�aere gat -eses -tau- eater- aeteaeeaa - =e
the- preeeet;- ser��ee -er- get }�it�- �a:��e� -es- sere- er -e == "errs
erc- the- re�t�ses. Situs signs identifying industrial
uses may also call attention to the product, goods or
material WI-lich is produced, arseeasee- or assembled
ar- stefee -ever. on the premises."
* 7C
3
(5)
'Outdoor Advertizing Display' means an
advertising sign. 'seeated - @ =- tie- pfe�tses- here -�.�e
bttt- :het- :�eees9a� }ti - ew�ed- by- u�- ad�e�t_si:�g- eex�pa:��-
which advertises businesses, uses, products, services,
entertainment, commodities or other activities. not
przmarilY or exclusively sold, offered or conducted
at the premises where the sign is located The term
shall not include the names of businesses, or the
products or services offered by such businesses,
having multiple locations under the same business
name if the advertising sign is located on the
advertise any other location.
3. Subdivision l is herebv amended by adding thereto the
following new paragraph (17):
"(17)'Freestanding Sign means a Sian attached to the ground
on its own structures and which is not attached to any
building or building structure."
II. By amending Section 3.49 thereof in the following respects:
1. By amending Subdivisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 thereof
to read as follows:
"Subd. 2. Ground Signs. No ground sign, signboard, er-- ��-T --
beaYd et i
shall exceed 27 fen height above the average ground
level of that part of the street toward which it faces, nor shall
such structure exceed 65 feet in length (including the base there-
of) unless a special permit therefor has been granted as herein-
after provided. Every ground sign or signboard er- bi- Ilbeard except
temporary ground signs shall have a space of at least 2 feet
between the lower edge thereof and the ground, which space shall
not be closed in any manner. The provisions of this subdivision
do not apply_to outdoor adverti,'in displays."
y
"Subd. 3. Special Permit. The council may grant a special
permit for a ground sign ;- s:gt�ea d -_a _�} =beg d exceeding 63
feet in length, but only if it finds that such structure (1) will
not be lighted or illuminated; (2) will be located on general
commercial or industrial property and at least 190 feet
from the street or highway which it faces; (3) will not be faced
toward any residences or residential property and will not be
within 200 feet of any residential properties; (4) will not undi:ly
obstruct visibility of neighboring property; (5) will bear only
the name of the business or industry being conducted on the
property on which it is located; and (6) will rot adversely affect
the value of any adjacent property. The provisions of this
subdivision do not apply to outdoor advertizina displays."
"Subd. 4. Special Permits - Heiaht. The council may grant
a special permit for a ground sign;- s ;ge9ed_e_e !Head exceed-
ing 27 feet in height, but only if it finds that such structure
r:
(1) if located or_ property adjacent to a federal freeway, will
not exceed 35 feet in height or the highest part of any building
located on the same premises; :whichever is higher; - e:�eept- tsat -a
ea;a -ne e-e °edi:�
.Aeig° =- :�a1- 'se -a?? sewed- e�dee- =?�e- =sllec�_ag- ee:�d�
{a }- -c;�e- sigma -y =z }- Ise- �?ea�ee- a�j'•aee:��- �e- a- fede�a�
=�ee�aau-
{ � }-- 4?�e- s��a- :����- �et- e�eeed- Sig- e�ea�e- fee* - =� -area
pew- siga- =gee;-
ti Pfal- he }ejht- ia- neeeeear -y- tA-- insure
adequate- yisiiility- =rest- tine -ae� aeet- =edera3-
f eeec,�au ;
- { f}-- �: s- e® ��eeetis�- �aith_tbe- eeeet�eet_s�: -af- ��re -ee�:
5 4:ef:3; — aft— eMietipg- s =eR- eF:eeedial- the- he -3-3
€ eet- wizi- �e- ee:�e�ed- et- a- ieeatiea- wit�:i�: -tote
ee Eve eate- iimite -ei- the- Eity- es- Riehf }eid
• (2) if not located adjacent to a federal freeway, will not exceed
in height the highest part of any building located on the same
premises; (3) will he located on industrial property; (4)
wi 1? not be wit: in 300 feet of 'ary single farr.ily residence property;
(5) will not unduly obstruct visibility from neighboring properties;
(6) will not in any evert exceed elevation of 204, Richfield datum;
and (7) will not adversely affect the value of any adjacent prop-
erty. If the sign for which the special permit is issued is a
double -faced sign the council may permit the sign to have screen-
ing standing not more than. 10 feet above the face of the sigh_,
in addition to the maximum elevations hereinbefcre specifiea; pro-
vided that such screeninc must consist of a plain rretal surface
bearing no advertising matter, lettering or writing. The orovi-
sions of this subr?ivision do not apaly to outdoor adver71zina
displays."
"Subd. 5. Application to Council for Permits. The council
may attach ccnditZons to the granting of any such penr.it; such
permit shall be for a period of no more than five years. At the
end cf the permit pericd, the sign shall not be retained on the
orerrises but shall be reiroved by the property owner unless a new
special permit therefor has been granted. The application for any
such structure shall describe the sign;- siebea�d,- e-= ?- ibeard
in detail, including the copy to be used thereon, and such sign
shall be constructed and maintained, during the oerrrit pericd,
in accczdance with and subject tc the application and any special
conditions imposed by the council. The orovisions of this sub -
d�v�sicr, do act appi�� to outdoor advertizincr disrlays."
"Subd. 6, Conditions for Special Per -lit. The council may
attach conditions to any such special permit. id such permit
shall be for a period of more than five years. o the end of
the permit period, the sign shall not be retained on the premises
but shall be removed by the property owner unless a new special
permit therefor has been granted. The applicant for any such
structure shall describe the sign,-- 9- gnbeeYd;- ey- z�:?bearr in
detail, including the copy to be used thereon, and such s)*crn
shall be constructed and maintained, during the permit period,
in accordance with and subject to the application and any special
conditions imposed by the council. The provisions of this sub -
division do not apply to outdoor advertiz -ing -d-j--splays."
"Subd. 8. E�earer: ee- e�- 8�:9- ye- i= eeII��ea�- EAr;d>;etes-
'.e- b; eiea! ? wee- e$-3ny- 9tin- �-r eR i- uRI-9reteAtcF'+_elee =iF4ea=I
ee !ewetJ 9- =?yet eY- s?- e9- ee- etAer- }Rstal =at -ens } - shall -be -net
1e99- 9c4- �-4'e- _iP te eer a- A �° .•eaxYU_ a- ,yet -e ex- 6$8- ?9�-�9
and - 418- 'inei?e9- @=1 -e endue ter9- eA�a�uy_Meffe- =144x:'!- �F+�- TaTA��3-
Q��a�. �OV�7�- 'C�S1r•tC�- �iSP��
General Reauirements and Restrictions.
(1) Permit Reauired. No outdoor advertizina display may
be established in the city unless a permit is first
obtained. Pernits may be issued by the city council
only after a public hearing preceded by the awing •
of 10 days not2.ce mailed to the owners of ail properties
located in whole or in part within 660 Beet of the
proposed outdoor advertia 1ng display The council
mav� attach. conditions-upon the arantl ncr of any permit.
(2)--The following regulations ap_p1y . all outdoor adver-
displays with. -in the city.
(a) Outdoor advertizina displays are permitted only in
the C -2, PC -2, I and P -1 azstricts of the cite.
(b) An outdoor advertizina display may not exceed 750
sc-uare feet in sign area per si an faces
(c) An outdoor advertizina display may have no more
than 2 sign _aces.
d) All outdoor advertizina diplays will be freestand-
ing signs either supported by a single or double
column or some other support which has all struc-
tural and support members screened from view from
all directions.
(e) Outdoor advertizina displays may not be located
closer than 1,000 feet apart as measured along
the same side o the same _oadway.
•
(f) The sign face of outdoor a(lvertizing displays must
not be visible from the boundary of any residentially
zoned crocerty which is located entirely or oartially_
wit .hi n 300 feet o= the sign face.
(g) Outdoor advertizing displays may not be located with
in 300 feet of any school or church.
(h) Outdoor advertizina displays must comply with the
setback requirements for buildings in the zoning
district in which they are located. Any variance
from those requirements will be subject to the
procedure established in the zoning code for such
variances.
(i) No outdoor advertizina displays may exceed 27 feet
in height above the around level of the nearest
street towards where it faces. The Council may
permit an increase in the allowable height to a
maximum of 45 feet in the event that the following
findings are made.
i) As a result of unique circumstances; a sicrn
27 feet in height could not be located on the
premises so as to be visibie _rom the abutting
street >hich it faces or that v:.szbilzty CZ
the sia_n from such street could be substan-
tial7.y obstructed.
i.i) The increased height of the sign would be
unlikely to have any adverse or detrimental
impact upon traffic safety, nedestrian
safety, aesthetics, or the value of other
properties within the area
(j) No outdoor advertizina dismlav may exceed 65 reet
in lenath. "
(4) Non - conforming Outdoor Advertizina Displays. Outdoor
Advert�zir"g Displays lawfully erected and located on
the effective date of this section_ mav_ continue subject
to the following limitations:
(a) Except as provided in Subdivision 9 of this
ordinance, no non- conformincr outdoor adver-
tizing display may be expanded, rebuilt, re-
located or a terea w thout beina brought into
conformity with the requirements or- this
ordinance.
(b) Any outdoor advertizing display which is not
used for acvertsna purposes for a period of
more than two years shall be deemed abandoned
and must be removed loy the owner of the parcel
on wh_c_h ' t i s located.
2. By adding to Subdivision 7 thereof the following new
paragraph (6):
(6) The minimum clearance of anv sign from unprotected
el.ec_`4 cal conductcrs Doles
whether
( c_ tether ir_s
lations) shall be not less than 36 inches for con
doctors carrying not over 600 volts, and 48 inches from
conductors carrving more than 600 volts."
III. By amending the title of Part V and the title of Section 3.47
to read as follows:
"PART V SIGNS
"3.47. REGULnTION OF THE USE OF SIGNS s?Fr'3- t7�abE8zR�8 "
Pased by the City Council'of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
s day or- 1982.
John Hamilton, Mayor
rnrr+
TEST:
Sylvia Bergh, C':: ter Clerk
W
•
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 22
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Application for On -Sale Liquor, Sunday Liquor,
and Gambling License, VFW Fred Babcock Post 5555
Mr. Robert Fritzke, board member of the VFW Fred Babcock Post,
has submitted applications for on -sale liquor, Sunday liquor, and
gambling licenses for 1983.
According to Minnesota Statutes, municipalities now issue on-
sale liquor licenses to congressionally chartered veteran's or-
ganizations which have been in existence for ten years. The VFW
falls into this category, and the City of Richfield is responsible
for issuing their liquor licenses for the first time in 1983.
The organizational structure of the VFW is as follows: Leo M.
Leinenger, president; Donald Langaard, vice - president; Merve E.
Mosher, secretary; and Robert M. Fritzke, treasurer. All officers
are residents of either Richfield, Minneapolis, or Edina, and
every year elections are held to fill each position. It is our
understanding that traditionally officers advance upward every
year from the position of treasurer, so the only position not
filled by a person already on the board the previous year would
be the position of treasurer. This, however, is only tradition
and is not mandated by VFW by -laws. None of the current board
members have any known criminal record.
The financial report was prepared by the treasurer, Robert
Fritzke, who is not a certified public accountant. It appears
that a CPA firm does not regularly audit the financial records
of the organization. It is the recommendation of the public
safety department, that next year a meeting be arranged between
public safety officials and the VFW to resolve this concern. The
statement prepared by Mr. Fritzke covers the period July 1, 1981
through June 30, 1982. Total sales were $836,558; with food
sales totalling $400,732, (47 %), and beverage sales in the amount
of $435,826, or 52% of total sales.
All public and liquor liability insurance is carried through
the David Agency of Minneapolis and is carried with the Aetna
Casualty and Surety Company. The coverage afforded appears to
Council Letter No. 22 -2-
January 10, 1983
meet ordinance code requirements with the city listed as an
additional insured. The required "Club On -Sale" surety bond
in the amount of $3,000 is carried with the United Fire and
Casualty Company of Iowa and remains in effect until December
31, 1983.
Verification with regard to state sales and withholding taxes
was made and all state tax payments are current. The 1982 real
estate tax in the amount of $23,669 has been paid, and the market
value of the building which is owned by the club, is $525,000.
Some confusion with regard as to who was to be the VFW Club
Manager existed. Initially, when their application was submitted,
Richard Christie, chairman of their standing House Committee and
a non -paid employee of the club, was listed as Club Manager. Mr.
Christie is not on the premises at all times when the club is
open. Mr. Kenneth Orvis, bar manager, is present, and therefore,
has been named as Club Manager, and Mr. Christie as gambling
manager. Mr. Orvis, a club member, was appointed as bar manager
about four years ago. He cooperated fully during the investiga-
tion and has no known criminal record that would preclude his
being licensed as club manager for 1983.
Incident history indicated that between October 1, 1981 and
September 30, 1982, 34 public safety contacts were made, compared
to 25 for the previous same period. The breakdown is as follows:
Total Contacts 34
Bar type 5
Criminal 12
Medicals 12
Misc. Criminal 5
Traffic /parking 1
Misc. Non - criminal 4
The number of contacts generated by the VFW is not great, this
in part might be attributed to the older age of the patrons of
the establishment, as well as the somewhat exclusive and stable
membership roils.
The gambling license has been applied for and the necessary
fees paid. Officers for the gambling application are the same
as for the on -sale and Sunday liquor license applications for 1983.
Two gambling managers have been designated, John Ellis for bingo,
and Richard Christie for gambling. The background investigation
revealed no known criminal record for either of these persons.
The required fidelity bonds for both bingo and gambling in
the amount of $10,000 each, have been filed with the city and
both are carried under separate policies with the United Fire and
Casualty Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Both policies remain in
effect until September 1, 1984. Neither policy designates a
specific named manager, which is not an ordinance requirement.
It is the recommendation of the public safety department, in
which I concur, that issuance of the on -sale liquor, Sunday
liquor and gabmling licenses be granted to the VFW Fred Babcock
Post for 1983. However, it should be made clear that the club
must comply with the Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.07, subd.
1, requirement that ".....may serve intoxicating liquor on Sun-
days between the hours of 11:00 a.m., and 12 midnight, in con -
junction with the serving of food."
KN/ ej a
cc: Public Safety Director
Res ectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
Council Letter No. 22 -3- January 10, 1983
.
Due to clerical problems, the VFW has not routinely submitted
the required monthly gambling reports to the public safety de-
partment. Mr. Christie has assured us that every effort will
Co
be made to submit these reports on time in the future.
The VFW has also requested an increase in the number of
/?_
gambling occasions in 1983. In 1982, they were licensed to
conduct gambling on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. This
-{�
year they are requesting to be licensed to conduct gambling on
Sundays also. in addition, they are requ ^sting two additional
nights of the week each month, one of those being the first Tues-
day of the month, and the other, an unspecified night, possibly
°
the second or third Tuesday of each month. The present gambling
ordinance in Richfield allows 104 gambling occasions and 104 bingo
events to be conducted by licensed organizations. The ordinance
does provide for city council approval of additional gambling
occasions. As interpreted by the city attorney, the present ordin-
would allow either gambling or bingo on four nights a week. With
these additional requests is is - on^eivable that our veteran's
organizations could be having such events every night of the
week. Now would seem the appropriate time to determine what the
community would like and expects with regard to the gambling
activities of Richfield's service organizations. The projected in-
crease in gambling events may require more expenditure of public
safety resources to monitor and control this activity.
Since this is the first year that the city is licensing ser-
vice organizations, there was some confusion regarding investiga-
tive fees to be assessed. As mandated by the city ordinance
code, Section 11.06, the investigative fee for on -sale establish-
ments is $107 for each person listed on a renewal application
that was not listed the previous year. This year, however, it
is recommended that all investigative fees be waived due to a
lack of timely notice to the Veteran's organizations by the
city staff. In the future, however, this fee structure will be
adhered to. The VFW has Advised the public safety department
that they will request an exemption from this investigative fee.
It is the recommendation of the public safety department, in
which I concur, that issuance of the on -sale liquor, Sunday
liquor and gabmling licenses be granted to the VFW Fred Babcock
Post for 1983. However, it should be made clear that the club
must comply with the Richfield City Ordinance Code 11.07, subd.
1, requirement that ".....may serve intoxicating liquor on Sun-
days between the hours of 11:00 a.m., and 12 midnight, in con -
junction with the serving of food."
KN/ ej a
cc: Public Safety Director
Res ectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
Gambling Event Requests
Page Two
VFW FRED BABCOCK POST 5555/
GAMBLING EVENT REQUESTS
In 1982, the VFW was licensed to conduct 104 Bingo events (Thursdays
and Sundays), and 156 Gambling events (Wednesday, Fridays and Saturdays).
A Gambling event occurred at the VFW on 260 nights of the year;
Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.
Bingo -0- -0- Pull -tab Bingo Pull -tab Pull -tab
For 1982, the VFW has requested to be allowed the 104 Bingo events
(Thursdays and Sundays). This year the VFW has requested they be
licensed for Pull -tab events on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday
evenings, plus two additional Tuesdays during each month which would
give them 2a Pull -tab events. The total of 3J6 Gambling and Bingo
events would be conducted either five or six nights a week, or a total
of nights a year;
�#
Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.
Bingo ; -0-
Pull -Tab
RJR /lje
va
2 Pull -tabs Pull -tab Bingo Pull -tab Pull -tab
per mo.
.!' _0
Gambling Event Requests
Page Two
i
VFW FRED BABCOCK POST 5555/
GAMBLING EVENT REQUESTS
In 1982, the VFW was licensed to conduct 104 Bingo events (Thursdays
and Sundays), and 156 Gambling events (Wednesday, Fridays and Saturdays).
A Gambling event occurred at the VFW on 260 nights of the year;
Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.
Bingo -0- -0- Pull -tab Bingo Pull -tab Pull -tab
For 1982, the VFW has requested to be allowed the 104 Bingo events
(Thursdays and Sundays). This year the VFW has requested they be
licensed for Pull -tab events on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday
evenings, plus two additional Tuesdays during each month which would
give them 180 Pull -tab events. The total of 284 Gambling and Bingo
events would be conducted either five or six nights a week, or a total
of 264 nights a year;
Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.
Bingo -0-
Pull -Tab
CJ
RJR /lje
•
2 Pull -tabs Pull -tab Bingo Pull -tab Pull -tab
per mo.
41M
0
FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST No. 5555
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
FOUNDED 1889
Telephones: 869-5555 - 869 -9940 - 866-6112
710 LAKE SHORE DRIVE - RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423
December 31, 1982
Mr. William Hollick
Investigator
Richfield Dept. of Public Safety
6700 Portland Ave. S
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Bill:
In response to our prior conversations this is our formal request
to hold gambling (pull tabs) on any and all nights we serve food.
This would include Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday evenings on
a weekly basis. In addition, during the month we have special food
nights which we would also like to offer the pull tabs to our member-
ship.
Bill, as you are aware, the current condition of the economy and
the opening and operation of the bingo hall in Prior Lake has hurt our
operations. By allowing us the opportunity to have pull tabs on these
nights will help us to improve our profits, of which you know pays for
our sponorships of Richfield Youth Athletics.
Should you need any additional information please contact me
personally.
Sincerely,
Fred Babcock Post 5555
Veterans of Foreign Wars
L"eo Leininger
Commander
r
ob F i zke
uartermas
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 21
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Application for On -Sale Liquor, Sunday
Liquor, and Gambling License, American
Legion Post 435
Mr. George Evans, Mr. Alvin Omlie and Mr. Fred Primoli have
submitted applications for on -sale liquor, Sunday liquor, and
gambling licenses for the Richfield American Legion Post 435
for the year 1983.
According to Minnesota Statutes, municipalities now issue on-
sale liquor licenses to congressionally chartered veterans or-
. ganizations which have been in existence for ten years. The
American Legion Post 435 falls into this category, and the City
of Richfield is responsible for issuing their on -sale and Sunday
liquor licenses for the first time in 1983.
The organizational structure of the Post 435 is as follows:
Alvin 0. Omlie, president; James A. Munson, vice - president;
Theodore J. Stage, secretary; and Donald B. Vogtman, treasurer.
All officers are residents of either Richfield, Bloomington, or
Edina. Elections are held every year to fill these positions.
It appears that officers advance upward every year from the
position held the previous year, thus resulting in the position
of treasurer being filled by a person not on the board. This
tradition is not mandated through the organization's by -laws, so
conceivably one or all positions on the board could be filled by
persons not on the previous year's board. A criminal history
investigation regarding all boardmembers revealed no known
criminal record on any board member.
The financial report was prepared and submitted by Joseph P.
Schliep, CPA, and reflects a fiscal year from July 1, 1981
through June 30, 1982. Total sales for this period were
$1,364,473. Of this amount $689,906 (51 %) were food sales, and
$674,567 (49 %) were beverage sales. Mr. Schliep indicated that
his examination of the materials supplied to him by the manage-
ment of the Club was a review that was "substantially less in
scope than an examination in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards ", and was not meant to be an opinion of the
financial statements taken as a whole.
Council Letter No. 21 -2-
January 10, 1983
The Club carries all public and liquor liability insurance
• through the Minneapolis National Insurance Agency of Minneapolis
with the AETNA /INA Insurance Companies. The coverage afforded
appears to be in compliance with city ordinance code require-
ments with the City of Richfield listed as an additional insured.
The required "club on- sale" surety bond in the amount of $3,000
is carried with the Transamerica Insurance Company of California
and remains in effect until December 31, 1983.
Verification with regard to sales tax and withholding taxes
was made, indicating that all state taxes are current. The 1982
real estate tax in the amount of $33,171.30 has been paid. The
market value of the building, which is owned by the American
Legion, is $750,000.
During the month of November, 1982, the Club's operations
manager, Larry Neck, was replaced by Fred D. Primoli. Mr. Primoli
is a life long resident of St. Paul and Lake Elmo, where he
currently resides. He possesses an extensive background in the
restaurant and bar business, having owned or been a partner in
three such establishments in the St. Paul area. An investigation
revealed no known criminal record on Mr. Primoli, and it is
recommended that he be licensed by the City of Richfield as Club
Manager for the American Legion.
Between November 1, 1981 and October 31, 1982, there were 52
40 public safety contacts. This compares with 83 contacts in the
previous year, or a 38% reduction in incidents. Of these 52
incidents, only six were of a "bar type" nature. This appears
to be about the same number of this type as were reported last
year. There were 14 burglary and robbery panel alarms this year,
compared to 32 such alarms last year. Even thought this is a
significant decrease, we brought the problem to the attention
of the new manager, Mr. Primoli, who was very cooperative and in-
dicated that he would attempt to reduce even further the number
of alarms. The remainder of the contacts were as follows:
Total Incidents: 52
Criminal 23 - 44% of total
Non- Criminal 29 - 56% of total
Gambling Investigation
The police division has reported within the last week, the re-
sults of a gambling investigation they conducted at the American
Legion. This report indicated that there were two incidents re-
ported to them by anonymous sources involving gambling in viola-
tion of the Richfield city ordinance code. The first incident
occurred in October and involved a "Las Vegas Night ", in which
the improper use of "funny money" resulted in a violation of
the Minnesota Gambling Statutes. On Tuesday, November 2, 1982,
members of the police division met with the Legion's executive
board and advised them the risks the club was taking in failing
to properly monitor the activities taking place in their estab-
lishment. As a result of this meeting, the police division re-
Council Letter No. 21 -3- January__10, 1983
ceived a letter from the Post Commander expressing that "they
too, are concerned that we abide by the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the laws of the City of Richfield."
However, during the early part of December, 1982, the police
division received information that the Club was using "pull- tabs"
on Sunday nights prior to their normal bingo event. The gambling
license issued for 1982 expressly set the "pull tab" events on
Thursday, Fridays, and Saturdays. An investigation was conducted
that resulted in agents of the police division observing and
participating in such a "pull -tab" event on Sunday, December 19,
1982. As a result of this investigation and violation of Rich-
field City Ordinance 5.19, subd. 9, paragraph 12, another meeting,
was arranged between the Richfield police division staff and
representatives of the American Legion.
At this meeting it was determined that there may have been a
misunderstanding with the licensing investigator and the Legion,
as the Legion was under the impression that "pull- tabs" would be
allowed on Sundays. At the conclusion of this meeting, it was
understood that there could be no valid excuse for these incid-
ents and any repeat, or similar violation of the ordinance would
result in severe sanctions being accessed against the American
Legion. Post 435.
The bingo and gambling license applications have been submitted
and the fees of $642 have been paid. In reviewing the application
it was noted that the officers for the gambling license are the
same officers as for the on -sale and Sunday liquor license appli-
cations for 1983. Two managers have been designated; Sandra
Lodin for bingo, and George Ashwood for gambling. Mr. Ashwood
has been the gambling manager since 1981. Ms. Lodin was appoint-
ed in November, 1982. Both Mr. Ashwood and Ms. Lodin are Rich-
field residents who have no known criminal record and are members
in good standing of the American Legion.
The required fidelity bond with corporate surety of $10,000
for the bingo license has been filed with the city by the Trans-
america Insurance Company, designating Ms. Lodin as the princi-
pal. We have not yet received a copy of the renewal of the
fidelity bond for the gambling manager, Mr. Ashwood, however,
we did contact him and he stated that the bond is in effect and
would be mailed to us.
The required monthly gambling reports have been routinely sub-
mitted. These reports reflect the gross receipts from gambling
only, and detail expenses including prizes and the distribution
of profits. It has been determined by the city attorney that
organizations that conduct gambling be required under the ordin-
ance code to submit copies of IRS forms 990 and 990T. These
. forms deal with organizations that are exempt from paying feder-
al income and business taxes. Mr. Ashwood has been advised of
this requirement and has been requested to comply with this re-
quest by January 31, 1983.
Council Letter No. 21 -4- January 10, 1983
SMr. Ashwood has submitted a letter requesting additional
days to conduct their gambling activities. In 1982, gambling
was granted on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. Bingo was
granted on Wednesdays and Sundays. Additional gambling has
been requested on Sundays and Wednesdays, while they wish to
delete Saturdays. Representatives of the Legion are aware
that they must be licensed to conduct gambling and are willing
to cooperate with the city.
The present gambling ordinance in Richfield permits 104
gambling occasions and 104 bingo events to be conducted by licen-
sed organizations. The ordinance does allow the city council to
permit additional gambling occasions. As interpreted by the city
attorney, the ordinance would now allow either gambling or bingo
on four nights a week. With these additional requests, it is
conceivable that our veteran's organizations could be having
such events every night of the week. Now would seem the appro-
priate time to determine what the community would like and ex-
pects with regard to the gambling activities of Richfield's
service organizations. The projected increase in gambling events
will perhaps require more expenditure of public safety resources
to monitor and control.
Richfield ordinance code 11.06, subdivision 12, para. 8, de-
fines illegal gambling activities conducted on the premises of
a liquor license holder as a violation of the conditions of their
liquor license. The investigation conducted by the public safety
department indicates that-the American Legion Post 435 did violate
this ordinance provision on at least two occasions, and this
should be considered in granting on -sale and Sunday liquor licen-
ses for 1983.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the public safety depart-
ment, in which I concur, that the on -sale, Sunday liquor and
gambling licenses requested be granted on a probationary basis,
subject to periodic review throughout the year to insure compli-
ance by the American Legion with applicable laws and ordinances.
Since this is the first year that the city is licensing the
American Legion, there has been some confusion regarding fees to
be assessed. In discussing this issue with the city attorney's
office, it appears that the investigative fee for on -sale estab-
lishments is $107, mandated by the city code, Section 11.06, for
every person listed on a renewal application that was not listed
on the previous year's application. This year, however, the staff
recommends waiving all investigative fees due to a lack of timely
notice to the veteran's organizations by the city. In the future,
barring any changes in the ordinance, this fee structure should be
adhered to. The Legion Po -t has advised us that they will request
exemption from this investigative fee.
• Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: January 10, 1982
To: Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
From: Ronald J. Richardson
Police Captain
Subject: GAMBLING EVENTS AT VETERANS ORGANIZATIONS
Our Richfield city ordinance allows 104 Bingo and 104 Gambling
events at each veteran's club each year, with additional events
to be held only if the city council approves such events.
AMERICAN LEGION REQUESTS: In 1982, the Legion requested that they
be allowed Bingo events on Mondays and Wednesdays and Pull -tab
events on Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays, plus Pull -tab events
on July 4th and September 6th. This gave them 104 Bingo events
and 158 Pull -tab events for the year. This allowed the Legion
• to conduct such events five (5) nights a week or 260 nights
per year;
Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.
Pull -tab Bingo -0- Bingo Pull -tab Pull -tab -0-
For 1983, the Legion has requested Bingo events on Wednesdays and
Sundays and Pull -tab events on Wednesday, Thursday, Fridays and
a one hour event before Bingo on Sundays;
Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat.
Bingo -0- -0- Bingo Pull -tab Pull -tab -0-
Pull -tab Pull -tab
(1 hr.)
This would allow the Legion 104 Bingo events and 208 Pull -tab events
but would cut these activities to four nights per week or 208 nights
per year.
0
7j
r1
U
(9
MINNEAPOLIS— RICHFIELD AMERI A
6501 PORTLAND AVENUE SO. *
"3 December 192
'lr. Thomas A. 'lorgan, V.P..
DIRECTOR OF PUMLIC SAFETY
City of Richfield
6700 Portland P,ve. So.
Richfield, '1!1 55423
Dear Tor.,
R,
i
• ..
LEGION POST 435
55423 * Telephone 866 -3647
This letter supplerients the American Legion Post 435 license application for
the operation of Pull-Tabs for 19;1)3.
Ile are requesting that the following days and hours be authorized in 1933,
for the Post Pull -Tabs operation:
l.ednesday 6:00 - 7:00 P;1 a [i :00 - 11:00 PH
Thursday 7:00 - 11:00 Pil
Friday 7:00 - 11:00 P11
Sunday 6:00 - 7:00 PN
You will note the change in blednesday hours and the addition of the Sunday
activity. These, we feel, are necessary to compete with the Prior Lake Bingo
operation. In addition to the argument that all our Bingo profits go for
Community Activities as added incentive to patronize our operation would be
the Pull -Tab feature one hour prior to the Bingo game.
The pre -bingo operation would be managed and reported by the Gambling Manager
as part of the Post Community Service Activity.
These times best coincide with other Club functions and will be the most
productive. You can be assured that we will continue to monitor these
operations to comply with all regulations including regular reporting.
lle will appreciate consideration of this request and will hope for its sub-
sequent approval. Please contact me if there are any questions or further
information is needed.
Z <
Georg A hwood
Cai,ibl i nc i la pager
cc: Coy, slander Oo;1 i e
•
C
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 20
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Arcade
Licensing. First Reading.
Due to the current popularity of amusement machines, and the
increased requests for information regarding arcade licensing,
our public safety department has reviewed the current arcade
licensing ordinance to determine if the ordinance serves the
best interests of the community, the licensee and the City of
Richfield. One area of concern is that the arcade licensing
ordinance does not clearly prohibit someone who would not other-
wise qualify as a license holder, from having a significant
financial interest and gain in the operation of the business
through the ownership of the amusement devices.
Therefore, we have requested the city attorney to draft an
ordinance amendment which would require that significant informa-
tion be furnished regarding the ownership of the amusement devices
to aid in the licensing investigation. A copy of that proposed
ordinance is attached to this council letter.
This item has been placed on the January 10, 1983 city council
agenda for first reading consideration.
cc: Public Safety Director
City Clerk
KN /eja
Respectfully( submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER
V, PART II, SECTIONS
5.17 AND 5.18 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
I. Section 5.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
licensing and regulating arcades is amended in the following
respects:
1. By amending paragraph (3) of Subdivision 3 thereof
to read as follows:
"(3) The name and address of all persons owning or
having an interest in the licensed premises. This
requirement shall include the names and addresses
of the owners of any amusement devices intended
to be used by the applicant in connection with
the licensed activity. In the case of a corporation
the requirements of this paragraph shall include
the names and addresses of the officers and direc-
tors of the corporation and all shareholders who
own alone or in conjunction with their spouse or
children more than 10% of the issued shares of
corporate stock. The applicant shall also submit
with the application any leases covering the
premises or the amusement devices."
2. By amending Subdivision 7 thereof by adding the following
new paragraph to read as follows:
"(14) No amusement device may be located in an arcade
if the owner of such device would be ineligible
to obtain an arcade license by virtue of Subdi-
vision_ 4 of this Section."
II. Section 5.18 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
licensing and regulating amusement devices is amended by
amending Subdivision 4 thereof to read as follows:
Subdivision 4. Application. Each person desiring a license
shall make writted application and furnish such information as
is required by the City Clerk. If the applicant is not the owner
of the amusement device, the application shall contain the name
•
• and address of the owners of the device and shall also contain
a copy of any lease or other agreement between the applicant and
owner relating to use of the device."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
CI
John Hamilton, Mayor
X13
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 19
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Relating to the Purchasing
Practices in the City of Richfield
At the December 28, 1981 city council meeting, the city
council approved an amendment to the city charter which changed
the requirement for council approval of purchases prior to the
actual acquisition from $1,000 to $5,000. At that same meeting,
the city council passed a resolution (No. 6555, a copy of which
is attached to this council letter), providing that all purchases
• in excess of $2,500 be placed on the city council agenda for
notification of the city council.
The Consumer Price Index reflects a 5.5% cost of living
increase through November, 1982. Therefore, a resolution has
been prepared, increasing the $2,500 to $2,650 (rounded off) to
reflect this 5.5% increase in the cost of living for the past
year.
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached
resolution, which provides that all purchases in excess of $2,650
but below $5,000, be included on city council agendas for city
council notification.
cc: Program Directors
Finance Coordinator
KN /eja
Respectfully submitted,
k2j-
NvX �ki�
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 6555
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING
PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Richfield as follows:
1. All purchases of the City of Richfield which are
in excess of $2,500, but below $5,000, shall be
made only after the city manager notifies the
city council by inclusion on a city council
agenda.
• Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield
this 28th day of December,
ATTEST:
1981.
- Dohald J . Pr iebl� Mayor
;�Z I ��
a K. Bergh City C
82 �r
7i
r;
I'
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING
PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Richfield as follows:
1. All purchases of the City of Richfield which are
in excess of $2,6.50, but below $5,000, shall be
made only after the city manager notifies the
city council by inclusion on a city council
agenda.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield
this 10th day of January, 1983.
0
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
0
John Hamilton Mayor
::�$1qF
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 18
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Appointment
and Placement of Relatives. First Reading.
During a review of the personnel ordinance, Section 2.31,
subdivision 4, it was noted that the paragraph relating to
Appointment and Placement of Relatives contained contradictory
definitions of the term "work group ". One line of the paragraph
defined "work group" as a division, while elsewhere i.n the para-
graph it simply refers to "work group ". As there may be several work
groups in any particular division, it would be advantageous to'-
delete the phrase . "work group will be defined as a division."
Our city attorney's office has prepared an ordinance amend-
ment (copy of which is attached to this council letter) which
deletes the phrase- normally a work group will be defined as a
division . This ordinance amendment would make the language
consistent throughout the ordinance and provide more flexibility
in interpreting this ordinance.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to this ordinance amendment and schedule the public
hearing and second reading for January 24, 1983.
KN /ej a
•
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
• AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.31 OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 2.31 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
relating to selection, appointments and probationary period of
certain city employees is hereby amended in the following respects:
A. Subdivision 4 hereof is amended to read:
"Appointment and Placement of Relatives. Relatives closer
than second cousins by blood or by marriage will not be employed
in the same work group �r�ea�lp- a- �ae3�- gep- 6al� -be- defied -as -a
divisien +; provided, however, that spouses may be employed in the
same work group, so long as no employee will be placed in a work
group in which a spouse will exercise supervision over the employee.
All decisions on the specific determination of what may constitute
a work group and /or supervisor- spouse relationship shall be made
by�the city manager."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1983.
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 17
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Eligibility
and Accrual Leave for General Services Em-
ployees. Second Reading.
At the December 13, 1982 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment
which would provide for the accumulation of personal leave for
General Services employees, and scheduled the public hearing
and second reading for the January 10, 1983 city council meeting.
In the past, all General Services employees have received
12 days of sick leave annually, accrued at the rate of one day
per month. These sick days could be used for a) physical in-
capacity incurred on or off -duty; b) personal illness, including
medical and dental appointments during work hours; c) enforced
quarantine of employee in accordance with community health regu-
lations; and d) serious illness or death in the immediate family.
Considerable discontent was generated due to the fact that
is is very difficult for an employer to equitably insure that
sick leave is used by all employees only for the appropriate
reasons. Some employees used sick leave on a one -day at a time
basis, instead of accumulating days, only to find that when an
extended illness occurred, they had no accumulated leave to cover
their loss of pay during the time of illness. Other employees
who were conscientious in their use of sick leave felt frustrated
at the inequitable use of, or abuse of, sick leave by ^ther em-
ployees.
This situation created a detriment to good working relation-
ships. Therefore, in 1981, the city council amended the city
ordinance to provide a personal leave plan, short -term disability
and long -term disability insurance program for the city's manage-
ment employees. This plan has now been proposed for the General
Services employees as well.
•
11
•
Council Letter No. 17 -2- January 10, 1983
Provisions of Plan:
Commencing February 1, 1983, all employees classified and
compensated as part of the General Services Pay Plan will be
granted 48 hours (6 days) of annual personal leave, with pay,
which may be used by the employee as follows: a) time lost as a
result of non -job related illness /injury to the employee or a
member of the employee's immediate family; b) medical /dental
appointments for the employee or a member of the employee's immed-
iate family; c) attend to personal business; and d) leisure time.
Employees may accrue unused personal leave from year to
year provided, however, that no employee may accrue in excess of
160 hours (20 days) of personal leave. Personal leave shall be
scheduled and administered under direction of the Department Heads,
and the city shall have the authority to grant or deny such leave
based upon the merit of such request, and the reasonable needs
of municipal service.
A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached to
this council letter.. It is recommended that the city council
give second reading approval to this ordinance amendment at the
January 10, 1983 city council meeting.
cc: Program Directors
KN/ ej a
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
• AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.33 OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 2.33 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield
relating to terms of employment of certain city employees is hereby
amended in the following respects:
A. Subdivision 5, subparagraph (1) hereof is amended to
read:
"Eligibility and Accrual. Effective February 14, 1983,
each permanent full -time or full -time probationary employee, and
each permanent part -time or part -time probationary employee,
classified and compensated under the Management Pay Plan or General
Services Pay Plan, as that those Plans has have been adopted and
may be amended from time to time pursuant to Section 2.32 of this
Code, shall be eligible to accrue and use personal leave. An
eligible full -time employee shall accrue +754 1.85 hours of
personal leave biweekly and may accumulate such leave from year
to year up to a maximum of 160 hours of personal leave from year to
year up to a maximum of 160 hours of personal leave unless written
authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the department
head and the city manager. Hours in excess of 160 hours shall be
forfeited by the employee without compensation." Eligible part -time
employees shall accrue personal leave on a proportional basis of the
full-time accrual based on hours worked per payroll period and shall
be limited to maximum accruals and extensions authorized for full-
time employees.
B. Subdivision 6 thereof is amended by adding the following:
11(5) Bereavement Leave Employees eligible for Personal
Leave shall also be eligible for bereavement leave. Eligible
em love �7ma be qranted up to a maximum of 16 hours of bereavement
leave for the death of an immediate family member. For the purposes
of this sub araara h, immediate famil member shall be defined as
spouse, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren,
mother -in -law, father -in -law, brother in law, and sister in-law."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th
day of January, 1983.
John Hamilton Mayor
is ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 16
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Meeting With Metropolitan Transit Commission
Representatives Regarding Subregional Transit
Study Implementation
Over the past few years, the Richfield city staff has been
participating in an MTC project to develop improved bus service
within our transit subregion. Representatives of the Metropoli-
tan Transit Commission staff will be present at 6:15 p.m. meet-
ing on January 10, 1983 to meet with the city council to discuss
the project, and to present some recommended bus changes.
These recommended changes, and any comments which the
council may have, will be presented to the Metropolitan Transit
Commission at an upcoming meeting for their formal action.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
KN /ej a
•
MISM2
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 15
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointment to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority
Attached to this council letter is a letter of resignation
from Michael Freeman, who is resigning from the Housing and Re-
development Authority due to the fact that he has been elected a
Minnesota State Senator. Mr. Freeman was appointed to a five -
year term which will expire in October, 1985.
• Under state law, the Mayor may appoint the HRA commission-
ers, subject to confirmation by the city council. An item to
appoint an HRA commissioner to an unexpired five -year term which
will expire in October, 1985, has been placed on the January 10,
1983 city council agenda.
KN /eja
•
Respectfully submitted,
Karl NollenberQ_er
City Manager
•
•
Senate
State of Minnesota
January 3, 1983
Mr. Thomas Harms, Chairman
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Richfield City Hall
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Chairman Harms,
It is with deep regret that I advise you I must resign from
the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Commission effective
today. My sole reason for resigning is that tomorrow I will assume
the duties as Minnesota State Senator from District 40 and it would
be inappropriate to hold both the position of State Senator and
HRA Commissioner at the same time.
I have very much enjoyed my years on the Richfield HRA. I
look with real pride at the Lakeshore Condominium project, the
rehabilitation of existing housing and the progress made in the
LhTt in the last several years. My chief disappointment while
serving as a Commissioner was the inability to secure financing
to go forward with the lower - middle income housing project at the
Lincoln Hills School site. It is my sincere hope that a combination
of a reduction in the sale price of the school, lower interest
rates, lower construction /rehabilitation costs and additional state
and federal dollars may make this project a reality for lower income
seniors in the near future.
My compliments to fellow Commissioners, He7mberger, Hassenstab,
Ludeman, yourself, former Commissioner Collins, and our excellent
Executive Director Karl Nollenberger for their dedication and
commitment to improving housing and the economic life of our
community. I look forward, in my new role, to continuing to work
with you towards their mutual goals in the future. Please do not
hesitate to call upon me if I can be of assistance.
Sin erely
ccs:
Mayor John Hamilton Michael 0. Freeman
HRA Executive Director, State Senator
Karl Nollenberger
=tt:� /v
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 14
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Council
Salaries. Second Reading.
At the November 22, 1982 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment
to increase the salaries of the city council, effective January
1, 1984. The present salary of t'-e Mayor is $6,000 per annum,
and that of the council members if $4,500. The ordinance amend-
ment provides that effective in 1984, these salaries will be in-
creased to $6,500 and $5,000 respectively.
• The recent practive for scheduling of second reading of
ordinances has been to pre - publish them so that second reading
may occur at the next regularly scheduled council meeting. Be-
cause the salary amounts were not known prior to the November
22, 1982 city council meeting, the public hearing was planned
to be scheduled at the Qecond meeting in December, 1982. However,
that meeting was cancelled, and the public hearing was subsequently
scheduled for the January 10, 1983 city council meeting.
Council salaries were last adjusted in 1978. The city
charter stipulates that "the Mayor and members of the Council
shall receive payment as set by ordinance. No change in salary
shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal
election."
This ordinance amendment has been placed on the January
10, 1983 city council agen (9a for second reading consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0 KN /eja
•
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XII SECTION 12.02
OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE RELATING
TO COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 12.02 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield relating to compensation of the Mayor and Council
members is hereby amended to provide as follows:
Subdivision 1. Annual Salary. The annual salary of the
Mayor is $67699 $6,500 and the annual salary for each member
of the council is $47966 $5,000 to be effective 69- daps -aft��
its- pix3��icaten- on January 1 after the next succeeding
municipal general election. Salaries of such officers shall be
40 reviewed by December of each year.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
•
Minnesota, this 10th day of January, 1983.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
-:�t iq B
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 13
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $2,500
The city council must authorize the purchase of merchandise,
materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds
$2,500. There are two such items on the council agenda for
January 10, 1983.
Veh icl eq
The adopted 1983 Central Garage budget includes funds in
the amount of $25,000 for the purchase of two 3/4 ton pick -up
trucks with plows. These two units are replacements for two
badly worn, fully depreciated vehicles. Hennepin County, under
our joint purchasing agreement, recently received bids for these
two units. These two units can be purchased from Iten Chevrolet
for a total price of $20,428.
It is recommended that the city council approve the pur-
chase of two 3/4 ton pick -up trucks with plows for a total
price of $20,428 from Iten Chevrolet.
Electronic Cash Register
The adopted 1983 budget for the city clerk division includes
$5,500 for the purchase of an electronic cash register similar
to those presently in operation at the city's three municipal
liquor stores. This cash register will provide a valuable tool
to aid in cash reporting, service to the public, statistics and
budget preparation. The low quotation received for this purchase
was from Minnesota Cash Register in the amount of $4,285 for a
cash register, 1K CMOS Memory, and a Slip Printer.
It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase
of this cash register from Minnesota Cash Register in the amount
of $4,285.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Finance Coordinator
CITY OF RICHFIELD , MINNESOTA A
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 12
•
Aqenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue Traffic
Signal CP 773 - Award of Contract
As a result of meetings between city staff and business
persons from the 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue area, the city
council took the following action on July 12, 1982:
1. Prohibited on- street parking on Lyndale Avenue be-
tween 74th and 76th Street;
2. Eliminated all parking within the 50 feet sight tri-
angle at all four corners of the intersection to
allow better visability;
3. Requested the HRA to authorize a long range study of
the 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue area to study
future development and traffic of the area;
4. Approved the installation of a new mast arm signal
system at the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and
76th Street;
On Wednesday, December 15, 1982, bids were opened for the
76th Street and Lyndale Avenue traffic signal. The bid minutes
and tabulations are attached for council review.
The low bid was submitted by Hoffman Electric Company of
St. Paul in the amount of $61,300. It is recommended that the
city council approve the minutes and tabulations, and award the
contract for traffic signals and appurtenant work at 76th Street
and Lyndale Avenue to Hoffman Electric of St. Paul, in the amount
of $61,300.
KN /ej a
cc: Finance Coordinator
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
• December 15, 1982
•
•
Traffic Signals at 76th Street & Lyndale Avenue
and Appurtenant Work, City Project No. 773
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Traffic Signals at
76th Street and Lyndale Avenue and Appurtenant Work, as advertised in the
official newspaper on December 1, and 8, 1982.
Present: Joyce Wilde, Administrative Services Director
Dennis Kraft, Community Development Director
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND BID SECURITY
Hoffman Electric
B.B. 5%
Conservation Systems, Inc.
B.B. 5%
TOTAL BID
61,300
.: •91
Collins Electric Co.
B.B. 5% 72,822
Egan -McKay Electrical Contractors, Inc.
B.B. 5% 62,671
Batzli Electric Assoc.
B.B. 5%
92.900
Arcade Electric Co.
B.B. 5% 76,750
Ridgedale Electric, Inc.
B.B. 5 %8
63.430
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
regular city council meeting of January 10, 1983.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
FOR 76TH STREET AND LYNDALE AVENUE
TRAFFIC SIGNALS - C.P. 773
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
improvement of 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue intersection by
the installation of a new traffic signal system, bids were
received, opened and tabulated according to law,
AND WHEREAS, it appears that Hoffman Electric Company of St.
Paul, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield,
Minnesota:
1. The mayor and clerk are hereby authorized and directed
to enter into a contract with Hoffman Electric Company of
St. Paul, Minnesota in the name of the City of Richfield
for the improvement of the 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue
intersection by the installation of a new traffic signal
system according to the plans and specifications therefore
approved by the city council and on file;
2. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids,
except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has
been signed.
Adopted by the city council this 10th day of January, 1983.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
John Hamilton, Mayor
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 11
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance to Allow the Install-
ation of a Free - Standing Canopy, 6300 Lyndale
Avenue
Proposal
Mr. Dennis Minor, representing Food -N -Fuel Incorporated,
has submitted a request for a variance to permit construction
of a two column free - standing canopy. The proposed canopy will
measure 30 feet by 52 feet; is 14 feet 6 inches in height, and
will be constructed of steel.
The city council on January 11, 1982, approved a special
use permit to allow a gasoline convenience store on this site.
The site is zoned C -2, general commercial.
Staff Review
The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three con-
ditions for granting variances, and found the following:
1. There are no special conditions affecting this site
not common to other properties of similar use;
2. The proposal could be redesigned with an attached can-
opy meeting city ordinance requirements, or the existing
use or other commercial use could be allowed on the
property. Denial of the variance would not preclude
reasonable use of the property;
3. The proposed canopy will not adversely affect the
safety or health of persons working or residing in the
neighborhood.
With the exception of the free - standing canopy, the proposal
meets all regulations relating to canopy installation as stated
in Section 3.33, Subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance and is
similar to other free - standing canopy designs in use by other
service stations.
Council Letter No. 11 -2- January 10, 1983
• At the direction of the planning commission and the city
council, the city staff is currently reviewing city regulations
relating to canopies and will be proposing an ordinance change
at a future date to eliminate the requirement for integral can-
opies. This proposed amendment will appear before the city
council as a part of the overall commercial zoning ordinance
update.
•
•
Staff Recommendation
Although the staff believes that the proposal is consistent
with canopies approved at other locations and would not be detri-
mental to the public welfare, the staff must recommend denial of
this request because it does not meet all three conditions nec-
essary for granting variances. The city manager recommends
approval of this variance request.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously recommends that the re-
quested variance be denied because it does not meet the three
conditions for granting variances. The planning commission
further recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow
free - standing canopies.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
KN /eja
�I
rl
b
a
dS=6 v \ -
i
i
I
I 1
J,o f
. 2
S^ G
O
C
c
p1
a
)
a
I
I
I
Q
�
I
i
cl
�-
f
d
I
I 1
J,o f
. 2
S^ G
O
C
c
0
0
- 4'• f v
� •� � ;lam -�
f�3=t ��} •t
,
•`,i •••-, Iry .f�, I J ,p <il 1� I ~
Li
I ' •ALDRICH AVE
I
ioa��]7ooaaaaOOaOO"c ^� _ `������ "'tea J ^yo„a'o
Q�� TO o O 0 a„0 aOJOJOJJ000 �J;;C,i'• j nJ0 7,a OOO. O„J ^„ ]J']�?- .7..+•w. °700 O
Gp0�JO000.p`JOOO�p C O.a O„0 '].,� .
� ..'cacop� y'o,.�� J ] o`a ��?''o ° �j_"�9o° �'j!.�!� -'•, ' °-io °c
O 0000000 OOOJ JC �O ]„Jti0 ^J „O.O O.. i.;:0 .J 0 OCO
'i to_a�°_o <],.4,Q,pnJ,oac]oJaaopa nod,_ +2,Ap^p^ �� '. �,Sy:�. -,., o_::°�,o� °a °o °o"^"'J°�a'� o °o °oJ I C !-'•�
1�
1
ry
1d0 I '_ _)♦ �, ,•^y I ,•e
1'" � rW ^ ^//'I,((._o111I d •• Y3 �i V �� I � �'
✓
r
w
-
f
:� � it •�' r'
1/..�
.. ;,.. rr. cr1 ry'
rn
r•
rn
oJO I � z
r
C O 0 O 5 ] OO TO
C O J J C 0�0 O O J a�Jri~O
00 0 J aO^ Jn^ 0000 O � +�•
a °o Jon
GARFIELOnAV.*
C;
83;'S • i SL=
ry
1d0 I '_ _)♦ �, ,•^y I ,•e
1'" � rW ^ ^//'I,((._o111I d •• Y3 �i V �� I � �'
✓
r
w
-
f
:� � it •�' r'
1/..�
.. ;,.. rr. cr1 ry'
rn
NIjO
ri •.. i
0000000
0000000
ppOOOOOOO
Paoaa °a°
O O o O
POOpO9�O
Gl
z
7
hr"'1
3
n
7
cw
N
0
Z
V
7
• 6 �
J �J �t '.:r S�._ lip _
�•. � , j (c
_„�.U, •BUJ, �•LA
1d0 I '_ _)♦ �, ,•^y I ,•e
1'" � rW ^ ^//'I,((._o111I d •• Y3 �i V �� I � �'
✓
w Y •.'. '� i i _i"
w
-
f
:� � it •�' r'
1/..�
.. ;,.. rr. cr1 ry'
rn
0
•
.4 1- .-- -
n!
4W 7
REF-Ail
:=42
xi
INN
7!i
------------
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 10
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to MR -3
Zoning District Boundaries. Second
Reading.
At the December 13, 1982 city council meeting, the city
council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment
establishing the boundaries for the MR -3 multiple residence
zoning district. The MR -3 zoning district is the district
for multiple family residential developments containing 18 or
more dwelling units. The public hearing on this matter has
been scheduled for January 10, 1983.
The planning commission has recommended that property be
rezoned to MR -3 multiple residence if there are 18 or more
dwelling units on parcels which meet the MR -3 district minimum
lot area requirements of one acre, and which are presently zoned
MR multiple residence. The zoning of commercially or industrially
zoned properties developed with multiple residential uses with
18 or more dwelling units is recommended to remain the same.
It is recommended that the city council conduct the public
hearing on this matter and give- second reading approval to the
attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
0 KN /eja
•
is
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
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
respects;
(1) Appendix C Section 4 is amended by repealing paragraphs 3,
37, 57, 59, 98, 112, 113, and 120.
(2) Appendix C is amended by adding the following new Section 12:
Section 12. Multiple Residence District (MR -3)
1. That area lying between Lyndale Avenue and Lincoln Field
and between the north line of Sunset Terrace Addition
and a line ru ning parallel with and 334 feet south of
the north line of the south half of Section 34, Township
28, Range 24.
2. That area between the center line of Lyndale Avenue and
the west line of Adolfson and Peterson's First Addition
and between 63rd Street and the north line of Lyndale
Oaks Addition.
3. That area lying between Penn Avenue and Thomas Avenue
and between 77th Street and Interstate Highway 494, except
that area lying between the west line of Penn Avenue and
a line 200 feet west of and parallel to the west line of
Penn Avenue.
4. That area lying between Penn Avenue and Sheridan Avenue
and between 76th Street and 77th Street except the north
258 feet of the west 170 feet thereof.
5. The west 55 feet of Tract B of Registered Land Survey 7675
and All of Tract B of Registered Land Survey 71131.
6. The north 538.21 feet of that area lying between the
centerlines of 76th Street and 771th Street and between
the centerline of Knox Avenue and the west right -of -way
line of Highway 35W.
7. The north 465 feet of Outlot 1 of Evergreen Gardens
Second Addition.
-2-
8. That area between 77th Street and 78th Street and between
the centerline of 11th Avenue extended, and the west line
of 12th Avenue except the east 185 feet of the south 135
feet thereof.
9. That part of Block 5, Rays Lynnhurst Second Addition
lying between 63rd Street and Mildred Drive and between
Dupont and Emerson Avenues and that portion of Block 2,
Ray's Lynnhurst Addition lying south of Highway 35W and
west of Emerson Avenue and north of 64th Street and includ-
ing Parcel 4600, Registered Land Survey No. 877 on Dupont
Avenue.
10. The area lying between 77th Street and Interstate Highway
494 and between Chicago Avenue and the centerline of Elliot
Avenue extended.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1983.
•
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
0
John Hamilton, Mayor
•
•
•
to
lU
z
0
m
co
0
LLJ
cn
0A
CL
0
d e O
--
�Z
r yo
Ns10Na1S ~ U
II U ?
If IZ i�= l� Z W_
VIDZ- c
' V161
MOI13d0N0-1
MO112JONOl
______ _ __
3AV "03O
VAV a 0
v03
I
44 el
44 91
N019NIPIOQIB r--. �r- -�� I'I VOlONIIV OOIB
4191
44 111
YI it
41 It ,1IL- JL —.�I 1r1^II Lrr_���j I'� I VI 11
�l���LJ�I 01 41 01
1011-13 I� = I' 1 jI 101113
00tl71N0
00V3IH0
snewmo9 snanm0o
xava
NU
DNV1xv0 I r" III III ONtllx.O
'3AV' ONVUMOA
3AV ONVIIN 1 jJ=F7=== 1r ^�(���
419 I , 7 L�J L�J I-�l0 'I 1,11 449
44 If
NO1NI10'�''
puz
S NSA315' �����•�� S 3A31S
UI
��uO T�V
3AV 1371001N '3AV 1311001N
1130SIV18
11305itl1B III "�� I ^^---� 1�1
1 I NlaOM1N3M
Hla0M1N3M
'I1f A.nasllid
to
4.._ .I. -_ -_ -_ 1NVSD31d
aNDao il��❑ � 'a
aNVa!)
_I�__ 131aavH
I
al3 r , ��/I f
ldavo �
I!1 1 �
3AV 31VONA �'--ll � i m3leavo
'J.�nLU= „i�-�V 3AV also NA1
I j � \�� ��!
H31aOly
1 H01a01D
II� e �1 � ��I 1NDAa8
1NVAae ;III ^�����I,I
XDa100 %v1103
1 1\I !, s
1NOdnO J • O x U��1_1L��1 I'll LNOdnO
II \ (� i� �IIII
Oavalo - -'r= -- \����� r— �r —��� I Omyato
laloo'1nN 'I �'_-- ��J!L_J -`----- - - -___ -__ _ _.U- 10108D/nN
_ i A"_ ONIAaI
ON IAVI - -' �'�1 f
s31nvr Y;I(— ,`��I —i 53 yr
�_� �'. li•. - -. -, Ili �, 1 N
XONx _ I�'�u —'"�I �� ',� XONx
-J= -,-'^ �:���,��L�L__,� Chi:
N D 001 �-' ` —' ��j j�•'� �� � I i N v 901
Nvoa01V �`-J+, �.1 �^i� Nvvodom
NO1M3N ,-�� =1 � ` I� -,.re— J�-! f2R1 �il NOl M3N
a3n110
a3nno
3AV NN3d R�L NN3d
N33n0 t I I: - �'��l”" °� °� �;� N33no
113550a iI 11355na
NVOIa3HS' y��,.! -µ— - -� -�-�� .r- - --- -- Nv01a3Hs
SVMIOHI _ _ 'l�TiriJ!�� SVNOHI
'--% _ NOldn
NOldn - - --' .
1N30NIA i. __ �_ 1 �-�`.� 130NIA-
NanomsvM
3AV S3xa3x '3nv S3xa3x
rP
N
O
u
to
-#t II? C�
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 9
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Approval
of Award for Public Safety Firing Range
Equipment
As the council may recall, the final phase in the 1982
public safety project 767, is the purchase and installation of
the target carrying and control equipment for the Police Firing
Range. Due to the estimated cost of this equipment, and the fact
that we had been approached by an out -of -state vendor interested
in bidding this project, we did exercise the formal bidding
process.
is Bids were opened on December 30, 1982. Only one bid was
received, from Caswell Equipment Company, in the amount of
$12,618 for equipment and $3,982 for installation charges. This
bid was well within the limits budgeted for this portion of the
project.
It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Representative,
Captain Richardson, in which I concur, that the city council
accept the bid submitted by the Caswell Equipment Company for
three shooting stalls, three target carrier systems and one tar-
get programming control system, as specified, for the installed
amount of $16,600.
cc: Public Safety Director
Finance Coordinator
KN /eja
r�
L�
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
December 30, 1982
Equipment for a Three Stall
Firing Range
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Equipment for a
Three Stall Firing Range, as advertised in the official newspaper on December 1,
1982.
Present: Captain Ron Richardson
Acting Administrative Services
Director Steve Devich
City Clerk Sylvia Bergh
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
• BIDDER AND BID SECURITY EQUIPMENT TOTAL OPTION A OPTION B
Caswell Equipment Co.
1221 Marshall St.
Minneapolis, 55413
B.B. 5% $12,618 $3,982 $30 /Hour, 23C/
Mile, Estimate
6 Days
The City Clerk announced that the bid would be tabulated and considered at
the regular city council meeting of January 10, 1982.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
U
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 8
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Legislative Policies
The proposed Legislative Policies to be considered by
the Richfield City Council at the January 10, 1983 council
meeting are attached to this council letter. Many of these
policies have been adopted in the past, while others are in
response to more current events. All of them are issues which
affect the City of Richfield on the state or federal level.
• The League of Minnesota Cities has requested input from
the City Council as to the five most important issues to the
city for the 1983 Legislative Session. I would suggest that
the council respond that the following five issues are of major
importance:
1. Adequate Funding for Local Government Aid
2. Levy Limits
3. Alternate Revenue Sources
4. Open Meetings
5. Day Labor Restrictions
I would be happy to discuss all of the legislative issues
at the council meeting.
cc: Program Directors
KN /ej a
•
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 1 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Open Meeting Law
The purpose of this statement is to indicate Richfield's
support for changes in the Open Meeting Law.
Position of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield strongly supports the basic premise
of the open meeting law, which is to assure the public's right to
be informed about the conduct of public business. Experience
with this law since 1974, however, indicates that there are areas
where the legislation must be more specific or should be amended
to meet the overall public interest. These areas include the
following:
A. The law must specifically state it applies only to
meetings where a ug orum of the body is present, and
clarify the present restrictive interpretation of
the law's application.
B. The law should acknowledge that there are certain
specific interests where the overall public interest
is better served by permitting a local governing body
to meet in executive or closed session. Such in-
stances could include discussion of labor negotiations
strategy, certain discussions relating to employees,
and discussions of purchase of land for public pur-
poses. In order to safeguard the public's right to
know in these instances, the local governing body could
made a decision to hold a closed session via a two-thirds
vote, and a taped record of the meeting could be made
for later disclosure upon order of a court or other
third party.
C. The Open Meeting Law should also be amended to apply
to the State Legislature.
NUMBER 2
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
The purpose of
Richfield's support
ment of bonuses to
Current Legislation
January 10, 1983
Payment of Bonuses to City Employees
this statement is to express the City of
for legislation which would permit the pay -
municipal employees.
Minnesota State Law currently prohibits the use of any pub-
lic monies for purposes of paying bonuses to municipal employees.
The law clearly.prohibits the payment of bonuses under any cir-
cumstances or for any purposes.
Impact on Richfield
A significant aspect of any employee productivity improve-
ment or motivation program includes the ability of the employer to
give bonuses for various reasons, such as innovative ideas,
suggestion box winners, safety program participants, etc. Under
such programs, the bonus is not intended to be an overwhelming sum
of money, but rather to be a token demonstrating the employer's
recognition of the employee's contribution. It is well accepted
in personnel management theory that a cash bonus can have the
effect of stimulating productivity at an overall cost savings to
the employer. Accordingly, it is appropriate to support legisla-
tion which would allow city employees to be paid bonuses in an
amount not to exceed $500.
7-
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 3 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Liquor Issues
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of
Richfield's position on issues related to liquor.
Current Status
Presently, Minnesota law differentiates between "strong" and
"3.2" beer. The state law provides that strong beer can be sold
only in a licensed liquor establishment. Most licensed liquor
store establishments now are either municipal liquor stores, or
restaurants, with the remainder of licensed liquor establishments
authorized to sell strong beer comprised of licensed off -sale re-
tail liquor establishments in communities which do not operate a
municipal liquor store
State law also prohibits the sale of any alcoholic beverages
stronger than beer in establishments other than licensed liquor
• establishments. The liquor licensing requirements of the law pro-
vide a municipality the ability to regulate the availability and
nature of sales of alcoholic beverages within their communities.
Impact on the City of Richfield
The sale of strong beer comprises a significant portion of
the sales in Richfield's three municipal liquor stores. If strong
beer is made available wherever 3.2 beer is sold now, the profits
of the municipal liquor stores could be significantly diminished.
Revenues from the municipal liquor stores are the major source of
financing for most of the city's capital improvement programs.
Furthermore, the City of Richfield is concerned that control over
who consumes beer will be reduced if strong beer can be sold at
grocery store checkout counters and wherever 3.2 beer is now sold,
which is generally in a setting where a large variety of other
products are also sold. Finally, the city may have reduced control
through licensing if the proposed legislation would force cities to
give a strong beer license to anyone who now has a 3.2 beer license.
A significant portion of our liquor sales are also wine sales.
The authorization for grocery stores to sell wine would have a
major potential detrimental impact on the city's liquor revenues
which are the major source of funding for capital improvements
within the community. Furthermore, exemption of grocery store wine
sales from the fairly stringent liquor licensing requirements now
• contained in the state law could present additional opportunity for
abuses in liquor sales which would be beyond the ability of the city
to control. The City of Richfield wishes to go on record in
opposition to authorization of wine sales in grocery stores.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 4 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Industrial Revenue Bonds
The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for
legislation to prohibit abuses in the Industrial Development
Revenue Bond financing.
Position of the C itv of Richfield
There has been much discussion both on the state and national
industrial
level in recent years regarding the use of tax exempt
bonds by municipalities to solicit and support
revenue development
certain types of development within their communities. The Minnes-
ota State Legislature in the past, and likely again in the
discussed legislation designed to prohibit abuses
1983 session, has
in the industrial development revenue bond financing area.
The use of tax exempt bonds for financing of private enter-
prise actions most likely has an effect on the ultimate cost of
of the city. We believe
borrowing for general obligation purposes
for the legislature and all other. public bodies
it is appropriate
to be concerned about the uncontrolled use of tax exempt financing
in terms of the ultimate impact of that financing on the general
the
cost of borrowing and the basic debt service obligations of
public sector.
•
City councils authorizing industrial redevelopment bonds in
Minnesota presently do not have to make any specific set of findings
relating to the need for tax exempt financing. Similarly, it is
not necessary that city councils have a specific policy, or state-
ment of goals and objectives, which a potential IDR financed project
must meet before authorizing that financing plan.
it is the position of the City of Richfield that any legisla-
tive effort to narrow the scope of an application of IDR bonds in-
clude the following features:
A. Require city councils, via legislative action, to make
a set of findings prior to authorization to issue
industrial development revenue bonds.
B. Require that those findings conform with some broad
previously established, standard of goals and object-
ives for the IDR financing process.
C. Require that the findings include a need for public
sector stimulation of development.
D. The findings should also address the limitations of
other financing alternatives to support said develop-
ment. •
M
E. Any such legislative restrictions should relate only
• to the use of IDR bond financing for commercial de-
velopment, and should not apply to projects in areas
classified as industrial or located in designated re-
development areas, which would remain fully under
local control.
C
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 5 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Relief Association Member Lobbying
The purpose of this statement is to support changes in
laws related to lobbying by police and fire local relief associa-
tions.
Current Status
Recent legislation grants local relief associations unlimited
powers to provide paid time off for police and fire officers, who
are members of local relief associations, to lobby and otherwise
represent the interest of the association before the legislature.
Impact on the City of Richfield
•
It is the concern of the City of Richfield that this legisla-
tive power interferes with the traditional functions of governing
bodies and supervisory personnel to schedule duty, determine manning
levels, and establish budgets for police and fire operations. It
is also a concern of the city that this legislation encourages em- •
ployee groups to exercise undue influence on the legislative
process, without insuring that the employers have equal access to
the legislative process, at least through the lobbying activity.
Proposed Change
The City of Richfield supports legislation which would re-
strict relief associations paid lobbying to a single effective
director, president, secretary, or other officer from each associa-
tion, and that would finance such lobbying costs entirely from the
general fund of each association.
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATE "ENT
NUMBER 6 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: PERA Benefits, Financing and Administration
The purpose of this statement is to address issues related
to the Public Employees Retirement Association.
Current Status
Virtually all employees of the City of Richfield in the future
will be covered for pension benefits through the Minnesota Public
Employees Retirement Association. In 1980, the state law was
changed to require that all police and fire hirees after that date
be placed in the PERA pension fund. All other city employees, save
the city manager, are already in this fund. The city is committed
to the provision of adequate pension benefits for career municipal
employees. However, tnere are several related policy issues in the
PERA law which the City of Richfield encourages be changed.
Proposed Changes:
• 1. The one year increase of 2% of employee contributions to PERA
should be allowed to phase out at the end of 1983, and the
legislat »re should not look to this pension funding as a
permanent solution to the State of Minnesota's financial
problems;
2. Any increases in PERA benefits should be granted only to the
extent that proposed contributions and current reserves are
sufficient to fully fund.the increases in the opinion of one
or more recognized pension actuaries who are independent of
the PERA organization. Any increases in the PERA general fund
benefits enacted subsequent to 1973, including any resulting
deficits, should be financed by matching contributions, shared
equally by employees and public employers, over a period not
to exceed 30 years. Any increases in benefits under the PERA
Police and Fire Fund, including any resulting deficits, should
be financed 50 percent by employers and 50 percent by employees,
over the same amortization period. Any benefit increase or
contribution reductions permitted by excess reserves or excess-
ive contributions or combinations of the two should be of
such amounts as to benefit the employer and employee equally
as a percentage of overall employee salary.
3. Since the equal, matching employee and employer contributions
to the Coordinated Plan within PERA are sufficient to finance
the present benefits and liquidate the existing deficit in
• less than 30 years, all of the employer's additional contrib-
utions (i.e., the 1.5 percent of the salaries of employees
under the Coordinated Plan, and the 2.4 percent of the salar-
ies of employees under the Basic Plan) should be specifically •
and exclusively earmarked for the reduction of the acturial
deficit in the PERA Basic Plan. The employer's additional
contributions should be abolished.
4. If any increase in benefits is enacted for PERA retirees, the
resulting costs should not be paid from the PERA Fund, but
rather should be financed by a direct appropriation from the
State General Fund.
5. The acturial assumptions concerning the rate of investment
earnings and of salary increases should be a conservative
reflection of actual experience. The present assumptions con-
cerning the rate of investment earnings and salary increases
are outdated. We urge the Legislature to examine these
assumptions and to determine a means of more accurately re-
flecting the actual experience during recent years.
6. The City of Richfield supports the continuation of the Minne-
sota Post Retirement Investment Fund as a means of providing
post- retirement increases in the pension benefits of retirees
under the statewide pension funds. The City of Richfield
supports state funding of fund deficits from general funds or
amortization of the deficits by crediting a reasonable portion
of excess earnings over statutory assumptions to retire deficits
•and payment of the remainder of excess earnings to retirees as
a cost of living adjustment without establishment of any guaran-
teed adjustment. In the event the Legislature determines that
some mechanism other than the Post Retirement Investment Fund
is more appropriate for providing retiree inflation protection,
or that the Post Retirement Investment Fund should provide a
guaranteed inflation adjustment, the City of Richfield urges
that: (a) no increase be made during the first three -years
after retirement or until the Consumer Price Index increases at
least 10 percent; (b) a specific limit be placed on the increase
granted in any one year; and (c) the cost of such increases,
including any resulting deficits, be financed from the state
general fund.
7. Since integration of pension fund administration mechanisms may
lead to combining the funds, the City of Richfield opposes any
move to combine administration of the three statewide pension
programs.
8. The City of Richfield supports in concept a change in the means
of providing pensions for new Minnesota public employees from
the present defined benefit type plans to a single defined con-
tribution plan. However, the City of Richfield will oppose any
such legislation which does not contain both: (a) a clear
commitment by the state to fund any deficit created in presently
existing defined benefit plans resulting from the termination of •
the entry of new members; and (b) a municipal contribution rate
that is as low or lower than employer contribution rates to
existing plans.
• 9. The PERA p-1 ice and fire fund is now essentially fully funded.
Furthermore, the employer (taxpayers) through payment of more
than 50 percent of contributions to this fund is creating a
surplus not needed for pension purposes. Therefore, the
legislature should amend the present provision on disbursement
of the two percent tax on automobile casualty insurance to allow
expenditures by the recipient political subdivision of any ex-
cess over the employer's share, of police retirement costs for
any police department purpose instead of requiring payment to
the PERA Police and Fire Fund. When the PERA Police and Fire
Fund achieves full funding, employers' and employee's contrib-
utions should be reduced to an amount sufficient to pay normal
costs on an equal share basis.
•
•
•
NUMBER 7
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
SUBJECT: Workers' Compensation
January 10, 1983
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of
Richfield's requirement that a city business licensees document
Workers' compensation coverage.
Current Status
A law passed in 1981 requires that the city may not issue any
city business l- ^ense without the licensee providing proof that they
have Workers' Compensation coverage, or are exempt from requirements
to provide such coverage.
Impact on the City of Richfield
The impact of this legislation has been that the City of Rich-
field is required to enforce the State's Workers' Compensation laws.
There has been, of course, no financial assistance forthcoming from •
the State to assist municipalities in this policing function.
Furthermore, the state has promulgated no rules, regulations, forms,
or anything to insure consistent application in enforcement of this
requirement. The inconvenience to the city, the cost of developing
checking and filing a form, and the resulted ill -will directed
toward the city by applicants for business licenses (for yet another
"bureaucratic" requirement) has resulted in considerable inconven-
ience and the need to provide additional staff hours to the business
licensing activity.
Position of the City of Richfield
It is the position of the City of Richfield that this statutory
requirement requiring proof of Workers' Compensation coverage as
part of the licensing process is onerous and expensive, and cannot
provide an effective, efficient, or convenient means of assuring
workers of the protections of Workers' Compensation. It is impractical
and unfair to mandate that the city supervise workers' Compensation
coverage on behalf of the state. It is also impractical to re-
quire that the city assure Workers' Compensation coverage for
every city supplier, which is part of that legislation. It is
recommended that the state law be changed to delete these provisions.
•
•
NUMBER 8
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION. STATEMENT
SUBJECT: Day Labor Restrictions
January 10, 1983
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of
Richfield's strong opposition for legislation restricting the use
of day labor.
Current Status
Presently, the State Uniform Municipal Contracting Law estab-
lishes standards for the contracting of services. Some municipal
charters provide additional limitations and stipulations defining
circumstances under which a public employer must contract for ser-
vices. Richfield's city charter and the state law both permit the
use of city employees for a wide variety of services, rather than
requiring sealed bids to be solicited for all improvement projects.
Impact on the City of Richfield
• There is some discussion in the Legislature which would result
in requiring that cities solicit sealed bids for improvement projects
now done by city employees. Such legislation would seriously affect
the ability of cities to perform such projects in a cost effect-
ive manner. The City of Richfield has a crew of maintenance personnel
which perform many different services, in a multi- disciplined nature.
During summer months, a crew would be responsible for street patching,
seal coating, street sweeping, etc. During winter months, those
same employees are responsible for snowplowing, sanding and salting,
tree trimming, etc. With a permanent, well managed staff, a commun-
ity may tailor the service levels to the community's needs and
assure response on a year -round basis to citizens requests for
services. A requirement to contract for such services would
diminish the city's ability to assure such responsiveness, as well
as limit the city's ability to provide a consistent level of service.
Consistency in the level of services is a very important factor
in providing routine municipal service. Furthermore, since cities
offer year -round employment, by allocating their work force to
these specific jobs necessary at any time, the hourly wage rates
paid are substantially lower than those paid by contractors.
City crews do not have the advantage to bid on various pro-
jects in the way that contractors do. If city crews, operating
on a year -round basis, can provide nine out of ten services more
economically, but are required to place the tenth service under
• contract, the workload may be sufficiently imbalanced so that the
crews can no longer provide the first nine services as efficiently
as before. This would result in the total cost of all ten services
being higher.
During slow economic times, contractors will be interested •
in providing services with a small profit margin to keep their
crews and equipment busy. They may even bid below cost in order
to cover some of their ongoing overhead. Of course, the opposite
may occur during periods of rapid economic growth, and contractors
may no longer be interested during such times in taking on contracts
that require major capital investment, unless they can see a long
term payoff. In the meantime, the city may have been forced to
solicit bids and thus, disband its crew, leaving the city unable
to provide some services at all, or to pay exorbitant rates for
the provision of such services.
It is the position of the City of Richfield that cities should
continually explore the options for provision of services, including
the option of contracting for such services. However, it is the
city's position that further restrictions on the use of day labor
for completion of public improvements would result in considerable
inefficiencies, public employee layoffs, and ultimately, increased
costs for municipal taxpayers.
•
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 9 January 10,1983
SUBJECT: Minnesota Public Employee Labor Relations Act
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of
Richfield's position and suggestions for proposed amendments to the
Minnesota Public Employee Labor Relations Act.
Current Status
The Minnesota Public Employee Labor Relations Act defines
the roles and responsibilities of public employers with regard
to their employees, especially as it relates to organized, recog-
nized exclusive bargaining agents. The City of Richfield presently
conducts negotiations and labor relations under terms of this act
with four organized, recognized bargaining groups.
Proposed
Changes
The City of Richfield supports the following changes and
• clarifications
to MPELRA:
1.
Picket lines: No city employee should be permitted to refuse
to cross picket lines of other city employees;
2.
Disciplinary Action: Employees presently have a variety of
grievance procedures available to them, including Civil Service
and Veterans Preference.
Employees covered by a MPELRA agreement should'-be able to spec-
ify which procedure should be-used by them, or specify a differ-
ent procedure in the agreement, thus precluding an employee
from:envoking two procedures for a'resolution of a grievance;
3.
Impasse Resolution: The statutory mediation period should run
from the first mediation session;
4.
Supervisors and Confidential Employees With Public Collective
Bargaining: Supervisors of public employees should have their
management role acknowledged and their status limited to meet
and confer. In no event should supervisory or confidential
employees be represented by an employee organization which
represents the employees they supervise. The term "supervisory"
should be as presently defined under PERLA for non - essential
employee supervisors. The definition of supervisory employees
should not be further limited. To do so could provide that in
•
all but city manager cities no employees could be considered
to be supervisory employees for purposes of the Public - Employment
Labor Relations Act;
5. Right to Strike: The existing classification of essential
employees should be eliminated, and all employees organized
under PERLA given the right to strike. Within the limited
right to strike, the public employer would have the option of
either requesting arbitration within a specific time, or per-
mitting a strike;
6. Arbitration: Issue by issue best offer interest arbitration
should be the method for resolving all disputes which to to
interest arbitration.
•
•
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 10 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Certain Amendments to State Fire Codes
The purpose of this statement is to indicate the City of
Richfield's support for certain amendments to the State Fire
Codes.
Current Legislation
The current state law generally diffuses the responsibility
for enforcement of various building and fire codes between various
levels of government. There seems to be general agreement that
state government should be responsible for.enforcement of the uni-
form fire code, which applies to existing buildings, and large facil-
ities which are open to the public, whether they are located in
cities, counties, or townships. The City of Richfield supports
legislation which will clarify the responsibility of the State to
inspect such public facilities as schools, hotels, lodging houses,
hospital and nursing homes, dry cleaners, and motion picture
theatres, provided that the state is clearly responsible for en-
forcement, and inspection, whether or not it contracts with local
units of government to perform the actual inspection. The city
further holds that the Legislature should commit cities to enact
the more stringent fire safety codes for these facilities as well
as for other buildings, but that the enforcement of such additional
standards should..be the community's responsibility. When a city
does not enact more stringent fire safety codes, the state should
be responsible for inspection and enforcement of the fire code on a
case by case basis, when requested by any political subdivision,
unless the city clearly agrees to accept responsibility for en-
forcement of the fire code by adopting it.
It is equally important to focus on preventing emergencies
or potential emergency situations through incorporating improved
protection features in new building construction, especially in high
risk areas or in certain high risk buildings.
Position of the City of Richfield
The city's position may be summarized as follows:
1. Supporting legislation which would clarify the responsibility
of the State to inspect the public facilities noted, and
clearly permitting cities to enact the more stringent fire
safety code which is provided for the building code for these
facilities and other buildings, but at the community's own
discretion and with their responsibility for actual enforce-
ment;
2. Recommendation that the uniform state building code be •
amended to enact an optional fire supression system specified
in the code;
3. Require the review and adoption, as soon as possible, by the
appropriate state departments of the periodic revisions to
the nationally recognized uniform building code and uniform
fire code.
•
C
• CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 11 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Campaign Financing and Disclosure
The purpose-of this statement is to indicate the City of
Richfield's position relating to Campaign Financing and Disclosure.
Position of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield supports the following:
1. Extending income tax credits for contributions to city
election campaigns;
2. Giving cities over 20,000 the authority to enact campaign
disclosure ordinances for organizations and individuals.
Requiring reports in cities over 20,000 of each contribution
as required in state statutes in other election contests.
3. Eliminating any distinction between types of campaign
committees in cities over 20,000.
• The City of Richfield opposes the following:
1. A state - mandated requirement of candidates for city office
to file statements of economic interest because it is most
likely to discourage many qualified candidates from seeking
or continuing in office.
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 12 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Funding of Storm Sewer Improvements
The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for
legislation which would authorize municipalities to operate a
storm water utility.
Position of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield has identified several locations within
its boundaries which are in need of modifications to the storm
water drainage system. Existing state statutes provide very limited
flexibility to cities in financing storm water improvements. The
difficulty of demonstraing what properties benefit and to what
extent they benefit from such storm drainage improvements and /or
to what extent any property contributes to a drainage problem means
that financing storm sewer improvements through the special assess-
ment process, the most popular means of financing such major capital
improvements, is very difficult. Several other states have author-
ized municipalities to operate a storm sewer utility, similar to
a water or sanitary sewer utility, and to impose a surcharge on
sanitary sewer users for the purpose of financing drainage im-
provements. Such a surcharge could amount to a set monthly figure
for each business and residential property in the city, and provide
revenues to finance storm drainage improvements. Such a charge
would be based upon the area of a particular lot and the amount of
impervious surface on a lot, so that the charge to any property
would be based on the amount of runoff contributed to the storm
drainage system.
It is the recommendation of the City of Richfield that the
State Statutes be amended to provide clear authority to municipalities
to operate storm sewer utilities and to impose user charges to
accumulate revenues to finance such storm sewer improvements.
r1
U
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 13 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Small Business Development Financing
The purpose of this statement is to indicate support legis-
lation which would aid cities in stimulating development.
Current Legislation
There currently exist many financial tools which are avail-
able to cities to stimulate development in accordance with city
plans and policies. However, there a gap in cities' ability to
pursue and aid small business development for expansion or con-
struction of their enterprises. The use of industrial development
revenue bonds (IDRB's) for small projects is hampered by the
economics of administrative expenses necessary for issues of any
size.
Position of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield encourages the Legislature to enact
Legislation which would enable the Small Business Finance Agency
to package projects which are approved by local city council's into
larger IDRB's. The City of Richfield encourages the Legislature
to appropriate funds as needed by the Agency to establish reserves
and cover administrative expenses related to this effort.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 14 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Tax Increment Financing
The purpose of this statement is to indicate the City of
Richfield's support for the continuation of the Tax Increment
Financing Law.
Current Leq islation
Tax increment financing has permitted the redevelopment of
our major shopping center, the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (L /H /N) comm-
ercial area. Through the use of tax increment financing, this
area has been able to carry out rehabilitation, redevelopment,
and economic development projects. It is one of the most feasi-
ble and effective legal strategies available to cities to preserve
and improve their physical and economic environment.
Position of the City of Richfield 0
The City of Richfield supports the current legislation and
recommends that no substantive changes be made.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 15 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Levy Limits
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of
Richfield's support for elimination of the levy limits, or sub-
stantial modification to the previously applicable levy limits
legislation.
Current Legislation
The 1971 Minnesota Legislature established legislation which
essentially limited a city's ability to support its programs and
services through property tax revenues to a six percent annual in-
crease. In 1979, the six percent limit was increased to eight per -
cent, and many of the excluded levies which had previously been per -
mitted were eliminated or severely restricted. Since the original
levy limit law was imposed, the annual rate of inflation has
greatly exceeded six percent or even eight percent. Cities have,
therefore, been forced to continually reduce expenditures and /or
• ace in their
programs because they have not been able to keep p
major revenue sources with the rate of inflation. Furthermore,
changes in the levy limit law have oftentimes served to penalize
those cities that successfully held down their property tax levies
in the previous year.
The levy limit law ultimately works against the interests of
local taxpayers because it creates an incentive for. cities to levy
the maximum allowed and to use as many special levies as possible.
Because of several similar instances in the past, it has become
clear to local officials that cities which choose to levy less
than the maximum allowed in a given year risk being later ties to
unrealistic or artificial new limits for future budget years.
City of Richfield's Position
If repeal of the levy limit law cannot be maintained, the City
of Richfield recommends that the levy limit law be modified in
accordance with the recommendations of the League of Minnesota
cities.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 16 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Adequate Funding for Local Government Aid
The purpose of this statement is to express the City of
Richfield's support for appropriation of local government aids to
be tied directly to either a specified share of the state sales
tax collections or a specified share of the state general fund.
Impact on the City of Richfield
Local Government Aid is cities' most significant source of
non - property tax revenue. It is extremely important that LGA be
reliable and predictable and that it be adequately funded so that
cities can budget and plan sensibly and so that property taxes
do not increase unreasonably.
•
The state aid delays and cutbacks since 1980 has demonstra-
ted that the current local government aid system is neither relia-
ble, predictable, nor adequately funded. Currently, cities are
subject to the dual uncertainty of not knowing whether the state's •
revenues will be adequate, and not knowing how the legislature
and governor will choose to allocate funding cutbacks when revenues
fall short.
Under a system in which cities derive a substantial part of
their revenues from state sources, cities must expect that when
state revenues fall short of predictions, cities' state aid funding
will also decline. It is also reasonable for cities to expect
state funding for local government aid to increase in proportion
to increases in state revenues. However, the recent trend has been
for state payments to cities to be cut disproportionately with
respect to other payments to local governments.
Position of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield recommends that the appropriation for
local government aids be tied directly to either 'a specified share
of the state sales tax collections or a specified share of the state
general fund. The specific share should be determined based on the
appropriations level now in the law for calendar year 1983.
In addition, these revenues should be distributed to cities
on a monthly basis, based on each month's tax collection figures.
•
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 17 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Alternative Revenue Sources
The purpose of this statement is to express the support of
the City of Richfield to authorize cities to raise revenues on a
local level.
Impact on the City of Richfield
Past levels of financial support for cities from both the
state and federal government are decreasing, or at least not
growing as they have in the past. Therefore, it is important
that Minnesota cities have the ability to raise revenues locally.
The property tax, although an important and valuable local revenue
source, should not have to bear the entire burden in making up for
state and federal cutbacks or in meeting increased local expenditure
needs.
is Position of the City of Richfield
Cities should have a variety of options for obtaining revenues
locally so that each city can choose a mix of revenue sources that
would be most fair and productive in that community. The city of
Richfield recommends that the Legislature expand the ability of
cities to raise revenues in the following ways:
1. State Statute M.S. 477A.016 should be amended to allow cities
the option of imposing local hotel, motel, admissions, or
amusement taxes;
2. License Fees. The City of Richfield recommends that the
Legislature repeal all maximum fee provisions and allow
cities to decide locally the appropriate fee to charge for
licenses granted by the municipality.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD •
LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 18 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Energy Conservation
The purpose of this statement is to express the support
of the City of Richfield for legislation which would make it
possible to fund an energy conservation program.
Impact of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield has approximately 10,500 residential
structures. Almost all of these buildings were constructed
when energy was very inexpensive. It has been estimated that
the cost of heating Richfield's single family ,homes will
increase from $5,500,000_in 1981 to $11,000,000 in 1986 and
over $16,000,000 by 1990. This is current non - inflated dollars.
The number of BTU's of energy purchased by our residents and
not efficiently utilized is incalculable.
Position of the City of Richfield •
Legislation must be provided which makes it possible for
Richfield and other cities to offer financial 'incentives to
their property owners for the purchase of energy conservation
materials and equipment. The City of Richfield recommends the
following:
1. That legislation be adopted which would enable Richfield
to utilize tax- exempt financing for an energy bank program.
2. That State Statute M.S. 579 be amended to more strongly
encourage public utilities to assist municipalities in
administering conservation programs.
3. That a more systematic approach to funding energy conservation
programs be explored to eliminate or reduce the need for
cities to obtain special legislation.
n
U
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 1
January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grants
The purpose of this statement is to indicate the City of
Richfield's support for continuation of the Community Development
Block Grant Program.
Current Legislation
The Community Development Block Grant Program is the 90`t
sign Xicant source of federal funds for Minnesota cities, including
Richfield. Existing legislation authorizing this program will expire
during 1983.
Impact on the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield has used Community Development Block
Grant money to support development of numerous community facilities
and programs since funding began through this program in the mid-
• 1970's. Because the funds are "block grants ", the city has been
able to channel these monies into programs specifically defined by
our own local needs and priorities, unlike most federal funding
assistance which is available only for narrowly defined, special
purpose programs. The Community Development Block Grant monies has
been used for park development, housing assistance programs for low
and moderate income personnel, and extensive redevelopment of the
city's L /H /N commercial area. The program addresses long term
capital needs in our cities, while remaining as the only significant
source of federal assistance to support urban revitalization.
Position of the City of Richfield
It is the position of the City of Richfield that the CDBG Pro-
gram should be funded and authorized on a multi -year basis. Because
of the general inflationary signs of the national economy for the
past few years, it is recommended that the next reauthorization
of the CDBG program provide an increase in funding of at least 20
percent over previously authorized amounts. The City of Richfield
further supports and encourages simplification of the CDBG Program,
and increases in flexibility which may be provided to city govern-
ments through this program. It is our position that the program
should retain its focus on meeting the needs of low and moderate
income persons, eliminating slums and blight, and meeting urgent
community needs.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 2 January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Labor Legislation
The purpose of this statement is to describe the City of
Richfield's positon with regard to Federal labor legislation.
Current Legislation
In 1971, Minnesota adopted a comprehensive public employment
labor relations act, covering all public employees within the state.
The scope of this law is sufficiently broad to permit free and ex-
tensive participation in the collective bargaining process by both
public employees and the public employer. This legislation includes
the right to strike for certain employees.
However, activity in the Congress and issues before the United
States Supreme Court are raising the possibility of Federal Labor
Legislation which would cover state and local employees.
Impact on the City of Richfield •
The City of Richfield currently negotiates with four organized
employee groups, under conditions of the Minnesota Public Employee
Labor Relations Act. One of these groups Local 49 (International
Union of Operating Engineers), has the right to strike under this
legislation. The three other _groups, representing police and fire
personnel, do not have the right to strike, and must undergo compul-
sory, binding arbitration with the city to settle terms and conditions
of employment addressed by the labor contract.
Position of the City of Richfield
It is the position of the City of Richfield that, despite the
need for some changes we perceive in the state labor relations law,
that states should retain the opportunity to establish their own
labor laws as the need arises, and that any alternative to extend
provisions of the National Labor Relations Act to cover public
employers and employees is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The
best determination of the need for such regulation can be made on
a state -by -state basis.
•
• �y
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 3 January 10, 1983.
SUBJECT: General Revenue Sharing
The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for
continuation of the General Revenue Sharing Program.
Current Legislation
The existing legislation authorizing the General Revenue
Sharing Program expires in 1983. If this program is to be continued,
it will be necessary for Congress to enact new legislation. The
current legislation provides that the money go to local government
jurisdictions; 1980 changes in the program deleted the state from
participation in the General Revenue Sharing Program.
Impact on the City of Richfield
Richfield receives approximately $203,500 each year from this
source. The city first received funds for General Revenue Sharing
in 1972. The city council at that time made the decision that this
resource presented an opportunity to provide tax relief to Richfield
property owners, and used the General Revenue Sharing monies received
in the first entitlement to support the city's general operating
budget. In recent years, the city has systematically withdrawn
General Revenue Sharing monies from the operating budget, because of
the uncertainty of continued revenues from this source, and because
of continued tightening of other resources available to support
major capital improvement needs. Richfield's adopted 1983 Capital
Improvement budget relies on $189,000 in revenue sharing monies to
support building and energy improvements, park development and
similar capital improvements. These funds are out of the city's
General Revenue Sharing entitlement, and have been appropriated by
the city council in accordance with the council's determination of
project priorities and needs within the City of Richfield at this
time. There are very few other revenue sources available to a
municipality which are as discretionary in use as General Revenue
Sharing monies.
Pos iton of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield supports extension of the General Revenue
Sharing program in at least the same funding level and entitlement
basis as presently exists.
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER 4 'January 10, 1983
SUBJECT: Municipal Bonds
The purpose of this statement is to support,`'rederal legisla-
tion which would retain a broad market for municipal bonds.
Current Legislation
Historically, most local public
been financed through the issuance of
cant limitations on state and federal
reliance on bonding to support major
continue for some time. However, if
main viable, it is imperative that a
permit the sale of municipal bonds at
Impact on the City of Richfield
•
improvement 'facilities have
bonds. Because of signifi-
funding, it is likely that this
public improvement needs will
this funding, source is to re-
broad market be maintained to
favorable interest rates.
The City of Richfield has sold various types of bonds in the
past to finance many major improvements to the city. For instance,
the city's water and sewer system was constructed with the assistance
of water revenue bonds. The municipal golf course was financed
through the sale of General Obligation Revenue Bonds. The city's
major street improvement project, sidewalk, street lighting, and
alley improvements have been financed through the sale of Special
Assessment Bonds. Much of the redevelopment in the L /H /N commercial
area has been financed by Tax Increment Bonds. The exemption from
federal income tax of the interest on municipal bonds has been, and
continues to be, a key factor in maintaining a healthy market for
municipal bonds. This tax exempt status of state and local issues
not only maintains a separate market, but also recognizes the right
of state and local governments to manage their fiscal affairs in-
dependently. However, in recent years, some members of Congress
have become concerned that the traditional market for state and
local bonds will not be able to satisfy the rapidly growing need for
capital for public purposes, and that the tax exempt interest on
state and local bonds provides a method of tax avoidance for certain
individuals. These concerns have resulted in the proposal of sever-
al bills in Congress to establish programs to lend monies to muni-
cipalities by purchasing their bonds, and /or to make interest on
state and local bonds taxable. In addition, federal legislation
now regulates the issuance and sale of municipal bonds by requiring
the registration or filing of such bonds with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Position of the City of Richfield
The City of Richfield strongly opposes any change in federal
legislation which would regulate the issuance and sale of municipal
bonds, and /or remove the tax exempt status of such bonds.
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT
NUMBER S
SUBJECT: Cable Television
January 10, 1983
The purpose of this statement is to describe the City of
Richfield's position with regard to cable television regulation.
Current Legislation
Current Federal Legislation authorizes states and localities
to regulate rates and public access. However, legislation to de-
regulate cable television by eliminating the state's and local
authority to regulate the telecommunications industry, was before
both chambers of Congress during 1982, and it is likely to be
before Congress again in 1983.
_Impact on the City of Richfield
The Richfield City Council, in late 1980, awarded a franchise
to provide cable television services to Richfield residents. The
franchise agreement that Richfield has established provides that
the city has regulatory authority over both the service quality and
rates of the cable provider. The City of Richfield is of the
strong opinion that local control of the services and rates should
be retained.
11
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 7
Agenda January 10, 1983
ae
s c'J
/)✓
Subject: Reconstruction of the 66th Street and
Penn Avenue Intersection
On December 13, 1982, a public hearing was held for the
proposed improvement of the 66th Street and Penn Avenue inter-
section. After the close of the public hearing, the council de-
ferred action on the proposed project until January 10, 1983.
Background
The proposed plan has resulted from previous actions by the
city council, the city staff and the county staff:
-March 23, 1981, the city council passed a resolution
encouraging Hennepin County to reconstruct the inter-
section and to submit an application for this project
for Federal Aid Urban (FAU) funding. The county did
submit the project for FAU funding, and the project
was approved. However, no additional projects were being
funded and the FAU program's future was in question.
Therefore, the decision was made to fund the project from
shared city and county gas tax allotments (MSA funds).
-May 10, 1982, a city council study session was held to
discuss the design alternatives for the improvement of
the 66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. The
reasons for the improvements and preliminary designs were
discussed. In addition, the city engineer discussed the
possibility of using city right -of -way to enhance parking
and access in the area by closing some streets. The
council directed the staff to meet with the adjacent
businesses to discuss the need for the improvements, as
well as design alternatives, parking issues and access
issues;
. -June 7 and 8, 1982, informational meetings were held
for businesses and residents of each quadrant of the
66th Street and Penn Avenue intersection. The proposed
Council Letter No. 7 -2-
January 10, 1983
improvements were presented and input received from
those in attendance. Since those meetings, the city
engineer has met with most of the property owners on
an individual basis to explain the proposed improvements
and to explore the feasibility of the use of right -of -way
to enhance parking and access:
- November 22, 1982, a city council study session was held
to discuss the revised plan which was presented to the city
council at the December 13, 1982 city council meeting;
- December 13, 1982, the public hearing was conducted and
testimony was received by the city council. The council
deferred taking action until the January 10, 1983 city
council meeting, so that they would have an opportunity to
address questions raised during the December 13, 1982 public
hearing.
Reasons for the Improvements
Improvements to the intersection of 66th Street and Penn
Avenue are proposed for three reasons:
1. This intersection is the busiest and most congested,
in the city, with 35,000 cars per day using this inter-
section. An improvement to the traffic carrying cap -
acity would reduce the delays and congestion which
now occur.
2. The accident rate at this intersection is higher than
the county average.
3. The intersection has physically deteriorated to a
point where major repair is necessary.
Proposed Plan
The proposed plan includes the construction of a raised
concrete median and left -turn lanes for all four legs of the inter-
section, and reconstruction of the pavement surface. A new eight -
phase traffic signal would be installed at the intersection
(similar to those on 66th Street at the Lyndale Avenue and
Nicollet Avenue intersections). Sidewalks and street lighting
would be installed on Penn Avenue from 65th Street to 68th Street
where they do not currently exist.
Revisions to the Oriqinal Plan
In response to input received from property owners, the city
engineer and county engineer made several changes in the plan to
better accommodate the needs of the businesses in the area. Re-
visions were made where it was feasible within the framework of
the design to accommodate the traffic volume, turn movements and
safety considerations of this intersection.
n
0
•
Council Letter No. 7 -3- January 10, 1983
Right -of -Way Acquisition
Additional right -of -way will be required for construction
of the project. Generally, 10 to 12 feet will be needed on both
sides of Penn Avenue, and 18 to 20 feet on only the north side
of 66th Street. The right -of -way acquisition will be necessary
to accommodate the turn lanes, medians, and sidewalks.
Special Assessments
Property abutting Penn Avenue will be assessed for street
lighting and sidewalks where they do not currently exist. As
has been the policy throughout Richfield, special assessments
for street lighting will be $2.00 per abutting foot, and for
sidewalks it will be 50 percent of the cost (estimated assessment
to be $9.15 per abutting foot - in 1984 dollars). The project will
be primarily funded from the city /county gas tax apportionment.
Recommendation
The plan concept as presented addresses the traffic capacity,
vehicular safety, and pavement deterioration issues. Reduced
accidents should save $60,000 per year in medical bills and
property damage. An analysis of the two peak hours of traffic at
the intersection reveals that over $40,000 will be saved in user
fees, i.e., vehicle costs and driver time. In all, over $100,000
per will be realized in savings.
It is recommended that the city council apporve the attached
resolution ordering the project.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: City Engineer
Community Development Director
KN /ej a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR 66TH STREET AND
PENN AVENUE INTERSECTION - C.P. 780A
WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 22nd day
of November, 1982, fixed a date for a council hearing on the
proposed improvement of Penn Avenue between the centerline of 65th
Street-and the centerline of 68th Street; and 66th Street between
the centerline of Morgan Avenue and the centerline of Sheridan
Avenue by widening, construction of left turn lanes and medians,
reconstruction of the pavement surface, curb, gutter, sidewalk
installation, street lighting, and traffic signal installation,
and appurtenant work,
AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weekly pub -_
lications of the required notice was given as required by law and
the hearing was held thereon on the 13th day of December, 1982,
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 Hennepin
County Traffic Division Layout No. 3, except the proposed
sidewalks and street lighting on Penn Avenue, 65th Street
to 68th Street.
2. Michael Eastling is hereby designated as the engineer for
this improvement. The Hennepin County Traffic Division
is hereby authorized to prepare plans and specifications
for the making of such improvement.
3. Hennepin County is hereby authorized to acquire the
necessary right of way for the making of such improvement.
Adopted by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota, this
10th day of January, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
0, Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR SIDEWALKS AND
STREET LIGHTING ON PENN AVENUE, 65th
STREET TO 68th STREET - C.P. 780
WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 22nd
day of November, 1982, fixed a date for a council hearing on the
proposed improvement of Penn Avenue between the centerline of
65th Street and the centerline of 68th Street; and 66th Street
between the centerline of Morgan Avenue and the centerline of
Sheridan Avenue by widening, construction of left "turn lanes and
medians, reconstruction of the pavement surface, curb, gutter,
sidewalk installation, street lighting, and traffic signal
installation, and appurtenant work,
AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weekly publica-
tions of the required notice was given as required by law and the
hearing was held thereon on the 13th day of December, 1982, at
which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity
to be heard thereon,
NOW THEREFORE, be it
Richfield, Minnesota:
• 1. The sidewalk and
Avenue, 65th Str
of the cost will
owners is hereby
resolved by the council of the City of
street lighting improvements on Penn
eet to 68th Street, for which a portion
be assessed against abutting property
ordered;
2. Michael Eastling is hereby designated as the engineer for
this improvement. The Hennepin County Traffic Division is
hereby authorized to prepare plans and specifications for
the making of such improvement.
3. Hennepin County is hereby authorized to acquire the
necessary right of way for the making of such improvement.
Adopted by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota, this
10th day of January, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
{
4
•
•
3.38. SPECIAL PROVISIONS - OUTSIDE PARKING AND STORAGE.
Subdivision 1. Declaration of Nuisance. The outside parking or outside
storage, on or near residence district properties, of vehicles, materials,
supplies or equipment not customarily used or needed for use in connection
with the occupancy of residential property for residence purposes, is hereby
found to create a nuisance and detrimental influence upon the public health,
safety, prosperity, good order and general welfare in such district, in-
cluding obstruction of view on streets and on private properties, bringing
unhealthful and noisome odors and materials into residential neighborhoods,
creating a cluttered and otherwise unsightly areas, preventing the full use
of residential streets for residential parking, introducing commercial ad-
vertising signs into areas where commercial advertising signs are otherwise
prohibited, and otherwise adversely affecting residential property values
and neighborhood patterns.
Subd. 2. Unlawful Parking. It is unlawful for any - person, owning, driving
or in charge of a vehicle of any of the types hereinafter specified to cause
or permit such vehicle to be parked or to stand continuously for more than
two hours on any residence property or on any public street in the city.
This prohibition applies to the following vehicles and other similar
vehicles. (Bill 1974 -15) 9/23/74
(1) Any bus designed to carry more than 9 persons.
(2) Any motor truck or pickup truck having a capacity of one ton or more.
(3) Any tractor, truck - tractor, truck - trailer or any type of trailer.
Subd. 3. Exceptions. Subdivision 2 shall not apply to the following
vehicles:
(1) Any motor truck, pickup truck or similar vehicle being used by a
public utility, moving company, or similar company, which is actually being
used to service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of
the vehicle.
(2) Any vehicle which is actually making a pickup or delivery at the
location where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the period
of time reasonably necessary to make such pickup or delivery and in excess of
the two hour limit shall be unlawful. (Bill 1974 -15) 9/23/74
(3) Recreational vehicles and equipment. (Bill 1974 -15) 9/23/74
Subd. 4. Unlawful Storage - Special Use Permit. It is unlawful for any person
owning, keeping, driving, or in charge of any house trailer mobile home,
airplane, construction or home - occupation machinery, equipment or supplies,
or other machinery, equipment, supplies or materials not customarily used or
needed in connection with the occupancy of residential property for residence
purposes, to cause or permit the same to be stored outside of a building on
any residence district property for a total of more than 30 days during any
calendar year without first obtaining a special permit to do so in accordance
with Subdivision 5 of this section. (Bill 1974 -2) 5/28/74
Subd. 5. Permit to be Issued by Manager. Applications for permits issued
pursuant to this section shall be made to the manager. The manager or his
designate shall issue such permits only in accordance with this section and
only in strict compliance with Subdivision 6 of this section.
9/23/74
ORDINANCE CODE 74 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
•
Subd. 6. Conditions Governing Issuance of Permit. No such permit shall be
granted if the manager or his desi�,nate determines that granting; the permiL
will create, or be likely to create an adverse influence upon the residence
district involved, or upon persons or property in the vicinity of the
location for which the permit is sought. (Bill 1974 -2) 6/28/74
Subd. 7. Appeal to Board of Adjustments and Appeal. Any person aggrieved
by a decision made to the administration under this section shall have
recourse to the board of adjustments and appeals in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 3.40 of this part.
Subd. 8. It is unlawful for any person in charge or control of any property
within the city, whether as owner, tenant, occupant, lessees, or otherwise,
to allow any partially dismantled, non - operating, wrecked, junked, or dis-
carded vehicle to remain on such property longer than 96 hours, and no
person shall leave any such vehicle on any property within the city for a
longer time than 96 hours; except that this ordinance shall not apply with
regard to a vehicle in an enclosed building; a vehicle on the premises of
a business enterprise operated in a lawful place and manner, when necessary
to the operation of such business enterprise; or a vehicle in an appropriate
storage place or depository maintained in a lawful place and manner by the
city. (Bill 1968 -13) 10/14/68
6/28/74
ORDINANCE CODE 75 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
0
•
0
DR. E. O. CORAZALLA
2412 W. 66TH ST.
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55423
612-869-8277
1 January 1983
Richfield Mayor and Council Members: ? Penn and 66 th Project
When I and my wife attendad the council meeting on 13 th day oi'
December 1982 we had reason to believe the project was in its
fetal, neonatal or formative stages. 'JUe are directly affected
and had not previously been made aware of the project. N04ONE
had ever came to our place of business and contacted us. We had
seen no plans..
An EIGHTEEN (18) foot wide concrete median in front of our place,
our loss of TP,ETS (Huge Trees) retaining walls, mature buffer
and privacy hedge, lamp posts, planters etc. and no one had
heretofore contacted us. WHY NOT? Do we need an Eighteen Foot
wine concrete median..
911 reasons cited by 1.1r. Eastling for the project can be easily
rendered null and void..
A. SAVINGS TO r1�OTORISTS IN ATTTO XPENS 'IT'D IHISi1HE TIT-1E.
1. Did anyone think about the added minutes residents would
expend getting into their driveways, plus added driving and
maintenance of and on residental streets.
2. Did anyone consider the added miles and time rubbish haulers,
beer trucks, suppliers etc., would expend. Again driving around
residental street to gain access to businessess Yes,
time and time is money..
3. And how about the many partons of subject businesses. They
as well would be required to roam around residental streets
to gain access. "zany due to inconvenience would shot, elsewhere.
Yes, all creating added time, fuel and waste. Note: Also
added safety and maintenance problems would develop on
residental streets..
4. Did anyone consider if traffic smoothed thru Penn and 66 Yh
they would back up at the next intersections where nothing
if being done. Waiting lines would get much longer at
Penn and Brosstown in fron t of Lunds, Penn and 76 th and
Penn and 1914 as well as 66 th St. and 35 W etc. etc.
Enhanced traffic flow in one area will merely creatb- greater
problems elsewhere..
B. VAINTENANCE- The county has done little to NOTHING to maintain
this intersection in the past twenty year's. Just last Spring they
tossed some blacktop in the holes. I at that time spoke with a
repairman on 66 th St. ?ie informed me he and his crew were
wasting their time. (What about Tax Payers Money). The product
they were using had been frozen in a pile all winter long and
would not remain in place for more than a day. HE WAS NIGHT.
Due to diverted traffic on residental side streets(not designed
or built` for heavy trucks or added load maintenance would
Increase. This would be a Richfield maintenance problem, not a
county one
0
DR. E. O. CORAZAL.I_A
2412 W. 66TH ST.
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55423
612-869-8277
C. SAFETY: Yes, we have a few accidents at Penn find 66 th Interse &tion
It is one of the busiest in the state. An estimated 35,000
car per day. NOTE: FIGURE I FAIL TO BELIEVE)
Even with improvements accidents shall occur. Due to diverted
traffic on very narrow as well as hillitside tal streets in
more accidents may occur at adjoining ne
an effort- to solve one problem two or more may be created with
a negative net effect..
OTHER OBSERVATIONS:
I. Richfield P pulation has been reduced drastically in the past ten
years and sell continue to decline in future years according
to demographers. Logic dictates less traffic volume. For over
22 years I have carefully observed the traffic flow and volume
at the Penn and 66 th intersection. Traffic volume has
appeared less heavy in recent years.
II. Subject project will certainly curtail if not destroy numerous
long term businesses on the corner. Thus also a reduced traffic
volume and less need. These businesses now exist and prosper
due to easy accessibility, observability find traffic volume.
• Destroy them and you destroy any need that "y exist -for
improvements. 0
The evening of 13 th December 1082 the Mlfiyor read a statement that if
someththg is worth doing it is worth doing' well. (,Ill the way))
Cne should keep this in mind. The major shopping center is very old
and outdated. Yes, they have plans to expand. Where shall they
provide added parking?
A proper and bold plan would encompass the entire area. Moving
businessess not destroying them. I was informed this is what the
city desires BUT money at present is not available. Then wait!
Make minimal improvements neglected for the past twenty years
until adequate funding is available for a proper and bolder
project..
�e spectfully,
0. Coraealls
0
-tr II D
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 6
Agenda January 10, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Minutes, Bid Tabulations, and Award of
Contracts for Water Treatment Chemicals
On December 15, 1982, bids were opened for various water
treatment chemicals. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations
are attached for council review.
Quick Lime
Two bids were submitted for quick lime, a water softening
chemical. The lowest responsible bid was $71.35 per ton submitted
by Cutler Magner Co. The cost per ton in 1982 was $68.95, in
1981 $66.90, and in 1980 it was $63.08 per ton. It is estimated
that the city will use 1,400 tons of this chemical in 1983 at a
cost of $99,890.
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
The only bid submitted for this water softening chemical was
by Hawkins Chemical in the amount of $133 per ton. The 1982 cost
per ton cost was $133, and the cost in 1981 was $121 per ton. The
estimated total expenditure in 1983 for an estimated 100 tons is
$13,300.
Liquid Anhydrous Ammonia
Three bids were submitted for this water softening chemical.
The lowest responsible bidder was Van Waters and Rogers, at a
price of $.2895 per pound. This is the same as the 1982 cost,
and lower than the cost in 1981 and 1980. The total estimated
1983 cost will be $868.50, based on one and one -half tons usage.
Hydrof lours it is Acid
Two bids were submitted, with the low responsible bid sub-
mitted by Jones Chemical, Inc. in the amount of $.88 per gallon.
The estimated total 1983 cost will be $5,280 based on 6,000
gallons usage.
•
•
Council Letter No. 6
Sodium Tripoly Phosphate
-2-
January 1 0 , 1983
Four bids were submitted for this chemical which is used
as a conditioner of water and of the sand filters used in the
water processing. The lowest responsible bid was submitted
by Van Waters and Rogers in the cost of $.449 per pound. This
compares to a cost of $1.089 in 1982. The total estimated 1983
cost will be $5,388 based on 12,000 pounds usage.
r1nInrina
Three bids were received for chlorine. The lowest responsi-
ble bid was submitted by Jones Chemical in the amount of $.109
per pound. The estimated 1983 expenditure will be $1,752 based
on 16,000 pounds of usage.
Summary
Funds for these purchases are included in the 1983 budget
document of the water treatment plant. It is recommended that the
city council take the following actions:
1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations on the water
treatment chemicals;
2. Accept the bids and award the contracts as follows:
A. -Quick lime, $71.35 per ton - Cutler - Magner
B.- Liquid Aluminum Sulfate -$133 per ton - Hawkins Chemical
C.- Liquid Anhydrous Ammonia- $.2895 per pound -Van Waters
& Rogers
D- Hydrofloursilic Acid - $.88 per gallon -Jones Chemical
E.- Sodium Tripoly Phosphate -$.449 per pound -Van Waters
& Rogers
F.- Chlorine -$.109 per pound -Jones Chemical
Respectfully submitted,
/J
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
Finance Coordinator
KN /eja
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
December 15, 1982
Chemicals for Water Treatment Plant
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Water Treatment Chemicals, as advertised
in the official newspaper on November 24, December 1, and 8, 1982.
Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Administrative Services Director
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND LIQ. ALUM. LIQ. ANHY. HYDROF. SODIUM TRI-
BID SECURITY QUICKLIME SULFATE AMMONIA ACID POLY PHOSP. CHLORINE
Cutler - Magner Co.
B.B. 5% $99.890
Van Waters & Rogers
B.B. 5% $868.50 $5,388 $2,144
Ones Chemicals
B.B. 5% $870 $5,280 $5,532 $1,752
Hawkins Chemical
B.B. 5% $13,300 $2,160
Nalco Chemical
Cashier's Check $626.40 $12,528
Western Lime
B.B. 5% $113,092
Feed -Rite Controls
B.B. 5% $930 $5,340 $5,790
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular
city council meeting of January 10, 1982.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
171
0
CJ
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA'
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 5
Agenda January 10, 1983
Subject: Variance Request to Construct an Eight Unit
Condominium at 6945 Penn Avenue
At the December 13, 1982 city council meeting, the city
council considered a variance request from Associated Brokers
to allow the construction of an eight -unit condominium on the
site located at the northeast corner of 70th Street and Penn
Avenue. The variance requested was to reduce the minimum lot
area requirements for an eight -unit condominium from 20,000
square feet to 14,952 square feet. The proposed development
met all other MR -2 zoning district requirements. The city
council denied the variance request.
Subsequent to that council action, Mr. Attilio DeMarco and
Mr. James Hauptman, representing Associated Brokers, have re-
quested that the city council reconsider their variance request
at the January 10, 1983 city council meeting.
At the December 13, 1982 council meeting, concern was ex-
pressed by neighbors that the proposed development would set a
precedent which would allow high density multiple residence de-
velopment on other vacant lots on the east side of Penn Avenue
south of the site in question. These other vacant lots are all
currently zoned R Residence district. Multiple residences are
not permitted principal uses in an R Residence District. A two
family dwelling could be constructed in an R Residence District
if a special use permit is granted by the city council. A re-
zoning would be required if the property owner wished to develop
the sites with more than two dwelling units.
The rezoning process offers ample opportunity for public in-
put and for protection of the surrounding neighborhood. First
of all, the rezoning could only be initiated by the city council
or by a petition being filed containing signatures of 51 percent
or more of the property owners within 300 feet of the property
to be rezoned. If there was potential for harm to the neigh-
borhood, the city council could refuse to initiate the rezoning
or the surrounding property owners could refuse to sign a
petition requesting the rezoning. If the city council initiates
Council Letter No. 5 -2- January 10, 1983
the rezoning or a valid petition is filed, there would still
be ample opportunity for citizen input because at least two
public hearings must be held before any rezoning request is
approved. Therefore, it is the opinion of the staff that
approval of a variance request at 6945 Penn Avenue does not set
a precedent which would be detrimental to the public welfare.
The following is a summary of the staff's review of the
variance request:
Staff Findings
The staff has reviewed the three conditions for granting
variances and found the following:
1. It is the opinion of the staff that there are no
special circumstances present on this site. The
size and configuration of the parcel is similar to
other multiple residence zoning district sites in
the area and community as a whole;
2. Denial of the variance would not prevent reasonable
use of the property. A five -unit multiple residence
could be developed on the site without a variance;
3. The proposal will not materially or adversely affect
the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood. The scale and design of the
proposed structure is of the character of a single
family residence which is the character of the area.
Traffic generated by the proposed structure should
be minimal because of the residential nature of the
unit and the fact that there will only be studio and
one bedroom units. Screening will be provided be-
tween the proposed structure and the adjacent single
family residences. It will also benefit the commun-
ity by providing additional affordable housing units
and tax base in the community, and by cleaning up a
presently poorly maintained vacant lot. A drainage
plan has not been submitted to insure that the pro-
ject will not add to existing drainage problems in
the area.
Staff Recommendation
The staff feels that the proposal is a good project which
will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and one which will
be a benefit to the community. However, because the proposal
does not meet the three conditions for granting variances, the
planning staff must recommend that the variance request be
denied. The city manager recommends that this variance request
• be approved.
Council Letter No. 5 -3- January 10, 1983
• If the city council approves the variance request, it is
the recommendation of the city staff that it be stipulated that
the applicants should submit a drainage plan for city staff
approval.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission unanimously recommends that the
variance request be approved with the stipulation that a drainage
plan be submitted for the approval of the city staff.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
KN /ej a
0
•
Associated
Brokers
Commercial & Investment Real Estate Services
760 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437 612/831 -0599
November 8, 1982
Mr. Rick Jopke
Citv Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
RE: Variance request- 70th & Penn , Condominium project.
Dear Mr. Jooke:
Pursuant to Section 3.3/A,, Subdivision 4A of the Richfield City Ordinance,
enclosed please find our application for a variance request for minimum lot area
requirements on the above mentioned property and residential condominium project.
Prior to our involvement with the above property and condominium project, a
variety of proposals were made'to the Citv which resulted into unsuccessful attempts
to construct a residential structure on the site.
In our consideration of the same, we've given careful study to the surrounding
buildings and existing character of the community when designing our proposed
residential project. We believe that we have developed a concept plan that blends
well within the community and at the same time is economically. viable. It is our
goal to provide new housing for the sector of the market which is difficult to
reach in today's economic climate, that being, the _young professional single and
couple and empty nester resident.
In reviewing our concept with you our project met all the other criteria
of the ordinance as follows:
1. Proper zoning
2. Unit square footage requirements
3. Parking requirements- 2 stalls per dwelling unit
4. All set -back requirements
5. ratio of "green space" to structure size
In light of our mutual conversations concerning our proposal, we would apprec-
iate your favorable consideration and recommendation for approval of our variance
request.
Thank you for your time and utmost consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Y.',
�% James B. Hauptman
At'Hio S. De * arco
NI N N
�D
O. O ;
CL
N W =^ Q I I Gig mi
CC x ^ = x C7 O
zitz. /1
(i m ro ! m W
RT- 1
W
mac Ji
I{
r-.
G ,
m W
CL
W 0. -
�=
'T .................
r W0.
/
Y CC
�
W t W c
x
�
O
; mI
O
L
o
m S
M,i�J//i{I �
� II
O
NN l p,J
CL j
4
m Ca iii m
z
n
G
cl I Y it Y l N
n
—
Y
W W
j• c o
LU
i
* Previous Variance
(300) Normally Required
•
MR -2 DISTRICT
REGULATION ANALYSIS
REQUIRED
PROPOSED
Minimum Lot Area
20,000 sq
ft
14,952 sq ft
Lot Dimensions
75 ft
112 ft
!Maximum Lot Coverage
300
29%
'.Minimum Outdoor Open Space
200 sq ft
per
211 sq ft per
unit* (300)
unit
Front Yard Setback
22 *(30)
22 ft
(Penn Ave)
Streetside Sideyard Setback
Height of
Building
29 ft
(70th Street)
= 25 ft
Interior Sideyard Setback
Height of
Building
26 ft
= 25 ft
Rear Yard
25 ft
43 ft
1Maximum Height
42 ft
25 ft
'Jinimum Floor Area:
500 sq ft
500 sq ft
Studio Unit
Minimum Floor Area:
650 sq ft
662 sq ft
1 Bedroom Unit
!,Minimum Parking
2 spaces
per unit
2 spaces per
unit
* Previous Variance
(300) Normally Required
•
LLI
r
...............
2
\Y4 5
4'D (144)
00
7
Z
LIJ
U-1
-F7REET
4'
16
6LOA
J\Qbj3
1 4'
70t
f
(Z2
(ZA
STREET
CL
FEN
I
Single
Family.,
Vacant
IOA)-
dd
Ter
oil
9
0
J
LLI
r
...............
2
\Y4 5
4'D (144)
00
7
Z
LIJ
U-1
-F7REET
4'
16
6LOA
J\Qbj3
1 4'
70t
f
(Z2
(ZA
STREET
CL
FEN
IZ
`5513
50-)
LAND USE
quasi Public
[[ � Co.-unercial
r.
Apartments
I
Single
Family.,
Vacant
IOA)-
dd
Ter
oil
9
0
L
IZ
`5513
50-)
LAND USE
quasi Public
[[ � Co.-unercial
r.
Apartments
.i,'t',54)
W000
I
Single
Family.,
Vacant
IOA)-
dd
oil
0
L
.i,'t',54)
W000
I
IOA)-
dd
oil
z
13 (41) (40) 4
.1 CO)! P
, i
(44) 2
bV
1.. A
lye--
6 19 T � ^
City Of Ritr aid
Yj � ..� )L i S 1" r tis V C� c G.�. i- l✓� h G s � P P �� u.c� � y 4= u r �.
l( R. J rat, c y ✓'V cc �'�t, 4
f
,Sr CU YS� �ee tL 7Z GA/ r, t �7 ti2( Lj�v� �Ca ✓�(
l
1(,4 . /. Gt S �. G{ .tiff T 4 At tt °� r e- G a 5 N r L �— C(' , •
0 L Ct [ Il rA I�"'r C/.'. .rA� ~ ? �f et .e L ie V ✓ fi �i/ �':.� O"L
li 6 u- G/ ,J Y19 W.e
Mr. Rick Jopke
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave-
1
ichfield, Mn.
November 23, 1982
Dear Mr Jopke;
After receiving notice of a hearing I dropped in at city
hall this morning and looked at the plans for the town houses
for the property at 6945 Penn Ave. So.
They are very attractive and I would be happy to see something
of this type go in on this property. For years It has been
• an eyesore. I am sure that it would also bring in some
good tax money that we need in Richfield; also chances are
there would not probably be a lot of children which would
cause more expenses for the school system.
I am owner, taxpayer of various property in the city and hope
by building something like this it would be profitable for
the city.
I hope that the planning commission looks favorable upon
this project.
I might say that I know noor_e involved in this project, owners
or builders or whatever. The appearance of _plans are beautiful
if that is the way they will look.
S incere /- --- -'`
Stein
8821 Crestwood Rd.
Bloomington, Mn
•