08-11-83 agenda~# 8
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 256
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Concerning Street
Side Sideyard Setbacks in Residential
Zoning Districts
Over the past few months, the city council has considered
several variance requests where property owners proposed to ex-
pand dwellings which did not meet the city's street side Sideyard
setback requirements. The proposed additions matched the exist-
ing building setback, but a variance was necessary because the
existing dwelling did not meet the city's current zoning setback
requirements. The planning commission has indicated a desire to
amend the ordinance to allow expansion to occur without the need
for a variance in cases where the expansion would be no closer
to the street than the existing dwelling.
Attached for your review is a draft ordinance recommended
by the planning comTM~ission which would amend the street side set-
back requirements in the R, R-1, and MR-1 districts. The amend-
ment changes the streetside sideyard setback for single family
dwellings, two-fa?^ily dwellings and certain other uses from 15
feet to "15 feet, or the established setback of the existing
structure, whichever is less." This would allow additions to be
constructed which match the existing setback or which have crreat-
er setbacks. The commission decided not to recommend a simi~a.r
chance to allow the expansion of non-conforming accessory buildings.
The vote on this matter was 5-3.
Because the proposed ordinance ~~mendment would allow expansion
of buildings that do not meet present street side sideyard setback
requirements, it represents a policy change in the treatment of
non-conforming buildings. This policy change, and its potential
effects through the expansion of non-conforming buildings in the
city, should be noted by the council. Since the council has re-
cently approved several such variances, it may wish to implement
such a change. However, the council may wish to maintain the
requirement for a variance before allowing such building expansions.
Council Letter No. 256 -2- July 11, 1983
If the council desires to implement the proposed change, it
. is recommended that the city council give first reading consider-
ation to the attached ordinance and schedule the public hearing
and second reading consideration on this matter for July 25,
1 983 .
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Morgan, J~.
Acting City Manager
TAM/ ej a
•
BILL NO.
ORDINANCE N0.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER III, PART IV
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter III, Part IV, of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota is hereby amended in the following respects:
(1) Section 3.30, Subdivision 5 paragraphs a, b, and d are amended
to read as follows:
Subd. 5. Minimum Building Setbacks.
Sideyard
Use Front Rear Streetside Interior
(a) Single 30' 25' 15' or the established 5'
fame y setback of the existing
structure whichever is
less
(b) Two 30' 25' 15' or the established 10'
family setback of the existing
structure whichever is
less
(d) Other 30' 25' I5~-or the established 25'
setback of the existing
structure whicheverT_
less
(2) Section 3.30A, Subdivision 5, paragraph a is amended to read
as follows:
Subd. 5 . Minimu~~- Building Setbacks .
Sideyard
Use Front Rear Streetside Interior
(a) Single 30' 25' 15' or the established 10'
setback of the existing
structure whicheve- ris
less
(3) Section 3.31A, Subdivision 5, paragraph a is amended to read
as follows:
Subd. 5. Minimum Building Setbacks, All Buildings:
(a) MR-1 District:
Front Rear Streetside Interior
30' 25' 15' or the established setback 10'
or the existing structure wh ch-
ewer is less
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 255
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variance, 7145 10th Avenue
Leora and Mark Reimers have submitted a request for a var-
iance to reduce the required street side sideyard setback of a
detached garage from 15 feet to 3 feet. An existing single
garage has been removed and a new double garage will be constructed
in its place. The street side sideyard setback of the new garage
will be 3 feet which is the same as the old garage.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 5 requires that accessory buildings
have a minimum street side sideyard setback of 15 feet and Section
3.40, subdivision 5 lists three conditions which must be present
for a variance to be granted.
S taf f Review
The planning staff has reviewed the variance request against
the three conditions for granting the variance and found the
following:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting this land not common to other properties or
similar district. It is the staff's opinion that there
are no special circumstances present on this particular
lot not present on the other lots in the area. The lot
is of a sufficient size and shape to allow construction
of a garage which would meet setback requirements.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights. It is the staff's opinion that denial of this
variance would not preclude reasonable use of the prop-
erty. Applicant can continue the existing single family
residential use on the lot and could construct a new
garage which would not require the variance.
3. That the granting of the application will not materially
and adversely affect the health or safety of persons
___ _ ___
Council Letter No. 255 -2-
July 11, 1983
• residing or working in the neighborhood and will
not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to improvements in the nei hborhood. It is
the opinion of the planning staff that the proposed
setback of the garage would be detrimental to the
public welfare. While the proposed setback would match
the setback for the garage that has been removed on the
site, it would not be in character with the street side
setback of other garages. The staff investigation has
found that the detached garages in the area are typically
set back 20 feet. The proposed 3 foot setback would,
therefore, not be in character with the typical setback
in the area.
Staff Recommendation
Because the variance request does not meet the three conditions
for granting variances, the staff must recommend against the approval
of this variance.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
At the June 28, 1983 planning commission meeting, a motion
to approve the variance request failed by a 4-4 vote. Therefore,
this request for variance is forwarded to the city council without
a recommendation by the planning commission.
Respectfully submit ed,
~: ~~
r
Thomas A. Morgan, J .
Acting City Manager
TAM/ej a
[Draft]
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was
held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, July 11, 1983,
commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
The following members were present:
•
and the following were absent:
The following resolution was presented by Councilmember
who moved its adopting, the reading of which was
dispensed with by unanimous consent:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A
PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT: REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR APPROVAL; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM
OF AGREEMENT AND PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows:
1.1 The welfare of the State of Minnesota requires active promo-
tion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound
. industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as
possible, emergency of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemploy-
ment, and the state has encouraged local government units to act to
prevent such economic deterioration. ,
1.2 Richfield Shoppes Developers, a Minnesota partnership
(hereinafter the "Company"), has advised this Council of its desire to
acquire and improve land and to construct and equip thereon of an
approximately 40,000 square foot retail shopping center facility and
related site improvements (the "Project").
1.3 The existence of the Project within the City would signifi-
cantly increase the tax base of the City, County and school district
in which the City is located, and would provide opportunities for
employment for residents of the City and surrounding area, and assist
the City and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield in
achieving their redevelopment goals for the LHN Redevelopment Project
Area.
1.4 The City has been advised by the Company that conventional,
commercial financing to pay the .capital cost of the Project is avail-
able only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that
the economic .feasibility of operating the Project would be signifi-
cantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its
resulting low borrowing cost, the Project is economically more feas-
ible.
1.5 This Council has been advised by Allison-Williams Company,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, investment bankers, that on the basis of
information submitted to them and the discussions with representatives
of the Company that bonds or notes to finance all or part of the cost
of the Project can be successfully sold, and that it will purchase
such bonds or notes.
1.6 The -City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474,
to issue its. revenue bonds or other obligations (the "Bonds"} to
finance capital projects consisting of properties used and useful in
connection with a revenue producing enterprise, such as that of the
Company, and the issuance of such Bonds by the City would be a sub-
stantial inducement to the Company to construct the Project within the
City.
2. On the basis of information given the City to date, it
presently appears that it would be in the best interest of the City to
issue its industrial development revenue Bonds under the provisions of
Chapter 474 to finance the Project of the Company at a cost presently
estimated to be approximately $4,750,000.
3. The Council declares that it is its present intent to issue
the Bonds, and the Project above referred to is hereby given prelim-
inary approval by the City and the issuance of Bonds for such purpose
and in such amount approved, subject to approval of the Project by the
Minnesota Department of Energy, Planning and Development and to the
mutual agreement of this body,. the Company and the initial purchasers
of. the bonds as to the details of the bond issue and provisions for
its payment. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Bonds
shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance legal or equitable
upon any property of the City except the Project, and each Bond, when,
as and if issued, shall recite in substance that the bond, including
interest thereon,. is payable solely from the revenues received from
the Project and properly pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not
constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitu-
- tional, charter or statutory limitation thereon.
4. The form of Memorandum of Agreement relating to the issuance
of the Bonds to finance the cost of the Project is hereby approved,
and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute the Memorandum of Agreement in behalf of the City.
5. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01,
Subdivision 7A, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed
to submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Department of
Energy, Planning and Development for approval. The Mayor, City
Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees, and agents of
the City and LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Profes-
sional Association, as bond counsel and City Attorney, are hereby
authorized to provide the Department with any preliminary information
needed for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to
initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be
appropriate to -the Project, if it is approved by the Department.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Councilmember
and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor of the motion:
and the following voted against:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
CITY OF RICHFIELD )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City
Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I
have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of a
regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday,
July 11, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office and the
same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same
relates to the preliminary approval of a Commercial Development
Revenue Bond Project for Richfield Shoppes Developers.
WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the
City this day of _ , 1983.
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
(SEAL)
•
[Draft)
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, dated as of July _, 1983, between
the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") and Richfield Shoppes
Developers (the "Company") provides as follows:
1. Preliminary Statement. Among the matters of mutual induce-
ment which have resulted in this Agreement are the following:
(a) the City is authorized and empowered by the provisions
of Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended (the "Act"), to
issue revenue bonds to defray the costs of a project as defined
in the Act;
•
(b) the Company has proposed that the City, pursuant to the
Act, issue its revenue bonds to defray the costs to be incurred
in connection with the acquisition of certain properties, con-
sisting primarily of land and one or more buildings to be con-
structed, remodeled and equipped thereon (the "Project"), and
that the City and the Company enter into a lease, sale or loan
agreement or similar agreement satisfying the requirements of the
Act (the "Revenue Agreement");
(c) the Company wishes to obtain satisfactory assurance
from the City that the proceeds of the sale of the revenue bonds
of the City will be made available to finance the costs of the
Project;
(d) subject to due compliance with all requirements of law,
the City by virtue of such statutory authority as may now or
hereafter be conferred by the Act, will issue and sell its reve-
nue bonds or other obligations in an amount not exceeding
$4,750,000 (the "Bonds") to pay the costs of the Project;
(e) the Bonds shall be limited obligations of the City and
the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable
solely out of the revenues derived from amounts payable to the
City by the Company pursuant to the provisions of the Revenue
Agreement.
2. Undertakings on the Part of the. City. Subject to the con-
ditions stated in (d) of paragraph 1 hereof, the City agrees as
follows:
•
(a) that it is its present intent to authorize the issuance
and sale of the Bonds, pursuant to the terms of the Act as then
in force, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(b) that, if it issues and sells the Bonds, it will as
requested by the Company enter into the Revenue Agreement with
the Company. The lease rentals, installment sale payments, loan
payments or other amounts payable under the Revenue Agreement
will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest and redemp-
tion premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall
become due and payable.
3. Undertakings on the Part of the Com any. The Company agrees
as follows:
(a) that it will use all reasonable efforts to find one or
more purchasers for the Bonds.
(b) that contemporaneously with the delivery of the Bonds
the Company will enter into the Revenue Agreement with the City
under the terms of which the Company will provide security to the
City for payment of sums sufficient in the aggregate to pay the
principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the
Bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable.
(c) that ~it will pay all costs of the City in connection
with the financing of the Project whether or not the Project is
carried to completion or approval by the Minnesota Department of
Energy, Planning and Development.
4. General Provisions.
(a) All commitments of the City under paragraph 2 hereof
and of the Company under paragraph 3 hereof are subject to the
condition that within 12 months from the date hereof (or such
other date as shall be mutually satisfactory to the City and the
Company, and as set forth in an amendment to this Agreement), the
City and the Company shall have agreed to mutually acceptable
terms and conditions of the Revenue Agreement, the Bonds and of
the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds.
(b) If the events set forth in (a) of this paragraph do not
take place within the time set forth therein, or any modification
thereof, and the Bonds are not sold and delivered .within such
time, the Company agrees that it will reimburse the City for all
reasonable and necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses which the
City may incur arising from the execution of this Agreement and
the performance by the City of its obligations hereunder, and
this Agreement shall thereupon terminate.
(c) This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of
the parties at anytime, provided, however, that the City
~ e
~~- reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to withdraw its
- approval of the Project if at any time the City Council deter-
mines that the public interest and the purpose of the Act will
not be served by the Project.
' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this
Agreement by their officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date
first written above.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
(SEAL)
•
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Manager
RICHFIELD SHOPPES DEVELOPERS
By
Its General Partner
•
.,;
~~
[Draft]
~_
Exhibits 3, 5, 6 and 7
STATEMENT CONCERNING A PROPOSED PROJECT
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Mayor and
City Manager, respectively, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the
"City"), hereby certify that the City has been provided by Richfield
Shoppes Developers, a Minnesota partnership (the '}Company"), with
certain information concerning a proposed project (the "Project")
under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act,. Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the "Act"). On the basis of such
information, the City Council, by resolution adopted on July 11, 2983,
has given preliminary approval to the proposed Project and the
financing thereof by the issuance of revenue bonds or other obliga-
tions of the City. The following are factors considered by the City
Council in determining to give preliminary approval to the Project:
1. Representatives of the Company state that the Project
consists generally of the acquisition of land in.the City and the
construction and equipping thereon of an approximately 40,000
square foot retail shopping center facility and related site
improvements ("Project").
2. Bond counsel is of the opinion that the Project consti-
tutes a "project" within the meaning of Section 474.02, Subdivi-
sion la of the Act.
3. Representatives of the Company estimate that, upon com-
pletion of the Project, the Company will employ approximately
additional persons in operation of the Project.
4. Representatives of the Company estimate that the acqui-
sition and construction of the Project will result in. an annual
payroll of approximately $ based on wage rates
currently in effect. The City Council believes that a substan-
tial percentage of that payroll will be spent on housing, food
and other goods and services in the City and surrounding area,
thus benefiting the local economy.
5. The Project, when in place, will add to the tax base of
the City.
6. The City Council has reviewed the preliminary plans and
drawings for the Project and believes that the Project, when com-
pleted, will be compatible with present and projected development
in the area.
The City will provide the Minnesota Department of Energy, Plan-
ning and Development with the information required by Section 474.01,
Subdivision 8 of the Act, upon entering into a revenue agreement, as
defined in the .Act, with the Company.
The Project does not include any property to be sold or affixed
to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not
include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent
~` residence.
A public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the
Project was conducted pursuant to Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b of
the Act and federal regulations on Monday, July 11, 1983, at
o'clock p.m. in the Richfield City Hall, at which public hearing all
interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their
views.
Dated: July , 1983.
Mayor
City Manager
7144 Ilth Avenue South
Richfield, r~linnesota 55423
June 27, 1983
fir. Rick Jopke
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, h1innesota 55423
Re: Lot 5, Block 6, Faldens Third Addition
7145 IOth Avenue South
Dear 1+1r. Jopke
I have discussed the building plans of the proposed new
garage being built on the above stated location with
LeOra and 11'lark Reimers.
I feel that the variance in the building of this garage
as currently planned will improve the. appearance of the
lot and will help to beautify the city of Richfield and
1 approve of such building.
Sincerely,
Lila Holmdahl
•
•
7138 Ilth Avenue South
Richfield, irlinnesota 55423
June 28, 1983
lr1r. Rick Jopke
City Planner
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Re: Lot 5, Block 6, Falldens Third
Addition (7145 IOth Avenue
South?
Dear f1+r. Jopke
Regarding the variance in the building of a garage on the
above listed property belonging to LeOra and Niark Reimers,
I approve of such variance and can see no reason 'why
such variance can be of impairment to any of~the neighbors
or the city of Richfield.
S i ncere I y, ~,.~
/-) o ~
1 /
Lorraine Runkel
•
~ r~
l
u ~
• ~:
~1. ~'
i. }
~'-
•
{ ..~
{ T1 ~ ~ ~ 1
1 __~__.____ ~~ ~ K ~ t? +
~^~ ~; ..~. ~ r L
~ a
_~_ ~`~~ a..i
_ - .
L S I r v ~
~ _ ~ { ~Y~
V.! l~
_~
~ I ~ 1 ~
K
-: ~ ~ - - ,
~ ,; 1
7 ~ .
i N ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ i~ - ' --=
.. ~ :o - ~
'~ ~ ~-` - ~
bi.
i
i i V
a ' o .,,
a
~.
~ V ~ f
T + _~
~ O .Q
~ Z
v
i f\
V
1
•
_~ _ .~
r v ` t
j i\ f ~/1
~ _ , ~ ; ~,{f ,~:.~ ~ -~ ~ `~~,. ~ .. a ', ..., r ~ ! ~' -
,, _ ~ .
_
` ;: ; _
~`' ~) _
~~ ~
~ ~~~
~~~.' F' I ~1~ ~ta
~,
~
L -
i
~- • ~
~ ~~ ~1
"' -- ~
lam'
-
' ..
~
.r,
t; ~
~ ..
; _; ~
.t..; _:
,. f
-
_ ~..
s _ J. _
_ _ -; ~ - 2 _ J
~ ~
._
~ _ i }
~ _
{ _
- ~
~---'---'---- ;
Y i - -
~ l'q' S ~ Ot h ,tJVE . `J .
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
qty
Council Letter No. 254
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: $4,750,000
Bonds for
Project
Commercial Development Revenue
Richfield Shoppes Development
At the June 13, 1983 regular meeting, the city council set
a public hearing for July 11, 1983 for the purpose of receiving
public comment on the issuance of $4,750,000 in commercial devel-
opment revenue bonds for the Richfield Shoppes Project (the
commercial area located on the east side of Nicollet Avenue be-
tween 65th Street and 66th Street and the former Red Owl building
located at the southeast quadrant of 66th and Nicollet).
• This project is a proposal of the Lincoln Development Ser-
vices Corporation and will result in the acquisition, renovation
and expansion of the above mentioned commercial areas. The major
purpose of the project is to provide financing to enable the en-
tire site to be unified and innovated into one architectural and
functional entity. The development will conform to the design
standards required by the L/H/N design guidelines.
The project proposes the renovation of all of the existing
buildings in the shopping center with the exception of the three
structures located on the northeast quadrant of 66th and Nicollet.
These three buildings (Richfield Automotive, Jackie Ann Hair Salon
and Dairy Queen) are proposed to be acquired and cleared. There
is also a proposal to construct a 6,830 square foot addition to the
south of the existing Warner Hardware building.
The developer, Richfield Shoppes Developers, is a joint
venture of Lincoln Development Services Corporation and Mr. James
Lupient.
Initial work is presently being carried out between the de-
veloper and the city staff and the city attorney's office relative
to the preparation of a Developer's Agreement, which will be re-
quired before the project proceeds. Additional information will
be presented to both the city council and the HRA as work pro-
gresses on this project.
Council Letter No. 254
-2-
July 11, 1983
Subsequent to the holding of the public hearing it is
recommended that the city council adopt the resolution giving
preliminary approval to the project.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A . Morgan, J'r .
Acting City Manager
TAM/eja
•
~ i~c
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 253
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed
and Ordering Preparation of Proposed Assess-
ment for L/H/N Maintenance.
On October 5, 1981, the city council adopted a resolution
creating a special assessment district during the period of
January to December, 1982, with the understanding that the
maintenance of city property within the L/H/N area be the re-
sponsibility of the adjacent property owner from curb line to
property line, and that such property not maintained to agreed
upon standards would be maintained by the city and billed to the
• appropriate owner. The city remained responsible for maintain-
ing improvements by the city to common areas such as medians,
streets, gutters, civic plaza, and street furniture.
The costs incurred for the maintenance of the L/H/N Rede-
velopment Area for the period January 1, 1982 through December
31, 1982 under this arrangement have been determined to be $27,168.59.
At the July 25, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
will be asked to adopt a resolution declaring costs to be assessed
and ordering preparation of proposed assessment for the L/H/N main-
tenance. The assessment rolls will be presented to the city
council at the July 25, 1983 city council meeting, at which time
the city council will be requested to set the date of public
hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Pnorgan, Jr.
Acting City Manager
TAM/eja
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
FOR L/H/N MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS costs have been determined for the maintenance
of the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (L/H/N) Redevelopment Area which is
approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street
and Emerson Avenue in the City of Richfield and the expenses
incurred or to be incurred for such maintenance amount to
$27,168.59,
NOw, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited
property owners is declared to be $27,168.59;
2. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city
engineer and the facilities/project coordinator shall forthwith
calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such
maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of
land within the district affected, without regard to cash
valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such
proposed assessment in her office for public inspection.
3. The city clerk shall upon the completion of such
proposed assessment notify the city council thereof.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this 11th
day of July, 1983.
John Hamilton
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
•
$~.5
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 252
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Variance Request, 6726 Humboldt Avenue
Proposal
Maynard and Beatrice Olson have requested a variance to con-
struct an addition of a greenhouse to the south side of their
existing home. The variance would reduce the distance between
the house and the existing garage from 14 feet, 3 inches to 4 feet.
The addition would be constructed along the east side of the ex-
isting home. The dimensions of the proposed greenhouse would
be 18 feet in length and 10 feet 3 inches in width. The garage
is set back 11 feet from the property line.
Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 3.30, subdivision 5 states that an accessory build-
, ing shall not be closer than five feet to the main building and
Section 3.40, subdivision 6 lists three conditions which must be
present for a variance to be granted.
Staff Review
The staff has reviewed the proposal against the three con-
ditions which must be present for a variance to be granted and
found there are no special circumstances present on this site.
The lot is sufficient for residential land use. Further, lack
cf the variance would not prevent reasonable use of the property.
Also, it is possible to build a greenhouse 9 feet 3 inches by 18
feet in the same location, which would meet city code requirements.
However, the applicant has indicated that this is a prefab-
ricated unit which has already been purchased and delivered. The
addition of an outside greenhouse would not be detrimental to
the public welfare. The applicant has submitted a petition which
has the signatures of a majority of those immediate property
• owners indicating their support for this variance.
Council Letter No. 252 -2- July 11, 1983
• S taf f Recommendation
Because this proposal does not meet the three conditions
necessary for granting a variance, staff recommends that the
variance be denied.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At their June 28, 1983 meeting, the planning commission
recommended that this variance be approved by a 7 to 1 vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Morgan {
Acting City Manager
TAM/eja
l~.J
C
•
June 1, 1983
Community Development Department-Planning Division
City of Richfield, Richfield, Minnesota
6700 Portland Avenue South
Gentlemen;
As you can see from the plan, the variance we are requesting
is necessary to allow the Greenhouse to be added to the south
side of the home off the. family room. For maximum utilization
of solar properties the Greenhouse must be installed facing
South. The Greenhouse is constructed of aluminum mullions and
tempered glass glazing. There is no combustable material in
this addition. Therefore, 1' less fire code clearance should
be allowed.
Respectfully,
h1aynard O1 son
•
siDE Df ~. oT
.. ~~dz _
w
a
0
'b
J
~~~
~~
G;
D
~ ~
~r
:~
.h
~,
,c
•
~.?
-T ~ f _
' : - .. :. .
.. .''.-~ ~ Y _
.. aF~'~'r1 O N' MAP ~ ~ "-
~_Ca Rd.~a ~3 .. _ - _ -
- <<. , _
'tH pl5 aL ?~'c i dl5 ~ ~; ~ ti ~ i7~ ~ .. S ~ - Jot ~ w.+ 7~
± -~ ~~- cw 3~!si r i'k~^~ ~ -~~} ~ ~ , r "' }6 ~,~hf { %~r y ~--~C-~ t~ ~. e~ +3~ • ~~ k--- - - - - -
" ~ r r ~'~~ ~~ 7 ~2~ 3 3,r 22 Ta 3
~.~ ~,, ~ '~~, ~ ~: r -..~•.~~~ k. ~ .-L=< f" 1.'20 ~(15,~~ ~za~0 ~ ~ ,~ ~ -
(~ ~ `.. .
7:, ~t a ~ r #• t,hl~ ~0~13 :\ a ~~21 .~ ,4,~ ;,.y'16V ' ~i19 ~ -, _ ,i.
~r r 1i~ 2 r k 11 _ l~
..
:r --'~
- ~
t7 • ` ( ~ r . v f i.
_}" a.,^ ; ~ .w ``~ ~ ~f,`~17~. ~~-8('x'1, •,'~fi~17w `T
i [- - ~ .'K ~~~ li 6~ ry: it
ar `Ficr s~' w ~ .Y r t .'" ~- ~., Q ...:0 - -, L7~ j~..' I ~j ~ ~ hti-~._(~ ~ Ic ~ -
.,
fi~ ~'~" h~ ~ ~5 ~~~ Ra ~ ~a ~ ~ ~~~ : gal
i„ 1' t~
"`~'''~§ ~' r ~~ y ~0~,6~ '~ .~ ,`. g ~ S' ~ l `, 13'~ ~`..A~: 12~ ~ ~7 !3~ ? •
- - ,r a , ..
.t.~~ Q' ~ as ~3 ? _ _ ._~~ i ~ -.7 1 . ,r.. y
GG nz ~
K
-Q ~ ' .~ .~ .: ~:
c ~ ~-xt l .; .Tei l~. s'~S'w ~ 'T1` _ ~fr1 '~'.. (~,. ` ~~ .
_ C i ~ .~
-yg
a ~e:., '~ ' A 10
:ti =~ . ~~ ~~ 'rod .~'"^^• ~ ~` "~ t~ r ` Q
~- ~ \ 3
} v
;„~i5- ~ Lks`.z~ _ L- ti°`...~i `~" „trey ~,.. -°`s3T~~~T•' -. '____-. _ _. - ,' ~~ ___ - __-
+ ..
:•il,.•+ v.x . f ld ~ :.,. r" r LAKE -
~w ~~ x -o: '~KE-,"...v V ~.4. `~,aw~; " 6Hi.A?tDS~ ~ '~; 4`. 1l". 0a~' ~~v~ ;8 v ~~ - .. ..GQC
y a ~
~~~~~; ~~ yr :~ s~~ 3.~~ ~. Q$s: i13
~~i"S:~ ye ..r{,yA~~ /~-'-`+{ 4 ,sue "s ;:.+~ ~~~ ~v_'~Str :•t'~A~.o .6.' rlA1-4• .a. ;. Q~~
-a-. ... _t k-~ C _~~~ t~ J ._.'S ~'ft s a~ ~ 4~ ~(,~f~~'s . (~, 3 1 t. c ir. y
..K-uK S s L s " ~- ~ 6 l ~ ~G ~: ~~
r: •~' "" ~S= ~° - ~~~ ,S~I~GNATURES OF
~~ ^ ~~ ~2Y+ 6 .~-~~ .--s. =~Y' t., Lj ~ ~R , vj~~~ rl 0 oti • .. t . , P
~ - ~ ""I' `;"` °"~s ~PR O E:R T Y OWNER:
~, ?.: rte: f,ri1F ~ ~f ,~ ,Esl• ~ ~ _ p r l;~ .
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF
FOR PURPOSE OF
Legal Description: -
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as
above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested.
Signature of Owners*
Address
.,
~ .y ~. ~ ~~C i - ~ ~ , ~ ~ - . S' . , ~ .s~L3
~ vU+i.' ! •~ .~•{- •.._ _ ~_.+ C" ~ ~ U ~`"~ `• ~~ ~`-^' ~ r • ' 1, L ~ ,t ~, ~ + ~ r. ~i.. l
~~ ~ l r/.,, ~~7~ lY / f ~) ~/. Iri% /~.~ ~'LD VT' J ~"'~C~~~i~ r7
~
.,
,
.•: ~
y, 1
~
~~ ~
'v ,Yi .,. ~ ,1~.-
~~
~ / /./lam X ~~ ~ .J `
~
y, (.i' _
~ / /~^c~~' ~ - /J
~~~,/~!~i~t -.~1 ~~ ~7C~ ~-
l" ~«~
t~
_
-
mi
~: /
~~
; ".
~ -y } 'Z O '
~
,,
~ ~ ~
.~ - r'.
J
i
. Sl "~
•
C=
* Signatures may not be removed once the petition is signed and
returned to the Planning Division.
r~
~J
•
•
- June 27. ~. 1983
Planning Commission
City of Richfield .
6'700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield Minn. 55423
Attention: Rick Jopke or Sue Ellis
Gentlemen:
- ~, RE: Maynard and Beatrice Olson
. 6726 Humboldt Avenue south
Referring, to your notice of Jane 17th it is agreeable with the follow
ing neighbors of Maynard and Beatrice Olson l~,o grant the one foot in-
terior side yard setback variance.
. Yours trulY~
~1J1a, '~ ~` ~ "~
_ J_
Neighbors: Address:
,[/~ // J
! "~~ ` ~ •~
J~ i
/ f ~~"
/~ ---
a° ~ a
.~~-~
,~ ~,~ ~{j 2~ i' 8 3
Gty cf i~icnt`;eld
~#-i~Q
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 251
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject:
Council
Resolution for Joint Purchasing of
Firefighting Equipment
For the past few mohths, several of the metropolitan fire
protection services have been discussing the feasibility of a
joint purchasing venture for specific types of equipment. This
has been done with the intent of finding lower purchase prices
resulting from a higher volume purchase. These metropolitan fire
protection services have now formed the Seven County Metro Area Fire
Departments Joint and Cooperative Purchasing Consortium.
Attached to this council letter is a resolution authorizing
the City of Richfield to join this Consortium. By joining the
consortium, it is not mandatory that equipment purchases go
through consortium. It merely means that we might find an attrac-
tive price for a particular type of equipment if we are in the
market for it at a particular time. Membership in the consor-
tium would give the City of Richfield the opportunity to review
current bid prices on selected equipment such as hose, helmets,
boots, etc., and take advantage of the lower prices which we
hope to gain.
The consortium will poll each member city on an annual
basis and ask each to forecast their specific equipment purchase
plans for the coming year. The consortium will then request
bids from fire equipment manufacturers in a manner similar to the
Hennepin County bid process. This would not bind a city to make
particular purchases listed in their forecast. However, since
our purchases are relatively few the City of Richfield might
enjoy an advantage on purchasing prices by joining the consortium.
It is recommended that the city council approve the attached
resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to join the Seven
County Metro Area Fire Departments Joint and Cooperative Pur-
chasing Consortium.
Respectfully submitted,
~,
Thomas A. Morgan, Jr.
Acting City Manager
TAM/eja
•
C7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT AND
COOPERATIVE PLTRCHASE OF FIRE-
FIGHTING EQUIPMENT BY THE SEVEN
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT
POWERS PURCHASING CONSORTIUM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield maintains and operates a
municipal fire protection service, and
WHEREAS, there exists a need and desire of the municipal
fire protection services throughout the seven county metro area
to achieve economies of scale that can be accomplished through
cooperative and/or joint purchasing of fire protection supplies
and equipment, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield considers it to be in the
best interests of the city to participate with the municipal
fire protection services in the seven county metro area flies
cooperative andjor joint purchase of fire protection supp
and equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, through its City Manager does hereby author-
ize the participation of its municipal fire protection service
in cooperative and/or joint purchase of fire protection equip-
ment and supplies, through or with other member fire protection
services of the Seven County Metro Area Fire Departments Joint
and Cooperative Purchasing Consortium.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
11th day of July, 1983.
John Hamilton Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
~t i~~
Council Letter No. 250
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed
for Alley Maintenance and Snowplowing for
the Period April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983
The costs incurred for alley maintenance and snowplowing for
the period of April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983, have been deter-
mined to be $25,760. Property owners on permanently paved con-
crete alleys are assessed for snoc•~plowing only, while property
owners on all other alleys are assessed actual maintenance
costs for their individual alley and snowplowing- costs.
At the July 25, 1983 city council meeting, the city council
will be as~ed to pass a resolution to set the date of the public
• hearing for August 22, 1983.
It is recommended that the city council on July 11, 1983,
adopt the attached resolution declaring the costs to be assessed
and ordering the preparation of the proposed assessment roll.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas A. Morgan, Jr
Acting City Manager
TAM/ e j a
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION DECLARING.. COST TO BE AS SESSED AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEY MAINTENANCE
AND SNOWPLOWING
C.P. 771
WHEREAS costs have been determined for the maintenance and
snowplowing of the following alleys in the city of Richfield and
the expenses incurred or to be incurred for, such maintenance and
snowplowing amount to $25,760.00:
Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets
1001 Xerxes - Washington 66-67
1002 Xerxes - Washington 67-68
1003 Xerxes - Washington 68-69
1004 Xerxes - Washington 69-70
1005 Wahsburn -Vincent 66-67
1006 Wahhburn - Vincent 67-68
1007 Washburn - Vincent 68-69
1008 Washburn - Vincent 69-70
1009 Vincent - Upton 66-67
1010 Vincent - Upton 67-68
1011 Vincent - Upton 68-69
1012 Vincent - Upton 69-70
1013 Upton - Thomas 66-67
1014 Upton - Thomas 68-69
1015 Upton - Thomas 69-70
1016 Thomas - Sheridan 66-67
1017 Thomas - Sheridan 67-68
1018 Thomas - Sheridan 68-69
1019 Thomas - Sheridan 69-70
1020 Sheridan - Russell 66-67
1021 Sheridan - Russell 67-68
1022 Sheridan - Russell 68-69
1023 Sheridan - Russell 69-70
1024 Russell - Queen 66-67
1025 Russell - Queen 67-68
1026 Russell - Queen 68-69
1027 Russell - Queen 69-70
1028 Queen - Penn 66-67
1029 Queen - Penn 67-68
1030 Queen - Penn 68-69
1031 Queen - Penn 69-70
2001 Penn - Oliver 63-64
2002 Oliver - Newton 63-64
2004 Morgan - Logan 63-64
2005 Logan - Knox 63-64
2007 James - Irving 63-64
~1,
U
Number Surrounding Avenues Surrounding Streets
2008 Irving - Humboldt 63-64
2009 Humboldt - Girard 63-64
2010 Girard - Fremont (35W) 63-64
2011 Girard - Fremont (35W) 64-65
2012 Girard - Fremont (35W) 65-66
2013 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 64-65
2014 Fremont (35W) - Emerson 65-66
201.5 Dupont - Colfax 63-Mildred Dr.
2016 Colfax - Bryant. 63-Mildred Dr.
2017 Bryant - Aldrich 63-Mildred Dr.
2019 Graham - Lyndale 66-Lake Shore Dr.
2020 Aldrich - Lyndale 75-76
2021 Aldrich - Lyndale 76_77
3002 Lyndale - Garfield 68-69
3003 Augsburg - Garfield 70_71
3004 Augsburg - Garfield 71_72
3005 Lyndale - Garfield 72_73
3006 Lyndale - Garfield 73_74
3007 Garfield - Harriet 71-72
3008 Garfield - Harriet 72-73
3009 Garfield - Harriet 73-74
3011 Harriet - Grand 67_68
3012 Harriet - Grand 68_69
3013 Harriet - Grand 72_73
3014 Harriet - Grand 73-74
3015 Grand - Pleasant 68_69
3016 Grand - Pleasant 72_73
3017 Grand - Pleasant 73-74
3018 Wentworth - Blaisdell 66-68
3020 Blaisdell - Nicollet 72-73
3.021 Blaisdell - Nicollet 73-74
3022 Blaisdell - Nicollet 74-75
3023 Blaisdell - Nicollet 75-76
3024 Nicollet - 2nd Avenue 68-69
3025 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 70-71
3026 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 71-72
3027 Nicollet - 1st Avenue 72-73
3028 1st - Stevens Avenue 71-72
3029 1st - Stevens 72-73
3030 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 71-72
3031 Stevens - 2nd Avenue 72-73
3032 2nd - 3rd Avenues 66-67
3033 2nd - 3rd Avenues 71_72
3034 2nd - 3rd Avenues 72-73
3035 3rd - Clinton 66-67
3036 3rd - Clinton 73-74
3037 Clinton -4th 66-67
3038 Clinton - 4th 73-74
3039 4th - 5th Avenues 66-67
3040 4th - 5th Avenues 73-74
3042 5th - Portland 73-74
r~
•
•
Number Surrounding Avenues
4001 13th -:'14th Avenues
4002 14th -15th
4004 1Sth - Bloomington
4005 15th - Bloomington
4006 Bloomington - 16th
4007 Cedar - Longfellow
4008 Cedar - Longfellow
4009 Cedar - Longfellow
4010 19th - 20th
4012 22nd - Standish
4013 13th. - 14th
Surrounding Streets
65-66
62-63
62-63
65-66
65-66
63-64
64-65
65-66
65-66
65-66
66-67
•
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by th ~ City Council of .
the City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The portion of the cost to be assessed agai~.nst benefited
property owners is declared to be 525,760.00;
2. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city engineer
shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed
for such maintenance against every assessable lot, piece or parcel
of land within the district affected, without regard to cash
valuation, as provided by law, and she shall file a copy of such
proposed assessment in her office for public inspection.
3. The city clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed
assessment notify the city council thereof.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
11th tiay of July, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor •
ATTEST:
Sy via K. Berg City C er
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 249
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of Minutes, Tabulation of Bids,
Award of Contract, 1983 Sealcoating Project
On June 29, 1983 bids were opened for the 1983 Sealcoating
project. Three bids were received for this work. The bid min-
utes and tabulations are attached for council review. This is
the fourth year of the phased project to sealcoat all of the
city's streets. An appropriation for this project is included
in the 1983 street division operating budget. Attached to this
council letter is a map showing the area to be.sealcoated in 1983.
Because the low bid of Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. was consid-
erably below the cost estimates prepared by the city staff, it
is feasible to include additional Sealcoating under this contract
by means of a change order addition. Minnesota State Law allows
an addition of up to 20 percent of the original contract amount.
Because of the very favorable bid, it is recommended that the
city council authorize the acting city manager and city staff to
initiate a change order to increase the Sealcoating contract by
this amount. The staff will determine the quantities and addi-
tional area to be sealcoated for the change order document.
Based on the foregoing information, it is recommended that
the city council take the following action:
1. Accept the bid minutes;
2. Award the contract to Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. in the
amount of $84,055.50;
3. Authorize a change order addition to this contract of
up to 20 percent, as allowed by state law.
Respectfully submitted,
1 ~_ I~,~...._ a
Thomas A. Morgan, Jrl
Acting City Manager
m~~ e j a
` v
aN =' _ o o ~ _ i E z
.. r ~ .. ~ ~ _ ~ F
xERxES AvE --- --- -- -_ _ _ _
WASNBL'RN _-•<IZ ,=___=1. _ - _ ._~ _ - _ .~..~--` - -_ - - _ XEAxES GvE
W65NBURh
VINCENT
_ VINCENT
LIPTON -___. -_ .-. - Y_- °^-_ •__.
THOMAS '. .-___ .______ __ _ ._ ._ __-. _,_ LIPTON
- _ __ __ _
_ _ _ _ _- :_ ~ _ __. TNONAS
SNERIDAN - _.__ .. ._. _____ -_-~_- _ _v - - _ ,
Ru SSELI I ---- -__ .. _. _ __ _ _ _ - _.__ _ _ _ _ ~ 3NERIOaN
QUEEN __ •` -~_ _ ._ .._.~ __. ..
PENN •vE. ~=_---- .__ .~~_-- - - --- - f ' QUEEN
-. .__. ..~__.___. ~-__ -. = ~.-_ - ] PENN AVE
a _ _.__
OIIVER, ~ ---r--. _-.-_-_,__ __ _ _ ~~
..__.___ .._ ._-_-_- __ OIIVER
NEWTON '. ~_._ -_ --- __. _'~ _ .._ _-_._,__--_
_.__ rs ..~_ -_.__- _. ~__.' __ .. - ----_ ,~_ NEWTON
YORG4N i'-~~___~,_ -____ _ __ _ -
LOGIN ~ _ - - _. _. -_._ __~_._ _____ -_~.~3.:= ___.~ ___-._.-= MORGGN
KNO% ~--- -.-__-~-___-_._. ~c _ __ ~__, ~___ ~ LOGIN
JAMES ~ - _~_ __: _.._~.__ ~_ _ _-' ____ __ _ _ KNOx
__-~ ._.--_ _._ Y__~= _'~` __ __~__-_ _; JAMES
IRVING :.-` ~ `L,_ _ __ ___._._ --__~
=^i ~^ E IRVING
NuMBOLOT r"-=________=._ -SAC __ =-_k.=-~`oKlvc -^_------- V-_--
GIRARO `.~' ________ ~ -,~-- NUMBOLDT
FREMdR I -- T _ _ ~-?'i •• ~~. ~~ -.-`- - - --- GI R G R C
1ik= --~--~__ -.._ i
EMERSON _-.~_ ___~~ •~~ E ~_-`-~~-__ -_ '~~- FREiipNT
DUPONT ~ -~----___ x O ~ ~T~.t \- EMERSON
COI FAX ~ -_--_ -^^ $ ~ \ m .~~~~~ ~ ~~' D
BRYANT -r+' ^~\~ J - ~'--= COI FA%
`^ 4L DRICN '~ N -~ _.-`~~~rA \, \ ~~~w/ T O /~~- BRYGNT
w ~ ~~\ ~ ~ ~ ~~,7 ~ 4L DRICN
LYNDALE avE ~ _~_ ----_- ~saY~\\ "'~ 6+",r' ~+~1 c __
~GARFIELD _~ ~~~`~^ e~-~ `aj ~., ~"^~-- LYNDIIE AVE
W NA RRIET I__~~_ _~~_^ _ !\ J` \~ L j~ ~ GARFIELD
GRAND i -- ~-__ '~~~L~~ `~~~_~ i NaRRIET
GRAND
r~ PLEASANT !^:--_._'~„'m~~-ai=_~'______._._ _ _ ___ _-_-__ - - _ _ _-.:..cis.--=
~+ PILLSBURY ~'~- -- ~-~~ ~ ~ - - c ~_~^~~- PLEASANT
.. - ______-.._ _ .__yc-_~~__--___ PILLSBURY
WENT WpRTN {'~, ~= _
BLAISDEII ~ __
-- --,~_~-. _~ ~ - =---~~ ~ WENT WOR7N
_y~~~.~. ~~ '~ .~- BLAISDELL
NICOILET 6VE. ~,~
Isr ~,~' ~
O STEVENS ~ ~~~.^ ---~- I, Isl
~ ~ STEVENS
2na ~= ~^= ...cT',. ~ 2nd
3r0 ~ _
I` _._.__~_~~ ~
OLIN TON 1 3r0
~~ ' CLINTON
!! Aln _.~ ~- ~~
z ~il _~ ~_~__~~ `~' _._._~ _ Ern
Stn ;. -~-
^ PpRTl1NC AVE. ~' ~___'_~--_~_ __ ._~_t ___ ~~ Stn
y! PORTUNO AvE
OAKI ANC _-_~~__~-_-_~__
~~. -~-~--~.~ _~~~_.. ~,.. OAKLAND
PARK --~_~..~~_ -~_~~ -__ .~I
COWMBUS ---_- --~._ ___-__ ,__ PARK
~~ COLUMBUS
CHICAGO ' ,~-__ -----_ r
ELLIpT ~ ~ __--___. __-~ ...-.~.__.__, ~ _o
i0 rn ~ -___-_ -^__ ELUOT
-_-.- ~ -~-_--_.= tO to
u rn __-_ ___- ___ __
--.~ -- _ __ __. -__ _ _ ~ t n
Rrn ¢-_--___- _ ___-_._ '
t3 rn j .. __ _-_ -.~_-_-_ -~-~~ i2 rn
i
lI rn ~l __~ - !3 rn
~~- -_ ~ ~c. - - _- __ -~ __ ~ _- __ I s I n
IS rn ~~
BLOOMINGTON --_______@~ _-- ~_,Ty__
161n 1.. -~ ^~~,ad', ~~~` __ BIDOMrMGTpN
_.___. _._ ~_-- 16 en
17 rn ---__~~__`~ __-_
18 rn k - -'--_ _-- ~ _- -_ ~ -_~-
urn
CEDAR AVE _--s- ~\~- ' ~_ -----
DiP _.=______. ' =.__~_ CEDAR AVE
LONGFELLOW __________ ______ _____.______~__~___.~~+`l~s~~
_. _ _ -'
______ __
mm - °' _ - c ---^-- 19th
m : ~ i s ~ a _
2 ' ' ~_ __ _
z ~. ., _ ~ zo r n
t~ 21 sr
z ~ ~ "~-_~=-= 22 ne
8~ O ~_ f '-~ -_ = STANp15N
~~ 2 O ~~
-- 23 .a
< ~ ~
0' a a a A
L ;~ ~ ~ f a _ - v A
_ ~ S f Y Y
7. , , r ~ .~ . w ~
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR
1983 SEAL COATING PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
improvement of 10.872 miles of roadway in Richfield by seal coating,
bids were received, opened, and tabulated according to law;
AND, WHEREAS, it appears that Buffalo Bituminous, Inc. of
Buffalo, 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 Buffalo Bituminous, Tnc.
in the name of the City of Richfield for the improvement
of 10.872 miles of roadway by seal coating according to
the plans and specifications approved by the city council
and on file in the office of the city engineer,
2. The city is
forthwith to
bids, except
and the next
contract has
zereby authorized and directed to return
all bidders the deposits made with their
that the deposits of the successful bidder
lowest bidder shall be retained until a
been signed.
Adopted by the city council this 11th day of July, 1983.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
June 29, 1983
Seal Coating
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the
Administrative Staff was called by Steve Devich, Acting City Clerk,
who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open
and read aloud, bids for Seal Coating, as advertised in the official
newspaper on June 8, 1983.
Present: Ron Rankin, Administrative Services Director
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Tom Ferber, Intern
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations
Coordinator
Michael Eastling, City Engineer
Steve Devich, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND BID SECURITY AMOUNT
Buffalo Bituminous Inc., Buffalo, MN
B.B. 5°!a
Midwest Paving & Recycling, Inc., Eden Prairie
B.B. 5%
Bituminous Roadways, Inc, Minneapolis
B.B. 5%
$84,055.50
$95,664.60
$89,407.55
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and
considered at the July 11, 1983 city council meeting.
Steven Devich Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
$~ 1~
Council Letter No. 248
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Request to Refer Charter Amendment to the
Charter Commission
During the 1983 Legislative Session, the Leg isiative amended
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.345, subdivisions 3,4, and 5,
setting the dollar amounts of contracts subject to the open bidding
law. A copy of the new state statutes and a copy of the current
charter provisions is attached to this council letter.
The new statute increases the amount of contracts that must
use the sealed bidding process from contracts estimated to be in
excess of $10,000, to $15,000; it increases the estimated contract
amount that may use either the sealed bidding process or direct
quotations from $10,000 to $15,000; and amends the contract amounts
requiring quotations only, from contracts less than $5,000 to
less than $10,000.
It is recommended that the city council refer this matter to
the charter commission for their review and consideration of a
charter amendment which would bring the city charter into conform-
ance with the state statutes.
Respectfully submitted,
j nd~+.w~ ~ • ~ ~
Thomas A. Morgan, Jrl
Acting City Manager
TAM/ ej a
APPE?QDL`~ E, CITY CHARTER
~~
f~J
Sub. 7. He shall keep the council fully advised as to the financial
condition and needs of the city, and he shall prepare and submit to the council
the annual budget.
Sub. 8. "He shall prepare and submit to the council for adoption an
administrative code incorporating the details of administrative procedure,
and from time to time he shall suggest amendments to such code.
Sub. 9. He shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by this
Charter or by Iaw or required of him by ordinance or resolutions adopted by
the council.
Sec. 6.03. Departments of Administration. The council may create such
departments, divisions and bureaus for the administration of the city's affairs
as it may deem necessary, and from time to time alter their powers and organ-
ization. It shall, together with the City Manager, prepare and enact a complete
administrative code in the form of an ordinance, which may be amended from time
to time by ordinance. The council may by ordinance abolish. offices which have
been created by ordinance, and it may combine the duties of various offices as
it may see fit.
•
Sec. 6.04. Right of City Manager and Other Officers in Council. The
City Manager, the heads of all departments and such other officers of the city
as may be designated by vote of the council, shall be entitled to seats in the
council, but shall have no vote therein. The City Manager shall have the right
to take part in the discussion of all matters coming before the council, except
as provided in Section 6.02, Subdivision 6, and *_he department heads and other
officers shall be entitled to take part in all discussions of the council
relating to their respective offices, departments or agencies.
Sec. 6.05. Purchases and Contracts. The City Manager may make or let
contracts for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind
of construction work when the amount of-such contract does not exceed $5,000.
Zf such contract exceeds the last stated amount but is less than $10,000, same
may be made or let by the City Manager after first obtaining the approval of
the city council. A11 purchases shall be made and all other contracts shall
be let by-the council, (Bill 1981-36) 12;'28/81
Sec. 6.06. Contracts: How Let. Every contract for the sale or purchase
of merchandise, materials or equipment, or the rental thereof, or for the
construction, alternation, repair or maintenance of real or personal property,
where the amount involved is more than $10,000 shall be let only by the
council upon the recommendation of the City Manager to the lowest responsible
bidder, unless, the council shall otherwise provide by resolution adopted by
a vote of a majority of the council and published once in the official legal
newspaper of the city. The council may, however, reject any and all bids.
Subject to the provisions of the Charter, the council may by ordinance adopt
further regulations for making of bids and letting of contracts.
(Bi11.1981-38) 12/28/81
CITY CHARTER
12/28/81
E.15 CITY OF R1CH~IELD, MINNESOTA
~V ACT
A.c Vo. 58
CH.~PTER \o.
,~
i
2 relating to Local government; setting t`:e dollar
3 amount of contracts subject to the oven bidding law;
4 amending "4i^.nesota Statutes L?82, section a71.3_~,
5 subdivisions 3, ~, and S.
6
SE IT i1ACT~D 3`_' "'E=, L::viS%,..='UR~ Ot _-z' S'~n;... OE' `~_Di`iBSC^_' .
8 Section L. Minnesota Statu=es _582, section =i1.3=5,
9 subdivision 3, is amended to read:
i0 Subd. 3 . [ CCDfTRr^zCTS OVc2 S ~?-8?8 S 15 , 000 . j . ° t`:e amount
11 of the contract is estimated to exceeds ?-oei6 ~i5,000, sealed
12 bids shall be soLici ted by public notice i n ~.... :na_^.ner ar_d
13 subject to the _ec^.:_rements of the Law governing ...,.._rac=s by
13 the particular mu.^._.._~aL:o;~ or c'_ass t:=ereof ~rov=_°d ==.at -.~i=..
_C regard to _epairs and mai :ter_ance .,~ di =ches, bids s:.a11 not be
_5 ~ec.:i _.d _= the es=_-:ated amcunt of =ne ccr_=r_c= _.,as ...,t exc__..
l i the =_mount speci `i ed _.. section l0E . =%= , su di•, i sio._ 2 .
_8 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes '_582, section -,=.3.3,
.? subdivision _, is amended to _ead:
2C Sux. ~. , CC.IT?.?C'l'S =~0:4ve-a^C cv 510, Cu0 _v s'~~ , 000. ] . _
21 the 3mOL'nt O~ t.1°_ ~, .,__tr3C `.. _S eSt_'ateC t0 exC___ v?- .,,Q, QQC
-~~
22 DLlt ._v .. t.. exC_ed o.v-v~7 .7 ..7, ^i ",v, ~_._ ..OntraCt -.°~~ O? •,1a4e~____
L3 either upOP. 52d_°_d .`.1C5 Or V d1reC:.^.~'CO~_dC_... , J .,..,
t2~_ _ny^
LG ..'ri0 Or :TiO r._ .10 t3t_...^.5 ~Or ,.:.°_ _., lase Or 5a__ 'n ~.... vJS;J LF',
20_.:a ri_ t..ou~ ad. __ _____ _or c_cs or .. _..__ w_se co:~ , ~ _~,
5
0
8
a
IO
11
l2
H- c . ':o. 68
:>cui_=menu o. ,, ,,. __.__.~e .,_...._: y. ..__ QuOt8L10I:S Ob ..
t3i"_
o. °~ _ ~E r:2Ct Jn ___~ ~JL 3 =_ _O; OL at ! a?5` OI'° ./~a_ ^_ _--
reCe'_~t t}1ere0_.
Sec. 3. C•Iinn2sota Statutes _932, section _71.315,
subdivisior. 5, is amended to _e_d:
Subd. S. (CCNTR.aC'?'S LcSS ___:~.Di ~~-9~9 510, 000. ~ if the
amount of the contract is estimated to be ss~aaa $10,000 or
_ess, the contract may be ;Wade _~ther upon quotation or _.. the
open mar:~et, in the discretion of the governing body; but,- se
_~_ as a}-se=~ea~__- shall be based on at least t•.ro quotations
'dhiCh shall be kept on ~i1e for a period az at least one fear
after reeeipt thereof.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
~>
Council Letter No. 247
Agenda July 11, 193
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment to the Cable TV Franchising
Ordinance. First Reading.
U
The city council recently gave second reading to an ordin-
ance amending the cable TV franchising ordinance, after a delay
due to some last minute revisions by other cities. After Rich-
field's adoption of the ordinance amendment, the staff learned
that the amendment had been modified still further by other
cities. The item now before the city council is that final re-
vision, recommended for adoption to keep Richfield's franchise
consistent with those of the other four cities.
Most of the recent modifications are minor changes to
sections pertaining to the "line extension" and "service to pub-
lic buildings" sections, and do not directly affect Richfield's
interests. The new amendment also changes procedural aspects of
the acceptance of franchise amendments by the cable company and
the cities, in a manner which we believe better protects the
city's interests.
This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney, and
it is recommended that the city council grant approval to the
first reading of the ordinance, and schedule the second reading
and public hearing for the July 25, 1983 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
~- rte.
Thomas A. Morganl Jf.
Acting City Manager
TAM/eja
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
SETTING FORTH A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES
TO BE PROVIDED BY GRANTEE; MODIFYING THE
INITIAL SERVICE AREA; AMENDING THE LINE
EXTENSION POLICY OF GRANTEE; PRESCRIBING
INSTALLATIONS CHARGES AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND
AMENDING THE EXHIBITS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That Article~I, Section 2, of Ordinance No.
be amended to read as follows:
V. "Public Building" is any building owned or operated
by the United States government or any subdivision thereof,
or the state of Minnesota or any subdivision thereof, or the
City or any other governmental subdivision, or school
district or educational institutions.
SECTION 2. That Article III, Section 4, of said Ordinance
be amended to read as follows:
SECTION 4. FACILITIES.
The Grantee shall c-o7rs'tz'u~t, maintain and continue to provide
all facilities and equipment set forth in the Offering or as
otherwise rovided in Article V, Section 2 and Exhibits A and B
hereto, including, but not limited, to, the headend, hubs,
distribution system, studios, equipment and other facilities.
Grantee's plan, as set forth in the Offering, for implementing
the construction, utilization and maintenance of these facili-
C
-1-
ties, including its plans for accommodating future growth and
changing needs and desires, shall be fully and timely performed.
SECTION 3. That Article III, Section 7 of said Ordinance be
amended to read as follows:
SECTION 7. SERVICE TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS
y
~1Cri ~. La a tc LA.x:7C_crP~ L~24i-CF3 ~ ~ ~ p ~3~3 ~ ~ e ~~-eiy ~3 e ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'3~ s7-~~F3 0 ~ ~~-
-t-~ x cZ-sxa x x-r-P v xz a e- sr-r*c s c~P~3 ~T-~ ~ ~ e ~ ep~ ~ ~~ e ~ ~-T-6 e~ A A ~ 6-T
~.s.b.~.~~-e~e~~-~-, a-~1--ed~ a ~-~ }~~ a l } n Tt i t s t~ e e s i ~-~' i tg,-a ~d a 11
aau: , a: n7s--~rr:3ii~-9~~e~ea~~e~' ~yhe~~'~--9~-~~~~=~~~7-6~y~3e~--~~'-=ca~cQ
-~'~7--ems-- e~*n'-~e'~--e ~1-£i~s,=-c-~~-s e~4~ ~-1 ~=s-~-3f' ~'s a i~"cc~~i e~azas
~ s-~- i~~t-~e~-s i-a -1 as-s~~-eat-~-i~-~h~-9-~€e ~ ~g . £~e•e 4ze ~
Grantee shall initially provide subscriber and institutional
network service, upon request, to public buildings which mad
reasonably utilize such service in the Initial Service Area or
within an extended area pursuant to Part II. A. of Exhibit B to
said Ordinance, as hereby amended. Service to public buildings
outside the Initial Service Area or an extended area shall be
provided pursuant to Article V, Section 2, paragraph D of said
Ordinance.
SECTION 4e That Article V, Section 2, of said Ordinance be
•
-2-
amended to read as follows:
^ l
, /
~_ a.-.
SECTION 2. MODIFICATION OF INITIAL SERVICE AREA; EXPANSION O:
SERVICE AREA; AND LINE EXTENSION POLICY.
A. Service will be provided to dwelling and nonresi-
dential units of the City in areas with an average densit
less than forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or-cable
mile whichever, as determined by City, provides the greater
benefit to the subscribers, (the "extended area"), and not
within the Initial Service Area, upon payment of a construc-
•
-3-
tion charge based upon the cost contribution formula defined
below.
Dwelling and nonresidential units in areas with an
average density of at least forty (40) dwelling units er
street mile or cable mile whichever, as determined by City,
provides the greater benefit to the subscribers, and those
within the Initial Service Area, will not be required to
make a cost contribution pursuant to the cost contribution
formula below in order to receive service; but the installa-
tion charges set out in Part I. A. of Exhibit B to said
Ordinance, as hereby amended, shall apply to such dwelling
and nonresidential units. The monthly charge for cable
service in the extended area shall be the same as elsewhere
in the system.
B. Th a cost contribution for construction charges to
be allocated to each dwelling and nonresidential unit in the
extended area whose occupants petition pursuant to Section 2.
C.1 hereof will be determined as follows:
1. Grantee shall estimate the total cost of
constructing and maintaining for three (3) years from
the date service is available, the line extension to be
constructed in the extended areas. Total construction
cost is defined as including plant make ready and all
labor and material costs necessary to construct and
activate that part of the system commencing at the
-4-
nearest point. of existing plant and running to and
within the extended area.
2. The standard cost per dwelling and nonresi-
dential unit in the extended area shall be determined
b~..dividing the total from (.1) above by 40, being the
standard minimum dwelling unit density.
3. Grantee's contribution to the cost of the
line extension shall be determined by dividing the total
number of dwelling units in the extended area, as
designated by the City Council pursuant to Section
2.C.2 below, by the number of cable miles or street
miles in the extended area whichever, as determined by
City, produces the greater benefit to the subscribers,
,and multiplying the resulting number by the standard
cost per dwelling unit.
4. The difference between the total costs at (1)
above and the Grantee's contribution at (3) above is
the total contribution of the dwelling and nonresiden-
tial units in the extended area.
5. The construction charge to be paid by each
subscriber shall be determined by dividing the total
contribution of the dwelling and nonresidential units
from (4) above by the number of dwelling and nonresi-
dential units whose occupants joined in the petition
pursuant to Section 2.C.1 hereof.
•
-5-
C. Extended areas shall be established and service
__ _
un-der the line extension policy shall be provided in accord-
ance with the following, procedure.
1. Occupants of dwelling and nonresidential units
in an area with an average density of less than forty
(40) dwelling units per street mile or cable mile as
determined above, who desire service shall petition
the Council for designation as an extended area. The
petition shall include a ma showing the dwelling and
nonresidential units proposed to be included in the
designated extended area.
2. The Council shall by resolution designate the
dwelling and nonresidential units to be included in
the extended area.
3. Upon designation of an extended area, Grantee
shall prepare a map indicating the trunk cable line
that will be constructed to serve the extended area and
shall estimate the combined total construction cost and
three (3) year maintenance cost for service to the
extended area (Section 2.B.1), the Grantee's contribu-
tion (Section 2.B.3), and the total contribution of the
dwelling and nonresidential units (Section 2.B.4).
4. Grantee will estimate the construction charge
to each dwelling and nonresidential unit according to
the formula in Section 2.B.5, above. Grantee will
•
-6-
notify Council a.nd occupants in the extended area of
the construction charge estimate by U.S. mail.
5. Occupants within the extended area who wish
to become subscribers will have thirty (30) days after
mailing of such notice to commit to service, by execu-
ting and submitting a commitment form to Grantee. The
commitment form shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the City prior to its use by Grantee.
6. Occupants within the same thirty (30) dam
period shall deposit the amount of the construction
charge estimate into an escrow account to be main-
tained by the City. If the number of occupants who
deposit the construction charge estimate within such
thirty (30) day period is less than the number who join
in the petition (and the aggregate deposit made by such
occupants is less than the total contribution of
dwelling, and nonresidential units required by Section
2.C.7.), Grantee shall, within ten (10) days after the
end of the thirty (30) day period, notify in writing by
U. S. mail such depositing occupants of the deficiency
in the escrow account, and such occupants may make addi-
tional deposits within ten (10) days of mailing of such
notice.
7. If the total contribution of dwelling and
nonresidential units as determined by Section 2.B.4. is
C
-7-
deposited within the time periods specified in C.b
above., Grantee shall construct the line extension.
Construction shall be completed and service made
available to the extended area within twelve (12)
months from the end of the subscriber deposit period
subject to extension of said twelve (12) month period
pursuant to Article V, Section 3, paragraph C of said
ordinance as amended.
8. Upon completion of the line extension
construction and activation of service to the extended
area, Grantee shall submit to the City a detailed state-
went setting forth all actual construction expenses,
including labor, and an estimate of maintenance expense,
with such supporting documentation and information as
the City may request. Said statement shall be cer-
tified by an officer of Grantee. Upon receipt, review
and approval by the City, the City .shall pay to
Grantee the actual cost of construction and projected
maintenance expense, as approved by City, from the
escrow account.. Any excess funds in the escrow account
shall be divided among-and returned to the subscribers
in proportion to the amounts contributed by them.. In
no event shall the money paid to Grantee exceed the
escrow amount.
9. Any occupant in an extended area who did not
•
-8-
participate by initial subscriber contribution under
ara ra hs (5) and (6) above and who wishes to hook u
to the line extension within the first three (3) years
after service is commenced in the extended area-must
deposit into an escrow account to be maintained by the
City the amount of the construction charge estimate
under paragraph 6 above and adjusted in accordance with
paragraph 8 above. All such new contributions shall be
held in escrow until the end of the third year after
service is commenced in the extended area, at which
time all funds in escrow shall be divided equally and
returned to the then current subscribers.
At the end of the three (3) years following the
commencement of service to the extended area, all sub-
seauent subscribers in the extended area shall be
charged the same installation charge as other
subscribers who are in areas with an average density of
at least forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or
cable mile.
D. Nonresidential units and public buildings in
an area not within the Initial Service Area or an extended
area shall be provided service upon acceptance of a quote
from Grantee. The quote shall not exceed the cost to
Grantee, calculated on a time and material basis, of extend-
ing the cable and necessary cable equipment to service said
r~
-9-
user.
E. Grantee shall indemnify and hold the City and its
respective elected officials, officers, agents, employees
and representatives, harmless from and indemnified against any
and all loss, costs, damage and expense, including, without
limitation, attorneys' fees, now or hereafter incurred by
it, and arising out of or due to, or claimed to arise out of
or be due to, this Ordinance, the adoption thereof or the
process followed by City in adopting this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. That Paragraph C(1), Article VI, Section 4 of
said Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
(1) Rates and charges charged by Grantee for monthly
service and '--'--" ~'-= ~- _~,a other charges hereunder shall be
uniform, fair and reasonable and designed to meet all
necessary costs of service, including a fair rate of return
on the original cost, less-depreciation, of the properties
devoted to such service (without regard to any subsequent
sale or transfer price or cost of such properties).
Construction cost contributions shall be made pursuant to
Article V, Section 2 and Exhibits A and B hereto.
SECTION 6. That Article XIV, Section 2, paragraph H, of said
Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
.H. Each exhibit is a part of this Franchise and each.
is specifically incorporated herein by reference. The exhi-
bits are as follows:
-10-
Amended Exhibit A - The heading of Exhibit A is amend to
read as follows:
Map of Construction by Area,
Including Time Schedule and Initial
Service Area.
Amended Exhibit B - Rate Schedule (see Section (7) of
this amending Ordinance for the amendment to Exhibit B)
SECTION 7. That Exhibit B of said Ordinance be amended by
deleting Article I, Section A, paragraph 5.
SECTION 8. That notwithstanding any other provision of this
•
Ordinance, if less than all of the other of the Cities of Eden
Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield offer a similar
franchise Ordinance amendment to Grantee, which is accepted by
Grantee, Grantee or City may cancel this franchise Ordinance
amendment and all of their obligations hereunder by written
notice given to the other not later than thirty (30) days after
all the other of said Cities shall have formally .acted upon their
respective similar franchise Ordinance amendments; provided, that
if Grantee elects to cancel this franchise Ordinance amendment
pursuant hereto, it must also cancel all other franchise
Ordinance amendments granted to it by the other of said Cities
effective simultaneously herewith.
SECTION 9. Grantee shall have thirty (30) days from the last
•
date_of adoption of a similar franchise Ordinance amendment by
all of the Cities listed in Section 8 of this Ordinance, to
-11-
accept this franchise Ordinance amendment in form and substance
acceptable to City. However, in no e ent will acceptance occur
later than ninety (90) days after the adoption of this franchise
Ordinance amendment unless the time for acceptance is extended by
City. Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of
this franchise Ordinance amendment for all purposes.
SECTION 10. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver
to City an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City,
stating that this franchise Ordinance amendment has been duly
accepted by Grantee, that this franchise Ordinance amendment is
enforceable against Grantee and the guarantors of the franchise
granted by the said Ordinance, in accordance with its terms, and
which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable
to City.
SECTION 11. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect upon adoption anal publication and acceptance in writing by
Grantee.
Passed and adopted this day of 1983.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
And
Manager
-12-
~~
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of C ity Manager
Council Letter No. 246
Agenda July 11, 1983
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Presentation of Equipment to the Fire
Rescue Squad by the American Legion
The Richfield American Legion has donated funds to purchase
some needed equipment for the Fire Division Rescue Squad.
At the July 11, 1983 city council meeting, representatives
of the American Legion and the fire division will be present
to make this presentation.
Respectfully submitted,
~~.~~~~
Thomas A. Morgan, Jr.
Actinq City Manager
TAM/eja
--'~
Council Letter A1o. 245
Agenda July 11, 1983
•
~ ~~ ~-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subj~eet:
Council
Purchase in Excess of $2,650
The city council, by resolution, approves the purchase of
construction, materials, supplies, when the amount exceeds
$2,650. There is one such item listed on the July 11, 1983 city
council agenda.
As a part of the 1983 capital budget program for the Depart-
ment of Public Safety, the budget proposes the expansion of
computer capabilities within the public safety operation. Basic-
ally this expansion includes the addition of a freestanding micro-
computer unit in the public safety area. The unit would have
interface capabilities with the existing city computer system.
The Public Safety Department has solicited proposals for the re-
quired computer equipment and related software package. The city
has received one quotation from Computer King, a computer sales
firm located in Edina, for the required equipment in a total
amount of $4802. The Public Safety Department has received a
second quotation for identical equipment from Hagen Office Equip-
ment, Inc., located in Richfield, for a total amount of $4854.
In addition to the equipment offered by Hagen Office Equip-
ment, Inc., the proposal also includes extensive training in the
utilization of the equipment for public safety personnel. Addi-
tionally, Hagen will provide on-site service to the equipment during
the warranty period. This is not available through the Computer
King proposal.
Therefore, even though the Hagen proposal is $52 more than
the Computer King proposal, it is recommended that the city
council authorize the purchase of the equipment from Hagen Office
Equipment, Inc. on the basis of the fact that the proposal also
includes training and proper equipment utilization and the fact
that Hagen is a local Richfield business enterprise.
Respectfully
'i~b R
submitte ,
~n~~
Thomas A. Morgan, Jr.
Acting City Manager
TAM/eja