The URL can be used to link to this page

03-28-83 agenda-~ i~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 110 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Ratification of Labor Contract with Inter- national Association of Firefighters Local 1215 There is an item on the March 28, 1983 city council agenda providing for council approval of a labor contract agreement which has been negotiated with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215, to cover the period from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1984. The International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 is the officially recognized bargaining unit fcr fire division personnel, including the positions of fire captain, fire lieu- tenant and firefighter. There are presently 24 employees repre- sented within this unit. The major changes in the 194-1984 contract with the Inter- national Association of Firefighters Local 1215 are as follows: 1. Effective 1-1-83, a 4% adjustment over 1982 wage rates fcr all classifications. Effective 7-1-83 an additional 3% increased (based on the 1982 rates). The net cost of the increase for 1983 is 5.5%. 2. A 5% adjustment in 1984 wage rates over 1983 wages, for all steps in each classification. 3. An increase in the city's portion of the premiums paid for health and dental insurance premiums from the $113 per month per employee paid in 1982 to a maximum city contribution of $130 in 1983, and $140 per month per employee in 1984. 4. Beginning in 1983, the maximum employee vacation leave for employees beginning their 20th year of employment will be increased from 264 to 288 hours per year. Council Letter No. 110 -2- March 28, 1983 5. The annual clothing allowance was increased from $200 to $225 per employee. 6. Tuition reimbursement language changed from 100% to 75% reimbursement. The change in the city's health insurance contribution and additiol7 of the dental insurance plan, are consistent with the council approved 1983 insurance program for the city's general services and management employees. Other benefit modifications in the contract package relat- ing to clothing allowance and vacation leave are comparable to such benefits paid to firefighters in area communities similar to Richfield. In negotiating the 1983/84 firefighter rates, the following factors were considered: 1. Firefighter settlements in other area communities, which averaged slightly over 60. Richfield has historically maintained a position in the top three communities with respect for top firefighter base wa_ae rate. The proposed package maintains that ~'ra5it ion . 2. Duties of firefighters in Richfield as compared to other communities. • 3. Wage adjustments of other Richfield city employee groups, including the relative position of police officer wage rates. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, approving this labor agreement. Respectfully subrn~.tted, Karl Plollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director Personnel Manager Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND Z'HE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 BARGAIN- ING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 1983 and 1984 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the International Associa- tion of Firefighters Local 1215 Bargaining Unit have reached a complete understanding concerning rates of pay, hours and other conditions of employment for the years 1983 and 1984, and WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts betweers the City and the exclusive representative of employees in in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by council resolution. NOW, THEP.EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Rich- field and the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 Bargaining Unit for the years 1983 and 1984 and orders the provisions of the labor agreement. to be implemented effective January 1, 1983. Passed by the City Counnil of the City of Richfield this 28th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~/~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTP. Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 109 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Authorizing Sale of General Obligation Refunding Bonds As a result of recent developments from the Department of the Treasury and the bond market, it has become possible for the City of Richfield tc issue refunding bonds for our 1932 Redevelopment and 1982 Special Assessment bonds which would result in interest savings to the city. A report prepared by our financial consultants, Evensen- • Dodge, is attached to this council letter as well as a resol- ution which would accomplish this achievement for these savings. A representative of the financial consultant will be present at the March 28, 1983 city council meeting to present the material to the city council. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution authorizing sale of General Obligation Refunding Bonds. Respectfully submitted, f~~5 / ( V Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Finance Coordinator l~ J U 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, rinnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, March 28, 1983, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: n U and the following were absent: The following resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: RESOLUTION NO. s RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS OF 1983 CONSISTING OF $ GENERAL OBLIGATION REDEVELOPMENT REFUNDING BONDS OF 1983 AND $ GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS OF 1983 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Findings: Purpose. 1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is authorized by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) and Section 475.61 of the Act to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund outstanding bonds when determined by the City Council to be necessary and desirable for the reduction of interest cost and the adjustment of maturities of outstanding • issues of bonds. 1.02. It is hereby found and determined that it is necessary and desirable for the reduction of interest cost and the adjustment of maturities of bonds that the City issue its general obligation refunding bonds to refund in advance of their maturities certain outstanding general obligations of the City. Section 2. Refunded and Refunding Bonds. 2.01. The outstanding bonds to be refunded consist of the following: a. $4,100,100 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1982, dated clay 1, 1982, of which the entire principal amount is outstanding (Redevelopment Bonds), and b. $515,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982, dated May 1, 1982, of which the entire principal amount is out- standing (Improvement Bonds). 2.02. To provide moneys to refund in advance of maturity the Redevel- opment Bonds and the Improvement Bonds, respectively, the City shall issue and sell its $ General Obligation Redevelopment Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Redevelopment Refunding Bonds) and its $ General Obliga- tion Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Improvement Refunding Bonds) (collectively, Refunding Bonds). In order to provide additional interest as provided by Section 475.56 of the Act, additional Refunding Bonds in the respective amounts shall also be issued and sold: a. Redevelopment Refunding Bonds - $ ; b. Improvement Refunding Bonds - $ 2.03. The $ General Obligation Refunding Bonds shall be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the following Official Notice of Sale (it being the intention of the Coun- cil that the Redevelopment Refunding Bonds and Improvement Refunding Bonds be sold together and not separately): OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE $ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS OF 1983 CONSISTING OF $ GENERAL OBLIGATION REDEVELOPMENT REFUNDING BONDS AND $ GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS OF 1983 CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of the above bonds will be received in the office of the City Manager of the City of Richfield in City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 until .m. C.T. on Wednesday, April 20, 1983, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for presentation to and con- sideration by the City Council at a special council meeting at .m. C.T. on the same day. Purpose and Security Two issues of bonds are offered; $ General Obligation Redevelopment Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Redevelopment Refunding Bonds) and $ General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Improve- ment Refunding Bonds) (collectively referred to as the "Bonds"). The purpose of the Redevelopment Refunding Bonds is to refund in advance of maturity the outstanding principal amount of the City's $4,100,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1983, dated May 1, 1982. The purpose of • the Improvement Refunding Bonds is to refund in advance of maturity the outstanding principal amount of the City's $515,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982, dated May 1, 1982. Date and Maturities The Bonds will be dated May 1, 1983, will be in denomination of $5,000 each and will mature on February 1 in th~ following years and amounts: Year Redevelopment Refunding Bonds Amount Improvement Combined Refundine Bonds Issues Amount Amount 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 . The City specifically reserves the right, prior to the sale, to reduce or increase the amount of Bonds maturing in the years 1985, 1986 and 1987, and the resulting total amount of the Bonds. If such an adjustment is to be made the City will notify all prospective purchasers thereof by written or telephone communication from the City no later than 12:00 noon C.T. on Monday, April 18, 1983. Redemption Feature The Bonds maturing after February , 19 will be subject to prior redemption at the option of the City in inverse order of serial numbers on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Interest Interest on the Bonds will be payable on August 1, 1983, and semiannually thereafter on each February 1 and August 1. All Bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for Bonds of any subsequent maturity. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1%, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issues may exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. • Paying Agent Principal and interest will be made payable at any suitable bank recommended by the purchaser and approved by the Council, and the City will pay the customary charges for this service provided that such recommenda- tion is received within 48 hours after the sale and the Council will select the paying agent if the recommendation is not approved. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the Bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Delivery At delivery the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed Bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of • the Bonds in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Delivery will be made on May 24, 1983. Legal Opinion • An unqualified legal opinion on the Bonds will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the Bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the Bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City and that the City is obligated and required to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. e of Bid - Amount Sealed bids for the combined issues (the issues of Bonds will not be sold separately) must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time specified above. Each bid must be uncondi- tional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $ , payable to the City Finance Director, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $ bid for prin- cipal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than $ for principal plus accrued interest on all of the Bonds will be considered, and the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informality in any bid. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Dated: March 28, 1983. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing notice of sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit "A", to be published in the manner required by law. The City Council shall meet on Wednesday, April 20, 1983, at o'clock p.m. for the purpose of considering sealed bids on the Bonds and taking any other appropriate action. 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: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • Exhibit "A" ~~ U NOTICE OF SALE $ GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS OF 1983 CONSISTING OF $ GENERAL OBLIGATION REDEVELOPriENT REFUNDING BONDS AND $ GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS OF 1983 CITY OF RICHFIELD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of the above bonds will be received in the office of the City Manager of the City of Richfield in City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 until _.m. C.T. on Wednesday, April 20, 1983, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for presentation to and con- sideration by the City Council at a special council meeting at .m. C.T. on the same day. Two issues of bonds are offered; $ General Obligation Redevelopment Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Redevelopment Refunding Bonds) and $ General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds of 1983 (Improve- ment Refunding Bonds) (collectively referred to as the "Bonds"). The purpose of the Redevelopment Refunding Bonds is to refund in advance of maturity the outstanding principal amount of the City's $4,100,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1983, dated May 1, 1982. The purpose of the Improvement Refunding Bonds is to refund in advance of maturity the outstanding principal amount of the City's $515,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982, dated May 1, 1982. The Bonds will be dated May 1, 1983, will be in denomination of $5,000 each and will mature on February 1 in the following years and amounts: Redevelopment Refunding Bonds Improvement f Refunding Bonds Combined Issue Year Amount 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Am~nnt Amount • The Bonds maturing after February 1, 19 are subject to prior redemption on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par plus accrued interest. Interest will be payable on August 1, 1983, and semiannually thereafter. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1% and no rate may exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. rlinimum price, $ An unqualified legal opinion will be furnished by LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the bonds is to advance of maturity certain outstanding general obligation Bonds of the City. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Dated: rlarch 28, 1983. • 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 minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday, March 28, 1983, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $ General Obligation Refunding Bonds of 1983, of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of 1983. LJ City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 108 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Year IX Community Development Block Grant Program Public Hearing The city council opened a public hearing on March 14, 1983 concerning the Year IX Community Development Block Grant program. The purposes of that public hearing were the follow- ing: 1. Provide citizens with information about the Community Development Block Grant program; • 2. To obtain the views of citizens on local housing and community development needs; 3. To provide citizens with opportunity to comment on the urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives for 1982; 4. To provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the city's proposed use of approximately $288,000 of Year IX Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds. The council continued this hearing until March 28, 1983. On March 14, 1983, the city staff presented to the city council a list of potential projects which totaled approximately $54,000 more than the total funds which would be available. The projects included public services, site acquisition and rehabilitation of a single or two-family dwelling through the Vo-Tech program, the deferred housing rehabilitation loan program which would replace the existing grant program, the site acquisition and preparation project for new construction/ substantial rehabilitation of a residential property, an interest writedown for energy conservation loan program, handicapped improvements to public facilities, and funds for general program administration. At the public hearing it was suggested Council Letter No. 108 -2- March 28, 1983 • that funds be used for the acquisition and reuse of the Lin- coln Hills School and that funds should be used for the under- grounding of utilities. Subsequent to the March 14 meeting, the staff has received a request from a citizen for $110,000 of Block Grant Funds over two years to fund a program to em- ploy low income youth in the community working at such things as landscaping and magazine sales. Written material relating to this proposed use has been attached for your information. It is the feeling of the staff that this particular program would have to be considered a public service and, therefore, would have to come out of the $28,800 project already set aside for public services. There would be insufficient fund- ing available for this request. Attached for your information is a copy of a draft handi- capped accessibility plan recently completed by the city staff. This draft will be reviewed by the Senior/Handicapped Commission on April 18 and presented to the city council along with their recommendation at the following city council meeting on April 25. The funds set aside for handicapped improvements at public facilities will be used to correct the "A" priority items outlined in the handicapped accessibility plan. It is recommended hearing on this matter velopment Block Grant your consideration. that the city council conduct a public and approve the Year IX Community De- program budget which is attached for Respectfully submitted, 1~ ~' Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja Postulates for a Pry,.°atac social Science (oven ex•~eri.:.;ert) This Grogram is sold on the pra~matie theory of truth nar^e1y, that tr'~th i g successful inquiry, a^d inquiry is an ag,ressive rardlir.~ and Coning wlt~'1 DrOb?e''1S t::at Claim attention; 1nCUir3r i5 8X~?r~'^9.^.tdi, 1t intervonas. 7'}:1S 1"1D11eS 3 Close connection Cf kno'~iedae ?^d aCtlons I a:r. not he ^e wreaking of the consequences of inouiry but t:.= process itseL`'. In the social sciences this must mean very of ten, must f t nct, sall_ri.n~ beyond the :calls into areas that are troublesc^:e, or ever. to Mak=r- trouble where all seemed quiet. Certainly i f we consider t'::e ^~a=tens or the certur-y prior to our generation--F~hether Co^:te, tFarx, .?Y•^l1C'~ ~':On, ,~'~iY'~Si:21'^., riT'ODOt~ n, Sorel, Veb le gin, ierin, ~ r=t:d , ~eWB~T, e tC . , etc,--Y~IO are struck by their activism, their actual .^.r orojecte~? exoe i- ?entation or. a civic scale. Some of these ~^.en are unt;:in:a'ole as acau- -^:iCS •3Ttd 30?'r12 ~`_ad ~-~.nBaS~ 3CaG~etT11C liVeS. 1~ 2 ~rireSL~^t-d3'> ,'.^'?oCi,~'.~2'~.:LC.^. n'1~1 ^."_"!'=~'~I~ '?!et}1odO~OCy 1.S acade~rica'_l~T pralSPTaort::y, b;~t 1t a©as not le a^ ~o ~ntsnsely interesting procositions. cue cannot hslti feelir.~ that a good part of the currsnt concern. with statistics ar_d rolling is a '~IaV Of be7.n? aCt1Ve In the '~3rea~~ Wit:iOUt ~Cel.^.~ aCt1VC1S °:?'~aC?d i~; the suc ject matter. T'rere is a good deel of sharrpnin~ of tools but ..^:ot m~;~c^ agriculture. I'^.is practical proposal direct attantinr~ is paid to t'r~e ob jAc t, the function, the cro?ram, the task, the need; the overhead is low; the task will be done with love, st,-yL, and excite.^:ent. T?~e advantages 3:^L' ?CCl•~~ical, 2dllCat7.Ona1, :^Oral, °COnO!`I1C, 't1~1C~2~, ^:?,2:TT '.•'7.i1 be benefited, somebody has to be competent to adznir~ister or responsible to finance. This difficulty of cooing with any multipurpose enterprise, any co.~nmunity, is a fair index of the state of our society. Zt is areal r project to vrow on, to nroect on, ir. the real world, to find one's dentity and hoaefull:~r or_e's vocation, T're early Protestants m_2.de a profoundly happy connection between Justificatior. and a man's CalLirg or 'location in ~aorldly society. b`ax 'rleber famously drew attention to this, ir. his book on the ?rotestart ethic, as an exalaration of the acceptance of ascetic self-righteous C3Dita1lst enterprise and the modern rationalized "srecialized division of Labor" which he equated with calling. I think that he :Hissed the ! si^~ple meanin, of the connection and has thereby taken sociologists off on a wrong track. (.~?odern sociology can hardly stand much Door theology since it has so little at all. ) In the rsible, there are two kinds of prescription about caliin~. rirst, ~'~e simple provert~ial wisdom: "Modestly atter_d to your business and you'll do all right." Second, the apocalyptic gospel advice that a man should carry on in his station in a darr~ned world for the few years till the Second Corning, ;,ecause he would be lac'.sing in faith to ^:ake 1^rg glans. dut the point of the Protestant eornection was that, in religious co^~munity, t're various occupations in fact justify bar ?wing ~eonle the right ongoing activity. Vocation is the wa~J a man recogrizes :.imsel..f as bel.on~ing, or appoints i U hi:~self, in the community life and =cork. We see, hew a c:.ild tares on the languages of his Weer ?roups that he chooses because they are his ideals as he brows uo. So his occupations. A Jood community has, for most Dart, positior:s and callings that facilitate a max.'s acti~rity and achievement. It is a world for him. A mar. might have the vocation, 'rnoTa it, in various ways: by c:~ildhood and family tr=.ditions; throuch his chosen peers; by interest and aotitude; throua'r_ a teacher Taho brings him out; by inspiration; or even by recogniz- ing t'_:at a certain job must be done and responsibly accepting the necessity as his own, because it is his co!r~~nunity and various jobs may be eauivalent to him (his real vocation is being a citizen). A man may do a jcb because he can, noblesse oblige. Sometimes the community does not offer the needed opportunity, but has to make a place for it when it is wrested by the man: this is the case of ori?ira1 creative persons who appoint themselves to an idea Wes for tre commmunity, a vocatior_ rot provided by the community, but that finally the conMunity accepts. A good community tries to provide every youth with his right calling, undsrstandin~, however, teat its providence is not Providence. Vocation, therefore, is a solid .rea*~s of findin.; one's opportu::ities, t~~lings worth irhile, useful, andronorable to do and be justified by. As such, vocations are neit~zer traditional nor rationalistic in some system, bill Whatever }lappenS t0 be the Ori~Olrir WOr?{ Of the particular COmi.^.unz.ty ~f humar_ interests. The religious point is t:at a man can work haw', as every ^~an wants to do; can do it boldly and "lose himself" becuase r.is community supports him. On t'~.is interpretation, the "Protestant Et!:ic" is correct; and when our society now turns against it, it is admitting that it has lost a saving grace. I think the case is as follows: :;very profound new proposal, inverts and discovers a new property of "Human Natu_~s." ?enceforth it is going to be in these terms teat a young fellow will grow up and find his identity and his task. So if we accumulate the revolutior. proposals of modern times, we have named the goals of modern education, '.de saw that it was the aim of Progressive r~ducation to carry this program through. Hut no doubt, in our runaway, one-sided way of life, the proposal to conserve human resources and develop human capacities has become a radical inr~ovatior.. JOHN v, STEGrR y , ------ ~,, _-~; 7145 I.cGar; ~v, s, RIC~'I~ID :~`_n, 55+23 869-812?--8590189 • ~~ TcRO 21-2 sIDE sa~:ERSrTQ?r1EP.5 #2 Tone z1-~ RuaR saGG~Rs ~2 TCRrJ TC-650 TRP~RS ~1 TORO TC-58150 TIL~~. ~1 USED TRTJC:{ m ~1 1 R4I:r:R 1 a PP ~~ II C OMpUTE'R X20 cTSri a~LaRZC:~s (with livestock) =5 s rc ~c T.T.+ TRa I ~.Rs laoo caa~. of ~EI,i,,^;a RoaD PaINT ~1 TcRo Tc-13a ~~R RICK T?:e Hain theme of this grogram. Growth, like any ongoing function, requires adeoua+.,e objects in the environment to met the needs and capacities of the growing chi?d, boy, you±t~,, and young ~^an, until '_^_e ca_n Bettor choose and make his ;;an environ~ert. It is r_ot a "gsych- ological" question of Door influer_ces and bad attitudes, but ar, ob ject- 1t7~ ~UeStlOn Or real opnorturiitieS fOr wort'.:Wt~~,'_° °v'~.n..rlcnL+p~ Th,o t.o±al a^!o~.~:t asking for *his progra.-~ (two years) :~7G,ooo for eauigrrent and Ins~irarce. X35.000 for salary and other ex~nse, HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY PLAN RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION The City of Richfield has been experiencing ar. increasing popula- tion of elderly persons and physically handicapped persons. These people are not always afforded full access to public facilities within the community because of architectural barriers. The public facilities within the community were designed and constructed for use by non-handicapped persons and in many cases do not comply with Chapter 55 of the Minnesota Uniform Building Code entitled "Facili- ties for the Handicapped", The purpose of this plan is to identify the architectural barriers which exist within the public facilities owned and operated by the City of Richfield. The plan will establish general goals, objec- tives and priorities for the orderly removal of the identified architectural barriers within those facilities. GOALS 1. To provide barrier free access to all municipally owned and operated public facilities in Richfield in accordance with Chapter 55 of the Dinnesota Uniform Building Code. 2. To provide barrier free access to privately owned properties which serve the general public. • OBJECTIVES 1. To construct all new structures and municipal facilities to be barrier free in accordance with Chapter 55 of the Minnesota Uniform Building Code. 2. To bring existing public facilities in general compliance with Chapter 55 of the Minnesota Uniform Building Code. 3. Encourage private property owners to improve handicapped access to their structures. GENERAL HIGH PRIORITY MINOR IMPROVEMENTS The following are high priority improvements which should be com- pleted at all municipally owned facilities. 1. Provision of sufficient number of handicapped parking spaces at all municipally owned facilities. Handicap parking stalls should be a minimum of 12 feet wide and properly signed for handicapped use only. 2. Provision of barrier free access into all municipally owned facilities. Door thresholds should be modified as necessary. 3. Restroom mirrors and dispensers should be lowered to 40 inches and restroom grab bars should be provided at all municipally-owned facilities. -2- HAi~1DICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY STUDY OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS • The following is. a summary of detailed surveys completed of all municipally owned buildings by Richfield Public Safety Department staff within the City of Richfield. Necessary improvements are identified along with an estimated cost and the priority of each improvement (A=high priority, B=medium priority and C=low priority). 1. CITY HALL Estimated Downstairs Mens Bathroom Cost Priority Remove outside vestibule door and replace with 3 foot wide door frame (no door) Remove inside vestibule door and replace with 3 foot wide door and frame $1,500 A Raise one sink to 34" 200 A Lower mirror to 40" 50 A Lower towel dispenser to 40" 50 A Modify partitions on water closet 2,000 A Raise water closet to 17" with extender lid (new stool) and move partition for urinal to give 31" clearance 217 A Lower urinal to 18" 750 A Install grab bars on both sides of the water closet 250 A TOTAL $5,017 Downstairs Womens Bathroom Remove two existing doors and install 3 foot wide doors and frames, and move one light switch (out- side door - $1,200, inside door $1,600) $2,800 A Raise one sink to 34" 200 A Lower mirror to 40" and remove shelf 50 A Lower towel dispensers to 40" 50 A Raise seat on water closet 217 A Change door and partitions on one W.C. for 36" x 36" clearance in front of stool 2,000 A Grab bars both sides of water closet 250 A TOTAL $5,567 -3- City Hall Downstairs • Change double door to Public Safety wing to allow one 3 foot wide opening Modify water fountain TOTAL City Hall Upstairs Dispatchers bathroom mirror lowered to 40" Grab bars Provide elevator TOTAL • 2. GOLF COURSE Provide two parking spaces with signs Mens bathroom Lower urinal to 18" Lower mirror 5" TOTAL • 3. CENTRAL GARAGE Lower towel dispense Lower mens bathroom Lower soap dispenser Fountain - fix lever handicapped fountain Estimated Cost Priority $1,000 B 1,000 B $2,000 $ 50 250 100,000 $100,300 B B B $ 200 A 750 B 50 A $1,000 r in womens bathroom 10" $ 50 urinal 6" 500 3" 50 and lower 6" or replace with 1,000 TOTAL $1,600 4. ICE ARENA Needs three parking spaces with handicapped signs Extend water closet partitions and swing doors out New grab bars (use stall farthest south) $ 300 2,000 250 A B A B A A A -4- Estimated Cost Priority Womens bathroom - change one stall, extend partition, swing doors out $ 2,000 A Provide new grab bars in womens bathroom, stall farthest north 250 A Provide elevator 100,000 C TOTAL $ 104,800 5. COMMUNITY CENTER Upstairs mens bathroom - lower one mirror to 40" $ 50 A Extend water closet partitions 3" 1,000 B Upstairs womens bathroom - extent water closet 4" 1,000 B Lower one mirror 4" in upstairs womens bathroom 50 A Lower upstairs fountains 2" 500 B • Downstairs mens bathroom - install level handles on one sink 200 A Lower one mirror to 40" in downstairs mens bath- room 50 A Raise one lav 1" in downstairs mens bathroom 200 A Lower urinal 6" 750 B Widen entrance door 1" 1,700 B Downstairs womens bathroom - lower one mirror and provide lever handles on one sink 200 A Lower one soap dispenser to 40" in downstairs womens bathroom 50 A Widen entrance door 1" 1,700 B Provide lever handles on new downstairs doors (new partitions in lunchroom) 200 A TOTAL $7,650 -5- • Estimated Cost Priority 6. WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER Lower fountain $ 500 B Provide one handicapped parking space and sign 100 A Mens bathroom - provide new grab bars 250 A Widen entrance door 1" 1,200 C Lower lavatory 1" and add lever handle 250 A Lower mirror 6" 50 A Lower towel dispenser 14" 50 A Widen water closet area 4" and door 1" and pro- vide riser seat (new stool) 217 A Womens bathroom - widen door 1" 1,700 B Widen water closet entry 1" in Womens bathroom 500 B • Provide riser seat and new water closet in Womens bathroom 217 A Raise one sink and add lever handle in Womens bathroom 250 A Lower mirror to 40 in Womens bathroom 50 A Lower towel dispenser to 40" 50 A TOTAL $5,384 7. NEW FORD TOWN PARK Raise water closet 12" $200 C Provide lever handles on doors to bathroom 250 C TOTAL $450 8. TAFT PARK NORTH BUILDING Provide push button in lavatories and modify fountains 750 B Lower urinal 2" 100 B Provide one handicapped parking space and sign 100 A TOTAL $950 -6- Estimated • Cost Priority 9. TAFT PARK SOUTH BUILDING Provide push button lavoratory and provide new fountain $3,000 B Install new grab bar in mens bathroom 150 A Lower urinal 2" 750 B Extend water closet compartment one foot 500 B Womens bathroom - extend water closer parti- tions 3" 500 B Provide one grab bar in womens bathroom 150 A Provide two handicapped spaces and signs 200 A TOTAL $5,250 10, ROOSEVELT PARK Lower fountain 3" $ 500 B • Modify water closet (currently unuseable) 1,500 B TOTAL $2,000 11. AUGSBURG PARK Womens bathroom - provide verticle grab bar $150 A Lower towel dispenser to 40" in womens bathroom ~ 50 A Mens bathroom - provide verticle grab bars 150 A Modify 3" step at building entrance threshold 200 A Provide one handicapped parking space 100 A TOTAL $650 12. DONALDSON PARK Provide two handicapped spaces and signs 200 A Lower water fountain 4" 600 B Mens bathroom - relocate grab bars 100 B Raise sink 22" and add lever handles in mens bat h- room 250 A -7- Estimated • Cost Priority Lower hand dryer 7" in mens bathroom $ 150 B Womens bathroom - relocate grab bars 100 B Raise sink 3" and provide lever handles in womens bathroom 250 A Lower hand dryer 7" in womens bathroom 150 B TOTAL $1,800 13. ADAMS HILL PARK Provide new fountain $2,000 C Lower one hand dryer 150 B One handicapped space and sign needed 100 A TOTAL $2,250 14. CHRISTIAN PARK Lower hand dryer $150 B Provide one upright grab bar in mens and womens bathrooms 150 A Provide one handicapped parking space 100 A TOTAL $400 15. FIRE STATION NO. 2 Modify water closet partitions, extend to 36", and swing door out $2,000 B Add grab bars in restrooms 250 B Lower urinal 6" 750 B Raise one sink 2" 200 B Lower mirror 50 B Provide one handicapped parking space 100 B • TOTAL $3,350 -8- Estimated Priority • 16. SWIMMING POOL Raise lavatory 1" $217 A Provide grab bars in water closet 250 A Lower urinal 4" 500 B TOTAL $967 17. CEDAR LIQUOR STORE Provide two handicapped parking spaces and signs $ 200 A Bathrooms require complete remodeling 15,000 C TOTAL $15,200 18. PENN LIQUOR STORE Provide one handicapped parking space and sign $ 100 A Modify sidewalk ramp and increase the size of the landing in front of door 1,000 B Womens bathroom - lower towel dispenser 50 A Lower mirror in womens bathroom 50 A Move soap dispenser in womens bathroom 50 A Provide lever handles in womens bathroom 200 A Mens bathroom too small, would require remodeling 7,500 C TOTAL $8,950 19. LYNDALE LIQUOR STORE Provide one handicapped parking space and sign 100 A Lower telephone 50 A Bathrooms would require complete remodeling 15,000 C TOTAL $15,150 LJ YEAR _:~ CCMMU~II'~'Y ~E`i"~0°~IE~'" BLGC~ vR a:~T FUND BUDGE 7' _. ?ublic Services 2. Si`e acquisition and Rehabilitation o a si.^.gTe or twc -amily dwelling. !Vo-Tech program) 3. Ce~erred housing rehabilitation loan grogram (replaces existing grant program) '. Site acquisition and preparation =or new construction/substantia_ • rehabilitation o~ a residential property ~. _nterest write-down .or energy cor_servation loans ~. riand~capped improvements to public acilities 7. General administration T ~ T y L :`ADS aVaT_LaBLE SHCRT^aLL Recom- amount mended priority Requested Budget l S 28,800 5 28,800 ~ $ 80,000 S 30,000 _ $100,000 S1G0,000 2 $ 78,000 34,200 3 S 10,000 0 i S 25,000 S 25,000 y S 20,000 S 20,000 534'_,800 5288,000 5288,000 5 53,800 ~/ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 107 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Lincoln Hills School-Community Center For the past three or four weeks, the city staff has been analyzing the potential of Lincoln Hills School for use as a community center for the City of Richfield. In addition we have re-examined the potential of Lincoln Hills School site for housing. All of this examination leads us to the opinion that the City of Richfield should definately acquire the Lincoln Hills School site if it can be obtained at a value which is not excessive. The uses which could be made of the property are for housing, a community center including a senior center, or a community center for other purposes. At the council meeting on March 28, 1983 at 5:30 p.m. the staff will be present to discuss with you these alter- natives and their implications on the city's capital improve- ment budget, and operating budget. I look forward to review- ing that information with you on Monday. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Program Directors ~%~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 106 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Revised Off-Street Parking Permit, 2901 West h6th Street Mr. Gerald Fingerman has applied for permission to revise the layout of the existing parking area of the structure at 2901 West 66th Street. The structure is currently occupied by a Pilgrim Cleaner and laund romat operation. Mr. Fingerman wishes to construct a second story addition onto the structure and increase the total floor area from 4,500 square feet to 9,000 square feet. The city approved the existing off-street parking • permit in 1964. The applicant is indicating that two additional parking stalls will be provided. The city staff has reviewed this proposal and found that the proposed parking layout would be three parking stalls short of what would be required for this type of use by existing city off-street parking guidelines. However, it is the staff's opinion that this shortage would not be detrimental to the business or the surrounding neighborhood. The expanded space would not re- sult in any additional traffic or parking need on the site as it would be used strictly for storage and for the relocation of an existing office. The applicant is not contemplating any ex- panded services or other use of the site which would generate more traffic . The staff feels that the existing driving aisle on the north side of the building is too narrow and does not meet existing city guidelines for minimum width for two-way driving aisles. This driving aisle could be widened by narrowing the nine-foot grass strip between the driving aisle and the city sidewalk along 66th Street. The trade-off for this would be that the green strip along 66th Street would be lost as would the snow storage space. It is the opinion of the city staff that the proposed addi- tion to the layout at 2901 West 66th Street would not be detri- Council Letter No. 106 -2- March 28, 1983 • mental, and therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the revision by passing the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja ac+s-nN~ ar~,~NE~ ~c-p.~ i• 4 ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~ i ~~ cx~sT'~N G i 1 Zry ~; ~- ~i 5a' - v'' 2- ~~ ~ ~9 ~ ~ 4 r8 T 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ z s ~~ ~~- } - . ~ h~ t 3 x 1,2. 7 ~ ~~-'- z'' 1 ~~ ~~ _ _ _ _~ 9 __ __ ~ • - _--_ ~ LL E _y_ _ "` - ~~ot'~oSEf~ t~C.~N v ~~ ~,s ~ z4 ~ ~ z3 ~, z Q ~o n 1 '~ f 9 7 ~ X~~ .TL_tir- -4 - - ~ Q _ Q~ 11 3 ~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ !U ~ ~ ~ ~1: Z S N - Q /'~ ~~ i- v'~ a ~ ~ ~ 4 z a~ N hl.' o _ a.. ~ 3 7 b ~ p- «. ~ ~ - u Sa'- o`' ` _ 6a~_ z~~ 21 t~ _p ~ __ ~ q -, •L, ~.u N'D''io Mf\T 4500 =: Z~ = ZZ- S - - L ~- C Y -- - -- O~ F AGE ZSo _ Z ~ = \ . o ~ ~ P._~_S~3 ~__~B R~L~ ~_ 2 E_ A Ra!~ u ~ E~ Zw4 ~o~ sw~ 42SA= \ooo : 4.2 S L ~ .~-~ D ~v C ~ A N ~ R s ---- ivTAL ~E~2uttE~ - = Z 7- 7S = Z 8 ~ ~?!r ~o ~+ G f?i ~ rL ~o , - ~ ~k~_.~ -~T ~ ~ Zov i~ ~ ~ = Z S - - - RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFFSTREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION • No. 83-3, CONTRACT NO. 2352 Gerald Fingerman Location: 2901 W. 66th Street Use; Cleaners/Laundromat BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet park- ing as contained in Offstreet Parking Application No. 83-3, Contract No. 2352 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract for such offstreet parking as here- inafter authorized. 2. That the proposed offstreet parking contract for the improvement of said offstreet parking, bearing Contract No. 2352 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this City. 3. That the offstreet parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with- . drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the Community Development Director and City Manager, to insure the offstreet parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Offstreet Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Offstreet Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05, Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of _ _, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • /6 ~ CITY CF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 105 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Revised Off-Street Parking Permit, 501 West 77th Street Mr. Donald Unteed has applied for permission to revise the layout of the existing parking area of the structure at 501 West 77th Street. The structure is presently occupied by Crown Aluminium Products Company which manufactures aluminium extru- sions. The area of the structure is 17,500 square feet. There are now eight angled off-street parking spaces on the east side of the building. The applicant wishes to restripe the parking lot to eliminate those eight spaces and substitute eight deadend spaces. This would free up a portion of the lot for a future outside storage enclosure. The staff has reviewed this proposal and found that 18 park- ing spaces are required, and 19 spaces will still be provided under the revised layout. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution approving the revised layout. Res ectfully submitted, ~. 1 I`{ ~ ^yy~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja • 1 c ~ ~ ~~ i t ~- t~~gti ~ ~ _ t= ~ I h : . ~ ~r ,,1 I I I '' I ! I ~ ~, ~. Spaces _. t i :> x I ~ `~ ~ ~~ ;~ -~ '~ ca '~ ~J ~ O Fib W f-' ~ ~. O H ~ -- CD H ~ W O -. ErJ .-ay T' 'p ~~ 1. ~-t- 1 ~ t-' . c F-' ~ H rl- N ~ J - 1 +. ct- O N ,'"~' C .' Q am N C1] ~ m ~ ~ ~i ~i Sri ~ ~ ~~ ~ • V . ~~ ~ . ~n rn ~ p w ~~ ~~ O ~ w Z C i t ,, ~~ ~r. ?~ ~, i vv ~ O o - '"~ I I t ~ ~ w 9 d ~ i ~y~- I CJ q- S ~a?ceS ~ cJ~Q t ~,~ \ ~ ,n ~: s '.: ~- I i i I r 5 Spaces ~ I I I~~ ~g , ~ f~ 9 ,'"'~" ~ ~ i I I I I o ~ I, I I 1 I o I 6 S ~.ces I i ~ i ~ ~~g,5+ x l i ~ I ~ N O O ~N lJl O i• O I RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFFSTREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION No. 83-4, CONTRACT N0. 2353 . Donald Unteed Location: 501 W. 77th Street Use: Manufacturing BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the offstreet park- ing as contained in Offstreet Parking Application No. 83-4, Contract No. 2353 is hereby approved subject to and upon completion of performance of the contract for such offstreet parking as here- inafter authorized. 2. That the proposed offstreet parking contract for the improvement of said offstreet parking, bearing Contract No. 2353 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this City. 3. That the offstreet parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with- drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the Community Development Director and City Manager, to insure the offstreet parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Offstreet Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Offstreet Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the offstreet parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~~ Council Letter No. 104 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject Council Public Hearing, Sidewalk Improvement Project, 1983 On March 14, 1983, the city council received the prelimin- ary engineering report for the proposed 1983 sidewalk project and scheduled the public hearing for March 28, 1983. The locations are as follows: 1. Lyndale Avenue 2. 73rd Street 3. Diagonal Blvd. 4. 65th Street 5. 65th Street 6. Xerxes Ave. 7. Rae Drive 8. Vincent Avenue 9. 78th Street 10. 78th Street 11. 78th Street 12. Bloomington Ave. 13. 77th Street 14. 18th Avenue 15. 70th Street 16. 76th Street West 74th Street - 76th Street North Portl and Avenu e - 12th Avenue North 12th Avenue - Cedar Avenue North Penn Avenue - Russell Avenue South Upton Avenue-X erxes Avenue East 62nd Street - 65th Street West 65th Street - 66th Street East 65th Street - I 35C' South North 12th Avenue- + 250' West North 12th Avenue - 13th Avenue North 14th Avenue - Cedar Avenue East 75th Street - 76th Street South Nicollet Avenu e - + 130' West West 70th Street - Diagonal Blvd. North Xerxes Avenue - Humboldt Avenue South Xerxes Avenue- Humboldt Avenue The attached preliminary engineer's report indicates an estimated project cost of $338,858. The estimated average resi- dential assessment will be $191, and the average commercial esti- mate is $1,268. Funding for the project will come from Municipal State Aid funds and special assessment bonds. The Xerxes Avenue sidewalk was removed from last year's project when the county wculd not allow the construction of a sidewalk on the west side of the trees between 64th Street and 65th Street. It is recommended that the trees be removed fcr sidewalk construction unless all of the property owners on the 6400 block are willing to grant an easement for sidewalk con- struction. Council Letter No. 104 -2- March 28, 1983 At the close of the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution ordering the 1983 • sidewalk project. Because the improvement involves special assessments, a four-fifths vote is required. With six voting members, five votes will be required. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja • PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST 1983 SIDEWALK AND APPURTENANT WORK CP 782 I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete sidewalk and handicap ramp installation on designated roadways in Richf field . II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT Integration and completion of pedestrian system as identified in Richfield's sidewalk policy. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT February 28, 1983 IV. LOCATION Sidewalk construction with handicap ramps ON SIDE FROM 1. Lyndale Avenue West 74th Street • 2. 73rd Street North Portland Avenue 3. Diagonal Blvd. North 12th Avenue 4. 65th Street North Penn Avenue 5. 65th Street South Upton Avenue 6. Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 7. Rae Drive West 65th Street 8. Vincent Avenue East 65th Street 9. 78th Street North 12th Avenue 10. 78th Street North 12th Avenue 11. 78th Street North 14th Avenue 12. Bloomington Ave. East 75th Street 13. 77th Street South Nicollet Avenue 14. 18th Avenue West 70th Street 15. 70th Street NORTH Xerxes Avenue 16. 76th Street South Xerxes Avenue V. FEASIBILITY TO 76th Street 12th Avenue Cedar Avenue Russell Avenue Xerxes Avenue 65th Street 66th Street I 350' South ± 250' West 13th Avenue Cedar Avenue 76th Street ± 130' West Diagonal Blvd. Humboldt Avenue Sheridan Avenue The sidewalk and handicap ramp project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the streets and avenues as described under sidewalk construction in item number IV above. -2- VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST a) Construction of approximately 20,022 lineal feet of 5' concrete sidewalk improvements Estimated Construction Costs $211,432.00 20 percent indirect cost 42,286.00 253 , 718 .00 b) 100 handicap ramps with new sidewalk Estimated Construction Cost $ 21,450.00 20 percent indirect cost 4,290.00 $ 25,740.00 c) Construction of retaining walls, tree removals, and tree relocations Estimated Construction Cost $ 49,500.00 20 percent indirect cost 9,900.00 $ 59,400.00 Total Estimated Project Cost a) Sidewalk Construction $253,718.00 b) Handicap Ramps with Sidewalk 25,740.00 c) Retaining Walls, Tree Relocation/ Removal 59,400.00 $338,858.00 VIII ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT The cost of this project is proposed to be assessed partially to the abutting property owners and the remaining cost to be paid for by State Aid Funds. Estimated cost of sidewalk construction: $253,718.00 = 20,022 lineal feet = $12.68/lineal foot of sidewalk Residential Assessment $12.68/L.F. x 20% _ $2.54/assessable foot In the residential areas the assessment will be figured from the short side of the lots that abut the improvement. Typical Assessment for 75' lot 75' x $2.54 = $190.50 -3- Multiple and Commercial Assessment $12.68/L.F. x 50/ _ $6.34/assessable foot. In multiple and commercial areas the assessment will be figured on the total length of lot abutting the amprovement Typical assessment for lot with 200' abutting improvement: 200' x $6.34 = $1,268.00 I hereby certify this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~~~~~~ Micha Eastling, P.E. r~ U Date: February 28, 1983 Registration No. 15066 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING 1983 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION C.P. 782 AND PREPARATION OF PLANS WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 14th day of March, 1983, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following streets by construction of sidewalk: ON Lyndale Avenue 73rd Street Diagonal Blvd . 65th Street 65th Street Xerxes Avenue Rae Drive Vincent Avenue 78th Street 78th Street 78th Street Lloomington Avenue 77th Street 18th Avenue 76th Street 70th Street SIDE FROM TO West 74th Street 76th Street North Portland Avenue 12th Avenue North 12th Avenue Cedar Avenue North Penn Avenue Russell Avenue South Upton Avenue Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 65th Street West 65th Street 66th Street East 65th Street I 350' South North 12th Avenue ± 250' West North 12th Avenue 13th Avenue North 14th Avenue Cedar Avenue East 75th Street 76th Street South Nicollet Avenue ± 130' West West 70th Street Diagonal Blvd. South Xerxes Avenue Sheridan Avenue North Xerxes Avenue Humboldt Avenue AND WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weekly publications of the required notice was given as required by law and the hearing was held thereon on the 28th day of March, 1983, at which time 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. 2. Michael J. Eastling, P. E. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement, He shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the council this 28th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor • ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • --, D+S HSIO N 9. Dpi ti utC Vll MOll3i0N( 3na tla03 VIE V1~ 41! NOlONIWOC>- 41! 411 VIS Vli YI 41 C 10111 OOa01H snewnlo NaC ONa I)ta '3na ONallaO VI 41 NOlNII G/ v4 S N3n31 i! '3na 1311001 1130S1v1 HlaOM1N31 AanaSlll 1NVSa3'b ONa a'. 1'3laaal O131i a a! '3nv 3lvONA' HOIaOI~ 1NaAaf x ai lo. 1 NOd nC NOSa3 W3 1NOW321: oaaalo laloewnH ONlnai S3war XONx NaOOI Na0a0W NOl M3N a3nll0 3nv NN3d N 33nC 11355na NvOIa3H5 SvwOHl NOldn 1N30NIn NanBHSVM '3na 53xa3x >~ z v, ~ (n ~ ~ y ~ y u! N ~ ~ ~ v, v v ~ v, ~- e hm Z O v C L ~ c n C 10 b V7 ID 10 lD fC V7 ~ ~ r r r !~ r n n n 1- N O U Z D~ s ,~ r W ~ z O ~' ~ > Ll. o fi r ~, U U (> Z o 4 ~ W Z 11310 NOl 7 aa030 3! !I 31 .O NIWOOIB rl .I 1 11 ll3 OIHO wmoJ ~d l xa0 ONVIlaOd NIIJ n315 1311001N ]Slala OMLN3M SSllld ia3ld a0 aaH iaas 31a0NAl Ola Eas IoJ Ina i3 W3 3ai ilo iBwnH al ,r )l iOw A3 N ]O NN3d 0 sna i3H5 M1 n N In HStlM s3xa3x M ~ ~ r-1 rl 3 3 ~ Q) .~ _~ •r'~ ~ //~'~ Ul i.]H 'r-~ ~ ~-I w a ^ • Cn' ^ T~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~~ ~ CITY OF' k1CHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 103 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Memh~ers of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Revocation of Harriet Avenue, 66th to 67th Street, as a Municipal State Aid Street The Municipal State Aid system was devised to determine con- structi_cn needs and to maintain a statewide standard for streets. Based upon popL.]_ation and construction needs, a city recieves MSA funds, which is an allotment of the gasoline usage tax. A city may designate up to a maximum of 20 percent of its city streets as MSA streets. Each year the city's total MSA needs are established, i.e., the construction costs to bring the entire city MSA system up tc standard. Richfield's total city street mileage in 1982 was 131.63. Of this 26.33 miles were eligible as MSA streets. However, during 1982, Pillsbury Avenue, 65th Street to 66th Street, and Harriet Avenue, 66th Street to 6`7th Street, were both vacated as city streets. This reduces the total mileage upon which the maximum 20 percent MSA designation is based. Therefore, it is necessary to revoke the designation of an MSA designated street to avoid being above the maximum mileage allowed. This action will reduce our annual allotment by about $2,000. It is recommended that the designation of Harriet Avenue, 66th Street to 67th Street as an MSA street be revoked. This street has been vacated by the city and removing it from the MSA system will reduce the MSA designated mileage to the allowed amount. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution, revoking the designation of Harriet Avenue, 66th Street to 67th Street, as an MSA street. Respectfully submitted, ,~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Engineer KN/eja RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION REVOKING HARRIET AVENUE, 66th STREET TO 67TH STREET AS A MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Richfield that the road hereinafter described should be revoked as a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota Laws; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the road described as follows: to-wit: Harriet Avenue 66th Street to 67th Street Control Section 354 Segment O10 Hennepin County, Richfield, Minnesota be, and hereby is, revoked as a Municipal State Aid Street of said i city subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Highways of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Highways for his consideration Adopted by the City Council of Richfield this 28th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • ~ /~oA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 102 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Fee Waived Raffle Licen~.e - 4th of July Committee The 4th of July Committee has applied for a raffle license to be held in conjunction with a spaghetti dinner fund raiser on May 5, 1983. The raffle ticket proceeds will be used to offset costs associated with the city's annual 4th of July celebration. It is the recommendation of the public safety department, in which I concur, that the city council approve this raffle license request. Respectfully submitted, Karl. r,~oll.enberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: City Clerk • // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 1G1 Agenda March 28, 1983 • The Honorable Mayor ^ ~~(~ ~ P C~,~,,,m . ~.a~r~ r~.~~~ and ~~~ ~ .~(, ` Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amending the Line Extension Policy of Minnesota Cablesystems-Southwest. Seconc' Feading. Late last fall, certain questions were raised regarding what areas were designated as Initial Service Areas, and which areas were to be considered Line Extensions in the City of Eden Prairie. The section of the franchise document relating to this item was unclear, and as a result a clearly articulated Line Extension Policy amer,c.ment was proposed. This ordinance amendment received first reading at the March 14, 1983 city council meeting and the public hearing and second reading was scheduled for the March 28, 1983 city council meeting. The ordinance amendment provides that: 1. The 76 homes listed as Area 1 in Exhibit A and the 162 homes listed as Area 13 would be served under the Initial Service Area Policy at a cost of $155,000 with no significant impact on rates; 2< The remaining 372 homes in Areas 1-12, and 14-20, would be served under a Line Extension Policy b~~.sed on a cost sharing formula. • The Eden Prairie city council approved this ordinance amendment at their January 18, 1983 c;_ty council meeting, acknow- ledging that they understood throughout the franchising process that not all areas of Eden Prairie woulc: rye cabled initially, and to do so would constitute an undue burden on the cities of Edina, Hopkins, and Richfield. The ordinance amendment is attached to this council ~ letter, and it is recommended that the city council give ~' ~ ~ ~a.ti.,~ second readir~S approval at the March 28, 1983 city council ~~ °"`~~ meeting. ~, ~~ °'°~'W`~ _ r~ Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH A DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES' TO BE PROVIDED BY MINNESOTA CABLESYSTEMS-SOUTHWEST, A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AMENDING THE LINE EXTENSION POLICY OF MINNESOTA CABLESYSTEMS-SOUTHWEST; PRESCRIBING UNIFORM MONTHLY RATES AND OTHER CHARGES AND INSTALLATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN; AND AMENDING THE EXHIBITS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORDAINS: 1. That Article III, Section 4 of Ordinance No. be amended to read as follows: SECTION 4. FACILITIES. The Grantee shall construct, maintain and continue to provide all facilities and equipment set forth in the Offering or as otherwise provided 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- ties, including its plans for accommodating future growth and changing needs and desires, shall be fully and timely performed 2. That Article V, Section 2, be amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. LINE EXTENSION POLICY. • -1- ~ n ,. ~. a~_ ~e s 1 c~~a $~a d e u t s i d e th-e-~ i-t ~a-s-s a ~s~i-e-e ~. A. Service will be provided to residents of the City in areas with an average density less than forty (40) dwelling units per street mile or cable mile, whichever pro- vides the greater benefit to the subscribers, as determined by City, based upon the cost contribution formula defined below. Residents of the City in areas with an average density of at least forty {40) dwelling units per street mile or cable mile, whichever provides the greater benefit to the subscribers, as determined by City, will not be required to make a cost contribution pursuant to the cost contribution formula below in order to receive service. The monthly charge for cable service in the extended area shall be the _2_ -r--- - • same as elsewhere in the system. B. The cost contribution to be allocated to each interested subscriber in the extended area will be deter- mined 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 all labor and material costs necessary to construct an activate that part of the system commencing at the nearest point of existing plant and running to and within the extended area. 2 The standard cost per dwelling unit in the extended area shall be determined by dividing the total from (l) above by 40, being the standard minimum den- sit . 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 by the number of miles in the extended area, and multiplying the resulting number by the standard cost per dwelling unit. 4. The difference between the total costs (1) and the Grantee's contribution (3) is the total contri- bution of the subscribers in the extended area. • 5. The amount to be paid by each subscribing -3- resident shall be determined by dividing the total residents' contribution from (4) above by the number of persons subscribing to the service in the extended area. C. Service under the line extension policy shall be provided in accordance with the following procedure. 1. Residents 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 cable service shall petition the Council for designation as an extended area. the petition shall include a ma showing the dwelling units proposed to be included in the designated extended area, 2. '1'he Council shall by resolution designate the dwelling units to be included in the extended area. 3. Upon designation of an extended area, Grantee shall prepare a map indicating the trun}c 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 2.8.3), and the total contribution of the subscribers (Section 2.B.4). 4. Residents within the extended area who wish to become subscribers will have thirty (30) days to commit to service, by executing and submitting a com~ mitment farm to Grantee. -4- r . 5. Grantee will estimate the cost to each subscriber according to the formula in Section 2.B.5, above. Grantee will notify Council and subscribers of the subscriber cost estimate by U.5. mail. 6. Subscribers will have thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of the-subscriber cost estimate in which to deposit the amount of the subscriber cost estimate into an escrow account to be maintained by the City 7. If the total contribution of the subscribers is deposited within the time period specified in B.6 above, Grantee shall construct the line extension. Construction shall be completed and service made available to the extension area within twelve (12) months from the end of the subscriber contribution deposit period. 8. Upon completion of the line extension construction, the City will pay to Grantee all funds in the escrow account. 9. Any resident who did not participate by ini- tial subscriber contribution and who wishes to hook up 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 clerk the amount of the subscriber cost estimate deposited by original subscribers under paragraph 6 -5- 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 new subscribers in the extended area will be rovided cable television service under the same terms as all other residents of the City. D. Grantee shall hold the City and their respective officers, agents, employees and representatives, harmless 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 elaimed to arise out of or be due to, this ordinance or the process following by City in adopting this ordinance. 3. That Article VI, Section 4 of Ordinance No. be amended to read as follows: (1) Rates and charges charged by Grantee for monthly service and ~ ~~~} °" ,'° ~ ^-' ~~-' 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). -6- • • • 1 Installation charges shall be made pursuant to Article V, Section 2 and Exhibits A and B hereto. 4. That Article XIV, Section 2, paragraph H, 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: Amended Exhibit A - Map of Contruction by Area, Including Time Schedule Amended Exhibit B - Rate Schedule 5. That Exhibit B be amended by deleting Article I, Section A, paragraph 5, as follows: • • -7- • -8s AMENDED EXHIBIT B GRANTEE SCHEDULE OF RATES I. SUBSCRIBER NETWORK. A. Basic Rates. 1. Tiers Standard 150 Ft. Aerial Seniors & Installation Monthly Homebound (First Outlet) Tier 1 Universal Service. $19.95 Free Free Converter not re- quired for this service. Tier 2 Family Service. Subscriber owns $19.95 $3.9.5 $3.36 converter. Subscriber rents $19.95 Various Various converter from Grantee. Tier 3 Full Service. Subscriber owns $19.95 $5.95 $5.06 converter. Subscriber rents $19.95 Various* Various* converter from Grantee . Tier 3 Expended Service. $19.95 $10.95 $9.31 (Expanded) (Included converter and unit). 2. Rates will remain constant for two (2) years after com- mencement of construction of System or until completion of al l construction required by Article V, Section 1 of this Franchi se, whichever is longer as determined by City. 3. Subscribers will have the option of renting various types of converters as follows: Grantee Converter Rate Schedule Description 1. Block converter 2. OAK L-35 Initial Monthly Rate $1.00 $1.50 Initial Monthly Description Rate 3. Scientific Atlanta 6700 -set-up converter $2.50 -descrambler option $3.00 -remote control option $4.00 -addressable feature (not initially available) $5.00 The rental rate shall be added to the appropriate base rate shown in the table above if the subscriber rents the converter from Grantee. Subscribers may choose to rent or buy converters from sources other than the Grantee, however, a Grantee converter or descrambler will be necessary for premium services. 4. The standard installation rate will include the instal- lation of one hundred fifty (150)_ feet or less of aerial cable drop to each subscriber dwelling within the initial service area. Aerial installations within the initial service area in excess of one hundred fifty {150) feet will be charged at cost on a time and material basis. C7nderground installations will be charged at cost on a time and material basis. Free standard installations on Tiers 2 and 3 will be provided within the first thirty (30) days of energizing newly completed construction areas in the initial service area. 5. Senior citizen and homebound discounts of fifteen percent {15$) will be offered on standard installation and monthly service of Tiers 2 and 3. The discount is available to all dwelling units where the head of the household is a senior, sixty-two (62) years of age or older, or homebound. B. Extra Outlets. *Installation (At) time of initial Installation Monthly Tier 1 Converter not required. $10.00 each Free Tier 2 Subscriber owns receiver. $10.00 each $1.95 each Subscriber rents converter $10.00 each Various** from Grantee. Tier 3 Subscribers owns converter $10.00 each Various** from Grantee. _*Each outlet installaed after the initial installation will be $14.95 each. **Same converter rental option as provided for under Section IA of this Exhibit B. _2_ • C. Reconnection. Charges for reconnection of existing installations shall be $14.95 for each reconnection regardless of the number of outlets. D. Commercial Rates for Subscriber Network Services. These rates will be subject to negotiation and will depend on the number of outlets required and the type of services se- lected. A typical commercial rate for department store requesting ten (10) outlets on Tier 3 with no converters and no premium pay would be: Installation (at cost on a time and material basis) Monthly Rate ~~ ~J E. FM Rates. lst outlet $15.00 2nd outlet $10.00 3rd outlet $ 5.00 Additional outlets $ 4.00 FM service is included in the rate structures for Tier 2 and Tier 3. F. Multiple Dwelling Rates. 1. Rates will be negotiated depending on the type of service requested and the number of dwelling units served. Discounts are generally negotiated for Tiers 1, 2, and 3, and subscribers have the option to pay individually for premium services. 2. Typical Percentage Discounts for Tier 3 Service. Low rise (fewer than four stories with no elevator) Fewer than 25 units - 5$ More than 25 units - 10~ High rise 30 to 49 units - 10~ 50 to 99 units - 15~ 100 to 199 units - 20~ 200 units upwards - 25$ 3. If the multiple dwelling is occupied by only senior citizens or homebound persons or both, both the multiple dwelling discount.and_the seniors and homebound discount will apply to the monthly basic cable rate. • -3- G. Miscellaneous Provisions Regardinq Converters. 1. No deposit will be charged on the rental of Grantee converters. Grantee, however, reserves the right to institute a converter deposit if excessive loss or damage to the converter units is experienced. 2. The various monthly converter rental rates include the replacement and/or repair of defective units. 3. Subscribers renting::Grantee converters will have the option to buy them at a price based on the type of converter and length of time the converter has been rented. ' H. Premium Services. _____ __ 1. Premium .service rates shall be as followse Monthly Home Theater Network $3.95 Home Box Office 7.50 CINEMAX 7.50 The Movie Channel 7x50 Showtime 7.50 Premiere 7.50 2. A $1.00 per month discount will be offered to subscribers -- - taking-two (2) or more premium services other than Home Theater Network at any one (1) time. 3. Lockout devices will be available free of charge. 4. Installation for premium services shall be free with the initial installation of Tier 2 or 3 service. Thereafter, any - number of premium services added at the same time shall be added at a maximum cost of $14.95. 5. Pay-per-view service shall be charged on the basis of the event chosen. The range of charges is expected to be in the order of $2.00 to $5.00 per event. II. SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION FACILITIES. (INCLUDING LIBRARIES) A. Installation Fees. 1. One cable outlet (per facility) 2. More than one outlet (per facility) Free At cost of time and materials -4- ., l__I • g. There shall be no monthly charge for Tier 1, 2 or 3. III. RATES FOR HOME SECURITY STATUS MONITORING. Installation A. Single: fire alarm, medic alert, or security alert button. $49.95 maximum Double: any two services. 99.95 maximum Triple: all three services. 119.95 maximum Intrusion sensor system of variable de- Grantee or other provider pending on options taken and provider of system Monthly $4.95 maximum 5.95 maximum 6.45 maximum 4.95 up de- pending on options taker. and provider of system B. This rate schedule is exclusive of other third party charges that may be levied by emergency agencies or city licensing. C. Promotional Discounts. Rates in this Exhibit B are maximum rates. Grantee may allow special discounts during promotional or other marketing activities. IV. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK. A. Installation. Grantee's installation charge will be based upon the cost of material and labor. Grantee will provide an installation quote free of charge on request of any potential institutional network subscriber. Grantee may waive the installation charge. Institutional subscribers must supply any conduits, raceways, trenches or other passages necessary to permit installation of cable from the distribution line to the location(s) of the terminal equipment. B. Institutional Network Rates. 1. Institutional rates depend upon the use (video or date channel), the number of points involved in the communication, whether the communication is one-way or two-way, and whether the use is full time (24 hours a day, 365 days a year) or only part time (on an hourly basis). Packet dacketstof dataCalOnea(1) packet use basis per one thousand (1,000) p is eighty (80) characters or less. -5- 2. Rates for transmission capacity do not include the costs of terminal equipment modulators, modems, and demodulators. 3. The institutional u s bscriber may be charged $20.00 per month. For this charge, Grantee shall provide communications security system equipment installed on the subscriber's premises by Grantee. Such equipment may include addressable taps, trans- mitter and filters or converter as required and allow access to the special channels from 300 to 402 MHz. 4. Rates are as follows: Type of Service Rate a. For Video (6 MHz*) Channels, used full time twenty-four hours a day) 1) One point to one other point on network $435.00/month max. 2) One point to one other point on network 865.00/month max. and return 3) One. point to all other points o~ network 3,000.00/month max. 4) One point to all other points on network 6,000.00/month max. and return b. For Video (6 MHz) Channels, used Dart time 1) From one point to one other point on network $7.50/hour max. 2) From one point to one other point on network 15.00/hour max. and return 3) From one point to all other points on network 50.00/hour max. 4) From one paint to all others points on net- 110.00/hour max. work and return 5) Special Teleconference Yearly Rate for one 1,800.00/year max. hour per business day c. For data channel**, full time (0.25 MHz) 1) From one point to one other point on network $36.00/month max. 2) From_one point to one other point on net- 56.00/month max. work and return 3) From one point to all other points on network 232.00/month max. 4) From one point to all other points on net- 366.00/month max. work and return -6- .... . Type of Service Rate d. For data channel, full time (0.50 MHz) 1) From one-point to one other point on network $52.00/month max. 2) From one point to one other point on network 100.00/month max. and return 3) From one-point to all other points on network 355.00/month max. 4) From one point to all other points on network .. 5.96.00/month max.. and return e. For data channel, full time (1.OD MHz) 1) From one point to one other point. on network. $87.00/month max. 2) From one point to one other point on network 168.00/month max. and return 3) .From one point to all other points on network 614.00/month max. 4) From one point to all other points on netowrk 1,:050.00/month- max. and return f. For data channel, full time. (2.00 MHz} 1) From one point to one other point on network $157.0-0/month max. 2) .From one point to one other point on network 308.00/month max. and. return 3) .From one point to all other point on network 1,132.00/month max. 4) From one point. to all other points on network 1,.960.00/month max. and return g. Packet Switching. Data Network 1) Data .transmission charge $1.00/I-,000 packets 2) Connection to Packet Network 100.00 3) Cable Access Processor Lease 25.00/month _ __._ : _,_ ___*.To _ calculate_ the rate .for ~'M video_ channels, multiply:- the 6 MHz - . rat e by 2.3. **D ata channels may be used for a nalog signal transmission such as audio. -7- • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~/D Council Letter No. 100 Agenda March 28; 1983 The Honorable Mayor- and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Mobile/ Manufactured Heme Regulations. Second .Reading. The 1982 Minnesota Legislature passed a law prohibiting cities from excluding mobile/manufactured homes in cities. At the March 28, 1983 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would make mobile homes more compatible with various kinds of single family stick-built housing. A question was raised at the March 14, 1983 city council meeting relative to the significance of the inspection seal -which is attached to manufactured homes.. A local resident has indicated that code compliance was not guaranteed by this seal`. The city's building official has indicated that this seal means that the structure complies with HUD minimum con- struction standards. While these standards are somewhat less stringent than those in the state building. code, they do provide for a resonable standard of safety in construction. The util- ization of .this standard of construction is a way of providing affordable housing at a time when housing costs are prohibitively high fora major segment of the population. The proposed ordinance (copy of which is attached) provides for the following: 1. Require that new dwellings be placed on a founda- tion or frost footing which is in compliance with the state building code; 2. All dwellings shall be a minimum of 22 feet in length and width, and shall contain a minimum of 500 square feet of habitable floor space; 3. Every stairway, porch, balcony, awning or other exterior addition or appurtenance shall be in compliance with-the state building code, firmly attached to the dwelling, shall be attractive and functional in design, shall be so~,nd and permanent. in its construction and shall be permanently main- tained in a safe and functional-state of repair; 4. Prohibit the construction of manufactured (mobile) homes in the R-1 Single Family Dwelling district. It is recommended that the city council hold the public hearing and give second reading approval to this ordinance at the March 28, 1983 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager C: • Bill No. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE SETTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR DWELLINGS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter III, Part IV of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota relating to the zoning regulations is amended as follows: 1. Section 3.30 is amended by adding the following new Subdivision 7. Subdivision 7. Performance Standards for Dwellings All dwellings constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following standards: (a) Every dwelling shall be placed upon a foundation or frost footing which is in compliance with the state building code and shall be securely bolted in place. The foundations, exterior walls and roof shall be water tight, protected from rodents and maintained in a sound and attractive state of repair. r (b) All dwellings shall be a minimum of 22 feet in length and width as measured from outside wall surfaces and shall contain a minimum of 500 square feet of habit- able floor space. Habitable floor space shall be measured from the interior-wall surface of the exterior walls and interior partitions shall not be considered. (c) Every stairway, porch, balcony, awning or other exterior addition or appurtenance shall be in com- pliance with the state building code, firmly attached to the dwelling, shall be attractive and functional in design, shall be sound and permanent in its con- struction and shall be permanently maintained in a safe and functional state of repair. 2. Section 3.30A Subdivision 1 is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Principal Use: Single Family Dwellings Except Manufactured (Mobile) Homes. 3. Section 3.30A is amended by adding the following new sub- -division 7: Subdivision 7. Performance Standards for Dwellings. All dwellings constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the performance standards found in Section 3.30 Sub- division 7. -2- 4. Section 3.31A is amended by adding the following new Sub- division 10: Subdivision 10. Performance Standards for Residential Dwellings. All dwellings constructed after the effective date of this ordinance shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the performance standards found in Section 3.30 Sub- division 7. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor • ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh., City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 99 Agenda March 28, 19$3 The Honorable-Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council. Members: Subject: Community Band Several attempts have been made. in the past few years to recruit and organization a~community band. On March 7, 1983 a organizational ...meeting was held for the formation of such a community band. At that meeting, about 30 persons expressed an interest in joining a community band. --MO -t of~ these ind-vi.d- uals were college-.students and former Richfield High_5chool~ students. Since it now appears that a community band may become a • reality, it is important to provide direction at the outset for any. continuing operation of this activity. It is recommend- ed that the organization be composed of members who live and/or work in the City of Richf field. -The majority of city organiza- tions operate under .this guideline. The city has contr.buted financially to new organizations in the past, to cover start-up and incidental costs. If the city council wishes to contribute financial assistance to a community band, it is recommended that the annual contribution not exceed $1,000 per year, for a limited period of three years. This item has. been placed on the city council agenda for council discussion and consideration at the March 28, 1983 city council. meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~- /~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja • ~/3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 98 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Appointment to Hennepin County Planning Area Citizens Advisory Committee. Hennepin County, as part of the community development de- velopment block grant program citizen participation requirements, set up a number of citizen advisory committees to review the program. These committees, called Planning Area Citizens Ad- visory Committees (PACAC) consist of representatives appointed from each community within the planning which they represent. . Richfield is in Planning Area 1 which includes the cities of St. Anthony, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, St. Louis. Park and Edina. The county has asked that the city appoint anew representative to the PACAC. In the past, Richfield has been represented on the PACAC by Mr. A.P. Anderson, and then by Mr. Richard Krier. Attendance by past representatives was poor. It is .important that Richfield have a representative on this group because they review and comment on county CDBG pol- icies and guidelines, on individual communities proposed use of block grant funds, and on how unspent project funds are to be reallocated. The .county has indicated that the preson appointed ideally should be a citizen which could be affected by the program,. such as a senior citizen, handicapped person or a low or moder- ate income person. The person cannot be a current council member of commission member. A past council or commission member could be appointed, however. It is recommended that the city council appoint a member to serve on the Hennepin County Planning Area 1 Citizen's Ad- visory Committee. This appointment has been scheduled for the March 28, 1983 city counnil meeting. r Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager ~i~ ~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 97 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Setting of Public Hearing for Addition to 1983 Alley Paving Project At the March 14, 1983 city council meeting, the city council set March 28, 1983 as the date. of public hearing for the paving of the alley between. Upton Avenue and Thomas Avenue, 69th Street to 70th Street. An error in the legal notice of this public hearing makes it necessary. to reschedule the public hearing. The staff • recommends that the public hearing be held. at the April 11, 1983 city council meeting to allow the corrected notice to be pub- lished and mailed. Attached is a resolution. setting the public hearing for the April 11, 1983 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, I~..,~. ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja • 4 RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING ADDITION TO CITY PROJECT 786 WHEREAS, the city engineer has prepared a preliminary report with reference to the improvement of the following alley by permanent paving: A17ey Between From To Upton Avenue and Thomas Avenue 69th Street 70th Street THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on April 11, 1983, commencing at 7:00 P.M., in the council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, at which time the council. will consider the improvement of this alley in accordance with the report and assess- ment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, at an estimated cost of the improvement of $23,988.35. 2. The city clerk is .hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 28th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh,. City .Clerk .y~i61~ C~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 96 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Additional.Sidewalk Construction At the March 14, 1983 city council meeting, the city council directed the staff to prepare a preliminary report on the feasibility of constructing a sidewalk on the north side of 64th Street, between Portland Avenue-and Nicollet Avenue. This location was not included in the original sidewalk policy. • The preliminary engineering report which is attached shows an estimated cost to construct this sidewalk of $33,198. Con- struction of this sidewalk would require the removal of four trees and the installation of 330 square feet of retaining wall. Because 64th Street is not part of Richfield's Munici- pal State Aid .system, less than 20 percent of the cost will be paid by special assessments, with the remainder to be paid by the city's portion of the special assessment bond. The staff recommends that the city council adopt the .attached resolutions ordering. and accepting the preliminary engineering report, and scheduling the public hearing for April 25,_1983. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~.~~- Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR ADDITION TO 1983 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, CP 782 WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the following streets by the installation of sidewalk: ON SIDE FROM TO 64th Street North Portland Avenue Nicollet Avenue And to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota: That the proposed improvement be referred to Michael J. Eastling, City Engineer, for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of improvement as recommended. Adopted by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota this 28th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADDITION TO 1983 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION - C.P. 782 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. of the council adopted March 28, 1983, a report has been prepared by the city engineer with reference to the improvement of the following streets by construction of sidewalk: ON SIDE FROM TO 64th Street North Portland Avenue Nicollet Avenue And this report was received by the council on this 28th day of March, 1983. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: J 1. The council will consider the improvements of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $33,198.00. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement of such streets on the 25th day of April, 1983, in the council chambers of the city hall at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the council this 28th day of March, 1983. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF CO5T 1983 SIDEWALK AND APPURTENANT WORK CP 782 I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete sidewalk and handicap ramp installation on designated roadways in Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT Integration and completion of pedestrian system as identified in Richfield's sidewalk policy. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT March 28, 1983 • IV. LOCATION Sidewalk construction with handicap ramps ON SIDE FROM 64th Street North Nicollet Avenue V. FEASIBILITY TO Portland Avenue The sidewalk and handicap ramp project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and in conjunction with the existing sidewalk construction project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the streets and avenues as described under sidewalk construction in item number IV above. -2- VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST a) Construction of approximately 1,957 lineal feet of 5' concrete sidewalk improvements Estimated Construction Costs $ 20,680.00 20 percent indirect cost 4,136.00 $ 24,816.00 b) 16 handicap ramps with new sidewalk Estimated Construction Cost $ 2,860.00 20 percent indirect cost 572.00 $ 3,432.00 c) Construction of retaining walls, tree removals, and tree relocations Estimated Construction Cost $ 4,125.00 20 percent indirect cost ,825.00 $ 4,950.00 Total Estimated Project Cost a) Sidewalk Construction $ 24,816.0.0 b) Handicap Ramps with Sidewalk 3,432.00 . c) Retaining Walls, Tree Relocation/ Removal 4,950.00- $ 33,198.00 VIII. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT The cost of this project is proposed to be assessed partially to the abutting property owners and the remaining cost to be paid for by State Aid Funds. Estimated cost of sidewalk construction: $24,816 = 1,957 lineal feet = $12.68/lineal foot of sidewalk Residential Assessment $12.68/L.F. x 20/ _ $2.54/assessable foot In the residential areas the assessment will be figured from the short side of the lots that abut the improvement Typical Assessment for 75' lot 75' x $2.54 = $190.50 -3- • Multiple and Commercial Assessment $12.68/L.F. x 50/ _ $6.34/assessable foot. In multiple and commercial areas the assessment will be figured on the total length of lot abutting the approvement. Typical assessment for lot with 200' abutting improvement: 200' x $6.34 = $1,268.00 I hereby certify this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: March 28, 1983 Registration No. 15066 ~7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 95 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of .the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: subject: Renewal Application for On-Sale Wine License, Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc. 6.736 Penn Avenue. Mr. David J. Miller, President of Miller's Fireside Pizza, Inc., located at 6736 Penn Avenue, has submitted an application and required documents for. renewal of their on-sale wine license. Mr. Miller shares-the corporate offices of both President and Treasurer, while Lucille Miller serves as the corporate Vice- President and Secretary. Mr. Miller also serves as the on- premises manager., Neither David Miller or Lucille Miller have a any known criminal record. "" The required surety bond in the amount of $5,000 has been submitted and we have verified through Wausaw Insurance Compan- ies that the required public and liquor liability coverage is in effect for this licensing period. The insurance coverages appear to be in compliance with the ordinance code requirements and the City of Richfield is named as an additional insured. An accountant's statement detailing sales percentages for the year has-been supplied by the CPA firm of Broen and Company Ltd., Minneapolis. TY~e breakdown indicates that food sales accounted for 84.93% of the total sales. During the past year there have been four reported public safety incidents at Miller's Fireside Fizza. Of-those four, two were unfounded burglaries of business, one was a confirmed burglary of business, and the fourth was a general licensing inspection. There were no reported contacts relating to the serving of wine or non-intoxicating malt liquor. It is the recommendation of the public safety director, in which I concur, that the on-sale wine license of Miller Fire- side Pizza, Inc. be renewed for 1983. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 94 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Renewal Application for On-Sale Wine License, Prest Motor Inns, (The Inn) Prest Motor Inns, Inc. has submitted an application for renewal of the on-sale wine license. .The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from the last two years. Mr. John Prest serves as corporate president and treasurer, Sara Prest serves as corporate vice-president and secretary. Robert Prest, continues to serve in the position of on-premises manager. None of these individuals have any known criminal record. Prest Equipment Company owns the building and property upon • which the motel and restaurant are located. All real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. A $3,000 surety bond has been submitted instead of the required $5,000 bond required by the ordinance code. This was an oversight and will soon be corrected. A certificate of insurance detail- ing public and liquor liability has been submitted and the cover- age appears to be in compliance with the city ordinance code. An accountant's statement submitted by Kim Koenig of K & K Accounting, Inc. shows that food sales-comprised 94.4% of total sales. There were 14 .reported public safety contacts for 19.82, compared to 22 fcr a similar period in 1981. Half cf the calls were of a criminal or bar type nature, but these include calls to both the restaurant the motel. This level of activity does not present a significant public safety problem. It is the recommendation of the public safety department, in which I concur, that the city council approve the on-sale wine license application renewal contingent upon proof of an adequate surety bond certificate. Respectfully submitted, ~~-Q-- ~l Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja ~y CITY OF RICHFIELD, .MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 93 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Agenda March 28, 1983 Subject: Renewal Application for On-Sale Wine License, Pontillo's Pizzeria,. 2312 West 66th Street Mr. Micky Stenson has submitted an application and the re- quired documents for renewal of the on-sale wine license for Pontillo's Pizzeria. The public safety department has completed the background investigation and there are no changes in the- corporate structure of this organization form the preceding year. Mr. Roger Schelper, Edina, remains vice president, Patrick Wood- ring of Pittsford, New York, remains secretary; Robert Carlson • Jr. of Edina, remains the treasurer. The on-premises manager continues to be Ms. Shelly Youngkrantz Zilley of St. Paul. None of these individuals have any known criminal record. All of the 1982 real estate and withholding taxes have been paid. The property and building are owned by Highway 52 Embers, and all lease payments are current and have been so during the current year., The required $5,000 surety bond and the certifi- cate of insurance detailing public and. liquor liability have been submitted and appear to b8 in compliance with the ordinance code requirements. The City of Richfield is named as an additional insured. There were no accountant statements submitted with the application. However, Robert J. Stupka, CPA who submitted last year's accountant statement was contacted and stated that for the period October 1, 1981 through September 30, 1982, food sales amounted to 89% of total sales. The public safety depart- ment is now in receipt of a formal statement from Mr. Stupka verifying the above noted figure. From February, 1982 through February, two public safety incidents, compared with ceding period. Of these incidents, one wa of business and the other a public assist. that the .management of Pontillo's has done trolling their Richfield establishment. 1983 there were only five from the pre- y a reported burglary It would appear a fine j ob of con- It is recommended that the city council approve the on- sale wine license for Pontillo's Pizzeria. Respectfully submitted, -~~ ~~~ Karl Nollenberger !~i-l-cs M~nannr CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City. Manager Council Letter No. 92 Agenda March 28, 1983 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Renewal Application for on-sale wine License, Shakey's Pizza Parlor, 500 East 78th Street Richard Lupu, president of Northstar Pizza Corporation has submitted an application and required documents for the renewal of the one-sa-le wine license for Shakey's Pizza Parlor, located at 500-East 78th Street. The public safety department has conducted the necessary background investigation and it appears that there has been no change in the corporate 'structure of North Star Pizza. Richard Lupu. is president; .Herbert Stone • is vice-president; and Milton Sethre serves as both secretary and treasurer. The only other individual with an interest in the corporation is L. R. Horeg, of Wolf. Point, Montana, who has retained a 22-25% interest in the corporation since 1982. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. All real estate-and withholding taxes have been paid to date and the building is still owned by R. J. Bogen Company. The required $5,000 surety bond and certificate of insurance de- tailing the public and liquor liability coverage were also sub- mitted and appear to be in effect. The financial report submitted this year indicates that 83% of the gross sales were food sales. There were 17 public safety contacts with Shakey's Pizza in the last year, with only 3 of these being of criminal nature. These calls, one theft, one assault and one vandalism, did not present a s ignif icant publ is safety concern . Mr. Lupu indicated on the application that he is the manager of the operation in addition to the president of the .corporation. However, during the course of the investigation conducted by the public safety department, it was determined that the on-premises manager is Michael Berndt. Mr. Berndt has been employed by Northstar Pizza Corporation for 11 years and has no criminal record. It is the recommendation of the public safety department, in which I concur, that the on-sale wine license be approved. R pectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger Citv Manaaer ~~6~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, :MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 91 Agenda March 28,.1983 The Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract, Tilt Cab Truck and Chassis Recently,. the city council awarded a contract for purchase of the tank portion of a flush truck. On March. 22, 1983, bids were opened in accordance with legal requirements for .the tilt cab truck and chassis portion of this. flush truck .unit. Three bids were submitted. North Star International Trucks, Inc. bid $25,353; Astelford Equipment bid $25,388 and Superior Ford bid .$23,448. • It is recommended that .the council approve this purchase of a tilt cab truck and chassis in the amount of $23,448 from Superior Ford. .Funds are provided in the approved 1983 operat- ing budget for the central garage.. Res ectfully submitted, JV 0 Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Finance Coordinator CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening March 22, 1983 Tilt Cab Truck and Chassis Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City,Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for one Tilt Cab Truck and Chassis, as advertised intl~he official newspaper on .March 9, 1983. Present: Steve Devich, Acting Administrative Services Director Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Coordinator Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Sylvia,Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY DELIVERY TOTAL BID North Star International Trucks, Inc. B.B. 5% 60-90 days $25,353 Astleford Equipment B.B. 5% 120 days 25,388 Superior Fold B.B.. 5% 75 days 23,448 The CityCfilerk announced that the bid would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of March 28, 1983. Sylvia K.Bergh City Clerk