Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10-26-81 agenda
0 • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Letter No. 373 Agenda October 26, 1981 Lyndale Avenue Improvements (67th Street to 74th Street) On Friday, October 23, I asked the Commissioner of Highways to request the variance committee that previously.considered the Lyndale Avenue variance request to reopen their hearing in order to allow input from interested parties. Fred and Barbara Amran and Steve Lindgren, as neighbors of the project, have indicated the desire to provide testimony to the variance committee, but felt that they were not given the opportunity. Since the variance committee is appointed by the Commissioner of Highways to advise him on the matter, we did not feel that we should take the initiative to notify citizens when their previous meeting was held. However, we did not attempt to hide the meeting either, and it was the topic of conversation at a council meeting and a Planning Commission meeting. Many of the opponents to the project were present during the Planning Commission discussion, but did not pursue the matter at that time. In any event, the neighbors input and the variance committee hear them. A variance committee November 9, 1981 at 2:00 p.m. at portation building in St. Paul. table for adoption of the plans from November 9 to November 16, special meeting on November 16 a This will allow the. bid opening at 10:00 a.m. and the bid to be meeting on December 14, 1981. 0 bids to be awarded at the Decemb date is anticipated. have expressed interest in providing has indicated a willingness to meeting has been scheduled for the Minnesota Department of Trans - This will delay the original time - and specifications on the project if the council is willing to set a t 6:30 p.m. prior to the HRA meeting. to take place on December 14, 1981 awarded at the regular council ur original time table called for er 14 meeting, so no delay of this Council Letter No. 373 -2- October 26, 1981 At the request of the Commissioner of Highways we will send notices of the November 9 variance committee meeting to interested if parties. We will notify persons who have addressed the city council and Planning Commission in the past, the state senator and represent- ative, and any other that we can remember at this time who have expressed interest. If you have others who would be interested, please contact us. It is recommended that this city council set a special meeting on November 16 at 6.:30 p.m. to consider a resolution approving plans and specification on the Lyndale Avenue project and other related matters. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer :10 a. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 372 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Transitory Ordinance Relating to Alley Vacation The city attorney has advised that Transitory Ordinance No. 16.84, providing for the vacation of the alley on block 2, Lyndale Shores and Wood Lake, which was scheduled for second reading on the October 12, 1981 city council agenda, should be amended for second reading consideration. The va- cation of this alley was necessary for the proposed Richfield State Agency improvements. The city attorney will provide council members with the amended ordinance at the council meeting on October 26, 1981. KN /eja Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 2, LYNDALE SHORES ON WOOD LAKE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: The following alley in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: The alley in Block 2, Lyndale Shores on Wood Lake. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. 0 ATTEST: Clerk Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 371 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Appointment A five -year term on the Housing and Redevelopment Author- ity will expire in October, 1981. This term is presently filled by Joan Helmberger. An item has been placed on the October 26, 1981 city council agenda for consideration of an appointment to a five year term on the Authority. This term will expire in October, 1986. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 370 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Appointment to Redistricting Committee At the October 12, 1981 city council meeting, the city council made five appointments to the Redistricting Committee. Two appointments still remain to be made; an appointment for a representative of education, particularly in social science, and a representative who is an Independent voter. Attached to this council letter is an application which has been received from Ms. Annette Margarit, who is a social studies teacher at the Academy of the Holy Angels. This application is attached for council consideration at the October 26, 1981 city council meeting. KN /ej a Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager 46 • Da to.'il APPLIC 2"TION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR C-CT% MISSION APPOI:\iTN ET.,T ea T NAME �jr. ,� , � Las HOME ADDRESS ' C.•lr & /,, < "l Street No. City Zip Cade MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. / CitY Z i P Co,,-,e PHONE: Home .�,� ' t �u.<c�oi ,� Business _ APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Cormission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Commission Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience «.7hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission committee and why you are interested in serving: l ' ll� %�.vz�. • i .: i �Aui� �'7l/I'I��lt.:�,���u, Z iZ�%LC/Y+2 tc�� CIVIC`, PROFESSIONAL, AND COMMUNITY ACV ITIES: V 44 % ' ��''Z•!.j s`;i�i� Cam% �} � � L —7 44�� i/ L ` �1 OCCUPATION: Employing f ir m a g e n c , .4 Address Positio �Ydears w/fir,,r,,,/agenc-- Other work experience (optional) REFERENCES (Optional) A A 17 A. Full name Relations& Mailing address Phone number B. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: 'Eileen Anderson s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 369 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Relating to Municipal Water Rates There is an item on the October 26, 1981 city council agenda providing for council consideration of a resolution which would establish municipal water rates for 1982. The sewer rates contained in this resolution were established by the council several years ago,.the proposed 1982 water rates are reflective of the 1982 water division budget proposed by the city council, and provide for a nine percent increase, from 80/1,000 gallons to 87/1,000 gallons, based on the city's anticipated increased costs for 1982. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, establishing rates for the city's water and sewer utilities in 1982. KN /eja is Res ectfully submitted, 4 Jy 0 ajetn Karl Nollenberger City Manager ..L SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARCES AND SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following para- graphs of this resolution which resinds Resolution No. 6343: 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 1982 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 1982 A) Residential per unit $13.35 B) Commercial For the equivalent of 10 or less persons 13.35 More than 10, less than 16 33.37 More than 15, less than 21 50.00 More than 20, less than 26 66.74 C) Institutional For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 1982 For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof $24.02 For each 100 junior high school students or high school students or fraction thereof 66.74 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certi- fication charge as determined in Section 8.12 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on the actual use, or less of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons, effective January 1982, for each customer hillin- district and shall be as follows: 46 ..,:: •;;;,, : <. _ .�:: .._: .... ;�:• _. fir:: � _ - _ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following para- graphs of this resolution which resinds Resolution No. 6343: 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 1982 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 1982 A) Residential per unit $13.35 B) Commercial For the equivalent of 10 or less persons 13.35 More than 10, less than 16 33.37 More than 15, less than 21 50.00 More than 20, less than 26 66.74 C) Institutional For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 1982 For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof $24.02 For each 100 junior high school students or high school students or fraction thereof 66.74 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certi- fication charge as determined in Section 8.12 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on the actual use, or less of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons, effective January 1982, for each customer hillin- district and shall be as follows: 46 ..,:: •;;;,, : <. _ .�:: .._: .... ;�:• _. fir:: � _ - _ Resolution No. -2- 1� 1982 67 cents • For the purpose of this paragraph A, the winter quarter shall be the winter quarter specified in Subdivision 3 of said Section 8.12. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial and other premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water, effective January 1, 1982, shall be as follows: 1982 67 cents C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered effective January 1, -1982, as follows: SAO` 1982 'v $2.50 If the invoice is for water service as well as sanitary sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund and its sewer fund, based on the costs incurred by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 8.12. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1982 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for city water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be 87 cents per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 1982, shall be at the new rate. These new charges will cover, in some instances, water used during the months of October, November and December, 1981. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge for establishing a nvw customer account shall be 511.00 per account. Ga, a Resolution No. o' '3' 3: The charge for removal and reinstallation of outside meter readers when physical modifications to the customer's property necessitate such removal, and reinstallation, shall be $16.35 per removal and reinstallation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the City shall be $33.00 per hydrant per year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this q� J �J ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk 0 1 1* Donald J. Priebe Mayor RESOLUTION N0.' b343 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES AND SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES BE IT RESOLVED BY' THE ,CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges -for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following para- graphs of this resolution 2. Where the rate is not.based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 1981 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 1981 _ 1982 A) Residential per unit $ 9.30 $13.35 B) Commercial for the equivalent of 10 or less persons 12.35 13.35 More than 10, less than 16 30.89 33.37 More than 15, less than 21 46.34 50.00 More than 20, less than 26 61.80 66.74 C) Institutional For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 1981 1982 For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof 22.24 24.02 For each 100 junior high school students or high school students or fraction thereof 61.80 66.74 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 8.12 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on the actual use, or less of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons, effective January 1,`1981, for each customer billing district and shall be as follows: 4 1 Resolution No. 6343 - page 2 1981 1982 62 cents 67 'cents For the purpose of this paragraph A, the winter quarter shall be ;the winter .: e> quarter specified 'in >Subdiv sion'3 of said. Section 8 A B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial and other premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water, effective January 1, 1981,shall be as follows: 1981 1982 62 cents 67 cents C) A customer charge shall- be made for each invoice rendered effective January 1, 1981, as follows: 1981 $2.30 If the invoice is for water service as well as sanitary sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the city's water fund and its sewer fund, based on the costs incurred by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted.as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 8.12. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 1981 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for city water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the city, during any quarter shall be 80 cents per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 1981, shall be at the new rate. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: - 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $10.00 per account: 40 Resolution No. 6343 - page 3 3. The charge for removal and reinstall-ation of outside meter readers when physical modifications to the customer's property necessitate such removal and reinstallation, shall be $15.00 per removal and reinstallation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the city shall be $30.00 per hydrant per year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 24th day of November, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk W0. fi So � 2R5� Fs'7 lclg z U7 1432 - ¢ 0 _J +_4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 368 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Fees and Charges. First Reading. There is an item on the October 26, 1981 city council agenda providing for council consideration of an ordinance amendment relating to various license and permit fees charged by the city. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached. Basically, this ordinance repeals Appendix D of the ordinance code, in its present form, and inserts new language which provides that license and permit fees can hereafter be established by council resolution, rather than ordinance. Appendix D is that portion of the ordinance which now estab- lishes most of the city's license and permit fees. Passage of this ordinance would parallel the council action of a year ago relating to water and sewer rates and allow for more timely passage of rate adjustments. It is recommended.that the council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment. Second reading consideration of this ordinance will be scheduled for the Novem- ber 9, 1981 city council meeting. At that time, the council will also be provided with a resolution which would establish a new schedule of license fees and charges. KN /eja cc: Program Directors City Clerk Respectfully submitted, 4 M 4--.- Karl Nollenberger City Manager .1.981- 2�..�..A: a.. . � . „ , ..,,�; ..� .. ..,..��,��,'�.<,�y.•.�,, ,�. v:.,a ._ .. .. ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINESOTA. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: (1) Sections 1 through 9 of Appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees" are hereby repealed. Section 1 thereof does not have a specific title. It provides that licenses, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the city shall be as contained in the following sections of Appendix D. It further provides for a table of cross references of the various code sections and subdivisions to the sections and numbers of Appendix D. The titles of Sections 2 through 9 of Appendix D are as follows: Fees. 2.. . "Construction and Related' Permit Fees and Charges. 3. Construction and Related License Fees. 4. Zoning, Land Use and Related Fees and Charges. 5. Amusement and Recreation Licenses and Permits. 6. Vehicle and Transportation License and Permit 7. Commercial Business and Trade Licenses and Permits. 8. Liquor and Related License and Permit Fees. 9. Miscellaneous Fees. (2) In lieu of the foregoing repealed sections, Appendix D shall provide as follows. Section 1. Establishment of License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fees by Resolution. License, permit and miscellaneous fees established under the ordinances of the City of Richfield and under this Appendix D shall be deter- mined from time to time, by resolutions of the city council. Section 2. Three copies of license, permit "Official Copy" use and examina clerk. Official Copies of Fee Resolutions. the most recent resolution establishing such and miscellaneous fees shall be marked and shall be filed and made available for tion by the public in the office of the city ... ... :. :. .. :., ;...r ).r .. !Jfi%%... >.: . -2 ...s ... . - :,..s. ra. a♦ ...x .ar WYw Ib x #. a+vw ... \1. mtsuFd r5r e. ..a.• Section 3. Authority for Each Fee to be Stated. Any such-resolution establishing fees shall state the ordinance section, if any, pursuant to which each particular fee is being established. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Proposed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of October, 1981. All persons interested for or against this proposed ordinance amendment are notified to be present November 9, 1951 and they will be heard. r1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 367 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Relating to Fees and Charges for Community Services Programs The purpose of this council letter is to submit a proposed user fee schedule for Community Services Department areas, facilities and programs. The areas include the ice arena, swimming pool, nature center, community center, recreation programs and the golf course. Background information is provided for each area in which a change in fee structure is proposed. The staff recommendations outlined on the attached pages for various programs, facilities and activities are not intended to produce a profit for the city, or to create a hardship on user in- dividuals or organizations. It is the intent of the city to con- tinue to offer as many opportunities as possible to the citizens of Richfield. At their regular meeting on October 13, 1981, the Park and Recreation Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the city council adopt the staff recommendations related to fees and charges. A resolution establishing recreational fees and charges in conjunc- tion with the 1982 operating budget, is attached to this-council letter for council action at the October 26, 1981 city council meeting. KN /ej a cc: Community Services Director Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RECREATIONAL FEES AND CHARGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 1982 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain park and recrea- tion areas, facilities and programs shall have user or participant fees charged, and WHEREAS, certain methods of calculating such fees and charges have been determined for a variety of areas, facilities and programs both in existence at the present time or anticipated to be offered in conjunction with the 1982 operating budget, and WHEREAS, particular areas, facilities and programs having user fees charged are too numerous to detail, and WHEREAS, the Richfield Park and Recreation Advisory Commission has reviewed such proposed fees and charges and recommended approv- al of same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that participant fees to be charged for park and recre- ation areas, facilities and programs as outlined in Council Letter No. 367, dated October 26, 1981 are hereby accepted and adopted in conjunction with the 1982 operating budget for the City of Rich- field. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of October, 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Mayor sr lii;2� 3� ;� �, � s�.�,�,�'. u;�� -'� '`•, .�'zx `�.�e c $�v" � ��r- �,�'r �i,�_ d f � Fes.. �k '�.+,� _ ,�', h i i, ICE ARENA Background Erased on city council action, the priority "system for reserv- ing ice time at the Richfield arena has been that hours are first scheduled by the city for city- sponsored events and programs, second priority is given to the scheduling of needs of the Rich- field School District under the terms of the joint facilities agreement, and third priority is given to the Richfield Hockey Association. All remaining users are on a first -come, first - served basis. For ice rental time, the Richfield Ice Arena has one of the lowest fee schedules among area arena. Although the start of a new season will vary from arena to arena, our hourly rate structure is generally one season behind other arenas; i.e., fees adopted at this time are generally those currently charged at other arenas, but our newly adopted rates typically do not go into effect until our following season, or as new contracts are made. If other arenas have prime time and non -prime time rates, the prime time rate is the higher. In Richfield, based on the adopted policy, for priority of scheduling, our "prime time" rates are the lowest rates, because most of 'these hours are used by the high school and the hockey association. Although contract or hourly rental of ice is the largest revenue producing activity at the ice arena, other events and activities do produce some revenue. This includes high school games and open skating. Prior to execution of the 1976 joint facilities agreement, the arena received 60% of the gross receipts from high school games. Since then, the arena has received a flat hourly rate. For the 1981/82 season, that hourly rate is $85.00. As of January 1, 1981, discount tickets were no longer accepted for admission to general skating sessions. Open skating admission prices and group lesson fees include tax; however, the rental charges have not been taxed in the past. With new sales tax laws, some of the rental charges will need to have tax added. For example, if the high school rents ice time for practice, and there is no public admission, the rental rate does not include tax. However, if the high school rents ice time for an event such as a game, then sales tax must be included with the price of public admission, and the cost of ice rental paid to the arena must also include sales tax. In another situation, a person, group or organization that is not exempt by law,renting the ice for a single hour or more, must pay sales tax on the rental charge. Recommendation It is recommended that rates for hourly ice rental be increased as follows (for 1982/83 ice arena fees): Is Council Letter No. 367 ..,s,. . 1981 ,. Current Proposed Basic Rate (effective for new $60.00 /hour $65'.00 /hour plus tax contracts as they are made, when applicable • typically April, 1982) 10 hour contract (effective $57.50/hour $62.50 /hour plus tax for new contracts as they when applicable are made, typically April, 1982) -100 hour contract (effective - $55.00 /hour $60.00 /hour plus tax for new contracts as they when,applicable are made, typically .Sep- tember, 1982) Richfield School District $85.00 /hour $95.00 /hour plus tax Games It is recommended that rates for city sponsored activities, such as open skating, be adjusted as follows: Current Proposed Open Skating (generally'a 11-2 or 2 hour period) Adults $1.50 /session $1.50 /session including including tax tax Students $1.00 /session. $1.00 /session includo. tax tax Adult Open Hockey (generally a 2 hour period) Open Patch (generally 1, hour period) Open Freesytle (generally 1z hour period) Group Lessons (generally 8 half hour lessons plus practice time) $2.50 /session $3.00 /session including including tax tax (effective fall 1987 $2.25 /session $2.50 /session including including tax tax (effective fall 1987 $2.00 /session $2.00 /session including including tax tax $20.00 $22.00 (effective fall 1981) 0 1 a 9 SWIMMING POOLS Background The olympic -sized outdoor swimming pool in the vicinity of 66th Street and Portland Avenue opened in 1962. In 1976, the indoor school pools were opened, and in 1977 the city leased the indoor pools during the school year to provide open swimming year - round. In the summer of 1977, the school district began its policy of draining the pool at East Middle School each summer, so that indoor summer swimming was available only at the West Middle School pool. In 1977, a summer ticket system allowed either for admission to the outdoor pool or admission to both the indoor and the outdoor pool. With the 1978 season, one ticket was made available that allowed admission during the summer to both the the indoor and the outdoor facilities. During the school year, it is fairly easy to track expenses and revenues to monitor the pool budget. However, with the season ticket arrangement as it is, it is virtually impossible to determine what revenues and expenditures are related.to which.facility, although this ticket.. system provides maximum flexibility to the city's swimmers. Recommendation It is recommended that there be no change in the season ticket system. However, the following is recommended as the fee structure for the summer season tickets: During the summer, swim clubs rent the outdoor pool for practice. If a club has exclusive use of the pool they pay the full charge. If the pool is shared by two clubs during a given period, each pays one -half of the cost. It is recommended that the regularly hourly rental rate for 1982 be $15.00 and the shared rental rate be $7.50 per hour. In the past, the Richfield Swim Club has not paid any fee for use of the outdoor pool, although it does pay a fee for rental of the indoor pool from the school district. It is recommended that the Richfield Swim Club be allowed continued full use of the outdoor pool, but that the charge be that of the shared rental fee, or $7.50 per hour. Current Proposed Resident Family $29.50 $32.00 Resident Single $19.50 $21.00 Non - Resident Family $35.00 $37.00 Non - Resident Single $21.00 $23.00 During the summer, swim clubs rent the outdoor pool for practice. If a club has exclusive use of the pool they pay the full charge. If the pool is shared by two clubs during a given period, each pays one -half of the cost. It is recommended that the regularly hourly rental rate for 1982 be $15.00 and the shared rental rate be $7.50 per hour. In the past, the Richfield Swim Club has not paid any fee for use of the outdoor pool, although it does pay a fee for rental of the indoor pool from the school district. It is recommended that the Richfield Swim Club be allowed continued full use of the outdoor pool, but that the charge be that of the shared rental fee, or $7.50 per hour. Council Letter No. 367 - 4- October 26;, 1981 s Instructional programs are al:o held during the summer months, with some classes at the outdoor pool and some at the indoor pool. As with group skating lessons at the arena, swim instruction fees and charges have tended to already include indirect costs, such as facility operation expenses. This has typically been about 10% or less for swim instruction programs. It is recommended that swim instruction fees be calculated on the basis of total estimated cost of the program, including direct and indirect costs, divided by the total estimated number of participants to arrive at the charge per participant. Daily admission to open swimming at the outdoor pool provides for up to seven and one -half hours of swimming. In 1981, daily admission charged for the outdoor pool was $1.25. It is recommended that, for 1982, the daily admission charge to the outdoor swimming pool be $1.50. The indoor pool has a different daily admission structure and procedure. The practice at the indoor pools has been to charge $ .75 per hour except for the summer months, when a three- hour session was available in the afternoons for a charge of $1.50. It is recommended that open swimming at the indoor pool be provided in two -hour sessions, year- round. Because of the hourly charge, the process has been to clear the pool every hour on the hour, then to check for readmission of -those having - paid -in advance for more than one hour and /or to collect from those who have arrived for the second hour or have decided to stay for the second hour. For some swimmers, this has meant that their paid hourly admission has afforded less than an hour of swimming. Clearing the pool every hour has also provided less swimming time and has provided a general disruption to both swimmers and staff. Therefore, it is recommended that a single admission price of $1.25 per person per two -hour session be charged, regardless of how long one wishes to swim in that two -hour period. Council Letter No. 367 -5- October 26, 1981 '?v�e<a a ,,:. k .. r fi�.,: F C^�" x.r `'.rd'� =i..." YAM.°R �.i .••� .,y<,y��.,.�,,. RECREATION PROGRAMS Background Until 1970, the school district provided recreation programming for the community and the city provided parks or facilities for programs as well as non - structured opportunities. In 1970, the city assumed both roles and the park and recreation department was made a part of the city operation. Unlike many other communities or municipalities, the City of Richfield has a large number or special interest groups varying from those organizing athletics for all ages and interests to clubs such as rock and mineral, or photography. The recreation division works closely with these organizations, and also offers a wide variety of recreation pro - gramming not available through other organizations or clubs. It has been the policy of the city to provide various recreation opportunities to the community without charge or user fees. These include general open space and amenities, such as tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball pits, play apparatus, and multi -use pathways, which provide a more structured use of leisure time. Summer and winter playground programs provide a more structured . use of leisure time. Some specific.program areas are partially subsidized while others have typically been self - supporting, insofar as user fees were established to cover'the city's direct expenses. With the joint facilities agreement, the city incurs little cost for the use of facilities such as gymnasiums at the schools. The cost of facilities such as outdoor tennis courts or basketball courts are generally minor. User fees have generally reflected the cost of a supervisor or instructor, and incidentals such as materials or transportation. If fees are charged for a specific, limited use, such fees are not charged to provide a profit to the city. Recommendation It is recommended that program fees be calculated on the basis of total anticipated expenditures, including direct and indirect costs, to be divided by the total anticipated number of participants to arrive at the charge per participant. In the past, only direct costs were calculated in fees and charges for various classes or lessons or gym -type activities. In addition to an indexing or inflation increase, it is proposed that these programs now also be charged for indirect costs. It is anticipated that generally all programs would have an increase of about loo as an indexing factor; the indirect costs will vary, but will generally be between 8% and 20% of the additional fee increase. The recreation division works with a number of outdoor sports. It is recommended that the $3.00 per hour charge for a reserved time and tennis court space remain unchanged. For adult field sports, including but not limited to, softball, baseball and soccer, it is recommended that each team be cliarged $40.00 for maintenance of fields used by the leagye. 1981 was the first year that such a maintenance charge was made; the adult softball iea <7ues were charged i $30.00 per team in 1981. Council Letter No. 367£ °,., `19,81 For other than league play, such as tournaments, it has been the policy of the city to charge for special or additional use of ballfield space which may or may not include use.of lights on softball, baseball or football /soccer fields. The following recommendations relate to fees for.this policy: 1981 1982 Lights- baseball $ 12 /field /hour $13 /field /hour Lights- softball $8.50 /field /hour $ 9 /field /hour Lights- football /soccer $10 /field /hour $11 /field, /hour For limited field maintenance (field maintenance charges include one field worker for up to eight hours) a charge of $4.50 per hour is recommended for those hours over eight hours per day. For games during or after regular season play (includes practices and exhibitions for non- Richfield groups only) it is recommended that the charge per field per day be increased from $30 to $33. The same charge would be made for tournaments or revenue - producing events. For games (including practices '_or exhibitions) the limited field maintenance is optional. If this option is not selected by the user, it is recommended that the charge for the park shelter. be increased from $4.00 per hour with an $8.00 minimum, to $4.50 per hour with a $9.00 minimum on weekdays and an $18.00 minimum charge on weekends. For damage and clean -up deposits, the following is recommended: 1981 1982 Games during or after regular season $100 $100 League and Playoffs $250 $250 Tournaments /Revenue $250 $275 Producing Events 111 Council Letter No. 339 -7- October 5, 1981 COMMUNITY CENTER 0 Background This facility specializes in programs and activities for senior and handicapped citizens. Much of the programming for the handi- capped is a cooperative effort with the City of Bloomington. It has been city council policy to provide programs to these population groups on a subsidized basis, or with recovery of only direct costs such as instructor and materials for class -type programs. Another aspect of the facility is to provide meeting space to various clubs, organizations, or private parties. Room rental charges vary from no cost for certain qualifying groups and organizations to $10.00 for a four -hour period or any fraction thereof for an adult club or organization with more than 100 people attending the function. Food service costs are additional and vary depending on the type of activity. A group providing a snack and /or beverage is charged $2.50; a breakfast, dinner, supper or similar activity sponsored by a community organization when the general public is invited is charged $25.00. This food service cost is primarily for set -up and clean -up. There are also some other services and charges such as those made for private parties, family get- togethers, wedding receptions and that sort of activity, in which case there is a charge of $40.00 for four hours or fraction thereof, and $10.00 for each additional hour or fraction thereof. A copy of the council - adopted resolution establishing the charges and a sample of user groups was distributed to council members at the September 30, 1981 budget hearing. Recommendation It is recommended that there be no change in policy related to fees for transportation services, which are primarily donations. It is recommended that there be no change in the formula for estab- lishing program or class registration fees, in that there be some subsidy for programs and, when applicable, only direct costs be borne by the participant. The recommended 1982 budget does not reflect a change in policy for use of the center as a meeting place, but the council has recently expressed some interest in examining this policy. As a point of information it is estimated that in 1982 the city will pay $4.31 per hour for non - full -time evening and weekend custodial help, $1.00 per hour for utilities and about $1.00 per hour for administrative costs, such as reservation time and material, billing time and material, etc. Therefore, the estimated total hourly cost of providing the community center facility is $6.30 per hour in 1982. It Council Letter No. 367 -8_- October WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER Background This facility offers a number of special events and programs. With these activities, the total estimated cost of a program includes direct costs for such items as instructor and materials. The total estimated cost of a class -type program is then divided by the total estimated number of participants to arrive at the fee or charge per participant. This facility also offers non- class type activities such as snowshoeing and cross country skiing, and is responsible for administration of the community garden program, which is located on lands leased from the Metro- politan Airports Commission. Recommendation It is recommended that the fee for class -type activities be determined based on the total estimated cost of the program, including direct and indirect costs, to be divided by the total estimated number of participants. It is recommended that the charge for activities such as cross,country` skiing remain the same, which is currently a rental fee of $2.50. It is recommended that for 1982 the charge for community gardens be $10.00 per plot-. It is expected that we will be able to provide 182 plots in 1982. This is 14 more plots than were available in 1981. We plan to add these 14 plots to the east side of the existing gardens. Continuing efforts will be made to have additional garden plots available if space can be secured and other details, such as availability of a water supply, can be arranged. Council Letter No. 367 -9- October 26, 1981 For greens fees, it is recommended that all charges related to the regulation course increase by $.50 for 1982. For the Par 3 course, the regular and patron fees are recommended to increase by $.50; other charges for the Par 3 course are recommended to increase by $.75 for 1982. Cross Country Skiing - Golf Course Rental "rates for "ski packages" consisting of skis, boots and poles: Weekdays Adults Juniors 2 hours $3.00 $2.00 4 hours 4.50 3.50 Weekends and Holidays 2 hours 4.00 3.00 4 hours 5.50 4.50 Indoor Golf Ranae An indoor golf range will be available for those who wish to practice during the winter. Clubs are available at no charge. Reservations may be made on a daily basis, but not required: 1/2 hour 1 hour Indoor Golf Lessons $2.00 3.50 Five consecutive sessions, each one hour $30.00 NON - RESIDENT PROGRAM REGISTRATION POLICY Background Presently the city has a policy which allows non - residents to register for programs one week prior to the scheduled start of the program. Recommendation It is recommended that non - residents be allowed to register for programs one week after registration has begun. This still allows Richfield residents a one -week priority in registering for programs. � 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 366 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to House Moving First Reading There is an item on the-October 26, 1981 city council agenda providing for council review of the city ordinance provisions re- lating to the moving of houses and other buildings. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment.is attached. The purpose of the.proposed ordinance change is twofold: to bring the references to Minnesota Statutes up to date, and to clarify the respective roles of various city personnel in review- ing and approving permits for moving of buildings. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance amendment. KN /eja Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 365 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subj ect : Agenda October 26, 1981 Purchases in Excess $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are three (3) such items on the city council agenda of October 26, 1981. INDOOR DRIVING RANGE The 1981 capital outlay budget for the golf course includes purchase of nets for an indoor driving range, to be located in the lower level of the clubhouse. Due to the dimensions of the space available, customized frames and nets are required. Only two companies specialize in this type of equipment. Of the two, only Wittek Golf Company can supply the custom frames. It is therefore recommended that the necessary equipment, including stations, targets, mats and tees, be purchased from Wittek Golf Supply Company in the amount of $1,501.66. CROSS COUNTRY SKI EQUIPMENT Another item in the 1981 capital outlay budget for the golf course is ski equipment, to begin a winter cross country ski program with the 1981/82 season. Five companies were contacted to provide quota- tions for 40 pair of skis, binding, boots and poles. Korner Plaza quoted $4,110 for the package. The only other quotation was received from Fcur Seasons Equipment. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase from Four Seasons, in the amount of $3,388.80. BROCHURE PAPER Three quotations have been received for the purchase of the paper to be used in the Winter 1981/82 brochure. The total cost will be shared by the school district and the city. Wilcox Paper Company quoted $3,836.63. Turnquist Paper Company quoted $2,314.85. It is recommended the city council authorize the purchase of winter brochure paper from Butler Paper, at a unit price of $17.89/M for the cover paper and $13.05/M for the text paper, for a total estimated purchase price of $2,130.18. Respectfully submitted, J Karl Nollenberger City Manager Pyfi CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 364 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Change Orders: CP 705 -3, 66th Street It is recommended that the city council approve the following change orders in CP 705 -3 (66th Street): 1. Supplemental Agreement No. 2 Addition of $1,739 for the removal and relocation of a light base and standard of Lake Shore Drive. Item was not a part of the original specifications due to the design changes in Lake Shore Drive. 2. Supplemental Agreement No. 3 Net deduction of $2,383.80 due to the change in the design of the crosswalks from bomanite to colored concrete. 3-. Supplemental Agreement No. 4 Addition of $1,480 for stockpiling fill due to the delay in acquisition of right -of -way. 4. Supplemental Agreement No. 5 Addition of $2,320 for a service control panel for street lighting for which no provision had been made. Respectfully submitted, i { Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director 46 City Engineer CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 363 } 81 �h Agenda October 26, 19 li The Honorable Mayor and QV. J Members of the City Council City of Richfield \ Council Members: �� Subject: Preliminary Engineering Report on the 1982- 1983 Sidewalk Improvement Construction The staff has prepared a preliminary engineering report for all of the identified proposed sidewalk locations. From this report, specific recommendations for the 1982 sidewalk construction and 1983 sidewalk construction have been prepared. The following is a list of the locations for the proposed 1982 sidewalk construction: ON SIDE FROM TO Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 65th Street 7 2. 75th Street North Penn Avenue Logan Avenue 76th Street South Sheridan Avenue Xerxes Avenue rP 76th Street South Lyndale Avenue James Avenue Lyndale Avenue Both 62nd Street 64th Street f3 Lake Shore Drive Both Lyndale Avenue 66th Street LPrsr`JC.nP'i�- 6�. 65th Street South Lyndale Avenue Pleasant Avenue -is �---t8th �7. Nicollet Avenue Both 7Z7th Street Street Q " P u "� -7'81 - 1/4 -k � A o '� .1 ? Second Avenue East 77th Street 78th Street (9� Portland Avenue West 77th Street 78th Street 77th Street South Elliot Avenue Chicago Avenue 12th Avenue West 76th Street 1-J -11 I -494 % ]� 77th Street South 12th Avenue 13th Avenue Council Letter No. 363 -2- ._ October 26, 1981 Attached for council review are the following exhibits: Exhibit A, 1982 Preliminary Engineering Report Exhibit B, 1982 Proposed Sidewalk Construction Map Exhibit C, Special Costs Incurred Exhibit C is included to allow the council to review some of the special costs and considerations involved in sidewalk construction. These are costs that are incurred above the normal sidewalk con- struction costs. These special costs consist of tree removals, tree relocations, construction of retaining walls and rights -of -way acquisition. The proposed 1982 construction will complete the arterial sidewalk system which has been identified by the council's sidewalk policy as a priority. The construction of the Xerxes Avenue sidewalk in 1982 is dependent on negotiations with the county to use one foot of the oC existing parking lane to allow a five foot sidewalk on the street side of the existing trees. If such a settlement can not be reached, it is recommended that Xerxes Avenue sidewalk be on the 1983 project. Either additional right -of -way will be needed, or approximately 13 large trees will have to be removed. The total estimated cost of the 1982 proposed sidewalk project is $204,744. The sidewalk proposed for 65th Street, between Lyndale . Avenue and Pleasant Avenue, will serve to link K -Mart and the Hub. This will replace the sidewalk which was originally proposed to cross the Northwestern Bell property. Funding, estimated at $7,300 for the 65th Street, Lyndale Avenue to Pleasant Avenue, sidewalk will come from CP 705. Funding for the rest of the project will be from municipal State Aid Funds and special assessments. Since the 1981 sidewalk construction occured almost entirely on State Aid roads, a surplus may be realized from the 1981 project because of the special assessments. These funds will be applied to sidewalk construction adjacent to non -state aid streets for 1982 -1983. Attached for council review also is the recommendation for 1983 proposed sidewalk construction. Exhibit D is the 1983 Preliminary Report; Exhibit E the 1983 sidewalk construction map; Exhibit F a listing of special costs incurred. In the council sidewalk policy, 69th Street between Xerxes and 35W has been identified as a location for a sidewalk. In assessing the 69th Street location, the staff has found that $35,000 in special costs would be incurred due to the hilly terrain. Many retaining walls would have to be built, result- ing in a very expensive and disruptive project. In addition, there are several sections of existing retaining walls six to eight feet high, four feet off of the curb, where a four foot sidewalk would have to be installed rather than relocating the wall. The staff has analyzed 70th Street between Xerxes and 35W as an alternate route for this sidewalk. A sidewalk could be built on the north side of 70th Street from Xerxes to 35W which would involve about 49 $6,200 in special costs. Such a location would still provide a link to the Southdale Library area, but at a much lower cost. Therefore, the staff recommends that 70th Street be designated for the 1983 sidewalk project as an alternative to 69th Street. Council Letter No. 363 -3- October 26, 1981 It is recommended that the council pass the attached resolution, setting a public hearing for November 2Z, 1981 on the 1982 sidewalk construction project. Respectfully submitted, 1 Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer City Clerk �1 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 1982 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION - C.P. 772 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6498 of the council adopted September 28, 1981, a report has been prepared by the city engineer with reference to the improvement of the following streets by construction of sidewalk: 65th Street Logan Avenue Xerxes Avenue James Avenue 64th Street 66th Street Pleasant Avenue 78th Street 78th Street 78th Street Chicago Avenue I -494 13th Avenue And this report was received by the council on this 26th day of October, 1981. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The council will consider the improvements of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $204,744.24; 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement of such streets on the 23rd day of November, 1981, 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 26th day of October, 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ON SIDE FROM 1. Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 2. 75th Street North Penn Avenue 3. 76th Street South Sheridan Avenue 76th Street South Lyndale Avenue 4. Lyndale Avenue Both 62nd Street 5. Lake Shore Drive Both Lyndale Avenue 6. 65th Street South Lyndale Avenue 7. Nicollet Avenue Both 77th Street 8. Second Avenue East 77th Street 9. Portland Avenue West 77th Street 10. 77th Street South Elliot Avenue 11. 12th Avenue West 76th Street 12. 77th Street South 12th Avenue 65th Street Logan Avenue Xerxes Avenue James Avenue 64th Street 66th Street Pleasant Avenue 78th Street 78th Street 78th Street Chicago Avenue I -494 13th Avenue And this report was received by the council on this 26th day of October, 1981. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The council will consider the improvements of such streets in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $204,744.24; 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement of such streets on the 23rd day of November, 1981, 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 26th day of October, 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor Exhibit "A" PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST 1982 SIDEWALK AND APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 772 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 October 26, 1981 IV. LOCATION' Sidewalk construction with handicap ramps ON SIDE FROM TO 1. Xerxes Avenue East 62nd Street 65th Street 2. 75th Street North Penn Avenue Logan Avenue 3. 76th Street South Sheridan Avenue Xerxes Avenue 76th Street South Lyndale Avenue James Avenue 4. Lyndale Avenue Both 62nd Street 64th Street 5. Lake Shore Drive Both Lyndale Avenue 66th Street 6. 65th Street South Lyndale Avenue Pleasant Avenue 7. Nicollet Avenue Both 77th Street 78th Street 8. Second Avenue East 77th Street 78th Street 9. Portland Avenue West 77th Street 78th Street 10. 77th Street South Elliot Avenue Chicago Avenue 11. 12th Avenue West 76th Street I -494 12. 77th Street South 12th Avenue 13th Avenue V. FEASIBILITY The sidewalk and handicap ramp project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. -2- VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the streets and avenues as described under sidewalk construction in item Number IV above. VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST a) Construction of approximately 14,912 lineal feet of 5' concrete sidewalk improvements. Estimated construction costs $143,155.20 20 percent indirect cost 28,631.04 $171,786.24 b) 47 handicap ramps with new sidewalk Estimated construction costs $ 9,165.00 20 percent indirect cost 1,833.00 $ 10,998.00 c) Construction of retaining walls, right of way, tree removals, and tree relocations Estimated Construction Cost $ 18,300.00 20 percent indirect cost 3,660.00 $ 21,960.00 Total Estimated Project Cost a) Sidewalk Construction $171,786.24 b). Handicap Ramps with Sidewalk 10,998.00 c) Retaining walls, R.O.W., Tree relocation /removal 21,960.00 $204,744.24 VII 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: $171,786.24 . 14,912 lineal feet = 11.52 /lineal foot of sidewalk. Residential Assessment 11.52 /L.F. x 200 = 2.30 /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 $2.30 = $172.50 -3- i;-i Multiple and Commercial Assessment $11.52 /L.F. x 500 = $5.76 /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 $5.76 = $1,152.00 I hereby certify this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Q LLJ 0 A f i == ^ nco V ..µii Z. � �7a ��i �_�� _ -��` `� • ..own V l r 1 e LLI Q LLJ 0 A f i == ^ nco V ..µii Z. � �7a ��i �_�� _ -��` `� • ..own V l r 1 e Map. Exhibit_ {" C �.;e;;i y$p�si'.�< W � FR 1 '�- '�xxps'.� r+Y y4 w+a. �xNM���,+P�T� ? >4.+' 4 } �S„1�J+t rq„'s` rr 2'h�f��� � � - ��i• u. .. +r ... ..,.le.R'�,»44.wT��na�e.. <.�... -.. . .+n, .+¢ „:.N.io _.. zafY :�[., a.46T. �:�'Gw'+.:_�.:>2 .7k>�5:h?,: -v + ... ., hCa +41.�#.N.- .xifK. -new. �.sn.d SA+sce? Knh�'WkAVr'�.. v�—,.� n� '+, ..�.. ,..+• .i 1e.GlY; Cost Total Cost 1982 SIDEWALK PAVING Xerxes Tree Removal 3 DETAIL OF EXTRA COSTS $ 900.00 Map. No. Street Item Quantity Cost Total Cost 1 Xerxes Tree Removal 3 $ 900.00 2. 75th Street - - - - 3. 76th Street Tree Removal 1 $ 300.00 Tree Relocation 7 1,050.00 Retaining walls to be built _ 2 3,600.00 -Guard rail relocation 2,550.00 $7,500.0 4. Lyndale Avenue Right of way purchase 9,450.0 5. Lake Shore Drive - - - 6. 65th Street - - - 7. Nicollet Avenue - - - 8. Second Avenue - - - .9. Portland Avenue - - - 10. 77th Street - - -. 11. 12th Avenue - - - 12. 77th Street - - - $17,850.0 0 • I] 0 Exhibit "D" PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST 1983 SIDEWALK AND APPURTENANT WORK • PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 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 October 26, 1981 IV. LOCATION Sidewalk construction with handicap ramps ON SIDE FROM TO 1. 65th Street North Xerxes Avenue Upton Avenue 65th Street North Russell Avenue Penn Avenue 2. 70th Street North Xerxes Avenue 3.5 -W 3. Diagonal Blvd. North Cedar Avenue 12th Avenue 73rd Street 12th Avenue Portland 4. Cedar Avenue 76 1/2 Street 77th Street V. FEASIBILITY The sidewalk and handicap ramp project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the streets and avenues as described under sidewalk construction in item number IV above. is VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST a) Construction of approximately 10,632 lineal feet of 5' concrete sidewalk improvements Estimated Construction Costs $102,067.00 20 percent indirect cost 20,413.00 $122,480.00 b) 70 handicap ramps with new sidewalk Estimated Construction Cost $ 13,650.00 20 percent indirect cost 2,730.00 $ 16,380.00 c) Construction of retaining walls, tree removals, and tree locations Estimated Construction Cost $ 21,880.00 20 percent indirect cost 4,376.00 $ 26,256.00 Total Estimated Project Cost a) Sidewalk Construction $122,480.00 b) Handicap Ramps with Sidewalk 16,380.00 c) Retaining Walls, Tree Relocation/ Removal - 26,256.00 $165,116.00 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: $122,480.00 : 10,632 lineal feet = $11.52 /lineal foot of sidewalk Residential Assessment $11.52 /L.F. x 200 = $2.30 /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 $2.30 = $172.50 Multiple and Commercial Assessment $11.52 /L.F. x 50% = $5.76 /assessable foot. In multiple and commercial areas the assessment will be figured on the total length of lot abutting the approvement -3- Typical assessment for lot with 200' abutting improvement: 200' x $5.76 $1,152.00 I hereby certify this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. /Michael J.(Xastling, P:E. Date: October 26, 1981 Registration No. 15066 0 • _ - - . _ ... »�� ,�.ca�wswr =,S+c »4e r .r�ri.7 -, � - •'<,n..m ., - '-?:..... .. . as a s�rv� iR..`ais, �r �y lit ET11 IT� IS q1_ car.. •r[. ��^ ^ 61 LJ � 9, Lip. ...� LN •- -� sl,ar pR. I���� ����L.._Ji 41 y�,r.;s �5 - oun.•+a C , - i 1 f a s 7:t »... till �IuC �!� � rri • Exhibit "F" ..5fi �"y+3�arF.�w -?u �'R�z'^- '�'GFYl.1 .. -3�C' '4X ' 1°J' ✓ F.os'T .. F ''/r' .'. FsA .w '4., m T"'k rWW�1.'3+C 1983 SIDEWALK PAVING DETAIL OF EXTRA COSTS Map No. Street Item Quantity Cost Total Cost. 1. 65th Street Tree removal 3 $ 900.00 Tree relocation 3 500.00 Retaining walls to be built 7,400.00 $8,800.00 2. 70th Street Tree Removal 2 $ 600.00 Hedge removal /relocate 1,350.00 Retaining walls to be built 4,280.00 $6,230.00 3. Diagonal Blvd. Tree Removal 3 $ 900.00 Tree - Relocation 13. 2,100.00 Retaining walls. to be built 21700.00 Fence relocation 350.00 $6,050.00 4. Cedar Avenue Tree Relocation 2 $ 300.00 Fill with sod 500.00 $ 800.00 - - - - - - - - - - 21, 880.00 5. Not Recommended 69th Street Tree removal 4 $1,200.00 Tree relocation 6 900.00 Hedge removal /relocate 390.00 Retaining walls to be built 32,184.00 Remove retaining wall 100.00 Fence relocation 245.00 $35,019.00 Grand Total with 70th Street $21,880.00 Grand Total with 69th Street $50,669.00 • e,�r' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 362 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of Resolution Urging the Metropolitan Health Board to Effectively Control Health Care Costs and Safeguard Health Services The Metropolitan Health Board is responsible for the long -range hospital planning process for the seven- county metropolitan area. The Board has appointed a task force and holds hearings from time to time to evaluate those services. 'Its goal is to provide adequate health services at minimal costs. The Board is now in a final phase of its study and will shortly be establishing policies that will have a -long range impact on the metro area. . The City Advisory Board of Health is charged by the city council to study public health needs and recommend to the city policies, ordinances and programs necessary to meet those needs. The Advisory Board of Health members have attended the Metro Board of Health hearings and /or otherwise reviewed reports of discussion items and papers concerning the long -range hospital planning process. At the Advisory Board of Health meeting on September 16, 1981, a resolution was passed supporting the Metro- politan Health Board's efforts to control health care costs. The Advisory Board of Health has asked that the city council approve a similar resolution. The resolution will be submitted to the Met- ropolitan Health Board during its next meeting in early November. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution for submission to the Metropolitan Health Board. Respectfully submitted, t; Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Public Safety Director Environmental Health Manager +s».. f+i+d % ""^ ,.'¢°' ,�K'r wd^,�•.!�"'rst�'x&.g" y i' an. :�- JX v %. >,.. .. :veae *ube.t �vb �•_e .�nw4t"� -. i.+.�y, .:.i. ..! «i >z�; ., �t...dMrra...�ii:F.. akt k. d�YR+'bn +'srw�.. ,xzseu >. -,., dew.+ sus.:iwk3.s+`.:.,,.a.s2t..,,.r. Attu .^•.. ^.Ri.+�+1W)1tw5i.sa��%WAr i+,-,Te+w ,.�Ftl9�e a`ukAk".. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION URGING THE METROPOLITAN HEALTH BOARD TO EFFECTIVELY CONTROL HEALTH CARE COSTS AND SAFEGUARD HEALTH SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield and functions as the official Board of Health of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to promote, support, and maintain the health of the entire community at the highest level; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Richfield has reviewed Phase IV of the Metropolitan Health Board's long -range hospital planning process on General Acute Inpatient and Specialty Services; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Board of Health of the City of Richfield recommends that the Metropolitan Health Board more effectively control Health Care Costs and Safeguard health Services; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the Metropolitan Health Board in its efforts to reduce hospital bed numbers place particular emphasis on accessibility, availability and quality of service in its planning process; and . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the Metropolitan Health Board refrain from making value judgements and singling out of hospitals to prevent erosion of hospital services including but not limited to the needs of the minorities and poor as consumers and /or employees; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, that the Metropolitan Health Board expand on shared services between hospitals in the areas of personnel, laboratory, bed control, equipment and supply purchases. 0 Passed and adopted this 26th day of October, 1981. Attest: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor 4uw� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 361 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: MTC Bus Service Reductions Effective December 19, 1981, the Metropolitan Transit Commission is proposing some bus service reductions which will directly effect the City of Richfield. While the reductions will probably cause some inconvenience for some Richfield residents, the overall negative impact on Richfield will not be nearly as great as the impact on some of the second and third ring suburbs. The major reason for the service reduction is the MTC's loss of a $21 million federal operating subsidy within the next year. If the MTC were to continue to run the present schedule it is anticipated that, by the end of 1982, they would have incurred a $35 million unfunded deficit. Therefore, in an attempt to avoid a deficit, the MTC will be reducing or eliminat- ing those routes which have low ridership and very high per passenger subsidies. Proposed route modifications or reductions in Richfield are as follows: 1. All Sunday bus service on Route 47 is proposed to be eliminated. Route 47 serves south Minneapolis, Richfield, and Bloomington and runs along Lyndale Avenue. The weekday and Saturday service on this route will not be affected. 2. Express Route 35 LU will be modified by eliminating only the bus which departs downtown Minneapolis at 5:00 p.m. This route runs on I -35W to 76th Street where it then runs in an easterly direction to Nicollet Avenue. This route then services Bloomington. 3. The bus departing downtown Minneapolis at 5:42 p.m. on Route 35 G will be combined with the Route 35 E bus which departs downtown Minneapolis at 5:37 p.m. It is also proposed that the early morning bus on Route 35 E, which departs 77th and Portland at 6:20 a.m., be eliminated. Routes 35 G and 35 E both serve the Portland Avenue area of Richfield. 4. Route 4, which serves the Penn Avenue area, will have the weekly service changed in frequency from 10 mindtes to 12 minutes as well as the same changes occuring on Saturday for this route. 11 • — - - - Council Letter No. 361 -2- October 26, 1981 5. The 35 E bus which departs 77th Street and Portland Avenue at 6:20 a.m. will also be eliminated. 6. The Route 35 S bus which leaves 4th Avenue and 11th Street at 7:54 a.m. will also be eliminated. Bus routes with the numerical prefix 35 all utilize I -35W in going to and from downtown Minneapolis. All of these aforementioned modifications or cutbacks in service to Richfield are proposed to produce an annual savings of $172,989 and save 69,726 miles of travel on an annual basis. It is also projected that 90 passengers per day will be lost as a result of these modifications. No specific action is necessary on the aforementioned items unless the council chooses to oppose any of the suggested service modifications. KN /sh Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City" Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 360 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Change Order: Addition to CP 727 -4, Miscellaneous Sidewalk Project The city is obligated to replace 51 square yards of concrete surface on Penn Avenue between 62nd and 63rd Streets which was damaged during a water main break. Arcon Construction of Mora, Minnesota, the contractors for the 1981 sidewalk improvement program, have submitted an estimate for this repair for a sum not to exceed $4,950. The staff recommends approval of Arcon Construction to proceed with this work as a change order addition to CP 727 -4. Payment will be made from the water fund. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager L� Council Letter No. 359 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Approval of 1982 Capital Improvement Budget and 1983 -1987 Capital Improvement Program The city council is scheduled to finalize adoption of the 1982 Capital Improvement Budget and the 1983 -1987 Capital Improvement Program at their October 26, 1981 meeting. Additional copies of these documents are attached, for your review. It is recommended that the city council adopt these documents by passing the attached resolutions. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Program Director Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1982 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS a o osed capital improvement budget for 1982 has P P P been prepared and submitted for review by the city council in accordance with charter requirements, and WHEREAS, the city council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the planning com- mission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 1982 capital improve- ment budget in the sum total of $3,136,000 is hereby approved and adopted with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to necessary hearings and must be approved by the city council in accordance with established laws and practices governing such action, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more 41 formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield, this day of , 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1983 -1987 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program for the 1983 -1987 period has been prepared for review to the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements, and WHEREAS, the city council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 1983 -1987 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate procedures which lead to more formal and detailed consideration of those projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. • Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • Donald J. Priebe, Mayor GYl .s m r� V 0 C. LL3 IS LLI CL co [CIO) 0V im � <: �`or a_:? Y•y, ... .. L vl "'�^ w''�'d°,,�' �,}tv' w4d rxi .' s'�, •'Ra �i,:r ^IS, ,, x; _ t5'7}3'yyf( %..v;t'i ..".�G' �i •�'-' 2S�viTS- r,>n_IYF. �f'.3'i$'S.;, X '.�YSi...x'G:- !:L.+','kr??sM.1' "MOM - cit'"Js..S.W O w E L % Lr) Ln Ul Z-) O U 0 U — — © M I I O O O O O O N N C N co Q1 M O M — M O M N U1 N O LL- LL •` O O � 1 O 1 O O O O N O O N _ O a d CY) M O M >- M O •- N Ul d > N W L.L. L O 1 I O O C) O O N O n N > co M � O N •C O U (n. LL LL- =D = N I i O 1 O O O � d d O C) O O O 7 co N O N Q) M C Lf'1 M E M 00 N W-\ E O U CC LL cn cn N o-I C-1 1 O L 1 C- O 1 O p CD C O O O co p O O O U1 Lf\ O c CV ab0 O N M Cl O O O O O O Cl O O O O O — O O O O O O O O O O O O O .. O N 00 O O O O O O O O O O O M O O N O LA Ln Ul Ul U1 Ul LA Ln O Ln N M 00 N ••-_ r- .- N O Lf1 L n L!'1 N L O L+ cn V) L LL- U) C - U U CJ C O 0 W N to •— (0 •� O N a+ > LL O Ln L L 1J C1 d (D J O 4- '' ro O — J--+ L 0 Q) u L a. U C 4- U) 4- C C O C (D C -0 ID 0 CJ N 0 LL •- O 7 N E L C J N C1 •- U — Q U N ZlIz Z44- zt:* Zt Z¢ Z4- U > tL > I O O O J N O N •-- •--. .— r- .— L a-+ L +� j— m L+ r.•+ E r n a n c O f0 �o — N N a) N N N 7 E U E p O Ul n co Ol C) N M Ul . S I N N N N N M M M M M M M im a, V 0 IL i� LLI a LU 0 R�16sf� e®a co qAOV% 1 co 3Nl- O o 6 _. ) p rn C p. m Ln � � U QJ N M O O O O O p G O p (` Ln O C) C) _ Ltl O 0 N N co \�o (D O O co O 0 M U) — Lfl Lr\ U-\ o U\ U\ Cl- rn Ql O N O N M Lr\ N O N a O O O O O O O O O O Co O O O O O O O ` O O .. O .. O C) O - O N cV O.. a) m O O U\ C) Ll .. .. O ., C .. M M } Co N — O M Q\ �D N -:r O N U\ Cl N M U\ d > N O O O O O O O O O O O to O U\ O N r" O CD N O 00 O O W O O O O -:I, O O 0 -- O O N U\ N .s O U C O O O O Cl O C) O O O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O N N U M N N O Lt\ U-\ U\ E �- o - o r\ ^ o ^ N m o ^ U d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ci O O O O O O L1\ Lr\ O O U1 O O Ln O OO O 61 Lr\ �10 U\ co .- S N O N U\ O M M ^ r" N O O O O O O O O O O O _} p N O tl\ C) O O O O O O t11 O C) O O U\ O O O O 00 O M O V F- O - N (\J r- N m OO 'p L rn Lr\ ^ N ^ IN- Ln C O m Q �+ C C C O (n In L :3 3 c V rl7 In 41 M c -0 Z 4. to Ln _ O N u 'D to rp > L rp p LL C C Ln L .— N 4-+ L J d L.L. fD L LL. Q (O Q Q� c N in O CL O •- r- O — U W a) a) !- O U •- Y C U ID U U C U L c c (u o a) -o v — > CL a) LA O E N U N L+- LL N, w O N a O N O Q Q � N LL. S Z < , N U N LL Li Ln w 'L' _. m V 0. t� e_ LU 2 LLI tp� z 11� ce) co T. 0 co N — !ri„ .., f> -'• .. i� � . �Fk� <, t :�ca .^ivA a^ .:�F � — a ' - �o c o C o E o Ln U o >, CJ a> i m CL V') ` I 1 1 N O O O O O N U O O O p O OD txN '✓ Q C' < N Q� CC 1. 1 1 a) O 0000 O O q 4 O O O O O O O O O (:: O O C O O y Q) O O Ln Ln O O Lr\ J N �S N tY can p I N L 0 O I O O O O O LO O O to C) O O ^ ^ •O 7 O O q D _ Ln N U 10 O Q N C � N U U of l 1 I 1 (n 7 O O O O O O O O O C) y 0) O O Ln Ln O j E o Ln E r\ Ln 0 U Q < O Q U N Q Q N Q Q N V) LN U U i Ln LL U - 7 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O � O O O O O O O 0 0 C) O Ln Lt1 O C:, q�{^I O O Lr\ Ln Vr N b Ln pl"�' O Lr\ N N — rn APT ? --I- n r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n O y O O O O O O O O O LA O� j E- Lr Ln N C O O O O O N OD a% Lt\ O O O O LrN -:7 -- Ln f j7 -' O O O O N N C O n U N C U w � O Dl N o' `n -1 Ln U a) 3 LA 0 c p -C 4� v O\ +� o (a �I a- L 4� c Ln C O cu L — E 0) N 4) to N N u .L N •- N N nCI O Q c O O — r In r- ..0 O -C 4. 3 V) Q a L N X N •Ql N LL 1 4-J L L C) D J O •- .D +J a) > c L C rJ to •- .D Ln X Q ro +., 7 W 1— 3 N (a >� I — O to ^ 2 CJ X U C t C C +-1 N Ln L J N O O a+ L O V) X r\ ° In ♦p t� f J Ql O N Z - •- N N N N N CA Cb O`. z LU :2 �7 0 CL �f>r 1� vi V Cf) ev N 3a a r r"Y v C O O O O O O C O O T CI % U U L n u\ u\ m C7 L CL' N d N N V) N I C� I 1 O O I O f O O ti C) O O -. O O -O OD C3 O O O O O u\ O U'N M n - N M U O of N co a o 0 0 o O 1 (p o 0 0 0 0 i c 0 O O O O C O O 0 Lr1 O L\ M M N ..-. N 9:r_ d 10 fO .... lO O O O O O In O O O O _� .. 7 � 'D U\ •D O (n N O O •O 07 O p p O U d CC CC cr-I cc: N (/7 N (n N O O O O O Ki O O O 0 O co 0 O C) O O O C Ll C� U\ U\ M M -T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O -. O O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O N O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O V O O Co O O O O O O O Ul O Ln U\ U1 U\ Ul O U\ O O O O m M U\ N N M LI\ - U\ U\ U\ �.p .- N Z C W O O i..f L � Y � (D =i L •- C U < i W U `1 L O 7 Q) 1 d Q U J O VI L (p L (p L Y d L U C J J (0 d (0 L (p N a Z W .Q - L � W d C W Y u U O� O C O (D ro v C _ V) O C Ol (0 63 (o E L- Q O N .� .(o O W W .- ._ 4- L In ._ .- O Q O Ln d' U a.+ 4- L O 4- O •_ r L .- ,.y 4- O U Q U E 4- U � V) Q) N L L L - W IZ (p •- N O •- (D (0 S N U (p O Q rY N J cr- Z 3 cn J - d d LL a . 6 '- N M S Lt\ -. 1\ 00 m O N M �' BUDGET SUMMARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS Pro j ec:t Project Projects Revenues Expenditures Recreation and Open Space Development Rich Acres Park $ - $ 5,000 Monroe /Fairwood Park 143,750 SG 20,000 130,000 RS 176,250 SR Community Center Elevator V,� JK 3,000 Park Land Acquisition 30,000 SR 30,000 Forestry 45,000 SR 45,000 Ice Arena Improvements 2,000 Total Recreational Development $ 525,000 $ 105,000 Right- of -Wav Improvements Sidewalks $ 136,000 MSA $ 170,000 34,000 SAB Alleys 400,000 SAB 400,000 Lyndale Avenue 74th to 494 492,000 MSA 492,000 ..Storm, Sewer 1,000,000 SAB 1,000,000 Adams Hill Storm Sewer 100,000 OF 98,000 Traffic Signals I- 35/75th Street 50,000 P 50,000 Total Right -of -Way Improvements $2,212,000 $2,210,000. Public Facilities Public Safety Building $ 130,000 SR $ 50,000 45,000 RS Water Plant Roof 120,000 RB 120,000 Well #4 12,000 OF 12,000 Lime Slaker 35,000 OF 35,000 Lift Station #2 50,000 OF 50,000 Energy Improvements 7,000 SR Total Public Facility Improvements $ 399,000 $ 267,000 Total Projects ,$3,136,000 $2,582.000 ESTIMATED 1982 REVENUES BY SOURCE Special Revenues (SR) $ 388,250 State Grants (SG) 143,750 Special Assessment Bonds (SAB) x,,434,000 Municipal State Aid (MSA) ��w 6-243, 060 Revenue Sharing (RS) 175,000 User Fees (UF) 197,000 Revenue Bonds (RB) 120,000 Private (P) 50,000 I bq# ,00 O Total Estimated Revenues S- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA N% V,� JK \ No C -1 ANNUAL BUDGET 1 CAPITAL IMPROVMMBNT�F_UNDS _;� `� ` ':w NEW APPROPRIATIONS Budget Revised Budget _1981_ _1931 1982 Recreational and Open Space Development Community Center Elevator $ $ 102,000 F FG $ 1 102,000 F FG $ - - 10,000 S SR Monroe /Fairwood Part: 4 40,000 S SR 4 40,000 S SR 1 176,250 S SR 130,000 R RS 143,750 S SG Ice Arena Improvements 2 25,000 S SR 2 25,000 S SR Swimming Pool Improvements 2 20,000 S SR 2 20,000 S SR Rich Acres Park 5 50,000 S SR 5 50,000 S SR Legion Lake Study 1 10,000 S SR 1 10,000 S SR Park Land Acquisition 5 55,000 S SR 5 55,000 S SR 3 30,000 S SR Forestry 4 45,000 S SR 4 45,000 S SR 4 45,000 S SR Civic Plaza Sculpture 2 20,000 S SR - - - - -- - - -- 1 10 2100 P P - - --- -- Total Recreational Development - -'$347000 $ $ 3 3372-100 $ $x525,000 Rig~htof -Wad Improvements S Sidewalks - $ 10,000 S SR $ 1 10,000 S SR $ - - 160,000 M MSA 1 113,000 M MSA 1 136,000 M MSA 25,000 S SAB 4 42,000 S SAB 3 34,000 S SAB Street Lighting - Arterial 1 180,000 S SAB 1 171,539 S SAB 78,461 M MSA Traffic Signals I -35/76 East 5 50,000 P P 5 50,000 P P Traffic Signals I -35/76 West 2 20,000 M MSA 7 7,030 M MSA Alleys 4 475,000 S SAB 4 412,000 S SAB 4 400,000 S SAB t Bir �Tr�'Se.YGL3 ) ) , C C ' '. , SA , , Lyndale Avenue 64th - 67th 5 519,000 F FAU 4 490,633 F FAU 205,293 M MSA 1 129,669 M MSA 117,175 F FG 9 95,000 F FG Lyndale Avenue 57th - 74th 3 37,000 M MSA 8 800,000 M MSA 12,000 S SAB 6 60,000 S SAB 66th Grand to I -35 9 957,000 H HC 9 910,000 H HC 473,000 M MSA 4 465,000 M MSA 9 1 175,000 F FG 1 175,000 F FG s so yn a e Venue, 00 A i1S Adams Hill Storm Sewer 100,000 OF Total Right -of -Way Improvements X4,425,473 3 976,302 2 212,000 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA C_ I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA C-3 ANNUAL BUDGET '..- . MEMO CAPITAL PIPROVL ('CONY L j. .. rk, NEW APPROPRIATIONS Budget Revised Budget i 1981 1981 1982 I Public Facilities Central Garage $ 28,109 SR $ 28,109 SR $ - Government Buildings 30,000 SR 36,000 SR Public Safety Building 208,109 RS 208,109 RS 45,000 RS 291,891 SR 316,891 SR 130,000 SR 300,000 PIR 300,000 PIR Energy Building'Improvements 7,000 SR Water Plant Roof 120,000 -.$B Well #4 12,000 OF Lime Slaker 35,000 OF Lift Station ,E2 _ 50,000 OF Total Public Facilities $ 858,109 $ 889,109 $ 399,000 Total Projects $5,530,582 $5.,252,511 53,136,000 I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA C-3 ANNUAL BUDGET s Public Facilities Central Garage Project to Date Project to Date $ Government Buildings Appropriations Expenditures Fund Balance Project Jan. 1, 1981 Jan.,l, 1981 Jan, 1, 1981 Recreational & Open Space Development 108,000 56,416 51,584 Tennis Court Lighting $ 50,000 $ 47,429 $ 2,571 Tree Nursery 7,000 5,577 1,423 Christian Park 479,504 469,263 10,241 Boulevard Trees 145,000 148,250 (3,250) Ice Arena Improvements 45,000 37,615 7,385 Nature Center Repairs 21,200 12,904 8,296 Nature Center Carpet 15,000 9,241 5,759 Adams Hill Park 541,866 503,150 38,716 - Sheridan Park 33,300 6,320 26,980 Swimming Pool Improvements 5,000 3,831 1,169 Park Land Acquisition _ _ Monroe - Fairwood Park 10,000 7,799 2,201 Rich Acres Park _ _ Community Center Elevator Legion Lake Study Civic Plaza Sculpture _ _ Subtotal $1,352,870 $1,251,379 $ 101,.491 Right -Of- Way Improvements Sidewalk Improvements $ - Y 1,689 $..,.(1,689). Alley Improvements - 16,007 (16,007) Street Lighting - 1,285 (1,285) Storm Sewer Improvements - _ Aldrich Avenue Cul -de -sac Lyndale Avenue 64th -67th 1,865,430 842,915 1,022,515 Lyndale Avenue 67th -74th - 1,000 (1,000) Lyndale Avenue 74th -I -494 - _ 66th Street -I -35 to Grand - 1,557,000 189,987 1,367,013 Traffic Signals I- 35/76th East - _ _ Traffic Signals I- 35/76th West Adams Hill Pond Subtotal $3,422,430 $1,052,883 $2,369,547 Public Facilities Central Garage $ 158,353 $ 156,092 $ Government Buildings 261,891 158,356 103,535 Wells Controls Modification 61,000 56,233 4,767 Energy & Building Improvements 108,000 56,416 51,584 Lift Stations 133,000 82,297 50,703 Public Safety Expansion - _ _ Water Plant Roof Well Replacement Lime Slaker Subtotal $ 722,244 $ 509,394 $ 212,850 Grand Total 55,497,544 $2,81.3,656 X2,683,838 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA C -4 ANNUAL 9UdGET to l0 .4 Revised Revised Budget Budget Revenues Expenditures Fund Balance Revenues Expenditures Fund Balance 1981 1981 Dec. 31, 1981 1982 1982 Dec. 31, 1982 - $ 2,571 $ - $ $ - $ - - 1,423 - - - - - 10,241 - - - 45,000 41,750 - 45,000 45,000 - 25,000 30,385 2,000 - 2,000 - - 8,296 - - - - 5,759 - - - 38,716 - - _ - 26,980 - - -_ 20,000 21,169 - - 55,000 55,000 - 30,000 30,000 - 40,000 472,201 (430,000) 450,000 20,000 - 50,000 45,000 5,000 - 5,000 - 112,000 109,000 3,000 - 3,000 - 10,000 10,000 - - 30,100 30,100 - - $ 387,100 $ 908,591 $(420,000) $ 525,000 $ 105,000 $ - $ 170,000 $ 168,311 $ - $- 170,000 $ 170,000 $ - 412,000 395,993 - 400,000 400,000 - 250,000 248,715 - - - 2,000 (2,000) 1,000,000 998,000 - 12,000 12,000 - - - 715,302 1,737,817 - - - 860,000 859,000 - - - - - - 492,000 492,000 - 1,550,000 2,917,013 - - - - - - 50,000 50,000 - 7,000 7,000 - - - - - - 100,000 100,000 _ - $3,976,302 $6,347,849 $ (2,000) $2,212,000 $2,210,000 $ - $ 28,109 $ 30,370 $ - $ - $ 36,000 139,535 - - - - 4,767 - - - - 58,584 (70,000) 7,000 - - - 50,703 - 50,000 50,000 - 825,000 950,000 (125,000) 175,000 50,000 - - - - 120,000 120,000 - _ - - 12,000 12,000 - - - - 35,000 35,000 - $ 889,109 $1,233,959 $(132,000) $ 399,000 $ 267,000 $ - $5,252,511 $8,490,399 $(554,000) 53,136,000 52,582,000 4 - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL BUDGET 0 0 11 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 358 Agenda October 26, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for Participation in Urban Corps Intern Program For several years the City of Richfield has cooperated with the Urban Corps to place area college students in internship positions with the city. This arrangement has been quite beneficial to us, since it has enabled the city to hire additional part -time employees at very little cost to either undertake short term studies or projects, or to supplement our full time work force in perform- ing some of the city's on -going services. For instance, Urban Corps interns have often been assigned to assist the Nature Center staff in conducting a variety of programs. The Urban Corps Program is administered by the City of Minneapolis. In order for Richfield to continue participating in this program, it is necessary to execute an agreement with the City of Minneapolis. This agreement with Minneapolis does not commit the City of Richfield to hire Urban Corps interns, but it does provide that we can hire interns through the Urban Corps Program if we choose. The cost to the city could range from $1.23 to $2.70 per hour, depending on time worked and educational level of the intern. It is recommended that the city council authorize execution of the Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /sh cc: Personnel Manager Administrative Services Director iy 1: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter — Office Memorandum DATE October 21, 1981 TO CITY COUNCIL FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER'. SUBJECT KENNEL LICENSE FOR: MARGARET A. McADAMS (6400 16TH AVENUE SOUTH) QUESTIONS FROM THE KENNEL INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE: 2. Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? YES 3. Is the yard enclosed with a fence? YES - BACKYARD Is the fence in good repair? YFS If the occupant has dogs, will the fence keep them on the owner's property? YES • 9. How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? THRF.F., Dogs: 3 Cats:- n/a TOTAL 10. Give breed and sex of animals: SEE BELOW 11. Was food in an open dish and available outdoors for the pet at all times? NO 12. Are pets kept for breeding purposes? NO 13. How many pets were licensed last year? YES 14. How are pets exercised (area wise)? FENCED -IN BACKYARD 15. Are there unpleasant odors present? NONE 16. Date: October 19, 1981 10. 1) IRISH SETTER - MALE 2) BOXER - MALE 3) POODLE, Cross -mixed - KKK FEMALE NOTE: THERE ARE FOUR SIGNATURES, BUT ONLY TWO ART. NEEDED FOR A CORNER HOUSE. IFRoesler:wco RECEIPT NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD NEW_ 6700 Portland Avenue South O GT 11 L Si NO. Richfield, MN 55423 R1.NEWAL 1EPUT'�f #56 APPLICATION FOR KENNEL LIC'NSR June 1, 19 to May 31 , 19 — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l�. Applicant's Name: (r \ �. l'\ c f \ 0k Applicant's Address: Cc Applicant's Telephone Number: FEE: Residential Kennel--,?J $T "0 Commercial Kennel /`% 5, Bus.Name: t , \_\ `1.- L_� ':� TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ Bus. Address: "Yy>') (a�i. Bus. Telephone Number: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I (we) hereby agree to operate such business in accordance with the laws of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Authorized Signature: C`(c�_;_.r u? S o R' `\C` -ACC �1 Date; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �omplete for Residential Kennel only.) APPROVAL OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS TO RESIDENTIAL KENNEL (A place where more than two dogs or two cats are kept on premises which are zoned and qualified for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy -of the premises for residential purposes.) Ordinance Code 5.28, Subd.3, states: "The application for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located. Whether or not all of the occupants of abutting property approve the application, the Council may grant or deny the license. The license shall not be granted unless the Council finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. The Council may impose conditions upon the granting of any residential kennel license." I HEREBY APPROVE) OF A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL ON THE PREMISES OF: NAME 7), ! G( J - ADDRESS: 351 y- r� wi S�> 2. l D /.- 1 - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -FOP_ CITY USE ONLY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �EALTH DEPT. APPROVAL: t/"' YES NO Signed: �. _ Date; 16 . �o CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES NO DATE: L IyG CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA AInter— Office Memorandum DATE October 21, 1981 TO CITY COUNCIL FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER J SUBJECT KENNEL LICENSE FOR: HELEN L. LINDGREN ( 6527 13TH AVENUE SOUTH) QUESTIONS FROM THE KENNEL INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE: 2. Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? YES 3. Is the yard enclosed with a fence? YES Is the fence in good.repair? YES If the occupant has dogs, will the fence keep them on the owner's property? YES 9. Iiow many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? THREE Dogs: 3 Cats: n/a TOTAL 10. Give breed and sex of animals: SEE BELOW 11. Was food in an open dish and available outdoors for the pet at all times? NO 12. Are pets kept for breeding purposes? NO 13. How many pets were licensed last year? ALL THREE 14. How are pets exercised (area wise)? OUTSIDE KENNEL 15. Are there unpleasant odors present? NO 16. Date: October 15, 1981 10. 1) TERRIER - P,1ALE ADULT 2) GERMAN SHEPARD, MIX - FEMALE ADULT 3) COLLIE SHEPARD, � ".IX - FEMALE ADULT NOTE: Do the 3 signers live in residences adjoi.ng Lindgren property'. ! House abutting to the south of applicant (6533 13th Avenue) has a domestic problem with applicant, would probably refuse to sign, according to applicant. PER OFFICER R. BRI1,1MER #320 IFRoesler:wco RECEIP� CITY OF RICHFIELD NEW x 6700 Portland Avenue South — // SE NO.CQ Richfield, MN 55423 RENEWALZ` APPLICATION FOR KENNEL LICE June 1, 19 to May 31, 19 Applicant's Name: Helen L. LindPren Applicant's Address: 6527 13th Ave. S Applicant's Telephone Number: 866 -7109 Bus.Name: U nivi s Bus. Address: 90 S 9th -St.-- - Ranm 310 Bus. Telephone Number: 339 -0251 FEE: $25.00 Residential KenneLl?�$ 0� Od Commercial Kenn el TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 25.00 I (we) hereby agree to operate such business in accordance with the laws of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Authorized Signature: � Date; 9/16/81 Complete for Residential Kennel only.) PPROVAL OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS TO RESIDENTIAL KENNEL (A place where more than two dogs or two cats are kept on premises which are zoned and qualified for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential purposes.) Ordinance Code 5.28, Subd.3, states: "The application for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located. Whether or not all of the occupants of abutting property approve the application, the Council may grant or deny the license. The license shall not be granted unless the Council finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood. The Council may impose conditions upon the granting of any residential kennel license." I HEREBY APPROVE OF A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL ON THE PREMISES.OF: Helen L. Lindgren NAME ADDRESS: tf3 - -- - - - - - - - - ? - - - - - - - - - � SZ - - - 12 - - - - - - - - - - - EALTH DEPT. APPROVAL: / YES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES FOR CITY USE ONLY NO Signed: k,,_ NO DATE: �6 I' RECEIPT NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD �Q�` NEW '700 Portland Avenue South NO. Richfield, MN 55+23 A R`j'NEWA,i^�%� APPLICATION ,FOR KENNEL LICEN /V0; I q June 1, 19 to May 31, 19 y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Applicant's Name: llk( P_ FEE: Applicant's Address: 2JA 15 r R i -P dki S k ; 1 ,R h (' Residential Kennell__ =1M., Applicant's Telephone Number: �% 5 �� S (A.Commercial Kennel Ao ._ ;, t � Bus . Name : D C\ f r �, <� TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ Bus. Address: Lw h t` P_ �e_ Cue �0. Bus. Telephone Number: '717 7 al 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I (we) hereby agree to operate such business in accordance with the laws of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Authorized Signature: PO;Y*T\ c p.rx n Date; 0omplete for Residential Kennel only. 2PROVAL OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS TdIRESIDENTIAL KENNEL -- (A place where more than two dogs or two cats are kept on premises which are zoned and qualified for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential purposes.) Ordinance Code 5.28, Subd.3, states: "The application for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located. Whether or not all of the occupants of abutting property approve the application, the Council may grant or deny the license. The license shall not be granted unless the Council finds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will not be likely to have, any adverse effect anon adjacent properties or the nrr „nanny thereof, `n.- will no-, c'onsti La:lG a nuisance to the neighborhood. The Council may impose conditions upon the granting of any residential kennel license.” I HEREBY APPROVE OF A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL ON THE PREMISES OF: NAME 1. 2. ADDRESS: S. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOP.. CITY USE ONLY EALTH DEPT. APPROVAL:�YES NO Signed:_ _ �� y Date; Id b CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES NO DATE: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 356 Agenda October 12, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Relocation of Richfield Court Facility From time to time the city council has been made aware of requests from the State of Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Hennepin County, to relocate the court facilities which are currently in the Richfield City Hall to the Bloomington court offices. Presently, the court utilizes the council chambers and two conference -rooms in the Richfield City Hall facility. The court has consistently asserted that the space allocated to the court is unacceptable and not conducive to the decorum which a court activity requires. In 1978, the State Legislature amended the Minnesota Statutes with the provision that Richfield court trials and arraignments would be transferred to the court in Bloomington beginning August 1, 1978 unless the city council requested that the county board keep the court in Richfield. The city council made that request in 1978 upon recommendation by the city attorney and the public safety department. As a result, the municipal court has remained in the council chamber at city hall where court takes place six days a month. In addition to utilizing the council chambers and the two offices adjacent to the chambers, there is a substantial in- crease upon the demand in the city's parking lot during the six days of court usage each month. The parking situation be- comes very tight, spilling over into adjacent residential areas. In addition, the usage of the office space adjacent to the council chambers for conference room area, is not available to the city hall departments during those six days per month. As indicated by the attached two letters which the Assist- ant Chief Judge of the Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District has sent to myself and to the County Administrator, the court will not be satisfied with the facilities in Richfield without substantial enlargement of those facilities. The cost impli- cations to enlarge the facilities to their liking is significant. Council Letter No. 356 -2- October 12, 1981 In addition to the on -going complaints, the Hennepin County delegation to the Legislature, introduced legislation in the 1981 session which would eliminate the need to provide court facilities in Richfield. Working through Senator Lindgren we were successful in defeating that amendment on the condition that the court and the City of Richfield would work together to resolve this issue. It appeared quite clear to me that the legislative committee was sympathetic to the court needs, however. With that in mind, we began discussions with the court in order to attain assurances from the court on several matters of procedure in the event that we moved to the Bloom- ington location. The matters which were of greatest concern to us are as follows: 1. Richfield appearances would still receive separate scheduling. Currently we have arraignments and court trials on Tuesdays and Wednesdays every other week and on Monday of the interim week. Jury trials and pre- trials are scheduled for the interim week, except Monday. In order to minimize attorney and police officer time, the Richfield arraignments and trials need to be kept on separate and pre- dictable days rather than interspersed during the weak. 2. The Monday arraignment and court trial settings should be only in the mornings, unless additional afternoon settings become necessary to relieve case backlog. 3. Richfield scheduling should not be doubled up ex- cept in extraordinary situations. By this we mean that no activities which would involve simultaneously two prosecutors for Richfield, should be scheduled in Bloomington. 4. The Richfield prosecutor would need to have office area allocated in the Bloomington city hall during Richfield court days at no rental expense to the city. The municipal court manager for the Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District.has indicated to me that they are in a position of meeting these needs of the Richfield prosecution office and public safety department. They would like to discontinue pre- siding in Richfield as of November 1, 1981. While there are disadvantages to having the court facility moved from Richfield, there are undeniable advantages to the Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District as well as some off - setting advantages to the City of Richfield. In light of the fact that the long term situation would appear to provide little protection for Rich- field in maintaining a municipal court, I believe that the Council Letter No. 356 -3- October 12, 1981 best situation is for the city to take advantage of the assur- ances which can be provided to us at this time. As one addi- tional condition of transfer of the court facilities, I would like to recommend that the transfer be made on November 1, 1981 on a temporary basis so that we can have the opportunity to ob- serve the transition for 45 days before making any relocation final. At the December 28, 1981 city council meeting, we would return with a resolution to be considered by the city.council containing the above mentioned assurances and allowing for the relocation of the court facilities in accordance with state law. The city attorney will be present at the October 12, 1981 city council meeting and will be prepared along with myself, to an- swer any questions which the city council may have concerning this matter. It is recommended that the city council authorize temporary relocation of the Richfield Municipal Court to Bloomington until the matter can be reviewed at the December 28, 1981 city council meeting. (Respectfully submitted, -Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: City Attorney Public Safety Director V STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT HENNEPIN COUNTY January 2, 1980 Mr. Carl Nollenberger City Manager Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 1 V JAN 4 Re: Court Facilities in Richfield City Hall Dear Mr. Nollenberger: Rita Stellick, Municipal Court Manager, recently informed the judges that the City of Richfield is considering the possibility of remodeling of the City Hall to accommodate the relocation of certain services and city employees. In.particular, it was mentioned that the licensing operation would be relocated so that the corridor of the upper level would be utilized as a waiting area for citizens in need of licensing services. "W`=i'g' This would result in decreasing the space available in the corridor for citizens waiting for court sessions. Also, many of these citizens must currently be interviewed in the corridor by the public defender staff since there is no alternative interview area. Your recommendation that one of the court offices be divided to form two offices and the other be utilized as a conference room when court is not in session would not alleviate the congestion in the corridor because of he Following: 1. Probation Department: The majority of the time there are two probation officers on duty when court is in session. With the present facilities, it is necessary that they share one office during interviews. The nature of these interviews is extremely confidential in that defendants must discuss such things as personal finances, marital problems, chemical dependency, etc. By dividing this office to form two offices, privacy would be much greater and the Probation Department would have adequate facilities. • r C.AMeEG= -- PETER J. LINDBERG ASSISTANT CHIEF JUDE PT F' MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55 °e7 STATE OF MINNESOTA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT HENNEPIN COUNTY January 2, 1980 Mr. Carl Nollenberger City Manager Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 1 V JAN 4 Re: Court Facilities in Richfield City Hall Dear Mr. Nollenberger: Rita Stellick, Municipal Court Manager, recently informed the judges that the City of Richfield is considering the possibility of remodeling of the City Hall to accommodate the relocation of certain services and city employees. In.particular, it was mentioned that the licensing operation would be relocated so that the corridor of the upper level would be utilized as a waiting area for citizens in need of licensing services. "W`=i'g' This would result in decreasing the space available in the corridor for citizens waiting for court sessions. Also, many of these citizens must currently be interviewed in the corridor by the public defender staff since there is no alternative interview area. Your recommendation that one of the court offices be divided to form two offices and the other be utilized as a conference room when court is not in session would not alleviate the congestion in the corridor because of he Following: 1. Probation Department: The majority of the time there are two probation officers on duty when court is in session. With the present facilities, it is necessary that they share one office during interviews. The nature of these interviews is extremely confidential in that defendants must discuss such things as personal finances, marital problems, chemical dependency, etc. By dividing this office to form two offices, privacy would be much greater and the Probation Department would have adequate facilities. • r Nollenberger - p. 2 2. Judges Chambers: While working at a conference table instead of a desk is certainly not ideal, it is a workable solution provided that the judge has supplies and.a telephone. 3. Court Clerk: There is no designated space for the court clerk under either the existing plan or the proposed plan. At the present time, the clerk must use the judge's office or the probation office to organize files, make phone calls, etc. 4. Public Defender's Department: The public defender must discuss cases with clients in the main corridor. These discussions are also of a highly confidential nature and due to circumstances beyond the court's control, these discussions cannot take place prior to the court appearance without a great deal of inconvenience to the citizens of Richfield. Your proposal does not present an alternative but rather the situation worsens since the corridor.will be used by both licensing services and court services. The court would like to suggest to you and to the City Council that court not be scheduled in Richfield. This alternative would � solve several problems. One of the most apparent is that more Richfield City employees could be housed in the City Hall. Additionally, the corridor area would not have to be widened for licensing services which would result in considerable cost savings for the City. Other considerations which should not be overlooked are: 1. The Bloomington City Hail has excellent accommodations and adequate space to absorb the Richfield caseload. Most citizens of Richfield can travel to Bloomington in a matter of minutes. 2. Citizens of Richfield would receive better service in Bloomington since there are interview rooms available for confidential discussions; the court clerks have access to the court's automated system for scheduling of cases, continuances, record history checks, and recording of court actions; and judges have access to research materials. 3. Better parking facilities. These are just a few of the areaswhich are readily apparent as benefits in consolidating the Richfield and Bloomington courts. I am certain there are other matters whit--_ should be taken into consideration from your point of view. ?ver, the court would r t • a =:YStti Nollenberger - p. 3 appreciate it if the City Council would review the need for court facilities in Richfield and respond to our concerns. In this respect, if I can be of any assistance, including appearing before the Council to answer questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. cc: All Judges Don Peterson Jack Provo Rita Stellick 0 -'> 0 o STATE OF I .NNESOTA FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT . HENNEPIN COUNTY ! , CHAMBERS PETER J. LINDBI:RG ASSISTANT CHIEF JUDGE DISTRICT COURT ^ROBATE COUR- N.UN-CIPAL CO -.,RT 6TH FLOOR COURTS TOWER MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55487 March 26, 1981 '-,.Dale Ackmann, County Administrator- 237a�ministration Tower Hennepin Czo CGovernment Center Minneapolis, MN 55-- RE: RICHFIELD COURT FACILITIES Dear Mr.- Ackmann: The Court would like to suggest to County Administration that Municipal Court sessions be discontinued at the ..Richfield facility. ;Severa.l factors were taken into consideration by the Court before arriving at this con - clusion. Listed below are the reasons why the Court believes this particular facility does not meet minimum acceptable requirements: 1. Judges Chambers The Judge is located in a conference room which is shared with the court clerk. When it is necessary for the Judge to meet with the defendant and attorney in chambers, the dignity of the office is totally lost because of the appearance of the office. There is only one phone in this office resulting in the Judqe answering calls for the City Attorney, Public Defender, court clerk and bailiff. This is extremely disruptive when the Judge is in the midst of conductinq a case. Also, this phone does not have a hold button nor an intercom causing • the Judge to frequently have to leave the office to find the appropriate person to take the phone call. There is no access to leq it research material. This can result in inconvenience to all. parties when cases must be continued so that the Judge can look up information located at the Bloomington 4 Office library. Dale Ackmann March 26, 1981 Page 2 Lastly, the "common" coat closet is within this office. This means that the Judge is often distracted or interrupted when people come or go who must use the closet. 2.. Probation Department The majority of the time there are two probation officers on duty when court is in session. On occasion, there are as many as three or an intern may be assigned to the two regular probation officers. With the present facilities, it is necessary that they share one office during inter- views. The nature of these interviews is extremely confidential in that defendants must discuss such things as personal finances, marital problems, chemical dependency, etc. Due to the fact that the City of Richfield uses this office space when Court is not in session, there is no way - -that the probation officers can retain their case files in the office. The phones are inadequate in that hold buttons are not provided nor is there an intercom system to connect with other phones. 3. Court Reporter No office exists for a court reporter. The only, service a court reporter can perform in this facility is the taking of testimony. If the Judge needs an order typed, the court reporter must go to another Court location outside the building to have access to a typewriter. The court reporter also cannot be productive if there is time between cases for this same reason. Telephone calls for this person must be dialed through the Judge's phone or the Probation Office. 4. Court Clerk There is no dedicated space for the court clerk. The clerk must share the conference room with the Judge. Therefore, the clerk must organize files and make phone calls which again creates havoc for the Judge. Dale Ackmann March 26, 1981 Page. 3 5. Public Defender's Office Since there is no office for the Public Defenders, they must discuss cases with clients in the main corridor. These discussions are also of a highly confidential nature. Because of various circum- stances, these discussions cannot take place prior to the court appearance without a great deal of inconvenience to the citizens of Richfield. Any discussions between the City Attorney, Public Defender, officers and witnesses must also take place in the corridor. 6. Parking The present space allocated for parking is insufficient for the number of litigants scheduled for court on an average day. At times this makes it necessary for litigants to walk. - considerable distances after parking their vehicles on public streets. In order to make this facility acceptable for conducting Court business, the following is necessary: 1. The probation office must have two private offices with solid walls. Each office should have a desk, chair, two side chairs, telephone and a locking three drawer legal sized filing cabinet. 2. The Judge must have a private office with a desk and chair, two side chairs, a telephone, bookcases and a small writing table. 3. The bailiff and court clerk can s��are ain office. The office should be equipped with a desk and chair, one side chair, typewriter and telephone. 4. There should be an office for the court reporter equipped in the same manner as the clerk's office. 5. There must be an attorney conference room with a table, four chairs and a telephone. 6. The parking space should be adequate so it is not necessary for litigants to park in the street. 49 W Dale Ackmann March 26, 1981 Page 4 7. All telephones should be answered by the central switchboard. There should be a phone for each office. Each phone must have a hold button, an intercom number and a message waiting light. 8. Every office should have some accommodation for coats, umbrellas, etc. Even if these problems could be corrected within the existing facility by allocating additional space to the Courts, there are other problems which can be attributed to the fact that the Court must travel to this location. These problems do not make it impossible to conduct Court business in Richfield but they certainly cause considerable inconvenience. 1. Records The clerk must first report to the main suburban facility to pick up-:the calendars and case histories for the cases, files, judges robe, signs, receipts, law books, tape recorder, money, etc. for every court session. Upon arriving at the Richfield City Hall, this person must process any last minute changes on the calendar such as continueances for illness, attorney conflicts, transportation problems, etc. which normally are requested by phone. Once in the courtroom, should any questions arise regarding a defendant's conviction record, previous continuance requests, etc. the clerk must leave the courtroom and place a phone call to the clerks in the main suburban division so that the records can be checked through the computer system. If a defendant is arrested in the morning and brought directly to the Court by -the police depart- ment, the Judge does not have any information on the person other than the officer's arrest sheet. The clerk cannot even create a case history. Rather, handwritten notes must be kept and the computer system must be updated when the clerk returns to Bloomington. 0 0 r Dale Ackmann March 26, 1981 Page 5 2. Relief Personnel If the calendars are lengthy, there is no available pool of personnel to draw from for relief. This results in people oftentimes working through lunch. Also Court many times is delayed because the clerk cannot be in the courtroom and also check records, make necessary phone calls, etc. at the same time. It would create an extreme hardship if extra personnel were recruited from the main office to perform these functions. Frequently the clerk must go to the main division during lunch hour to deposit the records so that they may be updated. 3. . Bail and Fine Monies Very little security exists to protect cash received by the clerk. Handwritten receipts must be issued which is not considered to be an .acceptable practice according to most auditors. Transporting this money without security , is -also not desireable. If there are not adequate funds on hand, litigants must go to the main suburban division to obtain refunds on bail. 4. Security There is no security provided in this building. Anyone can walk directly in to any of the offices. All people taken into custody for jail or bail must stay in the courtroom and wait for the bailiff to arrange transportation. In view of the problems stated in this letter, it would seem only apprepriate that County Administration pursue providing adequate facilities for the Court. If this proves to be an impossibility, it appears that it may be necessary for the Court to conduct Richfield calendars in the Bloomington City Hall. During the course of your review of this situation, you should know that the Court is unable to locate a current lease or lease amendment for the Richfield facility. The most recent information on file is a County Board Resolution dated September 17, 1972. This resolution calls for payments in the amount of $2,095.49 per year for rental of the Richfield City Hall facilities. However, the County is actually paying $3,160 per year at this time. The Court does not know why this increase occurred nor who approved of the increase. Also, there is nothing in writing indicating Dale Ackmann March.26, 1981 Page 6 what the square footage is nor what percentage of time the County is being charged for these facilities. It is requested that you explore what alternatives are available and inform the Court as soon as possible. Sincerelu /� Pe J .(-Lj nd"berg ,Asst tant Chief Judge nl cc: Municipal Court-'Judges Rita Stellick, Municipal Court Manager ,,,Karl Nollenberger, Richfield City Manager Randy Johnson, Hennepin County Commissioner • 0 1