Loading...
04-12-82 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, A'IINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 119 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: One Day Extension of Gambling Hours, Fred Babcock VFW Post #5555 We have just been informed that one of the members of the local VFW Post has been elected District Commander. The installation ceremonies are scheduled to be a part of the district convention to be held at the Richfield Post on April 24, 1982. Approximately 500 delegates will be attending this one- day convention. As part of the activities during the convention, the Fred Babcock Post has requested an extension of the hours allowed for gambling activities to cover the full day from 8:00 a.m. • to 11:00 p.m. Richfield City Ordinance Code 5.19, Subd. 9(3), limits the allowable hours of the present license issued to the Post to four consecutive hours, unless the city council specifically provides for an extension of these hours. The Fred Babcock Post does currently have the required gambling license for the 1982 license year. Under the provisions of the code a one day extension of these hours, in response to the request we have received, can be authorized by council action. In consideration of the special factors surrounding this request it is recommended that the council authorize the Fred Babcock VFW Post #555 to expand the hours of their gambling activity from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., on a one-day basis, on Saturday, April 24, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City AZanager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director „- ~~ ~ FOUNDED 1889 ''~~r Teleonones: 369-5555 - 969-9940 - 366-6172 • i10 L:,KE SHORE CRIVE - RIOHGiELD, MINNESOTA 55423 April 8, 1982 Karl Nollenberger Richfield City Manager 6700 Portland Ave S .Richfield, Mn 55423 Dear Karl, The Fred Babcock Post #5555 is hosting the 7th District Convention on April 24th. One of our members will be installed as District Commander. We will be hosting about 500 delegates frcxn the District. We would like an extention of hours for gambling that day or a one day permit, whatever the Council decides. All the proceeds of gambling go for cananunity service and we feel that this is one way we can get more for our cc~ununity. Sincerely, ~~~~'"'/ Frank Vossen Co>lgnander _~~- / • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 118 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: 1. Request by Oak Grove Lutheran Church to Donate the Land Surrounded by Lyndale Avenue, Augsburg and 71st Street 2. The vacation of 71st Street between Augsburg Avenue and Lyndale Avenue The city staff is in the process of executing an easement agreement with Oak Grove Lutheran Church. for a strip of land near Lyndale Avenue and 70th Street which is needed for the Lyndale Avenue improvement project. During negotiations for this easement, Mr. Tom Stertz, President of Oak Grove Lutheran Church, raised several other issues. The church would like to donate the triangular piece of land surrounded by Lyndale Avenue, Augsburg Avenue and 71st Street to the city. In addition, the church would like the council to consider closing and vacating 71st Street between Augsburg Avenue and Lyndale Avenue. The church has also requested that the city consider reducing their special assessment for the street improvement project. The issue of reducing the assessment against the triangular piece of property was brought up when Augsburg Avenue and 71st Street were paved during the permanent street program. The parcel would have been assessed $3,348.12 for the permanent street work. At the July 25, 1977 city council meeting, the church argued that this piece of property was being assessed at an abnormally high rate. A letter from the church is attached which outlines the church's position as expressed at the 1977 assessment hearing. At the close of the assessment hearing, the council reduced the assess- ment from $3,345.12 to $1,000.00 The staff recommends that the council consider the question of the Lyndale Avenue project assessment at the public hearing to be held after the project is completed. All the costs can be identified once the project is completed and the assessment rate established. Council Letter No. 118 -2- April 12, 1982 Attached is a letter from Mr. Stertz which outlines the church's position with regard to the land donation and the request for street vacation. Mr. Stertz will be at the April 12 council meet- ing to elaborate on this position. The staff has reviewed the church's request to donate the land and is opposed to the city's acquisition of the triangular piece of land. The parcel is too small and in too precarious a location to be used for park purposes, so the city would receive no benefit from ownership of the land, yet we would have the responsibility to maintain the land. At the time of the street improvement assessment hearing in 1977, the church also requested to donate this piece of land to the city. At that time, the council rejected the church's offer, because of concern that the land would become a maintenance burden to the city, while being unusable for any public purpose. On the other hand, the staff believes that there is merit in the proposal to vacate 71st Street. Once of the purposes of the Lyndale Avenue improvement project is to allow for the safe, smooth flow of traffic. The traffic flow would be enhanced by a reduction in the number of intersections. on Lyndale Avenue; vacation of this segment of 71st Street would eliminate one intersection. The staff recommends that the council reject the church's request to donate the triangular parcel of land to the city which is surrounded by Lyndale and Augsburg Avenue and 71st Street. If the council wants to further consider the vacation of 71st Street (or possibly the south end of Augsburg Avenue at its intersection with Lyndale Avenue), it is recommended that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for review and analysis and a report back to the council on May 10, 1982. Respectfully submitted, J ~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer City Planner March 9, 1982 ~1!.ss/~111~1R :...~ Thomas St~rtz, President - ~ ' Oak Cx~ove Lutheran Church _ 7100 Lyndale :venue , , ~3ichfield, :in. 5423 / ~1 • ~~'~i>'y ~'. ___. -mad tiichael J. Eastling, City engineer City of ~lichfield 6700 Portland :eve. .~ichfield, ??n. »h23 Dear dir. Eastling: Oak wove Lutheran Church owns the section. of land bo+znded by I~yndale avenue, ugsburg, and 71st Str-etc. This area is :got used by the congregation since its size, configuration, and distance from the .church building prohibit its consideration as a site-for expanded parking or other practical use. The land is narrow and in the share of a triangle. The two longer sides are formed by :lugsburg and by ?~yndale avenue. The assessment against this triangle for the Lyndale project will cost the congregation approximately ~lt100. The congregation has had to nay zssessments in the past for street i~nrovc*nents along Augsburg. The Isyndzle assessment will increase the financial burden of the congregation in an already tough economic roriod. The congregation has appointed a committee of which I am the chairnan to investigate how we may give un title to this land. It is our feeling that in the interact of better and safer traffic flow~te Lyndale avenue it w©~zld be wise to close 71st Street from 3ugsburg to Lyndale. This would also increase the area of ttie land in question and make it more valuable as a site for a nlapground or a cork. Our committee has the authorization of the congregation to dispose of this land on their behalf and we are willing to support vacation of 71st Street so that it :~av bs closed. In return we ask that the City of Richfield take title to the aforementioned land in lieu of the assessment against it. Respectfully, ~ ' ~x/~~ Thomas Stertz, President Oak ^~rove Lutheran Church TFS/ljs • -. - ~:~ • ~, :~ ~.;,,; .~ ~[~p~~ s~;~ 2~ ~s77 Richie:~ Ci~Y ~~anager a'ff E LUTHERAN • C H U R C H ~• 71ST AND LYNOALE AVENUE SbUTH ~ MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55423 PHONE 869-4917 June y22, 1977 i ty Ctrunc i 1 ici~f%eld, t1n. 5.7423 :ar- `~ Gounc l J Members •A suggestion has been made that an adjustment be considered on the assessment-for svi=rng and street lighting that has bean charged against the triangle of land, situated nme~liately South of 71st Street and East of Lyndale Avenue, which is .owned by Oak Grove utheran Church. it appears this should be a workaole possibility but tke amount. of the dlustment should be log ically determined. • lserhaps property valuation might be a basis for such an adjustment, If it were ~ssable to calculate the value of a valueless piece of ground. iiov~ever, if there is any as;i's for figuring its value, certainly square feet of area is a logical basis to use. The remainder of this discussion is based on~a "per. square foot" analysis. The piece of property is approximately 300' long by 50' on 71st street and coming • o: a: point at the South end. Thus this property has about 300x0/2 75Q0 square feet. !t is assumed that approxiamtely s00' of paving on Augsburg Avenue has been assessed ga~"jnst the property to date to arrive at the figure of $3,348.12• Eventually, of course, her..e will be another approximately 300' assessed against the property when Lynda}e r~enue.is resurfaced, making a total of 500' of paving assessed against the property. l~f we assume for the moment that a norraai city lot is 50' wide by 124' long, and a~ri~~c~-6z,0 square feet of area, this lot will 'have assessed against it only 50' of av-i.ng.- On an equitable basis the triangle of property in question. should have ,75Q'0/fs250)50 50' of paving assessed against it. This is just 10~ of the 600' that will eventually be assessed against our hapless rrece of property. This being the case it would seem justified_to request that the assessment of S3~348-12 be reduced to $334.31 and that a similar mu ltiplier of {0.1) be tppfi:ied to the normal costs for the future paving of Lyndale Avenue. Sincerely, Qak Grove Lutheran Church • ~~ ~ LY/k Earl L. Youngren, Treasurer CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 117 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: City Facility Use Policy For some years, the Community Center has operated under a council-adopted resolution which outlined the policy and fees for rental of the facility. Other city facilities used by various groups and organizations have had separate policies and fee structures. To streamline the city facility use policy and make informa- tion easier for the public, the staff has drafted a proposed resolution which would provide a. city facility use policy not only for the Community Center, but also for City Hall, the Wood Lake Nature Center, and the Rich Acres Golf Course Clubhouse. This policy is very similar to the policy used in the past at the Community Center, although the fee structure has been updated to reflect current costs for provision of these facilities to groups and organizations wishing a space to rent. In the past, charges have been made on a flat fee basis, dependent upon the size of the group using the facility. The city's cost of pro- viding the facility (personnel cost and utilities) are more directly related to the number of hours of utilization. The room rental fees are altered to reflect that fact in an effort to breakeven on the costs of providing meeting space to community groups. Even at $3.00 per hour to non-profit groups, the city will be subsidizing these groups, but a larger increase at this time would prove burdensome to those groups. The Community Services Commission has reviewed this resolution and recommends city council approval. It is the recommendation of the staff that the city council approve the attached resolution with an effective date of May 1 , 1 982 . Resp ctfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION N0. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA, as follows: That effective ___ ________, the following shall constitute the official City policy relating to use of the Richfield Community Center, City Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building; I. General Statement All organizations, except the City Council, official City commissions and the City staff, must complete an application and have it approved before using the Community Center, Council Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse or Nature Center Building. Applications must be submitted as far in advance as possible of the date for which the reservation is requested. II. Hours of Availability The Community Center and Council Chambers are available seven (7) days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 11.:00 p.m. with the exception of national holidays. Hours of availability of the Golf Course Clubhouse and Nature Center Building are more limited and should be confirmed with City staff responsible for those facilities. Special permission may be granted by the City Manager or his duly authorized.representative, however, for requested variations from this designated schedule. Groups whose members are .under 18 years of age _______,__may use the facilities until 9,:45 p.m. and must leave the premises by 10:00 p.m. III. Who May Use the City Facilities The described city facilities are available to alI local connnunity organizations which have a membership consisting of at least one-fourth (1/4) of Richfield residents. Groups who have their own facilities shall be allowed to use the City facilities provided two (2) conditions are met: 1. The organization's own facilities cannot be used. 2. The time requested does not conflict with a request made by a group which does not have its own facilities. Organizations not having at least one-fourth (1/4) of its. membership living inside the City of Richfield, private profit-making agencies, and fund raising events may use the facilities but are not allowed to reserve rooms on a monthly basis. The City Council, official city commissions, the city staff or any governmental or quasi governmental organization whose meetings are sponsored by the City Council, an official city commission or the city staff shall have priority on the use of the Council Chambers. Although efforts will be made to avoid potential conflicts, it may be necessary on occasion to advise groups that have reserved the Council Chambers for a certain time and date that it will be necessary for them to relocate their meeting because of the need to use the Council Chambers for purposes connected with municipal government. IV. Rules and Regulations 1. The Community Center kitchen has been equipped with a stove, refrigerator, coffee maker, china, flatware and other items used in the preparation of food. Only these items may be used unless permission to use special equipment is obtained. No kitchen facilities are available at the Counci~ Chambers, Golf Course Clubhouse or Nature Center. Groups using those facilities may provide their own coffee and light refreshments; however, no meals are allowed in the Council Chambers. 2. .Beer or intoxicating beverages are forbidden in any City building, in the parking lot and surrounding park areas. 3. The custodian shall have complete supervisory control over the operation of the facilities. No equipment may be operated without his permission. 4. Users of the Community Center shall be responsible for cleaning the kitchen. Soap and cleaning materials will be provided by the City. Users of any City facility shall be responsible for basic clean-up and pick-up. S. No banners, streamers or signs may be attached to the walls of rooms or halls without permission of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. Any such attachments which are permitted must be removed by the group using the facility. 6. Youth groups shall be chaperoned on a ratio of one adult for each fifteen (15) or fewer youth under the age of 18. The number of youth attending and the names of .the chaperones shall be submitted with the applications. If the general public is invited, the City Manager or his duly authorized • representative and the signer of the application shall determine the number of chaperones needed. 7. The City assumes no liability. for loss, damage, injury or illness incurred by the users of the facilities. 8. The signer of the application shall be held personally responsible for any breakage, damage or loss of equipment. The signer of the application shall also indicate that he has read and understands the rules. 9. Smoking shall be restricted to designated areas. 10. All damage must be reported to the City Manager or his duly authorized representative within twenty-four (24) hours. 11. Hours of use designated on the application must be adhered to. The facility shall be opened for the applicant at the time first indicated on the application. The facility shall be closed and locked at the time last indicated on the application. 12. Failure to meet these policies and rules will be cause for forfeiture of future privileges. 13. Groups cancelling out twice in a season will be given low priority in reserving future dates unless the City is notified seven (7) days prior to cancellation. - 3- 14. None of the City facilities may be reserved on a continuing basis for any or alI of the weekdays Monday through Frida~with_the exception of local senior citizen or handicapped groups approved by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. The general purpose room, conference room and kitchen located on the upper level of the Community Center may be reserved by other groups between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or any portion thereof with the approval of the City Manager or his duly authorized representative. These groups will be subject to the fee schedule as stated in the regulations. Food service not readily accommodated by the kitchen on the upper level is not permitted; however, such food service. may be provided on a reservation basis on the lower level. 15. Organizations or groups wishing to cancel a reservation and failing to do so shall be fined a fee which shall be charged based on the hourly rate equal to time actually worked by the City staff. 16. All areas of the City Hall except the Council Chambers, entry corridor and restrooms are restricted from any use by the .organization using the Council Chambers. IV. Procedure for ApPlyin~ 1. Applications with a cover letter explaining the rules and regulations of the Community Center will be sent to~all previous season users on or about July 1 of each year.. Previous year users will be given until August 1 to -reserve meeting times, and then reservations will be made . on a first come first served basis. Reservations for any other facility will be made on a first come first served basis. 2. Reservations will not be official until the application is signed by the City Manager or his duly authorized representative and the original form returned to the application. Room reservations will not be accepted over the telephone. Applications should be submitted as early as possible and at least one week prior to the meeting date. 3. Upon approval of an application for use of the Community Center, room designation shall be made for the meeting.or activity. The approved application shall bear such designation and only the room(s) desig- nated may be used by the organization or group. However, circumstances may require reassignment of room designation. An information board shall be available to classify room designation at the time of the meeting activity. 4. Applicants not have at least one-fourth (1/'4) of their membership living inside of Richfield city limits will not be allowed to reserve the facility on a~monthly basis. S. Group reservations for regularly scheduled meetings may be made after July 1 for a twelve (12) month period. . V. Fee Schedule The fee schedule shall encompass two areas: room rental and food service. -4- 1. ROOM RENTAL The fee encompasses the following classifications of groups: Nonprofit Groups a) Groups will be charged an hourly rate of $3.00/ho~r b) Food service charges will be additional.. Youth Groups ~~ a) Youth groups will be charged one-half (1/2) of the regular room rate. b) Food service charges will be additional. Profit Making Organizations/Private Parties (These uses are not permitted in the Council Chambers. These are the rates that apply to the golf course and nature center.) a) Groups will be charged $20.00 /hour. b) Food service charges will be additional. Fund Raisers a) Groups will be charged $6.50/hour. b) Food service charges will be additional ALL CHARGES ARE BASED ON A PER ROOM BASIS. GROUPS OVER 75 WILL BE CHARGED ONE ADDITIONAL HOUR FOR CLEAN-UP. 2. FOOD SERVICE In addition to room rental rates, the following rates shall be charged to food service which would be provided by the club or organization. Snack and/or beverage $ 2.50 For Community Center only: Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc., prepared outside the Community Center (may use Center coffee pot only). 5.00 Lunch, dinner, potluck, etc. prepared at or outside th.e Community . Center (using full kitchen 10.00 facilities). Breakfast, dinner, suppers, etc., sponsored by a community organization to which the general public is invited. 25.00 • -5- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this John Hamilton Mayor • ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh city Clerk ~ IS CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 116 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Consideration of Policy Regarding City Support and Treatment of Special Interest Groups From time to time, the city council has expressed concern regarding the city's support and treatment of various special interest groups within the community. During a joint meeting between the city council and the then Park and Recreation Ad- visory Commission last spring, the city council expressed con- cern that there is no written policy related to city support and treatment of special interest groups, nor any clear cut definition of what special interest groups receive what type of support services from the city. At that time, the city council suggested that development of recommendations relating to such a policy might be an appropriate activity for the Park and Recre- ation Advisory Commission. The Community Services Commission has spent some time analyzing this topic over the past several months, and appointed a commission subcommittee to develop a recommended policy related to city support treatment of special interest groups. In doing so, the commission sought to categorize the types of assistance which the city has provided to various special interest groups in the past, and to develop criteria to be used in evaluating the type of level of support which the city could provide to a specific special interest group. On March 9, the commission adopted the attached policy, which serves as their recommendation regarding how the city should support and treat special interest groups. The committee was of the opinion, in which the staff concurs, that efforts to standardize the level of support provided to special interest groups, and, in fact, to determine what that level of support now is, could be very useful to the staff and council in evaluating and preparing ongoing operating budgets. The commission's recommendation seems to be generally consistent with previous council directives regarding the level cf support or subsidy which the city may be willing to provide for certain activities. Programs serving young people and senior citizens are to receive preferential treatment under this recommendation, Council Letter No. 116 -2- April 12, 1982 the organization must benefit primarily Richfield residents, and an organization must demonstrate that they have a real. need for city assistance. The commission, staff, and council are to participate in evaluating such requests for assistance, as has been the case in the past. Most support services provided by the city in the past to special interest groups have taken the form of staff assistance and financial assistance. For instance, city staff have routinely assisted the organized athletic groups in registration for activities, scheduling meetings, etc. Financial assistance has often been provided to these groups as well, as the city provides lighting for ballfields, grooming of ballf fields and other facil- ities, etc. The staff assistance and indirect assistance, of course, are considerably more difficult to measure in terms of financial impact than is the direct financial assistance. How- ever, with the financial constraints being experienced by the city, and associated reduction of personnel, the use of city staff to support special interest groups can mean that the staff personnel are deterred from providing other, on-going, general community benefit services. This draft policy is placed on the April 12, 1982 city council agenda for council review and discussion. It is recommended that the council's review of this policy result in finalization of a recommended policy which the staff can use in evaluating requests for support services from special interest groups. Respectfully submitted, 1 Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director KN/eja CITY SUPPORT AND TREATMENT OF SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS POLICY The relationship between the city and the numerous special interest groups must be clearly defined. This relationship must encompass the same policies used to decide issues with other demographic groups or organizations. This relationship must have as a basis equal treatment for similar groups. Any ex- ceptions must be arrived at only after review by all three city organizations charged with advising on or making city policy. These three groups are the City Council, the City Staff and the Community Services Advisory Commission. Treatment is defined as any support or service that reduces resources that could be used by other segments of the city. This includes (but is not limited to): 1. Financial Assistance - out of pocket expenses (lights, printing costs, etc.) 2. Staff Assistance - time spent by community service personnel directly for special interest group activ- ities (organizing, managing, sign-up, etc.) 3. Indirect Assistance - cost of storage, etc. The city has limited resources available to distribute to special interest groups. These resources will become even more limited in view of the state's financial crisis. It is impera- rocess of reducing services that e start the n t h th i p w w e a t ve this be accomplished in as fair a process as possible. Some in- equities already exist in the system. Some of these are by design and some by consequence. The following criteria will be used to determine the level of support the city can provide a specific group: 1. Children (14 and under) and senior citizens (55 and older) will receive preferential treatment; 2. The mid-range (15-54) must be self-supporting. 3. "East" and "West" organizations providing the same opportunities will be supported equally. Where in- equities exist now,-the level of support will be the lower of the two levels; 4. To get any city support, the organization must be providing opportunities to the City of Richfield residents; 5. An organization receiving support from the City of Richfield will be rectuired to show need. We cannot support any organization who is capable of supporting itself. Need will be defined by the three groups charged with advising on or making policy. It is understood that all presently supported organizations must be reviewed to determine compliance with the above. ~ Ig CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 115 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Swimming Pool Cost Breakdowns The city council has requested that an item be scheduled for the April 12, 1982 city council meeting providing for review and discussion of the indoor swimming pool program. The purpose of this council letter is to provide background information regard- ing that program. • The city began operating indoor swimming programs in 1976, f shortly after the school district completed construction of the ~, indoor swimming facilities at the East and West Middle schiaols. ~ The level of participation in the indoor swimming program quickly led city council and staff members to conclude that maintaining two indoor swimming pools and an outdoor pool during the summer months, was economically unfeasible; the East indoor open swim program for the summer was cancelled before the 1976 summer season actually began. Since that time, the city has provided indoor swimming opportunities at both the east and west pooh during the winter months, and a limited summer swimming program only at the West pool, to complement the outdoor swimming pool program during the summmr months. However, the program is still costly for the number of participants in the program, and it appears that the city's subsidy for this program is an unnecessary expense, since other swimming facilities are available in the general geo- graphic area of Richfield. Accordingly, when the staff was formulating recommendations for city council consideration to reduce the 1982 budget, the staff proposed complete elimination of the indoor swimming pool program. On February 16, 1982, the city council approved that recomnrtiendaton, eliminating the indoor swimming pool program during all twelve- months. Estimated savings from this program are $5,000 annually. Following is a summary of the 1981 summer open swimming use of the indoor swimming pool facility at West Middle School: Attendance 1981* Paid admissions 1,876 Season ticket admissions 3,139' Total attendance 5,015 Council Letter No. 115 -2- i Average afternoon attendance 88 Average evening attendance 30 Cost Breakdown Expenses Pool rental $1,615 School personnel 4,736 Cashier 680 $7,031 Revenues Paid admissions $1,899 Season Tickets N A $1 ,899 • City Subsidy *Pool open for 19 hours swimming the afternoon; 2 days for 2 hour ~, The cost implication of the for this year. Due to the large some other service would have to expenditure. April 12, 1982 $5,132 per week: 5 days for 3 hours in s in the evening. proggam is $5,000 to reimplement imbalance still in the 1982 budget, be reduced in order to justify this Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Administrative Services Director KN/eja Jv i '`li ~N ~`~ \!~' "~ r 1 ,~ V ~ ~ ~ ~~ .'~ ~ c/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No.114 Agenda April 12, 1982 Deferred April 26, 19u2 The Honorable mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Status on City Project 705, L/H/N Public Improvements City Project 705 is the public improvement portion of the L/H/N Redevelopment Project. Construction of the CP 705 improve- ments will be nearly completed in 1982. This status report has been prepared to provide the council with a broad overview of the present status of CP 705 and to assist in remaining decisions related to this project. Attached to this letter is a copy of the CP 705 budget summary. CP 705p,7051,7052, 7053 are either completed or will be completed this summer. A major portion of the total project costs are in- volved in these first four phases. The increase in expenditures ror CP 7050 is primarily due to delays in the project. This project was originally to be constructed in 1977. However, delays in right- of-way acquisition caused the project to be delayed to 1978 and 1979, when inflationary pressures had caused construction costs over the original budget. The majority of the excess revenues came from the unexpended balance from the K-Mart bond issue, some 5330,072, with the remaining "extra" revenue derived from Community Development 31ock Grant monies. CP 7051 was established to consolidate the city's costs invol- ved in defending appeals to the special assessments. Aquasi-judicial proceeding was required to adjudicate the objections, which are basically resolved. CP 7052 is the Lyndale Avenue portion of the project. The construction costs were funded primarily from Federal Aid Urban Funds. The X19,482.69 balance is money from the special assessment bond issue. CP 7053 is about $1,000,000 under budget. Shortly after the CP7053 budget cvas prepared, a downturn eccured in the construction iT~dustrv. The original budget for this part of the project made liberal allowances for inflatior_ and contingencies. However, rather than construction. arices going up dramatically, they stabilized. • These unused contingencies and inflation actors accounted for about _~_~_ iG, i~UL a half-million dollars. The other major cost reduction was in right- of-way acauisition and relocation costs. Reduced right-of-way costs amounted to about $400,000; the remaining savings were in administra- five costs. The $1,000,000 in reduced expenditures did not release $1,000,000 to be spent else*.~here in CP 705. In many cases, a re- duction in expenditures carried with it an automatic reduction in revenue. For example, in the case of FAU financing and municipal state aid financing, the level of funding is tied directly to project costs, so that a reduction in construction cost carries with it a reduction in state aid participation. Therefore, the $1,000,000 in reduced expenditures is roughly equivalent to the $1,000,000 in reduced revenues. The $112,748.07 balance remaining in CDBG money. This money could be used elsewhere in CP 705 or it can be reprogrammed for other eligible uses, such as furthering the city's and HRA's housing needs. CP 7054- and CP 7055- will require plan approval for the council. CP 7054 provides for irrigation of the major landscape areas of the project. In October of 1976, the city council conducted public hear- ings on the public improvement protions of the L/H/N redevelopment project. Subsequently, on November 22, 1976, the city council passed Resolution 5645 which ordered the public improvements. Included in these public improvements was the construction and maintenance of landscaping and landscape buffer areas. The irrigation of these areas was considered in the first phases of the public improvement construction, but was delayed due to cost constraints at that time. However, during last summer's CP 7052 and CP 7053 construction, provision was made for future irrigation by. placing underground conduit to landscape islands. The city's consulting engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Assoc- iates, have prepared plans and specifications to install such an irri- gation system, at an estimated construction cost of $101,561.55. Tlie proposed irrigation system will irrigate most of the landscaping which was installed as part of the L/H/N public improvement project. The attached map of the project aFea shows the specific locations which are proposed to be irrigated through this system. The installation of this irrigation system will serve to protect the city's investment in the special_landscaping provided to the L/H/N as part of the public improvements in the area. Currently, city crews :rust water the areas manually by use of water trucks, hydrants, and soaker hoses. This type of watering has been found not to be adequate and does not provide the proper type of flow and control needed. In addition, this manual operation is labor intensive and costly. The new irrigation system will consist of a water tap into an available water main at a manhole, so as to provide access from the surface. water lines will extend from the manhole to the various landscaped areas and controllers will be placed at strategic areas to divide the ;cater flow appropriately. The water will be distrib- • sited usinc sprinkler heads. In a few areas, soaker hoses and special ~.cur.c i~ Let per :~;o . 1 1 -~ -3- April 1 2 , 1 982 tree watering fittings are also proposed to be used. Installation of the irrigation system will help-insure a more standardized level of maintenance of the green spaces in the redevelopment district. The landscaping on Lyndale Avenue adjacent to K-Mart is al- ready irrigated with a city system. The landscaping in the Richfield State Agency block will not be irrigated, in anticipation of im- provements to be completed under terms of the developer's agreement between RSA and the city. There are several other small pockets of landscaping which are presently irrigated by the adjacent property owners. (e.g., Nelson's Restaurant). It is proposed that three deductible alternate bids be taken to run irrigation lines to 1) the Arthur Treacher's Restaurant and to the Nicollet Avenue entrance feature across the street from the restaurant in the area of 64th Street and Nicollet Avenue (estimate $2,980); 2) the island on 66th Street between Emerson Avenue and Lynwood Boulevard (estimate $3,998); 3) the south side of 65th Street from Lyndale Avenue to Rae Drive (estimate $7,272). The cost of these three alternates is included in t,'~e estimated $101,561.55 project cost. The 65th Street alterna- tive depends on terms of the developer's agreement to be negotiated for development of the Godfather Block. After the bids are received, and examined, it will also be determined if it is affordable to in- clude the peripheralalternative areas of 64th and Nicollet Avenue and the island on 66th Street between Emerson Avenue and Lynwood Boulevard. Because of the favorable bids received on the 1981 public im- provement construction activities, there are monies available in the project budget to finance the installation of an irrigation system. It is the recommendation of the staff that a portion of these funds be set aside to construct this system. CP 7055 is for a bike/pedestrian pathway around Richfield Lake. Preliminary estimates indicate that the project will cost about $180,000. The new bike pathway could be designed to enhance the Wood- ridge center project proposed to be located on the Godfather Block. Both the irrigation and pathway projects have been considered major alternate projects for this overall public improvement to be completed if sufficient monies were available. Since the project contains adequate funding to complete these aspects of the project, it is the recommendation of the staff that the council amend the overall CP 705 budget to include the irrigation and pathway projects. It appears that adequate funds remain to complete the irrigation aspects of the project as =cell as the improvements to Richfield Lake. In addition, funds originally programmed from the CDBG program of $112,748 and from the K-Mart bond issue of $330,072 are not needed by the L/H/~1 project and will not be transferred to this account. The funds will be Wade available for other uses. It is the recommendation that the city council authorize the staff to proceed with the irrigation project and the Richfield Lake project at this time. The irrigation project will proceed to bid stage while the Richfield Lake project would go into the concept stage for further approval by the city council. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ Karl__Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Development Director Finance Coordinator City Engineer i • CP 705 BUDGE:`i' SUMMARY 7050 7051 7052 7053 7054 7055 'I'O'L'AL, I' E N S L S final Est. I~cpenses 3,172,999.00 -0- 7.,746,763.00 3,488,056.00 -U- -0- 9,407,818.00 ;ed I;xp (Incl E7~cumb) 3,293,491.97 36,000.00 2,728,626.00 2,364,882.00 155,300.00 180,000.00 8,7513,7.99.97 nt. Over/under ~=120;492.97,' +'36;.000.00 -;18,137.00 ~11Z3174.00 +~55,300t00 +180,000,00 -649,51.8.0:3 v r; N U I; s final 1st. Revenue 3,172,999.00 -0- 2,746,763.00 3,488.056.00 -0- -0- 9,407,8).8.00 ;ed I?st. Revenue 3,623,563.97 36,000.00 2,748,108.69 2,477,630.07 155,300.00 180,000.00 9,?_7.0,607..73 nt Over/under +450,564.97 + 36,000.00 + 1,345.69 -1,010,42.5.93 ,+155,300.00 -~IHO,000,U("l ~~tH7;7J5.27 r1 M A R Y l Available for otter -uses 3'3U"jr0'72':00 '~D~ ~` 1948Z'~69' ~1IZ`'748":(77 -0- -0- 467,307.76 O50 -Street Improvements t)SL - 5peciaL Assessment u5?_ -Street Improvements ;1~i3 -Street :[mprovements 1154 - ] r. rigaL-i.on 055 - Riahfie.ld [.ake Bike - Nicollet Ave. - 1st Ave. - 65th St. - 66th St-. (Lyndale Ave. to 1st Ave.) Iearings - Lyndale Avenue (E.A.U.) - 66th Street (Lyndale Ave. to 34W) Path • • RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CITY PROJECT 7054, LHN IRRIGATION WHEREAS, pursuant to a Resolution No. 5645 passed by the council on November 22, 1976, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates has prepared plans and specifications for the improvement of the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Redevelopment Area by construction and installation of an irrigation system for certain public landscape zones within the LHN. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications are hereby approved. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Richfield Sun and the Construction Bulletin an advertise- ment for bids upon making such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for twenty-one days, shall specify the work to be done and shall state that bids will be received by the clerk until 11:30 A.M. on May 4, 1982, at which time they will be publicly opened in the council chambers of city hall by the city clerk, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the council at 7:00 P.M. on May 10, 1982, in the council chambers. 3. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check, payable to the city clerk of Richfield for five percent (5%) of the amount of such bid. Passed by the city council this 12th day of April, 1982. John Hamilton, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • r 0 n D ~_ O Z r D Z ~ ~F J ~~ I HARRIET AVE. SO. I GHANU W. PLEASANT AVE. S0. MINNEAPOLIS NORT N 1 • IST e A t ~, f*1 ~r r ~ ° D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn J "' L.~ C ALORICH i HARRIET AVE. 0. ~, > f s ~ ~ A s N ~ so. 0 s 1 A W. P A ANT AVE. S0. OUTHERN RAILWAY PLEASANT AYE. ~ 50. A j I AVE. SO. i i A Z ENTWORTH AVE. S0. BlAISOELL AV y 4VE. S0. I ~ ~ SO• i~~~ i Lam- {~ -t7 .-~"' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 113 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract, Adams Hill Park Lift Station, and Approval of Agreement With City of Edina On March 25, 1982, bids were opened for a lift station at Adams Hill Park. A representative of the city manager, a repre- sentative of the city clerk, a department head, and other city personnel, and the consultant representatives of the bidding firms were in attendance. A copy of the bid minutes and tabula- tions is attached for council review. The base bids calls for all items complete including piping, forecemain, manhole, connections (including electrical), riprap, foundation, sodding and seeding, as needed, and clean-up. The alternate is for an alarm light. Nine bids were received, with the low bid from Acton Construction in the amount of $99,050 for the base and $500 for the alarm light alternate. The budget for this project in the amount of $100,000 is financed from the Sewer Fund. The city council of Richfield approved an agreement relating to the storm water facilities at Adams Hill Park in December, 1981. The City of Edina recently gave approval to that agreement with a couple of minor changes to the text of the agreement. The only major change is one which was overlooked in the first consider- ation and is included as Section 5. This section will allow the City of Edina to raise the level of 69th Street at the request of the City of Richfield in order to eliminate flooding problems in Richfield in the 6900 block of Xerxes Avenue. The water which flowed down 69th Street will be diverted to Adams Hill Park pond where the pond size and pump station have been designed to handle this load. This suggestion was made by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Engineering on the City of Richfield's behalf and requested of the City of Edina by our city council in 1978. The 1972 agree- ment kept Edina from complying with our request. Inasmuch as the Edina City Council has approved the agreement with the City of Richfield, it is recommended that the city council give: Council Letter No. 113 -2- April 12, 1982 1. Approval of the amended Richfield-Edina Agreement relating to storm water facilities; 2. Award of, and authorization for the Mayor and City Manager to sign, the contract for the Adams Hill Park lift station to Acton Construction Co. for a base bid price of $99,050, and the add alternate of $500 for a total contract price of $99,5t~0. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Finance Coordinator CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening March 25, 1982 Adams Hill Pond Pump Station Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Eileen Anderson, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Adams Hill Pond Pump Station as advertised in the official newspaper. Present: Dennis- Kraft, Community Development Director Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Eileen Anderson, Acting City Clerk Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Coordinator The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR & BID SECURITY BASE BID ALTERNATE (ADDS Gridor Const. Inc. g,g, 5% $112,848.25 $500.00 Hayes Contractors, Inc. g,g, 5% $137,000.00 $1,.000.00 Nodland Associates, Inc. g,g, 5% $149,545.00 $500.00 G.L. Contr. Inc.. B.B. 5% $107,728.50 - Orvedahl Construction Inc. g,g, 5% $128,622.00 $500.00 Richard Knutson Inc. g,g, 5% $129,448.00 $475.00 Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing Co. g,g, 5% $117,623.00 $577.00 Acton Construction, Inc. g,g, 5% $ 99,050.00 $500.00 F.F. Jedlicki Inc. g,g, 5% $103,500.00 $500.00 The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of April 12, 1982. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk RICHFIELD-EDINA AGREEMENT RELATING TO STORM WATER FACILITIES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 1982 b~ and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corpora- tion (.'.'Richf field"), and the CITY OF EDINA, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Edina") . WITNESSETH: BACKGROUND OF AGREEMENT Richfield is the owner of a park known as Adams Park located on the boundary between Richfield and Edina. A pond located in Adams Park ("Adams Pond") is presently used as a storm water ponding area. Storm water enters Adams Pond from both Richfield and Edina by both natural and artificial flow. Richfield and Edina entered into an=.agreement dated December 18, 1972 {"the 1972 Agreement'°) which imposed certain conditions and limitations upon the use of Adams Park and Adams Pond as a pond- ing area for storm water from Edina. The actions taken by Richfield and Edina under the 1972 Agree- ment have not eliminated flooding problems in Adams Park and on properties adjacent to Adams Park. By this agreement, the parties desire to make provision. for additional storm water facilities which will reduce the flooding which now occurs at Adams Park. It is expected that within the next few years a tract land=..located in Edina on the north side of 76th Street between York and France Avenues ("the Hedberg Property") will be developed. Edina expects to estab- lish a storm water ponding area on the Hedberg Property in conjunction with such development. That ponding area, when established, will be used to store overflow storm water pumped from Adams Pond. IT IS THEREFORE AGREED by and between Richfield and Edina as f ollows 1. During the year 1982 Richfield will build a storm water pumping station on Adams Pond at the location and substantially in accordance with the plans thegefore prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, maxked "Exhibit 1." In 1982 Richfield shall install one of the two pumps shown on such plan. The pump to be so installed by Richfield shall have a 3 1/2 cfs capacity, and shall be connected to the force main which now leads from Adams Park into the storm sewer system of Edina and which was constructed pursuant to the 1972 agreement. This pump shall be designed and installed so that it can provide pumping when the elevation of the water in Adams Pond reaches 110 Richfield datum. In the event of rainfalls of large volume, the two cities will cooperate to prevent water pumpage into the Edina system when private property damage might occur. The capital costs of such 1982 work shall be paid by Richfield. The pumping station and any pumps installed therein pursuant to this agreement shall be the property of Richfield. -2- 2. When the Hedberg Property is developed Edina will construct a storm sewer from the Adams Pond storm water pumping station to a storm water drainage pond to be located on the Hedberg Property. Such storm sewer will. include a force main from the pumping station to the point where storm water pumped from Adams Pond will flow by gravity into the ponding area on the Hedberg Property. Such storm sewer shall be constructed to provide sufficient capacity to handle discharge of the proposed lift station. The capital costs of such storm sewer construction shall be borne by Edina and such facilities shall be the property of Edina and shall be operated and maintained by Edina. Edina hereby makes a good faith commitment that it will not allow the Hedberg Property to develop in a piecemeal fashion so as to bypass the above noted storm drainage improvements.: 3. Before Edina's completion of the storm sewers required by the foregoing paragraph 2, Richfield shall install one or more additional. pumps at the Adams Pond storm water pumping station so that water may be pumped from Adams Pond into the Edina storm sewers and thence to the drainage pond on the Hedberg Property. The addi- tional pump or pumps shall have a capacity of at least 4 1/2 cfs, but not more than 5 1/2 cfs. At the time of installing such addition- al pump or pumps, Richf field will make such piping modifications in the pumping station as are necessary to connect the first pump to the new Edina storm sewer,, along with the additional pump or pumps. With- the additQ~ of- this. agreement;_-by`'`:both:_ parties, _ -__ Edina shall be relieved of its obligation to provide the pump provided for in the 1972 agreement. 4. The operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the pumping station and-the pump located therein shall be paid for by Richfield. The City of Edina shall pay all of the regular pumping cost of electricity as well as one-half of the demand charge for electrical usage. 5. The 1972 Agreement references a map described as."Exhibit A" which was attached to the agreement defining the "area which would be drained by the storm sewer and which would outlet =into the pond." It is the desire of the two communities to enlarge the area in order to reduce localized flooding problems which occur as a result of water flowing east on 69th Street from York Avenue. Anew "Exhibit A" is adopted as attached. 6. This Agreement is an addendum to the 1972 Agreement. The 1972 Agreement remains in full force and effect except to the extent that it is modif ied by the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their appropriate officers and their seals affixed hereto as of the date hereof. IN PRESENCE OF: CITY OF RICHFIELD By Mayor BIZ City tianager CITY OF EDINA By Mayor By c~~ i~ ~~ 1 ~ i 1 ~I 6th 66th ~ e xes S ~~ to ~~ .,u "FLOW-BY" Area ~` ~, 69th ~: ~~~: Low flow by 69th 'Xe xr es ~ existing sewer IISysltem 70th ~___.I ~~~ a' c c m a ]nj\ ~~ I Adam's Hill Pond System, a ~ N u y c x x o f0 L L yr ~ ~ X ~ 76th FIGURE 3 STUDY AREA MAP ._ --c=am .,__"- ~" = looo' 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 112 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor License, Godfather`s Pizza, Hub Center, 2 West 66th Street An application has been received from I~Ir. James Gallup, General Manager of the Twin Cities operation of Godfather's Pizza Stores, for a non-intoxicating malt liquor license for their proposed operation in the City of Richfield. The city council recently approved a special use permit for the develop- ment of this restaurant establishment in the Hub Center. The required background investigation with regard to the application for the non-intoxicating malt liquor license has been completed by the Public Safety Department. The applicant presently operates six pizza restaurant businesses within the metropolitan area. The Richfield opera- tion will be the seventh such business opened by this applicant firm. The nearest similar restaurant operated by the applicant is located at 8050 Morgan Circle in Bloomington. As part of the background investigation we have made contacts with police agencies in each of the metropolitan communities in which an applicant restaurant operates. Generally, there have been very few public safety problems recorded in these com- munities. However, there has been one serious problem with the Bloomington operation. That particular restaurant has been in business for the past two years. During that time, the Bloom- ington City Council suspended the non-intoxicating malt liquor license of the business establishment following a conviction for "serving to minors." The problem in Bloomington would appear. to be an isolated incident when related to all of the several establishments operated by the applicant. There are no other issues which have developed during the course of the background investigation which would be a basis for denying the license requested. However, prior to granting the license, it is rec- ommended that the city council seek assurance from the applicant that a similar problem will not occur at the proposed Richfield establishment. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director ~~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 111 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Execution of Joint Powers Agreement, Food Service Inspection Management As members of the council will recall, the 1982 amended budget eliminated the position of the Environmental Health Manager. During the council discussion of this matter, the staff indicated that we plan to continue with our present contract for food service inspection activities, and to contract with the City of Blooming- ton to provide the technical expertise needed for the supervision and management of this important city service. . We have now completed negotiations with the City of Blooming- ton and developed the Joint Powers Agreement arranging for the necessary management services to effectively continue our restaurant inspection program. The contract we have negotiated involved a $5,000 annual fee to be paid to the City of Bloom- ington. Our contract restaurant inspector will be directly supervised by the Bloomington Inspection Department. This arrange- ment will meet the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health with regard to our Community Health Services Grant subsidy. Additionally, Bloomington has agreed to provide technical expertise in this rather specialized area to our Public Safety staff to ensure the continuation of a quality food inspection program for our com- munity. It is recommended that the council approve the Joint Powers Agreement for food service inspection management. Funds for this purchase of management services have been maintained as a part of the 1982 Public Safety budget. Respectfully submitted, z ..~. '~! _~. ,. KN/sh Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk • '1'TI1::~ AC'~REL~M1^LN1.', made and entered -int c> this day of 1982, by anti between th.e City o' Richfield, a P~innesota muriici~al. corpc.r.at.i<-n (her.ei.nufter "Richi field") , and the City of Blourningtc~n, a n?innesota munir.ipal corporation (hereinafter "Bloomington"). ~~J:ITNESSLTH V7HEREAS, PTinnes~ta Statutes 1981, Section 471.59, provides for the jc>int exercise of common powers by two or more govern- mental units; and wt~F.RL;AS, Richfield is d«~sirous of contracting for certain suF~ez-visory services tv be used in conjunction with Richfield's health inspection activities; and G~HEFZE;AS, Bloomington is willing to provide such services in the manner hereinafter provided; NOW TI3ERRFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter contained, the parties do hereby agree a5 follOWS: suc.~ sezvices st:.~ll be cffic.c~d in Bloomington; and to 1,~-~ __ .. , ~~~; t ~1~ ~_~_.~_ ~..; ~- ~ , s}. t s_ ~ ~~~, pr~_wided an insured vehicle by Blc~c~rr:inc; t.on. Cor.trar_t personnel retained by Richfield to prcvidc~ actual inspection services shall sups->ly Blc.un;incrton with all inspection reports and ether data necessary t.o carry out the purposes of_ this Agreeirier.t. Bloomington shall conduct on-site inspec- tions when necessary to provide specific technical advice or to monitor the performance of contract personnel. 3. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be for an initial term beginning "arch 8, 1982, and ending r'ebruary 28, 1983, provided, however, that the Acrree- r.~ent may be cancelled by either party upon the giving c;f 30 days written notice to the other. 4. Txtension of Acrr_eement. The Agreement shall be auto- matically extended for successive one year terms unless and until cancelled in the manner provided in paragraph 3 above. The fee for such subsequent terms shall be shvul.cl be adjusted. Any adjustrnent shall be upcn the :',~recment of he i.:; .ar_ties. 6. Indemnity ar~cl Ho lc: harmless. (a) Bloominc;t.on agrees to ind~nnify and hold harmless Richfiel..d, its officers, agents and employees, from all. actions, liabilit~~ and damages for property damage, personal injury or death result- ing from the acts, omissions or neglect of its employees while performing its obligations here- under. (b) Richfield agrees to indemxify and hold harmless F1_oomington, its officers, agent or employees from :.ll actions, liability and damages for property damacrc~, personal injury or death resulting from its municipal health inspECtion activities which are not described in paracraph (a) of this Section 6. 7. Status of F~.loomingtcn T;mployee~ and Richfield Contract • • • CITY OI~' RICFIFIELD By I tc; Mayor Ey _ _ _ I t._ City ~ranager _ _ _ _ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 110 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Public Improvements for 1982 PROPOSAL No. 1 During certain.-peak periods, the existing city hall parking facilities are unable to handle the volume of cars generated by citizens conducting business at city hall, and the city employees who work at the city hall facility. Under such circumstances, people are forced to park on adjacent streets, which tends to have an adverse impact upon surrounding residents. To help allev- iate this problem, it is proposed that the city hall upper level parking lot be expanded 35 feet to the south, and that the entire parking lot be re-striped to provide an additional 23 parking spaces. The revised layout would contain two parking stalls re- stricted for handicapped parking only, and five parking stalls for compact cars only. One tree in the southeast corner of the parking lot would 'nave to be removed. Three other trees would be retained. A 4 to 6 foot high wood fence, similar in design to the fences constructed in the L/H/N area, would be constructed along the south property line to screen the parking lot from the adjacent residence. The sign installation, striping of the lot and fence construct- ion is proposed to be completed by city crews, with the actual ex- cavation and resurfacing work to be done by contract. The estim- ated cost of the project is $13,000. Section 4.05 of the city or- dinance code outlines the requirements for driving and parking areas. The staff has reviewed the proposed parking lot expansion against city ordinances and guidelines and found that the proposal would meet all requirements except as follows: 1. City off-street parking guidelines indicate that a total of 214 off-street parking spaces should be pro- vided for the city hall facilities (including the public safety expansion). A total of 104 spaces are currently provided. In June, 1981, when the city council approved council Letter ~o. 110 -2- April 12, 1982 a special use permit for the public safety expansion it was stipulated that an additional 51 off-street parking spaces be provided. It is anticipated that additional spaces will be provided in conjunction with the Memorial Park improvement currently scheduled for 1984. The proposed expansion would help meet this stip- ulation and alleviate the existing parking shortage, although the facility would still be short of the spaces required by ordinance. 2. The depth of one of the five compact car spaces would be 15 feet instead of the required 16 feet. This space is proposed to be shorter than required in order to main- tain one of the existing trees. 3. The proposed setback of the parking lot would not meet the minimum required setback of 15 feet from the resi- dential property to the south. The proposed setback would be 10 feet, or five feet less than the required minimum setback. A wood screen fence would be con- structed which will provide screening to visually separ- ate the parking lot from the residential property. The city staff has discussed the project with the neighboring house to the south and resolved their concerns about the improve- ments. • PROPOSAL N0. 2 In 1980 and 1981, energy mini-audits and maxi-audits. of city facilities were completed. The results of the energy audits and the various projects the staff has been involved in recently in- dicate the need for numerous energy modifications or improvements to a number of city facilities. The energy savings which would result from these modifications would provide a "buy-back" of the expenditures within less than 10 years and, in some cases, almost immediately or within one year. The various items in the energy improvement package include such things as flue dampers, insulation, thermostat and lighting changes, and fans to circulate air and provide a more even distrib- ution of heat. Facilities included in the energy improvement pack- ages are primarily city hall, the nature center, and the city garage. The majority of the work proposed in 1982 is expected to be performed by city staff. The proposed funding in 1982 is $35,000. It is anticipated that there would be an energy savings of $6,000 or more per year for each year thereafter. Additional funding, or a second phase, of the energy improvement is proposed for 1983. Due to the positive cost/budget analysis of the improvements, these improvements should be instigated as soon as possible in order to realize the reduction in operating costs in 1983. • Council Letter No. 110 -~- April 12, 1982 • RECOMMENDATION Neither of the two public improvement projects described above are funded in 1982. However, both projects are of a nature which deserve immediate priority. The council could authorize both projects in 1982 by loaning money from the Permanent Improve- ment Fund to the Special Revenue Fund to be repaid in 1983 from normal revenues of the Special Revenue Fund. A resolution attached to this council letter would authorize that loan of funds. It is recommended that the city council: 1. Approve a resolution approving layout of off-street parking; 2. Approve a resolution authorizing transfer of funds; 3. Approve the projects in the 1982 budget for Energy Improvements ($35,000) and city hall parking lot improvements ($13,000}. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager ' cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT OF OFF-STREET PARKING. City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Location: Same Use: Expanded Parking Area BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Aiinnesota, as follows: ~ _ 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the expanded off- street parking area at Richfield City Hall is hereinafter .authorized. 2. That responsibility for the proper upkeep .and maintenance of said off-street parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this M4rc~ ~ 22nd day of Debi-t~xi-~*-, 1982. John ami ton, Mayor ATTEST: Sy via K. Bergh, City Clerk TY of RICHFIELD "IRKING l0T EXPANSION -- - - ------- -- _ ~ ~ 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~ CURB-~ - _ w ~ ~ EXISTING CURB ^ ~ ~ .. _ i ~r~ ~ ` ~ _ __ . • ~ ~.~© ¢,~. N ``aa; tLLL •4L~r la aal l l t t a l l l a l ll•l•lllllla LLllLal a`•al • alalllLlllllllllll ll,~ ` a ` a a ` ` DNE WAY ~ ONE WAY Q ~• ~••• - -1 L L L L L L L L L l l l l l l L l• l• l a L l l l L • .L ..L.a-L.• LLLLL 4 L l L t L i 1. L L U Ll L l ~~ 1 • CITY . L l a L L `L a l l`l • • l L`a L LLLL al••LIa LaL .lL L • t a l l L L LaL LLLL L ` L a • a ST - RIPINO BT OTHERS I' HALL al LlLlll lalal`lalal` L L L L L~L`l`l`a`ILTLLL,L~LLI`L ~ a`a` L~ ~~ ~ .~ - .- 1 , 6 700 PORT L AND AVE. ~ aLt`LILI•`LLa`L `a~l :a`aL`L l L L ~ ` ~ i l ~ RKING STALL TO BE SIGNED a `a`L`L```L`L`L`L`L`l~L`L`•`L`L` `.- _ . - - - - - - - - - "- -~ AMPACT CARS ONLY" BY OTHERS tL~7t ' a eL Y L ~ I E `L ~L~ L•La~`~`~ i~ ~ F ~ • l `_ 1~ ({ ~~ y , , p ` 1 [ 4 5 rll l~i~ \ LIIMa W I~~~ al`a `l`a ` ~ ~ ~.I^ ~ ~ ~. 1 _ 4 1 1 FENCE I l ~ `. ` `. LL•alal aLl. ``LILIL: `L`L~`i `l ~ ya a `~ a ~ ~ ~L16NT POLE * 1 . I er s l • • a Y a~L y• l l ~. 1 OTNERS l l `alaL•LL`l as a L L •LLl`l l l a a ~ - ~ _ _ - ~ - _ ~ ~ r ~ ~ _ ~aLa ~ a~L;aa`. ~a~a a L ~ ~ ~ . + L`aY ~ • l` `•`L L l ai L - ' ~ 1 7 , ..~ • , l l ~ . .. . > . a . • I ; I .1 ° L `lal L a `L` ` ` ` ` ` ` L 1 ' ~ L a L l a a • L L l l a L• L L L L L l a L a l a L L l l L a l a L L L L L a L L l L L l l L L L L` 4• L l L l l l 4`L`a~L L L L L`Ll a~b.L~l..r.~Y•L a L L a l L L l L L L L L ~ L I _ ~~' 1 1 ~ t : I,• -i4 - 19~ -+- . ' ' log a l \L~L.I_ ~ L`l~ l9~ ~ f ` `~`~`~` ` ` ` ~L`L l .a a ~ ~ 1•E 23 19 221 --~ S 20 . I . Laatt aaL IL~ a L L a lll ~ L a L • aa•L •`•L a L Lyl L`L`L`L`L`a`L`al ~ ~.. - - ~ - - I ` ~ . 'MIOH y~a~`a L`a`L`L`L`aLa`L`L L`L L L L L LLL L`~ L L a `L`1` `aLa a L L , a La I I ~ ~ ~ 1 r t ~ ~ ~ ~J 8 ../ //!! L L ' ' , L L L LL~ ~~ Y La LLLLLL ~ ~ ~ -I iENCE ' 1; Ir al ` L LLL L ~ LlL as a LLLL `a LLLILILI I.LLIL` ~L~ LL LL L aLIL l`I~a`Lal`L a a i 1, l ~ 1 L l l LI I ~L`• `.L`L~L`a LLL `L `a`l~J ~Li. ~ ~~ •~~ ~ -. ~I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 l I 1 L. ~ aaaa~LlL a a L L: `a`L`alL LL'[ l`l`l• Llala alalal ` ` ` ( I w ' a a l L t • L• L a• L a L l l L l l l a L l t l L I I• ' L : L a L L a• l~ L a a L L l• lla~ T! La L ll<t~lll`l`l`ll L L L L L LTCL L L L L L L L L a L a' L L L L L L`4 L ~ ~ ~~ - _ ~~ ~ . ^ ~• ~ ~~1 '• ' L L I~ a ` `L`L L`L L`L`L`L L`L`L`y.~ L L L L L L L l l a L`t L L`L l L L L l l l l L L l L LLL LLLLLL LLLL L~ aura rCL L L L L R~L a ~ ~ ~. ~~ _ I ~ 1, •. ~.~ ~ . L L L L L L L L LLL L L ` L ll l l l L L L l L L L L I- 1 A L yl~ l l l L Ial l ~ a I a LL L`L` lL`L`l` La `L` Y ` I + ~ 1, . . ` ~ ` L1 ' till all a LLLL``• L Llal ` ~ . ~. .~ ~..... ~~ ~. .~ ~~ . J ~~ I -I ' a a`LµL~I llla~ai~iL`• `a ` a *~L16NT POLE .I a ` l LLL L .` (LLLL ~``; La`LLL aILL•`a~l`LLL I 1 L a LLLL LL L al L` L`all y.L1.Li La. L a L ,.` alga L L L a L L l L l L`LS ``l ` ` ` ` ` ~~ ~ ~.. . 1 ~~ •~ ~ -I ~~ ~~ , ~~ L L l L L L aa`• a laL`l`a`a • L l l L `I L ` ~ ` ` ` L a ` I ' a l L L a l L l l l l aa`l` y `L~IIL a`LLLIII ll~ ~ I ~~ - ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ •~ I . I ~ , alala ~~~ lLlLaalL ' `` b ~ L L L L`I ` . 1 •. : 4~ N16N • i LILILILIaL alb ~ a~ L ` ~ a ` ` ~ - .~ ~~ . . ~ _ 1 ` • ` i4~ h`a L L L L t [~t L I ` ~ I • F_E-NCE I ' `L`LL•a.~~`.L~i.`~` ` a a`.~L~L t ` ~`~ L • ..1 ` ^ ~ _-. SS l a`L`ala•`l`L L`L`aaa`L`L L =r =c`tLl`l`a`a`a a i~ a `Ll~ `wT ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~I~~ ~~ ~~ ' . e `L`Laa •al L aL Lallaa LLLL l L `L `L` `a~L`t`L` l` `a` L l L t `a~ `a ONE WAY I ~" ' L L L L L l LLL l a~ L`L l`L`LLILI LL ` `L`L 1 I . L L L l{ `` . n . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ - - _ _ • ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , l L L l L L l L L l L l 4 l r r .~ ` ~ , ' ` ~ _ ., • . ' ~ . i " • a ~ . ~ • •-9 1 ~ ,. ~ y: \ • I ` ..1 ~ • 1 1 • • , • ~ ` ~ ' • ' ' • ~ a y , 111 , ~ \ ' t 1 .L i .1'1 .1' 1.. Y . ~ ' 1 i . 1 • V I PORTLAND AVENUE 1 CITY • RICHFIELD • 1 PARKING LOT EXPANSION ~ PROPOSED CURB- EXISTING CURB ~ i~ 1 ¢~A,.-© ,.,L,l,. ,' ~ ONE WAY ONE WAY 'v ,,.•a 'a~~, ,1, , SCALE 1° = 20 ;,~:« ,,~, 11' ,: ~ ~ "°' ~ °' 1 L Y 1. 1 ~~f~1 ; '. X1.`1 ~1 ~`, ~~ • J; „1~ a4 a It1 ;, ! ETI11-INO sr OTNEIb ~ t ` __r } ~ as _ a4 ~ ILa1~ { ~~}}- ` .. ~ 11. 1l`I;la \Ia 1.'iLLa 1 1.' : 1 ~ ~ ~r Z~` - L '~.- 1 . L t`lala, atll L l Latalalal l `'I ~~V l L l L 1 I L a l a l 1• L a 1 _ if PARKING STALL TO 8E SiGNEG a LL,rl•.~I~ay11p1h}rLa4aa1 Il aaaa 1 ~ _I CITY °COMPACT CARS ONLY° BY OTHERS ~lr[''iTiti'`f~'1,~` ~~~CLI~`~j ~ l 1 NALL a• \ a l1a 1 a aa, ~- - 6700 PORTLAN[ , 4 Iaa a 1 a 1 l aalLLaa L L I •• . Ilaaaa .'~ Y. a 1 a L a a a a, L L L Iaa'l l a`L lal ~Ial L`taa'~ a l l 1- l L l l l` 1. 4 1 a a ~ I a l l -tal l L L a l l t i l l l/ -. ~ ~~ _~1 ••• Ya <! 1'1!r 1 a 4 a l 4 1 r.. . .• Ial.al l Ia~LI `al la' l i I • f 1 a 4fEMCE 1~La4` ~ a a L a l a l La1~4'1 ~ ~UtNT -OLE ~ L Or '4aaaaa`a1~.~a . i a~aaai aaaa',;; M © 1 1 OiNEII! ` aL..`l'a: `a `a l a1 a` - - - - - - - - a ` :ai as '11 ~ I ~ - ._ 4 .alas Ia1.aaM a ;, ia~a` .' NfDOE-~ ( a`I`aaa'1~1~ alai i ` '.y ( - ~ .- ' , • .• 1 • t i a `i i (aaaa a : i '.1 ~ -. - - - i• f ' a.. . aLlLalaalal)`all 1, al`a'i a L`ty ~ f ~l all L. as a..Ll ~ ~••• a a a l a a L a l t a a l l l a .~ a a a 4 a l l l a l a a a a 101 a~`a,`~„a t~L a L L a . a L. l~i'~.~~r 19 -•-YF--22` >•< 20 i9' Yi 2J' i i t9' - ~ . is as :u`.~~a~aaa~L~a~~`i`L`: a+ ~ _ - - ~ T`a a a a L Lyl LLLLLLLIa :La`.1 ~ ~•~ ~. -~ - -'- -~ - -1' 1. a a l a a l a 4 l a a t l l l ' l l. l a l a• a a a L a L a t ' L'R,l l i a i: L l l a l l a I ~' • {INIOM a1~.aIIa aaL L a a aaaa ~LaLaLaL1a y l a a Laa l a a a a L a L ll -- - ~~~•. f[NCE , a4 '4 ~ i a aaaLLaa`aLLaaaa lal l a a L a L a 4 4 a l L ~ •1 ' '1a111"all aalaaaaLl lalLla.LI~L~ILLI ~ ~ ~. •• aaLlyaaaa.~.La4;aaaaaaa a4a1 laal ~' ~.. .~ ~_ ~ - -. _~ I a • iall•al••\1'•Laaalalala~l•alalal la ~ •• as aaaaa as aaa11;`~ I i as aaaa,aaaa-~e~ aalaaaa,LaLaL, , - - ' • . t l l~l`l l lT4 L`aaaalaal.aa 1 -_ __ _- - ~~ - aaaaalaa`lal`IaLLLa•aIaLLLLLIN~! La( I -_ -1 f': :a•aILLLLLaaaLL aalalalalal`.a LLL~~l.'111a1a _ ' aaaaaYl.LL~Ial~alal`L~L.~L K L ~ ~ ~ ~. - L1t~i aII lRl-\y1'r LI LL\i i a ~La`Yi1`. `~ y ~ 4 ~.... 1 4 4a IIy;{ a t a a 1 1 ~ I I I ~1 'ia: `'~ I;ai ~a~,1, 1;x:11 (_ -, 9 1 • 1 ~ a 11 ~1 a;1 'a~, 11 ~1~, M1~1 ' - - __. "_ R d~L16Ni TOLE - ~ - --II •1 11'I~a~a;a~al'~Ia aL,;1;11~ i'' '•1.1 1 1 Iaaa111 ;ILILII,I IAt'1 1 ~- -. ~_. - - - 1a L 1,41\>,'II L., 111'1'1.'1 T1'/ .- ~.~ ~~ ~~I •. 1. 1 1'111.. • 1,1 ~~ •1 aalalalala .a la1at 1111IL I I µaa ~li;~aLa`La1..`y.1a.1~~1' 11 1 -~~. -. ~.~ .~ - - ~- _~ _.~ i `, a\ a~'.1[~11 a1111111.11„IL ~ ~~ ~~ I ,. ~'MIOH as a . l a1~1 1 i~ 11~ ..-_~ .... _- - __ FENCE 1; '1'1';t'~,,r4'.,11111111 L;1~ ~ ~ I • a 1 I 1'aa11 a1 a.11a,a1a111 1 111 I •~ 1{' .'111 1111 111' 1 1''~ ~ -I •• a ,' 1 1 1',11 ;',' '' I ONE wAr ( 1 1.11 ~I,; ;;'; 11'; '111 I 1'`111 111`,1 '111 •/ - ~ _ ~ _I I1a111; L1;; 11111;1 ; 1 1 «. - . ..... , .._ ._ ..... 1 I1 - - - - ' ~ ~~ \1 ~ ~ • as 1 . , __ 1 •. '1 •• • ' L ' 'a :.^,• . 1 1 • '. 1 , t 1a •1 L.. ../ ~ ~'~ j • L L J y~\ ~ :1 l a .i •~ :~. .. ,~ 1 • •1 .. .111 ~ r • • • 1 1 _. .. ! \ ..~ .ter r. 3 .:. r ~ ~ s r. .. .. .. .~ .. r r ~. .. .. .. u1 c. ...~ .. w ~. - PORTLANb AVENUE • • 8.-0.. s._0.. 4..0.. ~ B 8' MODULE 6' MODULE 4' MODULE S G E E OA DS A DOM A A - o o _, B ~ ~_ SELECT RANDOM BOARDS FROM I X 4~ I X 6 8~ l X 8' DIMENSION MATERIALS. WOOD FENCE TYP. ELEVATION 3/4° = ~~-0~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVING FUND TO CAPITBL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET TO FINANCE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT CITY HALL .AND CITY HALL ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield pro- vides that for a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund to be used for the purpose of financing local improvements; and WHEREAS, the ordinance states that the proceeds of said fund may be used to provide interim financing of capital expenditures for projects of the city by resolution of the city council, and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to undertake city hall parking lot expansion and city facility energy improvements during 1982, although said projects are not provided for in the 1982 Capital Improvement Budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by resolution of the City Council of the City of Richf field that $48,0.00 from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund of the city be transferred on June 15, 1982, to the Capital Improvement Budget of the city for purposes of financing costs related to the city hall parking lot and city facility energy improvement projects. Done at the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th~.day of April, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk #~98 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 109 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess $2,500 City charter requirements provide that the city council must approve purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construct- ion when the amount exceeds $2,500. There are six such items on the city council agenda for April 12, 1982. COLD MIX Cold mix is an asphalt material used primarily to patch alleys or other areas where the existing material is a sand/oil • or cold mix. For the 1982 alley patching project, three vendors were contacted for quotations to provide an estimated 200 tons cold mix, delivered. Commercial Asphalt does not make a cold mix. Bury Carlson does not have cold mix available until the fall season. McNamara-Vivant does have cold mix available at $27.00 per ton. It is recommended that the city council authorize the master purchase of cold mix for the 1982 alley maintenance project at a unit price of $27.00 per ton, from McNamara-Vivant, for an estimated total purchase price of $5,400.00 UTILITY BOXES The city recently ordered three pick-up trucks. It is necessary to provide specialized utility boxes for these units. The trucks ordered come equipped with standard boxes. The proposal is to store these standard boxes during the lifetime of the vehicle, use the speciality boxes, and at the end of the depreciated life- time, place the standard boxes back on the vehicles when the city sells them. It is anticipated that the availability of virtually new standard boxes on the units will increase the value at the time of resale. Furthermore, purchasing the specialized utility boxes, we will have those available for reuse on the equipment purchased for replacement at the end of the depreciation period. Three quotations were received for the three speciality utility boxes. LaHass quoted $9,060. McQueen Equipment quoted $12,534. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of the • three utility boxes from Truck Outfitters, in the amount of $9,023.70. ~:ouncil Letter Igo. 109 -2- LAWNMOWER e d~ o The 1982 budget for park maintenance includes funding for the purchase of a new gasoline-propelled 72-inch Toro Groundsmaster Mower. Three quotations were received for this piece of equipment. Garceau Hardware and Minnesota Toro, Inc. both quoted $8,695. it is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase from Weekend Freedom in the amount of $8,460.75. GAS PUMP STATION Une of the improvements scheduled for the golf course in 1982 is installation of a gas pump station. Three vendors were solicited for quotations to provide the two tanks, pumps and installation. Northwest Service Station Equipment Company had a unit that appears to exceed the specifications for the type of unit that would meet code requirements, according to the city's Fire Chief. It does not appear necessary to exceed minimum code requirements. Pump and Meter Service, Inc. has equipment that is acceptable and meets code requirements, and provided a quotation for the equipment of $4,472. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase from Zahl Equipment Company, with equipment meeting minimum code requirements and acceptable to the city's Fire Chief, in the amount of $4,289.60, with the under- standing that any permits required be fee waived. TEES AND GREENS AERATOR • As the golf course gets more and more use, constant traffic concentrated on the greens and tees causes the development of a ` compact impermeable surface layer of soil. An aerator is necessary to alleviate the problems of soil compaction, to help ~- '2 grass roots obtain sufficient oxygen, moisture and fertilizer, ~- to enhance water penetration and to generally improve the con- ` dition of the greens and tees. A self-propelled turf care r ~ machine removes small cores of soil systematically spaced over `' ~ the turf surface to be aerated, and soil that is removed can be ~~ reused for topdressing. Three quotations were received. Reed's `-~ Sales and Service quoted $5,900. Minnesota Toro, Inc. quoted $4,825. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a Ryan Model 544801 Greensaire II with windrow attachment from P.L. Gould and Company in the amount of $4,650. PENN AVENUE LIQUOR STORE SIGN One of the concerns expressed in the 1981 Liquor Management study completed by Beverage Marketing, Inc. related to the poor visibility of the Penn Avenue Liquor Store as it relates to traffic on Penn Avenue. In addition, the Penn Avenue Liquor Store has no windows to utilize for advertising, which Beverage Marketing feels is a major factor in a competitive liquor business. For that reason, BMI recommended that the city install a sign on Penn Avenue which would allow for advertising, while also making the store more visible to street traffic. April 12, 1982 Council Letter No. 109 -3- April 12, 1982 To that end, I have had an architectural firm draw up a sign which would replace the existing Penn Avenue Liquor Store sign. The sign would also provide space for advertising of the weekly specials. A drawing of the sign which would be installed is attached for your review. Three companies have submitted quotations on the sign as specified. Lawrence Signs quoted $5,985; Leroy Signs quoted $7,950, and Norquist Signs quoted $5,840. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a sign for the Penn Avenue Liquor Store in the amount of $5,840. Respectfully submitted, ,Y ~,_..~ ~ , .~ _ ~ ~~ .r ~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Services Director Liquor Operations Director • ~~ PRovIDE Gt,oS~I~ES f~T TOP of Gol.uM N5 ~~N~'I~~D LIQUOR ~~©~~,/ N~~1 ~l~~ ~, ~-1Nt~~P~ PI~,~CF, INC. richfie9d liquor ~-~to store LnJ ~~CNI`I'ECT5 MAl~H p~i5"tIN6 5SC~1, f~K 6P'~oWN q~CK- C-~uNC7 W~ WHiTf~. ~ Cv'r' caul L Tr~P~S, i -__ ,~ =o ~i SPECIALS, ~ _._ __.____ WINE: 2~°/o C~FP _~ 50°lo OPF~ '~ i(b1POR~"ED SEER -o ~EM~U~Li 8' HIC-~-~ LETT~f~s = D^tzK P~fZOW N W/ WFt(TE. MAGI<GR4UND ~I N TED STEEL TU3E coUUr~rS t T CbU~ F~CE~ 5!C-~i~1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 108 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and C ~~~ ~~! _ F~ cn2~ ~~ ~- s a. /jSSL~~n1c:.~t~ Members of the City Council ,~ ;-, -• ~ r a~~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~~-~~r - City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing, A11ey Maintenance Project In order to implement the alley maintenance policies passed by the city council, it is necessary for the council to initiate a specific alley maintenance project. The maintenance functions to be financed by this special assessment include such work as as some rough grading, the cleaning and sweeping of potholes, cold patching and snowplowing. A public hearing on the alley maintenance project is scheduled for April 12, 1982. Community Services Department personnel estimates the annual cost of this project for the period April 1, 1982 through March 31, 1983, to be $39,000. Of this amount, an estimated $30,000 would be for alley patching type of work. Alleys which were resurfaced in 1981 or are scheduled to be resurfaced in 1982 would not be assessed for patching-type maintenance. Assessments would vary according to the amount of work necessary on each individual alley. The costs for the repair of an alley will be charged to the property owners abutting the alley. For patching-type maintenance, this would result in an estimared average assessment of about $19.50 per lot, assuming a 50-foot lot. Of the total $39,000 amount, an estimated $9,000 would be for snowplowing of alleys, whether resurfaced or patched. Weather conditions during the period of April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983 will have a significant impact on the actual amount to be assessed. For snowplowing maintenance, this would result in an estimated average assessment of about $4.10 per lot, assuming a 50-foot lot. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing and then adopt the attached resolution, ordering this alley maintenance project for special assessment of current services. Respectfully submitted, 11. n Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ IS~ o~T ~~ R~~ccc; cc: Community Services Director City Clerk Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING ALLEY MAINTENANCE CP 771 WHEREAS, a resolution of. the City Council adopted March 22, 1982 fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed alley maintenance for current services, and WHEREAS, at least ten d~s__~ublished notice of the hearin~_ through at least bne publication of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon on this 12th day of April, 1982, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such alley maintenance is hereby ordered as proposed in the council Resolution No. 6591 ":.adopted the 22nd day. of March, 1982. 2. That the street maintenance division be designated to perform these maintenance functions. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of April, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh City Clerk +i 1 66 0 , /' ~ ? /f /~1,1.~~ ~ ,m~?J.tt. ~~ .~~C.:2: . ~~.(C 9`Cj L..C!) tG,CC(_..~-'C C ( i (I' ~ , `7 1 (~.~~(-CC,!~,~r"r~ Cr•yt. L~ C.~.C t~.., ~C~L; ~~q,Ca.cC•`-- %~l~c Gea.(c.i~-z- lA2C ,,.L(,a2(G~ ,.?7Lt~ U ~/ ' tJ~ ..C~ `~i CC-!t_t t. 2, ~<.c t~ CZ LZt~~ C! <F.. V//, ! !!, ~~. C~;;ifl_tc~~~- (,II. /,~4C .~ { c . . L t ~ <• I i• t ~.t._ C C. ~. (:.c (" ..~ ~,bi c < ,: t`(i ('i ~.~ ;,H . ~ / ~~.~,~C ~j _~'1- .~I~-c'- ;1126 ci`. ~~L~: ,.. ~c ).~. _("~/~ .• . „ G Gtr ;2'~•-.c i ~ / < : t. G~ ~Q.tt ~ ~~i.C4 c-tit.: ~J [~^ LC'. ,.t,L' ail- , { t.._c~. / l~ :. `i r ~ t. jj~~ f ~.` ( . 1~d c=~ [f- ./,.L1,t.b[IL ~ (_~(,l.t tt . tt' , . [ ,/ l-~ ~ pp << CYO tr ~~_ ~~_ l- •2l,`•~~-ec`"t~~' t~ ~V,. i ~ ~ n~ ,.~~1... tC ~- l c?,z~ ~il.C~f~ _:e. 1 L{t..c c~ 1. ~~..fi77Z 11 a ~ / 7 /~ ~i~ G~. L[i P t't ~ct' L ~lt~ t LLtc-- j' 4~. t,.l.'C- Gt.~L LC.. .~' / tC /~`~ ' LL LL's.' ,/lo Q-tic ~,.'~._~ , 6 ~ a ( // ~ ~,L['L~ ,.~~{"Cr'" -.4,~ct.f9t,~ ~.i--79G1>tc^>`t- ,~"y~ ~G t{.'.tC ti') L- c•c 1 L t.~. Li (~ , [ (~, ~... , ' tic:i7Cc''trr .( Lt';;c~ 1<J~>it[z ) .C~ t`' :_i:_ i= F ,1 ~Z - - _,,, ld ~ . rriebe . r. .._ 'or of 31c:nffield and fellow count L1 -•iembers ~edr SLrs, ~e live at 1~ -mast 69th 3t. Ln iilchfield along. side of an alleyway between 68th ~ 69th St. rie understand from your letter of :y~rch 25th that assessment of charges for the maintenance, repair and snowplowing of this alleyway will be mGde to those property owners abutting the alley. Since we receLved the le tier we are assuming our prvpea~ty Ls subject to the assessment. The premise for the charge apparently Ls that those benefiting from the maintenance, a tc. of the alley should '^e the ones to pay t he costs .involved. iowever, we derive no benef L'!' whatsoever from this alley and consequently .believe it to be unfair that we should help g~+.y for its ;cair_tenance. Thare is no access to the alley from our lot except by foot. Our driveway and gara3e were Ln place long before the alley was put in. _ss a matter of fact, for reasons too numerou~-to list ~nA~•e, we would prefer to h~.~ve the alley closed. ~e realize t hwt this is not possible. ne ask that our property be exempted from these srecial assessmnts fcr t'ne re-~.s~;ns stated, if there is ar:;rt ing further t!~-~.t should be discussed or considered, please let us i~:ow. T'^s.nk ;you for your co~~sideratiorl. ~ircerely, 29 March 1982 John Hamilton Mayor - City of Richfield Richfield, rat 55423 sir: I have received a latter dated 25 March 1982 from Mr Donald. A Fondrick advising me that I will be assessed a charge for plowing our alley and also for repair, if such a proposal passes the city council. In the forty's, when the village of Richfield plotted out lots, it was patterned after the city of Minneapolis. Our alleys, like theirs, were to be considered streets or an extension of our street system, to be paid for by general funds by everyone in Richfield. In the fifty's, the lots were plotted larger and longer without alleys. If we, who abut an alley, have to pay extra for repair and snow removal, then why shouldn't a homeowner abutting a sidewalk pay extra for snow removal for the sidewalk? Do any of the other first class cities in our state charge the tax- paying residents of that city extra because they happen to abut. an alley or sidewalk? For sake of comparison, let me point out to you why the tax paying residents of Richfield who abut an alley should not be discriminated against. 1. In our block, 68th to 69th, Harriet & Grand, there are 24 houses with an alley. Four are corner houses, and three more have driveways from the street and do nat use the alley. 2. The next block, 69th to 70th, between Harriet & Grand, there are only 16 houses without an alley. Each lot is 25 feet wider and 10 feet longer. Now which of the two blocks pay more taxes, the one with the alleys and 24 houses, or the block with wider and longer lots and 16 houses? If the block with the alleys and the 24 houses pays more tax, then WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO PAY EXTRA FOR SNOW REMOVAL AND REPAIR OF A STREET THAT IS CALLED AN ALLEY? Mr Mayor, I hope you can.agree with me that this proposal is asinine and should be dropped. We are all in this boat together. Cordially Stanley J 6837 Harri Richfield, MN 55423 866-7480 or 726-5001 s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~t ~/ Council Letter No. 107 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Discussion of Policy Relating to Waiver of License Fees Various organizations in the city often request the city council to "waive" fees for licenses which they are requesting. City council members and the staff have experienced some con- fusion as to the qualifications for a "fee waived" license. Chapter V, Section 5.12, subdivision 5 of the city code relating to soft drink fee waived licenses states, in part, "...the city council may authorize the clerk to issue a license, without payment of any license fee, where the proposed licensee is a religious, civic, benevolent, educational, veterans or non-profit . organization..." Chapter V.I, Section 6.01, subdivision 8, paragraph (2) relating to fee waived licenses for food licenses states, in part, "...governmental subdivisions, charitable institutions, houses of worship, homes for the aged, childcare homes, schools, charitable and non-profit hospitals,...are not charged a fee therefore...provided that any food vending machine located in any such establishment must be owned by the establish- ment..." It appears that the confusion regarding eligibility for a license fee waiver arises from the fact that most of the above- noted establishments do not apply for the license, and are not, therefore, the licensee, and/or do not own the vending machines. Some of the fee waived licenses granted this year were listed by the location of the vending machine, but were actually licensed to a particular vendor, rather than to the organization in whose facility the machine is located. Also, some of the licenses granted to a vendor were for churches or schools. An example of this is a request from the Coca Cola Bottling Midwest (copy attached) for a refund of license fees they paid for soft drink vending machines ($25) placed at St. Peter's Church and the West Middle School. We have also recently received a request from the Hub Merchants Association to waive the $1~9 per day fee for -a carnival-they Fwill be sponsoring this spring, and it is unclear whether the Hub Merchants Associa- tion qualified as a religious, civic, benevolent, educational, verterans or non-profit organization. Council Letter No. 107 -2- April 12, 1982 Because of this confusion, it is recommended that the city council establish the following guidelines for waiver of license fees which the staff will administer, bringing only questionable interpretations to the city councils 1. The establishment where the machine is located must be the party applying for the license; 2. Only groups that are religious, civic, benevolent, educational, veterans, or non-profit will be con- sidered for fee waived licenses; 3. Only license fees for which no inspectional service is required will be considered for fee waiver; 4. For licenses requiring background investigation, the cost of investigation may be substituted for the license fee if all other criteria are met. In addition, the council should consider the request of the Hub Merchants Association for a fee waiver of $100 per day for a carnival. The Association would have to be considered a civic organization to qualify under this provision. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: City Clerk Director Administrative Services t.~Cc7-t;i~~ca :5c3~i1~~"iC~ eY11Ci1NESC iflC:. Vending Services Division 1189 Eagan Industrial Road/St. Paul, Minn. 55121 • March 22, 1982 i~Ir. Karl Nollenberger City P~ianager 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, IvIN 551+23 Dear :sir. Nollenberger: I have already purchased my 1952 vending machine licenses for all of our accounts located in your city. I have received calls from two of those accounts, saying that they feel their fees should be weived. St. Peters Church, 67th & Nicollet andtilest Middle School, 75th & Gliver Street feel their fees should be weived since they are considered non-profit organizations. I do not know what your policy is on these matters but would appreciate it if you could help me with this matter. If it is possible to get a refund on the fees for these two licenses I • would greatly appreciate it if you could have the check sent to my attention at the above address. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ ~1 Jeri Stuermer CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 106 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to the Licensing and Regulating of the On- Sale License for Intoxicating Liquor in Restaurants On March 22, 1982 the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to the licensing and regulation of on=sale intoxicating liquor licenses. Currently, the municipal code requires that restaurants must have at least 7,500 square feet of Boor area in order to qualify for a liquor license. The proposed ordinance would reduce the required square footage to 4,000 square feet, and to increase the market value requirement from $500,000 to $750,000. The chart attached to this council letter shows that the City of Richfield has tY~e strictest square footage requirements of a number of communities surveyed in the metropolitan area. The highest square footage requirement that we could find was 5,000 square feet in the City of Fridley. There are currently three restaurants in the city which exceed 4,000 square feet. They are King Oscars,(4,264 square feet) Country Kitchen (4,625 square feet), and Dimetri's (5,100 square feet). The ordinance that was presented at the March 22, 1982 city council meeting did not recommend any change in the market value of $500,000 which currently exists in the city code. The city council decided at that meeting to increase the market value re- quirement to $750,000. Subsequent to that meeting, we investiga- ted the current value for the Ground Round Restaurant, which currently has a liquor license., and determined that this restaurant has a market value for those items eligible under the ordinance of $600,000. For that reason, it is recommended that the city council amend the ordinance before final reading to reduce the $750,000 market value requirement to $6J0,000. Council Letter No. 106 -2- April 12, 1982 This ordinance came before the council for first reading at the request of Mayor Hamilton. The city staff does not object to the ordinance as written, but feels that the deter- , urination for liquor license requirements is a policy determin- ation reflective of community standards which should be deter- mined by the city council. However, we would recommend the amendment of the ordinance to a $600,000 market value to allev- iate any problem as it relates to existing licenses. Respectfully submitted, ,~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cce Public Safety Director KN/ej a s LIQUOR LICENSE REQUIREMENTS • City Anoka Bloomington Brooklyn Center Burnsville Fridley Hopkins Minneapolis Roseville St. Louis Park St. Paul Richfield Minimum Minimum Square Feet Market Value 3,000 Dining Area $250,000 land, building and fixtures _0_ -0- 1,800 Dining Area -0- $1,000,000 does not include land 5,000 Kitchen & _0_ Dining Area _0_ -0- _0_ -0- _0_ -0- 3,000 -0- _0_ -0- 7,500 Dining Area $ 500,000 restaurants & Kitchen $1,000.000 hotels Area 3/2/82 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XI, SECTION 11.06 OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE Cit~i of Richfield Does Ordain Chapter XI, Section 11.06 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the licensing and regulating of the "on-sale" sale of intoxicating liquor is amended in the following respects: A. By amending paragraph (3) of Subdivision 1 to read as follows: "(3) The term 'restaurant' means an establishment under the control of a single proprietor or manager, having appropriate facilities to serve meals in one or more dining rooms having a total area of at least x;599 4,000 square feet, and where in consideration of pay- ment thereof, meals are regularly served at tables to the general public, and which employs an adequate staff for the usual and suitable service to its guests and the principal part of the business of which is the serving of foods. The area to be used in computing such ~~566 4,000 square foot minimum shall be the gross floor area of the restaurant including areas for the preparation . and serving of food and liquor. Basement areas, however shall not be counted for the purpose of meeting such x;599 4,000 square foot minimum requirement." B. By amending paragraphs (4) and (5) of Subdivision 11 to read as follows: "(4) No 'on-sale' license shall be granted for a restaurant which does not comply in all respects with the definition of a restaurant as contained in Subdivision 1 of this sec- tion, nor to any restaurant which does not have a total ~~ market value, including land, building and equipment of at ~,~ ~, leas t $596 , 996 $~7~-0 ;-000 . - aa-appratsec~-bp-the-cite-assesaer txport-apprassa~-data-kav~ag-a-ba3e-elate-ef-~arrr:arp-4; -~?~6r {5) No 'on-sale' license shall be granted for a hotel which does not comply in all respects with the definition of a hotel as contained in Subdivision 1 of this section, nor to any hotel which does not have a total market value, includ- ing land, building and equipment, of at least $1,000,000 as-appratsccl-bp-the-cztp-assesser-basecl-upon-appratsa~-clata kanirg-a-base-elate-ef-~aaezarp-~; -499 : " Passed by the City Council o€_the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1982. John Hamilton Mayor Attest: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~1 Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 105 Agenda April 12, 1982 Deferred April 26, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Request to Solicit Consultant Proposals for a Market Study of Cedar Avenue Liquor Store Site During 1980 and 1981, the city council discussed the possibility of upgrading the use of the site now occupied by the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. The site is underutilized by the liquor operation both now and for the foreseeable future. Two analyses of the site have been made at the request of the council. The liquor store operations analysis felt that an accompanying commercial use adjacent to the liquor operation would be complementary to the retail operation of liquor stores. Another analysis of the Cedar Avenue business area examined the site as a potential cornerstone of an effort to revitalize the Cedar Avenue commercial/industrial • area but expressed concern over its attractiveness as a commercial area to a developer. Housing uses might prove an attractive alternative in that event. The liquor store site may provide the city with a unique development opportunity. It is one of the few large developable parcels remaining within the city, and is under-utilized and tax exempt by virtue of city ownership. It would be appropriate to begin to formulate a strategy for the future use of this parcel. The first step in such a strategy is to ascertain the most feasible land use, based on existing and future demand. Such a study should be undertaker. by a consultant who is familiar with land use, demand absorption rates, employment, and economic and demographic trends within the metropolitan area. The study would evaluate all uses which fall within the commercial, industrial and residential categories. Within these categories, the potential for hotel or motel uses, office, retail shops and housing would be specifically examined. An additional element of such a study would be an eval- uation of the compatibility of the uses with the surrounding environment. It is suggested that the city solicit proposals for a market analysis of the site. This Request for Proposals will enable the staff to solicit formal study proposals from consultants, and to evaluate the proposals systematically. After the staff has evaluated responses to the Request for Proposals, the council will be requested to authorize a contract with a consultant, to under- take the described study. Council Letter No. 105 -2- April 12, 1982 It is recommended that the city council authorize staff to solicit proposals for a market study of the Cedar Avenue liquor store site. Respectfully submitted, ~~^~~ ~•JC ~v~ ~C' . , I ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director Liquor Operations Director City Planner Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator • ~i ~ MULTIPLE RESIDENCE ~i GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ,. ® GENERAL COMMERCIAL LIMITED BUSINESS ., rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~rr: r r rr rrr r r ``r f r r r r'' r f r r r r r r r r 1lItIli~~ftl~i!!li~Il~Il~~i~l~I~~1~~l~tl~~~~~7~~fe~~ ;`ii~_~oil~~1-1-80 .urn '! ' . _____ ._ ~ .......... ....... .r _________... ~~_.. __ ~~1~~' r / t _ . arw ~ l._ ~Q~~~ ~illJUl-/ ~ L~ ~ ~ .. w . w• n ~~~©~~~1~ Y(~_Ja ~a~a _ I .~«« • ~~~UU`~UUL JI.JUI_ll __l~, . ... n . _J~~i _l_.~_.z ~~ ~~~D~JCJ~C1[ 1. ~~~~ ~~I[Jf ~ll_1 _ ~ - . - . - ~ 10DDDUU if _1000[ ~_~~. . n. n ~®~®®~~~oaoo : au ~ ~® ~oaam~~®~oa®~~~®~®®~®~ a~_ ~~ ... w ~IJ[~[hI~[il[h[Il[~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G~1 ~ 1[~1U0[~~D~1~~~00[I~UL IUCI _ __+ .. _ w ... w ~(I~~QI~~~[~DDD~~DD ; - Boa - oo flo~aaooou ~ , ~t:~u~. ~ . _ R ~: ~ ~,°oaoooaao~ ~ ~ _~~~~r - ooa~omoaua '~"" -~~~~ auuu~~~~ ~ w . _ d _ m~m~ ~ ammo ~aaooao ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ..:.,~,rY of Rl~t{ . ~. w ~ ° ~ auuaaaaouaa ~~ oa ww w .~~~a~®r ! 1 daoooau~o - ~ o~ aoamm~~aooc~aao uc ~~ ~-. c ~ ... w ~~~uo~~~~~~~~-~ =- ~ . o~aaau~~ .~~oa~aaaaaaouaudaooaoo~ _~~~~~ ~~.~ .~w ~~ w. n .. w ~ oaua~~~~a a~~~ . aa~oooaoo~auoo~aaauua~ l[1C_ l~?f 1 . _ w ``-s n. w. __ -'aa ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~au~ u aaaaaoo~ ~-~ _!®~oc~aaaauo~ ~u~ . ~ .:a~.~~... ~..Nws q _ l~ _ ~-~ . ~ . r r t'ftrttr~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrtt ~ r ~rrrrrrrrrrr~rrrr rr.rrrrr ._ _ Iittl~i~~liltili~l~~l11l~~ll~~~~~!~~3~':.~l~!l~~::::: :::I~r: :1=' 1.12P~ 9D MIIE~ R • I ~.._.. _ _. `1~ , .OOOOQ.. ~hSrti O O 000 000000. O 0000 65th St ,,,,,,,,, r,,.,,,~,, a r T z 66th St a' t .~ ~~' :~ `j 67th St !=4"-•- ; W a a 0 U 3 ~~~ ~r rr r r r r •fr ~r rrr rr rr rrr r r r r r r r r r r r r r~r~ rrr r r r r r r r a t c U SITE .. Liquor Store . 3iTE - 98,800 sq. it. STOtiE - 8200 sq tt. ^ Service Station LAND USE <<~ Commercial o~o Industrial Multiple Residence ~ Church ^ Single Family Residence ~! J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNEOSTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 104 Agenda April 12, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Discussion of Issues Related to 76th Street Traffic On December 14, 1981, the city council received a petition from property owners adjacent to 76th Street, requesting that a neighbor- hood meeting be held to discuss noise and speeding problems on 76th Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on March 2, 1982 to gather information from residents concerning their perceptions of traffic problems which exist along 76th Street between Xerxes Ave- nue and Lyndale Avenue. • Citizens appearing at the public meeting indicated a number of problems and a number of suggested solutions to remedy the problems. The problems enumerated included the following: 1. Excessive traffic volumes 2. Excessive noise 3. Excessive vibrations 4. Air pollution/dirt 5. Speeding/drag racing 6. Access to residences limited or difficult to achieve 7. Cars running stop signs 8. Inadequate enforcement of existing laws Potential solutions which citizens suggested included the following: 1. Reduce speed limits 2. Install more speed limit signs 3. Install more stop signs 4. Eliminate stop signs 5. Install stop sign warning flashers 6. Install noise prohibitive signs 7. More police enforcement of speed limits 8. More enforcement of noise ordinance 9. Allow on-street parking and stop signs Council Letter No. 104 -2- April 12, 1982 10. Eliminate access to and from I-35W ll. Eliminate or reroute "deadheading" buses 12. Prohibit truck traffic 13. Improve I-494 frontage roads 14. Make 76th Street a one-way eastbound from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and westbound from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. 15. Limit left turns during rush hours 16. Install speed bumps 17. Divert adjacent community traffic to freeways 18. Overlay street with asphalt All of the above proposed solutions would address the problems which were identified at the public meeting. However,. an important question which must be answered before any attempt is made to address the citizens' concerns is what function does the city want 76th Street to perform? The city has designated 76th Street as a major thoroughfare and, over the years, has reaffirmed that decision a number Of times, and improved the street based on those decision. Most recently, in the draft comprehensive plan, the city council indicated that 76th Street be designated a minor arterial. The primary purpose of a minor arterial is to move relatively high volumes of traffic smoothly and safely. For the most part, 76th Street is performing properly, based on its present functional classification as a minor arterial. Unfortunately, there are negative effects of high traffic volumes, which the people living adjacent to 76th Street experience, and which they identified during the meeting. The city council should confirm what function • 76th Street is to perform, and then seek to identify actions which may be taken to ensure that the roadway performs properly, and that negative effects are minimized. On March 23, the Planning Commission further discussed this matter and made the following recommendations: 1. That 76th Street continue to be classified as a minor arterial west of Nicollet. 2. That additional speed limit signs be installed, to better inform drivers of the speed limit. 3. That police enforcement of speed limits and the noise ordinance be increased. 4. That the stop signs on 76th Street at Vincent Avenue, Sheridan Avenue, and Emerson Avenue be eliminated to provide smoother traffic flow, and to reduce noise, air pollution and vibration. 5. That the city work with other communities to divert traffic off of 76th Street. In conjunction with this, the city should closely monitor traffic volumes on 7bth Street at Xerxes Avenue. If traffic volumes continue to increase as new development occurs in Edina, the city should strongly encourage Edina to take actions to divert traffic from 76th Street. _ _ __ _ _ _ Council Letter No. 104 -3- April 12, 1982 6. That the city impose lower speed limits on buses and trucks to reduce vibration problems. 7. That the city impose truck weight restrictions to reduce vibrations and noise. 8. That the city work with various agencies to provide access to and from Xerxes Avenue at I-494 to divert traffic from 76th Street. 9. That the city work with the Metropolitan Transit Commission to reroute,"deadheading" buses to reduce noise and vibration. 10. That the city construct an exclusive left turn lane and traffic signal improvements on 76th Street at its inter- section with Lyndale and Penn Avenues, to provide safer and smoother traffic f low. 11. That the city explore alternatives for providing buffering along 76th Street to reduce noise and air pollution problems suffered by adjacent property owners. It is recommended that the city council consider the actions recommended by the Planning Commission, as follows: 1. 76th Street continue to be classified as a minor arterial. • The street is one of only two east-west streets which traverse the community uninterrupted by I-35W. The city has clearly taken numerous actions in the past to classify and improve 76th Street to serve as a major traffic carrier. 2. Installation of additional speed limit signs can make people better aware of the 30 mile per hour speed limit. People may expect 76th Street to have a 35 mph speed limit, such as other arterials. There currently are speed limit signs in the area of each major cross street. Slower speeds can reduce noise and vibration problems. 3. Increased police enforcement of speed limits and the noise ordinance can lead to reduced speeds and noise; however it should be noted that 76th Street is the most heavily patrolled street in Richfield at this time. Any additional police enforcement will require a detrimental reduction of the public safety presence elsewhere in the community. 4. Elimination of stop signs on 76th Street will provide smoother traffic flow and reduced noise, air pollution and vibrations. The staff strongly recommends this action. The state com- pleted initial site work last year for installing traffic signals on 76th Street at its intersection with the exit ramp off of southbound I-35W. These signals should be fully operational this summer . Council Letter No. 104 -4- April 12, 1982 5. The staff strongly concurs with the need to monitor the effects of new development in Edina on traffic volumes on a 76th Street. Richfield should work closely with Edina to divert traffic from 76th Street wherever possible. 6. Lower speed limits for heavier vehicles such as trucks and buses can reduce noise and vibrations. MTC has instructed drivers to reduce speeds on 76th Street as well as posted reduced speed signs along the street. Split speed limits can pose enforcement problems, and it is difficult to define which vehicles would be subject to the reduced limits which makes enforcement difficult. For this reason, this recommendation appears to be undesirable. 7. Truck weight restrictions can eliminate heavier vehicles from using 76th Street and could reduce noise and vibrations. There currently is a three-ton per axle weight restriction on 76th Street. This does not restrict local deliveries, but only through traff ic. The staff will investigate further potentials for weight restrictions on 76th Street in light of the lack of scales to weigh trucks in Richfield. 8. The city is working to and from I-494. Xerxes Avenue poses the Penn Avenue and access and frontage Xerxes Avenue is a with other agencies with other agencies to improve access Full access to and from I-494 at problems because of its close proximity to France Avenue interchanges. A partial road system, between Yenn Avenue and possibility, and the staff is working on this option. 9. Bus routes can be analyzed in an effort to reroute dead- heading buses where possible. In general, MTC is reluctant to make operational changes which result in increased costs, especially with their recent funding cutbacks. As indicated earlier, MTC has instructed its drivers to reduce speed. The city staff will discuss the problem with MTC to see if further improvements can be made. 10. Intersection improvements are necessary and planned on 76th Street at its intersections with Lyndale Avenue and Penn Avenue. Improvements are planned (ass listed in the Capital Improvement Program} at the 76th Street and Lyndale.AQenue intersection in 1983. The 76th Street and Penn Avenue intersection is planned for improvement in 1986. 11. Alternatives for buffering are limited because of lack of space, although this option could be explored in further detail. Fencing alternatives could be explained to property owners for their installation along with landscaping best suited for visual, noise and air pollution benefits. • Respectfully submitted, /.. ~~,~:~ ,;~1,. _~_ ~ ~.<~ ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, P~T:INNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 103 Agenda April 1, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Resolution Requesting Issuance of General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds in the Amount of $4,100,000 and Special Assess- ment Bonds in the Amount of $ The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority at their March 15, 1982 meeting requested the city council to issue gen- eral obligation redevelopment bonds to finance certain develop- ment activities in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment area. This bond issue would recover the HRA's financing costs specif- ically related to the Lake Shore Drive condominium, Lyndale Garden Center, the three houses on Graham Avenue, the Richfield State Agency development, and property acquisitions on the western half of the Godfather block. A bond issue for the Lake Shore Drive condominium, Lyndale Garden Center and the three houses on Graham Avenue has been previously authorized by the city council. The sunur~ary of the costs for these projects is as follows Previous Bond Issue Authorized $2,450,000 Richfield State Agency 791,000 Godfather Block (west end) 850,000 TOTAL $4,100,000 A copy of the HRA resolution requesting the council to issue and sell such bonds is attached to this council letter. The project cost for the Richfield State Agency totals $789,600 (plus $1,400 for issuance costs), which represents the IiRA°s cost of acquisition, relocation, etc. for the Bjorn Hagen and Kentucky Fried Chicken properties, and relocation of the utilities that_are described in the Developer's Agreement with Richfield State Agency. The costs related to the Godfather block total $857,130 (plus $1,870 issuance costs) and are re- lated to acquisition and relocation for the Phillips property, the Stanton Realty Building, the Craswell building and Larry's Auto Body property. i i i Council Letter No. 103 -2- April 1, 1982 The capitalized interest on the project relates almost entirely to the Lake Shore Drive condominium project. The Garden Center will yield taxes in 1983, and the. revenues identified to support the Rich- field State Agency and the Godfather block costs will be available as soon as the debt service obligations are incurred. You might recall that the agreement beween the HRA and the Richfield State Agency pro- vides that, if the project is not underway and does not yield suffic- ient tax increment to retire the HRA's costs related the debt service, the Richfield State Agency will pay the city sufficient monies to meet those debt service obligationso It appears reasonable to include the costs related to the God- father block acquisitions in this bond issue for several reasons as we.11: 1. These costs have already been incurred by the xRA; 2. The development of the western half of the Godfather block as an entity separate from the entire block is financially and physically feasible, should the dis- cussions with Derrick Development Corp. breakdown, and development of the entire block not be feasible. It is reasonable that the HRA could expect to find a developer for just the western portion of the block; 3. It appears financially advantageous to the HRA to main- tain as large as possible a balance in the capital fund, to insure that adequate monies are available to meet frontend costs of any additional or future developments. Placing this project on permanent financing will enable repayment of the capital fund, and increase the balance in that fund. The bonds are to be retired by tax increment from the overall project area and from the guaranteed payments by the Richfield State Agency, should the project not get underway in accordance with the current timetable. If revenues from these two sources should not be adequate at some time to meet the debt service obligations on the bonds, it is the recommendation of the staff that the interest earnings from investment monies in the L/H/N capital fund be pledged for that purpose. The city council will consider the HRA's request to sell these bonds at a special city council meeting on April 1, 1982. The bond sale is tentatively scheduled for April 21, 1982. Council members might recall that a previous attempt to market bonds for a portion of these costs, i.e., the Knutson-Lyndale Garden Center-Graham Avenue projects, resulted in receiving no bids, because the bond market was exceeding the 12 percent state interest limit. The 1982 Legislature passed a bill which lifted the interest rate ceiling on city bonds to peg the new limit to an interest rate of one percent over the bond buyers index (a computation of what bonds are selling for across the nation). It appears that administrative implementation of the bill's ` provisions by the State Commissioner of Finance will establish a 14 percent interest rate ceiling for bonds sold during April, so that we anticipate no problem in marketing our bonds. Council Letter No. 103 -3- April 1, 1982 Minnesota law provides that city councils must issue tax in- crement bonds. This requirement is based on the fact that, if sufficient increment is not present to meet the debt service obliga- tion, the full faith and credit of the city is pledged to meet those commitments . A resolution is attached to this council letter which would pro- vide far city council authorization to sell the bonds as requested by the HRA. It is proposed that a special meeting of the city council be scheduled on April 21, 1982 at 5:30 p.m. to award the bid for the bond issue. In addition, the city council is requested to adopt a resolution at this time authorizing the sale of special assessment bonds. This bond issue would recover costs associated with the 1981 sidewalk, street lighting, and alley improvement projects. The bonds would be retired by special assessment revenues received from affected property owners, and, if necessary, through the ad valorem tax, to recover the city's share. Special assessment revenues far this project are estimated at $363,855; the remaining costs are the city°s share for these improve- ments. The special assessment bond issue is structured over 15 years. The debt service schedule is such that the $222,536 worth of costs re- lated to sidewalks and street lighting will be paid by the end of the fifth year, to correspond with the payment schedule of special assess® ments for these projects. Although the special assessments for alley improvements are payable over a 20-year period, experience with special assessment projects in the past has proven that sufficient prepayments are received, and investment earnings generated to the debt service fund, that adequate funds should be on hand to retire the alley im- provement bond issue before the final five years of special assessments have been collected. If that were not the case, excess revenues from other special assessments projects, if any, could be used to retire this indebtedness. Since the city's earliest street projects will be paid for beginning in about 1983, it is quite likely that sufficient revenues will be available and unrestricted to retire any remaining indebtedness related to the alley improvements by 1997. If the bonds are sold on April 21st, the bond proceeds will be available to the HRA by the end of May. This tirning is important, since the HRA has been operating on extremely limited revenues while waiting sale of these bonds. If the HRA bond proceeds are not received during May, it will be necessary for the HRA to seek to borrow money from the city or some other source to cover on-going operating ex- penses before the month of May is complete. Since the city's cash flow situation is such that we will experience a cash deficit in the city's general fund by the end of May, it is also significant that the HRA have the bond proceeds prior to that time so that monies available in various city funds can be used, if necessary, to support general fund costs between late May and mid-June, when our first property tax settlement is received. Council Letter Noo 103 ®4.~ April 1® 19~~ It is recommended that the city council adopt the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of redevelopment bonds, and the resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of special assessment bonds, as described abovem Respectfully submitted, N~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Administrative Services Director City Attorney Community Development Director Finance Coordinator Housing and Redevelopment Coordinator KN/eja • 1.04. This Authority has incurred Public Redevelopment Costs for the Project and other costs for the Project Area, ' and it is found and determined that it is necessary for the sound financial management of the LHDI Project Area that general obligations of the City be issued to finance all or a portion of such costs. Section 2. Public Redevelopment Costs Z.O1. The Executive Director has submitted to the Authority a list of Public Redevelopment Costs of the Project Area which are presently estimated to be as follows: L4ulti-family Site Costs Acquisition $ 816,972 Site Improvements 28,325 Relocation 107,510 Demolition 4,200 Project 705 Special Assessments 78,620 Disposition Expense 15,000 Administrative Exoense 44,938 Contingencies (5 a) 58,444 Property Management Expense 60,816 Legal Costs 12,000 Other Project Area Costs Administrative Costs $ 177,700 Multi-family and Commercial Rehab 100,376 Advances from Capital Improve- . ment Fund 96,551 Lyndale Garden Center _ Development Costs (1980-81) 273,958 Financing Costs Legal and Fiscal 25,000 Capitalized Interest 500,000 Bond Discount 48,000 Total bond issue required $2,450,000 Section 3. Issuance of Bonds 3.01. This Authority hereby requests the City to issue and sell its general obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to e:~ceed $2,450,000 to finance all or a portion of the Public Redevelopment Costs identified in Section 2, • -2- ' F'REF''AkED HY ~JENSEN-L~UDGEx INC. 11/16/01 CITY OF kICfIFIEI_I~ STAkT DATE: 12/01/81 7'AX F'EkIOD ESTIMATED CO LL,F,C1' EFIDING ------------- PkOF'OhED HUND :[5SUE -- ------------- PROJECT COVEkAGE YEAR 07/01 F'F;INCIF'AL CUl1F'UN INTEREST TUTAL. F'aI I1dCfiEHENT FACTUR 1987_ 1981 328+708.33 328+708.33 (1) 1983 1984 20x000 11.500 201,750.00 301-750>00 481731.00 (1) 1981, 1985 25x000 11.500 279x450.00 304x450.00 3081957,00 1.015 1985 1986 30,000 11.500 "761575.00 306-575.00 315x000.00 1.027 1986 1987 45-000 11.500 273-125.00 3t8-125.00 ,',21-000,00 1.009 1987 1988 55+000 11.500 267x950.00 322x950.04 3271000.00 1.013 1988 1989 701000 11.`00 261165.00 331+625.00 334,000.00 1.007 1989 1990 80x000 11.`•i00 2~~3+575.00 333x575,00 341x000.00 1.022 1990 1991 90-000 11.500 244,375.00 334x375.00 347x000>00 1.038 1991 1992 1051040 11.500 ?34.0?S.OU 339-025.00 3541000.00 1.044 1992 1993 120,000 11,50(1 221-950.00 341x950.00 361-000.00 1.056 1993 1994 140-000 11.50 0 208-1~O.U0 348+150.00 369+000.00 1.060 1994 1990 170x000 11.500 192.050.00 362x050.00 376-000.00 1.039 1995 1996 18+x000 11.500 17?x500,00 357x500.00 384x000.00 1.074 1996 1997 210,000 11.500 151x225.00 361x225.00 391-000.00 1.08< 1997 1998 235+000 11.500 1"7-075,00 36'21075.00 3991000.00 1.102 1998 ]999 270-000 1].500 100x050.00 370x050.00 407x000.00 1.100 i999 '000 300,000 11.500 69x000,00 3691000.00 415-000.00 1.125 2000 ''001 3001000 11.500 ~ 34+500.00 3341500.00 4241000.00 1.268 TUTAI_ 2x4S0x000 N E I R 11.5000+ 3x977,658.33 6+427x658>33 b-'222rb88>00 HUIJI~ YEARS 34x588.3 AVG. MATURITY 14.1 YRS. IN'CIsREST DUE 8/ 1 ANll 2/ 1 PRINCIPAL DUE 2/1 ASSUMES 2% ANNUAL INFLATION IN TAX INCREMENT PROJEC~r cosTS S t , 8 76 , nOO IssunNCr•, cosTS 26.000 DEALER DISCOUNT ~+8 , OOU CAPITALI7ED INTEREST 5_(10,0(10 BOND ISSUE SI7.F, $21450,000 CAP I'I'ALI7,F,D INTEREST FROM AOND PROCEEDS $500,0(10 REINVESTPiENT EARNINGS 82,000 (1) GROSS CAPITALIZED INTEREST $582,000 1.04. This Authority has incurred Public Redevelopment . Costs for the Project and other costs for the Project Area, and it is found and determined that it is necessary for the sound financial management of the LHN Project Area that general obligations of the City be issued to finance all or a portion of such costs. Section 2. Public Redevelopment Costs 2.Oi. The Executive Director has submitted to -the Authority a list of Public Redevelopment Costs of the Project Area which are presently estimated to be as follows: ~~ulti-family Site Costs Acquisition $ 816,972 Site Improvements 28,325 Relocation 107,510 Demolition 4,200 Project 705 Special Assessments 78,626 Disposition Expense 15,000 Administrative Expense 44,938 Contingencies (5 a) 58,444 Property tiianagement Expense 60,816 Legal Costs 12,000 Other Project Area Costs Administrative Costs $ 177,700 Multi-family and Commercial Rehab 100,376 Advances from Capital Improve- . ment Fund 96,551 Lyndale Garden Center Development Costs (1980-81) 273,958 Financing Costs Legal and Fiscal 25,000 Capitalized Interest 500,000 Bond Discount 48,000 Total bond issue required $2,450,000 Section 3. Issuance of Bonds 3.01. This Authority hereby requests the City to issue and sell its general obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,450,000 to finance all or a portion of the Public Redevelopment Costs identified in Section 2. r -2- P'REP'ARED HY ~VENSEN-DODGEr INC. 11/16/81 CITY OF RICHFIELD START DATES 12/01/81 7'AX F'ERIUD ESTIMATED COLLF,CT' ENDING ------------- - FFC1F"'OSED FOND :[SSUE -- ------------- PROJECT COVEkAGE YEAR 07/01 PP;INCIF'AL COUF'UN INTERE51' TOTAL P'SI INCREMENT FACTOR 1982 1983 328+708.33 328x706.33 (1) 1983 1984 20,000 11 500 281x750,00 301x750.00 48x731,00 (1) 1984 1985 25,000 11 500 279x450.00 304x450.00 308x957,00 1.015 1985 1986 30,000 11.500 276,575.00 306,575.00 315,00.0.00 1.027 1986 1987 45,000 11 500 273-125.00 318x125.00 321-000.00 1.009 1987 1988 55x000 11..`,00 267,950.00 322x950.00 327x000.00 1.013 1988 1989 70x000 11 500 261x65.00 331x625.00 334,000,00 1.007 1989 1990 80,000 11 500 2~~3,575.00 333,575,00 341,000.00 1.022 1990 1991 90x000 11<50U 244,375.00 334,375.00 347x000,00 1.038 1991 1992 105,000 i1. 00 234+02`.00 339,025.00 354,000.00 1.044 1.992 1993 120,000 11,500 221+950.00 341x950.00 361x000.00 1.056 1993 1994 140x000 11500 208,150.00 348x150.00 369x000.00 1.060 1994 1995 170-000 11~50U 192x050.00 36 ,050.00 376,000.00 1.039 1995 1.996 185x000 11.500 172x500.00 357x500.00 384,000,00 1.074 1996 1497 210x000 11 500 1`1x225.00 361,225.00 391,000.00 1.082 1997 iS'98 235x000 11 500 127x075,00 36:?+075.00 399,000.00 1.102 1998 1999 270-06 !1.50(1 100-050.00 370x050.00 407-000.00 1.100 1999 2000 300,000 11~`.i00 69x000.00 369x000.00 415x000.00 1.125 2000 _"001 300x000 11,500 ~ 34x500.00 334x500.00 424-000.00 1.268 TOTAL 2x450,000 3+977x658.33 6x427,658.33 61222x688.00 N E I R 11.5000% HUNK YEARS 34x588.3 AVG. MATURITY 14.1 YRS INTEREST DUE 8/1 ANll 2/1 PRINCIPAL DUE 2/1 ASSUMES 2% ANNUAL INFLATION IN TAX INCREMENT ~ i PROJECT COSTS $1,876,000 ISSUANCE COSTS 26,000 DEALER DISCOUNT 48,000 CAPITALIZED INTEREST 500,0(10 BOND ISSUE SIZE $2,450,000 CAPITALIZED INTEREST: FROM BOND PROCEEDS $500,000 REINVESTMENT EARNINGS 82,000 (1) GROSS CAPITALIZED INTEREST $582,000 HRA RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NEED FOR FINANCING REQUIRING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION DEVELOPMENT BONDS TO FINANCE PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS IN THE LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET REDEVELOPMENT AREA BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Findings 1.01. This Authority has pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 to 462.716 (the "Housing Act") duly adopted a Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for a redevelopment project described as the Lyndale-Hub- Nicollet Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area") and commonly referred to as the LHN Project. The Plan and the Project Area have been duly approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield (the "City") with the Housing Act. 1.02. This Authority and the City have entered into a Tax Increment Agreement (the "Agreement") dated May 9, 1977 in accordance with the Housing Act and Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78, the Tax Increment Financing Act (the Housing Act and the Tax Increment Financing Act collec- tively referred to as the "Act") for the purpose of authorizing the issuance of general obligations of the City, payable from tax increments in the Project Area, to finance Public Redevelopment Costs within the Project Area. The Agreement authorizes the issuance by the City of its general obligations for such costs at the request of this Authority. 1.03. The Plan has been duly modified and amended in accordance with the Act to provide for the acquisition and improvement of certain lands in the Project Area for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a multifamily housing development and related improvements (collectively "the Project") and to provide for the financing of other related Public Redevelopment costs of the Project Area. This Authority has authorized the execution of development agreements in connection with the acquisition and disposition of land for the Project. 1.04. This Authority has incurred Public Redevelopment Costs for the Project and other costs for the Project Area, and it is found and determined that it is necessary for the sound financial management of the LHN Project Area that general obligations of the City be issued to finance all or a portion of such costs. • Section 2. Public Redevelopment Costs 2.01. The Executive Director has submitted to the Authority a list of Public Redevelopment Costs of the Project Area which are presently estimated to be as follows: Multifamily Site Costs Acquisition $ 880,696 Site Improvements 28,325 Relocation 107,510 Demolition 4,200 Project 705 Special Assessments 78,626 Disposition Expense 15,000 Administration Expense 44,938 .7 Contingencies 91,271 ` Property Management Expense ~ 60,816 Legal Costs ;~ 12,000 j Lvndale Garden Center Costs ~ Acquisition $ 205,002 Relocation ~ 18,063 Administration Expense i ' 50,893 , Richfield State Agency Costs 't Acquisition $ 552,500 Site Improvements 126,000 ! Relocation 30,000 Administration Expense 44,684 Contingencies 25,000 Legal Costs i 12,000 `~, Godfather Block (West End) Costs ~ ~~'~, Acquisition $ 597,000 Relocation 24,905 Demolition 23,273 `~, Administrative Expense 90,072 Contingencies 77,880 \ Property Management Expense 44,000 Other Proiect Area Costs Administrative Costs - LHN Project Multifamily and Commercial Rehab, General Administrative Costs Financing Costs Legal and Fiscal Capitalized Interest • Bond Discount Total Bond Issue Required $ 177,700 100,376 $ 25,000 471,970 80,300 54,100,000 -3- Section 3. Issuance of Bonds 3.01. This Authority hereby requests the City to issue and sell its general obligations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,100,000 to finance all or a portion of the Public Redevelopment Costs identified in Section 2. 3.02. The Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. 3.03. This Authority renews and reaffirms its statement in HRA Resolution No. 32 of May 9, 1977, concerning its intent to request additional series of bonds in the future to finance the Public Redevelopment Costs in the Project Area and restates its request that all such series of bonds be on a parity with each other such series of bonds so issued, and be equally and ratably secured by the pledge of the Agreement. 3.04. The Executive Director is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the City forthwith. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 15th day of March, 1982. Thomas E. Harms Chairman • ATTEST: Michael Freeman Secretary Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Thursday, April 1, 1982, commencing at 12:00 o'clock noon. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The following resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $515,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: 1. It is hereby determined: (a) That the following assessable public improvements (the "Improvements") have been made, duly ordered or contracts let for the construction thereof, by the City pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429: • Project Designation & Description Total Project Cost TOTAL $505,000 (b) That it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City to issue $515,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982, (the "Bonds") to provide financing for the Improvements. 2. In order to provide financing for the Improvements, the City shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $505,000. In order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $10,000. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $505,000 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued and sold in accordance with the terms of the following Official Notice of Sale: OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE $515,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982 City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of $515,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will be received until 11:00 p.m., C.T. on Wednesday, April 21, 1982 in the office of the City Manager in the City Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for presentation to the City Council at a special meeting at 5:30 o'clock p.m., C.T. on the same day. Purpose and Security The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for the financing of various assessable public improvements in the City. The bonds will be general obligations of the issuer, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. Date and Maturities • The bonds will be dated May 1, 1982, will be in denomination of $5,000 each and will mature on February 1 in the following years anal amounts: Year Amount Year Amount 1984 $55,000 1992 $20,000 1985 65,000 1993 20,000 1986 65,000 1994 20,000 1987 65,000 1995 20,000 1988 65,000 1996 20,000 1989 20,000 1997 20,000 1990 20,000 1998 20,000 1991 20,000 Redemption Feature All bonds of this issue maturing after February I, 1988 will be subject to prior redemption at the option of the City in inverse order of serial numbers on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on February 1, 1983, and . semiannually thereafter on each August 1 and February 1. All bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. The difference between the highest rate and lowest rate specified may not exceed 3%• Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1%, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate of interest permitted by law on the day of sale. Paying Agent Principal and interest will be made payable at any suitable bank recommended by the purchaser and approved by the Council, and the City will pay the customary charges for this service provided that such recommenda- tion is received within 48 hours after the sale and the Council will select the paying agent if the recommendation is not approved. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at his option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by him and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser, but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds, or within five days after deposit with the delivery agent, in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by Messrs. LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associ- ation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City, payable primarily from special assessments against benefited property, and that the City is obligated and required to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. Type of Bid - Amount Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time of said meeting. Each bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $10,300, payable to the City Finance Coordina- tor, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $515,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than $505,000 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered, and the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informality in any bid. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Dated: April 1, 1982 s 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing notice of sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be published in the manner required by law. The City Council shall meet on Wednesday, April 21, 1982, at 5:~0 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of considering sealed bids on the bonds and taking any other appropriate action. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Exhibit A NOTICE OF SALE $515,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982 City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of $515,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will be received until 11:00 p.m., C.T. on Wednesday, April 21, 1982 in the office of the City Manager in the City Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for presentation to the City Council at a special meeting at 5:30 o'clock p.m., C.T. on the same day. Dated May 1, 1982, the bonds will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1984 $55,000 1992 $20,000 1985 65,000 1993 20,000 1986 65,000 1994 20,000 1987 65,000 1995 20,000 1988 65,000 1996 20,000 1989 20,000 1997 20,000 1990 20,000 1998 20,000 1991 20,000 All bonds maturing after February 1, 1982 are subject to prior redemption on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par plus accrued interest. Interest will be payable on February 1, 1983, and semiannually thereafter. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1% and no rate may exceed the maximum rate permitted by law on the day of sale. Minimum price, $505,000. An unqualified legal opinion will be furnished by Messrs. LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Associa- tion, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the bonds is to finance various assessable public improvements in the City. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Sylvia K. Ber City Clerk Dated: April 1, 1982. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a special meeting of the City Council of said City held on Thursday, April 1, 1982, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $515,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982, of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1982. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL) Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Thursday, April 1, 1982, commencing at 12:00 noon. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The following resolution was presented by Councilmember who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $4,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REDEVELOPMENT BONDS OF 1982 BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows: 1. Findings. 1.01. This Council by Resolution No. 5717 authorized the issuance and sale of a separate series of general obligation redevelopment bonds to finance Public Redevelopment Costs in the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet • Redevelopment Project Area (the "Project Area"). 1.02. The City has issued and sold its $4,700,000 General Obli- gation Bonds of 1977, dated August 1, 1977 to finance a portion of the Costs. 1.03. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield (the "Authority") has by resolution of November 17, 1981 re- quested the City to issue and sell additional general obligation bonds to finance all or a portion of additional Costs in the Project Area which Costs are presently estimated to be as follows: Multi-family Site Costs Acquisition $ 880,696 Site Improvements 28,325 Relocation 107,510 Demolition 4,200 Project 705 Special Assessments 78,626 Disposition Expense 15,000 Administration Expense ~ 44,938 Contingencies 91,271 Property Management Expense 60,816 Legal Costs 12,000 Multifamily and Commercial Rehab, General Administrative Costs 100,376 dale Garden Center Costs Acquisition $ 205,002 Relocation 18,063 Administration Expense 50,893 • Richfield State Agency Costs Acquisition $ 552,500 Site Improvements 126,000 Relocation 30,000 Administration Expense 44,684 Contingencies 25,000 Legal Costs 12,000 Godfather Block (West End) Costs Acquisition $ 597,000 Relocation 24,905 Demolition 23,273 Administrative Expense 90,072 Contingencies 77,880 Property Management Expense 44,000 Other Project Area Costs Administrative Costs - LHN Project $ 177,700 Financing Costs Legal and Fiscal $ 25,000 • Capitalized Interest 471,970 Bond Discount 80,300 Total Bond Issue Required $4,100,000 1.04. The City is authorized to issue and sell its general obligation bonds for the purposes above stated by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.411 to 462.716, the Housing and Redevelopment Act, and Sec- tions 273.71 to 273.78, the Tax Increment Financing Act, and all conditions of those Acts necessary for the issuance of bonds have been met. 1.05. This Council finds and determines that it is necessary for the sound financial management of the City and the achievement of its redevelopment goals for the Project Area that bonds for the above stated purposes be issued and sold. 2. Sale of Bonds. 2.01. The City shall issue and sell its General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1982 (the "Bonds") as provided in this Resolution. 2.02. In order to provide financing for the Public Redevelopment Costs, the City shall therefore issue and sell Bonds in the amount of $4,019,700. In order to provide in part the additional interest required to market the Bonds at this time, additional Bonds shall be issued in the amount of $80,300. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the sum of $4,100,000 shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds for the purpose of paying interest first coming due on the Bonds. The . Bonds in the principal amount of $4,100,000 shall be issued and sold in accordance with the terms of the following Official Notice of Sale: • OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE $4,100,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1982 City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of $4,100,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will be received until 11:00 a.m., C.T. on Wednesday, April 21, 1982 in the office of the City Manager in the City Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for presentation to the City Council at a special meeting at 5:30 o'clock p.m. C.T. on the same day. Purpose and Security The proceeds of the bonds will be used to finance all or a portion of certain public redevelopment costs associated with a redevel- opment project undertaken by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City and will be issued pursuant to the Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Act and the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act. The bonds will be payable primarily from tax increments to be derived from increases in the taxable valuation of property within a redevelopment project area in the City, but will be general obligations of the City to which full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City will be pledged. Date and Maturities The bonds will be dated May 1, 1982, will be in denomination of $5,000 each, and will mature on February 1 in the following years and amounts: Year Amount Year Amount 1985 $ 50,000 1993 $250,000 1986 75,000 1994 275,000 1987 75,000 1995 325,000 1988 100,000 1996 350,000 1989 125,000 1997 400,000 1990 150,000 1998 750,000 1991 175,000 1999 800,000 1992 200,000 Redemption Feature All bonds of this issue maturing after February 1, 1994 will be subject to prior redemption at the option of the City in inverse order of serial numbers on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest to date of redemption. Interest Interest on the bonds will be payable on February 1, 1983, and semiannually thereafter on each August 1 and February 1. All bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. The difference between the highest and lowest rate specified may not exceed 3%. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1%, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issue may exceed the maximum rate permitted by law on the day of sale. Paying Agent Principal and interest will be made payable at any suitable bank recommended by the purchaser and approved by the Council, and the City will pay the customary charges for this service provided that such recommenda- tion is received within 48 hours after the sale and the Council will select the paying agent if the recommendation is not approved. CUSIP Numbers The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such .numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time • of delivery caused thereby. Delivery Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver to the office of the purchaser or, at its option, will deposit with a bank in the United States selected by it and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser, but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds, or within five days after deposit with the delivery agent, in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. Legal Opinion An unqualified legal opinion on the bonds will be furnished by Messrs. LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Asso- ciation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City, and that the City is obligated and required to levy taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. Type of Bid - Amount • Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to the time specified above. Each bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $82,000, payable to the City Finance Coordina- tor, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $4,100,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than $4,019,700 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered, and the City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informality in any bid. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Dated: April 1, 1982 • 2.03. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to advertise the . Bonds for sale in accordance with the foregoing notice of sale and to cause the abbreviated notice of sale attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be pub- lished in the manner required by law. The City Council shall meet in a special meeting on Wednesday, April 21, 1982, at 5:30 o'clock p.m. for the purpose of considering sealed bids on the bonds and taking any other appro- priate action. 3. Maturity Schedule: Prior Authorization. 3.01. In order to conform to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.54, Subdivision 1, the Council hereby combines the maturity schedule of the Bonds with the maturity schedule of its $4,700,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1977, dated August 1, 1977, all as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.54, Subdivision 2. 3.02. By resolution 6538, November 23, 1981, this council authorized the issuance and sale of $2,450,000 General Obligation Redevel- opment Bonds of 1981 to finance a portion of the Public Redevelopment Costs identified in Section 1.03 hereof, which bonds were neither sold nor delivered by the City. Resolution 6538 is rescinded. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly • seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • NOTICE OF SALE Exhibit A $4,100,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1982 City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of $4,100,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, will be received until 11:00 a.m., C.T. on Wednesday, April 21, 1982 in the office of the City Manager in the City Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated for presentation to the City Council at a special meeting at 5:30 o'clock p.m. C.T. on the same day. Dated May 1, 1982, the bonds will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1985 $ 50,000 1993 $250,000 1986 75,000 1994 275,000 1987 75,000 1995 325,000 1988 100,000 1996 350,000 • 1989 125,000 1997 400,000 1990 150,000 1998 750,000 1991 175,000 1999 800,000 1992 200,000 All bonds maturing after February 1, 1994 are subject to prior redemption on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par plus accrued interest. Interest will be payable on February 1, 1983, and semiannually thereafter. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1°~ and no rate may exceed the maximum rate permitted by law on the date of sale. Minimum price, $4,019,700. An unqualified legal opinion will be furnished by Messrs. LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien & Drawz, A Professional Association, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the bonds is to finance public redevelopment costs in a redevelopment project area in the City. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Dated: April 1, 1982 • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) • I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Minnesota do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a special meeting of the City Council of said City held on Thursday, April 1, 1982, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $4,100,000 General Obligation Redevelopment Bonds of 1982, of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of 1982. City Clerk City of Richfield, Minnesota (SEAL)