The URL can be used to link to this page

03-08-82 agenda~° ~/ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 86 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Year VIII Community Development Block Grant Program Public Hearing A public hearing has been scheduled for the March 8, 1982 city council meeting for the following purposes: 1. To provide citizens with information about the Com- munity Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. 2. To obtain views of citizens on local housing and community development needs. i 3. To provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives for 1982. 4. To provide citizens an opportunity to comment on the City of Richfield's proposed use of approximately $302,000 of the Year VIII Urban Hennepin County (UHC) Development Block Grant funds. Notice of this public hearing appeared in the Richfield Sun. Notices of the public hearing have also been sent to various community organization throughout the city. The 1981 amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 made significant changes to the CDBG program. The amended Act eliminated the requirement for a formal application and consideraly eased HUD's responsibilities for review and approval of the application replacement -- a statement of local objectives, a projected use of funds, and certification assuring proper administration and implementation. A statement of Objectives has been developed in order to provide the guidance necessary for planning and implementing the Year VIII Urban Hennepin County CDBG program in a manner which meets National Objectives. Council Letter No. 86 -2- March 8, 1982 These changes place almost the entire responsibility on the Urban County for ensuring that each activity to be carried out with CDBG funds is clearly eligible and meets the national objectives of the Housing and Community Development Act, as amended. The National objectives are unchanged, i.e., developing viable Urban communities; providing decent housing, a suitable living environ- ment and expanded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income persons; aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or meeting other community development needs having a particular urgency. The Community Development Block Grant program may provide funds to address a wide range of housing and community develop- ment needs. In Urban Hennepin County the greatest need that has been identified is for decent housing affordable to low and moderate income persons. Consistent with this Urban County need and national objectives, activities which serve to expand afford- able housing opportunities and maintain the existing housing stock for low and moderate income peroons will continue to be a program priority. A parallel priority is assigned other CDBG activities which directly benefit low and moderate income persons, i.e., special assessment grants, weatherization grants, and housing rehabilitation grants and/or loans. The Statement of Objectives has been divided into CDBG program sub-headings. Under each sub-heading are specific objectives and procedural statements supporting how the objectives can be achieved. The following is a summary of the Statement of Objectives Program Administration. Develop and implement a Housing and Community Development program which addresses Urban County community development objectives and meets local needs and priorities in a timely and efficient manner and emphasizes activities which benefit low and moderate income persons. Neighborhood Revitalization. Maintain and preserve viable neigh- borhoods through a program of concentrated community development activities. Housing: New Construction. Facilitate the development of new housing, including but not limited to, site acquisition, public improvements, assistance with front-en~lcosts and multi-community projects. Housing: Existing Rental. Continue maximum utilization of available rental assistance programs. Housing Rehabilitation. Provide housing rehabilitation assistance to income eligible households in all sub-grantee communities. Public Facilities and Improvements. Maintain existing public improvements and facilities and assist the development of new facilities and improvements which will principally benefit low and moderate income persons. Council Letter No. 86 -3- March 8, 1982 Handicapped Improvements. Help assure that programs, facilities i and housing are accessible to handicapped persons. "' Economic Development. Undertake activities appropriate to improving economic conditions in deteriorated areas, based on local plans. Energy. The administration of the UHC CDBG program should be sensitive whenever possible to energy conservation issues through the development of energy use strategies. Public Services. CDBG funding for public services should directly benefit low and moderate income persons. At the public hearing, the staff will give an overview of the CDBG program requirements, project eligibility, projects which have been approved in the past, the Urban Hennepin County/ 1982 Statement of Objectives, and the proposed use of Year VIII funds. A county staff person will also be present to answer any questions which may arise. A list of past projects and a proposed budget are attached for your information. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing and approve preliminary application materials. The city staff will submit the application to Hennepin County for review and comment by the Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee (PACAC). Once PACAC comments are received, the staff will i develop final application materials. The final application materials will be presented to the city council in May. Year VIII funds should be available for the approved projects on or about July 1, 1982. Respectfully submitted, r,., ,~2 !~ s~~.~,. Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner ~~ ~~/~ l BUDGET RECOMMENDATION FOR YEAR VIII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS 1. Community Center Improvements Lower level kitchen $6,000 Upper level kitchen 9,000 Energy Improvements 4,000 Relocation transportation office 4,000 $23,000 The project will provide upgrading of the community center for additional elderly and handicapped usability as well as providing an off ice space for the transportation program. 2. Handicapped Accessiblity Plan This project will complete a plan on handicapped accessibility. for city structures to be done by city staff $ 6,000 3. Day Care This project will allow the Latch Key program at Central School to expand the,_program to reach more children in light of the council objective to attract-more young families to Richfield and to enhance day care opportunities. The day care operation will have to show primary usage by low/ moderate income families $ 4,000 4. Housing Rehabilitation Continuation of Existing Program $100,000 5. Housing Site Acctuisition This program will allow for the acquisition of housing sites $149,000 6.~ Administration Costs $ 20,000 °`° ~? ~ Total $302,000 ~v ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ J a, ~Fs~~fi °~ u ~ f/ FJ7 ~ _, ~Q ~ `~ v ~ \~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~~ 1' ~ aJ~` h mN ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ G fi ~ ~ ''. 1, ~' ,5 F ~` co ~~ ~~ ~~~ PROJECT Community Center/ Senior Center Water Backwash System Memorial Park Fremont Park Taf t Park Christian Park Housing Rehabilitation New Home Program Land Acquisition Planning Adams Hill Park LHN Public Improvements Relocation Administration TOTAL Year I 8/75-7/76 50,000 30,000 8,855 0 0. 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98,855 Year II Year III 8/.76-7/77 8/77-7/78 14,850 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 4,681 0 15,969 0 80,504 246,000 38,8.05 ~ 92,842 51,305 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 206,114 X338,842 Year IV 8/78-7/79 0 0 0 0 0 0 76,384 0 91,525 51,692 60,000 0 16,300 0 295,901 Year V 8/79-7/80 0 0 0 0 0 0 115,011 0 0 20,000 250,000 0 0 0 385,011 Year. VI 8/80-7/$1 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 72,825 0 64,000 0 40,000 117,175 0 0 374,000 Year VII 8/81-7/82 22,000 0 0 0 0 0 127,000 0 37, 750 0 0 153,200 0 20, 000 359, 950 TOTAL 166,850 30,000 8.,855 4,681 15,969 326,504 532,867 51,305 193,275 71,692 350,000 270,375 ~ 16,300 ~I 20,0.00 j2,058,673 • ~ ~ .. March 8, 1982 TERMINOLOGY INFANT''- 6 weeks to 15 month TODDLER*- 16 months to 2-1/2 years PRESCHOOL - 2-1/2 years to beginning of 1st grade SCHOOL AGE - 1st grade to 12 years *Not available in Richfield Kindergarten children may be in a school age program Terminology from Department of Public Welfare (DPW) Rule Number 2 and 3 ~~ ,~ ~~ -1- -2- 1981/1982 RICHFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION FIGURES Years 0 to 4 1,860 Grade K 278 Grade 1 292 Grade 2 288 Grade 3 330 Grade 4 316 Grade 5 394 Grade 6 427 Total K - 6 2,325 Grand Total - 4,185 •! :~ i r -3- PROGRAMS IN ~~ of Programs or ~~ of Children RICHFIELD Providers Served INFAIvT - - TODDLER - - GROUP OR FAMILY 59 340 DAY CARE* SCHOOL AGE 1 20 PRESCHOOL 1 50 410 * Licensed WHERE ARE OUR CHILDREN? ~~ :~ 'fir -4- h6% or 2 out of 3 of all women with school age children work outside the home. Almost SO% of all women with preschool children work outside the home. MINNESOTA STATEWIDE FIGURES From Economic Status of Women :h ~/ -5- IN RICHFIELD IF WE USE THE CONSERVATIVE FIGURE OF 50% ALL AGES/ 1981/82 - Number of Children - 2,092 SCHOOL AGE/ 1981/82 Number of Children - 1,162 WHERE ARE OUR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN? :~ s a -6- BY 1990, 75% of all 2 parent families will be working. Source: U.S. Working Women: A Data Book, 1977 U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; 1977, Washington, D.C. :~ r _~e COST OF LICENSED CARE AGE GROUP PER WEEK PER YEAR INFANT CARE $65.00 $3,120.00 TODDLER CARE $60.00 $2,880.00 PRESCHOOL $50.00 $2,400.00 SCHOOL AGE KINDERGARTEN $35.00 $1,680.00 GRADES 1 - 6 $30.00 $1,440.00 COST OF CHILD CARE FOR 2 CHILDREN PER WEEK INFANT CARE $65.00 PRESCHOOL $50.00 $115.00 PER YEAR $3,120.00 2,400.00 $5,520.00 .~ -8- PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN RICHFIELD December, 1979 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 541 AFDC 322 Emergency Assistance 4 Old. Age Assistance 5 AD 25 Indo Chinese 20 Medical 175 Above figures furnished from Mr. Randy Johnson Hennepin County Commissioner AFDC BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA December, 1979 BLOOMINGTON 449 EDEN PRAIRIE 76 EDINA 68 ~~ RICHFIELD 322 i BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY 1. Long term reduced dependency on the public welfare system 2. Increased tax revenues by creating new jobs and allowing more people to join the work force. 3. Encourage young families to move into Richfield a. ~1 community that supports licensed child care b. Increase the number of school age children :~ i _~ ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 85 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Resolution Establishing Procedure for Deferral of Special Assessments On October 12, 1981, the city coun providing for the deferment of special owner-occupied homestead properties in On December 28, 1981, the city council to verify the process for approving or applications. ail passed a resolution assessments against certain circumstances. amended that resolution disapproving such The staff has recently been contacted by a Richfield homeowner . who appears eligible for deferment of special assessments regard- ing the possibility of deferring the special assessments for alley maintenance. The resolution adopted by the city council does not stipulate between types of special assessments; there- fore, it is the understanding of the staff that all special assessments are deferrable within the provisions and conditions established by the resolution. However, from an administrative standpoint, it is unfeasible for such current service assessments to be subject to deferment under terms of this resolution. For instance, the maximum estimated cost of the alley maintenance assessment for an average property is $13 to $14. It would cost considerably more in staff time to receive and process applications to delete these assessments from the assessment roll than it would cost the homeowner to pay them on an annual basis. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, amending Section 8 of the previous resolution to provide that special assessments for current services are not eligible for deferment under terms of the resolution. Respectfully submitted, • ~- Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Administrative Services Director City Clerk Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST OWNER- OCCUPIED HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES OF PERSONS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that Resolutions No. 6519 and 6552 are amended as follows: 1. It is the policy of the city to consider requests for the deferment of special assessments upon homestead properties owned by persons 65 years of age or older or by persons retired by virtue of a permanent total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make payments of such special assessments. Permanent and total disability for the purpose of this section means a condition which is permanent by nature and totally incapacitates the person from working at an oc- cupation which brings him an income. In the adoption of such policy and the procedures established by this resolution the city is acting pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435..195. 2. A qualifying hardship shall be deemed owner of the homestead property and other homestead, taken together (a) had a gross • $11,000 in the previous calendar year and estimated income for the current calendar years which will not exceed said sum. to exist if the occupants of the income of less than (b) will have an year and subsequent 3. Application for deferral of payment of special assessments shall be made on forms prescribed by the county auditor. The home owner shall furnish the city wish such information as it may require at the time of the original application and at any time thereafter while the special assessment remains unpaid, which will permit the city to establish, verify or continue the deferral of special assessments or to determine whether elig- ibility for such deferral has ended. 4. Interest on deferred special assessments shall accrue until the special assessment is paid, at the rate established by the city at the time of levying the special assessment. 5. The city manager or designee shall examine all applications for determnaton~of his/her eligibility for deferral of payment of special assessments (a) in compliance with said statute and (b) in accordance with the standards and guidelines for determining hardships contained in this resolution or any subsequent amendment thereof. - - --- 6. No deferment of-payr~;ent of a special assessment shall be made unless the owner furnishes the city with an application and such supplementary documentation and verification as may be required to establish the following: 1. The legal description, plat and parcel number of the property; • 2. The street address of the property; 3. Its status as homestead property; 4. The description or designation of the local improvement; S. The name of the homestead owner-occupant; 6. That said owner-occupant is over 65 years or age or permanently and totally disabled; 7. That payment of the special assessment on the ordinanry time basis would be hardship as defined herein. 7. Within 30 days after the filing of said application for deferment of special assessments, the city manager shall review the .application for consistency with and conformance to, the _. council prescribed standards and guidelines; and then either.. grant or deny the application. In the event of the existence of exceptional or unusual circumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines, the city manager shall make a full report to the city council within 30 days of the filing of said application along with a recor~imeridation as to whether said application should be granted or denied: ln--the event of the denial of the applica- tion by the city manager, any applicant shall have the right to have the application considered by the city council. In those instances where the city council considers an application, it shall, by resolution, either grant or deny the application; and the decision of the city council shall be final. The city manager shall report to the city council on a quarterly basis on deferrals • granted by him/her. 8. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated, plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) death of the owner, provided that the surviving spouse is not eligible for the benefits hereunder; (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reasons lose its homestead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Special assessments for current services cannot be deferred. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of March, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: • Sylvia Bergh City Clerk i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • ~ ~r Council Letter No. 84 Agenda March 8, 1982 • The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Contract for Minneapolis Purchase of Services, Community College Earlier this year, the administration of the Minneapolis Community College contracted the Public Safety Department Director to inquire about the potential for contracting with the City of Richfield for the services of Police Agent William Hollick, to serve on the college faculty. The Minneapolis Community College has now received permission to go ahead with this proposed purchase of services which would provide an opportunity for Agent Hollick to serve as a member of the law enforcement program faculty. The contract would take effect approximately April 1, 1982, and continue through the balance of this school year with the option to renew the contract for one additional school year upon the consent of both parties involved. The contract would pay the City of Richfield for all of the employment and fringe benefit costs for Agent Hollick. During the life of the contract Agent Hollick would serve as a full-time faculty member at the college and be on a detached status from his responsibilities in our Department of Public Safety. This opportunity is certainly an honor for agent Hollick and speaks well of the caliber of personnel serving in our Department of Public Safety. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council authorize the city manager to enter into the Purchase of Services Agreement requested by Minneapolis Community College. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. -8~~~-- `; ~~~ Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases over $2,500 Prior to February, 1982, it was necessary for the city council to review and approve all purchases in excess of $1,000. Revised city charter requirements provide that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $2,500, There are five such items on the city council agenda for March 8, 1982. GOLF COURSE FERTILIZER Under a joint purchasing agreement, Hennepin County has received bids for fertilizer that would be used at the Rich Acres Golf Course. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 20.25 ton Par-Ex fertilizer 24-4-12 for the fairways at $675 per ton and three ton Par-Ex fertilizer 20-0-16 for the greens at $760 per ton from Turf Supply Company, for a total purchase price of $15,948.75, under Hennepin County contract 1444. REPAIR WATERMAIN In late January, there was a watermain leak at 62nd Street and Portland Avenue in front of the water plant. In this emergency situation, it became necessary to immediately secure equipment and operators to repair the leak. This work was done by Richard Knutson, Inc. It is recommended that the city council authorize payment in the amount of $4,449.25 for these emergency repairs. BACKWASH MOTOR PUMP When the pump motor for the backwash system at the water plant burned out, it became necessary to remove, replace, repair or rewind the backwash pump motor. It is recommended that the city council authorize payment to Layne Minnesota, Inc. for an ~- estimated $2,800 for this emergency work. • Council Letter No. 82 -2- March 8, 1982 UTILITY VEHICLE The golf course has been working toward building a fleet of utility vehicles which are used for a variety of tasks, such as changing tee cups, emptying tee wash baskets, hauling of materials such as dirt, sod, irrigation supplies and so forth. Cushman has been the utility vehicle purchased previously. It is recommended that, because of the availability or inventory of parts for maintenance, ease of attachment fit such as sprayer, top dresser and scraper, and the fact that the Cushman has displayed a wellrounded use to the golf course, the Cushman vehicle again be acquired. Quotations were soliciated for a new vehicle. Two vendors submitted written quotations meeting specifications for the delivered unit. Wisconsin Turf Equipment Corp. quoted $6,839. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of a 1982 Cushrnan Model 532 as specified from Cushman Motor Company, Inc. in the amount of $5,998. BED SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REMODELING PROJECT As a part of the Public Safety Improvement Project, plans call for a renovation of the existing Firefighters dormitory area to utilizie the space as a combination dormitory and training room. To accomplish this the plans and specifications detailed a "hideabed" system in which the Firefighter beds would fold up into wall cabinets during the normal work day. There is only one supplier of the specified bed frame to accomplish this multi-purpose. The city has received a quotation from SILO, Inc., for a total price of $5,784.92 for the bed frames, hardware, springs and mattresses. The city solicited proposals for the required cabinet work to accomodate the folding bed frames. Following the advertising for proposals, the city did receive a total of 11 proposals for the cabinet work ranging from $8,665 to $3,923.81. It is recommended that the council authorize the purchase of the bed frames and related material from SILO, Inc., in an amount of $5,782.94 and purchase the cabinet millwork from the low bidder, Custom Fabricators, Trc. of Fargc, North Dakota, in the amount of $3,923.81. Funds for this purchase are included in the budget for the Public Safety remodeling project. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Administrative Services Director Public Safety Director zf ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 82 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Award of Contract for Lime Sludge Removal On February 24, 1982, bids were opened for excavation and disposing of lime sludge. The Public Safety Director, rep- resenting the city manager, the city clerk, the Community Services Director and representatives of various bidding firms were present at the bid opening. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations is attached for council review. The specifications permitted bids for one year only, for a two-year package, a three-year package, a four-year package • and/or a five-year package. Ray Anderson and Sons, who received the award for 1981, and Bituminous Roadways, each submitted proposals for one year only (1982). Enebak Construction sub- mitted proposals for the one year only (1982) option and the two-year (1982 and 1983) package. Vets Salvage Diving submitted a proposal only for the three-year (1982, 1983 and 1984) package. Stanley Pond and W. & G. Rehbein Brothers submitted proposals for all five options offered. Specifications indicated that the bid award would be based on unit cost, annual cost, total cost and number of years bid. For those vendors submitting bids for one year only, unit prices varied from $6.34/c.y. to $15.50/c.y. Unit prices for the second year for those vendors submitting bids for the two-year package varied from $8.48/c.y. to $16.85/c.y. For those vendors submitting proposals for the three-year package, unit prices varied from $5.45/c.y. to $9.21/c.y. for the third year. Vets Salvage Diving, having submitted a proposal only for the three- year package, also included a first year unit price of $4.50 and a second year unit price of $4.95/c.y. Fourth year unit prices, for those submitting a proposal on the four-year package, were $8.88/c.y. and $9.50/c.y. The unit prices for the fifth year of those submitting proposals for the five-year package were $9.08 and $10.75/c.y. __ __ Council Letter No. 82 -2- March 8, 1982 In reviewing the proposals in terms of unit cost, Vets Salvage Diving provided the lowest unit cost. In terms of annual cost, Vets Salvage Diving provided the lowest annual cost with an estimated 1982 cost of $40,500, 1983 cost of $44,550, and 1984 cost of $49,050. The 1981 contract award was for $45,000. As total cost was reviewed, the proposal from Vets Salvage Diving was the lowest for the three-year package. In fact, their proposed three-year package totalled less than proposals submitted for the two-year package and in one instance was less than a one year only proposal. Although Vets Salvage Diving did not submit proposals for the one year only or for the two, four or five-year packages, the three-year package proposal seems quite advantageous to the city. If the city were able to award an annual contract in the same amount as the 1981 contract, the price would be $135,000 for the three years. By having a three-year contract, the city would be in a better budgeting position during those years, would have the advantage of working in advan~c for sludge removal and could better coordinate timing with a contractor for removal. It is the recommendation of the city staff that the city council accept the bid minutes and tabulations and award a contract to Vets Salvage Diving for excavating and disposing of lime sludge for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 24, 1982 Excavating and Disposing of Lime Sludge Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for the Excavating and Disposing of Lime Sludge as advertised in the official newspaper on February 10, and 17, 1982. Present; Thomas Morgan, Jr., Public Safety Director Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: VENDOR AND BID SECURITY FIVE YEARS FOUR YEARS THREE YEARS TWO YEARS ONE YEAR Ray Anderson & Sons B.B. 5% 57,060 Enebak Construction B.B. 5% $151, 650 139, 500 Stanley Pond B. B, 5% $389 ,800 $308,880 $228, 960 150, 840 74, 52.0 W & G Rehbein Brothers B B 5% 417 ,060 320,240 230, 760 147, 870 71, 100 Vets Salvage Diving Bond $6,750 134, 100 Bituminous Roadways B B 5% _94, 500 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of March 8, 1982. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~' ~, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 81 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Authorization to Lease City Property For some years, the city has leased a small, 10~ 470' tract of land to Mr. Thomas Price for operation of a mobile home park. The mobile home park is located east of Lyndale Avenue, north of the Century Court Apartments and west of the city's Lincoln Field Park. The existing lease has expired. Inasmuch as said property is not presently needed for municipal purposes, it appears that to continue leasing the property is in the best interest of the city. It is understood that the property can be used only in connection with a mobile home park, that no permanent structure other than a fence may be erected, that no other use of the leased land may be made without written consent of the city, and that the city council may at any time terminate the lease if it is determined that a mobile home park is incompatible with the city's use of its adjacent park property. The term of the proposed lease is five years. To this point, Mr. Price has been paying $250 each year for the lease. It is proposed that, beginning with the 1983 payment (to be paid in advance on or before August 1, 1982) the annual rental fee shall be $350, and that the rental sums received under provisions of the proposed lease continue to be paid into the general fund. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution authorizing the mayor and the city manager to execute the proposed lease on behalf of the city. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager • KN/sk cc: Community Services Director City Clerk RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY TO THOMAS E. PRICE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: 1. A proposed lease of the north 10 feet of the following described tract of land, to-wit: The west 468.68 feet of the east 493.68 feet of that part of the south 20 acres of the north 3U acres of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter lying south of the north four feet thereof of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 to Thomas E. Price is hereby ordered to be placed on file. 2. It is hereby determined that the premises described in said lease are not presently needed for municipal purposes and that such premises will not be needed for a term of five (5) years. • 3. It is hereby determined to be necessary and expedient for the city to lease such premises to Thomas E. Price for use in connection with a mobile home park and such proposed lease is hereby approved. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute such lease for and on behalf of the city. 4. All rental sums received under the provision of such lease shall be paid into the General Fund. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 8th day of March, 1982. John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: 5y via erg City Clerk • ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 80 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing on 1982 Alley Paving Project, C.P. 775 In November, 1980, the city council established a policy providing for the permanent improvement of the city's alleys by paving. This policy stipulates the paving of an alley will be undertaken upon request, via petition of the owners represent- ing more than 50 percent of the abutting alley footage. The alley paving projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis, with those alleys in the city which are not paved or scheduled to be paved being subject to annual maintenance assessments. Pursuant to this policy, on February 22, 1982, the council accepted the preliminary engineering report an d ordered a public hearing to be held on March 8, 1982, for impro vement of the following alleys: Between From To 62nd Street and 63rd Street 1.4th Avenue 15th Avenue - - - 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 66th Street 67th Strete - ~ i 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 73rd Street 74th Street 1 - - Clinton Ave. and 4th Ave. 73rd Street 74th Street _ - - Blaisdell Ave. and Pleasant Ave. 73rd Street 74th Street - - - Grand. Ave. and Pleasant Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street -- - - Harriet Ave. and Grand Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street - - - Garfield Ave. and Harriet Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street - - - Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue 67th Street 68th Street - - - Russel Ave. and Queen Ave. 69th Street 70th Street _ - - Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. 66th Street 67th Street - ~ - Vincent Ave. and Upton Ave. 68th Street 69th Street - - - Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 68th Street 69th Street _ _ - Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 69th Street 70th Street - - - Upton Ave. and Vincent Ave. 67th Street 68th Street - ~ - Lyndale Ave. and Aldrich Ave. 76th Street 77th Street ~ _ - The alley between Lyndale Av enue and Aldrich Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street had a petition from only 48% of the abutting property owners, but the city council voted to include it with the alleys to be consider ed for public hearing at the I~larch 8, 1982 city council meetin g. Council Letter No. 80 -2- The estimated cost of the improvement is $331,200 ($343,700 if Lyndale/Aldrich, 76th Street to 77th Street is included). The estimated assessment rate for residential abutting property is $18.50 per foot. The assessment can be_repaid in full, payment may be spread over a 20-year ,period in equal, installments with interest, partial prepayment can be made with the unpaid balance spread over a 20-year period, or a deferment may be granted for persons over 65 years of age or persons permanently and totally disabled, under certain conditions. The city"s portion is less than 10 percent of the total project cost. The staff recommends that the city council hold the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution ordering this project. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING ALLEY PAVING AND PREPARATION OF PLANS WHEREAS, a resolution of the city council adopted the 22nd day of February, 1982, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the following alleys prusuant to petitions of affected property owners : Between From 62nd Street and 63rd Street 14th Avenue 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 66th Street 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 73rd Street Clinton Ave. and 4th Ave. 73rd Street Blaisdell Ave. and Nicollet Ave. 73rd Street Grand Ave. and Pleasant Ave. 72nd Street Harriet Ave. and Grand Ave. 72nd Street Garfield Ave. and Harriet Ave. 72nd Street Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue 67th Street Russell Ave. and Queen Ave. 69th Street Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. 66th Street Vincent Ave. and Upton Ave. 68th Street Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 68th Street Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 69th Street Upton Ave. & Vincent Ave. 67th Street Lyndale Ave.. & Aldrich Ave. 76th Street To 15th Avenue 67th Street 74th Street 74th Street 74th Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 68th Street 70th Street 67th Street 69th Street 69th Street 70th Street 68th Street 77th Street AND WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 8th day of T^.urch, 1982, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the council resolution adopted the 22nd day of February, 1982. 2. The city engineer is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement, He shall cause plans and specifi- cations for the making of such improvement to be prepared. Adopted by the Richfield City Council this 8th day of March, 1982. ATTEST: John Hamilton, Mayor Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk • George ?J. Boose;r 6605 4th Ave. So. Richfield, M"1 55423 'Karch 2, 1932 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 To the Honorable P4ayor and members.. of the Richfield City Council: You have before you a petition requesting the city to pave the alley running between Fourth and-Fifth Avenues from 66th to 67th Streets . It is signed by a majorit~~ o.f_ the property owners. The easy thing would be for ~~ou to grant this request automatically. I am asking you not to make the easy decision, but rather to wait and carefully consider the imvaet of your decision on that minority of property owners who did not sign the petition. After all, you were elected to represent all of us -- not just the majority. The rights of the minority must '~e protected. ?-Jho is this mins~fty and why should you take the political risk of voting against the majority? After all, even those of us in the minority will agree with-,our neighbors that the alley is in bad shape and need of repair. It is difficult for us to oppose our neighbors. I hope they understand our position, too. The minority is made up of senior citizens, those ~aho are retired and living on Social Security -- a fixed-income that may remain at its present state despite skyroc'_•ceting interest rates and continued inflation because of the federal budget cuts. The minority also includes younger fanilies paving much higher mortgage nayaents and car• payments than those ~aho have lived in the neighborhood for years. My family falls into the latter category. _ _. Let me tell you a little bit about us. 'Te moved to Richfield about two ~~ears ago. Bar then property prices had risen to levels that !?iade~the American dream a nightmare to those of us who wanted to own our own home. Our house payment is $632 a month and will probably increase as a result of property tax hikes caused by federal and state budget cuts . Our car payment eaci month is $160. ?Je pay more than $120 a month to 'neat our home and that price will double or triple if president Reagan is successful in deregulating natural gas prices. We spend more than $200 a month on groceries. ' ~ There are only two of us now -- my wife and I . Soon there ~~ill -;:.~, . . be three; our first child is exxpected in April. T~Tith that child comes added exn_ eases , such as $2~)0 a month for c'zild care . Obviously ~~~ith a $632 a rionth mortgage, my wife has to ~.*or?.. ?~Te are a two-income family because sae izave to be to survive . "~Sost ~eonle our age are in th? sa*~e situation. "1o~a you are co^iin4 to us anal telling us that we will have to may `? 32.50 to page the alley . I t;no~a this ~ti~ill be spread over a long period of tine -- but. it is an added expense anti one Tf~e will have to nay off if we are transferred and have to move. For your information, tae have been livinj in Minnesota three years and the longest I have spent in env one cit~T since joining my present comnan~ 11 years ago is four nears . That r_Zeans the ma~T be forced to nay off the assessment in one lump sum in the very near future -- something that will be difficult to do with the other expenses that are incurred in any transfer. Since I will be working the night of the public hearinj on this issue, I respectfully reQUest that conies of my comments be made and passed along to all City Council members. Thank you for considering the "other side" of tLzis issue. Sincerely, ~~ ~1, Geor` W. Boosev ~ ~7 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 79 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council i~iembers Subject: Appointments to the Human Rights Commission There are currently two vacancies on this commission, one for a one-year youth term, and one for a three-year term which -- will expire in May, 1985. Attached to this council letter is a copy of an application from Susan Koenig, who has applied for the youth vacancy, and an application from Ronald McGinnis, who • has expressed an interest in being appointed to the three -year adult term. This item has been placed on the March 8, 1982 city council agenda for consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja Date ~'eb. 22, 1982 APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT SL U~;.u ,,...:~ NAME ~ ~ ~TTr i c rT _ r_::,.IE Last First ~ Nllu~le HOME ADDRESS Street No. City .J Zip Ccde MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. City Zip Code PHONE: Home gbh,-1304. APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Business Planning Commission Human Rights Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Ccmmi~ssior: Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~•3hich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/committee and why you are interested in serving: I have worked f.ith the everly and profoundly mentally handicapre~ at the Brainard Mate `?osnital. Once a month.I help staff ~ sccial_ event for ~ertall.y handica.ppe:: adults at St. Steven's church. I have dore volunteer work for the Branch, to help feed the poor in the inner city. I tutored a Tjietra:^ese stu4ent who t••ra.s he.virg difficLlty with the M~nglis'r. i<~r:~us.~e. I am interested in serving on the human rights co*~misson because I would like to broaden my exoerien~ce in the area. of social justice, especially Kumar, rigl^ts. CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU~TITYACTIVITIES: I ar.~ a junior at the ~.cademy of Holy r~.nc.e~ls. I ~-~ .er^ployec? a.t -'iilovrs Ccnvaiescent ;;enter. I help my parents ir. z>oliti.ca~ campaigns and have ~ropoed a Iot of • for candidates. =was part of ti:e steerir_g committee tc star+, a `.'outs O.roup ~e r _ - ~. f: at F"p~ v r~n~e> > c'li O2^ ~ tPaM ~ ri t-,he `r°St ~1^~':'fli al d n- „l S e r,~{•+:,a.ll ~.,°^ 11~ - OCCUPATION: Employing ,firm, agency :~;illows Cor_vele~ent Center Address 6130 Lyndale =.ve. So. Pf.inneapolis, NI`35419 Position i~esidert's t~id fears w%firrr;~agenc-~, Other work experience (optional) P:OntiiS i ~.rc-~rked one ye ar at t~ur~er Kir_g ~estaurart. I ~o hou:,e cleaning for Doctor Denny. r have done a grant veal of baby sittin? since 1 .aas in 6th ~rs,de. REFERENCES (Optional) A. P-`rs. !~~~ry Kelly f~..mily f:ierd Full n rye _ Relationship ~44 5th .`.`-ve. So. ~.ychfield, ILin. 55423 ~ ~ 1-6763 Mailing address Phone number Dr. ~ Denny B . er.:oloyer Full name Relationship 6131. Clinton a'.ve. So. >u'inn.eapolis, Pain, 554 ~f 1-~31~1~.0 Mailing address Phone number C',. Sister Katherine Kel1y School counselor Full name Relationship E~.caderriy of ~oiy ~~.ngels 66vC Pdiccllet a'~re. So. 966-x762 Mailing address Phone number Return to; City Manager's Office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Date Februar•y 22, 1 o82 APPLICATION FOR CIT'f OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COP~'SMISSION APPOINTMENT PICGINNIS RONALD LEL~IIS NAME Last :~ first i•.~ilc~:ie HOME ADDRESS 7145 - 18th Avenus South P.ichfield 5423 Street No. City Zip Ccde MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. City Zip Ccde 3CC_7241 293-7730-7773 PHONE: Home Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Human Rights Commission X Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Commissior: Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health Advisory Commission Other Briefly discuss aspects of your experience ~vhich you believe qualify you for this municipal commission/committee and why you are interested in ser<~ing: Please see attachments for experiences. I am interested in serving on this commission/committee because I believe that my experiences have provided me -Nith a wealth of resources from which to draw upon in implementing activities relevent to youth, handicapaed, people of color, women and other groups that feel the. brunt of racism, pre~u ice an iscrim~nati.on. CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMU~tITY ACTIVITIES: Please see attachments OCCUPATION: administrator - St. Paul public Schools Employing firm, agency Address 360 Colborne St, 4th Floor, St. Paul, MPJ. 55102 Director, Federal Programs Position ether work experience (optional) Please see attachments REFERENCES (Optional) 21 A Mr. Kenneth A. Berg ~enuty Superintendent -Supervisor Full name Relationship 360 Colborne St., St Paul, M"J. 5512 (61?_) 293-7880 Mailing address Phone number B. ~~1s. Geri Evans Friend-Human Rights Chairperson. Full name Relationship 52 laJindsor Ct., New Brighter, Mi`J. (612) 633-5542 Mailing address Phone number C. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number Return to: City Manager's :office 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 `_'ears .~ '.':r,,. :nom., : - Ronald L. McGinnis Involvement, Workshops, Consulting, and Written Material Involvement Teacher Training in Human Relations: TTT Education Center Coordinator, 1971. Teacher of Music and Special Education(Elementary and Secondary), St. Paul Public Schools, 1961-70. Adminstrative Associate Principal, St. Paul Public Schools, 1972-73. TRC Coordinator for Special Programs, TT project, 1971. Teacher for Special Services in Reading and Blacl< Studies, St. Paul Evening High School, 1964-70 Univac-Coordinator, National .Alliance of Businessmen Youth opportunity Project, 1968. Community Teacher and blorker, Hallie ~. Brown Community Center, 1952-68, Teaching P,ssistant and ASST. Professor, University of Plinnesota, 1Q73-74. Asst. Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College. St. Peter, P~linnesota: Area Studies Specialist, 1973-74. Adjunct Professor-TTT Liaison to Mankato Stute College, 1971.. President, Black Teacher Caucus, St. Paul Chapter, 1969-70. ~1usical Director and Arranger, Hamms Indians drum and Bugle Corps, 1965-66. American Legion Boys State Choir Director, 1961-67. • Workshops Delegate to NASSP Convention, Anaheim, California, 1972 Legal Aspects of School .Administrative Practices 4lorksho, Hutchingson, MN. - Assistant to Professor Clifford P. Hooker, 1973-74. Professional Educational Experience Block(Human Relations and Instruction Coordinator) - 12 Workshops, 1971. Leader/Consultant in more than 100 workshop/conventions/organizational development meeting at local and national level from 1972 through 1982. Consultant Activities Mankato State College Human Relations Training Proaram-Directed by Professor C.J. Salek, 1974, Teacher Humanization Programs, St, Paul Public Schools - Directed by Dr. Norma J. Anderson, 1968 St. Paul Task Force on Learning Centers, 1970, Special Education .Programs, Concordia College, St. Paul, 1964. Urban Education Consultant, Bethel College, St, Paul, 1973,-1974. Gustavus Adolphus College; Black Studies Consultant-Religion ,and Sociology classes for Nursing Students(Bethesda Lutheran Hospital, St. Paul), 1909. Written paterial - - - - .. .., w -'-- --- ~ ~i ~__~._..._ T.,. -. C.+L.....1 (lncnnv~onas Ronald L. McGinnis 4lritten P~laterial (Continued) blasters Thesis-A Simulation Model for Community Control of Schools in Urban Ghettos, Mankato State College, 1971 Articles - "The Mis-Education of the Inner-City Youth"(Racism Booklet)Pub- lished by TTT. Some Thoughts On Interracial Marriage", Luther Retort Magazine Musical Composition - Little Drummer Roy, an original comoositon, 1964 Class Action Litigation on Desegregation, Pdegro History Bulietin, Vol. 39, No. 7, November-December 1976, Washington, D.C. An Educational Funeral; Negro History Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 4, July/August,1977. Sing A Song of Students Rights, NOLPE School Law Journal, l~ol. 6, flo, 1, 1976, Topeka, Kansas. An Investigation of Class Action Litigation In a School Desegregation case: What Comprises Class Piembership? NOLPE School Law Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1975 Honors, Awards, Fraternities Finalist, State Teacher of the Year Citation, Teacher of Excellence Citation, Honor Roll of Teachers Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity Scabbard and Blade Plational Military Society Commission, U.S. Army 3rd Lt. 1980 Little League Championship Certificate 1981 Little League Runner-Up Certificate 1980 and 1931 Outstanding ESAA Staff Member • ESAA PROJECT DIRECTOR ,,._;~ Ronald Lewis McGinnis Date of Birth November 17 1936 ~(~Mon~lJay~-( e a r Present address 7145-18th Av. So. Mpls., Minn. 55423 until Phone_ 866-721 z~ Permanent address SAME AS ABOVE Phone zip code Personal data: Sex Male Marital status Married Education Name of School or College Location Dates Degree Date Florida A & M University Tallahassee, Fla. 1954-59 B.S. Jan. 59 Mankato State College Mankato, Minn. 1gi70-71 McAo Auge 71 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minn. 1971-74 Ph.O. June<74 Majors: Undergraduvte Music Graduate Educational C~dministration Gr~. . 1`1inCrS : Ui,dergraduate ;~i~Siv Ed'JCdt ~On '~Uate - - .cord of Professional Experience: Location St, Paul Public Schools St. Paul Public Schools St. Paul Evening High School Hailie ~. Brown Community Center University of ~~innesota(TTT)St. Paul St. Paul Public Schools Univac-St. Paul , P~1P1. American Legion Hamms Drum '~ Bugle Corps lJni vers i ty of ~1"J. -St. Paul Publ i c School s St. Paul Public Schools Position Teacher(h1usic e Special Ed.) Teacher(MUSic ?~ Black Studies) Teacher(Readinq Services) Instructor(P~1usic Proaram(Evenings) Asst. Prof. & TRC Coordinator Admin. Associate Principal Coordinator-Youth Project Summero Director-Bo.ys State Choir Director and Arranger(evenings) Teacher Corns Team Leader Director, Federal Desegregation Programs Dates 1961-63 1963®70 1954-69 1963-68 1970-71 1971®73 1968 1901-63 1966 1974-76 1976-Presen Distinctions, honors, awards, membership in civic and professional organizations, including offices held. American Federation of Teachers Member, Human Relations Committee St. Paul Federation of Teachers Chairman, Human Relations Committee Black Teacher Caucus, St. Paul Chapter President, Human Relations Committee ~C P ~_achers For Change Alpha Phi Omega ~lational Service Fraternity Scabbai°d and Blade ~lati onal "1i 1 i tart' Soci et,y Member, Phyllis '~lheatley Board of Directors Member, Richfield Board of Education Human Relations Committee Teacher of Excellence Finalist, State Teacher of the Year CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 78 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf_ field Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for the Expenditure of Money from the Special Revenue Fund for Certain Capital Improve- ments. Second Reading. At the February 16, 1982 special city council meeting, as part of the 1982 budget revisions, the city council approved first reading of a transitory ordinance appropriating monies for the Forestry and the Fire Vehicle reserve funds in the 1982 Capital Improvement Budget. The attached transitory ordinance provides that $22,500 will be appropriated for Forestry, and $22,500 will be allocated to the Fire Vehicle Reserve Fund. A copy of the transitory ordinance is attached to this council letter and has been scheduled for second reading con- sideration at the March 8, 1982 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director Public Safety Director Finance Coordinator • TRANSITORY ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • • City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section l: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of Capital Improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, subd. 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Forestry $22,500 .,Fire Vehicle Replacement _22,500 ' Total $45,000 Section 3: The expenditure herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of John Hamilton Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk -~ ~D CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 77 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Date of Hearing for Wine License Renewals and Application for New Wine License The municipal code requires that the city council set the date for a hearing on applications for renewal of on-sale wine licenses. Notice of any hearing dates must be published in the official newspaper at least 10 days in advance of such a hearing. The city presently licenses four establishments for the serving of wine: The Inn, Pontillos, Shakeys, and Millers Fire- side Pizza. It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled • for the ~p-~~~ 22, 1982 city council meeting to consider the re- newal of these wine licenses- ,, . . Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: City Clerk Public Safety Director -- --tom CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 76 Agenda March 8, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan In 1976 the Minnesota State Legislature, after analysis of the future of local government, made several findings relative to those local governmental units within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. These findings determined that (1). governmental units were interdependent; (2) the growth and patterns of urbanization within the area created the need for additional state, metropol- itan and local public services and facilities which increased the danger of air and water pollution; and (3) developments in one governmental entity could potentially affect the provision of regional capital improvements for sewers, transportation, air- ports and regional recreational open spaces. Since problems of urbanization and development transcended local governmental boundaries, it was determined that there was a need for the preparation and adoption of coordinated plans, programs and con- trols by all local government units and school districts in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the metropolitan area, and to ensure coordinated orderly and economic development. As a result of these findings the state legislature enacted the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act required that each county, municipality and school district in the Twin Cities seven-county metropolitan area prepare and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review by July 1, 1980. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act also required that the Metropolitan Council transmit to each local government unit a metropolitan systems statement which was to contain information which the Metropolitan Council determined was necessary for the unit to consider in preparing its comprehensive plan. The City of Richfield received its metropolitan systems statement in June of 1977 and a work program was developed to carry out the preparation of the comprehensive plan. • Council Letter No. 76 -2- March 8, 1982 One of the initial actions which the city staff took in the process to develop Richfield's comprehensive plan was to hold a series of eight neighborhood meetings throughout the city. These meetings occurred from January to April, 1979, with the purpose of these meetings being two-fold. The first purpose was to inform citizens about the comprehensive planning process and the second was to hear what Richfield residents considered to be the main areas of concern both within their individual neigh- borhoods, and throughout the city. A copy of a report summarizing the results of those neighborhood meetings is attached for your information. The next step in the process was to conduct an inventory in order to determine existing conditionG and needs of various elements of the community in the areas of land use, housing, co:~lmunity facilities, public facilities, transportation, and airport-related issues. It became readily apparent that an extension beyond the July 1, 1980 deadline would be needed if adequate citizen participation was to be solicited. The City of Richfield, along with numerous other communities, requested, and was subsequently granted an extension of one year to the deadline for the submission of its comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council. After the completion of the inventories discussed above, the next step in the comprehensive plan development process was the • development of plans and policies for the various elements outline<3. The plans set goals for the community in 1990, and the policy statements indicate how the city would attempt to achieve these goals. An implementation plan was also developed which outlined the major actions which the city would take to implement the comprehensive plan. These plans and policy statements were reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and in December of 1980 the city council approved the submission of the draft comprehensive plan to adjacent communities for their review and comment. The draft comprehensive plan was also submitted to the Metropolitan Council staff for their informal review at the same time. No major concerns were expressed by either adjacent communities or the Metropolitan Council during the formal review period, as indicated by the lett~~s attached from Bloomington and Edina. On June 9, 1981, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan. However, attendance by the public at this hearing was minimal. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission approved the draft comprehensive plan and recommended it to the city council. The city council then accepted the document without final action, and ordered its submission to the Metropolitan Council. Final action of the council was delayed until the final comments from the Metropolitan Council were received and acted upon. i In December of 1981 the Metropolitan Council approved the draft Richfield Comprehensive Plan. The Metropolitan Council found that the plan conformed to the metropolitan systems plan, was consistent with adopted metropolitan development units, and was compatible with the plans of adjacent governmental units and affected school districts, so that no plan modifications were Council Letter No. 76 -3- March 8, 1982 required. The city council has yet to take the following actions in order to complete the comprehensive planning process: 1. Formally adopt the comprehensive plan by September 3, 1982. The Metropolitan Council will then be advised when this action has occurred, and what, if any major changes to the plan were made. A public hearing will be necessary prior to adoption of the plan by the city council. 2. Submit the comprehensive sewer plan to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for its formal approval. 3. Make sure the capital improvement program includes an estimate of the financial impact each improvement will have on the city. 4. Continue to work with Bloomington and Edina to resolve concerns indicated by those communities in their review of our comprehensive plan. Letters outlining those concerns are attached. As a first step in the formal comprehensive plan adoption process it is anticipated that the city staff will conduct two public meetings during the month of April to present the draft comprehensive plan to citizens of Richfield. It is recommended that the city council set May ZO as the formal public hearing for consideration of this plan, and that following the public hearing the city council formally adopt the comprehensive plan with any final amendments desired at that time. Copies of the comprehensivE° plan have previously been transmitted to the council members. Additional copies are available if you did not retain the document. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner ~~EIGHBORHOOD MEETIyG REPORT As Hart of the process to revise Richfield's Comprehensive Plan as required by the ~Zetropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, the City of Richfield held eight meetings throughout the city . from January 24, 1979 to April 10, 1979, as shown in the accom- panying figure. The purpose of the meetings was two-fold: to inform concerned citizens about the comprehensive planning process and to generate input on what people considered to be the main areas of concern both locally and throughout the city. Richfield. was grouped into eight. neighborhoods whose divisions were determined by population and geographic location. Using water billing addresses, a letter was sent to each household and business in the city inviting them to their neighborhood meeting. Excluding the pilot meeting, mailings ranged from 1800 to 2200. Meeting attendance ranged from 25 to over 60 people and averaged about 45 or approximately 2 percent of all owner. occupied households. Over 95 percent of the over 300 people ~vho attended were homeowners. People attended the meetings for ba~ic~lly two reasons: 1) to find out what the city plans were and what was going on, and 2) to express their opinions and protect their neighborhood. Less than 15% of the participants felt that these objectives were not met by the meetings. Almost 95 percent of the participants indicated • that they would attend future meetings. The enthusiasm that was generated by the small group discussions and the interest in find- . ing out when future meetings would be held was a marked change from the level of distrust that could be felt as the meetings began. The nei~hborho~d meetings were very valuable both in generating information useful in the comprehensive planning process for the formulation and revision of pclicies, goals, and plans, and for providing an opportunity for direct citizen participation in government that was explicitly appreciated by many of those who attended. THE 14SEETING PROCESS The meetings which were held on yveekday evenings at different public schools were each divided into three periods. The first part included the establishment of the agenda and an introduction to comprehensive planning. and the planning process. In the second portion of the meeting, two to five small groups were formed to maximize opportunity for participation. The small groups were asked to make three lists: 1) Things they valued about the city that are worth preserving; ` 2) Problems/things needing improvement; 3) Potential problems. -2- After about an hour of small group discussion, the whole group reconvened to hear the issues that .were raised in the small groups. Participants were asked to fill out an evaluation as they left the meeting. ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED The recurrent theme in the neighborhood meetings was that x~eople were basically satisfied with their neighborhood and were more interested in protecting the residential character of the community than in pror.-oting change. ;Zany of the participants had lived in the city for more than 20 ,years and had strong positive feelings about their area. At one meeting a disgruntled resident presented a flurry of grievences announced he was moving out of the community, and then stormed out. of the meeting when the group did not support his broadside on the decline and fall of Richfield. After he left, the group unanimously agreed that they strongly felt that Richfield is a good place to live. Virtually every .group agreed that the residential, single family character of the comr.:unity was a valuable asset that should be preserved. In all meetings people talked of preserving the status auo of maintaining the existing quality of life of their neighborhood and the city as a whole. The second most commonly mentioned. amenity of Richfield was the park system. The fishing dock and the Nature Center were the two most commonly mentioned assets of the park system. Also listed in most groups as valuable were the quality of services in Rich- field including the schools, snow removal, the water system, • sewers, and the public safety department.. As the 'residential character of the community was widely confirmed as Richfield's most valued asset, it was also the one community attribute that residents were concerned would be endangered. The widely perceived threat to residential duality was the encroach- ment of commercial uses into the residential areas and the conver- sion of single famil~~ property to commercial use. Other less widely cited threats to housing included blight, declining property values, subsidizE~d P~ousing, and high-rise apartments. Other commonly mentioned potential problems that residents feared might affect life in Richfield included spiraling taxes, increased traffic congestion from new commercial establishments in the L/H/N redevelopment area, decline x~opulation, and declining commercial vitality. Participants at the neighborhood meetings were primarily interested in expressing their concerns about .what problems Richfield has that should be improved by the city. While some concerns were cite-wide, others were extremely localized, such as the person who felt that al,l of the city`s attention should focus on solving the flooding around her house, before attacking any other problems. .~ In every meeting concern was expressed about what was happening in the Lvndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Area (L/~;/N). Concern .vas focused on a lack of information of what was happening and on the -3- • actual process of citizen involvement in planning the redevelopment. In almost every meeting participants expressed a desire that citizen involvement opportunities be increased or that existing meetings be better publicized. Unquestionably much of the concern with citizen involvement was related to developments in the L/H/N especially the construction of K-DZart and the Lake Shore Drive border change dispute that was currently happening. Still the degree of interest in citizen involvement may have been somewhat overemphasized as it was the concerned citizens who narticpated at this tyre of meeting. The feeling that the L/H/N developments were actually a problem was localized around the L/H/N area and in central Richfield. The one set of problems recognized throughout the city was that related to traffic including congestion, speeding, traffic noise, and commercial traffic through residential areas. rdany localized Suggestions were made for improving traffic control and flow. In Vest Richfield the concern rated by participants as most impor- tant was that the 'v1'est Fire Station continue to be manned round the clock. In East Richfield the main interest was the narks with developments at the golf course, Christian Park, and Taft Park commanding considerable interest. The area around Taft Park was exceptionally vocal about quieting down users of that nark. Other problem areas in need of improvement that were widely expressed although rarely considered high priority items by the • participants were the need for stricter animal control especially in the parks, alley pavement, lack of bike routes, parking problems, blind corners, snow removal, and storm water flooding. Interest- ingly snow removal improvements were usually introduced with, "Richfield has great snow removal, but ....". A complete listing of what assets worth preserving, potential problems, and problems needing improvements were expressed in all the neighborhood meetings is included here with reference to which meeting the subject .vas brought up. Also included are two mans showing localized problems nominated for improvement. `~. a...•a y an• MCi a.• xWYriS >w . la >M ..a aM «« w aama•woa a•• Y•ma r. . w +l• {• 1: w ~ua«noor !i «i~. - t• . aa• ~H ~. lM •1 aN Mil )q WIC w WOI w 1Q19 w oa•au w a11wlm w awlwo w anaYu a.. w• ~as• «oa«ro ]N MC .1,~ •Ya w «wus w wl w aanoal« 4 3`0 w n>a1+w 3.0 " w «luo«wa. e~ w .uYw•w °e~; d. w uns•av o 9 la• dnM w laawr« i{o w anYYn ~~ o a~ w anwi ,~: w «a«IO+. >a~ ~~ //~~ ,.. 1«..II. g Y• ~. a.nm Z a.. lowa«a ti 40~ 'a~• .Y•YMI W w .«LYl aM Sa«T 3n• aan O -fw •weYOn O a•• wawax a~• Ya~lb N• «Ma• a•• Y»b O y. narnY '.11 m «.aYaM a.• Youn ~ .,.. a«a>«M Z a.• uaYa. ~~ G G G tl u .l/~ ; «~ of .. ZJ .Y z .+. ~~ -sue t4 G tl t C ~ (y U! ~~ ~ _ ~ 0 a. ' ~- ~~ _ ~-' ~.:..:~ ~=~ ~ G G F G• Gf K( .... ._ __ ~• I ~ y ~ ~ F R F I'i~l ~1 ~I'I~I~I'I~1' ,J1, ~ '1'I'I'I'I'1'1'I I I I I I I I I I11J'rL~1~1'T~T7kl'4~1j1 ~? I I I I I l l I I I~ I I I~ 111.(..1.1,1.1,1.1,1.,1},!,.1.1.1..1. W..l..l.l.-L.1..(.1..1 11 I I III III 'T•1'7'T'1~1'Tit'r'1`f'i'T'T'T'r't'T'I'1"1'T'7'T'/l I I 111,111 III I III 1 1 1 1 1 I f I I I I I, , I, 1,1, I I, I I I 1 I 1 I I 111 1 I' I 1 1 1 I I Y 1 I 1 i l l l li 1 1 11 11' I I I I i 1 1 1 1 Iir, l_'. I II I I I,F+'+'-1~11+1y' 11111 I I ~ 11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 Flit jr~ (.111 ltl~ll I Il lltllll ll~llllll1111111 1111111111131111111111 I I I 1 I I I I I( I, I, I, I, 111131.1,1 III 7 1 1 11 1µF~, 1+J I 11 1 1 1 I 1 1~~I I ~I ~l i 111 1111113 111 I - I(1i 1~911~ir ( r`I't~1111 1111 111a l lr ir~+1~'~I 11111 I ~' ~~ai~i~{iiiii'~}i~~th~~i~iii~i~i i~ii~i~r'tiJilili' (~Iri11i(ilili 111 ?it~lililil ~I ~I ~1~~1~111~I~I~lil~_ltl lj ly l~l.~1 r't rll 111'1 till 1 11tlllll ll llllllllll'I Il1T i1 ~,yy~y. 111111 11111 ll ll !11111 I ~1~rJTlrlilrll'I'1 I'I Ih~i 11111 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1111 ~' 1'11 1''11!1 l' 11(111111' IiiJ111-1111i 11111111111111i11111' l i 111 I l 1111111 l 111 lltiYi(1'It~TTlltltlT(1'(1~1111111'I'I'Ih'~'1'I'1 1'1'1'1111111'11 1 111111111 1I111I1111t1111111I1Illll1111111111111 1111111! rl1ltl rl lJtl 11 11.111 1.11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 1 1 1117 Yx 1~1, 1 l III Yi{111'111'11111111111111111'I'1'11111111111~t(Ti1TT~T'lll 1 Ir~111111I 1111111 1 1 11i11;IJ1(1.1!1111111T31711'11111a ~11111111t1a111 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1„LI t~J~r ~I t 1 I 1 i I I I 1 1 I t 1 t I r (t ICI t r'1 1 I 1111111 *~I'T'rlta 111111111,1L,1.11(~11~11~I1.11111111111j,11.1L11~1 j,111 ~1~1 111 i 11 11 ~111t 11'11.1`111L~~1L11,~"1~-14r~Tyi~1117'~1'~;~1'lt'11t'1r=1r~1111T`f~r1~1~1111f t''i~ilr'1~!1 .~~~ j~ 1111111111 11~I T`1'I'IrY'TI~~~I 1(+i~i'tfi~lt 7if •y-F~i t'7~ 1111111 111,111111111111111111111111111 1111111 111111111111111'1~~11111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x k 1i~t~a 1.1}a1111T11111i1 ~a111111 1 '~ I I III I I 1 1 111 f1~1-}~J 1 1 111111111y1ii1~•((11~~~1~1~ 1111'111111111111111111111111111111111'1 III It 11111'1 4 11111111 i'i'~rl'1'T°il~l'rr~J~r~1~1~7 ~i~I~1~1111111111r11111tf1r1~1111111i111 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1~1+1f~1~~1~1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111111(11 1111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 111 1 11Y111111ti11 I I 1 1i11t11~11}11II11i11111111111 11111111111111 1111~ ! III,11~1jI11111~11y1111111i111111111111I'111111i1~,111111 I~I~1~1 il~l~l~lll~l1.ti11'7~ ~7y ~t ~t ~T~t~1~t ~ti ~1~i~1~1 1~1 ~1~(((jAAAYI~I~il ~l ~(~ 'I l a'. ~~ ~i v« w•s w xvapYl~li a.: ~a w ws1 w Yarn~lm w Y•aaa ' w rn ~ ar ou ae• s1 1 a«• •usuwoos ae• rl al ae• •u aM •I al 1 lM ~{I iM wp ah• lOlla w O••a•la \ w MIa1YrIDa N ~+ ~aar «YU ~ ~ Pll f ~aw w•+YIO IVl w o«nalw Z W O ,...~ .~ F I i1< w N. i 1 1' ~`-[ 111 r":e C.'2. ~e• «awb ~. ^ ~ ~. aM ••C ]M 5«Ufl4 w « w o: w aaroaw w h ']~• lla0ani• ~ ~: I C aa• aYnasnie I _ y I 'a+ pnYa ' F I 'aM i1N«x ~ ~.~ ~' an• maven ~ i . t ae• r+.o11n ~ iD arw 1n1Yan 1 i la. awu•! i I I "N• 1«OM1C~ I ~ ~arw «aYnn ~ A I 1 aM aw«aW ^ ~ i' ~ 1, a.• aY•no; ~ ae• aab••nr ~ ~ ~ ... a«Iw, ~ ~_ aM f]«•f ~ ]n• Y F a• 1 \\~\ I )n• «n01. a.• «~•«o« ~ ~\~\ M ~ aw «oi.a«! I a^ae•Y w~Y - ,.. «.onrr ~R .; 1h N u• sw.o«. ~ ~ w N a•• .a..n O p .~ 3 3 ~ . cun•I ~. .~~ „+ N • i i [ e • [ a • c 7 2 t [ s _ ti S S R C t t ,. s ~ Y • ! f t • ! i . ! • ^ t . t • • Y t ' GOOD: WORTH PRESERVING Government/Planning a Low taxes (keep city operating costs down) • Southdale within school district 280 Informing people of meetings Schools Ground upkeep Cooperation between schools and government Adult education classes Three liauor stores Housing/Land Use/General Character Residential character of cite Single family home character Home maintenance Lot size Stable neighborhoods/pride Healthy mix of single and multi-family dwellings Quality of life (status quo) • Quiet/not on end of runway Middle class character Kids/people (small•town atmosphere) Diverse groups (young and old) Maintain zoning as is Keen Wood Lake area as is Keep Cedar Avenue commercial as is Open space along highways/at I-494/2-35W Bartholomew House Property values , AREA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X X X I X X X X ~X .IX X XX X X;XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X i I XI IXIXIX X X X X X X X X X • ` GOOD: WORTH PRESERVING Transx~ortatibn Good transportation system Central location/proximity to services, etc. Buses Streets Street maintenance DZaintain Lyndale as is Keep current number of streets across railroad tracks Pedestrian Sidewalks only on major streets Paved alleys Keen 66th Street as is Parks and Recreation Parks Neighborhood parks .Nature Center Youth programs Community Center and van for senior citizens Augsburg Park Fishing dock RZarsh wildlife Sheridan Park Pool A 1 2 3 X X X X X X X X X X A s ~ s X X X X X X X X I~ f GOOD: WORTH PRESERVING Public `'Yorks • Public Works services Snow removal Sewers Water duality Street lighting Spring clean up Norbv's Pond Trees/tree replacement Clean city Wilson Pond Public Safety Law enforcement • Bike patrol Fire protection AREA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X X X X X X X II ~X X ~? X - I i ~? X X X X X X X PROBLEb4S : I142PROVEb1ENTS NEEDED i Government/Planning More citizen involvement X Town meetings More x~ersonal involvement with Planning Commission Citizen vote on major expenditures Improve communication Hard to understand what's happening Improve meeting notice Change official newspaper City wide notification of proposed major projects Change 350 foot notification area Action or response on complaints Simplify and speed up stop. sign process L/H/N Dislike/disapprove of K-Mart Citizens alternative plan not given adequate study. Traffic ?pattern Desire a more attractive city (landscape commercial) Abpoint Planning Commission by neighborhood Improve city assessing Fiscal Money from liquor store - use for general improvements .Don't use tax increment funding for commercial riroberty Staff cars and trucks not observing stop signs j Community rules and ordinances. distributed to new residents in welcome pamphlet AREA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X X X X ~ X XI X !X ~X X X X X X X X X X I X ' , j X X X iI XI X~ X X X fX X PROBLEMS: IMPROVET4ENTS NEEDED Housing/Land Use Need condominiums/townhouses (increase options for elderly - but not by Wood Lake) More handicapped housing Property Maintenance Home and yard maintenance Apartment maintenance Home should be brought up to code when sold No more multi-family dwellings Commercial Sto_A commercial encroachment on residential areas Too many fast food Get rid of saunas (67th and Lyndale) No more large shopping centers Improve vacant gas stations Set height limits for new buildings • AREA 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 1 8 I X '~ 1 X ~, X X I X X ! X ~ X X X X X X X s ' PROBLEMS: IMPROVE~SENTS NEEDED ' ~ Transportation Streets (see Map A) Roadway needs improvement Traffic heavy/congested on certain. roads Commercial traffic on residential streets Traffic lights wanted Stops signs/traffic control wanted Conditions unsafe/accidents Turn lanes/turn signals Speeding Blind corners Restrict heavy traffic to main streets Alleys need paving (see Map A) Access Improve access to crosstown from 66th New exit to Lunds Access to Southdale 35-ti9 overpass at 73rd Public transit Improve east-west buses/inter-suburban Handicap/elderly transit More reliable service Parking (see Map B) Limit parking during snow removal Limit church parking (no Sunday parking exception) Need more parking Want no barking on some streets Resident sticker system Bike routes More bike routes needed Access to Southdale ?6th Street unsafe Pedestrian paths 76th Street unsafe Walkthrough to bank from Harriet and Garfield Enclosed walkways in HUB Sidewalks not suitable for handicapped Pedestrian access to Southdale Sidewalk/mall maintenance Noise .,.Traffic noise (need traffic noise control such as in Bloomington) (for 35-W) Aircraft noise Park noise .Commercial noise (garbage collection, loudspeakers) Snow hauling into Legion Lake at night i X X 12 X X X X X X X X X X X AREA ~lals(sl~i8 XXXjX ~ X' X ~ X X ~X X! X) X X X~ i X ~ X{ X ~X X I I! ~- X X{ Xf I X, x 1 X t I X I X X I X XI ~ Xj XI XI X X X X X) X iX ~ X x~ xl xl x x X X I I Ix x ~ Y x ~ i ~ ~ ~ j i ! X ; X I ; xj Xi X) X ~ i XI Xi Xj X t ~ ~ i Xi ~ ~ Iii ~ I. PROBLEMS: IMPROVEI~~ENTS NEEDED Parks and Recreation • General improvements Parks should be more available for local people Improve vegetation (remove elms before too big) (more evergreens) (hardier trees) (park beautification) Park litter (need for supervised clean-up after games) Park noise (parks used too late) Pdore playgrounds More and cheaper youth programs (swimming pool) , Lights and sprinklers used unnecessarily Park litter Golf course should not displace ball diamonds Taft Park Need non-reserved ball diamond Tennis courts Stock Mothers Lake Donaldson Park doesn't need picnic areas Little Bob's Park should have skating rink jNood Lake needs closer monitoring of environment • Monroe Park weeds improvement Legion Lake - Need cross country trails and windbreaks Storage of vehicles and sound barrier equipment Nicollet Park Adams .Hill Needs access Flooding problem More recreational facilities AREA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I X X XI X X X PROBLEMS : Iy1PROVEDIENTS NEEDED- . ~ Public Works • Storm sewer problems/flooding (see Map B) Storm water run-off from Edina Sanitary sewer back-up Lighting (see Man B) Street lighting Alley lighting Snow removal Improve snow plowing (equipment, schedules) Plow school bus routes first .Don't salt when too cold Snow removal on sidewalks - commercial areas Keen snow from piling un in driveways Snow fencing needed Weed control on empty lots,. city land (Norby's) Street cleaning Litter Tree replacement Tree trimming near stop signs .Bury telephone lines AREA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X X X X X IX ~ ~ X XI ~ X X X ' X I X '~ X X X) ~ Xl IX !XI IX X X X PROBLEMS: IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED ' Public Safety Improve fire protection West station should be manned 24 hours .Increase police patrolling parks and public land (see Map B) c'Ireater police visibility to slow speeding Stricter animal control enforcement (especially in narks)I Police and fire vehicles should have insurance coverage I, so they can cross city limits (emergency runs- to Southdale Hospital) Squirrel control Prohibition of solicitation Enforcement of garbage can ordinance/screening Crime and vandalism Remove junk cars 2 X X X X 11 XI XI sl ~Xj ~ IX I X I I Xj X 1 XI . r,J - 1 ' ~ , ~. MAP. A ~ t ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 Y ~ t a~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ r~~ t 1~ ~9 ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i if ~ i d > .~ ~~. ~~~~~~~~~ra~~~t~'~'J~~~~~f-~~3~~~~~~I~~~~~C@ll~~~~~i~rt.~~.=~~ GzbEdd .~_ .. ._ l ..N ~~ 1[ li [~ it -1[ ] ': [ ][ I[ l[ 1[ l[ - l[ l[ l[ I RICHFL KEr' ~~ ~~__;[~~,[ l[-~n~ I[ I[ l[ ~~~ -~ 1- - - - - - [ _]~1~~~[ 1[ JC, ~~l[ ~[~[~~~ ~~. ~ I I 1 •~ -~_~_- ..N,, ~ ~ - - -- -1 ~~~ ..,N rt J[ J . i J U~ J L _..._~ ~p~_ ~_ ~~,,, ~ ° _ i ; - - -1 far! ~ - _ ~_I ~ ,.. rt • MN A. '[.ID[DCI~~~[[](~[D[-r~([~~~~---~~~_:.:]l~ ._,, ~.~ 7_~~~ 1[~.1.~~..~.n,. ~~~~]l[~~. i ~ , ._ _~[__.l[_I~LJLJIJ, woos ~aKE 1 _ '. ~~~. ~ ~~ ~0[~Of~~~~1~ l~l - ~'` ~~~~~ s ~~.---_ ~ ~. _ - ---- ~ r n N rt •-. -~. ~, /ql .,.~,, 1r~u( ~-~----- 1 ~4 ~ ~` u ..,~„ ~ ~~I l ~ .~ -~1( r ~ ~~ ~ ;:., nom, ,~ t~~ ~ _'I ][_l[_ I,. ~I li I~ ~ [__ Il Il 1L~1 :1(. , Dl=1aL J~1~ ~L1JLlJ[ Il~~~~ ~[l ~]~~~~c]~ ~ __. -~o~~nn[ ~[ . _ ~ ~ . ,.. rtC1TY OF RICHFI~Lb ~. ~[ ll -I[ [ ][ ][ ~[ ]1 ~-~l ~l ~QLI~~[ ~[~ _ U~[1~~~~1[[ J~JI~f~~~Q]Q ~00~0~[J~ JI ~: '~~':~~~[_ . ~.~~ ~N~~~.M~~~.,_ . r xN s,. I _1 ~.N rt. .-..__.__ _.. _.__.._. ~- 1~1~ ~____ _- _-lI r nN a, r~~ ; ~ , -,r „~ t ~ .~ ~4 ~ __~~._.~ ,,.... __ _ ~ _ -~ _ ~~-_- IL .. rr oo..p.+.o ~ t ~ ~ a ~ Y 3 f ~ ~ c ~ F ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ # ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ! ~ « ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a s s : - ° c i s 9 e d i e c a . , -( '.-~ STREETS and ROADS ;~ ~ ` ~ Heavy Traffic w+s+tiwh Speed i n g ••••••• Paving Improvement ~ --~-, Traffic Sign Improvement ~ . Traffic Signal Improvement Dangerouslntersection • j .. P ~ ~ # ~r MA B ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ a r a Y ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ a ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ Q r ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ .i ~ f Y. 3 ~ ~~~ s s e e s s i~~ e g• p C R L r "--~---_~. - - - -- - -- --- ~ ------- -- - --- - -- .......~.----~~ ~ - I------- ~__- ~ _ - - _ ~[ ~_ ~~ .,,,. ~~ ~I[_~~_~ _ ~~'! [ (, i r Ir: sir ~JII( l~f~ 1LT[ lU ~~~ ~ _ ., ..,, b.,. l[ li I~~~ ~ =-I~ __ l ~ [ _~1 I~IC l~ l~ l[ 1[~[ 1 R~°" A E . ~~[1,~[ l[?~ ~[ 1[_I[ I[_1[1C = .-~- : - ~ ~ f ~[~~JU[7~J _ _ [ l[~[_][_lD~~. ~~ 4 ~~,, --J~~~ 1[ '_~~=-~[_.I~~~]~J[_~[_ I~ __~[JI Il~~yh, ~ _-~~_3~~JI~U[_~~[~~~ , - ~ --=- ~ ~~~JU~][_~UL _ ~U~~~~'~. R ..,... ; I~[~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~1-~.~ [ J ~__ ~ al.~ [~o~~~~~][~l~ooooo~oo~~~[~~~~Ua_ =~~..TM R ,.~R :;[11[D(IJ~~[I1~~[I~~L1[~~~_~[~~~=.$~~~ ~ ~` ~ ~~pU~JUO[~~~~~DUD~~~~U~~[~~~]c~a~ _~- ~_~ .... ~IJ[I~QD~[~[[l[Il[IJ~L~~][:-l[_:1~JU~~I_Jl_~~' ~ 1/~[_IJ~;I~~J[~~J~~. ~~D~f~~~~~~O~~U ~~, 0~[l~] ~~j~~ ...~ 11 `~~~~~J[I~C[1(_1l[1~[1JC~1[-J[ ~[_ 1[_~~1~~_JL WOOD LAKE --J~J~~~oo~~~_~ ~~ o~J~oooo~~n~UO-=~ ~~~1( ~.~~ I „ , ~ ~ ~~ _ __ _ _ I [ ~[ I[1~1[~~.J[__~[ ~ _ ~.~----~ I"l[ l1 ~ ~_~ ~ : IJQJ[IJ[J~ .~ I~U~JO~I~~[_ ~[~[ l[~~?~ ~t .J _ _ ~ ,.. ..., ~1.. ~ , it II j I'qw+ ~~ i~ ~~~ ~~ ~~., ~/ ~ 1[:11 , IL I[ I[ i~: ~[ ~~[~[ ~ !_ ~ ~. o~ ~ ~ ~1~[IJ[I~[j ~~fl~J[Il JL~~J ~[~U __ ~DD~lf~~l[_ l[ JI If ~ ~ ll _1[ I~ ~ ~ D • ~••CITY OF RiCFiFIEL~ ~~i,.-~ :~[ J[ 1 _ IL:.I[ ..~~ V ~ ~ ~ ~I[~CJ[~~l[_]~~~_~_' ~U[T~'~na~~[o~~~ ~~IJ~[~ oooo~~~~~J~ ~. i__ _ '~' _~~ ~~- f w. n MENNEPIN CCIUNTY. MINNESOTA S .nun ~.~ ..~ ~ ~- - .__-- ~~M,. '[ =11[:11 l[ ~ ~ ~[ ~[ =:1' l[ 1- r ^ - --~_~U~]~~ ~~ .. ~, ;... ,; ~ ~l , f~[~DUD~~I[ l~~ll~~l[]DU[~~J[ _~[ _~[ 11 J[ if if l[~[- . ~. n -__4: ~-m---~ .____ -' [ ~ [ JI I <. , R I~~l[_1[_ [[~ ~ 1 _ ;;:.~ ~ _ 1_J~D~IU[~ ~~~.I~JU~~QQ~J~IUI__1[ ll II.1[ ~~ ~ E ,~ .,,.,. ,~ ~~ [ I1 IU _~[ l ~ ___ -- ~~... -~ .... __..-11 __ - -L-,~-_._ 1~ ,. •. n~.m.sm.N _, -~... _ _ .._ - __r__ a r nm e. ____ __ -- ; fjy g gs s S ~ e e t ~ € s s PARKING, LIGWTING, FLOOt)ING, and ~ ~ ~ ~~' `' .. ` AREAS NEEDING MORE PATROLING .......~ Need More Parking ......Need Parking Restrictions ......• Lighting Needed -~':_! :: Flooding u ';%%%/.,:,Need More Patrolinq POTENTIAL PROBLEMS Government/Planning Taxes ' High expenditures Higher taxes New City Manager not responsive Declining population and number of children Declining school enrollment Too much winter Comprehensive planning Housing/Land Use Residential High rise apartments (especially around titi'ood Lake) Conversion of residential property/rezoning . Commercial encroachment on single family areas Blight/maintenance. Increase in rental housing Housing variety Impact of low income/subsidized housing Commercial viability/blight Commercial development at Lyndale/I-494 Impact of declining population and .income lliaintaining property values Impact of K-Mart Impact of low income/subsidized housing Use of abandoned school property Lack of developable land L/H/N Vacant service stations 1 2 X ~X X IX AREA 145(617(8 XI ~ ~ X X~ XI , X I Xi ~ X ', X X ~ I X X X IX.X X ~X X~ X X X' f XI X X t X~ X X X X X~ X X~ IX X PO T EPTT I AL PROBLEP,ZS Transportation Traffic Traffic generated by home occupations Traffic from L/H/N Noise pollution from traffic increase Increase speeding Streets Closing streets Making streets one-way Widening streets (66th Street) Making roads ornate Overpass of 35-W at 73rd Street Blind corners Transit Lack of transportation for handicapped/elderly Park and ride areas Pedestrians Sidewalk maintenance as use increases Parking Parks and Recreation Access to Adams Hill Green fees for residents. at golf course Redevelopment of Donaldson Park AREA 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 X 1' X ~ ', X~ X ~ X XI ~ ( X s i X' X ~ ' X i ~X X i X I I j I i X I l i ~ X X X X •: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS Public Storks Dutch elm/oak wilt . Public Safety Dual police/fire personnel (Burnsville) Police Fire High rise apartments Decrease in number of full time fire personnel "Metropolitanization" of public safety I1 !X AREA 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IX X IX February 24, 1981 Karl Nollenberger City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota. 554.23 The City of Bloomington has received a copy of the proposed comprehensive plan for Richfield. Following review of the plan by the Planning Division staff and Planning Commission, the City .Council on February 23, 1981 authorized transmittal of the following comments: 1) Figure 9 in the land use section shows four areas in Bloomington as "potential land use conflict areas." When Bloomington`s plan was submitted to Richfield for review in 1980, Mr. Nollenberger`s review letter stated that "[Bloomington's plan] is compatible with the City of Richfield's goals, policies and programs." Richfield should either state its specific concerns about land. uses in Bloomington or remove references to land use conflicts from figure 9 and the plan text. 2) - In the airport and implementation elements, Richfield does not address rietropolitan Airport Development Guide policy four concerning land use compatibility around Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Richfield policy H specifically opposes the preferential runway system. In the implementation section, no comment is made to specific actions which promote land use compatibility. Richfield should reconsider policy H and evaluate its commitment to specific actions a fully developed community may take to achieve land use compatibility, for example, application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for variances from the land use standards and development of ground noise attenuation programs. ~. ~:;, .., , ,~ ~ Karl. Nollenberger February 24,1981 Page Two 3) Richfield has. indicated its intent to apply to the Metropolitan Council for changes in the functional classification of several streets: --Bloomington will support 'reclassification of 12th Avenue as a collector; -,-Bloomington questions the utility of classifying Nicollet Avenue as a minor arterial in Richfield when Bloomington and Minneapolis classify Nicollet Avenue as a collector north and south of Richfield. 4) Richfield is requested to join Bloomington and Edina in indicating policy support for actions which will improve traffic ~'irculation on the regional highway system: --Richfield should recognize the function of 76th Street as part of the "ring route" system serving local east-west traffic in the I-494 corridor; --Richfield should consider policy support for an additional two lanes for I-35W which would be dedicated to use by buses and car pools., S) The regional bicycle corridor along the east side of Cedar Avenue is shown as a class III, on-street facility in transportation figure 20 and the lowest implementation priority in transportation figure 21. Considering the importance of this route in linking the Minneapolis parkway system with the State trail system in the Minnesota River Valley, it would be judicious to designate this corridor as a class I or class II bikeway with a level I or level II priority. We hope .these comments are helpful to you in your review of the Richfield Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Larry Lee, Associate Planner of our Planning Division staff. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMGPdT Division of City Planning C /.~~. . Arlyn J. Crussing Director of Planning LL:ch cc: metropolitan Council ~~--~.. r ~~~~~~ ~80~ ~'IEST SOIH S ~ RF~T ~D~`:A ; I,,•:r, `T. ., 612-927-8861 h1ay 26, 1981 Mr. Karl Nollenberger City P~tanager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Karl: We have revietived Richfield's draft Comprehensive Plan dated December 29, 1980, in accordance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. We would like to commend you for the preparation of an excellent plan. The goals and policies of the plan are clearly stated and appear to be based on extensive study. We find no major inconsistencies with our goals and policies. As you know, several boundary related problems have arisen over the years. Traffic increases on Richfield streets due to Edina developments is a frequently cited concern. Due to existing land use patterns, it will be difficult for us to insist on low intensity development for vacant land in southeast Edina. Your comments concerning the restriction of further retail zoning in southeast Edina certainly are consistent with our plan. Also, your urging to incorporate acces- sory retail uses in large office and residential developments is one of our primary, objectives. We believe that the provision of a suitable mixing of uses on remairM€,s.; vacant lands wil( also reduce the need for intra-area and inter-area automobile tri~~s~ Other transit and roadway goals advocated by our plan area also sympathetic to your concerns. The capacity of I-RF-491 sanitary sewer interceptor is a concern. Obviously, the capacity of this interceptor cannot be exceeded. We are presently working with Waste Control Commission staff on this concern. Frankly, we are not con- vinced at this time that a capacity problem does in fact exist. Lastly, you have noted the 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue storm sewer problem. Our staffs have r.:et or. several eccasio.^.s to discuss this issue. Yeuor plan pro- poses the expenditure of $350,000 by Edina to solve this problem. bYe are not prepared at this time to commit to this expenditure. Again, congratulations on a well written plan. Sincerely, •~ '~ r- 1 ~ .~ y Kenneth Rosland City Manager ` ~' 'J '_ ' "~KR:jr