The URL can be used to link to this page

02-22-82 agenda_~ i y ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 75 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Termination Leave Policy Approval There is an item on the February 22, 1982 city council agenda providing for council approval of a termination leave policy. This policy has been developed to provide a system- atic means of helping city employees who are permantly laid off or whose position has ..been eliminated, to deal with the transition from city employment to re-entry into the job market. -The proposed policy provides that a city employee whose • employment is terminated as a result of permanent lay-off or elimination of position, is entitled to receive termination compensation equal to one week's pay for each one year of ser- vice, to a maximum of twelve weeks of pay. The city council has previously established a maximum of twelve weeks of severance pay for the city manager, so this policy would be consistent with that previous city council action. State law provides for a public employer to establish a termination compensation plan (severance). The statute further provides that such compensa- tion be limited to an amount which does not exceed the equiva- lent of 100 days' salary, and that the governing body adopt a plan for full funding of such expenditure. This can be accomplished by utilizing funding out of current operations, as the attachment indicates. Respectfully submitted, ~~~,.~ ~ cf l ~,, ~1~~: t~ ,-~ Karl Noilenberger City Manager IiN/eja cc: Program Directors • Personnel Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD • PERSONNEL POLICY DATE: February 22, 1982 SUBJECT: Granting of Compensation Upon Termination of Employ- ment Due to Permanent Layoff Introduction The purpose of this policy is to establish a procedure by which the City Manager may grant a form of severance to. certain employ- ees whose employment is terminated due to permanent Layo=f or elimination of a position. Policy t It is the policy of the city that a termination leave compensation may be granted by the City Manager to any full-time permanent employee whose employment with the city has been terminated due to layoff or abolition of position(s). Such termination leave compensation will be funded through current operations and will be determined according to the following formula: One week of compensation for each full year of service, up to a maximum of twelve weeks of compensation. • The City Manager will determine in each case the method of compen- sation to be utilized, whether it be lump sum payment or bi-weekly payments. In those situations where an employee continues to re- ceive a bi-weekly compensation for the duration of the eligible period, the City Manager may authorize the continued city contrib- ution for insurance benefits. Any leave benefits accrued during such period would be utilized as they are earned to maintain the employee's bi-weekly salary at the time of termination. Approved: City Manager ~- / / CITY OF RICI-IFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 74 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Federal Legislative Position Statements There are several federal legislative policy statements attached to this council letter for review by the city council. The legislative policies relate to issues that have been, or are, a concern to the city. Each of the policy statements speaks for itself, but discussion at the council meeting may be appropriate to clarify any issue. • After adoption of the federal legislative policies, it is recommended that copies of the policies be forwarded to each of our three federal legislators for their support and/or action. Respectfully submitted, f rn r Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT • No. 1 SUBJECT: Fiscal Notes The purpose of this statement is to indicate the City of Richfield's support for enactment of a Fiscal Note requirement for federal legislation. Current Legislation 'l~here is presently no requirement that the Congress consider the impact of legislation they enact on state and local governments. The fiscal note process would require that each bill in Congress include an estimate of its cost to state and local governments. Such legislation has been before the Congress for several years, although it has not yet. been enacted. The City of Richfield strongly supports development of a fiscal note process,. which would enable our legislators to measure the impact on the .city and state before enacting any bills. • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT No. 2 • SUBJECT: Cable Television The purpose of this statement is to describe the City of Richfield's position with regard to cable television regulation. Current Legislation - Current federal legislation authorizes states and localities to regulate rates and public access. However, legislation to deregulate cable television by eliminating the state and local authority to regulate, the telecommunications industry has been before both cahmbers of Congress during 1981 and 1982. Impact on the City of Richfield The Richfield City Council, in late 1980, awarded a franchise to provide. cable television services to Richfield residents. The franchise agreement that Richfield has established provides that the city has regulatory authority over both the service quality and rates of the cable provider.. The City of Richfield is of the strong opinion that local control of .the services and rates should be retained. • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNEOSTA FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT • No. 3 SUBJECT: Proposed Federal Budget The purpose of this statement is to indicate: the City of Richfield's endorsement of President Reagan's proposed federal budget insofar as it affects programs of inetrest to the city. Current Proposal Despite considerable reductions proposed in various components of the federal budget, the community development block grant and .general revenue sharing programs have been retained in President Reagan's budget at essentially the current level of funding. Im act on the Cit of Richfield 7.'he City of Richfield has used general revenue sharing and community development block grant money to support development of numerous community facilities since funding began through these programs in the mid-1970's. Because these programs are "block grants," the city has been able to channel these federal funds into programs spec if ically defined by our own local needs and i priorities, unlike most federal funding assistance, which is available only for narrowly defined, special purpose programs. The City of Richfield strongly endorses the President's recommendation to retain the programs described herein at the current, or expended, level or funding. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE.POSITION STATEMENT No. 4 .SUBJECT: Industrial Revenue Bonds The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for legislation to prohibit abuses in the Industrial Development Revenue Bond financing. Position of the City of Richf field There has been much discussion both on the state and national level in recent years regarding the use of tax exempt industrial revenue development bonds by municipalities to solicit and support certain types of development within their communities. Congress has under discussion at this time legislation designed to prohibit abuses in the industrial development revenue. bond financing area. The use of tax exempt bonds for financing of private enter- prise actions most likely .has an~effect on the ultimate cost of borrowing for general obligation purposes of the city. We believe it is appropriate for the legislature and all other public bodies to be concerned about the uncontrolled use of tax exempt financing in terms of the ultimate impact of that financing on the general cost of borrowing and the basic debt service obligations of .the public sector. Presently,~councils or other bodies authorizing industrial redevelopment-bonds do not have to make any specific set of findings relating to the need for tax exempt financing.. Similarly, it is not necessary that authorizing bodies have a specific policy, or statement of goals and objectives, which a potential IDR financed project must meet before authorizing that financing plan. It is the position of the City of Richfield that any congres- sional effort to narrow the scope of an application of IDR bonds include the following features: A. Require any authorizing body (i.e., city councils), via legislative action, to make a set of findings prior to authorization to issue industrial development revenue bonds. B. Require that those findings conform with some broad, previously established, standard of goals and objectives for the IDR financing process. C. Require that the findings include a need for public sector stimulation of development. • • .Federal Legislative Position Statement No .- 4 Page°2 D. The findings should also address the limitations of other financing alternatives to support said development. E. Any such restrictions should relate only to the use of IDR bond financing for commercial development, and should not apply to projects in areas classified as industrial or located in designated redevelopment areas, which would remain fully under local control. ~'~Y~.: ~~ _~~ • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ,FEDERAL LEGISLATIIVE POSITION STATEMENT No. 5 SUBJECT: Federal Housing Programs The purpose of this statement is to discuss the City of Richfield's concerns. regarding federally sponsored housing programs, and to describe the impact of these programs on the City of Richfield. Current Status The President's Commission. on Housing, which was organized to analyze housing options for the Federal Administration, has deter- mined two national housing needs that they believe can be addressed only by specific housing program changes. .The two needs are afford- able housing and an adequate housing supply. Rather than increas- ing the housing supply, the greatest emphasis is being placed on creating affordable housing within the existing supply. The following changes have been proposed to address these needs: r~~ ~~ ~ ~"4 v /S~ ~~ .fi -already authorized Section $ "new" construction pro- . jects not started by'June 30, 1982, will lose their sub's idy commitment -new .Section 8 developmentslin 1982 and_1983 will not be authorized except in connection with Section 202 elderly.. • rental projects -a "voucher" or "certificate" will be given t-o persons 4~ eligible'f.or~a rental subsidy so that the Section 8 "existing" program and public housing would be phased ~'~, ~ q~ out over a dive-year period ~4y ~y -qualifying rental subsidy applicants would pay at least ~ ~ ~ 30% of their income for rent and have an income not ex- ~~ 9~ ~_ ceed~ing 50% of the median income (rather than present ~~ ~,~ ~ Section 8 requirement allowing 80% of median income)- ~~ ~,o -the total number of "vouchers" would be significantly `~ less than the number of units receiving rental assistance now -a maximum amount of $2,00.0. would. be allocated to each ~~ eligible tenant yearly rather. than the average yearly ~~ru~ elderly. subsidy of $ 2 , 2 00 and 'f amity subs idy of $ 2 , 8 00 ~= ~ it .can take to make rental housing: affordable now -no new public housing will be built -the Section 235. homeownership subsidized interest rate program is eliminated. -the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is `cut back slightly, affecting Richfield with an approxi- -mate 15% reduction in funds for housing and other commun- ity development projects _ ~. ~ ~- Yr ~ ~~^ Federal Legislative Positon.Statement No. 5 -2- -the CDBG program would be funded by the federal govern- ~ ment and administered by each state until 1987. The state would have to finance part of CDBG activities up • to 1991 -the state would have to fund all CDBG activities after that time by increasing taxes -a new "housing block grant" would. be matched with existing ~~'~' CDBG funds to assist in rehabilitating multi-unit housing Impact on City of Richfield Except for public housing,. which the city doesn't have, each of these program changes could fect Richfield's housing programs as follows: ~Q ~~ -the city has n~method for achieving .its established - housing goals. ~~e'Section 8 subsidies tied to new - construction rental assistance projects are cut'; existing • rental assistance program funding is reduced - -Richfield elderly and families. receiving rental assistance j - would have to pay more than 30 percent and as high as 50 J • ~ percent of their very low incomes when a $2,000 maximum subsidy, yearly rent 'increases of 10%, and food stamps as income are allowed by the federal government - • ~ -Rent assistance to an esti~ated 15 Richfield families and A ~~~ • X45 Richfield elderly that have incomes above 50%, but `~ ~~ ~ below 80% of the median income would eventually be trans- ~ Gj~ ~ ,,~ ferred to families and elderly at, or below,.the 50% of ~ ~°~~ median income. No replacement rental housing programs to ~~~ create affordable housing for "moderate" incomes is avail- a able or proposed. M -no federal home ownership programs affordable to moderate ~ ~~ incomes is proposed Nry~ • -the CDBG program has to fill. gaps left in,other federal housing assistance programs. Less funds are spread more ways. It is possible that the state could keep a share of ~~ the CDBG funds as they will be distributed to communities • by the states. • It is the position of the City of Richf field that the following actions should be considered based on recent program and budget changes: ~c~~ 'v~ d-- v -creating a rental and ownership program that provides ~~.~~~` adequate new housing for low and moderate incomes °d ~~,~.~' -insuring that low income persons pay an affordable per- centage of their income for rent by allowing the. federal subsidy to adjust for rents, rent increases, and income variations tic~J ~ ~~ Federal Legislative Position Statement No. 5 -3- -maintaining the .number of rental units asss ed with a rental subsidy program for low and moderate income per- sons • -expanding on the types of activity that CDBG funds can be spent on (i.e. housing construction and mortgage assistance) This requires an increase in budgeted grant funds or an additional "Housing Grant" that can be targeted by the community -requiring the states to support CDBG activities and con- ~~,~' time their support later. when they are solely responsible. In addition, the following .directions being considered by the feder- al administration should receive support: ~ -programs to assist first time home buyers. q~, -improving programs for financing housing with tax exempt ~ ~' bonds -alternative finance programs that provide favorable interest rates for multi-unit development projects. and single family homes -a program to enable low income elderly to move to condomin- Turns, thus freeing up larger properties for family occupancy. ~; ' • • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager ~ ~~ Council Letter No. 73 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: State Legislative Position Statements There are several legislative policy statements attached to this council letter for review by the city council. The legislative policies relate to issues that have been, or are, a concern to the city. Each of the policy statements speaks for itself, but discussion at the council meeting may be appro- priate to clarify any issue. • After adoption of the legislative policies, it is recommended that copies of the policies be forwarded to each of our state legislators for their support and/or action. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja LEGISLATIVE POSITIOIQ STATEMENT. No. 20 SUBJECT: Funding o£ Storm Sewer Improvements The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for legislation which would authorize municipalities to operate a storm water utility. Position of the City of _Richf field , The City of Richfield has identif ied several locations within its boundaries which are in need. of modifications to the storm water _ drainage system. Existing state statutes provide very limited flexibility to cities in financing storm. water improvements.. The difficulty of demonstrating what properties benefit and to what extent they benefit from such storm drainage improvements and/or to what extent any property contributes to a drainage problem means that financing storm sewer improvements through the special assessment process, the most. popular means of financing such major capital improvements, is very difficult. Several other states have authorized municipalities to operate a storm sewer utility, similar to a water or sanitary sewer utility, and to impose a sur- charge on sanitary sewer users for the purpose Qf financing drain- age improvements. Such a surcharge could amount to a set .monthly . figure for each business and residential property in the city, and provide revenues to finance storm drainage improvements. Such a charge would be based upon the area of a particular lot and the amount of impervious surface on a lot, so that the charge to any property would be based on the amount of runoff contributed to the storm drainage system. It. is the recommendation of the City of Richfield that Minnesota Statutes be amended to provide clear authority to municipalities to operate storm sewer utilities and to impose user charges to accumulate revenues to finance such storm sewer improvements. LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT No. 21 SUBJECT: Special Service Districts .The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for legislation which would allow cities to establish special service districts and to finance municipal services and improvements within those districts. Position of the City of Richfield The City of Richfield may periodically need to establish special areas within the city which need to receive services different from or greater than.~some other areas of the city. The most notable recent example of needing such a special district is the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet redevelopment project. The public amenities (landscaping, pedestrian areas, and walkway system} are much more extensive in this area than in other parts of the city, and need more regular Viand concentrated maintenance. Under current leg- islation, the city can. provide such services, but the only means of financing the services.is special assessments. The use of special assessments to finance such current services has- several major drawbacks. First, Minnesota court decisions have been .very restrictive in interpreting the requirement that the amount of the special assessment may not exceed the benefit to the property. This .means that a city must be able to show an actual increase in the market value of the property which results from the improve- ment, and that any special assessment may not exceed ~~hat increase in value.. Secondly, the service charge provisions now authorized by law do not adequately allow for financing of inaintenan..ce and operating types of costs. Finally, certain kinds o.f m~?nicipal services,: such as parking lots, are not currently authorized to be done. Under the proposed legislation, HF-1904, cities would be able to provide the kinds of services that they are already authorized to provide and to finance them in whole or in part through special ad valorem taxes, service charges, and/or local option special sales tax. Any increased level of service over that ordinarily provided by the city from general fund revenues could be paid for by people in the specified special service district. Flex- ibility of a special service district would allow a city to distribute the costs in a way that. equitably reflects both direct and indirect benefits to property owners in the service district. The flexibility of financing services within a special service district which would be provided through this bill, and the rec- ognition that there may. be special service needs within areas of a municipality, would provide additional flexibility to cities. in providing .their services and financing those services. The City of Richfield urges passage of this legislation. LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATET~ENT No. 22 SUBJECT: County Subordinate Service Districts The purpose of this statement is to indicate support for legisla- tion which would authorize establishment of subordinate service districts by counties in order to provide and finance county governmental districts. Position of the City of Richfield Hennepin County may periodically need to establish special areas within the county which need to receive services different from or greater than some other area or city in the county. Examples of this are the county dispatching system and the county jail booking system. Under the proposed legislation of House File 1858, the county would be authorized to establish subordinate service districts to provide and finance any governmental service or function which it is otherwise authorized to undertake. Flexibility of a special service district would allow the county to distribute costs in a way that equitably reflects both direct and. indirect benefits to county municipalities. • The City of Richfield urges passage of-this legislation. • -~'- /~`~ i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 72 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Council Subject: Payment for Site Construction at Adams Hi11 -'Park • • The contract for site construction at Adams Hill Park was awarded in August of 1980 to Sebesta Construction Company, Inc. On May 29, 1981, the contractor filed a Chapter XI Bankruptcy proceeding with the full authority of the debtor in possession, as allowed by Title XI of the U.S. Code. It became apparent that the contractor would not or could not continue to perform under the contract and on .September 10, 1981, the city officially terminated the employment of Sebesta Construction Company, Inc., took possession of the site and proceeded to finish the work by whatever method deemed expedient. It is the understanding of the staff that on September 24, 1981, the company dissolved and dis- continued business. City Attorney John Dean and with Capital Indemnity Corporation, the company holding the performance bond for Sebesta, determined that the city had the right to deduct the cost we incurred in finishing the site work by other means. Including estimates for work that cannot be completed until spring of 1982, it has been determined that the cost to the city to complete the work would be $14,283.90. Capital Indemnity Corporation; through its attorney, has made a demand upon the city for release- of the monies which we still hold under the Sebesta contract. The demand permits the city to retain the $14,283.90 which we have indicated as our cost to complete the project. Therefore, it is now necessary to release the balance of $24,540.19 to Capital Indemnity Corporation, who in turn will provide proper indemnification to the city and be responsible for any debts incurred by Sebesta in execution of the work under the contract. It is recommended that the city council authorize the payment of $24,540.19 to Capital Indemnity Corporation. Respectfully submitted, }}i Karl Nollen}~erger City Manager cc: Community Services Director City Attorney Finance Coordinator -~ 6" • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 71 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable rZayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation Each year, the city council presents "Certificates of Appreciation" to outgoing members of city commissions. Pre- sentation of these certificates has been scheduled for the February 22, 1982 city council meeting. Those eligible to receive certificates are: Charles Jones - Advisory $oard of Health (cannot be present) Mary Reiter - Civil Service Commission Sharon Ending - Energy Awareness Commission A. John Olinger - Energy Awareness Conunission David Linstrand - Human Rights Commission George Evans - Park and Recreation Commission Joanne Wilmes - Park and Recreation Commission (cannot be present) Joseph Ertman - Planning Commission Richard Blevins - Planning Commission Marla Carlson - Senior Citizens/Handicapped Commission Myrtle Schmidt - Senior Citizens/Handicapped Commission Peter Heinrich - Senior Citizens/Handicapped Coi7unission Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja -!~ ='~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager CouiZCil Letter ~~o. 70 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable P~Zayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Presentation of "Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year" Each year the Human Rights Commission selects a person who has demonstrated an awareness of, and conunitmen-c to the attitudes and practices that foster human understanding, toler- ance and the spirit of human relations in the corninunity, to be the recipient of the "Gene Jacobsen Citizen of the Year." This year, the commission has selected Dean Covering as the recipient of this award. The commission will present this award at the February 22, 1982 city council meeting. After the presentation, a coffee and cookie reception will be held in the conference room to give family and friends of Mr. Covering an opportunity to con- gratulate him. Mr. Thomas Hanson, a commission mer.:ber, will be present at the council meeting to make the presentation, and other members of the commission will also be present. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger .City Manager KN/eja # / CITY OF RICFIFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 69 Agenda February 22, 1982. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council NTembers Subject: Discussion of Changing Name of Human Rights Commission to the Human Relations Commission The city council approved a resolution at the January 25, 1982 city council changing the name of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission to the Community Services Advisory Commission. At that same time, it was suggested that consideration be given to changing the name of the Human Rights Commission to the Human Relations Commission. This proposed name change was discussed by commission mem- bers at their meeting on February 2, 1982. At the end of the discussion, it was the concensus of the commission that a recommen= dation be made to the city council not to change the name of the conunission. A copy of a letter from the Chairperson of the commission, detailing the reasons to keep the name, is attached to this council letter. This item has been placed on the February 22, 1982 city council agenda for council consideration. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja February 15 , 1982 N y= ~U U M dN' Ln ~. .~ ^ _~ ~+ L Q 0 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Dear .Council Members: At the -January 25, 1982 council meeting, the city council approved a resolution changing the name of the Park and Recreation Commission to the Community Services Commission to more accurately reflect the city's organizational structure~y At that same time, the council suggested that consideration be given to changing the name of the Human Rights Commission to the Human Relations Commission. This proposed name change was discussed by the Human Rights Commission:. at their February 2,-1982 meeting, and considerable discussion ensued regarding the commission name and responsibilities. The commission members re- viewed the ordinance establishing the commission; and after thoughtful consideration and deliberation on the future of the Human bights Commission, the commission mem- bers voted unanimously to recommend retaining the name as the Human Rights Commission.. .This decision was based on the following: _1. The commission is charged with acting consistent with the Ntinnesota Human Rights Act in regards to --equal employment, housing, public accomodation, public services and education and community par- ticipation: .all of which are basic human rights.. 2. The City of Richfield is fulfilling its obliga- tion to the Minnesota State Department of Human Rights by establishing this local commission. 3. Our commission is a member of the Minnesota League of. Human Rights. 4. We believe that our commission has already gained a degree of recognition in the community as the Human Rights Commission. 5. Commission members feel that human relations activities can be undertaken without a name change inasmuch as human relations work is an original charge of the commission, and such community work does not require additional justification. tetephone:869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer Richfield City Council February 15, 1982 Page Two 6. The city ordinance code, Section 12.23, outlines several areas in which the Human Rights Commission may work to accomplish its charge. The basic concerns of the commission are human rights and human relations. Human relations is a vital component of human rights, particularly as it relates. to community awareness. Human rights, however, are the foundation on which our government,_social structure. and community are based. - ' In summation, the members of the Human Rights Commission believe that we as a commission are here to protect the rights of the citizens of Richfield, and to assist in encouraging-the full par- ticipation of citizens in their government and community life, as is. their right as citizens. We further believe that with the guidance and direction established within the present city ordin- ance code, the Human Rights Commission can, and will, provide a necessary service for the City of Richfield and its citizens. The commission also looks forward to meeting with the city council f in April to discuss specific suggestions the council may have to assist the commission in carrying out its purpose and responsibil- ities as outlined in the city ordinance code. Sincerely yours, Nancy Lindberg,. Chairperson . Human Rights Commission cc: Commission Members // • CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 68 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable riayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council 1~lembers Subject: Proposed Charter Amendment Relating to the Amendment and Repeal of City Ordinances At the January 25, 1982 city council meeting, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance which would amend Section 3.10 of the city charter relating to the amendment and repeal of ordinances. The purpose of the ordin- ance would be to amend the charter in such a way as to indicate that, on ordinance changes, "old matter to be omitted" would • be indicated in the ordinance by "lining it through". Presently the charter requires that the material to be omitted be enclosed in brackets. Reading ordinances which have substantial changes being made in them can be confusing when the brackets are used to denote deleted material. This ordinance has been placed on the February 22, 1982 city council agenda for second reading consideration. a~ ~~ ~C ~ Jr Respectfully submitted,. ~J~C r~~~~C~~..~.~ 4r' ~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: City Clerk • CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. CHARTER AMENDMENT ORDINANCE RELATING TO AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF ORDINANCES, AMENDING SECTION 3.10 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 3.10 of the City Charter of Richfield relating to amendment and repeal of ordinances is hereby amended to provide as follows: "Section 3.10. Amendment and Repeal of Ordinances. Every ordinance repealing a previous ordinance, section, or subdivision thereof shall give the number, if any, and the title of the ordinance to be repealed in whole or in part. No ordinance, section, or subdivision thereof shall be amended by reference to the title alone. Such an amending ordinance shall set forth in full each section or subdivision to be amended and shall indicate new matter by underscoring and old • matter to be omitted by enelee~~g-~t-~~-b~ae~e~s lining it through. In newspaper publication of ordinances the same indications of omitted and new matter shall be used except that italics or bold-faced type may be substituted for under- scoring and omitted matter may be printed in capital letters within parentheses." Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, subject to the. provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 410.12, Subdivision 7. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of 198 . Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 67 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Bicycle Moto-Cross (BMX) Policy In June, 1981, the city constructed a bicycle moto-cross (BMX) track in Taft Park along the eastern frontage road, south of the lake. The first major event at the track was held in conjunction with the 4th of July festivities. During construction of the BMX track, a local special interest group much like Little League er other special interest groups in the city was independently organized. During 1981, the city and the organization were making adjustments and learning about BMX. Based on that partial year of experience, the staff has developed a policy and fee structure for the Richfield BMX track. This proposed policy-has been reviewed by the local BMX organization, and the Community Services Commission has recom- mended acceptance of the policy. The policy provides that the track generally be free and open to the public, except during those times when special events have been planned and coordinated or the track is under repair and/or improvement. Primary responsibility for upkeep and improvement of the track shall be through the local BMX Association, although the city will provide some routine type of maintenance work typical to that provided to other such park areas throughout the city. The schedule of special events or races planned by the local association or any other association, organization, agency or individual shall be submitted in writing to the Community Services Department well in advance of the event. The sponsor of a special event or race shall sign an agreement and be responsible for the following: 1. Post a damage and clean-up deposit of $200. 2. Post a certificate of insurance including property and participant coverage. 3. Provide clean-up of the track and surroundin.q area at the end of the event. 4. Provide a 50G per participant fee to the Richfield BMX Association; i.e., number of participants in the special ;~~ event times 50~ should be paid to the local organization. 5. Enforce an "unauthorized vehicle in the Park" policy in this area. Council Letter No. 67 -2- February 22, 1982 6. Pay a rental fee of $30 per day for the local organization and $100 per day or 15 percent of gross gate receipts for other event sponsors with the rental fee to include the following a. Use of the track area. b. Use of the Taft Park Control Building for six hours (a $4.50 charge for each additional hour will be charged for staff time to keep the building open). c. Permission to run concessions (the sponsor is responsible for obtaining necessary food/beverage permits) . 7. It shall further be the policy that only two weekend races per month will be allowed for sponsors other than the local organization. The Communicty Services Director will be available at the February 22, 1982 council meeting to answer any questions the council o.- public may have regarding the track, the proposed policy, or other items related to BMX. It is recommended that the city council adopt the BMX policies and fees as outlined . above. Res/pectfully submitted, / { Karl NollenbeJrger City Manager KNjsh cc: Community Services Director • ~~ CITY OF RICHFTELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 66 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield. Council Members: Subject: Council Authorization to Advertise for Bids - Adams Hill Park Storm Sewer Lift Station The 1982 capital improvement budget includes a $100,000 appropriation for construction of a storm sewer lift station at Adams Hill Park, to be funded through user fees or the sewer fund. The city has entered into agreement with Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates for engineering services connected with this work. The purpose of this council letter is to review the timeline and proposed budget for the project, and to request council authoriza- tion to advertise for bids on the work. • The proposed timeline provides for council authorization to advertise for bids at the February 22 council meeting. The adver- tisement for bid would appear in the Richfield Sun of March 3, 10 and 17, with bids to be opened in late March and the council award of contract at the first regular council meeting in April. The council will recall that the City of Edina and the City of Richfield are in the process of entering into a joint agreement providing for joint storm sewers in this area. The City of Edina has not yet executed the agreement, although we would anticipate an executed agreement prior to the award of contract in April. If we do not have a signed agreement by that date, it will be the staff recom- mendation to delay the award of the contract. The plans and specifications proposed to be bid include one pump in the 3-3z cfs range, the control panel, underground power source, underground piping for the long range lift station capacity to be installed to a point where the new Edina system is proposed and a smaller size piping to connect on a temporary basis, or until the new system is installed, to the present force main of the Edina system. The second pump, to increase the capacity to about nine cfs, would not be added until the new Edina system is complete. The work proposed at this time would include the majority of the engineering required to accomodate the additional pump at a later date. It is anticipated that work to be done at this time will cost about $120,000, including the contract for the lift station, pump, control panel, power connection and piping, the soil borings, the consultant fees, the cost of advertising and a contingency of approximately 10 percent of the estimated contract amount. The pump/lift station is proposed to be located in the Council Letter No. 66 -2- February 22, 1982 area west of the pond and east of Xerxes Avenue for ease of access and control. It is recommended that the city council authorize the advertisement for bids for this project. Respectfully submitted, C, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director • i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 65 Agenda February 22, 1982 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Variance, 6844 Grand Avenue South PRnP(~SAL Bruce and Dorinda Anderson have submitted a request for a variance to reduce the required 31-foot front yard setback to 30 feet, and the existing 13-foot side street side yard setback to five feet. These variances would permit construction of an addition to the existing single family house on the site. The property, located at 6844 Grand Avenue South, is zoned "R" single . family residential. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 3.30, subdivision 4 frontage and yard requirements for Section 3.39, subdivision 2, lists for yard requirements; and Section three conditions which must be met granted. ~f the zoning ordinance lists property in the "R" district; exceptions and modifications 3.40, subdivision 6, lists before a variance may be STAFF FINDINGS l~he staff has reviewed the proposal against the three con- ditions and found the following: 1. That there are no special conditions affecting this particular property which are not common to other properties in this or similar districts. 2. That denial of the application will not preclude reasonable or existing use of the property. 3. That the proposed addition is an improvement to the applicants' property. The proposed front yard setback of 30 feet should not pose any hazards to the safety or welfare of the general public. On the contrary, the proposed side street side yard setback of five feet is a significant departure from the existing 13 feet, and could pose visibility problems for motorists in the area. ~' It should be noted, however, that the lot across Grand Council Letter No. 65 -2- February 22, 1982 Avenue from the subject property has a non-conforming side street side yard setback of 7.5 feet. REVIE[~' AGAINST THE PENDING RESIDENTIAL ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS The residential zoning ordinance amendments approved at the February 9, 1982 council meeting will become effective on or about March 17, 1982. The staff feels it would be prudent to review this variance request in terms of the pending changes in the residential zoning ordinance. The new ordinance requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. The Andersons' proposal meets this requirement, and no variance would be necessary. However, the new ordinance requires a 15-foot side street side yard setback; thus, the side street variance would still be necessary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because the proposal does not meet all of the three con- ditions which must be met before a variance may be granted, the staff must recommend denial of this application. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance which would allow a 30-foot front yard setback, and recommends denial of the requested side street side yard setback variance. Respectfully submitted, r ;~ Karl Nollenberger I City Manager KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Planner • February 22, 19b2 To the Planning Commission: To.start with, we are completely amazed at what. happened at the Planning Department meeting held Tuesday, February 9• We were denied this variance as far as we could tell because Mr. Anderson thought our: house would look bad because of the slant of the roof suggesting .that we change it to be a hip roof like the house across the street. After the meeting when he looked at the drawings of our house, he apologized and-said .that had he seen the drawings first he would not have opposed us. Then amidst all the discussion over the slant of the roof, Maggie McDermott moved that they decline the variance because they had approved too many variances and she .was just against them. This we feel is extremely unfair... We do not feel that the ci y should offer the.. option of a variance if they have no .intention of granting -them. _ As far as we could determine,-these were the two reasons at the February 9 meeting for deny~.ng us the variance neither of the reasons with much basis as far as we are concerned. Obviou ly, we have no chance if this commission is limply against variances as well - you have the power and we are only the. resident trying to improve our home. Regarding the conditions upon granting. variances, we submit the following:. 1. The special circumstances affecting our land which is not common to other properties in this area is that we are a corner lot. We feel we are being discriminated against because we are a corner lot. If our house was in the middle of the block, we would be permitted to build up to 5 feet from our lot line. According to the ordinance now, we are not permitted to build any further than 30 feet from our lot line on a side street. We only have a 50 foot lot and this leaves 20 feet to build a home on which is highly unrealistic. Any other home- owner is free to build to within 5 feet without paying X230 as we did to apply for a variance. 2. .Obviously the granting of this application is neces- sary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial pro- perty rights. The other homeowners can build and enjoy their property.- why can't we? Also, the home immediately across the street from our home is 6 feet further out towards 69th street than ours. Again - if they can build on their property affecting the same sde_street - why cant we? February`22, 1962 Page 2 Planning Commission 3. The granting of this application will not materially or adversely. affect the health or safety'of persons residing.. or working in the neighborhood of our property and will not be materially.: detrimental. to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. We have signatures from a.number of our neighbors and none of them were opposedto our building thin. addition. Also,~69th street is not a through street - the railroad tracks go`through one street over. We have had drawings made up by our contractor. In our first letter addressed tQtyou, we outlined all other options of` expansion on our .home. -. Basically we are trying to gain a larger living-room and a dining room. The option. of going up or off the back of the house are far too costly and both would involve a complete restructure of the interior of the home..- The only room: in need of change is the living room which faces Grand. Avenue and 69th street - again to completely restructurethe interior is so unnecessary if we could go off the side and thefront of the house. We are trying to, improve the value of -our home - invest in our property ..and enable us to have adequate -living space for ourselves and 3 small children. In today~s economy, we cannot. afford to move and the only option we ..have to gain what we are looking for. is through the granting of this variance. Your consideration in favor of this will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Dorinda & Bruce Anderson 6Bl~t~. Grand Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 &69-72&7 • February 1, 1962 To the Planning Commission: We would like to submit to you our reasons for the. need of this variance for your consideration. Our home is currently a story and a half with 2 bedrooms, bath,. kitchen-and living room on the main floor. All of these rooms are sufficient with the exception of the living room. There are five peg3e living in our home (2 adults and 3 small children). The living room at the present is 14 x 11 and has no dining area. The front door has no entry way and opens up almost in the middle of the room. The living area is very limited and in need of expansion to improve our home. . Our problem is a unique floor plan in that thelfl tchen is in the front.of the house facing Grand Avenue. Therefore for expansion . purposes to increase the living room, we would have to take a bedroom from the back of the house and even in doing this we ..would end up with a living room 11 x 24 which is very impracti- cal for a living room. This would involve a complete restruc- ture of the interior of the home and far more costly for what we would get. Our other problem in going off-the back of the house is that the garage is situated in the middle of the back yard and would leave us .with no back yard space along with the fact that the bedrooms are across the back of the house and again would involve a complete restructure of the interior and again too costly. The alternative of going up is also .hindered in that we are 5 feet off the tot line and according to Richfield ordinances, we need to be 10 feet off both lot tines to have a two story home. This would also entail a complete restructure of the interior and again more costly than what we are proposing. The best alternative is to go off the front and side of the living room to gain an entry way, dining room and very adequate living area. Your consideration in favor of this variance will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, ~ r~ /t~ . / ;~ ,(~~ ~u~~J ~ ~~uQc ~rn Bruce & Dorinda Anderson 6614.t}. Gr ~d Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 X569-7267 _ • ~_~ h' --~ ~, ~~ ~~~~ ~~~ G~~ ~' ~~~~ y) ~ -~ ~G ~ a `~• i - ti "r-~. ~. REQUEST. FOR VARIANCE OF FOR PURPOSE. OF y,~ Legal Description: ~- .dcc We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described, do hereby concur with the variance as requested. ' ~£natu= Owners Address Leal Description '~----. ' ~ ~ ~~ I ~`jbl-`~9a~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_~ ~~~E~ -~ ~lr~ <:/-~-~t- ~c~ -, ,; ~..~~ C.~ ~ ~-- ~ - t~tr~~ r `~ ~R.-e ~ ~ ~ I ~,~p ,, z ~~~ ~~J c~~ ~ ~ ~ rte./ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~~~ ~~~s - -- . - - ---- - - ----- -- ~ I ------------~--- ---I------- - - -- - ---I- --~ ----• ------- -------~----- I i '3 ~ ~ V g S, '` ,`2 1 T .• 23 ~ '~ 2 5.2 PETlTt~1V __-MA-P ` .. ~ j `23.4 ;J 2 3 ..~_ (~ v ~-, 2p6 ~ J _- - ~_ -«p_-__.~- ~I N __ ~_.- ~... ,, , -- ~' is 9 (~ 2~1 ~ ~ 16 '9 ^ - r-~ 14 ~t i 13 !2 _~~•/~ ^ ~o~v 1 ~1 ~, W d A ,~, ~' 20S ~ T"f +, {:~ - >> - _ - Qj .1 • -, 9 ~ - --- O''_ i _ -- ~ =1 r - - --- ~ ~ f ~ . r f~--;r~ - - - i ~ 5 , O , ~ ~- ~ 4 .. -, I - -. _ _ I I ~ z ~ ~ ~t+-y~ ff ~ 4" ~_ _-y r s ~f'~ _-_ / ~ ~ g / .. _ ^ _ 3J __ W J ' ~ _ 6 ;3 - ~. - 15 2 o w - f-1 ., 16. 3 ~LJ ~~ ® Z N~ f6~~~3 ---~c ~ ~~ Q r _ .... ~ ~./ ~ 143__ ~ ~ ,'•~~ i5 ~ -C .v .Q ~ C 15' 14 -- n --~ ~ '~ 0 14 _5 ._-~ m ~ -13 4-^ _~ Q ~[~1 14.5 °' {~~- ':~ (4~ ~5 r'~ {~/~{/~~~f/}~ 000000 3 + ^ i~. ~ ~ h ~ M^,-12.5 _^ i. l _I/ I.a~/;V~ .. 0000000'. J ~- o-ooonn fi +- ononnon ---; -- r ~ ., ., ., ., ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ooooo0 0000000 ~ 12 ' '7- --- --- ~ :. ~ 11.6 ~ ~ M ^ 12 ! 0 0 0°0°0°0°0 oo°aooooo0000 7 ~ ~~ r,. ~ ~ooooo0 0000000• 0000000 000000 w~ .__ ^ - _ _ ^ __...~ -__._ o°a o°o°n°n°n°o°o°o°o°o°n°o°o n n n o n n d'_`_ =~ _-. i i• ,8 <' o J 0 7 ~ ~ o°o°o°o°o°ocb°o°o°o°o°o°o°o°o o°o°o°o°o°o°o.~ ____- .-. ._ ,__.ti J _- 4 -,_ O O O O O O o O o oo O o o O°O°O o°o°o°C~ _ O ° 00000 000000 F'--~-~'-P 1 O. ' 9 r `P K- ^_ . 9.9 a o°o°o°o°o°p°o°o ~ o o n n o o c, 1('^1 0000000 000000,9 ~1 ~ i l..J T c I`,~. r 0n°n°n°0°n°n°o ~O~oaO ° oa0~1 (_Jc '' L7 r 2 , ~(-i . -~,`- 7---J-- .3~` ___~ 4 ~-'I I- o ~ Q - s ~ ~~ `v 0 e ~ °a a °°° a.u e ~~ ~ _ - ~--~ i ,Q 3~ 5 ~ ^ 15 ~i0 LJ ~. _ ^ r--- i4 ?iI ,~ ~ =: ~ ~ ^ 13 ;12 ^~ ~ y. , ~ ~ 68th :7 ~" 69th o~i,15'2 -__~~4~~-J---- [] ~1 2;s V^ i Signatures on Petitio ,_,~~~. ~ ~---_ - - i r r 70th 0000000 0000000 00.00000; n°n o on°o°0 c ~ r ~^ 152 ^; ,j ~~' 4 ^ , .. . ~ - ~ I~j 9 9 J '~ III z --- :L .. ._ ~- X14 f~' 2 - ~~ ?! ..._ "~ _ 9 _ ~" _' s E ._ r 5 f 7 ,- f~ ~. .- _ '~~~ ~ -~t=; ~~ ~J~9~t_ i=~- -_ -- ----- _ g '.'.r r.: ~ !' I .. ~ i ;i y 3 i i T T r . I-- ~ j z j ~ ~ I ~ _• i. Garage House 35-~ Q 1 I ~ 30'~ 1 Q 1 a, I I ~ ~~ ' ~II Q I House °_' I ~ i I ~~ i !-1-14 ~ _ I Property line I N l~ back of curb 69th STREET 6844 GRAND AVE. Scale:l"equals 2d • .; , ~ ,. ~ ;. _ _. ~ ~ ~ ~ a • ~~. ~:~ J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _, Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: ~- c_/ Council Letter No. 64 Agenda February 22, 1982 Subject: .,Alley Improvements for 1982 In November of 1980, the city council established a policy providing for permanent alley improvements by paving. This policy stipulates that an alley will be paved only upon receipt of a petition signed by property owners representing more than 50 percent of the abutting footage, requesting such repaving. The projects are to be initiated on a yearly basis, with those alleys which are not paved or scheduled to be paved being subject to special assessments for the cost of on-going maintenance. During 1981, 16 a].J_eys were paved with concrete, upon request of the adjacent property owners. The engineering division has received 15 qualifying petitions requesting resurfacing of the following alleys: Alley Between 62nd Street and 63rd Street 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue Clinton Avenue and 4th Avenue Blaisdell Avenue and Nicollet Ave. Grand Avenue and Pleasant Avenue Harriet Avenue and Grand Avenue Garfield Avenue and Harriet Ave. Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue Russell Avenue and Queen Avenue Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue Washburn Avenue and Vincent Ave. Washburn Avenue and Vincent Ave. ,:Upton Avenue and Vincent Avenue From 14th Street 66th Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 73rd Street 72nd Street 72nd Street 72nd Street 67th Street 69th Street 66th Street 68th Street 68th Street 69th Street 67th 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 Council Letter No. 64 -2- February 22, 1982 A petition was also received requesting resurfacing of the alley between Lyndale Avenue and Aldrich Avenue, 76th Street to 77th Street. The signers of this petition own 46.2 percent of the abut- ting footage. The petitioner has requested that the council consider including this alley in the 1982 project. The petitioner obtained signatures from six of the eight residential property owners on Aldrich Avenue and three of the commercial properties on Lyndale Avenue. Minnesota State Statute 429.031 provides that the co~~ncil may order, by majority approval, such a petitioned project, if presented with a petition of more than 35 percent of the property owners. The staff has included this alley in the preliminary engineering report. The attached preliminary engineering report includes the estimated costs and assessments for the proposed project. The staff recommends that~the city council adopt the attached resolution, ordering and accepting the preliminary engineering, report, and scheduling a public hearing on the 1982 alley improve- ment project for March g~ 1982. _~_ __~. , Respectfully submitted , (~'"SO~"`'~ J^ J {=~C~~ Karl Nollenberger P~~ ~ ~ ^^ City Manager ;, r~ Uc~~ /J ~~~~ry-~- KN/sh cc: Community Development Director City Engineer City Clerk ~; a~`~ ~~ • ~` o a~ ~ . ~a a ~;~"~ ~`~a~ ~~~ ®~ .(~~ ~" U~~hv' f L ~ C~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ 3 `~ ~ -, c~ 1 ~ 3~ . * Signed petition ~~~~~ ~ ~,~ ~, o~ '~ tag =Y ,- ~~ v ,~o aQ1~~~ ~ ~1 ~ ~` ~~~~~aa n^ aa~ M~ ~~~~ N ~ ^'1 ~. ,~ ALDRICH ~ ~' AVE. ~~ ~ "..__. _ . ~~~~ ~ ~- ~'~ y ~~'. 1~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~' ~ ~~~~ ^ ~ l~ ~~ ~~~` ~~~ Y~ ~~ L r- 9C Petition represents ~,2 % of abutting footage. ~~ ~ / . Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a "~ ~~~ ~. N t ~ J r v ~~ i~ t' 1 _ ~ ALDRICH AVE. U ~ .-___ .__ _ ~__...,_._._r _ . __ ~ O ~ ~ ;~~ r ~ ~p a v i~ ~ u~ ~c ~ _ ! ~ r- ~ ~ LYNDALE AVE. * Signed petition Petition represents 40 of abutting footage. ~~. ~:~ i, PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 775 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The alleys described in Ltem No. IV were petitioned for and are proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide permanent alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties where needed. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT February 22, 1982 LV. LOCATION Alley Between From To . Aldrich Avenue and Lynd:ale Ave. 76th Street 77th Street • V. FEASIBILITY The alley paving project is feasible and can .best be accomplished as proposed and not~in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED .All that property abutting the alleys previously described in Item~No. IV. VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 11' Wide Concrete Alley Estimated construction cost $18,000.00 Administration, Legal, Engineering and Insurance (25/) 4,500.00 Estimated Project Cost $22,500.00 _2_ VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT Property abutting alleys will be assessed for abutting alley construction according to the assessment policy established in the City Council Resolution No. 6345. Total Assessable Alley Frontage 1,182.47ft. Total Project Cost $22,500.00 Less City Cost 624.30 Assessable Cost $21,875.70 '21,875.'70 =1,182,47 = $18.50/assessable foot .Typical Assessment for 50' lot .= $ 925.00 typical Assessment for 75' lot $1,387.50. ~, I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my 'direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~ ., ~~ Michael Date: .February 22, 1982 ~2~~tiZ~ Eastling Reg. No. 15066 r ~. PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 775 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Concrete alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The alleys described in Item No. IV were petitioned for and are proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide permanent alley. surf acing to benefit abutting properties where needed. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT February 22, 1982 IV. LOCATION. Alley Between From To - 62nd Street and 63rd Street 14th Avenue 15th Avenue 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 66th Street 67th Street 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue .73rd Street 74th Street. Clinton Avenue and 4th Avenue , 73rd Street 74th Street • Blaisdell Ave. and Nicollet Ave. 73rd Street 74th Street Grand Avenue and Pleasant Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street Harriet Avenue 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. Russell Avenue and Queen Avenue 69th Street 70th Street -Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. 66th Street 67th Street Vincent Avenue and Upton Avenue 68th Street 69th Street Washburn Ave. and 'Vincent Ave. 68th Street 69th Street Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 69th Street 70th Street Vincent Ave. and Upton Ave. 67th Street 68th Street V. FEASIBILITY The alley paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and-not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the alleys previously described in Item No. IV. • VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST 11' Wide Concrete Alley Estimated construction cost $264,900.00 Administration, Legal, Engineering and Insurance (25/) 66,225.00 Estimated Project Cost 331,125.00 -2- VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT Property abutting alleys will be assessed for abutting alley construction according. to the assessment policy established in the City Council Resolution No. 6345. Total Assessable Alley Frontage 16,965.31 Ft. Total .Project Cost $331,200.00 Less City Cost 17,146.96 Assessable Cost. $314,053.04 314,053.04 = 16,975.84 = $18..50/assessable foot Typical Assessment for 50~ lot = $ 925.00 Typical Assessmentfor 75' lot $1,387.50 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: February 22, 1982 Reg. No. 15066 • RESOLUTION NO. ' RESOLUTION ORDERING PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING C.P. 775 WHEREAS, petitions requesting the permanent paving of the following alleys have been received.: Alley Between 62nd Street and 63rd Street 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue Clinton Avenue and 4th Avenue Blaisdell Ave. and Nicollet Ave. Grand Avenue and Pleasant Ave.. Harriet Avenue and Grand Ave. Garfield Ave. and Harriet Ave. Queen Avenue and Penn Avenue Russell Avenue and Queen Avenue Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave. Vincent Avenue and Upton Ave. Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. Upton Ave. and^^ Vincent Ave. rfNOA'Ll. ~~ ~' /'~-t~2~LN- ~J From To 14th Avenue .15th Avenue 66th Street 67th Street 73rd Street 74th Street 73rd Street 74th Street 7.3 rd Street 74th Street .72nd .Street. 73rd Street 72nd Stree t 73rd Street 72nd Street. 73rd Street 67th Street 68th Street 69th Street 70th Street 66th Street 67th Street. 68th Street 69th Street 68th Street 69th Street 69th Street 70th Street '•67th Street 68th Street ~ ~ -th ~ ~ "17 TM And the petitions have been of owners of abutting property; signed by the. required percentage BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The'City Council finds it appears necessary and desirable that the city make the assessable public improvement of permanent surfacing of the above mentioned alleys, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; 2. A preliminary engineering report on such proposed assessable public improvement is required by law in the event that said improvement or any part thereof is especially assessed against the benefited property within the city. The city engineer is, therefore, authorized and directed to prepare a preliminary report of such proposed improvement and to submit the same to the City Council at the earliest convenient time; 3. Such report shall indicate the estimated cost of such proposed improvement, shall indicate whether such proposed improvement is feasible and whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; _2_ 4. Such proposed improvement sha11 hereafter be known and designated as City Project. 775.. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 22nd day of February, 1982 John Hamilton, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AILS CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ALLEY PAVING CITY PROJECT 775 WHEREAS, the city engineer has prepared a prelimir~~.ry report with reference to the improvement of the following alle1~~= by permanent paving:. Alle_y..Between From To 62nd Street an d 63rd Street 14th Avenue 15th P_venv.e 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 66th Street 67th Street_ 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue 73rd Street 74th Street Clinton Avenue and 4th Avenue 73rd Street 74th Street Blaisdell Ave. and Nicollet Ave. 73rd Street 74th Street Grand Avenue a nd Pleasant Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Strut Harriet Avenue and Grand Ave. 72nd Street 73rd Street Garfield Ave. and Harriet Ave. 72nd- Street- 7~rd street .Queen Avenue a nd Penn Avenue .67th Street 68th Str_set Russell Avenue and Queen Avenue 69th Street 70th Street " Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Ave.- 66th Street 67th Street Vincent Avenue and Upton Ave, 68th Street 69th Street . Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. ~•68th Street 69th Street Washburn Ave. and Vincent Ave. 69th Street 70th Stree t /Upton Ave. and Vincent Ave. 67th Street 68th Street THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of t::~ City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: ~1. The preliminary report on proposed City Project 775 dated the 22nd day of February, 1982, prepared by the city engineer, is hereby received and ordered to bP. placed on file. . 2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on March 8, 1982, commencing at 7:00 P.M. in the council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota, at which time .the council will consider the improvement of these alleys in accordance with the report and asses _;ir~~nt of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, at an estimated cost of the improvement of $353,625.00 3. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in -the manner required by law. • D r rn cn r m m 0 cfl ....,.... u . ~ ---- ------ - --- ~ -- - i ~~ ~~ .. ~ ~ ~ .C~ ~`~ ~~ -~~ ~,,,....~ . JI ,_ _ L ,a.,.., __ it ~--~~~~ 7~J~ ~ rl`r• ._ .r ~,~~; - ~ .~..... .. , ....... rte! o i -- r ~;._ - ~.., ... -~ 4 _ -'~- crmo. r. ero.~ ... ~ w _._-_ I A ~ ~..i _~; ~~ _ _ ~. ~ m a.a. I I ~` ~! ~ ,.~ ~\ /r- ~ m ~ car.. w[ ..or, ... ; V ® i -'fir ~ f ~~~ _ --~, -1 r _ _' i ~ I-.~ r D R..q.. _. _^~ -7~L Jar .f -~%- ~i ~C-~L : _ ~ , I ~~L~ R...~,. ` ~ ~~~~~ ~L _ f- ~ ~ ~ 1[ =JCS _ ,. :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' _ , ~~~r~ ~7 , ..., " . -- - ~~. ~ i if - ._ ~ ~~ ~Q . "~ ~''~.~~ _ ~ ..... . .... .- - - - . ---;~-- ,~ -, ~ ~ ,o...K ...... I I _ li_ ® _ _ ,. . ~ ..., . _ .,. i I . ~..,~,._ .~ ,.- ._, `:j va `-~ v C"~ ~ r' 3 in :..~ ~ a ~ p 0 1~ T - 1 D _~ i iy • The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Agenda February 22, 1982 i Council Members: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 63 Subject: Request for Fee Waived License, Church of St. Richard's. The Church of St. Richard' has applied for their annual Bingo and on-sale non-intoxicating malt liquor license. The church has paid the full fee for the bingo license, but has requested the non-intoxicating malt liquor license on a fee- waived basis, as they have in past years. The only time that non-intoxicating malt liquor is sold is in conjunction with fund raisers conducted during the course of the year. Proceeds from these fund raisers are used for support of church school programs; on this basis, the council has granted a fee-waived license in the past.- The church has submitted the required application forms and insurance certificates. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required investigation. It is recommended that the licenses be issued as requested. Respectfully submitted, ~~.~s. ~1 ~,~~ u ~.2~--~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk . , r:. ~ _. ~y;. .~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 62 Agenda February 22, 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 purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or con- struction when the amount exceeds $2,500. There are two such items on the city council agenda for February 22, 1982. DRIVING RANGE BALLS When the driving range at Rich Acres Golf Course first opened in June of 1980, the range balls used were white, with a red stripe. However, when the golf course opened for regulation play, we experienced the loss of driving range balls. To help curtail this loss, we introduced a yellow range ball. In 1981 only orie vendor, Spalding offered a two-piece yellow range ball. This year, however, three vendors have submitted quotations for the two-piece yellow range ball, each with a one-year warranty. Werre and Betzen Sales, Inc. submitted a unit price of $5.70, for a purchase price of $2,850 for the 500 dozen balls to be purchased. A freight charge estimated at $100 will be added to this price, making a total purchase price of $2,950. Hornung's submitted a quotation of $5.90 per dozen plus staff's estimated freight charge of $100, for a total estimated purchase price of $3,050. Spalding submitted a quotation of $6.15 per dozen, including freight, for a total purchase price of $3,075. Inasmuch as the Spalding ball is the one already in stock at our course, has an established record of good performance, the patent provides a higher compression, and the ball's yellow color is better, it is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 500 dozen yellow range balls from Spalding for a purchase price of $3,075. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM POWER SUPPLY UNIT L_. ___ During 1982, the city will start receiving equipment for installation of the 911 Emergency Telephone System, which is to become operational in Richfield this December. While actual in- stallation of the equipment will not take place until late in the year, all equipment is being acquired on a cooperative basis by all of the Hennepin County communities operating 911 Emergency Com- munication Centers. Therefore, we will need to authorize the purchase of equipment at various times during the course of the Council Letter No. 62 -2- February 22, 1982 + 9 ~ I year to facilitate our joint purcl~iasing effort. The first purchase to be made is a power supply unit"for the system. The required power supply unit, which is compatible with Bell System equipment, is available only through the H.M. Cragg Company, in the amount of $3,129. It is recommended that the council authorize the purchase of this piece of equipment for the 911 Emergency System to be installed in our Public Safety Communications Center. Res/pJectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/sh cc: Public Safety Director Community Services Director