Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-27-81 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ` Office of City Manager w a e The Honorable Mayor ~ j o ~~ ~ k r~ ~ r)~ ~y, o „~~ and ~ ~ a. o ti ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ `~ ~~~ df Members of the City Council ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,a ti° ~' ~~ ., ~ ~~' ~ ~ City of Richfield ~~ ~' ~~%~,~"~a ~ v ~ ~ ~~ Council Members: ~,.. Subject: Location of Ballfields for West Richfield h~ ~~ Girls Softball Association ~ ~ ~„ In 1969, the City of Richfield park system was established ``~ as a comprehensive network of open space for the community. In ~~' 1970, a citywide process was undertaken with meetings held to allow community input into the direction or approach to execute the system. Development of the park system has been proceeding since that time with major park improvements (Roosevelt, Donaldson, f~ ~~,~f _ 1I~~- Taft, Christian) and minor park improvements (Sheridan, Memorial, Nicollet, New Ford Town). In each instance of park development, the neighborhood is invited to participate in a park planning process. Monroe/Fairwood, the current site of ballfields used by the West Richfield Girls Softball Association, is designated as a: neighborhood park which indicates that regular, organized athletic may is not a typical ~.ngredient of park design or park programs. As early as 1979, the city staff began to look at alternate sites to locate the organized play of this organization. School sites were most frequently discussed, but dismissed due to the organi- zation's desire for outfield fences which would not be allowed on school property on a permanent basis. With the difficulty of u Council Letter Ne. 142 ~, "~~' A~end~ Aril 27, 1'81 ~~~~ ~. v ~~ ~° ~ ~ r v o ~ ~ ~C ~~~ ~ a ~~ v Y% d-~ f Avenue on the wit. Neighbors attending the meetings held at the Community Center, and residents in the park neighborhood area, availed themselves of the opportunity to complete and return to the city a survey listing their priority needs for the park. A copy of the survey results are included for the review of the city council. Initial opposition to the softball field location at Monroe Park was subdued due to the lack of an alternate site. The survey does reflect a high priority for "kids softball". It must be noted, however, that it is difficult to ascertain what type of softball field the respondents wanted. It may Qnly em- phasize that the neighbors wanted a field such as is in Memorial Park, that is a field with a backstop, suitable for neighborhood "pickup" games, and not necessarily for organized play. The sur- vey did not denote any requests for organized play, number of fields or condition of fields. In~.November, 1980, the first neighborhood meeting of the Monroe/Fairwood park complex was held at the direction of the city Council Letter No. 142 -2- April 27,.1981 Shortly before the third neighborhood meeting which was held February 5, 1981, some of the immediate neighbors contacted-the city staff for help in analyzing Donaldson Park to see if it would be a possible alternate site for the softball fields. Having paced out the distances, the neighbors thought two ballfields might be possible in the space available. The city staff and the architects hired for the park planning process reviewed the site with that request in mind. The architects have determined that two ballfields .would fit into the space at the northwest corner of Donaldson Park. Since the third neighborhood meeting (when this option was consider- ed), several meetings and discussions have been held with the soft- , ball organization. A copy of council memorandum No. 76, dated April 9, 1981, which is attached to this council letter, outlined concerns of the softball association which included the following: 1. Safety 2. Crowded facilit y at Donaldson Park 3. Storage space f or softball equipment 4. Concession stan d 5. Warm up area 6. Parking It is the opinion of the city staff that these concerns can be answer- ed. For example, the concern for safety has been addressed by loca- tion of the fields, proposals for increased fence heights in strat- egic locations, and proposals for plantings that would enhance not c~,nnly the aesthetics of the area, but ease the concerns for safety. As I notified the city council in early April, I felt that the loca- ~!- ; r, n r, ~ +- h .~, c. r, ~ ~ L, ~ l l .F , ., l ,a .. „ !, ,-. a .-. .1- ,-. L. „ a ,-. ,-.. a ,-, a .. ,-. 1.1.. _. i i 7..... ....~ .. ,..L. _ The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission considered the location of the softball fields at its regular meeting of April 1981. Sites considered at this meeting were Donaldson Park and continuing use of Monroe Park for the ballfields. Those person notified of previous n Street were originally neighborhood meetings, part of the Monroe/Fai softball association. and it was the recomme 14, the eighborhood meeting. Residents north of 73d invited to the attend the Monroe/Fairwood since the council determined this area to be rwood neighborhood at the request of the A lengthy discussion of the item was held, ~dation of the Park and Recreation Advisory fields be moved from Monroe Park to Donaldson Park. vote on this issue was seven to one. sociation ball- The commission number of covenants which were conditions added to the transfer of property from Allied Stores (Donaldson's) to the City of Richfield, but one in particular indicates that only one-third of Donaldson ' Council Letter No. 142 -3- April 27, 1981 Park may be used for athletic playing fields. In calculating the existing ballfield space and the proposed additional space for two softball fields, total ballfield space would exceed ease the athletic The city attorney nn D~rirl ~1-n .7.~i-or- playing spate. Hopefully, the city attorney will be able to respond to the council on this issue at the council rneeting on Monday evening. There are many factors to be considered in this and other decisions. The West Richfield Girls Softball Association needs a place to call home, and ballfields must be provided. The community as a whole must be considered so that the best and most can be provided to meet the needs of the whole. Richf field has a limited amount of open space left to utilize and the need for athletic fields and passive areas must both be considered. The needs and desires of the individual neighborhoods must also be considered, as does the future direction of the Richfield park system. It is recommended~=that the. city council direct the city staff that a waiver of the covenant in the warranty deed be obtained from Allied Stores. c~ Respectfully submitted, ~ ,`' ~~/ ~~ -v ' ~ ~ ~ .~L,vL~ ~ ~ ~~ .~~ ~ ~5 /`Z N Karl Nollenberger ~"~ N ~, `'v ~ City Manager '~ e~ ~~ ~ KN/ ej a ~ ~ v~ ~~ ~~ c ., . ~`~ ~ 'J cc : City Attorney ~,~'' ~ ~ ~';, ~ ;~ Community Services Director ~~ o' :' ,c' ~~ ~`' '~ ,ti ~ `' - ? ~` /~`~ o ~ F~~~ S ~ ~~ __\\ O J,S v0~" m'~ ~ U Gib ` 9 ~ ~~' ~` ,L ,© :C' r ~ ~ ~ e~ ~ h ~ h ~ Q~ Qc S J J 'C ~ ,~ ~~ ~ N ~~ S ` ~ J~ ~NC~~~ ~~~ P~ ~~f ~ ~~ S ~P ~~' , ~ ~ v ~ ~ F~~ ~~ ~~ n~ NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY ~~,a, tR ~''' ; fi~~aa `' FAIRWOOD/MONROE PARK FACILITY NEEDS -~` i~~ ~°` ~ ,'` umn 3 is a list of facllltles•that are sometimes found in a neighborhood park. Ins ~ _Y ~~"' umn 1, place a check (/) next to each faclllty you feel is needed or you would like 10 ' ~;>'-~ ,::: at Falrwood/Monroe. in column 2,`Identtfy and pr (oritize your l0 ~;+o~l ;,.:; `needs '_~` - follows: 1 =most important, 2 =next most important; ... 10 =least (mportanT (prlorit!_e ~t.~=~: more than 10 (tams). In column 4, indicate how many of each facility should be considered. ~' - '"~ ~°" ''^ '~^ ""--ale on the reverse side of this sheet betore proceeding. .'j 3. Park yq crt ~~ Fact I Ities~•~.1~ ~ ~ ~ f 3 i ~ ~ .~ s t!o ~ ~ ; ~ /O ~3 Picnicking ~ ~ ~ / ~ ,3 `~ j g i 3 ~ `l ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R Hockey rink Z ~ ; t t/ ? I L ~ 2. ; 3 Z I ~, J General skating rink ~~ /3 ; /~ /3 ~ (.i ~ r----•,--3'I ~ ! ( ~ Trails for: I j : i , ~ i pr' ~~ v r . ~ ~-_ ~~ ~$O •~ ! q:. ZZ _ S3ttia 2 ~ a /! ~~ 9 ~U~ -strol I ing ~ { ? 2! J _ .) -bicycling ' .., . 2- '~ ° Z ~ 3 ~ t I t ' / ~ ~ Tenn t s .court / 3 ~ t i I ! - $ r Co ( t~ ~ '~ ~ _ ~ `./_`-'?--a-' J Football field ~ Kl z I 'tom ~-_ ~ -~, . i / q D ~ ^ ! l ds softbal 1 Ad u I t so ft ba I I ~ O '-~-*--~ *- ~ t Z ~ S ~ S ' ~ 3 i ~., t ~ ~l 3 Kids ba se ba I I ~ 3 ~ ~-r--~--~ Z Z'" Z ' Z /"2 Adult b s b ll - . a e a 1 ~ , Z ; i ! z , ~ 7 ! Court Games -basketball j ~ ~ ~ ! I ; i '_( ` } ( ~ t/ , ~ -badminton i " T i ' t~ f 3 2 ~ -tetherball ~ 2 i f / ~ , .~' -four-square } ; ` __. ~-~ 2~ ~3 - i /Co -hopscotch ~ Z ; q~ ~ Creative play areas -climbing q ~ „~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ,~ ~ ~ ` *"- ~ r ~ -swinging /C)~ 1 _ Parking 3 ~ ~ ~ i i i 3 ~ ~ i 1 3 ~ 2. Soccer f I e I d 1-'-- L G =' ; / ~ Z -----' ~ ~• ~/ 3 Wad i n o 1 ~ - - .~ _._ ~- ~- ~_ __ _ _ _ -y--•------ S P raY P~ I ~ 2 I I Park structure 'T ~ - ~ - _-~ (a Park she Iter -~- ? / U i --••--~~L. Park ilghtfng for ~ i + ; ~ ~~ I -tennis courts ~ (j I --~ ~- ~ ~ I -wa I ks -~- -- - __~ 3 , T - -tra 1 I s .~ 2 Z Benches 2 ~ ~ a,~ s / w `/~' ~ Horseshoes , ~ , / ~- ' ? T L -.,,.~ Cn~...~i. c:, 7 - t r_ 3 2 Z Z _.r__ ......_._1 ____ ---- -- __. .-. __- ._ r 4~,~ - - - - 5 _A_Y ~.~s,~. - _ t_. ~. -- - ~ •. - . ~ f_4 ~_y' O rY1___.~_ --- ----- -~-- --t - -~ _~~ ~_. .. ~'QT-- S~IO ~ o ,~. a h. C ' t_ Y R y [ w a ~ _ ~- ~ J -L-__ ~ _-_ ec, mss- n'1 ~1 ~ 7 /~. 2~~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager April 9, 1981 Council Memorandum No. 76 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Monroe-Fairwood Park Development Process A few weeks ago, I sent a letter to_Arnie Odefy, President of the West Richfield Girls Softball Association, concerning the development of Monroe-Fairwood Park. As you are aware, the issue of the location of softball fields at Monroe Park or at Donaldson Park has been of some concern for the last few months. The issue has prevented the neighborhood from coming to any consensus on what types of activities should take place within the Monroe-Fair- wood Park complex. As a result, my letter to Arnie Odefy indicated that I thought that issue should be resolved prior to going back to a fourth neighborhood meeting. On Monday April 13, 1981, we had a meeting with a number of representatives from the West Richfield Girls Softball Association. Issues which the softball association indicated that they wanted to address were as follows: 1. Safety 2. Crowded facility at Donaldson Park 3. Storage for softball equipment 4. Concession stand 5. Warm up area 6. Parking The city staff presented what we felt was a plan which took care of the vast amount of safety issues of concern to the softball association. The safety plan which is in excess of safety consid- erations in most athletic facilities, increased the distance from homeplate of the West Babe Ruth field to the homeplate of the girls softball field from 210 feet to 260 feet, increased the fence height along the Babe Ruth field from 42 inches to 12 feet, installed a regulation baseball backstop at the junior high school field ad- jacent to Donaldson Park, and moved one field further away from the tot lot near the northwest quadrant of Donaldson Park. The discussion of crowded facility and warmup areas were matters which became judgemental in nature of which various individuals could exercise various opinions. The city was able to satisfy the soft- ~~ ~ Council Memorandum No. 76 -2- April 9, 1981 ball association on the storage element, indicating that there would be storage available in the city's park building for the types of storage that they were interested in. On the issue of concessions, we indicated that the concession stand which is currently used by Babe Ruth and the football league, was built predominately with city funds (approximately $18,000 of city funds, compared to $6,000 of Babe Ruth and football league funds) and is essentially under the ownership of the city. In addition, the city pays the operational cost for utilities and major repair ex- penditures while the baseball ,group and football league do minor maintenance items. As a result, we thought that the city council was in a position of requiring the concession stand to be shared between the West Babe Ruth organization and the West Richfield Girls Softball Association. Indeed due to the expanded amount of concession business which would be operated out of a full service concession stand such as this one is, the total amount of sales should increase if the softball association moved to Donaldson Park within increased profits beyond that which is experienced by' the two groups individually: An agreement should be able to be worked out recognizing that fact. On the-final issue of parking, I believe that adequate parking exists on the Donaldson Park facility and the West Middle School• parking lots within easy walk- ing distance of all of the fields. At the end of the meeting it was evident there was no con- census of opinion of the softball association and the city staff as to the feasibility of two softball fields 'at Donaldson Park. As a result, I indicated to the softball association that I felt a decision needed to be made on this issue in the near future. The Parks and Recreation Commission will meet on Tuesday, April 14, 1981 in the council chamber. I have requested the Director Commun- ity Services to schedule this matter on their agenda. I anticipate that the matter will further be heard at the April 27, 1981 city council meeting so that the city council can make a determination on the issue and provide direction to the neighborhood so that they can complete the park planning process. If any council members have any questions concerning this issue, I would be happy to discuss them with you. Reslpectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Community Services Director ~'---° fr . ~. - . -.. .. r °~21~6 X488 31t}0480 LU[ITED WARRANTY DEYD THIS IND~;fITUAE, Idade thin Y1'~ day of December, 1937, i between ALLIED CENTRAL STORTA, INC. , a corporation under the lava of the State of Missouri,- party of the first part, and VILLAak OF "' ' RICHFIELD, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, party of the ^econd part, WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, in consideration of the sum of Chie Dollar (=1.00) and other valuable consideration hereinafter set out, to it in hand paid by the said party o: the second part, •.he receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby, Grant, Bargain, Sell, and Convey unto the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns, Forever, all the tracts or parcels of land lying and being in the County ~+f Hennepin and State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit: The South (S) Twenty (20) Hoda of Government Lot Four (4) of Section '['hirty-three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range 'T'wenty-four (24) and The North half (Ni) of the Northeast quarter (NE}) of the Southwest t,)uarter (SW}) of Section Thirty-three (33), s Township Twenty-eight (28), Hangs Twenty-four (24) ; Sub jest to the public easement for highway purposes over the portion thereof taken by the State of Minnesota for State `. Highway No. 65 as appears rf record; said premises to be i used for hublic park purposes and to be known as Donaldson York; ~ ``"'' Also an easement for public street purposes over and across the North Thirty (30) feet of the following described parcel, to-wit: Th+r Soutli HaIE (Sj) of the Northeast -quarter (NE}) of the Southwest (quarter (SW}) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-tour (24), said Hennepin County, lying West (W) o[ the Westerly boundary line u[ the right of way o[ State Highway No, 65. ® :v'O REVENUE STAMPS ARE NECESSARY UN THIS DEED i~ t I i f . ~, M , X2156 ~ 4~ ~ ~ the wish d grantor, ~~ Caatrai Stores, ~• , that u well u as ssea >bi, >>'elni't7 will -acoa-• an area os sow b~t7' • ; !or ru~•eational aoti~iti~a. 1Tor this r~u0n. ttu following ddinition • ~ d the phrase 'public parts pas}waa„ shall b• applicable: Said phrus i shall iaclnds (sS la:tdscaping and baautiticatioa with plantings, walks '• and benches, sad flower beds: (b) recreational uses, including picnic facilities, a swimming pool with bath house, a skating risk with ' warming house. badminton and tenaia courts. • limited number of i baseball diamonds, facilities for shuffle board and horseshoe games, ~ ) playground equipment for small children, and other ^imllar family ? recreational activities. Said phrase shall not include (a) public ; i ' ' buildings not related to park or recreational activities, (b) the use ', . '. of the entire premises for playing fields and playgrounds, (c) major '~ facilities for athletic events such as a permanent field house, a f e, permanent grandstand or stadium, nor (d) the use of more than one- i area of the premises herein conveyed for athletic third (1/3) of the total ~~ ~. playing fields. .r.`---~ .. . The foregoing conveyance is made upon the following conditions: (1) that the extension of Weet 75th Street running between the service road on the westerly side of State Highway No. 65 and Penn Avenue South be opened and hard surfaced not later than three (3) years from the date hereof; and (2) that grantee shall within seven and one-half (71) years from the date hereof substantially develop and thereafter continuously maintain said premises as a public park as hereinabove defined. If grantee shall tail to meet said first condition or shall at any time use said pi•~miaes in substantial violation of said second condition, grantor or its successors or assigns shall have the right to declare this conveyance -2- ~` I 1 i~ i .I } °~i2156 r+e~ X90 void sad o[ no effect and to re-enter said premLas, The foregoing easements, conditions, restrictions and reservations contained in this deed, together with the zoning and continued zoning for commercial purposes of lands immediately south of the premises conveyed, owned by the grantor herein, constitute the entire consideration for thin deed. The contemplated general plan of improvements of the premises conveyed herein for public park purposes by the grantee herein constitutes a general plan of improve- ment deemed essential and material by the parties hereto. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with all the hereditamenta and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said party of the second part, its successors and assigns. Forever. And the said party of the first part, for itself, and its successors, dues covena,it with the said party of the seconc+ part, its successors and assigns, that it has not made, done, executed or suffered any ac•t or thing wh~ts~ever whereby the above described premises or any part thereof, now or at any time hereafter, shall nr may be imperiled, charged ur incumbered in any manner whatsoever, except unpaid installments of special assessments, if any. And the title to the above granted premises against all pet•sona lawfully claiming the same from, through ur under it, except items, it any, hereinbefore mentioned, the said party of the first part will Warrant and Defend, Iti 'fE.STIMUNY WIiEKEUF, The said party of the first part has caused these presents to be executed in its corporate name by its '~~ President and its 4-~,..t ~ ~ ,~- and its i t i~ 1 -3- LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ 1100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CLAYTON L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER J. DEN NIS O'B RIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE CHARLES L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER, III JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. O'M EARA MARY J. BJORKLUND THOMAS D. CREIG HTON JOHN G. KRESSEL DAYLE NOLAN CINDY L. LAVO RATO MINNEAPOLIS, MINNES07A 55402 TELEPHONE <612) 333-0543 RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER April 23, 1981 BROOKLYN CENTER OFFICE 103 BROOKLYN LAW CENTER 5637 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55429 (612) 536-8037 Mr. Frank R. D'Elia Vice President and General Counsel Allied Stores Corporation 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Re: Donaldson Park, Richfield, Minnesota Dear Mr. D'Elia: This letter will provide information about the history and pre- sent status of Donaldson Park in the City of Richfield, Minnesota - the matter which we discussed on the telephone today. Prior to 1957 Allied Central Stores, Inc. was the owner of a number of parcels of land in what was then the "Village" of Richfield. The properties were acquired, I believe, with a view toward building a Donaldson store and perhaps other commercial facilities on the site. When Donaldsons joined with Daytons in the development of Southdale, the Richfield site was disposed of by Allied Central Stores, Inc. One tract of Allied Central land was conveyed to the village of Richfield by a limited warranty deed dated December 23, 1957. It was recorded as document 3100480 in the Hennepin County Recorder's deed book 2156, page 488. The conveyance includes certain covenants regarding the use of the property. In particular, the instrument provides that the property is to be used for "public park purposes." That phrase is then defined. The city is now concerned with the interpreta- tion of that definition. It hopes for the cooperation of Allied Central Stores, Inc. in resolving that concern. Questions about the deed covenants arise because the city is giving consideration to the establishment of two girls' softball diamonds on the property, in addition to the extensive improve- ments already on the property. The general location of the proposed softball diamonds is shown on the enclosed plot plan of the park. The plot plan also shows other been located on the tract. (It does not tennis courts in the southeast corner of been constructed since the original plot These tennis courts are located alongside shown on the plan.) facilities show two the tract which have additional which have plan was prepared. of the two that are Most of the improvements presently located on the tract are not, in our view, "athletic playing fields." They consist of land- scaped areas, walkways and non-intensive recreational facilities such as the tennis courts, hockey areas which are used only during midwinter months, etc. Some of the facilities, however, would seem to fall within the_ definition of athletic playing fields. For example, there are two baseball diamonds and a football/soccer field. These three areas occupy a total of 6.74 acres out of a total park area of 22.76 acres. The conveyance provides, in effect, that no more than one-third of the total area of the premises conveyed shall be used for athletic playing fields. One-third of 22.76 is 7.59. The location of the proposed softball fields along the westerly side of the park area places the fields adjacent to the athletic field of West Middle School, one of the facilities of Independent School District No. 280. It seems to me that this assurance could take several forms such as the following: 1. d aeea covenanLS. The two proposed girls' softball fields would occupy .73 acres per field, or a total of 1.46 acres. Adding 1.46 acres and 6.74 acres would give a total of 8.2 acres, which would be in excess of one-third of the area of the tract. provided in the deed. On Monday night, April 27,.1981, the Richfield City Council will consider authorization of construction of the softball fields at Donaldson Park. These fields will provide facilities for girls' softball activities which are now conducted in a small neighbor- hood park almost completely surrounded by single-family resi- dences and located approximately five and one-half blocks away. This, in turn, would permit the city to proceed with planned improvements in the neighborhood park providing less intensive uses in that park. The city will be most appreciative of any assistance which you can give us in providing the necessary consents or approvals for the location of the proposed new facilities at Donaldson Park. If it is at all possible we would appreciate a reaction or response from you by the evening of the 27th. Your cooperation on this matter is very sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, Clayton L. LeFevere (Richfield City Attorney) CLL:mjn cc: Mr. Karl Nollenberger /~ Richfield City Manager 4. It could provide the city with a letter of interpretation ly (~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of C ity Manager Council Letter No. 141 .:.Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that purchase of materials, construction or supplies in excess of $1,000 must be approved by the city council. There are 8 such items on the April 27, 1981 city council agenda. Scorecards The staff solicited quotations for 30,000 scorecards for the Rich Acres Golf Course including materials, scoring, and a four- color process on two sides. The city printing press is very busy this time of year with other projects such as the summer brochure and annual financial statement, and the four color process would be xtreemely time consuming on the city equipment. Process Dis- plays submitted a quotation of $2,480. Roberts Litho submitted a quotation of $1,798. Colormaster Press, Inc. quoted $1,660. It should be noted that the scorecard will include advertisements. Four ads have been sold at $400 each, so there is an offsetting revenue of $1,600. It is recommended that the city council auth- orize the purchase of 30,000 scorecards, complete, from Colormaster Press, Inc., in the amount of $1,660. Green Soil Mix Greens soil, an annual purchase, is a mixture of sandy loam, sand and peat. Prices are based on having the vendor obtain the materials included in the mixture, mixing the materials, and per- forming a screening process. It is important to the quality of the golf course that the same mixture and process be used. Leitner Inc. is the only vendor within the State of Minnesota to provide the mixture and process. A vendor from other than the State of Minnesota would mean increased costs due to trucking or shipping. The estimated quantity needed for 1981 is 145 yards. Our quota- tion provides this amount at $15.00 per yard. The 1980 price from Leitner was $16.00 per yard. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of 145 yards of greens soil mix at $15.00 per yard from Leitner, Inc., for a total purchase price of $2,175.00. Council Letter No. 141 -2- April 27, 1981 Bleachers Each year the city provides various improvements and/or furniture to special interest groups. In the past this has been part of the Capital Improvement Program. However, beginning in 1981, funding for such items is available in the operating bud- get of park maintenance. One of the items earmarked for 1981 is the provision of four sets of bleachers for East Little League ballfields at the east Richfield youth athletic complex, in-the vicinity of 66th Street and 24th Avenue. The city staff has ob- tained quotations for four sets of five row, 15 foot all aluminum standard bleachers, including delivery. Haldeman-Homme, Inc. quoted $3,172. Hamele Recreation Company quoted $2,596. Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. quoted $2,587.20. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of four sets of bleachers at a unit price of $646.80 from Earl F. Ander- sen and Associates, Inc. for a total purchase price of $5,587.20. Bathhouse Locker Room Partitions The 1981 capital budget includes funding for additional im- provements at the outdoor municipal swimming pool. These improve- ments are primarily associated- with the bathhouse. One segment of the project includes new partitions for the boys locker room and new partitions for the girls locker room, Four quotations were received. Richfield Plumbing quoted $4,270 for the materials specified. McArthur Company quoted $3,996.20. The Harris-Billings Company quoted $3,557 and the Jackson Company quoted $3,400. Al- though the Jackson Company is the lowest quotation by $157, the materials are not locally available and it would be a minimum of 4-6 weeks delivery. This could cause some problems in meeting the pool opening date of June 6, 1981, especially if there should be some problem with the quantity or condition of the materials delivered. The Harris-Billing Company is a local supplier and could provide immediate delivery and immediate correction of any problems that may be realized with the delivered materials. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of specified panels or partitions and related materials and supplies such as posts, bracing, mounting pilasters, benches and mounting angles for a total purchase price, including delivery, of $3,557.00. Bathhouse Painting Twelve vendors were contacted with regard to interior and exterior painting at the swimming pool, primarily at the bath- house. Basically, the areas under consideration include the ceiling of the bathhouse, any interior wood, exterior trim and nine light poles. The work includes all labor and materials for preparation, painting and clean-up. Three vendors submitted quotations. Wallace Hitzeman quoted $5,990. Bar-Mar Decorators quoted $5,525. Olympik Construction Company. quoted $3,403. This work is to be completed prior ~to the opening of the outdoor municipal swimming pool on June 6, 1981. Funding for the work Council Letter No. 141 -3- is included in City Project 755. April 27, 1981 It is recommended that the city council authorize Olympik Construction Company to paint interior, exterior of the: bathhouse, and light poles as specified, furnishing all labor and materials in the amount of $3,403. Swimminq Pool Paint Approximately every other year the outdoor municipal pool is completely repainted. The same brand and type of paint has been used over the years because of special paint qualities needed at the pool. The paint must be highly chemically resistant, able to withstand climatic changes, minimize algae growth, as well as being decorative. The paint used over the years has been Ramuc Enamel supplied by R.E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. Staff has received unit prices for the paint to be used in 1981. The prices are $23.25 per gallon for white and black paint, $25.65 per gallon for dark blue paint and $6.40 per gallon for thinner. The usage in 1981 is estimated to be 60 gallons of white, four gallons of balck, four gallons dark blue and 20 gallons of thinner. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of swimming pool paints as .estimated above from R. E. Mooney and Associates, Inc. for a total estimated cost of $1,720.20. Christian Park Tot Lot The neighbors of Christian Park have requested a tot lot for small children of pre-school age. There are funds remaining in the Christian Park project, CP 719. The staff has designed a play feature comprised of decking or platform areas, a tire swing,. a slide, chain ladder and steering wheel as the basic design. Other features which would be added after the basic feature is installed, include sand diggers, some boulders or wood stepping items, and an edger around the sand base to the play area. The tiny tot lot would be physically separated from the existing play equipment. Three quotations have been received for the basic play feature of platforms and other items as described above with the prices including deliv- ery. The assembly and installation is anticipated to be done with city labor. The quotation from Columbia Cascade Timber Company is $7,085. Hilan quoted $4,128, and Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. quoted $3,755 for the materials which are from Landscape Structures. It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of tot lot equipment, as described in the specifications, from Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $3,755, the delivered price. Sheridan Park Tot Lot Sheridan Park has a small tot lot available, but in the course of neighborhood park planning meetings, the neighbrohood indicated Council Letter No. 141 -4- April 27, 1981 a desire to expand the area and to provide play equipment for smaller, pre-school children. It is the opinion of the city staff that the play equipment proposed at Christian Park ~^ would meet these requests. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize an identical purchase of tot lot equipment, as described in the specifications, from Earl F. Andersen and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $3,755, the delivered price. It is again antici- pated that assembly and installation would be done by the city staff. Funding for this project is available in the Sheridan Park project, CP 751. Respectfully submitted, ~0 arl Nollenberger City Manager KN/eja cc: Finance Coordinator Community Services Director ~~ . CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~ Off ice of City Manager ~ ~' Council Letter No. 140.`. Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: City Manager's Salary ~\ 'o ~ ,~,~ ~ ti. ~~ ~ „~ \'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.n ~ ~ ~ \~ ~~ N ~~ ~`~ ~~ v r l Mayor Priebe has requested that I place a matter on the April 27, 1981 city council agenda concerning the city manager's salary. At the March 23, 1981 city council meeting, the city council adopted a resolution increasing the city manager's salary effective April 1, 1981. Due to the fact that there had been a motion to table the matter, which failed by a 2-2 vote, and that the municipal code of the City of Richffield requires a unanimous vote on matters which were not listed on the agenda, I have scheduled this item for council consider- ation again at the regular April 27, 1981 city council meet- ing. In addition to salary consideration, I would ask the city council to consider two additional items. The existing agree- ment between the City. of Richfield and myself indicates that the city will pay all costs of health insurance for my family coverage. This is a tax advantage to me rather than a deduction from my check, which would be paid with after tax dollars. I would appreciate the game consideration for the new dental health program which currently amounts to $14.90 per month, or $178.80 annually. Secondly, the city pays the full cost of my disability insurance for the same reason. Each year, the dis- ability insurance cost increases when salary increases. The increase in salary mentioned earlier would increase the cost of disability insurance by $5.72 per month, or $68.60 annually. I would request that the city council agree to similar language to allow for the annual cost increase for this benefit as it has for health insurance and-life insurance. I would. be happy to have the salary amount adjusted accor.~ingly. If you have any questions concerning this matter, I would be happy to discuss them with you. KN/eja Respectfully submitted, ~~' Karl Nollenberger City Manager O ~ ~ ,' d o ~~`~ '~ dad ~ ~ ~ 'v ~ f ~ ;' \` ~~~ ~~ ~yC CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 139 Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Confirmation of Board of Review Citizen Member Appointments Section 7.04 of the city charter states that the Board of Review shall consist of members of the city council and two residents of the city appointed for one year terms by the city manager and approved by the city council.. The charter further states that the two resident members must be experienced in real estate matters. The Board of Review is comprised of the two citizen mem- bers, plus the Mayor and city council. This board is an appeal body to which Richfield property owners may apply for an adjust- ment in the valuation assigned to their property by the city man- ager. The council has previously scheduled the 1981 Board of Re- :.-view meeting for ~'uesday, May 26, 1981 at 8:00 p.m. In accordance with the city charter requirements, I have selected Mr. Harley Witte, 2911 West 70 1/2 Street, and Mr. Harry Tickner, 6429 Russell Avenue, to serve as the resident members of the 1981 Board of Review. Both of these gentlemen have served on the Board of Review for the past four years. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, appointing these residents to the Board of Review, and establishing compensation for their participation on this board. Respectfully submitted, fti ~, Karl Nollenberger City D4anager KN/eja cc: City Assessor Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO BOARD OF REVIEW BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield has hereby approved the city manager's appointment of Harley Witte and Harry Tickner as 1981 resident members to the Board of Review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the compensation for the two resident members of the Board of Review be set at a minimum of $30.00 per session of the Board, or $12.00 per hour per session of the Board, whichever is greater. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 138 Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf field Council Members: Subject: City Financial Information There is an item scheduled on the April 27, 1981 city council agenda providing for council review and discussion of the financial data covering the city's financial statements for each of the city's operating funds. The administrative services director and city manager will be prepared at the April 27, 1981 city council meeting to review this data and to answer council members questions. This presentation will also provide an opportunity for council members to review the present status of information we have regarding the impact of Governor Quie's proposed 1981-1983 state budget on the City of Richfield. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ej a cc: Program Directors Finance Coordinator GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL Year Ended December 31, 1980 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1979 198.0 Taxes: Current ad valorem Current ad valorem-fiscal disparities Delinquent ad valorem :Penalties, interest and forfeited tax sales Total Less debt service funds property taxes Total Taxes Licenses and Permits: Business licenses Nonbusiness licenses and permits Total Licenses and Permits Variance- Final Favorable 1979 Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual $1,946,461 $1,966,264 $19,803 $2,232,779 124,058 122,658 (1,400) 99,011 35,000 18,016 (16,984) 37,227 7,000 7,823 823 11,795 2,112,519 2,114,761 2,242 2,380,812 250,000 250,000 1,862,519 1,864,761 44,550 61,717 60,000 100,649 104,550 162,366 Intergovernmental Revenue: Federal: Civil defense reimbursement 15,200 12,871 State: Local government aid 2,164,067 2,164,067 Attached machinery aid 2,168 2,168 Homestead credit 831,949 831,949 Law enforcement assistance: Law officer training 4,000 1,694 Investigation State-aid street maintenance 79,000 79,000 Diseased tree control 68,000 80,891 Comprehensive planning Warning system reimbursement 12,000 12,011 Ski trails 473 473 Bicycle safety program 5,000 4,944 Reciprocal fire program 875 Fire marshal program 426 Traffic sign inventory 3,567 Energy grant 8,000 8,000 County: Community services 81,715 82,915 Comprehensive Employment Training Act 2,497 Mobile homes 1,000 352 Mortgage registry Community Development 35,000 29,234 Total Intergovernmental Revenue $3,307,572 3 317 934 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 335,200 2,242 2,045,612 17,167 48,065 40,649 86,349 57,816 134,414 (2,329) 19,361 (2,306) 12,891 11 (56) 875 426 3,567 1,200 2,497 (648) ~5i766) 10 362 1,803,389 2,279 550,764 848 1,337 79,105 75,567 5,262 4,888 1,710 4,871 1,244 74,867 61,811 1,265 163 28.874 $2,717,605 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL (CONTINUED) Year Ended December 31, 1980 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1979 1980 Varience- Final Favorable 1979 Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual Charges for Services: General government $ 11,600 $ 37,558 $ 25,958 $ 20,531 Deputy Registrar 123,000 123,391 391 117,833 Public Safety 16,800 18,427 1,627 16,571 :Public works 2,950 2,860 (90) 4,713 Health 18,200 20,807 2,607 16,823 Park and Recreation ,, 1 39,407 45,672 6,265 29,127 Swimming pool 50,727 53,411 2,684 49,412 Ice arena 149,737 167,089 17,352 136,258 Nature Center 4,325 ~ 3,842 (483) 3,485 Community Center 7,095 10,159 3,064 3,358 Total Charges for Services 423,841 483,216 59,375 398,111 Finds and Forfeits: Municipal court fines 160,000 170,931 10,931 124,009 Forfeited bail 1,000 2,550 1,550 1,125 Highway patrol fines 1,000 1,177 177 1,851 License penalties 1,200 2,068 868 1,915 Total Fines and Forfeits 163,200 176,726 13,526 128,900 Miscellaneous Revenues: Interest 40,000 80,845 40,845 50,947 Rents 9,100 7,300 (1,800) 11,277 Special assessments 42 42 122 Sale of property 3,000 2,894 (106) 3,605 Sale of New Fordtown lots 7,050 12,650 5,600 10,100 Insurance claims 122 122 802 Contributions 1,200 2,440 1,240 6,373 Other 339 339 150 Total Miscellaneous Revenues 60,350 106,632 46,282 83,376 Expenditure Reimbursements: ~'i Construction labor HRA and L/H/N project Other reimbursements Total Expenditure Reimbursements Total Revenues - - - 89,227 194,243 162,027 (32,216) 116,342 55,000 62,813 7,813 6,530 249,243 224,840 X24,403) 212,099 ~6,171~275 S6Y336,475 $165,200 ,5,720,117 See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES - B UDGET AND AC TUAL Year Ended December 31, 19.80 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended Dec ember 31, 1979 1980 Variance- Final Favorable 1979 Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual LEGISLATIVE/EXECUTIVE: Mayor-Council; Personal services $ 27,099 $ 27,157 $ (58) $ 27,582 Other services and charges 27,067 26,447 620 26,555 Supplies 5,223 5,784 561) 1,080 Total 59,389 59,388 1 55,217 Other Agencies: ~~ ' State employment fund - - - 7,599 Newsletter ~ 30,073 Human Rights Commission 615 468 147 506 Human Service Council 2,295 2,510 (215) 2,240 Cable TV Commission 12,100 10,921 1,179 4,515 Storefront 26,965 26,965 22,000 July 4th Program 4,228 1,945 2,283 Charter Commission 194 167 27 Total 46,397 42,976 3,421 66,933 City Manager: Personal services 73,795 73,264 531 47,537 Other services and charges 12,599 12,552 47 3,427 Supplies 3,573 2,692 881 1,211 Capital outlay 199 Total 89,967 882508 1,459 52,374 Legal: Personal services 23,357 23,357 - 21,403 Other services and charges 56,530 56,523 7 42,387 Supplies 380 _ 380 374 Total 80,267 80,260 _ 7 64,164 Total Legislative/ Executive 276,020 271,132 4,888 238,688 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: Administration: Personal services 53,193 51,468 1,725 37,904 Other services and charges 1,731 5,652 (3,921) 1,575 Supplies 1,175 1,516 (341) 2,173 Total 56 099 _ ~ 58,636 2 537) 41 652 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL (CONTINUED) Year Ended December 31,-1980 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: (Continued) Personnel; Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Capital outlay Total ,. , Youth Employment - Counseling: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Total Finance: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Capital outlay Total City Clerk: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Capital outlay Total Assessing: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Capital outlay Total Total Administrative Services PUBLIC SAFETY: Administrative Services: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Capital outlay Total CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _ 1980 Variance- Final Favorable 1979 Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual $ 28,749 $ 29,084 $ (335) $ 35,996 17,884 13,656 4,228 20,206 2,190 1,632 558 958 80 (80) 481823 44,452 4,371 57,160 14,825 '14,316 509 13,191 2,981 2,940 41 3,112 525 448 77 385 18,331 17,704 627 16,688 75,998 73,578 2,420 110,112 22,950 21,234 1,716 20,302 8,200 7,278 922 3,884 975 790 185 108,123 102,880 5,243 134,298 95,436 91,361 4,075 74,370 13,897 13,181 716 6,093 10,485 6,198 4,287 2,874 335 335 1,616 120,153 111,075 9,078 84,953- 125,613 120,324 5,289 125,024 10,319 9,348 971 13,879 5,229 5,074 155 1,256 _ 800 800 141,961 134,746 7,215 140,159 493,490 469,.493 23,997 474,910 239,380 239,043 337 212,494 52,932 50,702 2,230 36,875 15,110 13,834 1,276 12,048 282 532 250) 1,770 307 704 304 111 3 593 263 187 I ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND STATEr1ENT OF EXPENDITURES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL (CONTINUED) Year Ended December 31, 1980 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1979 1980 PUBLIC SAFETY: (Continued) Police Protection: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Capital outlay Total .. , Final Budget Actual $1,175,297 $1,141,701 245,792 270,143 30,635 28,301 6,060 5,055 1,457,784 1,445,200 Variance- Favorable ~_ (Unfavorable) Actual $33,596 $1,077,536 (24,351) 237,781 2,334 21,485 1,005 4,151 12,584 1,340,953 Fire Protection: Personal services 726,483 733,152 (6,669) 622,495 Other services and charges 87,310 88,985 (1,675) 81,088 Supplies 12,420 12,578 (158) 16,255 Capital outlay 5,500 3,562 1,938 17,891 Total _ 831,713 838,277 (6,564) 737,729 Emergency Services: Personal services 7,970 7,878 92 7,275 Other services and charges 10,217 11,193 (976) 9,344 Supplies 3,100 3,151 (51) 2,296 Capital outlay 28,097 20,446 7,651 19,802 Total 49,384 42,668 6,716 38,717 Inspection: Personal services 144,554 143,711 843 173,069 Other services and charges 125,318 134,848 (9,530) 98,227 Supplies 2,600 1,357 1,243 865 Capital outlay 1,238 1,238 2,106 Total 273,710 281,154 (7,444) 274,267 Total Public Safety 2,920,295 2,911,410 8,885 2;654,853 COriMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Administration: Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Capital outlay Total 57,277 57,198 10,444 13,011 1,970 1,906 150 167 69,841 72,282 79 (2,567) 64 (17) 2 441) Planning and Zoning: Personal services 62,290 63,671 (1,381) 154,298 Other services and charges 5,130 3,349 1,781 8,353 Supplies 6,800 3,927 2,873 2,909 Capital outlay 836 701 135 1,858 Total $ 75,056 $ 71,648 3 408 $ 167,418 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL-FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL (CONTINUED) Year Ended December 31, 1980 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1979 1980 Variance- Final Favorable 1979 Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual COMMUNITY DEVELOPI~fENT: (Continued) Engineering: Personal services $ 69,761 $ 56,350 $13,411 $111,693 Other services and charges 8,892 4,859 4,033 32,589 Supplies 1,610 1,609 1 1,309 Capital outlay 1,700 835 __ 865 2,515 Total '~ 1 81,963 63,653 18,310 148,106 Housing Authority: Personal services 94,133 95,110 (977) Other services and charges 1,093 1,163 70) Total 95,226 96,273 1 047) Total Community Development 322,086 303,856 18 X230 315,524 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Administration: Personal services 96,429 95,338 1,091 61,210 Other services and charges 13,075 16,948 (3,873) 10,734 Supplies 3,240 2,008 1,232 476 Capital outlay 500 500 Total 113,244 114,294 (1,050) 72,420 Ice Arena: Personal services 88,817 85,609 3,208 90,863 Other services and charges 92,502 88,368 4,134 91,552. Supplies 13,120 13,877 (757) 12,341 Capital outlay 274 274 229 Total 194,713 188,128 6,585 194,985 Swiauning pool: Personal services 55,006 47,419 7,587 35,633 Other services and charges 34,469 24,940 9,529 30,754 Supplies 8,053 _ 8,993 940) 8,163 Total 97,528 81,352 16,176 74,550 Community Center: Personal services 110,438 105,026 5,412 92,724 Other services and charges 29,573 23,508 6,065 17,859 Supplies 6,416 8,656 (2,240) 3,329 Capital outlay 70 Total ~ 146 427 137 190 9 237 113 982 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL (CONTINUED) Year Ended December 31, 1980 With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1979 1980 Variance- Final Favorable 1979_ Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual COMMUNITY SERVICES: (Continued) Recreation: Personal services $130,859 $117,269 $13,590 $108,949 Other services and charges 43,660 45,340 (1,680) 20,398 Supplies 10,887 10,184 703 8,757 Capital outlay 1,417 Total ,. ~ 185,406 172,793 12,613 139,521 Nature Center: Personal services 123,108 ~ 117,973 5,135 125,926 Other services and charges 25,159 19,549 5,610 17,692 Supplies 7,867 8,176 (309) 8,053 Capital outlay _ 5,253 4,241 1,012 4,205 Total 161,387 149,939 11,448 155,876 Forestry: Personal services 60,115 48,003 12,112 Other services and charges 48,200 43,659 4,541 Supplies 1,775 1,612 163 Total 110,090 93,274 16,816 L/H/N Maintenance Personal services 13,595 4,772 8,823 Other services and charges 9,800 8,484 1,316 Supplies 7,000 2,359 4,641 Total 30,395 15,615 14,780 Government Buildings: Personal services 42,339 42,947 (608) 32,910 Other services and charges 107,191 96,299 10,892 85,869 Supplies 8,623 8,765 (142) 6,751 Capital outlay 1,092 1,859 (767) 152467 Total 159,245 149,870 9,375 _140,997 Parks Maintenance: Personal services 214,011 216,175 (2,164) 229,221 Other services and charges 84,314 89,993 (5,679) 81,778 Supplies 24,500 24,133 367 19,401 Capital outlay 10,479 10,886 (407) 2,439 Total $3332304 X5341,187 7 883) _332,839 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES - BUDGET AND ACTUAL (CONTINUED) Year Ended December 31, 19$0- With Comparative Actual Amounts for Year Ended December 31, 1979 1980 Variance- Final Favorable 1979 Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Actual COMMUNITY SERVICES: (Continued) Streets: Personal services $ 206,662 Other services and charges 452,455 Supplies 42,750 Capital outlay 15,778 ~- . Total 717,645 Total Community Services X2,249,384 Total Expenditures ,6,261,275 See accompanying notes to financial statements' $ 212,613 $ (5,951) $ 286,213 419,513 32,942 411,581 36,250 6,500 32,599 11,473 4,305 10,172 679,849 37,796 740,565 52~123~491 5125,893 51,965,735 56,079,382 $181,893 55,649,710 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES Year Ended December 31,..1980 and 1979 Total 1980 1979 Sales 5 265 999 $5,001,113 Cost of Sales: Inventory, January 1 709,178 610,225 Purchases 4,324,742 4,095,586 Freight 38,602 29,471 Total Merchandise Available for Sale 5,072,522 4,735,282 Less: Inventory, December 31 836,012 709,178 Cost of Sales `' ' 4,236,510 4,026,104 Gross Profit on Sales 1,029,489 975,009 Percentage of Gross Profit to Sales 19.5% 19.5% Less: Operating Revenue Deductions before Depreciation: Operating Expense 638,398 559,678 Operating Income Before Depreciation 391,091 415,331 Less; Depreciation (straight line method) 28,638 28,323 Operating Income 362,453 387,008 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Interest earnings 25,407 26,194 Cigarette commissions 2,524 2,417 Telephone commissions 430 315 Bad checks reimbursed 39 Judgment - Antitrust suit settlement 6,203 Insurance claims 1,207 664 Other income 659 468 Bad checks (3,509) (2,167) Cash short (2,363) (1,089) Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 24,355 _ 33,044 Income Before Operating Transfer 386,808 420,052 See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT ;; ~: . ,~;..• ..~ y T,. Lyndale Store 1980 1979 $1,942,142 $1,973,547 Cedar Store 1980 1979 $1,732,373 $1,616,416 Penn Store 1980 1979 $1,591,484 $1,411,150 271,321 234,271 238,987 213,809 198,870 162,145 1,580,824 1,608,576 1,447,802 1,333,658 1,296,116 1,153,352 14,892 11,964 _ 12,022 8,873 11,688 8,634 1,867,037 1,854,811 1,698,811 1,556,340 1,506,674 1,324,131 307,947 271,321 291,654 238,987 236,411 198,870 1,559,090 ,. , 1,583,490 1,.407,157 1,317,353 1,270,263 1,125,261 383,052 390,057 325,216 299,063 321,221 285,889 19.7% 19.8% 18.8% 18.5% 20 2° 20.2% 233,953 208,599 219,007 189,232 185,438 161,847 149,099 181,458 106,209 109,831 135,783 124,042 7,709 7,771 10,020 9,643 10,909 10,909 141,390 173,687 96,189 100,188 124,874 113,133 9,370 10,336 8,359 8,466 7,678 7,392 891 869 1,130 1,009 503 539 226 174 199 141 5 12 27 3,881 2,322 1,207 664 244 213 240 249 175 6 (2,294) (1,085) (1,099) (913) (116) (169) (439) (108) (928) _ (827) (996) (154) 7,998 14,292 9,108 11,138 _ 7,249 7,614 $ 149.388 S 187,979 ~ 105,297 ~ 111,326 S 132,123 S 120,747 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT l t Hf ~~.-~{fi 1ri~I~.yi~w~L _ _ - ~...~,~s.- ...a...... e......r..-..raa__. _ -. .rr..~. __,~~. __ _- _- WATER UTILITY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES Year Ended December 31, 1980 and 1979 Operating Revenues: Charges for services: Water sales metered Water sales nonmetered Water availability Connection charges Customer services Sales of material and supplies Equipment rentals Certification fee Customer service charge Total Charges for Services Miscellaneous Revenues: Construction labor reimbursement Other Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses; Personal services Other services and charges Supplies Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Interest - Investment Trust Fund Recovery - Damage to city property Interest expense Fiscal agents' fees 5C 1980 1979 $1,019,844 $683,444 4,487 4,373 3,133 3,628 365 3,363 731 1,319 346 798 184 421 1,610 32,518 1063,218 697,346 `' 313 3,485 ~ , ~(J r 20 20 ~ ~ ~~" x ~' 1,063,551 700,851 a` Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Net Income (Loss) See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 253,590 217,037 247,016 193,445 155,842 112,448 195,848 192,394 852,296 715,324 211,255 14 473) - 5,015 750 589 (45,550) (54,750) (669) 717) (45,469) 49 863) S 165,786 641336) ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT SEWER UTILITY FUND.- , C0~IPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES Year Ended December 31, 1980 and 1979 1980 1979 Operating Revenues: Charges for services: Sewer user charges $660,426 $595,301 Reserve capacity charges 44,625 24,828 Sewer connection charges 179 236 Sewer certification charges 1,610 3,950 Customer service charge 38,658 Total Charges for Services 745,498 624,315 Intergovernmental revenue: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission - • • interceptor maintenance - 1,223 Miscellaneous revenues: Construction labor and equipment rental 221 367 Total Operating Revenues 745,719 625,905 Operating Expenses: Cost of services rendered; Metro Sewer charges 561,732 446,401 Personal services 106,557 116,852 Other service and charges 69,301 59,128 Supplies 9,795 4,109 Depreciation 6,636 6,470 Total Operating Expenses 754,021 632,960 Operating Income (Loss) _ (8,302) 7 055J Nonoperating Revenues: Gain on sale of asset: Amortization on deferred revaluation gain 79,086 79,086 Interest: Deferred current value audit 74,659 76,904 Reserve capacity 2,044 2,371 Investments 16,407 1,993 Assessments 112 224 Total Nonoperating Revenues 172,308 160,578 Net Income 5164,006 153 523 See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS Year Ended December 31, 1980 and 1979 Sales and Cost of Sales Sales Cost of sales Gross Profit 1980 1979 $11,088 6,287 4,801 Operating Revenues: User charge Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: Personal services Contractural services Utilities Supplies Materials Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Zncome (Loss) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Interest Rent Interest and fiscal charges Amortization of bond discount Total Net Income (Loss) Retained earnings - January 1 Retained earnings - December 31 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 58,813 ~ 63,614 ~ ' 42,733 2,937 5,926 648 17,339 21,230 90,813 ~ ~,~ 2( 7,199) 1 106,174 $60,340 35 (83,040) (2,808) .._5937) (625) 22,232 56,907 (4,967) 56,907 56,907 _ 51 940 56 907 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT CENTRAL GARAGE AND EQUIPMENT FUND COriPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS Year Ended December 31, 1980 and 1979 1980 Operating Revenues: Charges for services - Billings to departments and city projects Operating Expenses: Cost of material used: Inventory - January 1 Purchases Total Inventory - December 31 Total Cost of Materials Used Other Operating Costs: Salaries and wages Retirement contribution Health and life insurance contributions Contractual maintenance and repairs Insurance and bonds General expenses Depreciation Total Other Operating Costs Total Operating Expenses Operating Income Nonoperating Revenues: Interest - Investment Trust Fund Gain on sale of assets Sale of materials Recovery - damage to city property Capital grant - State of Minnesota Total Nonoperating Revenues Income before Operating Transfer Operating Transfers In Transfer from capital project - Fire Truck Reserve Portion of net income not transferred to retained earnings - capital grant Net Income Retained Earnings - January 1 Retained Earn~n s - Decemb r 31 See accompanying notes to efinancial statements ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 1979 375 455 320 667 27,022 11,492 122,862 117,236 149,884 128,728 20,111 27,022 129, 773 1011706 73,766 65,016 7,491. 6,686 3,682 2,972 13,274 6,739 37,840 36,822 3,853 4,856 105.845 85,198 245,751 208,289 375,524 309,995 (69) 10,672 35,905 35,619` 168 6,356 98 222 4,537 438 5,500 46,208 42,635 46,139 53,307 95,687 ~~ 136,326 53,307 320,734 267,427 $457,060 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT DATA PROCESSING FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS Year Ended December 31, 1980 and 1979 1980 1979 Operating Revenues: Charges for services: Billings to departments: Keypunching services $ 26,571 $ 21,213 Computer services 107,235 94,359 Equipment rental to outsiders 325 Total Operating Revenues 133,806 115,897 Operating Expenses: Salaries and wages 74,981 69,122 Retirement contribution 8,096 7,571 Health and life insurance contributions 2,577 2,464 Equipment rentals 870 7,174 Insurance and bonds 156 373 Contractual maintenance and repairs 79 72 Expert and professional services 1,243 485 General expenses 488 630 Supplies 542 1,796 Depreciation 21,393 19,772 Total Operating Expenses 110,425 109,459 Operating Income 23,381 6,438 Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses): Interest - Investment Trust Fund 1,233 - Gain or (loss) on sale of assets (398) Interest - Capital lease I8 071) 12 763) Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 1( 6,838) 13 161) Net Income (Loss) 6,543 (6,723) Retained Earnings - January 1 534 7,257 Retained Earnings - December 31 ,S 7077 $ 534 See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT s ...,.,..~._..._ .. CENTRAL SERVICES FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS Year Ended December 31, 1980 and 1979 Operating Revenues: 1980 1979 Charges for services; Printing services $14,172 $14,759 Labor services 3,247 918 Office services: Office supplies 11,035 10,293 Copying services 20,599 Postage services 23,654 Total Operating Revenues 72,707 25,970 Operating Expenses: Cost of materials: . Inventory - January 1 5,662 8,168 , Purchases: ' Office supplies 13,236 9,682 Copying services ~ 8,530 Postage services 24,219 Total 51,647 17,850 Inventory - December 31 Office supplies 9,377 5,219 'Copying services 293 169 Postage services 178 274 Total 9,848 5,662 Total Cost of Materials 41,799 12,188 Other Operating Expenses: Salaries 10,524 13,093 Retirement contributions 1,668 1,513 Health and life insurance contributions 1,008 877 Contractual maintenance and repairs 4,524 650 Insurance and bonds 245 349 General expenses 1,176 63` Supplies 592 875 Depreciation 5,527 3,029 Total Other Operating Expenses 25,264 20,449 Total Operating Expenses _67;063 _32,637 Operating Income 5,644 _6,667) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Interest 291 292 Loss on sale of fixed asset (373) Capitalized interest 221) Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 303 292 Net Income 5,341 (6,375) Retained Earnings - January 1 _(2,559) 3,816 Retained Earnings - December 31 2 782 2 559) See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT WORKERS' COMPENSATION SELF-INSURANCE FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS Year Ended December 31, 1980 and 1979 1980 1979 Operating Revenues: Charges for services: City's contribution 170 246 170 246 Operating Expenses: Expert and professional Services 5,116 2,630 Employee benefits 32,749 7,993 Insurance and bonds 30,288 32,080 Other 20 Total Operating Expenses 68,173 42,703 Operating Income 102,073 127,543 Nonoperating Revenues: Interest revenue 36,060 13,441 Premium refunds - prior years 17,297 Total Nonoperating Revenues 36,060 30,738 Net Income 138,133 158,281 Retained Earnings - January 1 158,281 Retained Earnings - December 31 X296,414 5158,281 See accompanying notes to financial statements CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT ,_ 1981 1982 1983 A. General Fund Budget 1. $6.905042 2• 57,595.546 3• 58,355,101 B. Debt Retirement Levy 4. 250,000 5. 350,000 6. 350,000 C. Total 7. 7,155,042 8. 7;945,546 9. 8,705,101 (Line A plus Line B) D. Local Government Aid 10. 2,471,766 11. 2,471,766 12. 2,471,766 E. Property Tax Levy 13. 3,194,056 14. 3,449 580 15. 3,725,547 F. Other Revenues 16. 1,489,220 17. 1,340,102 18. 1,340,102 G. TOtal 19. 7,155,042 20, 7,261,448 21, 7,537,415 (Sum of Lines D, E, F) H. Shortfall (Line C minus Line G) 22. (684,098) 23, (1,167,686) :s ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 137 Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Alinutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract, Community Center Improvements k Bids for this project were opened on April 20, 1981. A representative of the city manager, the city clerk, the com- munity services director, the architect and representatives of various contractors were present. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. ``The base bid was for the elevator, which is to be installed -adjacent to the lobby. Alternate No. 1 is to provide a sliding door entry to the lobby. Alternate No. 2 would provide a vestibule in the lobby with a second sliding door. Alternate No. 3 would provide insulating glass in the windows of the lobby. Alternate No. 4 is to provide railings outside the building along the entrance sidewalk to the lobby, and along the ramped sidewalk south of the building leading from the parking lot to the lower level of the building. Nine bids were received. Gem Construction Inc. is the apparent low bidder. If the base bid and the four alternates were to be accepted, the total bid package would be $83,351. The architect fees for the project are $5,800. Therefore, the total financial obligation for the project would be $89,151, or $9,151 more than budgeted. It is the opinion of the staff and architects that acceptance of the base bid and all four alternates at this time would be in the best interests of the community. For this reason, it is recommended that $10,000 in additional monies be appropriated to City Project 764 from the special revenue fund. Richfield Community Center. These improvements are to provide primarily for improved handicapped accessibility, with the primary item to be installation of an elevator. Council Letter No. 137 -2- April 27, 1981 If the council does not wish to appropriate additional funds to this project, it is recommended that Alternate No. 2, the second sliding door for the vestibule effect, and Alternate No. 3, the insulating glass, are energy conserving items more than handicapped accessibility items. If these two items were deferred or eliminated, the award would be made on the base bid, Alternate No. 1 and Alternate No. 4, the total of which would be $74,892. This plus the $5,800 for the architect would provide a total project cost of $80,692, or aFproximately the amount of the current appropriation. Summary The existing project for community center improvements has $80,000 available-from the Community Development Block Grant program to provide handicapped accessibility. $5,800 has already been obligated for architectural services. The apparent low bidder for the work is Gem Construction Inc. This contractor has received excellent comments from refer- ences and has been cleared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Development to perform the work. If the city council were he special revenue fund earned bid with all the alternates than was originally anticipated this purpose. The staff It is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations on the Community Center Improvement project; C'~ r~'X ~ n ~ •,. e e 2. Provide first reading of the attached for the appropriation of $10,000 from the special revenue fund to the Community Center Improvement project; 3. Award a contract to Gem Construction Inc. to include base bid and four alternates as indicated in this council letter for a total amount of $83,351. Respectfully submitted, J r 1~ ~c~E, ~ V Ef ~l~ nCt;.1~~~~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Finance Coordinator more in interest income in 1980 so that funds are available for recommendation is to award the to Gem Construction as a result. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The City of Richfield does ordain: Section 1. It is found and determined 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, and is a project which the city would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2. The capital improvements and the amounts of expenditure for such improvements, which are hereby authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Chapter 7, Section 7.12, subdivision 2, of the City Chater, is as follows: Community Center Improvements $10,000 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 27th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening April 20, 1981 Handicap Elevator ` Community Center 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, sealed bids for erection of a Handicap Elevator at the Community Center as advertised in the official newspaper on April 1, 1981. Present: Eileen Anderson, City Manager's Designee Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY BASE BID ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2 ALTERNATE 3 ALTERNATE 4 COMPLETION ABJ Enterprises B.B. 5% $64 ,434 $7 ,788 $62898 $3, 490 $9, 140 240 Days Gem Constructio n B.B. 5% 62, 629 _ 5 ,693 5, 570 2, 889 6, 570 210 Days Norm Berglund B.B. 5% 73, 100 8 ,200 7, 800 2, 500 9, 70 0 90 Days Superior 77 B.B. 5% 64, 989 6 ,600 6, 800 2, 700 7j000 60 days Knutson B.B. 5% 62, 831 6 ,740 6, 422 2, 900 6, 178 120 Days C. 0. Field B.B. 5% 62, 890 6 ,870 6, 950 3, 100 7, 425 90 Days Kloster Madsen B.B. 5% 74, 300 6 ,200 6, 300 4, 900 7_, 200 200 Days Gladstone B.B. 5% 63, 000 6 ,900 6, 000 2, 700 7, 000 Uns pecified Volkmann B.B. 5% 69, 999 7 ,699 7, 116 __ 3, 136 7, 000 140 Dates The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council me eting of April 27, 1981. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk #~ // CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager v'` y 0 n The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 136 Agenda April 27, 1981 c~ ~ ~' {l Cr 0 Gr Gy v/~~`cc ~ o Ica ~~` ~ ~G ~J ~~. ~ `` `Y~ ~~. ~~- ~ ~a- ~ J ~~~ ~°~ ~~ Subject: Traffic Signal at the Intersection of "~ East 70th Street and 12th Avenue South ~° f ~~. '~i g ~~ ~'~ `~ C l`~ f benefit pedestrian student crossings associated with East Middle School and Elliott Elementary School. The upgrading `of these signals has been listed in the city's Capital Improvements Program for several years. At the request of the city council, an engineering study was recently performed to determine: 1. 2. If traffic signals are not warranted, what, if any traffic control device is warranted. The .findings of the study are as follows: intersection (1,500 to 2,250 vehicles per day, average daily traffic for each 70th Street and see figure 1). The traffic volume is high eno _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ __ . r i i_ _ _ ~ . i _ ~ i . i . .... ~ .-, t i _ _.~ - _ _ .-... .. Pedestrian Crossing Gaps two-way 12th Avenue; ah to warrant tin average of one gap per minute is the accepted minimum to warrant a traffic control device for school crossings. At the intersection of 70th Street and 12th Avenue, a pedestrian has an average of more than four opportunities per minute to safely cross either street during peak school crossing periods. These gaps would cocur without the benefit of any traffic control device. Based on these vehicular/pedestrian characteristics, there is no justification for a traffic signal at this intersection. Vehicular Traffic Volume Council Letter No. 136 -2- April 27,:1981 Elementary School Pedestrian Crossing Characteristics ith 7Utri Street at r;111OL, lUt n, aria 11Ln twenues, auri ng Lne morning, lunch and afterno on peakc ped estrian cross ing time s. Observation revealed that virtually al l elementary school crossings occur at Elliot, school patrol guards are p Abe of little or no benefit 10th and 11 osted. The to the elem th Avenues wh traffic signa entary school ere the l appear . s to Middle School Pedestrian Crossing Characteristics Observation of Middle School pedestrian crossings at this is signal reveal that 75 percent cross aaainst a RED/DON'T immediate vicinity. T is low enough to allow the traffic flow, for vehicle arrival rate i Accident History e he vehicle arrival to this intersection an adequate number of gaps, or breaks safe pedestrian crossings. Also, this s low enough that a significant percent in Accident records for this intersection show two accidents have occured in the last three years, both in 1978. According to the accident reports filed, contributing factors to these accidents were inattentiveness, traffic light violation and failure to yield right of way. The signals may have contributed ~o the cause of the accidents, due to low traffic levels (for a signalized intersection) and the resulting disobedience by a .driver of what appears to be an unjustified signal. The accident history of this intersection does not warrant a traffic signal. National statistics reveal that the accident rate Traffic Control Committee Recommendation After considering the vehicular characteristics, pedestrian characteristics, accident history and the presence of supervised elementary school crossing guards, the Traffic Control Committee recommends removing the traffic signals and, instead, placing stop signs that will stop 12th Avenue at 70th Street, both northbound and southbound. .number of Middle School students and does not appear to be used for a safe pedestrian crossing. Council Letter No. 136 -3- April 27, 1981 Energy Awareness Commission Recommendation From an energy conservation standpoint, the Energy Aware- ness Commission recommends that this traffic signal be eliminated, since it is not warranted, and replaced with a two-way stop. Implementation of this recommendation will reduce vehicular energy consumption at this intersection by more than five percent and will eliminate the electricity consumption of the traffic signal (6,504 kilowatt hours and $382 per year). Staff Recommendation The engineering study indicates that a traffic signal is not warranted for this intersection. The study also indicates that a two-way stop on 12th Avenue is warranted. Therefore, the staff recommends that the city council -adopt the attached Street and 12th Avenue, and the placement of stop signs on 12th Avenue at 70th Street, stopping northbound and southbound vehicles at 70th Street. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer 4 } `t RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL AT 70TH STREET AND 12TH,•_AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City Manager ; is hereby authorized and directed to remove the existing traffic signals, and appurtenances thereto, at the intersection of East 70th Street at 12th Avenue South; 2. That the City L~Ianager = ~ _s hereby authorized and directed to erect the following signs in place of said traffic signals, at the following location, to wit: "STOP" signs on 12th Avenue South at East 70th Street, stopping northbound and southbound traffic of 12th Avenue at 70th Street 3. That when the aforementioned traffic control signs have been so erected at said locations on said streets, they shall be official traffic control signs of the City of Richfield and failure to observe such signs shall constitute a violation of the traffic ordinance of this city. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 23rd day of March, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 7001 Harriet Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Telephone (612) 861-8201 LOW ELL D. CARSON, Superintendent April 24, 1981 Mr. Thomas Morgan Director of Public Safety 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Morgan: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 280 I received a letter from Mr. Eastling, City Engineer, on April 8, 1981 stating that the status of the traffic signals at 70th and 12th Avenue will be considered at the City Council meeting on April 27, 1981. I am very concerned and disturbed with the recommendation of the study committee that the best alternative is the placement of the stop signs on 12th Avenue at 70th Street, stopping northbound and southbound traffic only. I have discussed this concern with my staff and parent group. We concur that it would be inadvisable NOT to have east and west traffic stopped at 70th Street. Those of us who are responsible for the safety of our community members are continually trying to seek ways to safeguard our citizens. To date the traffic signal at 70th and 12th Avenue has served us well. I feel that if the traffic signal has to be replaced or updated that we MUST HAVE a minimum of 4 way stop signs at this inter- section. Please consider that with 875 students at East Middle School and 425 students at Elliot Elementary School that many students must cross the street at this intersection. The safety patrol students from grade 5 also have a tremendous responsibility. Let us give these workers all the support that we can. Most certainly the removal of some kind of traffic stoppage on 70th Street would only create a greater safety problem. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rona d G. Groat Principal East Middle School 7020 12th Avenue South Richfield, MN. 55423 cc: Mayor - 4 Council Members an Equal Opportunity Employer q i P -~' /1 April 24, 1981 P7ichael J. Eastling City Engineer City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue So, Richfield, Minnesota, 55423 Dear Mr. Eastling, Re: Stop sign at 70th and 12th Ave. So. Pte'. Groat, East ~'liddle School Principal, brought up for discussion t~~~ fu- tore of the stoplight at ti-~e corner of 70th and 12th Ave. at our advisory meeting. After sane discussion, including "Caution School Signs", the group voted that a 4-corner stop would be the minimtun change they would consider. With 2 schools in one double block, the hazard and chances for injury are too great for anything less. I pass the intesection daily on the way home fran work, at 4~xn, and there is from 2-7 cars at the intersection most of the time. 70th St, ns in danger of becoming a drag strip if there are no stop signs to interrupt traffic. The school patrol cannot always stop the traffic--and it is not their purpose to do so. Please seriously consider our minm~un proposal of a 4-corner stop. Sincerely, ~, Jacquelyn Mihalk Co-Chairperson And Marge Thiele - Co-chairperson And the East Middle School Parent Group P CIT" OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~~ Inter-Offir,e Mernc~randum oarE April 1, 1981 ro 70th S ~ & 12th Ave. Traffic Control File FR OA: Dave a~ ::yshak SUBJECT Warrar :~ for Traffic Control at 70th St. & 12th Ave. 1. WARRANT FOR '1 ~~F'FIC SIGNAL PLACEMENT a. For any 8 hours of an average day the major street must average a ~dlinimum of 500 vehicles per hour (two-way) and the minor :street must average a minimum of 150 vehicles per hour ;;~~ne direction) ; or b. An 8-hour average minimum of 600 vehicles per hour (two-way) ~~~nd a minimum of 150 pedestrians per hour; or .~ ~. Five or n.~:re reported accidents, of types susceptible by traffic ~'_r~nal control, have occurred within a 12-month period. Condit tin 1-a is ,.~~t met because the maximum 8-hour average is 206 vehicles per ~;;~ur (two-way) and 124 vehicles per hour (one-way) for the •~~ost dense approach. Condition 1-b is not satisfied because caf the two-way average of 206 VPH and a peak pedestr}an count ,r. 61 during the peak hour. The highest annual accideni rate is .~ accidents in a given year, both before and after the signal~~ were installed, with no definite patterns to the acG7.dent occL,_~°ences. A fourth condition, if 80 percent of conditions 1-a an,~< 1-b are met, also is not valid. If ,any of these warrants wE e met, the signal would be valid; clearly, it is not. 2. t~?ARRANT FOR 4 YJi~AY STOP PLACEMENT a. The total ~~ehicular volume entering the intersection from all appro ches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for -,;ny 8 hours of an average day, and b. The combi;.ed vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor str:~t or highway must average at least 200 units per hour ,:or the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle d~~°ing the maximum hour. From the MUTCD Manual This intersection ~.oes not meet conditon 2-a in that it obtains an absolute peak ,;.~= 525 vehicles per hour, at 5-6 P.M., for the only hourly count -Greater than 500, and a highest 8-hour average of 376 vehicles p~::r hour. Condition 2-b is not met because the 8-hour highest av:?.age is only 206 units per hour, with an average delay between 12 ~~ 14 seconds and a peak delay of 18 seconds. Remember also tha this is for the peak periods which differs from the average .nd school-related counts. Since both conditions ~; . _.. f' 4t ,., ! _. } ,. / -2- Y k ,~,~,Y,;. > a ::~; 2-a and 2-b are not met, this shows a clear indication of a 4-way estop being unwarranted. - 2 ~j' S t . 1 3. WARRANTS FOR TWO-WAY STOP PLACEMENT ~;, ~' a. Where two main roadways intersect, the STOP sign should I - normally be posted on the minor street to stop the lesser ~: flow of traffic. Traffic enginee~~~ih~~studies, however, may justify a decision to install a STOP sign at a major it ~ street, where safety considerations may justify stopping - TPA ~~ the greater flow of traffic . ~ .- ~"~ In this case, the recomme ndation is to place the STOP signs to ~~"~ stop the greater flow of traffic, on 12th- Avenue, for safety ~" consideration to vehicles exiting the school driveway adjacent to this intersection, and to the pedestrianstwho must cross 12th -_ Avenue during the school commencement/dismissal times. } ._ t.. cc: :Mike Eastling me i-- s _.~ n :_ ,c ~~_- r.-_ L _~ _ C. ~ :_ 3 ~` i _ .. J , , cur - : t~c3 ~~ ,er,_: -4 - t~: .i ~~a_- a~. ~.zn~ _.~ e c. f . ~_re--: 3u; .> <.: _ ct ~~e -.e: t,, _: _ -:.t ~~~ t ` ~~ , ~ U . r FIGURE 1 f `, r~ '~ 8888 -2 way traffic count (88) -pedestrian count to schools, 2-way, for total of AM and PM counts -proposed stop signs 12th Ave. S. 1954 (1) E. 70th St. 2084 (82) (131) 2128 (5) 1668 ~iy0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 135 Agenda April 27, 1981 c r ~ Cpl \"n9~-~ ~ S . ~~ Q Subject: Preliminary Engineering Report, CP757- Lyndale Avenue Street Improvements, Lake Shore Drive to 74th Street On March 30, 1981, the city council held a study session to consider issues related to the improvement of Lyndale Avenue from Lake Shore Drive to I-494. At that time, we noted that the problems and issues involved on the section of Lyndale south of 74th Street are very different from those north of 74th Street. The area south of 74th Street is a commercial area with significant commercial parking considerations. The inadequacies of this section of Lyndale Avenue are centered around the intersection capacity at 76th Street. The section of Lyndale Avenue north of 74th Street has a residential character with the problems that a residential area presents. Because of the differences in these two sections, the council determined that they should be divided into two separate projects. The first project to be considered is that of Lyndale Avenue between Lake Shore Drive and 74th Street. The most crucial element in the design of this section is the width of the street to be constructed. Lyndale Avenue is an arterial street carrying in excess of 12,000 cars per day. By all engineering standards, this traffic volume dictates construction of a four-lane roadway. The State Aid (aas tax fund) Office Hof the Minnesota Department of Transportation. has pre- pared m~:zimum standards which must be met before stat< aid money can be spent for construction of any particular roadway. This section of Lyndale Avenue is on our state aid system, so state aid money is available to pay for most of the cost of re- construction of the roadway. However, the roadway must meet the minimum standards established by the state aid office. A four lane street is required to meet those state aid standards. The steep bank in the Nature Center, south of Lake Shore Drive west of Lyndale, will require a minor variation be made to the state's roadway width standard. This steep bank will prevent the construction of a sidewalk along the new roadway if the standard 12 feet lanes are constructed. The District State Aid Engineer has given preliminary approval to the use of 11 feet lanes rather than 12 feet lanes, in order to leave ..~.... ..,may - - --- - ... _.. _.,.._ .. _+.~:.~:..~.._....~,.:~ ,.~:.:~..... _., ~: Council Letter No. 135 -2- April. 27, 1981 room for construction of a sidewalk on the west side of the new Lyndale Avenue. The staff has initiated the forma], state aid variance procedure to secure permission to construct 11 feet lanes. The plan also allows for the curve at 70th Street to be relaxed slightly. A corner of the school property and of the Oak Grove Grove Lutheran Church property would be purchased to accomodate the realignment. The new road construction would result in the loss of three trees. One is just south of 68th Street between the side- walk and the street on the east side. The other two are on the church property at 70th Street where the realignment would occur. ~\c~ ~U The roadway is proposed to be aspha]rt-~zith concrete curbs / on each side. The signal at 73rd Street,wil~.%be removed because it is not warranted. The attached preliminary engineering report breaks down the costs for the project. The total estimated cost is $911,000. The assessment rate will follow the same policy used on the permanent street program. The adjacent property owner will be responsible for $8.00 per front foot for the roadway, 20 percent of the sidewalk and street lighting. The street light- ing assessment will be the same rate as during the permanent street program of $2.00 per fot even though it costs in excess of $3.00 a foot to put in street lighting. State aid money will be used to pay for the non-assessed portion of the project. The staff recommends that the council receive the preliminary engineering report on this project, and schedule a public hearing for May 26, 1981, by adopting the attached resolution. Respectfully submitted, ~~.5~~1~L~.-~l~.~t~ Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED CITY PROJECT 757 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 6384 of the city council adopted February 23, 1981, a report has been prepared by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron Associates with reference to the improvement of Lyndale Avenue between the center line of 67th Street and the bridge over I-494 by street and traffic signal construction, and this report was received by the city council on this 27th day of April, 1981. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the city council of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statues Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $911,000. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 26th day of May, 1981 in the council chambers of City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South, at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by this city council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk tY ~ PRELIMINARY REPORT A22D ES T I'~SATE OF COS T STREET IMPROVEMENT Ar~D APPURTENAt1T WORK PUHLIC IMFROVEME2dT N0. 757 FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORF: Public Improvement No. 757 consists of construction. of a 44 foot wide bituminous pavement, B-618 concrete curb and gutter, street lighting and sidewalk on Lyndale Avenue from Lake Si:ore Drive to 74th Street in the City of Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT The street improvement is necessary to accommodate the traffic on Lyndale Avenue, to improve traffic safety and to benefit abutting properties. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT April 27, 1981 IV. LOCATIO?~ The Lyndale A~-enue ir:~prove~:~ent will connect with City I:-,prover,~ent Project ~do.705 at Lake Shore Drive and with the 44 foot wide pavement at 74th Street. Lyndale Avenue is designated as P1in- nesota State Aid Route 363. V. FEASIBILITY The it;provemer.t as proposed is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that benefitted property abutting Lyndale Avenue from Lake Shore Drive to 74th Street shall be assessed for pavement, curb and gutter, driveway entrances, street lighting, sidewal}:s ar,d appurtenant work. VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Construction of a 44 foot wi e ituminous pavement, P-618 con- crete curb and gutter, street lights, sidewalk and appurtenant work for the ai~proximate 4400 foot length from 74th Street to La}:e Store Drive. i'.i.. - ~ Bitus~inous Pavement $542,500 Concrete Curb & Gutter 65,000 (Including Driveways) Sidewalk 75,000 Street Lights 16,000 Signals (at 73rd} 30,000 Estimated Construction Cost $728,500 Adn., Legal, Engineering, & Insurance (25~) 182,500 Estimated Project Cost $911,000 VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT i'otal Approximate Assessable Frontage = 5800 feet (Does not include Nature Center) NOTE: The abutting property was previously assessed for side streets at the rate of $3.20 per foot. Proposed assessment this project: Street Lighting Curb and Gutter $2.00 per foot $8.C0 per foot Sidewalk at 20$ of project cost $3.00 per foot Driveway entrances will be assessed for a length along the curb equal to driveway width plus 10 feet for radii. The driveway entrances will be assessed additionally for the difference be- tween the actual project cost of the driveway entrance and curb and gutter. The difference between the total project cost and the assessable cost will be made of general City funds and Minnesota State Aid Road Funds. IX. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A variance will be required from the Minnesota Departrlent of Transportation to construct a 44 foot pavement plus B-bl8 con- crete curb and gutter in lieu of their recommended standard of 48 foot pavement plus B-624 concrete curb and gutter. Also, additional right-of-way will be required on the east side of Lyndale Avenue in the 'vicinity of 70th Street. 028-3107.01 P.P. - 2 I hereby certify that this plan, specifica- tio;a 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. ~~ yne Long Date: April 22, 1981 Reg. No. 7612 • _ 028-31.07. O1 ~-.IZ. - f r. ^ f i + 4 ! a' i £ ~ i + Y "' z i a o J fW~~ a ~ z ~ a a : ~ a ~ i ~ x 3 S ~ ~ .~5 a' S $~ 2f i ~ ~ ,'o° - - " ~ ~ ems, d ti ~ a r s 62 nt 5' _ • __ ~~ / ~ --_ i -~ TACT MIM ~ ~ / / ~(~ F3 5T I_ ~ , `_J t- r s4 tti s . -, r--- --- -- - ~--' - -- ~ -J 1`-~ i s+m sr \ J i J - ;i _ _' __ _ t_i ~; i ~ E 65r~ ST. .~ ' _' - - ~~_ i~ w sE m ST - ..-- . .._ .. ~ I --.--_ ~.., L-~. ~-~ -- ~~ ._- -- - ---- --' I -~ ~~ ~~ Lu i --r ~~ '_- -- - - • r= _.. _ ~_ .. _ .. _ . _.._ E Gem n. w E7 fn 5T I,,•~_. P ~ .~..~, a ~ € E _ ,. , -f' .~ ~. ~ " - ~_ ..:-_ t l ~ ~. ~~ 1 ~: I 1 ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~_ _ _..- ~_ _ _ _ ____ E 69th ST 1 1i ~ 4 ~~\g i i ~ i 1 W 70 fr ci +'._~ _ .- ~ _.- ~_ ... ____..-~. _. _' t_ .. E 70th 57 i , 1 _ - I ~ , fr - _.. _ .. - ___ .. _ _ 7if~ 5* i_. _ -_.-- __--___..-.___ _ .. ~. i r_- __._ ___.. ~ __ _ - ...-.. _..--- - E 72nd ST 1 A ~ OFFICIAL MAP OF ''c~~''> ~ yr. HK? t sf w 73 rd S? 1~1,,~,.. _ _ _~ - - __ - _ _"_..--I __ ~ _ .__ r _ __ _. E 73rd Sf ~ u ~ ~' `l~ E ! v ~ `~. ~ ~ ~ E~ L ~' ' ~`~~' ~ - ~ - Y HENNEPIN GOUN i Y, MINNESOTA +~. ,,,~ sT. '(-; r-- ~ ' ' ~~ ~-.~ i-_; _ ~ ' ~ J ; Public Works Depor#ment it ~ I l ~\_ ~~ ~ i i l ~ ~ ~_' ` I `ice I ._.; i _ . ~ __ ~ (= i _ E T.m sT ~in@Crl(1(] QiVISIOn _ > ..~«. ~ "°" -- ~ I ~ ~ CITt ENGINEER Mf 751A ST. ILJ U ~1 <_.~ ~. ,' _~ .,__:, _. _ _1 ~. _ `_ ~._ _ E. TSM ST J1INUARY, I%0 ~; ,; -r su~E n. rECr is i ,L ~ i i W 7E fh ST _ .__ _. _.___ ... ._-._ .._ ~ ,.. ~ _. __ ._ __~ '-' .. _. .. w- i. .. - _ __ __ _. __ ___... _._ C 761h. ST R1Rn ,___._, ,..-_ r - _ E 77th 5T ner[ - ..~ .. .....~c._ .rw.. ~a. ...wtaa ;1.. a...' _ ..~ ,., ...e i. " W 76 fn ST I_ _ _ -_ -. N: wAT ~1?fi5C7B1n SLl ' o a c c ~ " < ' a ~ C a . C ~ d C } 4 4 ,~ u d a, y < L c 1 ~s CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 134 Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Special Use Permit Request at 609 West 74th Street Some of the residents who appeared at the April 13 council hearing expressed concern about increased traffic on the neighborhood streets which might result from this facility.: Subsequently, the staff put the traffic counters on these streets in order to determine the existing average daily traffic. Traffic counters were placed on 73rd and 74th Streets between Lyndale and Garfield Avenues; and on Garfield Avenue between 73rd and 74th Streets. The average daily traffic for 73rd Street is 1,8Q2 ~hicles and for Garfield Avenue is 137 vehicles. However, t have figures for that street at this time. We expect ve the figure available at the April 27 council meeting. Respectfully submitted, T~~ ' V a~1,~ t c~,~,~ Karl NollenbergeUr ` ~ytb C~t.~~, -~.g~ (- City Manager cc: Community Development Director r I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR ' OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION N0. 81-2, COi~tTRACT NO. 2332 Name: Priscilla Williams Address: 4717 Aspasia Circle Edina, Location: 609 West 74th Street Use: Day Care Center BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No.81-2, Contract No. 2332 is hereby approved subject to and upon comple- tion of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, bearing contract No. 2332 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with- drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure the off-street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Off-Street Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk i r ~' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Off ice of City Manager Council Letter No. 121 Agenda April 13, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 609 W. 74th Street to Operate Dav Care Center Priscilla Williams, President of Especially for Children, Inc., and Mr. Jerry Kamps have submitted a request for a special use per- mit to allow a day care use at 609 W. 74th Street. The applicants are proposing to remove two existing buildings on the property and construct a 5,476 square foot, one level structure and 16 off-street parking spaces. The building is to be constructed of wood and mason- ite siding with asphalt shingles. A privacy fence will also be con- structed enclosing the rear yeard and a portion of the side yards. However, specifications for the fence have not been submitted. The proposal will have two curb cuts along 74th Street for egress and ingress to the parking area. The proposed maximum enrollment is 111, and a maximum of 16 employees per shift. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The property is zoned "MR" multiple family residential. Site Description The property was subdivided in February of this year. The ex- isting buildings on the premises are a single family house with a detached garage and a shed. The property is surrounded by property zoned "C-2" general commercial on the west; "C-1" limited business on the south; "MR" multiple family residential on the east; and "R" single family residential on the north. The property lot is 135.26 feet by 154.51 feet and contains 20,899.02 square feet. Staff Review The staff has reviewed this application and found the following: 1. That the proposal is in compliance with the comprehensive plan which indicates the site as mixed land use, high/medium density. Principle uses allowed include those of an in- stitutional nature. Council Letter No. 121 -2- April 13, 1981 2. That West 74th Street can accomodate the estimated average traffic increase of 65 trip ends per day gen- erated from this use. The estimated increase in traffic is based on date from the Institute of Traffic Engineers. The staff feels that this estimate is low, and that the increase in traffic could be as high as 100 trips. Ex- isting average daily traffic on Lyndale Avenue at 74th Street is 11,832. The staff believes that Lyndale Avenue at 74th Street will be the primary route to reach the day care center. An increase of traffic by 100 trip ends per day would be a .845 percent increase on Lyndale Avenue. Traffic counts are not available for 74th Street however, because of the capacity design of 74th Street the staff feels that an increase of 100 trip ends per day would not pose any traffic capacity problems on 74th Street. 3. That the proposal is in compliance with the conditions governing the issuance of special use permits in that .- the structure and operations will meet all state regula- tions for this type of use and-that the proposal would not pose any hazards to persons working or residing in the area. However, the public safety department has indicated that the staff has been contacted by several surrounding residents expressing opposition to the proposal because of playground noise and increased traffic. 4. That the applicants are proposing measures to reduce the impact of playground noise on the surrounding properties. The applicants are proposing to locate the play area on rear yard; the use of the play area on a shift basis with a maximum of 30 children using the play area at any one time, and the construction of a solid wood privacy fence enclosing the play area. The staff believes that these measures will adequately reduce the impact of playground noise on the surrounding properties. 5. That the applicant is limiting the hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No operations are proposed for weekends or holidays. The staff feels that this will further reduce the nega- tive impact on surrounding properties. 6. That although specifications for the privacy fence have not been submitted, it is desirable a solid wood privacy fence enclosing the play area be constructed. This type of fence will sufficiently reduce noise and negative visual impacts on the surrounding area. 7. That sufficient parking is proposed to facilitate this type of use. The off-street parking requirements are based on the number of employees on the maximum shift at the site. One parking space is required per one and one-half employees. Thus, 16 employees at the day care center require 10.66 off-street parking spaces. The Council Letter No. 121 -3- April 13, 198.1 applicant is proposing 16 off-street parking spaces. The proposal also meets the requirements set forth in Section 4.05, "Driveways and Parking Areas", of the ordinance code. 8. That the construction design of the building with wood and masonite siding is compatible with the surrounding residential structures and would significantly improve the applicant's property. 9. That the staff studied alternative uses for this prop- erty and found that a low rise apartment complex could be built on the site requiring no variances or rezoning. 10. That a petition opposing the granting of this special use permit was submitted at the planning commission meeting and is attached for your review. Staff Recommendation Because the proposal meets all the criteria for granting 1. That the applicant construct a solid wood privacy fence enclosing the outdoor play area. 2. That the hours of operation be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 3. That subsequent to the planning commission hearing on~ this matter the Assistant Fire Chief has recommended that a stipualtion be added to require that the building be sprinklered. While this is not required by the building code, there is local precedent for this request. The council has previously required that both the Coach Homes Condominium Development and the Minnesota Federal Savings and Loan buildings be sprinklered. The staff further recommends approval of the attached resolution approving the layout and authorizing the execution of an off-street parking contract. Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the city co special use permit application with the stipulation Karl Nollenberger City Manager Respectfully submitted, use permit must be granted. Approval of this application is recommended with the following stipulations: ~. Fact Sheet For Proposed Child Care Center Especially For Children The proposed site for a new child care center is located one lot off Lyndale Avenue on 74th Street. The site is bounded by a commercial building to the west, a trailer park to the south, a multi-family residence to the east, and a single family residence across the street to the north. The home to the north does Y:ot face the project. The site consists of a gross area of 20,894 square feet. Since the proposed building is to be 5,474 square feet, all offset requirements can be met and no variance is requested. The size of the site affords ample parking and play- ground area. The site plan places the building on the east offset line and as far forward as possible to maximize the playground area to the southwest or the commercial side of the site. The building's profile is designed to blend in with the surroundings, and its clean, attractive styling will make it a positive addition to the neighborhood. The parking lot design provides two curb cuts which allow parents entrance into a drop-off area and smooth egress back to 74th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Designed with the safety of the children in mind, the building will have a grade-level exit out of every class- room, an approved fire alarm system, and emergency light packs. We would like to address for the moment the process that led us to desire to purchase this site and construct this facility. As a private corporation, not funded by any agency, the risk is entirely ours and an accurate assessment of the need was required. By using the birth rates from 1975 to 1978 we were able to determine that there are approximately 1,800 children between the ages of 22 and 52 years residing in Richfield. Assuming that 35~ of the families have working mothers, we estimate that there is a need for some type of care for 630 pre-school children. This does not include the infant and toddler aged children who were specifically ~~ identified in a recent study conducted in the south suburban area as groups with a great need for care. We then surveyed the existing programs in the vicinity to determine what is available to the families of Richfield. We found that there is one fulltime preschool center at Woodlake Lutheran Church on 76th and Oliver. The remainder of the programs are half-day nursery schools or "latch-key" programs and do not provide a full range of choices for Richfield families. We noted that the Woodlake center is in the southwest corner of the city (see attached map) and we feel that our more central location would serve the population of the city east of 35 W. While there are other centers in Bloomington, Edina, and South Minneapolis which may presently serve Richfield parents, experience has shown that most parents would rather have their children cared for closer to home. We feel the facility will be as nice as any in the Twin Cities, and it has been specifically designed to provide a high quality child care environment. The plan and program reflect the experience gained in six years of successfully operating two other child care centers. (Please refer to March gth letter to Mr. Thomas MacGibbon, City Planner, for background on operation.) It is our opinion that if a city is to attract young people and assure the long term viability of its tax base and school system, it must provide needed services for them. We have addressed the problem of the special needs child in designing this building and are confident that we could successfully integrate handicapped children into our preschool program. We presently have children with special needs in our other programs and have served them well while gaining an added measure of enrichment for all of the children in the center. We are attaching a very timely article from the Minneapolis Tribune which addresses the subject of the need for child care facilities in a wide geographic area. f The child care center has been designed to accomodate 111 children, comprised of the following age groups: ` 9 infants with a 1s4 adult/child ratio 27 toddlers with a 1:7 adult/child ratio 60 preschoolers with a 1:10 adult/child ratio 15 kindergarten children with a 1:15 adult/child ratio (Kindergarten children would be served before and after school) Our plans include provisions for a full kitchen and full-time cook to provide nutritious meals for the children and staff. At the most recent planning commission meeting two concerns were expressed which we feel resulted from inadequate information regarding such a facility. One was noise from the playground. 1. The playground will have 5,700 square feet as compared to the 2,250 square feet required by state standards to accomodate 30 children. 2. A maximum of 30 children would be outside at any one time and they would be of various ages, including toddlers who are not noisy. 3. The playground will be divided into two separate areas, one for toddler children and one for preschool childreno This serves both to diffuse children and to provide equipment appropriate for their ageso They will be supervised at all times by teachers in the same ratios as in the classroom. 4. The building is situated on the site so as to locate the playground to the west away from the multi-family dwellings, while the building itself will screen most of the playground from the residents to the north. 5. There will be a complete privacy fence placed around the playground and no child will be allowed out of this area. 6. There are two trailers directly to the south of this site, however the playground is not used prior to 9:30 a.m. 7. Since the center closes at 6:00 p.m., there would be no children at the site after this hour and very few would be outside after x:30 since pick-up starts in mid-afternoon. 8. There is no school on the weekends so there would be complete quiet during the weekend when most people are home working in their yards, walking, etc. 9. Most important, we feel that the sound of children at play is refreshing and positives A second concern was related to traffic. We again feel that there was a misconception as to its impact. 1. This is not an elementary school which requires children to arrive at a certain time. Because they are dropped off at various times between 7:00 and 9:30 a.m., we do not anticipate any undue surge early in the morning. The same is true regarding pick-up in the afternoon where departures are spread out mainly between 4:00 and 5:30 p.m. For verification we have attached an analysis which shows the arrival and departure schedules for the center at 1st and Lyndale. You will note that we took three different days of the week at three different times of the year to get a good cross section. At no time is there a large traffic congestion. 2. We secured state traffic counts for 1979 for Lyndale Ave. which are as follows: South of 66th 12,000 average daily car travel South of 76th 13,900 average daily car travel North of 494 to 772 17,100 average daily car travel Using an absentee factor of 10 or 11 children, and assuming the center is at full capacity, we calculate that if each parent drove only one child to the center there would be a maximum of 200 cars on Lyndale to the site. This is less than 1o~J of the existing traffic on Lyndale, using an average of 1~F,300 from. above. Since most of the parents served will reside in Richfield, many of these people may already be driving on Lyndale and would not be added to the existing traffic base. 3. The parking lot provides a one-way into the drop-off area and an exit which redirects them back to Lyndale, thus neighbors need not be concerned about parents turning around in their driveways. Since the major employment areas are along the ~94~ strip or downtown, we anticipate that parents will return to Lyndale and head south ( , away from the residential areas to access 494 and 35 W. ~. Since the center closes at 6s00 p.m. it will not create traffic problems at night, and the same applies to the weekends. ~. We must also remember that those using the services of this facility are responsible Richfield citizens and themselves the parents of young children. We can expect them to be sensitive to the needs and desires of their own community, and to be courteous and responsible in their driving habits. We hope that the above information has provided an understanding of our goals and our desire to be good citizens and neighbors. We look forward to meeting you on the 13th: Sincerely, ~~ Priscilla Williams f~ .. ~~ t ~> > `.l ~~ Jerry Kamps _ ~~ --_U= ~ ^ 2 15 _ ~ ~ I ,s1 ',,.- _~ ~ 1 ~ - 151 , ~o B 5 _ 0~ - 19116 -^ ~ ~ . ; ~-- - -- _ _ ZONING MAP = 11 ~, ST. ~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ~ -~ `~ ~ I ~ ~ DENTAL ^ _ _ ~ ~ ?4 0 SINGLE FAMILY RESI g =~ z 22 2 3 ^ ° ~ ^ 23 j ~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDE NTIAL-` i' o p 22 ~ I LIMITED BUSINESS ,~ _ __ r., -- A-~ ; . .,A ~ o ~ ~ 1 ~' - 'T'. U N ~. N ( 6 7 i 6 - Pi l8 T Y ~ 6 -- - - ]_ 17 8 p N (] `Gt _ I _ 8 ^ ~ ,A ; , :~ tin i , a ^' (rl 1312 ~~ ~ 13 12 []- ~ ~ p4 _ ~ ^ ~ p ;~• S T .. _- ,_. . __--- - . _ _ ___ ___ ~. _ ------ _. . . 2 1 'goo ~ - o; ~. ~_ 2. -j C e oo_~ 2 ~ ' _r K l ~_______ f-, I E --}8i 7 '` ~ 17 h 178 ^. tE _IEa9 -. I ~ _ i~ I ~ ~, ~ .4 11 f ~ ; _. _ t 3 --~~-j----.-- ~--- .-_t_, 23 2 ~ ~c r t -. ZJ• ~3 3 __ -~ - _ .: _--~ ~; r 2 ~ =1~4 :~ ~ 231 T3 g W ;~. Q.. X20 ~_. _ _, Ti8" '-' ~ 19, -~ ~ ~e _ ______~ :5110 ~~= i7i 4111 .-;~ 16 3 12 _ 1. 15j n - -- _ -I a. 13 12Y-'~= =- ~- 73rd o,-, o o ~ - J _ II 2 0 ._ j I -,. M g ,~ti . ~ - ~, - -' S .J" p N ,~ -_ ~ a _. - _ 1 _ /n N ^ ~ N, J _~ ~ , - ~ a "n n ~ -~ - e 'l t e n "L- ~ ~r - -~ - A / ^ 1 t // a =~ _ ~ r LING~U~L.N _ __ _ ~ ~FIELD / /` / _.-_ l / ~ ~ J -- -- - - - - ~' ~ -- ---- / . - - - ~ - J ., _ _ ~ ~ U ~ ~ S , : ~ ---s 4 ~ a a J P Er ~- n ' ,n . ,~- ~~ a - ---- _-- - - ~ __ _ _ _ _. - 7 /2^ ICI X17 ^ ~ I ~ .7 - : _ 1 .~ I _ ~...~ a o ~ I I ~ N ~ ,, 3 2 ti sT. LAfVD USE 24 y_~~ 1 ~ n ~: ^a 22 3 21 4 ^ ~- 2 5 IB T. « _U 17 ! 8 ^N 9 ^~ Q Q 15; 10 D I II ^ 13.12 ^ X S T. ~^24 ^23 1 2 ', ^ 22 3 - ~ lei 4 - 20 5 "_' 1 Y - ~p I a p~ :; ^ I ^ :; ^ 15 10 ^ :^ - I ^.~ f ~ 13 12 ^ x < Rii A P ' ~ ~? -J ~, ~ . ~. ti; f 2 ' 3 J 1 - - , ~~ ~ JJ~ ~2 ` _ J T y i~'3 ;o ~ ~ 10 3 ~ _ 8 ,5 -~ -- _-~~ ~ -- , " . X16 _N ~ g ;p ~A I (~ ~ J tin I n A N W - L. ~ - - - R~-Jr , (n ,D~lex 3 ~ ^ ~ ^ 3 C /~% SiA ~a~~X ing ~ am-`It ~t . __._ ._ - .. 73 rd M ° ' ' I ° M n ~. -, . . ° _ II _~ y 'J_ 2 ~ -J '--- 0 -. -n_ Q 7 - h ~ " -- 5 ~" ~ - N -- ~. -- 7 ~ Z Q ti ; ? i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N -1~ try ~~, ~ -~- - t m '^ a n J ~. - n !- - "' ~ - S21 ! 515 i SC3 , SJ1 427 ~ 421. ,~: ~ cos 401 321 ~ 3:'_ h ; -. I - i 7 N i N P ~ - A ~! ! ~ ~ ' O N I( Mobile Home Park '3 2 ,~ ~ ?5 2~' ~_, ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 .~ ~ .~ 24j'3 _t 4 _ 23 ~4 ~ ~, ~ ~_ 3 T-• _ -_ / 'g ~- ~ 14 ' - ~ - - '.. I ~. pJp{fic~ - - --- l7~ ;J2`-~..~ r .v ~ !6. ;ire ,_.._~, r-- - - . -2 _ :: ~ t5 h4 _r- ------ --, - - - - 1--- ~ T~ :, ~ ~ ~ ~I- -------, ; ~ j" , ,. _ ,~~ Apartments Apartments / ~ j ~~ ~: I Y.I I / / ~, I- --~ ~ ," r-------~ ~ ~ ! , i '' ~-- -- -- -' - s ~ I ~ °; ------ ~ ' ~ f ~ , ---- ~ , 76th RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LAYOUT AND CONTRACT FOR OFF-STREET PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION NO. 81-2, CONTRACT NO. 2332 Name: Priscilla Williams Address: 4717 Aspasia Circle Edina, Location: 609 West 74th Street Use: Day Care Center BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the proposed geometric layout of the off-street parking as contained in Off-Street Parking Application No.81-2, Contract No. 2332 is hereby approved subject to and upon comple- tion of performance of the contract for such off-street parking as hereinafter authorized. 2. That the proposed off-street parking contract for the improvement of said off-street parking, bearing contract No. 2332 be placed on file and that the manager be authorized to sign said contract and the clerk be authorized to seal the same for and on behalf of this city. 3. That the off-street parking operator provide the City of Richfield with Surety in the form of cash, passbook saving with- drawal authority, or performance bond in an amount to be determined by the community development director and city manager, to ensure the off-street parking lot is constructed within the terms and regulations of the Off-Street Parking Agreement. 4. That responsibility for the proper upkeep and maintenance of said Off-Street Parking lot shall remain the responsibility of the off-street parking lot operator in accordance with Ordinance Code 4.05. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 13th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk PE'T'ITION .~ d ~ We, the undersigned property owners, hereby-object to the special use permit being considered for construction of a day care center at 609 W. 74th Street. NAr~ ADDRESS G_~ ~ c~ ;. ":% ,_ ,; ~ ., ~ i _ ?G 1 ~% ~, ~, ~ ` `.. j ~,o:~ ~ PE"I'ITIGN .~~ We, the undersigned property owners, hereby object to the special use permit being considered for construction of a day care center at 609 W. 74th Street. Na1P.iE ADDRESS i ,~~ 'r~. G~ ~l~~L~ 3i~~ " /~V /~/ ~zc~~' ~U ~f~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ "~~Lc~ --~..~ ,, ~~~ ;~,~,: -: /3. K w c /Y1A././ / lJ / / _~~~~/~-CO'Y' VGA ~ /^ i~y~ y...~.... -~.,~- ~L C-LZ~C ,~ T ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~..~ ~~~~.~~~ C~i~~ .~~ ~-, _ -II- N O T I C E O F H E A R I N G .. _. +, ~ i + ~ - 0 .~ • .1® -. ~ . c~ 0 Q ® O __._ M ~,a~....`~~~+.a.. N ~~~"."~ ., ~ ',i Dear Property Owner: I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to - a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South on Tuesday, March 24, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission will be hearing a request for a special use permit to allow the con- struction of a day care center at 609 West 74th Street. I would encourage you to appear at this meeting and give testimony for or against this matter. Should you have any questions or need specific information on this matter, please feel free to contact me or the Planning Division Staff at 869-7521. Respectfully, ~~~ ~o-~--e~ Rick Jopke Associate Planner City of Richfield C,~'c.' ,,~63...~i'. ~:.~..' ~t fib-3-wt ~ _ ~~~ 1 y r ~ ~ ~' ~',-'" .~ -a ~,;- ,~ '~"~ '` Q `' ~: ~~~~ ~~-~ ~ .~/ ..ate---at.~.•d-,~:-+~_ ~~~ ~y-~~`~-.g~-a~..a~i ~~--~ ,,~•=~.a~{iG~ .C~..d.C~",. -~iGEZ.,~..-. ,, ~ • ~` ~l .._'w. ~..~~i~-ate ~.s:i./ ~•~a. ~.~•r9~r~.~s" "ate' ~',z, ~ ~t.e%:~.s e ~ ~ ;• i ~ ~,c.c~ ~ ,s~.,~.-~ ~4e r"e p~h o ~: 8 s -' s 2 i s ~ 2 j ~ t~ r an aqua •opportunity employer ~a.~p/ ~~-~,t. ~'C. '~iJ ~' L'~j~c.!~ . ~~G!r~"'~!~"~^ . r. _ ~N!~lo ~~,~i.,~ ~ N O T I C E O F H E A R I N G N d' O o® ._ • ~ ® ~ -. ~ c c~ ~ e~ L Q ^ ® O o Dear Property Owner: A I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South on Tuesday, March 24, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission will be hearing a request for a special use permit to allow the con- struction of a day care center at 609 West 74th Street. I would encourage you to appear at this meeting and give testimony for or against this matter. Should you have any questions or need specific information on this matter, please feel free to contact me or the Planning Division Staff at 869-7521. Respectfully, Rick Jopke Associate Planner City of Richfield GZ~ ~ -Qn-cz~'~~ ~u~~~~. telephone: 869-7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer t ~- April 27, 1981 To the Members of the Richfield City Council: On behalf of Priscilla Williams (Especially For Children) and myself, Mr. A. J. (Jerry) Kamps, we do hereby withdraw our application fora special use permit at 609 W. 79th Street, Richfield, Minnesota. Sincerely yours, ~~ A. J' Kamps AJK :If ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager. April 23, 1981 Council Memorandum No. 85 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: South Hennepin Area Day Care Centers The South Hennepin Human Services Council (SHHSC) recently conducted a city wide survey of all child care centers in the five city area. I am attaching a copy of their survey results. As can be noted on the survey, most of the child care centers are at or near capacity enrollment at the present time, with the exception of the Richfield latch key programs which are greatly underenrolled. The proposed day care center at 609 W. 74th Street would have a capacity of 111 children divided into the following age groups: 9: infants, 27 toddlers, 60 preschoolers and 15 kinder- garten age. Although most of the child care centers listed in the survey do not have as large a capacity as that proposed for 609 W. 74th Street, I believe it does point out the need for such a facility. Respectfully submitted, Ct;~-, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of the C ity Manager Council Letter No. 133 April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Status Report on Liquor Licensing of The Left Guard Corporation, Inc. On :January 12, 1981, the city council held a public hearing on an application for renewal of the on-sale liquor, Sunday liquor, and tavern licenses for the Left Guard, Inc. At the hearing, Mr. Max McGee, Vice-President and Secretary of the applicant corporation, and Mr. Michael Larkin, manager of the business, appeared to speak on behalf of their license appli- cation. The licnese renewal investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department indicated several areas of concern with regard to the license renewal application. These concerns included, among other things, the following major issues: 1. Need to provide a higher level of control in the 2.' Need to reduce fire lane parking violation and criminal incidents occuring outside of the building. 3. Repair and/or replace certain fixtures in the food processing area. 4. Carr-pct certain interior fire safety hazards. 5. Attempt to extend the privacy barrier fence on the north property line from Nicollet Avenue to the LaBelle building. Following the hearing on January 12, the council took action to issue the requested liquor licenses on a provisional basis. As conditions of this provisional basis, the council directed that the Public Safety Department closely monitor actions of the report to Lne council regarcaiiiy c:viiec: ~lv~ a~; ~s.vii~ uui. iiiy nN111 , 1981. The council also stipulated that the applicant acknowledge the conditions of the provisional license approval by entering into a formal memorandum of understanding with the city, which would specify the issues upon which the provisional license status was based. Council Letter No. 133 -2- April 27, 1981. The Public Safety Department has monitored, on an ongoing basis, the actions of the applicant corporation to correct the issues raised at the license renewal hearing. Virtually, all of the issues involving the food preparation area have been, or are in the process of being, corrected. The primary matter remaining to be resolved involves the installation of new refrigerator equipment. The equipment has been ordered and installation is expected in the very near future. The major interal fire safety problems have been corrected. The manage is attempting to provide a higher level of monitoring in the parking lot area, but needs to continue to improve this prob7~ situation. The applicant has contacted the property owner and initiated discussions regarding extension of the privacy barrier ~,ence on the north property line. As yet, the applicant has not entered into the required memorandum of understanding regarding the provisional license issued. On Thrusday, April 9, 1981, the Public Safety Director and the Assistant City Attorney met with representatives of the applicant corporation and their attorney. During the course of this meeting, a memorandum of understanding related to the provisional license granted to the corporation for the current year was reviewed and approved, in concept, by all parties. A copy of this memorandum of understanding is attached for council consideration. The Public Safety Department is satisfied that the appli- cant corporation has corrected, or has made significant progress toward correcting, all of the concerns identified in their license renewal investigative report. Based upon this fact, there appears to be no basis under which the provisional liquor license should not be continued through the current year. It is therefore recommended that the council continue this licensure for the remainder of 1981, and approve the memorandum of under- standing with regard to the conditions relating to this licensure. Respectfu(l1(~ly submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BET[~IEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LEFT GUARD, TNC. The city council of the City of Richfield met in regular session in the council chambers of the city hall on Monday, January 12, 1981, at 7:15 p.m. Pursuant to required publications and notifications, the council conducted a hearing with regard to the 1981 liquor license renewal applications for the Left Guard, Inc. Appearing on behalf of the city in this matter was Thomas A. Morgan, Jr., Director of Public Safety for the City of Richfield. Appearing on behalf of the applicant in this matter was Mr. Michael Larkin, the Manager of the applicant corporation, and Mr. William P!?cGee, the Vice-President and Secretary of the applicant corporation. Testimony presented by the Public Safety Director with regard to the license renewal applications indicated that some concerns have developed during the 1980 business year. These concerns involve an increase in the number of reported incidents outside of the business establishment and the parking lanes around the business. Addition- ally, the city council expressed a concern which had been raised by some residents relating to the extension of the visual barrier along the north property line which would separate the business establishment from the residential neighborhood, to which it is adjacent. Testimony provided by both r:r. Larkin and Mr. McGee indicated a recognition of the concerns raised by the Department of Public Safety. Both representatives of_ the applicant corporation indicated that the problems which resulted in the concerns expressed by the Department of Public Safety were matters which were readily correctable. Mr. McGee testified that whatever action would be required to correct the concerns which have been raised as a part of the license renewal hearing would receive immediate attention by the corporation and that the licensee would accept and agree to be bound by a license which would be terminated if these matters were not promptly and permanently corrected. Based on the testimony offered by both the Department of Public Safety and the applicant corporation regarding this matter, the council voted, by unanimous action, to grant and issue the 1981 liquor licenses requested. Such licenses will remain in effect for the license period, or until such time as the licenses shall fail, after ten (10) days written notice, to comply with any of the following conditions: 1. The management take immediate steps to provide a higher level of monitoring activity in the parking lot area in an attempt to reduce the number of law violations occurring outside of the establishment, and assume a higher level of responsibility for enforcing the fire lane parking restrictions established around the premises. 2. Complete resolution of the matters outlined in the letter dated December 2, 1980, from Capsule Laboratories to the applicant. The current status of such matters is addressed in the letter dated March 24, 1981, from I.F. Roesler to the applicant. The City and the appli- cant are aware of the contents of both letters. 3. The Left Guard, Inc., will make a good faith effort in working with Programmed Land, Incorporated (the property owner), to extend the six foot privacy fence on the north property line (along East 77th Street) to Nicollet Avenue, and replace the existing four foot cyclone fence along the north property line between the Left Guard building and the LaBelle building with a six foot privacy fence. 4. The Director of Public Safety will provide, in April of 1981, written status report to the city council with regard to the applicant's progress in conforming to these stipulations and correcting the problems set forth herein. 5. Compliance with all applicable state statutes and city ordinances. 6. Acknowledge acceptance of this provisional license by an agreement signed by an officer of the applicant cor- poration, accepting licenses on the basis of the stipulations hereto set forth and agreeing to be bound thereto. In recognition of the foregoing proceedings, the Left Guard, Inc., (the applicant corporation), and the City of Richfield, agree that the 1981 liquor licenses requested are both granted and issued and accepted on a conditional basis with the stipulation hereto set forth. This Memorandum of Ur_derstanding is entered into by the parties herein named on .this day of 1981. ON BEHALF OF THE LEFT GUARD, INC. ON BEfiALF OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD MARNO McDERb1OTT President & Treasurer WILLIAbi MAX McGEE Vice-President & Secretary DONALD J. PRIEBE Mayor KARL NOLLENBERGER City Manager ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 132 April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Noise Ordinance Attached for your review is a copy of a proposed noise ordinance. The ordinance is intended to protect the citizens of Richfield and persons employed in the city from excessive noise which would jeopardize their health and welfare. 1 ordinances, including those of the City of Bloomington, and those developed by the League of Minnesota Municipalities, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The staff has attempted to consolidate existing city noise regulations which staff experience. It is recommended that the council review the attached ordinance and indicate if there are any additions, corrections, or other changes which may be necessary. It is also recommended that the council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance and set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance for May 26, 1981. posted in the community, as was done in Bloomington, to inform citizens that Richfield has a noise control ordinance and is enforcing it. Council Letter No. 132 -2- April 27, 1981 Another action which the council may want to take concerning noise control is to work with the Richfield School Board to Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director Community Development Director Public Safety Director which these problems can be prevented. Public Safety Department personnel are already engaged in noise control enforcement and education authoirities throughout the community. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO NOISE AND NOISE GENERATING ACTIVITIES, AMENDING CHAPTER X, OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW SECTION THERETO AND REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTERS V, VI, IX AND X OF THE CODE City of Richfield Ordains: A. Chapter X, Part I of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield defining and regulating certain nuisances is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new section providing as follows: "10.04 Noise Control and Regulation". Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meanings given herein: L (1) " 10 Level" means the noise level, expressed in dBA, which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one hour survey as measured by test procedures formulated by the city's Depart- ment of Public Safety. (2) "Motor Vehicle" means (1) any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon railroad tracks, (2) any vehicle propelled or drawn by any self-propelled vehicle, and (3) ve- hicles known as trackless trolleys which are propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires not operated upon rails. The term does not include snowmobiles. (3) "Snowmobile" means a self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice steered by skis, skids or runners. (4) "Daytime" means that part of each calendar day between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (5) "Nighttime" means that part of each calendar day between the hours of midnight and 7:00 a.m. and between 10:00 p.m. and midnight. Subd. 2. Adoption of Regulations by Reference. The fol- lowing regulations are hereby adopted by reference: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Noise Pollution Control Section, 6 MCAR §4.2004 and NPC 1. Copies of the regulations hereby adopted shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and in the Department of Public Safety, for public inspection during normal business hours. Subd. 3. Receiving Land Use Standards. (1) Maximum Noise Levels by Receivin Land Use District. No person shall operate or cause to be operated or permit any source of noise in such a manner as to create a noise level exceeding the limits set in Table I for the receiving land use category specified therein when measured at the property line of the receiving use which is closest to the source. Table I L10 Noise Limits by Receivin Zoning Districts Zoning Districts Daytime Nighttime Industrial (I) 70 dBA 70 dBA General Commercial (C-2} 65 dBA 65 dBA Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) 60 dBA 60 dBA Residential (R, MR) 60 dBA 50 dBA (2) Exceptions. The noise limits prescribed in paragraph (1) of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: (a) Noises, originating from public streets and alleys. (b) Construction activities described in paragraph (2) of subdivision 4 of this section. (c) Situations in which public health and safety require that immediate work be done on any property the performance of which exceeds the sound levels permitted for that time of day or for that day. (d) Situations in which the purpose of the sound is to alert persons to an emergency or for the purpose of testing any alarm system. (3) Scope of Exceptions. Activities included within the exceptions listed in the foregoing paragraph (2) are subject to the other limitations contained in this section. Subd. 4. Additional Specific Restrictions. In addition to the regulations contained in subdivision 3 of this section, and not in limitation thereof, the following specific restrictions shall also apply throughout the city: (1) Outdoor Implements. No person shall operate any out- door power implement, including but not limited to lawn mowers, snowblowers, hedge clippers, chain saws or other power implements designed primarily for outdoor use, at any time other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on public holidays, Saturdays and Sundays. All such implements shall be effectively muffled so as 2 to prevent the emission of loud and explosive noises or noise exceeding the limits specified in Table I.' (2) Construction Activities. Construction activity involving the use of power equipment which does not generate a sound level in excess of 85 dBA, measured 50 feet beyond the property line of the source, may be operated in all zones between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. All other construc- tion activity may be carried out only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays. (3) Air Circulation Devices. No person shall permanently install or place any sound emitting air circulation device or other mechanical equipment, except a window air conditioning unit, in any outdoor location without first obtaining a permit for such installation. The sound level produced by any window unit and by any existing air circulating or mechanical device shall be attenuated in the manner required by the Public Safety Department. Such requirements may include, but are not limited to, relocation of the device if the noise results or contributes to sound levels in excess of those specified in Table I. (4) Motor Vehicles. (a) No person shall operate a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles in such a manner as to exceed the noise limits con- tained in Pollution Control Agency Rules, 6 MCAR 4.2004. (b) No person shall operate or permit the operation of any motor vehicle or any auxillary equipment attached to such vehicle, for a period of more than 10 minutes in any hour while such vehicle is stationary, for reasons other than congested traffic, on either (a) public right of way or (b) other public property within 150 feet of any residential zone at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the following day. (c) No person shall operate any motor vehicle in such a condition of disrepair as to create loud or unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other noise. (d) No person shall create any loud and excessive noise in connection with the unloading or unpacking of any vehicle. (e) No person shall permit the discharge into the open air of emissions from an internal .combustion engine except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises issuing therefrom. (5) Keeping of Animals. The keeping of a dog, cat or other animal which, by reason of noise caused by it or by its presence, annoys other persons who are in the neighborhood is a public nuisance and is unlawful. Upon the receipt of a written com- 3 plaint of such annoyance by the occupants of two or more neigh- boring properties, the city shall notify the owner of such animal that the nuisance must be abated within 48 hours. Failure to obey such notice is a violation of this section. (6) Refuse Hauling and Snow Plowing. The operation of vehicles used for the hauling of refuse or for snow plowing on private property shall be limited in residential districts, and within 50 feet of such districts, to the period between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays. (7) Horns and Signaling Devices. The following uses of horns or other signaling devices are unlawful: (a) The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle and upon any locomotive, except as a danger warning. (b) The creation by means of any such signaling device of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound. (c) The sounding of any such device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time. (8) Radios, Phonographs, Paging Systems - Except Advertisin . No person shall use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, paging system, machine or other device for the production or reproduc- tion of loud sounds so as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of any such set, instrument, phonograph, machine or other device at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day in such a manner as to be distinctly audible at the property line of the structure or building in which it is located, in the hallway or apartment unit adjacent if located in an apartment unit, or at a distance of 50 feet if the source is located outside a structure or building, shall constitute such a disturbance. The regula- tions contained in this paragraph are not applicable to licensed sound trucks and other similar advertising activities. (9) Radios, Phonographs, Paging Systems - Commercial Adver- tising. No person shall use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiver, musical instrument, phonograph, paging system or other device for the production or reproduction of sound on any street or other public place, or audible at any such location, for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any commercial estab- lishment or vehicle unless a license is first obtained pursuant to section 6.14 of this code. (10) Noise Near Schools, Churches and Health Care Institutions. No person shall willfully create any excessive noise on any street, alley or public grounds adjacent to any educational, religious or health care institution when the noise unreasonably 4 interferes with the conduct of the activities of the institution or disturbs or unduly annoys its occupants or residents. (11) Hawking and Peddling. No hawker, peddler or vendor shall make any noise on any public street, whether by yelling, shouting or otherwise, which disturbs the peace and quiet of the residents of the neighborhood. (12) Snowmobiles. The use or operation of a snowmobile within the city is prohibited. This prohibition shall not apply to: (a} The loading and unloading of a snowmobile from any truck, trailer or other vehicle used for transportation thereof. (b) The use of a snowmobile for rescue, emergency or law enforcement purposes. (c) The use of a snowmobile for maintenance of public property. (13} Participation in Noisy Gatherings. At any time between the hour of 10:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day no person shall congregate because of, or participate in, any party or gathering of people from which noise emanates of suffi- cient volume to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of persons residing in any multiple residential or residential area. No person shall visit or remain within any residence or place where such party or gathering is taking place, except persons who have gone there for the sole purpose of abating the disturbance. Subd. 5. Additional Restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section it is unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others within the limits of the city. Subd. 6. Administration and Enforcement. (1) Responsible Official. The City Manager (the "Manager"), acting personally or through his or her designee, shall adminis- ter and enforce the noise control regulations contained in this section. (2) Testing Procedures. The Manager shall adopt guidelines establishing the test procedures and instrumentation to be used in enforcing the provisions of this section. (3) Noise Variances. (a) Authority. The City Council and Manager shall have authority, consistent with this paragraph (3), to grant variances from the requirements of any provision of this section. 5 (b) Application. A person seeking a variance shall file an application with the Manager on forms prescribed by the Manager. The application shall state the dates during which the variance is proposed, the location of the noise source, fhe time of oper- ation of the noise source, the nature of the noise source, the reasons why the variance is sought, the steps which will be taken to minimize the noise level and such other information as is required by the Manager. (c) Action on Application. If the requested variance is to last for a period of fifteen days or less, the City Manager may either grant or deny the request. Before granting or denying the request, the City Manager may require the applicant to notify property owners within 500 feet of the noise source that the application has been made. Any person claiming to be adversely affected by the granting of the variance may be given an oppor- tunity to file a statement in opposition to the granting of the variance stating the reasons for such opposition. The Manager may, in his or her discretion, conduct an informal hearing at which the applicant and all persons filing statements in opposi- tion to the variance are given an opportunity to be heard. The Manager shall thereafter either grant or deny the variance request. If the requested variance would last for a period of more than fifteen days, it shall be granted or denied by the City Council after hearing. Upon receipt of an application for such a vari- ance, the Manager shall give mailed notice of the council hearing to all property owners within 500 feet of the noise source. At the hearing the applicant and all persons claiming to be affected by the variance request may be heard. No variance may be granted by either the City Council or the Manager unless it is found that full compliance with the ordinance would constitute an unreasonable hardship on the appli- cant, which hardship outweighs any serious adverse impact upon the health, safety or welfare of the public. In granting a variance, the city council or the manager, as the case may be, may attach conditions including sound levels, duration, hours, design and termination of the variance. The Manager shall have power to grant temporary variances pending action by the City Council on an application for a variance. (d) Appeals. Any person whose interests are affected by the granting or denial of a variance, or any condition imposed thereon, may appeal the Manager's decision to the City Council. Such an appeal can be initiated by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty days of the date of the Manager's decision. The appeal shall be heard by the Council as soon thereafter as practicable. In considering the appeal, the Council shall hear all relevant evidence bearing upon the granting or denial of the variance or any conditions to be imposed. 6 The Council shall have thirty days following the close of any hearing on a variance to either grant or deny the variance. If granted, the variance may be subject to any conditions which the Council shall in its discretion impose. (4) Evaluation of City Bids. The City may consider the sound levels of equipment which bidders propose to supply to the city, in evaluating which equip- ment represents the lowest responsible bid. B. The following provisions of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield are hereby repealed: 1. Section 5.37 entitled "SNOWMOBILES." 2. Subdivision 11 of section 6.06 entitled "AIR POLLUTION AND GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULING REGULATIONS." 3. Subdivision 6, paragraph (2) of section 6.16 entitled "REGULATION OF WAGON PEDDLERS." 4. Subdivision 3, paragraph (3) and Subdivision 4 of section 9.04 entitled "TRAFFIC CONTROL REGULATION FOR MOTOR BICYCLES" . 5. Subdivision 4, paragraph (5) of section 10.01 entitled "PUBLIC NUISANCES." 6. Section 10.22 entitled "WILLFUL DISTURBANCE OF ANY LAWFUL ASSEMBLY OR MEETING OR THE PEACE AND QUIET OF ANY FAMILY OR NEIGHBORHOOD." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1981. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk 7 :# 1 ~- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 131 Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Discussion of Alternative Means for Financing Storm Sewer and Drainage Improvements portions of the city have become flooded. Particularly, severe rain storms in 1977 and 1978 demonstrated some spot inadequacies of the city's drainage system. On September 22, 1978, the city's consulting engineers, Orr-Schelen-Mayeron (OSM), com- n~PtAC~ a ~tuc3v of the damage done by the Auaust 30. 1978 rain existing Richfield storm sewer system performs well for the conditions for which it was designed. Although the system is basically sound, there are specific areas of the city which flood frequently. Some of these problem areas can be relieved by minor alterations, while others require enlargement of ponding areas, and some larger scale construction of improvements. Several times since early 1977, the city council has addressed the issue of whether any and what type of storm sewer improvements should be undertaken. A major problem in each of the council's The storm sewer system in various parts of the city are interrelated. The systems are connected by pipes and storage ponds, and any modifications to the system in one area may cause problems in another. This interrelationship causes particular problems in trying to finance storm sewer improvements. The most traditional process for assessing such improvements is the special assessment process, which is defined by state statute. This process permits the assessment on any particular property to be no more than the benefit received. The relationship between the assessment and benefit received from a storm sewer improvement project is frequently difficult to demonstrate. Property on high ground will not flood, whereas low land property will. Even though water from the roofs and driveways on the highland property contributes to the flooding problem in lower areas, the owners of the higher properties often see no need to spend money to maintain the storm sewer system, since they are not directly affected by drainage problems. Council Letter No. 131 -2- April 27, 1981 The city staff has been researching various alternaitves for financing of storm sewer improvements. The following section of this letter will describe each of the alternatives which we looked intn anr~ summarize some of the advantages and disadvantages ments: 1. Formation of a Storm Sewer District: Minnesota Statute 2. 444.16 provides that a city may corm a storm sewer improvement district. Formation of such a district would allow improvement costs to be distributed according to "contribution to the problem," rather than "benefit received." The precise formual for determing the distri- bution of costs is to be detailed in a policy statement adopted at the time the first project in a sotrm sewer improvement district is implemented. The storm sewer improvement district is established by an ordinance, and a .public hearing must be held before a storm sewer district can be established. In order for such a district to be established, the city council must adopt the ordinance by a two-thirds vote (four affirmative votes). The major advantage to this approach is that it removes the burden of having to demonstrate specific benefit to an individual property in financing the project. The project would be supported by general revenues of the city, whether raised by issuance of a bond and retired through property tax levies for debt service, or just generally supported through the city's operating monies. The disadvantages of the storm sewer district approach include the requirement that the ordinance be established by a two-thirds vote of council, as well as the difficulty in justifying, to the general populace, the use of general city revenues to make improvements to a storm sewer system that will benefit only a small portion of the city's residents. Additionally, a public hearing would be held concerning the improvements where notices would have to be mailed to every property owner in the city. Retired with Liquor Profits: Under state law, the city is barred from issuing revenue bonds secured by liquor profits for any purpose other than liquor stores, with- out holding an election. Furthermore, the special legislation that enabled the city to sell the golf course bonds have used up the liquor profits as a backup pledge for retirement of those bonds. Special state enabling legislation would be necessary to authorize the sale of such bonds. Council Letter No. 131 -3- April 27, 1981 ~ 3. Transfer a Specified Amount -of Liquor Profits to Retire 4. a GO Bond Issue: Under this alternative, the city would sell a general obligation bond issue to finance storm sewer improvements, and transfer s specific amount of liquor profits each year to the general fund to cancel the tax levy. However, the city cannot sell general obliga- tion bonds for storm sewer improvement purposes without approval of the voters through a referendum. Furthermore, the previous pledge of liquor profits as a backup source of meeting bonded indebtedness for the golf course could call into question the feasibility of having those profits available for additional obligation associated with the storm sewer improvements. Sewer Customers a Storm Sewer Fee: Some states permit cities to levy a "user" fee to properties within the city for storm sewer purposes. The fees from such storm sewer users generate revenues which could then be-used to retire a general obligation bond issue, by transfer- ring those revenues to cancel the tax levy necessary to pay off the bonds. However, Minnesota state law prohibits n. 5. Pay-As-You-Go: Another alternaitve would divide the major storm sewer improvements into small subprojects, which would be done on an annual basis, and would use the special property tax levy which was permitted for the first time in ly~l for real dollar decreases In profits of various city enterprise funds. The approxi- mate revenue which could be generated by levying this full amount under the special levy is estimated to be $400,000; at this rate of expenditure, it would take approximately five to six years for the storm sewer improvements which have already been identified to be completed. This would have the advantage of spreading the cost over several years and not incurring long term financial debt. This approach would have the disadvantage of delaying completion of the improvements, as well as the disadvantage of using general revenues derived from a property tax levy for improvements which do not clearly and directly benefit a large portion of the city's tax payers. The effect of raising the mill levy up to two mills is also of some concern in the current financial/ political picture. Council Letter No. 131 -4- April 27, 1981 6. Pay-As-You-Go Through Capital Improvement Program: 7. [mother alternattve considered was to construct the storm sewer improvements on an incremental basis, but use a those improvements, as is done from many of the other cities' other capital improvement programs. This would have the advantage of reducing indebtedness, and minimizing cost to city reisdents, although it would have the disadvantage of deferring completion of the r~rn~art fnr ~PVPral years. and displacing other capital Special Assessment: This is the alternative that the city council has previously considered in seeking various solutions for completing storm sewer improvements. A major disadvantage of this alternative is that the city sustain a special assessment. There are major adminis- trative burdens associated with this approach in terms of legal requirements for notifying property owners, establishing an assessment fund, etc. However, the city can sell a special assessment bond without requiring a referendum or an extra-ordinary majority of council approval, which would be an advantage of this approach. 8. General Obligation Bonds: The final alternative would be to issue general obligation bonds and retire them with a city-wide advalorem tax; as previously mentioned, the city can sell no general obligation bond without the approval of the voters through a referendum. While the city council has been improvements in the past, the proble of those improvements have continued the problem. Alternatives number 1, feasible at this time if the council Further discussion can take place at interested in storm drainage ns involved with financing to plague the resolution of 3, 5 and 6 seem the most desires to pursue the matter. the council meeting. Re>spec,Itfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director Administrative Services Director / ~/ r4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 130 April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Agreement with Richfield Swim Club for Use of Municipal Swimming Pool Each year for the past several years, the city has entered into an agreement with the Richfield Swim Club providing for the club's use of the city's outdoor municipal swimming pool facility for the two-day AAU swim meet. The Richfield Swim Club has again requested such an agreement with the city for 1981. The Proposed agreement would provide for the Richfield Swim Club to host an AAU sanctioned class swim meet for two days at the outdoor Richfield municipal swimming pool. The proposed dates of the 1981 swim meet are Saturday, July 11 and Sunday, July 12, 1981. This agreement with the Richfield Swim Club provides that the city would close the pool to open swimming on the two days of the club's sponsored meet. The Richfield Park and Recreation Advisory Commission reviewed this requested agreement at their April 14, 1981 meeting. It is the recommendation of the advisory commission and the Community Services Director, in which I concur, that the city council authorize an agreement with the Richfield Swim Club providing for closing of the municipal outdoor pool on July 11 and July 12, 1981, to enable the Richfield Swim Club to host a competitive swimming meet at the city pool on those dates. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 129 Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Public Hearing for Alley Paving Project CP7341, 7342 n \. On March 9, 1981 and M arch 23, 1981, the city council , accepted preliminary engineering reports and ordered a public :=hearing to be held on impro vement of the foll owing alleys : ~^ ~.Q~ r Between From To q9 ` ~ A t St eet 71 72nd Street N~ venue ~Ticollet and First s r 67th St t 9 Clinton and Third Avenue 66th Street ree ~` .Stevens and Second Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street This project would provide for construction of an 11 feet wide concrete or asphalt alley with concrete curb and gutter, involving a total of 1,828 lineal feet of alley surfacing. It is proposed that the city solicit bids for both the concrete and asphalt alternatives, with the final determination between concrete and asphalt surfacing to be made after the bids are received. The estimated cost of improvements will depend upon the method and materials selected. It is estimated that the total project cost will not exceed $90,300. Properties abutting the alleys will be assessed for alley construction costs according to the assessment policy established by the city council as Resolution No. 6345. The estimated assessment rate for residential abutting property is $17.80/foot to $24.70/foot. The estimated assessment rate for commercial This assessment can be prepaid in full, payments (including interest) may be spread over a 20 year period in equal install- ments; partial prepayment can be made the year the assessment roll is adopted with the unpaid balance spread over a 20 year _, period. ~~ ~~ . . Council Letter No. 129 -2- April 27, 1981 The alley between Nicollet and First Avenues, from 71st e es, R fifths (4/5) majority of the council, while improvements requested through the petition process require only a three- fifths, or majority, vote of the council. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolutions ,ordering these alley improvement projects, at the close of the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Director City Engineer ~~ ~~ c7 ~~ ~> v~ . ~/ // ~O K it C~ h ~C ; ,~ O /J r~ ~. \ Q ~~~~ ,) N a V N o J~ •° °. n~ ~- ~~ ~~~~ ~)~~~ i~ ,n , @,~ U• 1. ,per rt~ ~ ~~~ rw. ~ J ~ a ~~~ ,. ~ t W' ~ J ~' ~ ~ I ~ I ~.~h__~ _ti _ _ -1a -'fir - -- -_ ~_._ ~- --...__----------- AVE. ~,Q ~' W~'NTWORTH ~ ---- _-- -------1 ----------- d --- --- - ___ _~ ~ ~ ~ ao,~ D ~ ~ ~ --i i V ~ L 1 ~ ~ ~~ / Nth ~ J ~J ., r~ Vi/ , ~ i '~ ,~ ~ v' ~ I J ~ ~`'; W r ~~ ~, ... .., i. ~ 00 1 -1 r. N ° ~-p ~. ~, ~ ° ~s -P 0 ~i 5~ ~ -; 5 BLAISDELL 'r' !~ ~.1 ,~ Jji ° i 'PI t4" tr ~,~t ~ - ~ -_.. `' - o N "~• , ~:J dJ ~ ~ ~°p~s ~r-~ ~ . . itf - - ri rJ , W rat, but ,~~ ~ ~ cD r r. ~~ o~ ~o ~ o~ ~ ut {~~ w'~ N - ? i o0 J 4 7 be ''q S '~ ~ ~ )) c~~~ ~ 4i iI N :i p j '~ J ~T~ 0~ 3 .:~' ~~ ~. .. ~~I~ n, fV ,'+ O n O G~ ,~ • __ r J J } ,_ ,; NICOLLET,, ~ _ ~,__- _ t~COUNTY .;, I~OA~ ~, -- IVfl. __ - ; r-- - --- - -` 4~i 3° "~O i+ ( ~~'S ~-. -.7\ ~~ ~ - '~ ~'{~ ~' _ ( `'t'`! be r 6 58 .5?5 555 o 3^ .9.5 „7 ',.~~. 33~~' 5 ~ -Z j i r; ~ .~ ~ ?'; G r 1 C , 90 . ~~. /-" o~~ 49 V. ~ (. ,,. ~..:r' ~. 'sJ 30 i9 a ~ 9 ~ ~ I 'r ~ Y ~1.~: 'Jr, JJ~ .p S~ 16 -,~~,r~ ~ J;~ ~ ., ~~. (9i A ~. ~ ~ V _. w -P 0 I ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~/ NSA.... erT'"ru I..I`~ t 1' ~, Y.J ~~ ;,li v 1~ - ~~ ~ 1 y va ~l b ~~ J r ~t. ' N ~ ~ r~ 'y /~~~{f /~yI m 1` J J r~ j ~ ~ 1 N N W l/ W ~ w (h t( r _ _ -Q` .I~ O 1l1 R. ~ p h' W * S~~ Eli Y Li~~~ r~l! L ((.~~1 ~J 6~ /~`. rn tl, j. ~ r~\ w~, ~l, (~ t T '+. PIi~Q.b' Si J ,, N ' a n i ~~- ~ Cn r to .l, t ° , A .. ~ T r.~'1 N ~ i ~, "" , u ; r -- ' ' ~r i w .o p n1 Vf i t>°,. o "p "V ~C r (] ~~~ ~ rl~" . ~~ _ . v Any-`.N• 'y -~____ -_-~------~ 5° 5° »d'.I ~„~B~ _ . L.~ ~ a .S r _ ~ t~ _~~'~1,~.dr~.t r ~ ~`~1 N q~. f r f . r, ,t: ~ ~; 'p~J+M J .J O/ ~ b'j' Ut ; N w "b F~je, ,~~~ ~ ~9. ; 9 ~ I {O •~~ . iJ ~° .)a i 6~ a ua; ~,,.y~~ ~(` , - i ~ (}1 s ,5.~ r/J, Q .1~~ ? .t~ ~ISaJU 0 P W ~ N J h t, n U A i ~ w~ - cis o ,/A ,,p ~ ~n tV J ~P w W N vN' T '~ ~ -~Q J~ , r r / .r J~Et / T ~ / a. i~ J /~~{~}/~~ 1 ~ `-P v ~i =/-._ 61 ~ w'~ N v n ~ ~ ISr &.° rr~ ~T~~J~,~.7~ ~ , ~ rr ~ ~ r ~'~~~ Y~ N -- ~'~ "p : w ro - ~ ~ iii ~~~ ~.. ':1{ ~; { ur N ~ '~~.~ t~j ~ C7 m .gyp 'fir ~n_ °,; r p ~{_ ''°'v~'~ Y6-~ ~o ~c 'i 5 .~_ ~ r tt...oc" r ~ ° - ~ i` c r 1425". F ~ I R S I /~ ~ ~~ . ~~ _ -. ~~_~.i--J:.~: `' E'~ ~ 63 ro 6 vl ° 5°.° 7° 5 +- 5, 0 f ~ ~ AVE. N ,o, S:E NcTE r Y~ r ~ 1 A T t `f : y r3~ 'S i5 w ~ ~ ~ i ? ~ i °5 S' >P So S' - qa: ~ ~ P SO• 0 J. ~j CA~ ~~ rn ~, rr r~ n~'tr~ ~ w J ., ~Mt",, ~ 1. ~,~ r -3~G -S~ ~ ~'S ~. w ro k ~~, i ~r ,. _~~ _5 ~ U I AVEr °~ r~ ~ ~a - '6.~G U ~ N w t> -~ ~; T ~ } ~ ~ '6~ ti/ / J y ~' ~ a~ In ~> w ~° .ti~~°' r _~ ,- ~~ u 45 ,~ - ' •~ , ~ • U 1 ~ d n e A ° r, r ~Q ~ , ~ ~ t. , r ~-~ J no ~ n q ~ PJ m .J ' .~ Q. lP log ~ f ~ °C r; ~D `r' O ) i - ~r ~., J: ~ m . 1_ r I ~ - X50 w ~ ~ _~~, i r w `% N r; t, A i° ~j ~ J Z i. ~ ~~ r~ ~~'.f vrJ I i ~ ;S~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ rt ~o ~ ~ G ~ r + + r IJ> r d ~ ~r ~ "J~ ~ ~~ ~ CA W Ur ! W N ~ _ _ 8 • <a X5.3 4 ^ 5c 5. STEVEN S r s:E ;y~;E-x a' r, .J ~ to n w ro Sc '/v~, _A C~4~U~~h ~?~~p~~ry -0 0 r;r.. N~ r.~ N nJ N r~-.i N rj- ~_.r~_N r r ~r :r ~. r w~ •{I ~IPN /1 N1-1~°O nr AD ~N ON iNNN`!'tr ~A; ly ~ tfr Vy.~T }..J fJ' N N!.' ra - r G~ J-r "i ~i W,-' a,~ ` v~~ i/~D. O v ~ NI~. lM .P ~N _ ~ r-~ ((-~ ~ ri-` ~~ i.>\ i'~ I ~iw~~ i~ai~ ico c N N_ YT Yi i rJ' J' - Jd~~;r'p °'~ V~~ PV~ r Jew _ ~ - '~,z,f ~~ ~ .,+~ Su 48.8' d So .- _\/n I f~e..F ~~ 186' Sa ~ ,~~i~ i~ o (~r~N~~.."i (`~ rJ~ rim r;~ ~1 -• r'rS~' ,~ ~ r~~rJ'~ ~ a,~ ~0 ~rj S,ri~ ~~1 N ~ ~ J.~~,~Ju,JJ,.Ju.JrnJ~~~J~, Qri ~ a ° ~ ~J;,Wj~-Y '`~~J~ >.LJ~)r J~~~J-Wt.'~r,~! _ r r 't+' n u, a. ..`Jd. ,v v, a ~- •P~ ~+ In ~m '~' a JN~~,, (,~ N• ~ p v °o -~ a~ yr ~'1r' V rt ._ rNl ° r,o -) m v, c ~ w N -- ~' SECOND a ~'~~ AVE. ~ ~N N A J' f r. r i1 r~~T~ r ~ ~'~ ~~, 5a 4$B' +. 4Q~a. Vt?• --~ -r r~ , ri ~N r r ~ ,~Frr~? ~r N ~N r N n+ 'JN.i~~ r ~-0 r,~.a \~N/ 6' '"r -' >•"~J q.J ta-W l.. -~F, D V'~ '^~~ Jw(b ~D N N ~rY% rt, nJ~b,N~-~~', ~j,;~~~a'~~r~.J~.'0f'~' r. r. ~a r~ ~,v ~w-9ti .,Jb, 'u~ di ~tlr--~~ tr ~ V O!J A~ . Lr ~ -- _ _ ~~ a wJv, c N'~ J' ~('1 J VJ A ~ i t J` J` J~ ~^ -P' _ _ ~w ~ v N I N ~ N. N'N ~_?'' ~~; ~~ _ .~ t,F'S Sr-~ N ~~ .1,, /, ~ ~~ ^' 8a~ o ' vJ m ~ ~~ .~'~ ~' ` w~ .n _ r~~ ~ i So ~F C~ p 2. -- A ~~~ AJ ~ .ti, , - r, ri ri~~ '; J`~ N~;r=~J~ -0 ~'~~ per, ~j~11~ ~ ~~ ~ro r P. N r} = hZ 't, a, .r fir. C) ,~D °o ''~l ~r I~ S r , Q.1 ~r ~~~. /:N J~~J ~~J I~i~~.r~r,~ t ~~„ v'.• V, - ,y i J, t I~ tir IJ ~ U v ~' ii r, V` a t',6~ W a r o, ~ ~/~ n, _ ` J1 +' ~' i~Q. ~~° _ - N w~j ..~ - r ~ ~ Y/~, ' ,`-'~ w'~ ~~ U~~ y_.. `F - :v V! r.~ ,- J er ~; v~, ~ jo; :ii ~° ~' c ~ ? ab i : ~ 6C 3p 3) 9'' So-~~ ~' J ~Jl a `'_,._i J; 5° I~ J'a?I:o 4 E I ~o V ~n ~ co _.~ m ~n 1, w ro - "'- _' Y~,j( , - -- - - - ,~, 5 i fl i-~~ rc .;' -~,~, _ ,. ~! ~ ~ + r-~= _ ,.-~ ~ ~ `~r ~_ r;;'.'r b r I ~' Sft ,vr,~~ ~ 7~ ~~ _ _ ' > . T -'' - 7. -'~-7"' r l ~L' it -'~ i -..I _-'. 4^'_ _--•- -1- _ -. - - . .~'. ~ ` YYYYY I r . . _ N W .A 1n ~. m ur r w r~ J ~• ~' ~~~ .~ ~ ~,~ ~5 ~~s ~ In' ~~ ~'P ~ / ~ r J N ~ /~ \ i~ ~ ~ ~ `' '. {' (~ - ?~. u rx 5 ~ ~ ~~ ~5 '2)4 (1 r~ r ~ ~ wQ w ~ ~ .~ V ~ ~ W f I~ .~ y .~ ~ ;~~ o o . ~ ~, ' :32 ~5 15 N AVE. Y' ~ r ~" .J oo a, t,y n `D ~ - N w ~ A to ~ ~, 64.6„ ,,5 ~ ~N. i ,5 rti~ S~ ~~, ~~ ~p ~~ ~~ w J'w ~ ~J~' ~ ~ ~ fP ,N ,j.~ ~ r D U ~ ~ f 00 ~ ~ 01 llr I O W N ~- 5 'S ~5 SO. ° b~.b5 IS i ,7 ~ ., ~5 1 Ww ~ A ..9 ~. O w t i. _. ~{ N h w ~.f A ~f lP i ~ O~ A ti I ~q~ ~~s ~~ '~~ r. ~ .~ R ~y ~~ ,~ ~° Q•~~~ w.^~. J . .J ~ ~ ~ J 'S poJ J J ~ ' ~ J ~ JS ' `~' 1 ~ J ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .J I :N ~ J -. . ~"'~ t m gym, ~ n ~-~' °. .~ ~. -J 1.A.. ~ ' _~. L _..---- 1-~ I 1~._ 1_.i4' ~-~ N O f v • H 0 • ~~ r'v ~ ~_ ~~ N ~A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PERMANENT ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING ALLEYS Between From To Clinton and Third Avenue Stevens and Second Avenue 66th Street 67th Street 71st Street 72nd Street WHEREAS, Resolutions of the City Council adopted the 9th day of March, 1981 and the 23rd day of March, 1981, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of the listed alleys, 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 this 27th day of April, 1981, 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 improvements are hereby ordered as proposed in council Resolutions No. 6393 and No. 6401, adopted the 9th day of March, 1981 and the 23rd day of March, 1981. 2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Passed by the city council of the City of Richf field this 27th day of April, 1981. ATTEST: Donald J. Priebe Mayor "~ Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PERMANENT ALLEY IMPROVEMENT ON THE FOLLOWING ALLEY`- Between From To Nicollet and First Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street WHEREAS, Resolutions of the City Council adopted the 9th day of March, 1981 and the 23rd day of March, 1981, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed improvement of listed alleys, 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 this 27th day of April, 1981, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. Such improvements are hereby ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. 6393 and No. 6401, adopted the 9th day of March, 1981 and the 23rd day of March, 1981. 2. Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richf field this 27th day of April, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk /U CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 128 Agenda April 27, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Recommendation to the Commissioner of Highways for the State of Minnesota that the Contract for CP7052 (Lyndale Avenue from 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive) be Awarded to. Progressive Contractors, Inc. On Shore Drive:. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council review. The engineer's estimate for the project is $726,146.65, while the budget prepared in April of 1980 was $782,000. The low bid on the contract was provided by Pro- gressive Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $686,973.75. Because the project is financed primarily with Federal Aid Urban (FAU) Funds, the Minnesota Commissioner of Highways must award the contract. The commissioner will take into consideration the recommendation of the city council. The staff recommends that the city council move to recommend to the Minnesota Commissioner of Highways that the CP 7052 contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Pro- gressive Contractors, Inc. There was some controversy over the bid submitted by Arcon Construction. They submitted their bid five minutes past the published deadline. The State Aid Engineer inad- vertently opened the bid from Arcon contrary to the procedures established by statute. The bid should have been returned to Arcon unopened. The legal representative for Arcon threatened legal action. At this time the city attorney and the attorney general's office reviewed the facts and recommended that we waive irregularities around the Arcon bid and accept it. Upon review of the bid it was discovered that there was an error lowest bidder to the fourth lowest bidder. Therefore it is recommended that the city council recommend to the Minnesota Commissioner of Highways that the bid for CP 7052 be awarded to Progressive Contractors, Inc. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager i c CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening April 6, 1981 Lyndale Avenue, 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by C. E. Weichselbaum, District 5 State Aid Engineer, who announced that the purpose of the meeting • was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids Street Construction Work on Lyndale Avenue, 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive, as advertised in the official newspaper on March 11, 18, 25, 1981. Present: Michael Eastling, City Engineer Arthur P. Bailey, Sr. Engineering Tech. Sharon Boyson, Personnel Assistant Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk C. E. Weichselbaum, Dist. 5 State Aid Eng. The following bids were submitted: BIDDER BID SECURITY TOTAL Progressive Contractors B.B. 50 $686,973.75 C. S. McCrossan, Inc. B.B. 5% $708,119.08 Victor Carlson & Sons B.B. 5% $711,035.90 Arcon Construction, Inc. B.B. 50 $727,864.84 763,164.60 (1st Alt.} Shafer Contracting Co. B.B. 5% $735,084.60 (2nd Alt.) Thomas & Sons B.B. 50 $764,126.33 MN State Curb & Gutter Fisher Sand & Gravel B.B. 50 $827,013.75 The bids will be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of April 13, 1981. Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk