Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-09-81 agenda
e /yC CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 85 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract, Employee Group Dental Insurance On February 26, 1981, the City Clerk opened bids in accordance with previous city council authorization, for provision of an employee group dental insurance benefit. The Personnel Manager, Community Services Administrative Assistant and representatives from the various bidding firms were also present. The bid minutes are attached for city council review. The city received six bids for this coverage. Bids were solic- ited for four basic types of dental plans which varied in their re- spect to benefit level, deductible provisions, one and two year guaranteed rates and participation requirements in order to provide dependent coverage. Plan A had a $25 deductible with 80 percent payment for preventative care, 80 percent for restorative and 50 percent for posthetics. Plan B was the same except for 100 percent payment for preventative care. A Plan A and Plan B alternative with no deductible was also requested. Based-on an analysis of the bid proposals, it is recommended that the city council take the following actions: 1. Accept the bid minutes on employee group dental insur- ance coverage, and 2. Adopt the attached resolution approving the two -year rate guarantee'bid submitted by Delta Dental for Plan B coverage. I am recommending the two -year rate guarantee because our city employees do not have an established history of claim experience and as such, there is no way to accurately project a claim level and subsequent second year rates. This is especially an important con- sideration in a situation such as ours where the plan has been pre - announced for several months and employees may be waiting for in- stallation of the plan to have needed dental work performed. This, along with the advantage of having a budgetable cost for two years, leads me to believe the two -year rate guarantee can only be to the long -term advantage of the city. Noma* amp� 4 keg s+ qD- 0444womb wry, _r?` ^� A 4 r Council Letter No. 85 -2- March 9, 1981 0 In addition to the basic employee plan, Delta bid a depend- ent coverage plan which requires participation by 75 percent of eligible dependents. This requires that 75 percent.of the employees covered who have dependents (spouse and /or children) who do not have other dental coverage must sign up for coverage in:order to make the plan effective. Without that participation, the plan for de- pendents cannot be implemented while the employee coverage will be implemented regardless. The monthly cost for dependent coverage will be $14.90 if the Delta two -year rate is accepted. It is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution. Resp ctfully submitted, �0 Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Director of Administrative Services Personnel Manager Finance Coordinator ftt - j r' ' "t" - !fj",W~'j � . IFVjP CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: 5#__ 114 __Ju Council Letter No. 87 Agenda March 9, 1981 Subject: Settlement of the Shafer Contract - CP7050 A tentative settlement has been reached on the Shafer Contract - (CP7050 dispute pending council approval. The settlement specifies that the city should pay $162,416.53 in damages to Shafer Contracting Company. These damages were on a contract for $1,173,195.15 prior to additions. The dise arosom the first phase of construction in the ect - CP705. The special provisions of the contract provided that all of the right -of -way and easements for lJ&icollet AvenueWFirst Avenue and 66th Street be acquired by August 1, 1977. However, it wasn't until a year later, August of 1978, that the necessary right -of -way and easements were obtained. These delays caused inefficiencies and delays in the operations of the contract. Upon completion of the work, Shafer filed damages in excess of $239,09 This amount included damages filed by not only Shafer but also six of his subcontractors. For over a year the city and Shafer have been negotiating a settlement. The Hennepin County Highway Department has been the principal bargaining agent for the city. They had acted as the project engineer and contract administrator for the city and as such were in the best position to represent the city. The city was represented by our city attorney's office and consultant engineer. There were primarily three types of damages awarded: 1. Increases in overhead, labor, material and equipment due to delays; 2. Damages due to inefficiencies because the contractor was not able to proceed with the work in the order in which he had planned; 3. Interq,it on Money retained. When the claim was first submitted for $239,000, this amount was budgeted for in the L /H /N bond issue. This settlemeniwwill move $77,000 from the Shafer contract settlement account the contin- gency account. Hennepin County did follow county procedure when deal- ing with damage claims of this type. The staff recommends that the council approve the settlement as attached. Respectfully submitted, 4,,%,.%C.' Karl atoll- enheraer City Manager cc: Community Development Director Finance Coordinator i AW • ply W PON-*M.. OVA, k4WAAM& mail=' —t.':A"w"0l--* g,�,W SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEME HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION DIVISION CONTRACTOR: Shafer Contracting Co. Shafer, Minnesota, 55074 CONTRACT NO. 16251 -2 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 11 COUNTY PROJECT NO. 7625 COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAYS NO. 52.R 53 LOCATION: Between 440' south of 66th Street and 64th Street on #52, and First Ave. and Lyndale Ave. on #53 CLASS OF WORK: Pavina, signalization, landscaping and lighting. This contract is amended as follows: WHEREAS: The Special Provisions for the above referenced project provide for ac- quisition of all right of way and easements for Nicollet Avenue, First Avenue and 66th Street by August 1, 1977 and for 65th Street by April 1, 1978, and WHEREAS: Certain right of way and easements on Nicollet Avenue and on 65th Street were not available until August, 1978, and the relocation of utility lines on First Avenue was not completed until August, 1978, and WHEREAS: These delays beyond the control of the contractor caused inefficiencies in his operations and /or delays in operations from one to -two construction years. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The contractor shall receive fair and equitable comnensation for ineffi- ciencies in operations and increases in overhead, labor, material and equipment due to delays. 2. The contractor shall receive interest on money retained beyond the original contract completion date and interest based on 50% of the total claim for the period June, 1979 to June, 1980 and on 100% of the claim for the period June, 1980 to February 14, 1981. 3. Payment shall be made as shown in the Estimate of Cost. ESTIMATE OF COST SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC. 1. Wage Increases on Work Which was Delayed Plan Actual Hours Hourly Year Hours Hours Del_ ayed Increase 1977 3750.5 2752.5 998 X 1.075 = $ 1,072.85 1978 3750.5 2889.5 861 X 0.575 = 495.08 1979 0 1895 0 0.00 1,567.93 Overhead, bond 23% 360.62 $ 1,928.55 2. Fringe Benefit Increases on Work Which was Delayed Hours Hourly Delayed Increase 1977 to 1979 998 X 0.30 = $ 299.40 1978 to 1979 861 X 0.15 = 129.15 - $ 428.55 Supplemental Agreement No. 11 County Project 7625 3. Payroll Insurance Increases Hours Avg. Hrly. Delayed Wage Increase 1977 to 1979 998 X 12.15 X .031 + .018T= 5 594.16 1978 to 1979 861 X 12.15 X .018 = 188.30 _ $ 782.46 4. Additional Supervisory Costs 1978 248 Hours @ $20.00 /Hour = $ 4,960.00 1979 430 Hours @ $21.00 /Hour = 9,030.00 $13,990.00 5. Additional Payment for Field Office, Type D $ 3,000.00 6. Additional Administrative Expense in Co- ordinated Sub- Contractors 1978 130 Hours @ $15.00 /Hour = $ 1,950.00 1979 110 Hours @ $16.00 /Hour = 1,760.00 $ 3,710.00 7. Additional Costs Caused by Piece -Meal Fashion in Which Work had to be Performed. - Labor Inefficiency: Actual Ineff. Hours Avg. Hrly. Hours Rate Lost Wage 1977 2752.5 X .2 = 550.5 X 12.08 = $ 6,650.04 1978 2889.5 X .1 = 288.9 X 12.68 = 3,663.25 1979 0 10,313.29 Overhead, bond, insurances 40% 4,125.32 $14,438.61 Equipment Inefficiency: Inefficiency Actual Rate 1977 16,000 X .2 = 4 3,200.00 1978 22,354 X .1 = 2,235.40 - 1979 9,540 X 0 = 0 $ 5,435.40 8. Additional Costs on Equipment Inflation Plan Actual Ineff* Delayed 101.SYear 1977 21,299.5 16,000- 3,200= 12,880 21,229.5- 12,800 = 8430X.2= 1,686 1978 21,229.5 22,354- 2,235= 20,119 21,229.5 - 20,119= 2220X.1= 111 1979 9,540- 0= 9,540 0 42,459 42,459 $ 1,797.00 *See Item 7, Equipment Inefficiency. 9. Warning Lites - Excess Over Normal Expense $ 1,734.94 10. Interest Expense on Retained Percentage $12,335.17 TOTAL SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC. 559,580.68 -t _ . -2- Supplemental Agreement No. 11 County Project 7625 BATZLI ELECTRIC CO. 1. Increases in Mobilization and Storage Costs 5 1,644.50 2. Additional Labor Costs Due to Inefficiency Actual Ineff. Hours Avg. Hrly. Year Hours Rate Lost Wage 1977 1733 X .20 = 347 X 11.31 = $ 3,924.57 1978 1804 X .20 = 361 X 11.55 = 4,169.55 1979 4309 X 0 = 0 X 13.85 = 0.00 7846 8,094.12 Overhead, bond, insurance 40% 3,237.65 $11,331.77 3. Labor Cost Increases Plan Hrs. Wrkd* Hours Rate Year Hours - Ineff.Hrs. Escalated Increase 1977 4426 1386 3040 2.54 = $ 7,721.60 1978 2712 1443 1269 2.30 = 2,918.70 1979 0 4309 0 0 = 0.00 7138 7138 10,640.30 Overhead, bond, insurances 40%: 4,256.12 514,896.42 _ *See Item #2 4. Additional Eouipment Costs Due to Inefficienc Inefficiency Year Actual Hours Rate 1977 7150 .20 = $ 1,430.00 1978 7475 X .20 = 1,495.00 1979 14300 X 0 0'.00 28925 X $ 2,925.00 5. Additional Costs on Equipment % % % Equip. Inflation Plan Used Delayed Cost Increase 1977 62 22 40 X 26,000 X 20 = $ 2,080.00 1978 38 23 15 X 26,000 X 10 = 390.00 1979 55 = 0.00 5 2,470.00 6. Additional Material Costs Concrete 30 Cu. Yd. X 8.86 = $ 265.80 Sidewalk Rem. & Rep. 670 Sq. Ft. X 0.50 = 335.00 Loop Sawing 1,885 Ft. X 0.36 = 678.60 Painting = 96.00 1,375.40 Overhead - 15% 206.31 $ 1,581.71 7. Extra Costs Repair bases damaged by snow plows = 5 2,255.23 *Addition to Signal system at 65th & Nicollet = 174.05 Augering under existing 65th at Nicollet = 451.88 5 2,881.16 TOTAL BAT7.LI ELECTRIC CO. 537,730.56 *Hennepin County Cost -3- Supplemental Agreement No. 11 County Project 7625 BUELL BROTHERS 1. Labor and Fringe Benefit Increases $ 569.71 2. Material cost Increase 3,830.60 3. Overhead 4,400.31 X 15% 660.05 4. Profit 5,060.36 X 15% 759.05 TOTAL BUELL BROTHERS $ 5,819.41 CONCRETE DESIGN SPECIALTIES, INC. 1. Wage and Fringe Benefit Increases on Delayed Work 2 -Year Delay Hours Hourly Increase 2,103.0 X 1.415 = $ 2,975.75 1 -Year Delay 1,196.1 X 0.70 = 837.27 $ 3,813.02 _:.___ -,• • - " -. -_ •...._ _: - . _ _ -� 2. Material Increases for Delayed Work - 2 -Year Delay Concrete Topping 52.4 C.Y. X 21.16 = $ 1,108.78 Concrete Base 166.2 C.Y. X 6.65 = 1,105.23 Materials for entrance feature, benches R trash receptacles = 796.97 Expansion joints, poly, color, grout and caulk = 526.00 Total 2 -Year Delay T-3,536.98 1 -Year Delay Concrete Topping 17.9 C.Y. X 17.02 = $ 304.66 Concrete Base 62.38 C.Y. X 5.06 = 315.64 Materials for entrance feature = 395.46 Expansion joints, poly, color, grout and caulk = 219.91 _.. Total 1 -Year Delay = 1,235.67 $ 4,772.65 3. Equipment Increases for delaved Work 2 -Year Delay Entrance feature, benches and trash receptacles = $ 73.03 1 -Year Delay Entrance feature and bollards = $ 45.77 $ 118.80 Overhead Total for 1, 2 and 3 = $ 2,901.49 4. Labor and Material Increase for Fence on First Avenue Labor Increase: Cement Finishers 422 Hours X 0.75 = $ 316.50 Laborers 117 Hours X 0.55 = 6a.35 Material Increase: Concrete = 24.50 405.35 mar 44 *W -� TOTAL CONCRETE DESIGN $12,011.31 �; -4- r Supplemental Agreement No. 11 County Project No. 7625 LINO LAKES LANDSCAPING 1. Material Cost Increase $ 715.40 TOTAL LINO LAKES LANDSCAPING $ 715.40 MINNESOTA VALLEY SURFACING 1. Labor and Fringe Benefit Increases $ 978.99 2. Material Increases Asphalt Cement 198.7 X 38.00 = $ 7,550.60 Aggregate 4,051 X 1.95 = 7,899.45 $15,450.05 3. Additional Work on 66th Street (Hennepin County Cost) Bituminous for Mixture 59.3 X 38.00 = $ 2,253.40 Wearing Course 989 X 2.50 = 2,472.50 Tack 1,202 X 0.10 = 120.20 $ 4,846.10* TOTAL MINNESOTA VALLEY SURFACING $21,275.14 *Not to be included in interest computations. PEDERSON BROS. 1. Labor and Frinqe Benefit Increases April 16, 1979 through April 30, 1979 = $ 444.03 May 1, 1979 through August 5, 1979 = 1,878.58 Social Security = 109.29 Workmen's Compensation Insurance = 204.82 Special 8612 = 766.50 $ 3,403.22 2. Material Increases Concrete: June, 1978 to November, 1978 723.25 CY X 1.75 = $ 1,265.69 June, 1978 to November, 1978 20 CY X 2.85 = 57.00 April, 1979 to July, 1979 754.5 CY X 5.10 = 3,847.95 April, 1979 to July, 1979 132.75 CY X 4.48 = 594.72 July, 1979 to September, 1979 46.5 CY X 8.25 = 383.63 Lumber for Special 8612 = 128.23 Flashers = 279.90 $ 6,557.12 3. Additional concrete on 65th Street 22.2 Cu. Yd. X $36.56 = $ 811.63 TOTAL PEDERSON BROS. $10,771.97 -5- f Supplemental Agreement No. 11 County Project No. 7625 INTEREST ON CLAIM TOTAL $19,532.21 SUMMARY OF COSTS Wage and Fringe Benefits $ 66,942.15 U.S. Treasury 47,850.36 Equipment Claim Amount Bond + 1�_ Interest June, 1979 $ 71,529.18 $ 9.55 $ 569.25 July $167,436.68 9.32 555.54 August 9.35 557.33 September 9.42 561.50 October 9.68 577.00 November 10.44 622.30 December, 1979 10.80 643.76 January, 1980 10.58 630.65 February 11.03 657.47 March 12.55 748.08 April 12.87 767.15 May 71,529.18 11.83 705.16 June 143,058.37 10.82 1,289.91 July 10.40 1,239.84 August 10.83 1,291.10 September 11.53 1,374.55 October 11.94 1,423.43 November 12.20 1,454.43 December, 1980 12.83 1,529.53 January, 1981 12.98 1,547.41 February 14, 1981 143,058.37 13.20 786.82 TOTAL $19,532.21 SUMMARY OF COSTS Wage and Fringe Benefits $ 66,942.15 Material 47,850.36 Equipment 12,746.20 Overhead and profit 8,030.59 Interest on Retainage 12,335.17 Interest on Claim 19,532.21 Total $167,436.68 City of Richfield Cost $162,416.53 Hennepin County Cost 5,020.15 TOTAL ADDED TO THE CONTRACT Amount added 167,436.68 Original Contract 1,173,195.15 Previous Additions 9,863.95 Total to Date 1,350,495.78 Percentage Increase 14.2% -6- The Contractor, having signed this contract, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this contract on , 1981, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Upon proper execution, this contract will be legally valid and binding. s "sistant ounty A orney Date: ;Z// 7�8/ Approved as to execution: BY Chair of County Board AND Associate County Administrator ATTEST: Deputy County Auditor _ Assistant County Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY: Date: Director, Department of Transportation Project Engineer CITY OF RICHFIELD: SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC. BY�cyZ� -� ITS Vice - President ANDi ITS Secretary STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20th day of February , 1981, by M. E. Neils and George W. Mattson of SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC. on behalf of the corporation. f] (� iRAD MATTSON Notary Public ()`((() FT' ' cHlsAao counn Y . > .... .. j .V JiM.., .•N..... .N •iESOTA q `SSSS))))r111 MiCOMM14kh.ei�.I:F.MAR.3Y.tY�A My commission expires• tA iy N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 86 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request to Move Dwelling Into the City The inspection division of the Department of Public Safety has received an application dated February 12, 1981, from a Mr. Larry C. Stein, with regard to moving a single family dwelling and garage, from its present location at 7944 13th Avenue, Bloom - ingtor521 Standish Avenue in Richfield. This home is 40 years old and is a one and one -half story, one family dwelling, 30 feet long and proposed to be relocated on a 50 foot lot.. An inspection of this dwelling was conducted on February 13, 1981, and Mr. Stein has been informed of the existing deficiencies, maintenance and site work necessary to bring this dwelling into code compliance (copy attached). Mr. Stein has agreed to furnish the City of Richfield with a bond in-the amount of $15,725 (estim- ated value of work to be completed), to be held by the city until such time as final acceptance for occupancy is issued from the city to parties of ownership. Property owners surrounding and adjacent to the property at 6521 Standish Avenue have been contacted and have signed a docu- ment approving Mr. Stein's proposed plan t&-move -this home onto this property. Attached to this council letter is a site map, showing the vacant lot as well as the locations of adjoining property owners who approve of this move. It is the recommendation of the Community Services Director, in which I concur, that the city council approve moving the afore- mentioned dwelling onto the vacant lot at 6521 Standish Avenue. Respe(ctful(ly submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ e j a cc: Public Safety Director Community Services Director PA 0' i February 19, 1981 Larry C. Stein 7921 Southtown Center Bloomington, AiN 55431 Re: 7944 13th Ave. S. Bloomington, *4N An inspection of the above structures (dwelling and garage) was made by-the Department of Inspection on Friday, February 13, 1981, and the following deficiencies will need to be brought to code compliance. Also other maint- enance and site work as listed will need to be completed to receive a letter of occupancy to re- occupy the dwelling for habitable purposes. The project would comprise of moving the dwelling at 7944 13th Ave. S., Bloomington, Mn to 6521 Standish Ave. S. in Richfield. Items of code compliance: 1. Install new basement and floor $4,000 2. Install new masonry chimney in basement and above roof, or remove and install 6" Class B vent 400 3. Install new furnace 1,000 4. Install new water heater 200 5. Install new 100 amp electric service and bring dwelling to code compliance 500 6. New sewer service line and SAC charge 1,000• 7. New water service line S00 8. Repair, scrape and repaint siding 500 9. Repair eaves and facia 200 10. Repair front entrance roof 50 11. New front and side entrance doors 300 12. New basement door and hardware 5n 13. Repair damaged gypsum board on first floor as needed 75 14. Repaper or paint interior of dwelling and spray ceiling in living room Son 15. New kitchen counters and upper cabinets l,onn 16. Reconnect all plumbing and bring system to code compliance 4nn 17. Reinstall baseboard where missing in dwelling l5n 18. Old rear porch to he removed and surface of main structure to he refurbished to match exterior 15n 19. Insulate exterior walls of dwelling 1,0nn Upper Story 20. 21. 22. Insulate ceiling of 1st story hack of knee (Blown in type) Finish insulating, knee walls Insulate flat area of 2nd floor ceilings walls) snn 23. Rebuilt closet 24. Install 3/8" gypsum board to all wall and ceiling, tape and paint 25. New stoop and step at each entrance 26. Relocate garage on new slab ) 27. Minor repair and repaint garage ) Yard Work 1. Grade and sod 2. Lan cape as approved by Chief Inspector 3. Secure proper permits from Department of Inspection Total 150 500 300 l,onn 1,000 300 515,725 A bond for the above value shall be furnished to the City of Richfield and held by same until all-above work at site is complete and a final acceptance for occupancy is issued by letter from the city to parties of ownership. Upon completion of above work this dwelling will be an asset to the area of 6521 Standish Avenue South and should give many years of service. * Costs as shown are only estimates. ti . Kueh 1 Chief Inspector STREET '.1 4 23 i 7 3 1 22 4 t h L-0 8, 7 :113 LIL) uj -7 Lu LILJ :D 17 LLJ U-1 > Nq 16 16 9 !6, < < 10 15 !t. IC: 15 Ic 5 N - 14! '4 i;3�j 14 14 3 13 IL 13 331 641h 5TREET 2 23 23 2 3 22 'fA 3 22 L2 22 4 R1. 21 1j) 4 211 4 ".qq\ gi 20 ?c 5 20"Ai, 20 !cl 19 12 1. tv 7 18! 17 17 16 16 6 \6� v 15 �'v c 10 Irs t) « I I A, (35) 14 I . 4 o. 2 :3 r, 13 12 65th STREET 23 231 '23 Zlr� I 12 0�1 2 2 27 JA rj r, 220 22 21 3 - 3 31. }a 21 20 k8 4 2-- 20 20 rl E M , N -i 17 rl 7 17 r1) 17 N IL J. n 4 12 13 14 13 13 :4 4 c F STREET 12 i 13 114 �' P, CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 26, 1981 Dental Insurance 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 Dental Insurance as advertised in the official newspaper on February 11, 1981. Present: Steven Devich, Personnel Manager Sandra Rosenow, Administrative Aide Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: COMPANY Sun Life Group Health Delta Dental Delta Dental Metropolitan BID SECURITY Cert. Check B.B. 5% Cashier 50% Life Check Gold Option Cashier Check 1 VVAR RATR PLAN A $ 9.80 $ 9.00 PLAN A Employee No Bid $ 7.55 $ 7.05 $ 8.00 $ Dependent 13.85 12.95 13.75 _ PLAN B $10.30 $ 9.45 Employee Employee $ 7.95 $ 7.40 $ 6.72 Dependent 15.05 14.05 12.77 PLAN A - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee $10.00 $ 9.25 $ 8.50 Dependent 25.75 18.20 16.70 PLAN B - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee $ 9.70 $ 8.90 $ 7.37 Dependent 19.35 17.75 14.33 2 YEAR RATE $ 9.80 $ 9.00 PLAN A 19.30 17.70 Employee $ 8.00 $ 7.45 Dependent 14.70 13.75 _ PLAN B $10.30 $ 9.45 Employee $ 8.45 $ 7.85 Dependent 15.95 14.90 PLAN A - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee $ 9.80 $ 9.00 Dependent 19.30 17.70 PLAN B - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee $10.30 $ 9.45 Dependent 20.50 18.80 Dental Insurance Bids (Continued) 2 YEAR RATE $ 9.45 $ 9.42 18.08 PLAN A Great United United COMPANY Equitable PLAN B Western Travelers of of BID SECURITY Life Life of Mpls. Omaha Omaha Cert. Check Cert. Check _ Cert.Check (Employee Only) (1 Year 1 YEAR RATE Employee PLAN A Only) Employee $ 9.88 $10.00 $ 7.78 $ 7.74 Dependent 14.90 No Bid 14.64 PLAN B Employee $10.43 $10.55 $ 8.50 $ 8.13 $ 8.11 Dependent 15.73 $13.60 15.88 PLAN A - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee $12.26 $12.26 $ 8.94 $ 9.10 Dependent 18.52 17.10 PLAN B - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee $12.81 $12.81 $ 9.31 $ 9.47 Dependent 19.35 18.15 2 YEAR RATE $ 9.45 $ 9.42 18.08 PLAN A Employee $ 8.21 $ 8.17 Dependent 15.48 PLAN B 19.15 Employee $ 8.57 $ 8.54_ Dependent 16.54 PLAN A - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee Dependent $ 9.45 $ 9.42 18.08 PLAN B - NO DEDUCTIBLE Employee $ 9.83 $ 9.79 Dependent 19.15 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of March 9, 1981 Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO DELTA DENTAL FOR EMPLOYEE GROUP DENTAL INSURANCE PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That it is hereby determined that the bid of Delta Dental is the lowest bid by a responsible bidder meeting specifications for Plan B (100% - 80% - 50% coinsurance) with a two -year guaranteed premium rate for employee group dental insurance; 2. That the bid of Delta Dental., at the price contained in their proposal of February 26, 1981, with rates of $7.85 for employee coverage and $14.90 for dependent coverage, is hereby accepted; 3. That the council is satisfied that any irregularity occurring at the bid opening due to the absence of a department head at such opening did not effect the integrity of the process or give to any bidder a competitive advantage or disadvantage. Accordingly, such irregularity is hereby waived and the actions of the city's repre- sentatives at the bid opening are hereby ratified; 4. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Richfield and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the city seal thereto; 5. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to return the security documents to the unsuccessful bidders upon the execution of said proposed contract. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of March, 1981. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Mayor 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 84 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for Renewal of Business License, Tip Top Car Wash There is an item on the March 9, 1981 city council agenda pro- viding for 6601 Bloomington Avenue South, for a business license for the year 1981. The ld At that time, the city council took no final action regarding the license application, but rather req:u� sted-bhe C a-n rlocnol �T� m cow r\ •F �.. .7 �. -_ -. l to Othe r-e-queste�d-1qeense. The specific findings are intended to pre- sent, in an orderly fashion, all applicable city ordinance require- ments relating to this business license request.. This will enable the council to make a determination regarding issuance of the license, based on the specific compliance or lack of compliance which the licensee demonstrates in terms of all applicable ordinance provisions. The city attorney will be present at the March 9, 1981 city council meeting to present these findings of fact. Following an analysis of those findings as developed by the city attorney, it is recommended that the city council take final action regarding issuance of the renewal business license to the Tip Top Car Wash. Respectfully submitted, C`� Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: City Attorney City Clerk Public Safety Director reps #t.4qrp*jj4p4w .,.qp"4 two F-Ir- r r k CLAYTON L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER J. DENNIS D O'BRIEN E. JOHN E. DRAWrZ DAVID J. KENNEDY JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE CHARLES L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER, M JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. O -MEARA MARY J. BJORKLUND THOMAS D. CREIGHTON JOHN G. KRESSEL DAYLE NOLAN CINDY L.LAVORATO LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ 1100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 BROOKLYN CENTER OFFICE TELEPHONE (612) 333 -0543 103 BROOKLYN LAW CENTER 5637 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55429 (612) 536 -8037 RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER February 20, 1981 Mr. Karl Nollenberger Richfield City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Tip Top Car Plash Dear Karl: Enclosed Please find two ormof proposed lnsfor Councoconsidon ng s The dfferencei the forms relates only to the action taken. denial of the license; in the other, Tn one form the action is license subject to certain conditionslt is the granting the granting of the license subject to conditions legal standpoint, the defensible. Denial of the license renewal based upon the mevi before the Council would quite Ply appealed. In the event that theoCouncilnshould sustained t ifvidence the renewal, the findings should serve to maximize the Ci ty's chances of being sustained. to deny I have mailed a copy of the proposed findings to Richard Speeter, attorney for the car wash prior to Monday's meeting. so that he can review them Very truly yo rs, ,�o'hn B . Dean JBD:kk Enclosures 4 BEFORE THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS _ APPLICATION OF J & L ) & ORDER INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. ) The above - entitled matter came on for hearing after due notice before the Richfield, Minnesota City Council at its regu- larly scheduled meeting on January 26, 1981, commencing at or about 7:00 p.m. The hearing was for the purpose of determining whether applicant J & L Investment Company should have its license renewed for the purpose of operating a coin - operated car wash known as "Tip Top Car Wash," located at 6601 Bloomington Avenue South in the City of Richfield. David S. Colehour, president of the J & L Investment Company, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Evidence in the form of testimony by the Public Safety Director, by Mr. Colehour, and by numerous citizens of Richfield was received by the Council. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and upon the arguments of the parties, the Council makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT - -. .. 1. Applicant operates a coin operated car wash known as the "Tip Top Car Wash" at 6601 Bloomington Avenue South, Richfield, MN. 2. Richfield Ordinance Code Section 6.04 requires that all such businesses obtain and annually renew licenses to engage in such activity. 3. The applicant was issued a car wash license on July 24, 1980. The issuance followed extended hearings, numerous com- plaints about applicant's conduct of the business and a court action in which the City was temporarily restrained from denying the applicant its requested 1980 license. The license which was issued contained the following stipulations: (1) Automatic shut -offs for both power and water must be installed; (2) The premises must be maintained in a clean condition; (3) The required barrier must be installed around the trash dumpster; (4) All conditions set forth in the existing ordinance code must be observed; (5) The Council should be kept abreast of remo- deling progress by Mr. Colehour. 4. Applicant's attorney, Mr. Richard Speeter, sent a letter to the city attorney on July 15, 1980 acknowledging the above conditions and indicating his client's understanding that compliance was necessary if his license was to be renewed. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof as if fully set out at this point. 5. on December 15, 1980, applicant made an application for a 1981 license. 6. Mr. Colehour, on behalf of the applicant, was given written notice of the proposed licensing hearing on January 19, 1981, fully informing him of the time, date, location and purpose of the hearing and explaining his rights to counsel and cross - examination. This written notice, a letter from the Public Safety Director, also indicated the nature of the continued problems caused by applicant's nonconformance with the conditions imposed in June of 1980. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7. Mr. Colehour appeared at the hearing before the Council on January 26, 1981, gave testimony and presented exhibits. The Director of Public Safety and several residents of the neighbor- hood surrounding the car wash also testified. 8. Public Safety Director, Tom Morgan, testified that since June of 1980, inspections have been made of the property, 2 �ro and that while it is generally cleaner, some trash is still in evidence. The trash containers continue to be uncovered though Mr. Colehour indicated in June 1980 that he would cover them. The dumpster is overflowing upon occasion and a dumpster enclosure has not been built. The automatic shut -off require- ments have been complied with. No remodeling has begun on the establishment and no proposals or status reports on such remodeling have been made by the applicant to the City. 9. The applicant's representative, Mr. David Colehour, testified as follows: 1) He will immediately begin with the remodeling of the establishment and he has renewed his lease. 2) He cleans up the trash three times a day but the dumpster has not been enclosed because he is waiting until remodeling to do that. 3) He has had no direct complaints from anyone since August of 1980. 4) His remodeling plans are in the process but he has to get architects, surveys, financing and City approval. He antici- pates that remodeling will occur by the spring of 1981. 5) On various occasions he has had diffi- culty with having the dumpster emptied and is now attempting to get Saturday pick -up. If that does not solve the problem, he will purchase a bigger dumpster. 6) His remodeling will increase the capa- city of business. The larger facility should, Mr. Colehour testified, help to eliminate the traffic problem and the appearance of the area. 10. Testimony was taken from citizens of Richfield who are occupants of the surrounding neighborhoods and who were present at the hearing. The testimony can be summarized as follows: 1) The litter is a constant problem and the problem has not improved in the last six months. 2) The police are called routinely to direct traffic caused by patrons' vehicles spilling out on the street after the lot becomes full. 3) There is constant noise and loose trash and there is double parking on the street. 3 4) The "car- stacking" is poor because of failure to comply with the off - street parking regulations. 11. The ordinances of the City of Richfield, Section 6.04, Subd. 5 provides that: For any such establishment there shall be sufficient off - street area to provide for 40 automobiles waiting to be washed. For this - purpose the space of 20 feet by 9 feet shall be provided for each car. Space for an additional 10 cars shall be provided for cars which have been washed and which are waiting the owners picking them up. There shall be off- street parking for 15 employee's cars for each washing line. 12. The Richfield Code of City ordinances Section 6.04, Subd. 14 provides as follows: The provisions of the Code of the City regu- lating the establishment and maintenance of off- street parking areas contained in Chapter III shall be complied with at any automobile washing establishment. 13. The Richfield Code of City ordinances, Section 3.29, Subd. 7 provides as follows: In a new commercial or industrial district, spaces for off - street loading or unloading shall be provided, and in all districts parking spaces for parking and storage of vehicles shall be provided in accordance with provisions of Subd. 8 of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code. 14. Richfield City Ordinances 3.29, Subd. 8 provides as follows: off- street loading and parking requirements as to the location of driveways shall be observed whether set forth in this chapter or in other City Codes or regulations and no use of property is permitted unless such use is in conformity with such requirements. 15. Richfield City ordinances 6.04, Subd. 19 provides as follows: "Any repeated or sustained violations of this section. . . shall be grounds for revocation by the council of the operator's license." 16. Public Safety Director, Tom Morgan, testified that the car stacking is inadequate because of applicant's failure to 4 s; comply with his off - street parking permit. This results in vehicles waiting to be washed stacking up in the street and obstructing traffic. There have been traffic complaints to the public safety department and officers are frequently called to direct traffic because of congestion caused by the operation of the business. This creates additional concerns because Bloomington Avenue is on a bus line. 17. Citizens also testified that the traffic congestion and noise is increasing and that the officers are often called to direct traffic in the area. 18. Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 as described in paragraph 3 above and which were made specific obligations of the licensee have not been fully complied with to this date. CONCLUSIONS & ORDER Therefore, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, makes the following Conclusions and Order: 1. The charges of violations and non - compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance Code and standards set by the City Council are each sustained by the evidence deduced at hearing. 2. Each of the charges forms an independent basis for the denial of applicant's application for renewal of its car wash license. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND DETERMINED that pursuant to the Council's obligation to protect the health, safety, welfare and morals of the cummunity and pursuant to the provisions of Richfield Ordinance Code, Section 6.04, the application by Tip Top Car Wash to operate a coin operated car wash at 6601 Bloomington Avenue South within the corporate limits of the City of Richfield, is hereby DENIED. SPEETER, .JOHNSON, HAUTMAN & OLSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 604 MINNESOTA FEDERAL BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 [612] 339 -7566 R -BERT L. SPECTER VINCENT E. JOHNSON JOSEPH W. HAUTMAN CHARLES E. OLSON RICHARD H. SPECTER CHERYL SPECTER MARGOLES PATRICK V. JOHNSON 15 July 1980 Fj Mr Charles LaFevere Attorney at Law '`$£ 1100 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: J & L Investment Company /City of Richfield Dear Mr LaFevere: I indicated to Thomas Morgan, Jr, that I would contact you and outline my understanding of the Council's decision on Monday, July 14, 1980. This is so that there would be no misunderstanding regarding the neces- sary steps which must be taken by my client to satisfy the conditions or stipulations placed by the Council. It was made clear that Mr Colehour will have to comply with the require- ments set by the City's ordinances, and in particular the matters set forth in that letter of July 3, 1980, from Thomas A Morgan, Jr, to my- self. Some of these items have already been complied with, but is clear that my client, in this respect will have to commence or complete the following: A. Provide lids for the trash barrels located on the grounds. B. Install a shut -off system, which would automatically turn off the six vacuum machines and the washing machines at or about midnight. C. Enclose the dumpster, and place it on a concrete base. There was some discussion as to my client's posting his home phone number, as opposed to his answering service, in the car wash. However, this was not made a condition or stipulation by the Council, and my client will continue to post his answering service number. His service has been instructed to contact him immediately in the event of emergencies, and within one day for non - emergencies. There was a motion passed which required staff to formulate an ordinance which would require unattended car washes to close at 10:00 pin each night. If and when this ordinance is passed, my client will immediately comply. it r Mr Charles LaFevere 15 July 1980 Page 2 The final condition or stipulation placed by the Council involves Mr Colehour's remodeling of the premises. The Council placed a condition that my client, between now and January 1, 1981, show good faith efforts and substantial attempts toward remodeling the premises as indicated at the meeting. There was some discussion whether or not he should be "irrevocably committed" by contract prior to the January 1 date. Our concern was that there are a number of contingencies which must be overcome before such commitment could be given: for example, securing proper financing, obtaining consent from the landlord and an extension of the existing lease, obtaining variances' i f necessary,-etc. d believe the Council, primarily upon recommendation of the City Attorney, did not place the "irrevocable commitment" condition upon Mr Colehour, but it was evident that, if no such commitment is obtained by January 1, he will have to convince the Council that substantial and reasonable efforts have been made, and that such commitment would be forthcoming. There was additional discussion regarding the possibility of my client's relocating the car wash business. The City Attorney expressed an opinion that eminent domain proceedings would be unlikely and unadvisable. How- ever, my client would be willing to move the car wash business, providing a suitable location could be found, and providing at least some relocation assistance from the City would be available. Because of the substantial good will established due to the fact that the existing car wash has been at its present location for 15 years, the new location should be in the vicinity of the present location. I have spoken with Dennis Kraft, the Community Development Director for the City, who has indi- cated that he will contact me shortly with possible sites owned by the City. My client is exploring the possibility of purchasing or renting another location. In any event, there is the added problem of termination of the existing lease, although the neighbors may be willing to get involved in this respect. Please discuss this letter with your client and contact me as soon as possible, so that my client may proceed accordingly. It willbedifficult for him to pursue the remodeling project, if there is a possibility of relocation. Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter. Paz cc Thomas A Morgan, Jr. David Colehour W - Very truly yours, Richard H Speeter i . a ma-2:31 A co tV 1� LO ICU s 4� (a 0 O (D January 19, 1981 Mr, David s. Colehour President, J & L Investment Company 4706 Fairhills Road East Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Colehour: As you know, thu Richfield City Council has scheduled a hearin(l with regard to your request for a renewal Of your business license for the Tip Top Car Wash at 6601 Bloominyton•Avenue South, for the year 1981. As you will rucall, when the city council did renew your 1980 business license they did so on a conditional basis, based upon the following stipulations: 1. Autumoatic shut -off for both water and power bu installed to assure that the business will not_ operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.n►., as required by our city ordinance code. 2. Tht premises will be maintained in a clean con- dition. 3. A barrier, as required by our city ordinance code, will be installed around the'trash dumpster. 4. All conditions set forth in the existing special use permit and licensing sections of the city ordinance code will be observed. 5. You will make a "good faith" effort to proceed with the remodeling plans which you presented to the city council on July 4, 1980, and the COMICil will be provided status reports with regard to your progress in this matter. L C C I 'tale phone: 869.7521 (6 12) an equal opportunity employer tVjf � i .:ii•� i . a ma-2:31 A co tV 1� LO ICU s 4� (a 0 O (D January 19, 1981 Mr, David s. Colehour President, J & L Investment Company 4706 Fairhills Road East Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Colehour: As you know, thu Richfield City Council has scheduled a hearin(l with regard to your request for a renewal Of your business license for the Tip Top Car Wash at 6601 Bloominyton•Avenue South, for the year 1981. As you will rucall, when the city council did renew your 1980 business license they did so on a conditional basis, based upon the following stipulations: 1. Autumoatic shut -off for both water and power bu installed to assure that the business will not_ operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.n►., as required by our city ordinance code. 2. Tht premises will be maintained in a clean con- dition. 3. A barrier, as required by our city ordinance code, will be installed around the'trash dumpster. 4. All conditions set forth in the existing special use permit and licensing sections of the city ordinance code will be observed. 5. You will make a "good faith" effort to proceed with the remodeling plans which you presented to the city council on July 4, 1980, and the COMICil will be provided status reports with regard to your progress in this matter. L C C I 'tale phone: 869.7521 (6 12) an equal opportunity employer C January 19, 1981 Pane Two In reviewing the council conditions related to your business license we have found that you have conformed with _the re- quirement for automatic shut -offs, as well as posting your property with the hours of operation. While some progress has certainly been made with regard to maintaining your business in a clean condition, we continue to receive com- plaints of trash and litter problems for the residents in the immediate neighborhood. While you have apparently pro- vided covers for the trash recepticles, the recepticles are frequently uncovered. As yet, there does not appear to have been any action on your part with regard to the requirement ,to enclose the trash dumpster as required by our city ordin- ance code. Finally, the city has received no indication whatsoever with regard to the remodeling proposal you made on July 14, 1980. In this regard, the city has received none of the required status reports showing the "good faith" effort you are making to meet this condition of your 1980 business license renewal. There are two other issues related to the operation of your business which we have previously discussed that still seem to be troublesome with regard to your operation. The first relates to a concern voiced by the residential neighbors at both the June-23, 1980, license renewal hearing and the July 14, 1980, license renewal hearing, regarding the noise problems generated by your business operation. The second issue we have discussed previously relates to the traffic congestion problems generated by your business operation. As you will recall, this involved traffic backups extending out into Bloomington Avenue. The traffic congestion effectively blocks the North bound lane on Bloomington Avenue and hinders safe traffic flow. The pro- blem is compounded by the fact that Bloomington Avenue is a bus line and the traffic congestion generated by your business operation therefore becomes of even greater concern with regard to traffic safety. I have been informed that a number of neighbors surrounding your business operation intend to appear at, Your license renewal hearing to again express their concerns about the problems gen- erated by your business operation. As you know, the license renewal hear.inq is open to the public and you have the right to be represented by le(- jal council chirinq this hearing process. You also have the right to cross examine anyone speaking in opposition to your license renewal. r- r -•January 19, 1981 Page Three The January 26th council agenda has not been finalized as yet, so I am unable to give you an approximate time that this issue will be heard. However, if you wish to contact either myself or Lois Evers on January 26th, we should be able to give you that information. Sincerely, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety;; TAM/ 1 j e BEFORE THE RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS APPLICATION OF J & L ) & ORDER INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC. ) The above - entitled matter came on for hearing after due notice before the Richfield, Minnesota City Council at its regu- larly scheduled meeting on January 26, 1981, commencing at or - about 7:00 p.m. The hearing was for the purpose of determining whether applicant J & L Investment Company should have its license renewed for the purpose of operating a coin - operated car wash known as "Tip Top Car Wash," located at 6601 Bloomington Avenue South in the City of Richfield. David S. Colehour, president of the J & L Investment Company, appeared on behalf of the applicant. Evidence in the form of testimony by the Public Safety Director, by Mr. Colehour, and by numerous citizens of Richfield was received by the Council. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and upon the arguments of the parties, the Council makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicant operates a coin operated car wash known as the "Tip Top Car Wash" at 6601 Bloomington Avenue South, Richfield, MN. 2. Richfield Ordinance Code Section 6.04 requires that all such businesses obtain and annually renew licenses to engage in such activity. 3. The applicant was issued a car wash license on July 24, 1980. The issuance followed extended hearings, numerous com- plaints about applicant's conduct of the business and a court action in which the City was temporarily restrained from I denying the applicant its requested 1980 license. The license which was issued contained the following stipulations: (1) Automatic shut -offs for both power and water must be installed; _._.. ___�.._ _.._ _.:_ ( 2 ) The premises must be maintained in a clean condition; (3) The required barrier must be installed around the trash dumpster; (4) All conditions set forth in the existing ordinance code must be observed; (5) The Council should be kept abreast of remo- deling progress by Mr. Colehour. 4. Applicant's attorney, Mr. Richard Speeter, sent a letter to the city attorney on July 15, 1980 acknowledging the above conditions and indicating his client's understanding that compliance was necessary if his license was to be renewed. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof as if fully set out at this point. 5. On December 15, 1980, applicant made an application for a 1981 license. 6. Mr. Colehour, on behalf of the applicant, was given written notice of the proposed licensing hearing on January 19, 1981, fully informing him of the time, date, location and purpose of the hearing and explaining his rights to counsel and cross - examination. This written notice, a letter from the Public Safety Director, also indicated the nature of the continued problems caused by applicant's nonconformance with the conditions imposed in June of 1980. The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 7. Mr. Colehour appeared at the hearing before the Council on January 26, 1981, gave testimony and presented exhibits. The Director of Public Safety and several residents of the neighbor- hood surrounding the car wash also testified. 8. Public Safety Director, Tom Morgan, testified that since June of 1980, inspections have been made of the property, Y 2 s�. and that while it is generally cleaner, some trash is still in evidence. The trash containers continue to be uncovered though Mr. Colehour indicated in June 1980 that he would cover them. The dumpster is overflowing upon occasion and a dumpster enclosure has not been built. The automatic shut -off require- ments have been complied with. No remodeling has begun on the establishment and no proposals or status reports on such remodeling have been made by the applicant to the City. 9. The applicant's representative, Mr. David Colehour, testified as follows: 1) He will immediately begin with the remodeling of the establishment and he has renewed his lease. 2) He cleans up the trash three times a day but the dumpster has not been enclosed because he is waiting until remodeling to do that. 3) He has had no direct complaints from anyone since August of 1980. 4) His remodeling plans are in the process but he has to get architects, surveys, financing and City approval. He antici- pates that remodeling will occur by the spring of 1981. 5) On various occasions he has had diffi- culty with having the dumpster emptied and is now. attempting to get Saturday pick -up. If that does not solve the problem, he will purchase a bigger dumpster. 6) His remodeling will increase the capa- city of business. The larger facility should, Mr. Colehour testified, help to eliminate the traffic problem and the appearance of the area. 10. Testimony was taken from citizens of Richfield who are occupants of the surrounding neighborhoods and who were present at the hearing. The testimony can be summarized as follows: 1) The litter is a constant problem and the problem has not improved in the last six months. 2) The police are called routinely to direct traffic caused by patrons' vehicles spilling out on the street after the lot becomes full. 3) There is constant noise and loose trash and there is double parking on the street. 3 4) The "car- stacking" is poor because of failure to comply with the off - street parking regulations. 11. The ordinances of the City of Richfield, Section 6.04, Subd. 5 provides that: For any such establishment there shall be sufficient off - street area to provide for 40 automobiles waiting to be washed. For this purpose the space of 20 feet by 9 feet shall be provided for each car. Space for an additional 10 cars shall be provided for cars which have been washed and which are waiting the owners picking them up. There shall be off- street parking for 15 employee's cars for each washing line. 12. The Richfield Code of City Ordinances Section 6.04, Subd. 14 provides as follows: The provisions of the Code of the City regu- lating the establishment and maintenance of off - street parking areas contained in Chapter III shall be complied with at any automobile washing establishment. 13. The Richfield Code of City Ordinances, Section 3.29, Subd. 7 provides as follows: In a new commercial or industrial district, spaces for off - street loading or unloading shall be provided, and in all districts parking spaces for parking and storage of vehicles shall be provided in accordance with provisions of Subd. 8 of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code. 14. Richfield City Ordinances 3.29, Subd. 8 provides as follows: Off - street loading and parking requirements as to the location of driveways shall be observed whether set forth in this chapter or in other City Codes or regulations and no use of property is permitted unless such use is in conformity with such requirements. 15. Richfield City Ordinances 6.04, Subd. 19 provides as follows: "Any repeated or sustained violations of this section. . . shall be grounds for revocation by the council of the operator's license." 16. Public Safety Director, Tom Morgan, testified that the car stacking is inadequate because of applicant's failure to 4 comply with his off - street parking permit. This results in vehicles waiting to be washed stacking up in the street and obstructing traffic. There have been traffic complaints to the public safety department and officers are frequently called to direct traffic because of congestion caused by the operation of the business. This creates additional concerns because Bloomington Avenue is on a bus line. 17. Citizens also testified that the traffic congestion and noise is increasing and that the officers are often called to direct traffic in the area. 18. Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 as described in paragraph 3 above and which were made specific obligations of the licensee have not been fully complied with to this date. _ CONCLUSIONS & ORDER Therefore, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, makes the following Conclusions and Order: 1. The charges of violations and non - compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance Code and standards set by the City Council are each sustained by the evidence deduced at hearing. 2. Each of the charges forms an independent basis for the action hereinafter taken. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND DETERMINED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The granting of the requested license without the imposition and the acceptance of certain controls upon the opera - tion of the business would be contrary to the interests of the public health, safety, welfare and morals of the community. 2. In order that the operation of the Tip Top Car Wash not constitute an annoyance and a detriment to the neighborhood, it is necessary that the following controls be placed upon such operation: 5 ,�, _ • - .- .-�..- ,vim.., .�__— .�;«+�al a) That business activity comply with the require- ments of all applicable ordinances. b) That the premises be kept in a clean condi- tion free of litter, trash and refuse. ,' c) That covered refuse containers be maintained on the site in sufficient numbers to handle the volume of refuse generated. d) That any dumpster located on the site be suitably enclosed as required by ordinance and kept in such enclosure. e) That the dumpster be emptied as often as necessary to prevent overflowing. f) That the parking lot be immediately striped so as to create usable area for 40 auto- mobiles waiting to be washed as required by Section 6.04 of the Ordinance Code. g) That the applicant notify the city at least every 3 months during the license year of progress in remodeling the facility. h) That the applicant acknowledge in writing that the license is granted subject to the controls herein contained and that it under- stands and agrees to comply with each such control. The applicant shall further acknow- ledge that failure to comply with any such control may result in action by the city to suspend or revoke the license. The 1981 license shall not be issued until the acknow- ledgements contained herein are received. 3. Subject to the foregoing, the 1981 car wash license is hereby granted to J & L Investment Company to operate a car wash at 6601 Bloomington Avenue South. The license hereby granted shall terminate on April 1, 1981 unless issued prior to that date in the manner provided in paragraph 3 above. I 6 U cL LL- LL- LL- C) N U Z D z Li v U 'CS � I C U C •I-� Q) its C Q) Q) S- 1 •r _9_- -C _ =5 > O (1) (1) N ro -P +-) ru N -C S_ N &- a) 4-) +1 +-1 3 r' i-) (1) O O U r6 U N +) •I•) N its U •r (I) Cl) (1) co •r N 4- S_ -N V7 N C -C r 0-) 4- f--- C no C -P U Q C r0 >) QJ O co =3 n, r S. C -C N rp S_ 4-) • r +-1 -1-� 'S +-) r0 N S_ r6 O C N (1) 'C N ro .I-) +-) C "C N r - L C Q) S_ Q C Y (L) +-1 ro C O Q) Q) S- a) C 'Q • r D- m ro (1) (1) N E Q) N 4- •� (10 U -0 N :3 Q) (1) L ro (7, ZT •r •r ,Q +-1 N CD- 3' U Q) C (3) O C C) S_ (1) Q +j C C N S- Of Q X N « s U r6 ct O r0 (3) (3) (10 3 •r C) U o 4-' C 3 - C +-) >> r S_ -P Q az (3) m •r CO O -P o C N ti O :3 U U rn _ r0 to O C C r O r- L O (3) CU U S_ Q rp 4- Q ::3 U •r 4- 4-) +-1 Q) O C (a) - >> N C d--) (L) 1 N V) +-) O +-> ro _C N C > > •r U C U U (1) +-) •r ct Q) Q) U C •r •r •r :3 O T) C r6 «s C' (1) U C O Q) (L) :3 r- S? 3 Q) -C O U S_ r N ow Q. S_ ro m a--) +-) N E ro C E N tT a) N >) •r O •r U 4- +-) +-) Q) C r r— O Q) O C •r C +-) .E «s its co 'B O r6 rLS O C :3 C)1 I- Q) C •r +-> U S.. p r C r- U O -P C r (i) r- "Li C •r •r U r0 r-- !Z S ro O +-) ro U SZ O C) d Q) > M r CD- -0 N N S- +-1 r ro Ln C Cfl r- rCi v L cL � Q ^ U O O O its -C U C r- •r U Q) •r +-> 4- r Q) cu r— r •r6 7 0) C ro N Q = •r -0 5= N Q) -0 •r cC t CL O CD ro C E O D) N 3 O 3 _C N ro r N r L O ro •U 3 O S_ r6 4 >> 3 C N S u _ r C C r _ N U N M Q) i 0) Q Q) (1) p co Q) > C 4- _0 N U U C r6 (1) r C O N S.- r N O U +� O m O C — S- r F- -0 4- r N ro 4- r U A li T i C C O O 1 1 Q) O O S S_ + +-) 4 4_ -P 0 O W 0) 4 4- � � I I O W C C 0 0 V) C C r ro C C • •r + +-3 Q Q) 4 4-1 O Z Q Q) r r N N Q Q.. • •r E E C C S S O S S + +-) r rC3 E E O O O O ( (1) 4 4-) C C t tT �+ O O ( (1) 3 3 O O U U O O - -0 V) 4 4- ( () U U r r • •r C C > >� L L? • •r Q1 E E t t31 i its N N r r6 ' 'p J . ..Q C C • •i-� Q Q) U U C C U W Q) ( (J S S- Q Q) C C O O d d r r- O O Q Q) O U U 4 > U O N N 4 4j - 44 C k.0 I C U U > II) +.1 N N i its S S_ a al Q Q) Q Q) t t7) C C V) Z C C S S_ Q Q) > > Q Q) i its O O ( () • •r Q Q) • • r C3 < U U L L C C n n_ _ _s_- t t c cz) S S_ S S_ Q Q J ? ? Q Q) N N I I— H H O O T T3 U U + + r ro r r- U Ca T T) > >) J J 4 4- + +-1 O O 4 4- 4 4-) r r0 C C O O Z L L r r-- O O r ro U U O O C C) 3 3 4 4- l:D H H S S_ S S_ E E a a;6 U U 4 4- Q Q) O L LL Q Q) r ro I II. Q Q) Q Q t t./) 4 4- r ro ' 'D U 4 4--) r r 1 17) N N r r r r V V) 4- O O O O _ _0 r ro Q Q) + +-) �- Q Q) • • • C C S S.. _ _s_- > > Q Q) 4 4- r ro N N U 0 0- r rC5 Y Y •r N N + +-1 • •r 3 3 C C Q QI r r6 C� S S- + +-I r r Q QJ O O d d < <Y U U E E J r r0 • •r O O Q Q- - -C- S S- = =3 W W Q Q) d d 4 4--) i its O O - -O Q Q) 4 4- • •'p r r - - -- -- r rCf U U ( (I) t t O O ' 'O •U LL m m S S_ Q Q) S S_ + +-3 r ro • S S S- S S_ L L O O Q Q. r rd N N C C U O O r r O O Q Q) 4 4- O O 4 4- Q Q) a a C C Q Q) H 4 4- r r ~ U Of U U + +-3 + +-> Z Z3 ~ U d d N N C C U U C S S= ro Q Q) ( () i i2 • •r r ro • •r Q Q) W O O _ _C C C 4 4-) Q Q) = O O t tT Q Q) h h > >) O O r r r r C C O U U C C C C 4 4- C C U U > > a a-J S S_ E r r t tT Q Q) N N O O r r6 r r Q Q) ( () W r ro U U C C - - S- r ro Q Q + +-3 r r ^ ^ " "o ci� U U + +-) C C • •r > >> E E N N r ro ( (1) N N S S_ O U U • •r Q Q) C C Q Q) C C d d-J O O Q Q) S S_ C C Q Q) C C) LL 7 7 S S- U U E E • •r N N ; ;$ • •r U U + +-) Q QJ - -1-1 • •r W H H Q Q) U - c . .-) • •I--1 r ro O O S Sr ( () C C U -P 4 4- ( (1) + 4 4-1 U U Q Q) U U Y Y . C O O N N O O m s ro > _ ro p p 4 4-1 S .Q) C aJ a m s� _ + E � O a lL > Q I I Q Q) N N - � � � O > Q Q) a Q Cl- a a) C C s so N N r ro C C N N O O - -0 - -0 . O >O C C. m m 4 4- 4 4-1 r r Q Q) 4 4- Q Q) + .0 O •r 4' O O rJ > O • •r S > - - N N N N W U U . .0 � �� O S.. > Q) C C r r6 4 4- � � Q) Q Q) f fa - -P H H Q ro m mil O O U N > > U U : :3 r U Q z z Q Q) N N O O r rtS O O _ _i N N C C r• F F- W S S_ r r-• t t1 - -C ' 'O V V) C C S S` + +--) p p <c :F: Q Q) > >1 i i ( (1) • •r Z Z r r C C U U LL) U U F- S S_ - -N Q Q) O O r r Q Q) S F F- N 4 4- r ro d d r rd 7 7 Q Q) D U E E _I W - -O C C S S. C C U U Q D U C • •I•� d� U U r r a a) O O Q Q) Q Q) N N C C r r 7 7 M M U U M = r r0 C C - -C 0 0- > > Q Q1 O O O O S S- r rd LL- LL- C) N U Z D z Li v U 'CS � I C U C •I-� Q) its C Q) Q) S- 1 •r _9_- -C _ =5 > O (1) (1) N ro -P +-) ru N -C S_ N &- a) 4-) +1 +-1 3 r' i-) (1) O O U r6 U N +) •I•) N its U •r (I) Cl) (1) co •r N 4- S_ -N V7 N C -C r 0-) 4- f--- C no C -P U Q C r0 >) QJ O co =3 n, r S. C -C N rp S_ 4-) • r +-1 -1-� 'S +-) r0 N S_ r6 O C N (1) 'C N ro .I-) +-) C "C N r - L C Q) S_ Q C Y (L) +-1 ro C O Q) Q) S- a) C 'Q • r D- m ro (1) (1) N E Q) N 4- •� (10 U -0 N :3 Q) (1) L ro (7, ZT •r •r ,Q +-1 N CD- 3' U Q) C (3) O C C) S_ (1) Q +j C C N S- Of Q X N « s U r6 ct O r0 (3) (3) (10 3 •r C) U o 4-' C 3 - C +-) >> r S_ -P Q az (3) m •r CO O -P o C N ti O :3 U U rn _ r0 to O C C r O r- L O (3) CU U S_ Q rp 4- Q ::3 U •r 4- 4-) +-1 Q) O C (a) - >> N C d--) (L) 1 N V) +-) O +-> ro _C N C > > •r U C U U (1) +-) •r ct Q) Q) U C •r •r •r :3 O T) C r6 «s C' (1) U C O Q) (L) :3 r- S? 3 Q) -C O U S_ r N ow Q. S_ ro m a--) +-) N E ro C E N tT a) N >) •r O •r U 4- +-) +-) Q) C r r— O Q) O C •r C +-) .E «s its co 'B O r6 rLS O C :3 C)1 I- Q) C •r +-> U S.. p r C r- U O -P C r (i) r- "Li C •r •r U r0 r-- !Z S ro O +-) ro U SZ O C) d Q) > M r CD- -0 N N S- +-1 r ro Ln C Cfl r- rCi v L cL � Q ^ U O O O its -C U C r- •r U Q) •r +-> 4- r Q) cu r— r •r6 7 0) C ro N Q = •r -0 5= N Q) -0 •r cC t CL O CD ro C E O D) N 3 O 3 _C N ro r N r L O ro •U 3 O S_ r6 4 >> 3 C N S u _ r C C r _ N U N M Q) i 0) Q Q) (1) p co Q) > C 4- _0 N U U C r6 (1) r C O N S.- r N O U +� O m O C — S- r F- -0 4- r N ro 4- r U A li T i A li T i v o 4-) s a) a) U o c U ro ro >) 4--) ro -a O U S S_ 4-) L Q) O O O S_ O CD + (3) 4- +) c +-) 4° Q) o `�° ro C ¢ Q) s a, o ra o > >, a) a) M CD c -0 4- p I ro N O z c U U N Q) U Ti O •0 Q) ( o (3) Q) U U U ro N CL s +--) (U ro Q ro C +) -4) -p 4-1 L s ro +-) c (1) ro 0- -P O (3) ro r p c +' c U) C1 Q) p =4_) U C) r- (A ra r -0 4--) N S- r ro C_- o v s r- • r -I-) U O 4-) 4-) Q) (2) +-) c CS c ro U r r6 O Q) N C1 ro l7 C C-) ro -I-) +-� p U O ro C > O U (L) U -C 0 -0 s C2 Q) _ , E-= 4-3 a te (3) >, a ro N O 4- (1) U a t ro O U O N r +-) U Q1 + 4- N Cil a) C3 s O N ro c c +-) U C ^ N c 4- CD •r •CT ¢ 00 (L) 4-) U c 4- 01 1] c r Q) 'r r-• ro ^ +-) r� --0 U S_ • r O U Q) ro +-) C Q) r N Cn N - r� CL o Y -a a�) 4- O v C2 (1) CL U c c O {T lzt U ¢ U ro ro .- a) Q) O C) () N S_ S_ C _0 a) ¢ V7 c o c Q) CT) -I-) p p O S_ r r6 O L) ro + r CT II) O CL U N c . c Ln Q) Ln Q) Q0 r-- 4- N ro N Cn 3 '6 N c C) 0 >) (1) (3) Q) _c_- r U -0 O N C ro r ro O ro O N r- U 3 4- N c W U -J CT C I � C r () c Q) a) 4-) - � I +-3 -C 4-) CT. 41 +) _0 ro I CL • ^ N 75 ro S.. N LL I c C 'O ' > O N ro N -I-) (3) -0 O (1) U c ro ro -U O U Q) ro U C 4- N ro ^ () � C S_ Q) � `' rn ro - N r >) U o C L a) a) a� • ro rrc 4- 0 E o 3 O O (A r s 3 (D +-) N s S v c ro () C) c 4- ro r +-J U s a) +) CL C O > N+ r ro O O O r- S_ c S •I-) r 4-) 4- C ro O ro O N ro a) (a) O- r S_ c a) ro C7) Q) a) U C1 4- s s c ro N C) O o s 4--) a O •r S_ +) ro ro N c O _0 c7 a) a) C) N Z7 •r 4- ro 4- rC5 • ^ D O 0) O N c s Q7 S_ ro• r TJ c r s �--i N U O c l.0 +� r +-) a) 4- aJ N r-• >> r -4-) = S- Q) 0')-- Z ro S-. S- r r r rC) • r a) 4-J C - ^ (a) N Q) c L] 3 s_ � c (1:5 4-) v ro se ro Q ) ro � c -C) 0 o� v O -C 4j c C > E r a) s O 4- 0) ra +-) CL 4-) c v o o + ro > N N N J � - -:5 C1 •r TJ s N T3 r O N O aI QJ Q) QI Z7) 4- C L >> a) -0 a) `O S- Q1 � �- >> � c U S Cn U r-+� Q) (1)•r 4- S O 0 N+) p•r � �� +-) S c a) c ro 0 3 ro s s.. U N (1) o s C7) 4- S- C ro 0 Q) O a) 0- -0 •--) S_ p (1) ro Q) O r- r Q) + O S- Ln S_ r C r I/ S- O> -0 S- C-0 C N r +-) ro 0- a) :3 •r +-) S ro ro •r 0- O Q) p ro X r () a) -0 O ro N a) () r- O > +-) 7 Li .}.) N n +-) -0 C c () O -C3 +-) c0 +-) r 0 t7 . n X CJ) c 5` a) • r 4-3 a) = C2 Of 4- Q) i-) r- N Q) (1) -0 a) s O C1 ro . C= c r -1-) 4-3 s s c -o _0 r S U v s a) v N ro O U ro U • ^ •r >✓ -U >, -�s v -n s- '� +-� a) 4- -0 U 3 S.. _C C c O 7:3 s O r- 4-1 (1) C1 Q) U Q) +-) c 4- r •r S_ r I p 3 Q) N C •r +-) +-) C 4--) ro S 0 ::5 r ro ro C -4-3 r ro T ro O 1 o Cz a) -0 o c 4- +-) ro O c a) U_ +. "I-') C1 S- :3: ro O U a) E •r > r ro 4--) c N (n 0)-- 0) 4- ro (1) (/ C• r C U C C d-) N Q) S- ro c r-• C N ro J a) •r c r c N N Q) S• •r C1 •r •r S_ O U c 4- +) -p C1 +-) +) Q) _0 0— U +) 4- +-) +-) +-) ;-) •r • •, 1_ 0 4- r- ¢ c ro 4- r- s C •r C ro C +) C N c 4-)-o a) •r M3 (1) •r •r- N 4- C 0 L'`. r- ro ro •r ro ro ro O n -P 0 O p U -0 U V rte- � C2 N 6 3 r ro ro O r CT 0 Q) •r N O r— -0 c c - +-) CL r-- c — U +-) ro (1) C 2!: -0 (a) O S_ r- Q) C7 S_ c Q) 0- ro C ro 'q O �+-) � O ro c s• r 0.- _C C O ro r 4- L2. = L Q r- CL C1 c 0- C1 ¢ co I- U r- ro F- +) 4- U I- ro C� U 1- o ¢ U ¢ 0- ¢ ro ¢ N M d• 4S) '.D f� l.0 v o 4-) s a) a) U o c U ro ro >) 4--) ro -a O U S S_ 4-) L Q) O O O S_ O CD + (3) 4- +) c +-) 4° Q) o `�° ro C ¢ Q) s a, o ra o > >, a) a) M CD c -0 4- p I ro N O z c U U N Q) U Ti O •0 Q) ( o (3) Q) U U U ro N CL s +--) (U ro Q ro C +) -4) -p 4-1 L s ro +-) c (1) ro 0- -P O (3) ro r p c +' c U) C1 Q) p =4_) U C) r- (A ra r -0 4--) N S- r ro C_- o v s r- • r -I-) U O 4-) 4-) Q) (2) +-) c CS c ro U r r6 O Q) N C1 ro l7 C C-) ro -I-) +-� p U O ro C > O U (L) U -C 0 -0 s C2 Q) _ , E-= 4-3 a te (3) >, a ro N O 4- (1) U a t ro O U O N r +-) U Q1 + 4- N Cil a) C3 s O N ro c c +-) U C ^ N c 4- CD •r •CT ¢ 00 (L) 4-) U c 4- 01 1] c r Q) 'r r-• ro ^ +-) r� --0 U S_ • r O U Q) ro +-) C Q) r N Cn N - r� CL o Y -a a�) 4- O v C2 (1) CL U c c O {T lzt U ¢ U ro ro .- a) Q) O C) () N S_ S_ C _0 a) ¢ V7 c o c Q) CT) -I-) p p O S_ r r6 O L) ro + r CT II) O CL U N c . c Ln Q) Ln Q) Q0 r-- 4- N ro N Cn 3 '6 N c C) 0 >) (1) (3) Q) _c_- r U -0 O N C ro r ro O ro O N r- U 3 4- N c W U -J CT C I ro C -I-) () c Q) ro 4-) - ^ +-3 -C 4-) CT. 41 +) 75 ro +-) 4- Q) N ro (a) r U rn +-) - N r ro 4- c O 3 O O (A r +-) N ro c > o c ro s Q S.- L) rO S O o 4-) n ro (1) (a) O- -D -'7 I L ro C N r c ro N C) O o s O S- +-) tT O U 4-) � aJ 4- + C7 4- O S_ ro c ro ro U (-tS C/) 4- Q) O Z a) (a) N Q) c L] a) ro O C? C U -C) U O C r o r (1) +-) +) S-- 7 c :3 Q) N O N +) +-) p Q) QI Z7) 4- O O S_ +-) S S U CD- Q) 4- N +-) S (1) o +) C7) 4- S- C ro 0 r-- a) c Q) c QJ U r ro U •1-) S_ CL 4-) O O X 0 c 4- (2) c I N I re M -T 1 M 1 N C E (1) C U 4) O a r +-> 4- ro i U vI - •r >) = 4) (1) T) (1) i S.. a) (3) Q) O i O E N 01 U C ro a r (3) = O Q) r (3) Q) I) C i E Q) CL r- Q) O = b Q7 > O -0 M O 4- (a) 'a O C1 i O •r T) C ro a-) Q) (1) Q) O U U Q) +) i O 4- 0 .Q = r ro (1) 0 U Q) i M N r _C X (1) Q) +) = (1) N -a C i a o O tT O) = Q) 4--) 4- u r N ro QJ 'r 4- (3) -P C ro i N r t 3 ro = ro ^ i Q) 0- O i C'_ QI 4-> 4- Or) O O 4) Q) U -a r •> Q) C r 4) U ro +) CL Q) U Q) (a) N (3) ^ N O) - U ra C1 U (1) S_ Q) +) O C 5 0 O r- U C (1) (a) N Cl E t r 3 'a QJ E O Q) W -0 (1) > N +) = 0) i (1) E (L) ^ O) C 0 t -P 4- O = ro _ (2) - o Q) 0z 0 Q) C 1 0) _ +) +) :3 'a = ro N o Q) O (1) ..O N ra C r (1) Q) 4-J >) E (1) > ra = r (L) 4) (L) (1) _ Q) i CL O N ra E O O (1) N N N Z5 _0 QJ E O) 4-) = O (1) -a (1) _0 O E _0 O C Q) Q) N N C +) C O U C 4- O O N 4-) Q1 4- Q) _ U ro 4) ro N • r S. W .1 j Q) N r -= 3 a Q) r- 0- E o U Co .-) fl r t X W N ra -C 4-) 4) -a Q) S- ro (1) C1 � O t QJ U S- ._ co 0 C ro >) C O E a-) N Q) > ra a) Cn - i. ro = = ro 7 +-) C CJ 77 N O) i r- ro i Q) Q) -a _ ro 4-) � Q) 4- ro v') u .Q = p•• 4- 0 _0 W r N (1) 4-) O 0 ro _C: S ro 3 ro U (1) -Z- 4) F- O 4-) U (Ii S_ C� +-1 4- a to U r a CL M -a ra E (1) W -0 () > ro t N O F) U (1) CL _ r ^ '� r (3) C a 7 r N i 4-3 T E O N i = ro Q) r U r ro Q) N II1 N r d-) r ro S_ 4-) a-) S.. O 4- N i Q) O U -U (2) a > O i Q C ro U •r r C1 0- ro Q) _s_- F-- -a (L) 5... Q) > O U = � •1-) 4- Q) r = •� N rtS c.) U O C O Q) i Q) 3 i • r C a' i 4- 4- O 1 4-3 N U - r F > ro E O ro Q) C {- 4-) r r C ra U) r -a �. ro o) (3) i N i-> • r ro 0- E o U O C 41 i Q1 3 Q) i Q) _ F- U C ro S_ C r 0) C r r > O i CI ^ N r- ro U N U r > i Q) N C ro w i O 1 , 41 -C m r L U r6 Q) C- O r r O > r +) U (1) 4- 4- (L) Q) i -C N _ O rn ro N O Cl O i Cl 0 = a = Co ^ }) C O E -C N r- N U Q) � +o) 4) _ ro U •r r CZ CL rd -T 1 M 1 N C E (1) C U 4) O a r +-> 4- ro i •r 0 1 Q) i O vI - •r 4- U O 4) (1) T) (1) i CZ ro O -P (A O r 4- O i O E Q) 01 U C ro a N Q) r (3) Q) I) C i E Q) CL ro ^ ro y Q) S.. > 0- 4-) (1) N ro -P = O i M m +-> = N ro Q) r- +•) -a C2 4-) _ _ • r • r C N C 3= E 4•) U = n _C i N ro -0 U r (10 Q) i O (1) -a (1) C O ro CT) Q) i C Q) Q) N i 0 +) C i 0- Q) Z7 = •r = Q) E n (6 a i r- O Q) X ra •r :3 ^ O 4-) +) 4-1 O N C o N Q) Q) C = O Q) •r m Q) 4- >) C7 t "a Q) +-> > 4-> S- 0- 0- 4- Q) 4- N ro +) o) (3) (1) (a) N r ro Q) N E O U i 3 •r O (1) C C i •r --"Z-0 0) N U 4-) :3 O N W O Q) U • r i ro U C C o m O -a +) O) i N •+) 4J r_ N a-) 3 o a 4- r d-) •r (1) r- 3 i = r- C2. >) no C _ a O +- C CL 0- O_ (1) N (1) C ra N (1) a r { > al -0 = Q) X 1, N = � ra O) > +) U C U > C r- «3 O a) 'a (1) _ •r �3 a-) ,- 4-> �Z i ::5 . ro ro O 4- 0 = N O (1) C L7. N +-) C N r-• r- C) 4- N O 0) ra E >) S.- Q) E Z5 N Q) C1 4-) 4) - QI QJ i Q) _ y OU i = ^ i O C S- (3) 4- S •r = r ra Q Q) •r ro -0 (2) i •r i > 4- +' ro -Z Q (A Cl C2 U Q) C ra t Q) r- • r ? a--> Q) .+) • r co •r •N 3 "a N -N (L) .-0 N (1) U (1) i U U Q) r 0 O ra (3) ra N 4-3 -0 •r i = (1) U ro (1) •r i C > Cl U +) i CD- C ra = (L) •r i C +) +-) co ra •r C2 (1) (:L) 4-) U +-) E C -a 4-) .� N •r = M N •� ro X (3) O ro 0 r- C F- "a N = _C ro ro (1) 4- C () -O (7) =3 •r 4-) ro U = Q) 4) Q) N ra 4-> (1) •r 3 "a C N C1 ra = O ra Q) O) N r' ro ..= C +-1 Q) S- a)U ro C •r 3 • a) U .r •n "a O CO Q) ro +-) •r Q) Q) - 0 O i (1) C •I-) C 4- -N 3 -I-) r- N N > U r ra r- N al 0- .Q N Q) C ro a N Cl n. O +) ,= +) C)_ Q) O Q) ro Q) ro N .0 N O- E r- (2) 4- OI -0 Cl = N C i v 3 3 U (D r E a) v U 4- -a o¢ N= N ro Q) QI r N r a +) 0 4- O) i Cl 1> > (3) C -0 O) N N X >� O Q) ra QI r Q) 4-) N -P s- = r -+) Q) r- C •}•) N Q o i i U :3 N C ro r E ra r ro ',o N C 01 Cl 0).- i-> O Q) U N > >, Q) S- u a) v O N ro 3 a E - - 0-0 a) o •r 'L7 i 4-3 C1 a) = t 4-) 0) 4-) r- i i 4-) 4-3 = N 0- = Z CY) ro N 'a C = C •r Cl (1) ra U Cl Q) ro ro Q) N ra ro ro •r Q) C •r Q) ra •r ro C? U r- ro C1 E Q) ' C Z5 U N •-) • r r N U -a U N ro C O- ro ra i 0 (n 4- Q) i N O O ro a N O ° a a Q) Q) T +) CL -o = -0 o 4-3 U U n. U a C -N -C t Q) •V•) N C1 b= a O i N C 0- = C2. ro •r O b F- F- '!•) = M= Q ro U W 'a E Cl Q) Q) < •r Q U U U •r N N O O 0 4- N ro -T 1 M 1 r W O Z Q Z O_ V7 J U 0 U •r- C U _ Q) C U 4- 0 • r U Q1 C 4-3 4- 0 r r O 4-) S- - O 4- 4- Q) C C N ref v i C ro •N •r ro 4- O O p7 +J Q) -P a-' ro Q) +-5 i O 4- Q) N v1 +-> C Q) a C7l N '— 0 `7 C C Q) N C Q) U C r QJ Q E c r(3 C 4-) r6 U r a Q rt3 C U r r U Q) E �_ O U cn C o 41 E C Q) r6 QJ i C -I-1 ^ i (D > Q) C S () M 4- S.- ro + r- ro C U r- 3 D Q) • r 4- U •r rZ' O >> N C C Q) i-5 OC Q) M 4- 1 i 4) 4- O O .N M i Q) C1 O () `v' i- C o G :3 N r-- O a-) C 0 U Q) r C ro 4J U C O U O 4- Q) C 4� V) N Q) i • CT (U S_ �— + C ro C r-1 •r Q) +� C2 r6 N +-) N fl Z Q W Co i Q) -ro 4- O C O N Q) i C C +' •N i •r U Q) C •i-� (n () 1.4 n m N C i E r6 +-) "p CU d-) 0) C U L f CD ti > O Q) O N S- O 4- Q) S- Q) C C r Q c- Q r 3 0) C - >> r Q E 0 U r 4- N O U C Q) N Q) > .p 4-5 0) 4- T7 0 Q) QJ U c m 4..) Q 0) U U r :3 O N N Q) O L Q) i rts 3 4- 0 C N ro 4-J N Q) Q) N 4- N Q) •-> r C t N ro Y C= N v C -I-) i C +- Q) N I C2 O C -P p _ U U C N s- 0 4- N T Cll QJ 3 C1 E a-) N 0- O O U M C1 S_ CS C •r 4- QJ r N X Q) U >> r ro r— > F) > ^ Q) N = p _C 3 C •r i U C -0 r - Q) Q) r U 0 p 4- 4j N r p O U i U Q) i U r 3 4- 4-) r[3 0— 0- C ' C Q) 4- ? N N O i 4- ro d-> -C ro O 0- O J rCS « 3 M 4-S M C1 i O (A ro Q) Q) Q) O Si N r6 E Q) r C::3 Q) C C Q) N r C r Q) r6 _C Q) 4-) O N r— r 0 N N _0 r S- C 4-) O N N C 4-) C r C •r N ra •r 4J 4--) p o ro E i s Q-'— ro N O O N O � U U C Q) ro C S.- v > a--5 Q) U i 0 -C 0 -�} r U •� O N r� L S- •r C U r (6 X Q) E C r r— C +-> •r ro C C •r ro -p O i c= m Q) C C ro C •r O Q) N +) r U U Q) () () 4- - - 4-) -0 Q) U C + C Q) ..0 O C Q) Q) r 4- 4- m r 4-) C C C r i •f-) u -) N CL O 3 Q) i ..0 o +) ro C >� U N rC3 U C L O ro E N i C71 4-•) .{-) U •r •�-> •r C ..q ra C N U Q) Q) U 4-5 i-) 0) i C r6 0) 4- 3 O N Q) •r 0) O i 0 N r r 0 N ro N rL7 C C N i p C C•- a C 2 r +-) 3 N 'I-) Q) () Q) 4J N i > QJ r6 S.- 0 N N C7 .0 Q) U + i Q) Q) O Q W-0 O !— '�j C C U --:5 4-3 }) S.- •r E 0 3_0 S- E ra (C3 1= S.- ro Q) o rn •F-) >Z •r rt3 S- ro u •C1 E Q) C r E r •r O O_ Q) Q) r-• _ C I— i Q) M 0) Q) N •r d Q) C CC•r O +) 4-3 ar d F Q a-P () O C C O C C Q) ro Q C N I— 4- F C F- 1— 'o O ZT C LO _ lD -N i r CV co RS Q) Q C U Q) U O 4-� n W O Z Q Z O_ V7 J U 0 U •r- C U _ Q) C U 4- 0 • r U Q1 C 4-3 4- 0 r • ' i Q) O C r6 N c O r U C O U 0) C r- 3 O O 4-) S- - O 4- 4- Q) C C N ref v i C ro •N •r ro 4- O O p7 +J Q) -P a-' ro Q) +-5 i O 4- Q) N v1 +-> C Q) a C7l N '— 0 `7 C C Q) N C Q) U C r QJ Q E c r(3 C 4-) r6 U r a Q rt3 C U r r U Q) E �_ O U cn C o 41 E C Q) r6 QJ i C -I-1 ^ i (D > Q) C S () M 4- S.- ro + r- ro C U r- 3 D Q) • r 4- U •r rZ' O >> N C C Q) i-5 OC Q) O O W rn ¢ C'] LLJ _ r--i r W W m 0 o E Q) ..0 +-> O C j Q) N Q) U r— -p () U C 4) 4- O O .N M i Q) C1 O () `v' i- C o G :3 N r-- O a-) C 0 U Q) r C ro � 4- ro N .� 4) _ 6 Q) U .0 Q) i-) 4- 0 v) 0) i Q) C r Q) U C O U O 4- Q) C 4� rp Q) r6 p Q) i • CT (U S_ �— + C ro +-> C Q) Q) i r i Q) N C1 '- C U +-) r6 N +-) N fl Z Q W Co i Q) -ro 4- O C O N Q) i C C +' •N i •r U Q) C •i-� (n () 1.4 n m N ro C •F-) U Q) � � •r U •r 2 51 M 4- C O- iU-- ^ "p CU d-) 0) 4j r6 U TJ t U L f CD ti U) C i-) C r» r •r6 4-) Q) U 4- rU i -P 0 U Q) N S- O 4- Q) S- Q) C 4-3 0 (n Q) C C r Q c- Q r 3 0) C - >> r Q E 0 U O r— r0 3 Q) 5= () S•-• Q) 0 QJ C F- CV N O U C Q) N Q) > N +) c Q) E C N r 71 5= ro ^ N i Q) +) n W Cr� O LL W 0_' W S f— (D F- r QJ U c m 4..) Q 0) U U r :3 O N N Q) O O U i rts 3 4- 0 0 > C - ro 4-J N Q) 0- F= 5 -ID ^ 3 O Z r0 O C ro C r- N :3 C _r 0 U Q) C 4- O rn i O E C Q) i «3 4- Cll 3 Z ni. J U z ZD O U U 0 J _w LL U WA 9 Cn W - F-- Q Y L Q) a •r U O i ro O i Z7 QJ QJ U N r- Q) -0 o Q) N D N 3 Q) a L � i-) r Q) Q) N •1--) O O Q) N +� ..Q Q. Q) Ql C •r Q) -I--) () "D L r- - O U i C r6 r •N r S -0 •r M r6 QJ C U C ^ O l0 � r0 Q) Q) i U ;::: U i, o L •r Jr r ra U 4-) ^ N Q) N kD C Ll O Q) Q) ) OQ .- S.. -P - Q) =3 ro - Q) N r N O O U ri � QJ a N O N-C O L Q) O + Q) Q) 4-) r N 4-) -� N T3 4- - L i i � � � ro 3 U C •r (2) (1) c (3) C T1 Q) Q) Q) N (1) t 4 Q r6 C U Q) ro • r � � O L -0 Q N Q) t 0) = E 4-- r N Q) -d o Q) N -D r U U U 4- O U 4- E 1 - .F r o N --) O-P 3 U ,_ -) L Q O O.. d C Q) N O O D C (n U O Q) i-) s ) O C °) °U r •r D) N Q1 t -I-� C >> ro N Q1 07 � (n U Q) 3 N U I .0 N Q) -r i E O U N N r6 N Q) C 1 a) �G O C r- C U r- d r L r> U Q) (n O -�-) Q) r- ro 'D > 3 ro o Q) U Q) U 4-) Q) r Q r N O () 4-) o-) O N Q) i Q) ru -0 r6 r0 > r• -D r Q) ro o i Q) = L U • r L nL 4-) Q) C) 4 C - p c O c O Q) r -F-) U r O •r - Q) Q) -C N QJ co O O +a) C N +' O Q) C r> O � +-3 +-) S of r 4- r 00 D- Q) 0) - 0 r- L Cl) N U O = -D o -O O al O 4- Q) 3 CL '/ ro Q) L 4- C C o -C Q) >> Q) r0 -D r O (D N TJ r O Q) S.i N r N Q) O ro L � a � Q) � (i5 +, D C Q) r O C d Q) C ° C Q Q) � 41 N r0 Q) � > -t--) � Q) O Q) r L O N r6 O � +-� � a N S- s riS O f1 -F� a � U) t -P N - O o S-- - 4- 01 N N L +-) C i Q1 C Q Q 4- Q) O Q) ro N 'D r6 6 L i U ro Q) 0--- Q) +°-> N � C U Lo E () •r N -F-) C S_ r Y 4--0 4-) Q) Q 4--) c 2 Q) Q) >) N C i r O (n 0- C •r N O C aJ Q) 6 r6 L Q) L Q) Q) O Q) U C C r - O Q. O- i- QJ 'D Q) F= m L T C Q. E O N rp Q ro rr o 4- > U O QJ r U O Q) Q) 4- +-) 4--1 'D L L -0 _0 4-3 �-0 L Q) C r N U r i'-) -0 •r () U QJ L 4- Q) +) C U O E r6 L Q) 1] N r ro Q) ro U c a Of C Q C Q) -C +-' 'D N U •r ,.0 ro Q) N N U C U O -V-) N ro Q) t L Q) ro c- r Q) 4- O m _0 m Q1 O Q) O N •r L N N N '� •1-) r6 s ro s +-) +) L L -0 S- r >� Q•� O Q) n N •r •O N •-) •) •-) N rd 4-) N o N 4-j N = Q) •r N () t t rt) C . C r Q) L Z + ° � N .0 3 > a -Ci •-) > +� O Q1 Q) ^ N L Q) • r +-) Q) ro ai +�-) 4- U •L .,�- u i--- (/)-0 -D C C Q) U C- r L L O L U 'D N L a N i N L U C Q) Q) O i--+ ° Q) _ r Q) d • r C Q) C2 -Q Q Q) r r r � • r r O U L c r- -E-) C O O +) LO -0 C ro C N r0 Q) 1-) i) c� O m Q) U Q) > L1 U C1 C +) r- r6 +-) _1 N ' _ C L 1) Q) •r Q) 4- C O N C Q) N -0 � O Gl N ro Q rO •r O •D -d i--) U 06 D O O 3 r r- r- Q) Q) Q) O Q) o L -0 r0 C 4- r6 L L L Q) U Q) C o Q) Q Q) r N > C L 4--) r +-) M 4-) -P O � '7 C C C- 4- 4- Q c a) a Q) U U s= Q) C Q1 C QJ Q) ro C U m > r- _c O o ro U •r D7 N> c o c c < s v s o _c' L N t o u rL c O r6 Q) Q) U O QJ f- > I- c +) d-) U CO 0--- (n +-) C 4- C N -C v v v M C 4--) L O r II 01 O (1) +) s Q 4-) N +> >) r- m L1 cn O Z ni. J U z ZD O U U 0 J _w LL U WA 9 Cn W - F-- Q Y L Q) a •r U :�p 1 a. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 83 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Stipulation - Adams Registration Proceeding Several years ago, Charles and Harriet Adams commenced a proceeding in Hennepin County District Court to obtain title to part of Richfield Lake which adjoins their property. The city has been involved in the litigation in order to protect its right to use the lake bottom for storm sewer ponding purposes. The Adams' have objected to this claim by the city. The trial is scheduled to begin March 11, 1981. As a result of discussions between the Adams' attorney and our city attorneys, a proposal has been developed which is designed to recognize the right. _of the city to use the lake bottom for ponding purposes andmtpmallow Harriet Adams to obtain title to the property. The specific details of that resolution are still being prepared at this time. However, it is anticipated that the city attorney will have a proposed stipulation prepared for council review at the March 9, 1981 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: City Attorney pp-,-;, —Ilft }ry+ +-4-�1-- l.--W.Wol*..—,*-.-A"",.,W-.J� ".D.oW--".ftwmo.w%c..-,W&W, ~.-*mw*awi� 4 r I 4 NO. 17101 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — In the matter of the Application ) to Register the Title to Certain ) STIPULATION Land of Harriet L. Adams ) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking to register certain land in which the undersigned has asserted an interest by Answer on file in this proceeding; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto, after discussion with their attorneys, have agreed to a compromise of the issues involved in the registration proceeding; NOW, THEREFORE, it is stipulated and agreed by and between 01 the undersigned parties: 1. That the Applicant shall grant to the City of Richfield a perpetual storm water ponding easement over the land described on Exhibit "A" by agreement in the form and content of Exhibit "B ". As consideration for such grant, the City of Richfield shall pay to Applicant the sum of $525.00. 2. That after the granting of the ponding easement, the land described on Exhibit "A" shall remain includable in the gross land Ricr extension of the West line of said Block 1, East of the Southerly extension of the East line of Block 2, "RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION" and North of a line bearing South 82 degrees, 00 minutes 00 seconds West (assuming the East line of said Government Lot 3 as bearing North) from a point on the East line of said Government Lot 3 distant 1131.3 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Government Lot 3. 5. That the Answer of the City of Richfield shall be stricken and the Application of the Applicant herein allowed to proceed as a default matter as to any land not dismissed from these proceed- ings, subject to the ponding easement referred to in Paragraph 1 above. 6. That the Applicant shall file this Stipulation and shall petition the Court for an Order dismissing the land described in Paragraph 4 above, said Order to be effective upon the filing 00 of a copy thereof in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 7. That this Stipulation is subject to formal approval by the City Council of the City of Richfield. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties and their attorneys have hereunto set their hands this day of , 1981. THOMSEN, NYBECK, HERBST & JOHNSON, P.A. IN CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Council Letter No. 82 Agenda March 9, 1981 Subject: Legislative Position Statements There is an item on the March 9, 1981 city council agenda providing for city council review and sf5 uss on .of °po1iz1es �,eg_lztmowhich is likely to be before the state legislature in its present session. Attached to this council letter are brief summaries of some of these legislative issues, their impact on the City of Rich- field, and a recommended policy stand which the city council might wish to adopt for transmittal to our state legislators. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN% ej a cc: Program Directors CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 14 March 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Continuance of Municipal Court in Richfield The purpose of this policy statement is to indicate the City of Richfield's support for continuing to hold municipal court for trials of traffic and criminal violations without jury in the Richfield City Office facilities. Current Policy Hennepin County Municipal Court presently meets in the Rich- field City Council Chambers for six days each month. For many years, Richfield's trials of traffic and criminal violations before the court without jury have been held at the city hall. In 1978, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes to provide that Richfield court trials and arraignments would be transferred to Bloomington beginning August 1, 1978, unless the city requested of the county that they remain in Richfield. Prior to that time, the Richfield City Council did formally request of Hennepin County that the existing court be continued in Richfield. The city re- tains the option to, at any time, request that the court be moved to Bloomington. Recently, however, Hennepin County has suggested that because of the increased volume of cases being processed through the municipal court, and the space constraints in the Richfield municipal facilities, that the court should be moved to Bloomington. 12 pact on the City of Richfield Advantages of holding court in Richfield: 1. It is very convenient for Richfield residents who have to appear in court; 2. It is very convenient for police officers and other city officials who have to appear in court, reducing staffing and overtime costs considerably; 3. Prisoners can be easily brought to court; 4. City files and records relating to court incidents are easily accessible; 5. Police officers only need to disrupt their normal duties for the time they are needed in court, and since they are still in the city, can be called out in an emergency if necessary; 6. The city attorney can conduct other city business while at city hall on court days; 7. The city receives an additional $3,100 in annual revenues from the county for lease of the court space. Disadvantages of holding court in Richfield: 1. Severe congestion of people and vehicles occurs in the city hall building and parking lot; 2. Court use means that the two offices located adjacent to the court chambers are unusable for any other city purposes. It Clearly, the advantages to the City of Richfield to continue holding court here far outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, as part of the city hall remodeling project, the office area used by court personnel has been modified to create three offices, rather than the two which previously existed. This remodeling has been done in an-.attempt to better meet the space /privacy needs of pro- bation officers and attorneys who must counsel with clientel during the court sessions. The city council of the City of Richfield has gone on record with Hennepin County against any proposal to relocate the municipal court function out of the Richfield City office. The State Legis- lature is requested to make no changes to Chapter 488A:01, sub- division 9 (b) relating to trials of traffic and criminal violation! before the court without jury. Adopted by the Richfield City Council March 9, 1981 CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 15 March 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Proposed State of Minnesota 1982 -83 Budget The purpose of this statement is to describe the impact which certain provisions of the proposed, - 1982 -83 State of Minnesota bud- get will have on the City of Richfield. This description will focus on the proposal for local government aids which the City of Richfield receives from the State of Minnesota. The Governor's proposal for local government aid in 1982 and 1983 would (1) freeze the level of funding for local government aids; and (2) delay the distribution of aid payments. Impact on the City of Richfield In 1980, the City of Richfield had a negative cash flow in the first six months of the year for our general fund, of approx- imately $1.7 million dollars. In order to finance that cash flow, we found it necessary to accumulate fund balances in an amount roughly equal to negative cash flow for the first six months. The city's fund balance, combined with the local government aid payment which has historically been received in March, has been just slight- ly less than the cash needed to support operations for the first six months of the year. However, the Governor's proposal would eliminate the March payment of local government aids. The Governor would substitute six equal installments in local government aid in the months of July through December. The impact of this delay in local government aids is that the city would experience a short- fall of approximately an additional $840,000 in cash for the first six months of the year. In addition, since the city would not have the March local government aid monies to invest until needed, they would lose interest income over the course of the year of approx- imately $78,000, based upon a 14 percent rate of return: Actually, since the city does not have the additional fund balance needed to offset the cash flow needs for the first six months of the year, the income lost from investments would actually be interest paid on borrowing funds. The City of Richfield would have to go into the short term borrowing market in order to offset these cash flow needs. The Governor's budget also proposed to fund the local aid formula at the same amount that cities were entitled to in 1981, before he enacted an 8.3 percent cutback. In other words, the proposal provides for no increase in funding for 1982 or 1983. In 1981, local government aids are expected to yield 33.6 percent of our total general fund budget. When homestead credit is in- cluded, local government aids, plus homestead credit equals 46.9 percent, almost half, of our general fund budget. Before the governor's announced reduction in local government aids for 1981, that funding source would have constituted, with homestead credit, 49.7 percent of our general fund expenditures. Property taxes in 1981 are equivalent to 27.4 percent of the general fund budget. Assuming a 12 percent inflation rate, to continue the ex- isting level of service in the community, increases in local government aids and property tax of $497,859 would be necessary in 1982. That would require a 16 percent increase in our property tax and homestead credit collections in 1982. However, since the majority of Richfield homeowners already receive the full amount of homestead credit allowable, the actual tax increase that they would expreience is approximately 30 percent.. In addition, we would have to substitute additional revenue for the interest in- come lost or interest paid, which would require an additional 2.4 percent increase in property tax levies. In total, our property tax levies will have to increase by more than 18 percent, while the homeowners' property tax bill would increase by more than 32 percent. Since the average Richfield homeowner tax bill, after the homestead credit, is $120, the increase would be about $40 per year per homeowner. It is the position of the City of Richfield that the alter- ation in the payment schedule for local government aids is exacer- bating the problem already experienced by the Governor's cutting back on the level of aids in 1981, Furthermore, the city recommends that the local government aid formula for 1982 -83 be expanded to at least the expected level of inflation, to minimize the impact of the state financing problems and cutbacks on the property tax. Adopted by the Richfield City Council March 9, 1981 CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 16 March 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Wine Sales.in Grocery Stores The purpose of this statement is to express the City of Richfield's opposition to the sale of wine in grocery stores. Current Policy State law presently prohibits the sale of any alcoholic beverages stronger than beer in establishments other than licensed liquor establishments. The liquor licensing requirements of the law provide a municipality the ability to regulate the availabil- ity and nature of sales of alcoholic beverages within their com- munities. However, legislation has been developed which is likely to be before the state legislature during the 1981 session which would exempt wine sales in grocery stores from the licensing and liquor sale regulations of municipalities. Impact on the City of Richfield The City of Richfield presently owns and operates three off - sale liquor retail establishments. A significant portion of our liquor sales are wine sales. The authorization for grocery stores to sell wine would have a major potential detrimental impact on the city's liquor revenues, which are the major source of funding for capital improvements within the community. Furthermore, exemption of grocery store wine sales from the fairly stringent liquor licensing requirements now contained in state law could present additional opportunity for abuses in liquor sales which would be beyond the ability of the city to control. The City of Richfield wishes to go on record in opposition to authorization of wine sales in grocery stores. Adopted by the Richfield City Council March 9, 1981 CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT NUMBER 17 March 9, 1981 SUBJECT: Provision for the Regulation and Licensing of Precious Metal Dealers The purpose of this policy statement is to indicate the city of Richfield's support for the proposed legislation (HF 79) pro- viding for the licensing and regulation of precious metal dealers. Current Status There is currently very little control exercised over precious metal dealers.as it relates to establishing identification procedures or recording requirements, prohibiting certain transactions, providing for civil or criminal penalties and other miscellaneous regulations. As a result numerous municipalities across the state have experienced criminal actions in the sale and purchase of precious metals. While city councils have the option of adopting ordinances on this subject matter, it would appear appropriate to have a state law which could be uniformly applied, rather than the hodge -podge of municipal regu- lations. It is the position of the City Council of the City of Richfield that the State Legislature should adopt a statute regulating and licensing precious dealers similar to that identified as HF 79. Adopted by the Richfield City Council March 9, 1981 NUMBE CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT 7BJECT: Regulation of the Zoning of Battered Women's Shelters March 9, 1981 The purpose of this policy statement is to indicate the City of Richfield's opposition to a bill exempting battered women's shel- ters from local zoning ordinances. Current Policy Several years ago, the Legislature passed legislation exempting mentally retarded and physically handicapped persons residential homes from municipal zoning ordinances. The purpose of the legislation was to provide implementation of the policy of the state that mentally retarded and physically handicapped persons should not be excluded from the benefits of normal residential surroundings.- At the same time, however, the legislation removed local control over zoning sit- uations in which multiple families can live in single family zoned areas. New Legislation The state legislature has a bill filed relating to regulation of the zoning of battered women's shelters, amending the earlier legis- lation (SF 151). The legislation indicates that a shelter for batter- ed women serving ten or fewer persons, including children of battered women, shall also be considered a permitted single family residential use of property for purposes of zoning. While the City of Richfield heartily endorses homes for battered women, it is felt that the use of single family homes within a residential area should be controlled by local zoning codes. The legislation proposed in Senate File 151 eliminates the role of the local elected official in zoning matters of this sort. The city council of the City of Richfield stands forth- right against any intrusion of state government into local zoning matters. Adopted by the Richfield City Council March 9, 1981 NUMBER 18 CITY OF RICHFIELD LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT SUBJECT: Shade Tree Disease Funding March 9, 1981 The State of Minnesota passed the Shade Tree Disease Control Program in earlier years, which mandated that a control program for shade tree disease be implemented in the Metropolitan Area. In 1977 the Legislature appropriated $26 million and in 1979 an additional $24 million was appropriated to help defray the costs of the local Shade Tree Disease programs. Of this amount, an average of approxi- mately $7 million per year for the past four years has been alloca- ted to the--local units of government in the seven county metropolitan area. Governor Quie in his budget has proposed $18,250,000 for the next biennium, which would result in about $6 million per year for metropolitan area cities. While his proposal represents a substantial cut from previous allocations, if the incidence of disease continues to decline as it has in the past three years, the proposed amount may come close to matching the local costs on a 50 -50 basis. Recommendation The level of the state funding for this program will be determined largely by the Appropriations Committee in the House and Finance Comm- ittee in the Senate. On Monday, March 2, 1981, Senator Gerald L. Willette, Chairman of the full Senate Finance Committee, recommended that the Governor's budget request for shade tree disease funding be reduced,-= by one -half. This reduction will probably mean that the level of re- imbursement from the state for the various shade tree disease activities would be between 20 and 25 percent, instead of the current 50 percent. The city costs would increase from 50 percent to 75 percent to 80 percent, since it is a mandated disease control program. The city council of the City of Richfield expresses strong concerns about the cutbacks in this program in light of the mandated costs imposed by the state as well as the high priority of disease control. The Governor's recommended alloca- tion for the program should be continued. Adopted by the Richfield City Council March 9, 1981 /y F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 81 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Contract for Field Inspection Services, CP7052 - Lyndale Avenue Project, 64th Street to Lake Shore Drive The W-m-whism -6 be undertaken this summer, will require the familiar with Federal Aid Urban Projects. Orr - Schelen - Mayeron (OSM) is not only familiar with FAU projects, but is familiar with this particular project through their long -term engineering services re- lationship with the City of Richfield. For this reason, it is the recommendation of the staff that wescongage- 09,M services -on th g•- `proj- rct for the field nspection and survey- ng. The estimated costs are as follows: 1. Construction observation $48,580 2. Testing 5,000 3. Surveying _23,715 TOTAL r -2.95 A substantial portion of these engineering costs can be financed by using MSA funds. T he t. The staff recommends that the council adopt the attached reso- lution, designating OSM as the project engineer for CP7052. Respectfully submitted, 1�cyti3L' VJ��4.�,1`CL1�^� Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer «,..:.: �,rr -w.., .Y...,.�:..��.:..akvrr _ rs�n+�M�'iMrn1W ,... ""pA�11Mi!lra'I!lf.+�M0.M'r �wen•.t,c7t- 'w�ot.o.r., - r- r..rrcyAls::.- M.'..r .�. w,.Y'r °-rtA► ���+ ate:. rn• sw....+ rra. +aal�aw�.�.�w- c�:rsts:�v+n�,ai, .. :twM..:� �- :ts.:.. _,,... n,N �Mrnw�.. ••,. awwr�y,, r�r��►'++ �+ �+ r-. awf���, waeel Mlel��At/�r.^a :�.�rw:-�..,:• ^•. ��.�! �,.,�..�...:� -�rlr l+ �qa .+ow.,.n�+►erxNa�riw�uar'+sn'F �-.; wr�rr-.* �r+ rwe� +�wacrow....��s,P«+,a.wro�y�y� RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. AS PROJECT ENGINEER FOR CP7052, LYNDALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, 64th STREET TO 67th STREET BE IT NOW RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 0 The City Council designates the engineering firm of Orr - Schelen- Mayeron & Associates, Inc. as project engineer for CP7052, Lyndale Avenue Street Improvement, 64th Street to 67th Street. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of March, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors ORR •SCHELEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. February 9, 1981 City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Attn: Mike Eas tl ing, City Engineer Department of Community Development Re: Lyndale Avenue FADS Project Field Inspection Dear Mike: Since our early discussions regarding this project, we have re- viewed the project plans, discussed the project with Mn /DOT and formulated the scope of work to perform the construction administration. In the following paragraphs, the scope of work and associated costs are defined. The manhours involved and the associated costs are estimates based on our opinion of the re- quired work effort. We will bill you based on the actual hours spent on the project at the actual salary cost of an individual times a 2.25 mul ti- pl ier. . A. Construction Observation: This work will consist of observing the construction as it pro- ceeds and preparing the project documentation in accordance with Mn /DOT requirements. Included in this work is the taking of con- crete slump tests, concrete air tests and concrete test cylinder preparation. MN /DOT construction observation procedures require that the principal construction observer be on the site 95% of the time. With work starting in May we would anticipate con- struction to be complete by September 20. During times of concrete ditional person would be be 40 days. In addition oversee the construction activity. Following is an estimate involved in each categor: placement and bituminous paving, an ad- required. This time is anticipated to I will visit the site on a weekly basis, observation and keep you informed of all of the manhours and average costs Y� 2021 East Hennepin Avenue * Suite 238 • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 612,'331 -8660 TELEX: 29 -0948 V Mr. Mike Eas tl ing February 9, 1981 Page 2 1. Principal Construction Observer 5 months x 173 hrs. /mo. x 95% x $16.50 = $13,559 2. Additional Construction Observer 40 days x 8 hrs. /day x $13.00 = $ 4,160 3. Senior Engineer 22 weeks x 8 hrs. /week x $22.00 = $ 3,872 Total Salary Cost = $21,591 Total Estimated Cost - Salary cost x 2.25 = $48,580 B. Testing: All of the materials incorporated into the project require spe- cial testing. Examples are the aggregate, the bituminous mix- ture, the concrete mixture, weigh scales, in place densities, etc. While Mn /DOT can provide the materials testing at the bituminous and ,concrete plants, this is on a call basis and re- sponse may not be when needed. Therefor it is recommended by Mn /DOT that a private testing firm be engaged for all testing. If Mn /DOT is utilized for the bituminous and concrete plant tes- ting, the private firm would be used as backup. I have contacted Braun Engineering and Testing for this purpose. Based on the contract quantities, they estimate the testing costs to be $5,000. If selected they would contract with the City on a unit cost per test or per hour basis. C. Surveying: Although we have not discussed the construction staking, I have worked up an estimate based on our doing this work. Following is the estimated cost. Billing will be based on actual crew and /or individual salary cost times a 2.25 multiplier. 3 -man survey crew, 300 hrs. @ $31.00 /hr. _ $ 91300 Senior Land Surveyor, 40 hrs. @ $22.00 /hr. = 880 Technician, 30 hrs. @ $12.00 /hr. = 360 Total Salary Cost = $10,540 Total Estimated Cost - salary cost x 2.25 = $23,715 Therefore the total cost of construction observation, testing and surveying is $77,295.00. My understanding is that 5% of the construction cost can be taken from MSA funds for inspection and surveying. On difficult projects this can range up to 10 %. ' Mike Eas tl ing February 9, 1981 Page 3 Please review this estimate and if you find it favorable we will proceed to prepare a contract. The contract describing the scope of work and cost estimates along with resumes of the people involved must be submitted to the state and approved prior to construction grant award. If our general services contract is approved February 23rd, this can be used along with a descriptive letter. Please call with any questions you may have. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. o� c Wayne R. Long, P.E. Vice President WRL/ tr iy E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 80 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are two such items on the council agenda of March 9, 1981. electric Ball" Ditpens•@t The golf course driving range proved to be very popular in its first, although partial, year of operation. To facilitate service and reduce congestion, the adopted 1981 budget included funding for the purchase of a rangeball dispenser. The customer would obtain tokens from the clubhouse. The tokens would be placed in the dis- penser, which would be located outside the clubhouse. The number of tokens placed in the machine determines the number of balls or size of bucket of balls which the customer would get. Two companies stock such a machine. Hornung's Pro Golf provided a quotation of $1,819.25, while Ti ttek GQ f . €apply Campars q n ed. - 1 , 705 : 0 . It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of an electric ball dispenser from Wittek Golf Supply Company, in the amount of $1,705.00. Trees The capital improvement - program includes an annual - $45;000 4Jp1lo- c:at on- from, the sp, cial _revenge fLund for the purchase and planting. �o.n ann- s as replacement for tree losses anticipated due to dutch elm disease, oak wilt disease, windstorms, insects and so forth. For 1981, the city anticipates FAanting approximately•100 treW of each of four species: kyline-Honeylocust `Sugar Maple,'__- Hackberry aad•- American Linden. The planing would take place in two seasons, with about one -half of the trees in an estimated combination of 50 trees of each of the four species, planted in the spring and the other one -half planted in the fall. Specifications were sent to 14 vendors. Quotations were to be submitted for spring planting with three alternate plans. All three plans called for 2" - 22" diameter trees, balled and burlapped. Alternate #1 called for the trees to be planted by the vendor and guaranteed for one year. Alternate #2 called for the trees to be picked up and planted by the city, but the vendor was to supply Council Letter No. 80 -2- March 9, 1981 a one year guarantee. Alternate #3 called for the trees to be picked up and planted by the city and the vendor need not provide a guar- antee. After reviewing the four quotations submitted, the city determined that it would be less expensive for the city to plant trees in the spring. It was also determined that Alternate #3 was preferable in that the loss rate would typically need to exceed 20% to make the one year guarantee period cost effective. One of the reasons for staff to anticipate a low loss rate is that all stock being considered is local stock, planted and grown in this area. Because of the close proximity of stock, staff can select the trees to be used, and the time between digging at the nursery and planting is kept to a minimum. Having determined that Alternative #3 was preferable, the city staff then examined the quotations provided by the four vendors for the four species of trees. Skyline Honeylocus4w The lowest bid was submitted by Minnesota Tree, Inc. in the amount of x$67.00 per tree. However, this quotation was for a Shademaster Honeylocust, which did not meet specifications, and only 25 trees were available. The other three vendors provided quo- tations according to specifications. Each had the desired 50 trees available. The quotation from Seefert's Hudson Road Nursery was $115.00 per tree. Minnesota Valley Wholesale, Inc. quoted $75.95 per tree and Bachman's, Inc. quoted $75.00 per tree. Staff has inspected the trees from Bachman's and found them to meet specifications and to be of a desirable quality. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of 50 Skyline Honeylocust from Bachman's, Inc. at a unit price of $75.00, for a total purchase price of $3,750.00. Sugar Maple: Only three of the vendors had Sugar Maple in stock. Minnesota Tree, Inc. submitted the quotation of $82.50. Other quota- tions were $89.00 per tree from Minnesota Valley Wholesale, Inc. and $138.00 per tree from Seefert's Hudson Road Nursery, Inc. The trees have been inspected by the city staff. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of 50 Sugar Maple from Minnesota Tree, Inc. at a unit price of $82.50, for a total purchase price of $4,125.00. Hackberry: Only two vendors had Hackberry trees in stock. Seefert's Hudson Road Nursery quoted a unit price of $128.00. The trees avail- able from Minnesota Valley Wholesale, Inc have been inspected by staff and it is recommended that the city council approve the pur- chase of 50 HackbT"t the 9.00, for a total purchase price of $4,450.00 American Linden: Three vendors had this tree in stock. Seefert's Hudson. Road Nursery quoted a unit price of $128.00. Bachman's Inc. quoted $75.00 and Minnesota Tree, Inc. quoted $72.00 as a unit price. The trees have been inspected by city staff. It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of 50 American Linden from Minnesota Tree, Inc at a unit price of $72.00, for a total purchase price of $3,600.00. IAWV4�iw "Moft qw IJW *,,W-YVP?lAft I Council Letter No. 80 -3- March 9, 1981 Summary The 200 trees recommended for purchase at this time are for spring planting on public property, typically street boulevards where a tree has been lost due to disease or windstorm, or where a tree has not existed or at a park site. In preparing for spring planting, it has been noted that some species of trees are plenti- ful while others are not. In visiting the various nurserys to inspect stock, it was noted that the quantity of trees could be greatly reduced by fall, especially in terms of tree quality. It is important that orders be placed now for spring planting. It is a r��nam�nc].a F- . due y. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Services Director P 3 -7 -0 4 i -),� �4�J 3 � co �'�q a5 .°�'-' ��.wn,+aor ..+._w..y,�.,....,.� �s�ws.�nrw+w.....�..,«. -�. +o. w «..ar "..o.�. - -r w.,uM/M�" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: /4/0 Council Letter No. 79 Agenda March 9, 1981 . Subject: Additions to the Alley Paving Project CP 7341 On February 23, 1981, the city council adopted a resolution receiving a preliminary engineering report and calling for a public hearing on the resurfacing of ten alleys through CP 734. In addition to these ten alleys, the city council ordered a pre- liminary report for one additional alley which has been included as a result of a petition being submitted which was signed by over one - half of the property owners on the block, as required by the alley paving policy. The location is: Between From To Clinton and 3rd Avenue 66th Street 67th Street The city council also nrr1PrPA A preliminary report on the following alley for the 1981 alley paving project: Nicollet and 1st Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street In order to include these two alleys in the 1981 alley project, the staff recommends that the city council pass the attached resol- ution receiving the preliminary report for CP 7341 on the two addi- tional described alleys, and calling for a public hearing on April 27, 1981 on these alley improvements. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /ej a cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer ..�,- ,..�n.�.......n.. �... �..... ....�............,....,....�... .M .na�..+�,..�.s......�,.,r.�.iwe '.r,� .+r�w.,w+..� .. .w,e......w...�.,..,..cr,. �►... ,. Y .�rr+rtw.Fr..#ft++..bki,ll,f�,� a,,,, Y,......�.....- ....,...�...,.�. �,,,.�,,,..,..�..�r r.y...�r.,.� ...... o„-, wM,,,, �' s�., q,[ e�r., w, rR,:,, �, w, �, � „,,,�„�..�n.,w..:�� ►- ..Rs,��Wy �# �cyE+ we► y.! M�FY+ !rt°�. ^pn�..,,�.:y�.u..;.w..N�e, ., 4..�... .1...�M`xT�vw Lw4`. ��rd' 4.YR�1F.Mfr''.1'��':'tawr'^'�”' °1����' . �`' �w ...- .�awrl. " +e�s�.w.��iM...�i. Y.an,si �Mt,711'�A�f1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CITY PROJECT 7341 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A preliminary report on proposed City Project 7341 of the City dated the 9th day of March, 1981, prepared by the city engineer, is hereby received and ordered to be placed on file. 2. A public hearing on said proposed improvement is hereby called to be held on April 27, 1981, commencing at 7:00 o'clock P.M., in the council chambers in the City Hall of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give published and mailed notice of such hearing in the manner required by law. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of March, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST ALLEY PAVING & APPURTENANT WORK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT NO. 7341 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA I. TYPE OF WORK Alley paving improvements in the City of Richfield. II. REASON FOR IMPROVEMENT a The alley paving is proposed as a paving program for the City of Richfield to provide permanent alley surfacing to benefit abutting properties where needed. III. DATE OF PRELIMINARY REPORT March 9, 1981 IV. LOCATION Alley Between Nicollet and First Clinton and Third V. FEASIBILITY From 71st Street 66th Street To 72nd Street 67th Street The alley paving project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with any other project. VI. PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED All that property abutting the alleys previously described in Item Number IV. -2- VII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Construction of 1,216.3 lineal feet of alley surfacing in the project area: 11' Wide Concrete Alley Estimated construction cost 48,100.00 Admin., Legal, Engineering & Insurance (250) 12,000.00 Estimated Project Cost 60,100.00 11' Wide Concrete Curb & Gutter with Bituminous Alley Estimated Construction Cost 34,600.00 Admin., Legal, Engineering & Insurance (250) 8,700.00 Estimated Project Cost 43,300.00 VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT ASSESSMENT Property abutting alleys will be assessed for abutting alley construction according to the assessment policy established in the city council Resolution No. 6345. Total Assessable Alley Frontage Lineal Feet Assessment Rate (Concrete Alley) $24.70 /Foot Assessment Rate (Curb & Gutter with Bituminous Alley) $17.80 /Foot Concrete Alley Typical Assessment for 50' Lot - $1,235.00 Curb & Gutter with Bituminous Alley Typical Assessment for W Lot - $890.00 -5O I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Pro- fessional Engineer under the laws of the Sate of Minnesota. Wayn Long Date: March 9, 1981 Reg. No. 7612 - --------- LL. z 12 I i x . rL Zw T I F RU i E-, IL 11,- jL 17, It L C AF ..7[ =1C ir E- l- A E F1 Y r 111F [IT LJ 1 -1 F�j C--1 L-j � E-j IF I IF ---1 al I 3 =L JI F71f- OEBEEE)EE3EE3 __ � ®BBBD CCU � � --- - 11 - r-- -- li -- EE9 E-=3 E-=3 OFE3 E--:!-9EEE3EEE3E1 IA r--1 co m rO fd 04 N 10 0 -P (n >1 0) K� /yc CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Council Letter No. 78 Agenda March 9, 1981 Council Release of State Right -of -Way to the City of Richf ield In November, 1980, Hennepin County was informed of the pend- ingleas� of eb+ = .ildich end..- Bryant.,4 to them. Since this is a functioning city street, they have recommended that the final road right -of -way jurisdiction be conveyed to the city. This section of roadway has permanent paving and curb and gut- ter, completed at the time of the city's permanent street improve- ment program. The city has been providing maintenance and snow- plowing service to this section of roadway, and it is in good condition. It has been requested that the qty adopt the attached.resolu- Iion,r requesting . conveyance -of- this rig +ht -o way. #~ ©•:: -: hQ- G ty of aaichfie3od. Upon receipt of the city resolution, the county Right - of -Way Division will prepare the necessary transfer papers. Respectfully submitted, 'J Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf CC: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer J 7 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF RIGHT -OF- WAY JURISDICTION FOR WEST 62ND STREET BETWEEN ALDRICH AVENUE AND BRYANT AVENUE TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD WHEREAS, Hennepin County acquired Lots 2 and 9, Block 2, Fallden's Addition for road right-of-way purposes for the joint section of I -35W and CSAH 62; and, WHEREAS, portions of this right-of-way now provide a city street connection (W. 62nd Street frontage road) along the south side of I -35W between Aldrich and Bryant Avenues; and, WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation intends to release this city street right -of -way to Hennepin County; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Hennepin County be requested to execute a Quit Claim Deed conveying their interests in those parts of Lots 2 and 9, Block 2, Fallden's Addition, underlying the W. 62nd Street frontage road to the City of Richfield. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 9th day of March, 1981. ATTEST; Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Mayor �y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 77 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Additions to the 1981 Sidewalk Construction Project There are several miscellaneous sidewalk improvements that the staff recommends be included in the 1981 Sidewalk Construction Proj- ect, CP 727. These improvements are as follows: 1. East side of Nicollet Avenue from Crosstown Highway 62, south 700 feet. Completion of this sidewalk section would complete linkage of the Richfield sidewalk with that of Minneapolis on the north. This area has sub- stantial pedestrian traffic, as evidenced by the dirt path worn from existing sidewalk north of Crosstown 62, to where the sidewalk resumes approximately 700 feet to the south. This area is also immediately adjacent to Nicollet Park. Preliminary cost estimate: 700 lineal feet of 5 ft. wide sidewalk: $10,850 Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds are available to finance the project. 2. Nicollet Park, Stevens Avenue to Nicollet Avenue on north side adjacent to Crosstown 62. All state permits have been obtained to construct a sidewalk from Stevens Avenue to Nicollet Avenue on the State right -of -way at the north end of Nicollet Park. Preliminary cost estimate: 650 lineal feet of 5 ft. wide sidewalk: $8,500 Monies for this improvement were included in the side- walk construction project of 1980. 3. Little Bob's Park, 67th Street and Harriet/Garfield Avenues. To eliminate the difficulty to pedestrians crossing the earth berms along 67th Street at the north end of Little Bob's Park, a sidewalk is proposed between the berms at the end of Gar- field and Harriet Avenues, to link these Avenues to 67th Street. Preliminary cost estimate: 100 lineal feet of 5 ft. wide sidewalk: $1,550.- MSA funds might be available to finance this project. As an alternative, the remainder of the 1980 sidewalk con- struction project monies will be used. Council Letter No. 77 -2- March 9, 1981 4. Miscellaneous sidewalk repairs. Sidewalk repair is to be based on locations and detail developed by the staff. Such repair work will be financed by the operating budget for street maintenance. 5. 66th Street - Nicollet Avenue to Pillsbury Avenue. A side- walk is proposed to be constructed on the north side of,., 66th Street from Nicollet to Pillsbury. The original LHN plan envisioned an interior sidewalk system for the HUB; however, pedestrian patterns clearly indicated that people are walking on the grass along this part of 66th Street. The city's sidewalk policy, which was adopted in October, 1980, states that 50% of the cost of sidewalk construction .adjacent to commercial properties will be assessed to the property owner. In that the HUB Shopping Center has al- ready been heavily assessed for LHN improvements, it is recommended that the assessment be waived and that0MSA�" funds be used to cover the entire cost of this construction. Preliminary cost estimate: 900 lineal feet of 5 ft. wide sidewalk: $13,509 It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, ordering these sidewalk improvement construction items as part of the 1981 Sidewalk Improvement Project, CP727. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer Community Services Director RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS - CITY PROJECT 727 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: P 1. The City Council finds that it appears necessary and desirable that the city make the public improvements of sidewalk construction on Nicollet Avenue, Crosstown 62, 700 feet south; north end of Nicollet Park, Stevens Avenue to Nicollet Avenue; Little Bob's Park, 67th Street and Harriet Avenue; 66th Street from Nicollet to Pillsbury Avenue on the north side; and miscel- laneous sidewalk repair. 2. Said improvements shall be included and designated as part of the 1981 Sidewalk Improvement Project, CP 727. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of March, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk 7-� PRELIMINARY SIDEWALK REPAIR LIST PENDING FINANCING 6917 Xerxes 6845 Xerxes 66th & Xerxes S.E.corner 2513 W. 66th St. 6400 Washburn 6940 Washburn 712 St. & Washburn 7345 Sheridan 7321 Sheridan 7315 Sheridan 7209 Sheridan 7301 Sheridan 76'-2 & Penn 7600 Penn 7700 Penn 76th & Penn, N.W.Corner 7435 Penn 7413 Penn 70th & Penn 6901 Penn 6833 Penn 6804 Penn 68th & Penn 6501 Penn 6315 Penn 75th & Oliver 74th & Oliver 6528 Newton 6644 Morgan 6600 -6604 Morgan 7545 4th 7544 4th 7545 Aldrich 76th & Fremont 76th just over 35W bridge 76th sidewalk drive into Colony Apts. 732 W. N side 18' sidewalk 826 W. sidewalk 12' S.A.Station Serv. Rd. by alley & Bridge of 35W on 66th 1500 W. 66th 1806 W. 66th V 7244 4th 7245 Nicollet 70th & Lyndale 67th & Nicollet 6705 Nicollet 6711 Nicollet 6715 Nicollet 6721 Nicollet 67th to 68th & Nicollet 662 to 67th Nicollet 62nd Nicollet 63rd Nicollet 67th Nicollet 71st Nicollet 7634 Nicollet 7229 Portland 7117 Portland 6817 to 6821 Portland 6527 Portland 6405 Portland 6820 Portland 6838 Portland 7144 Portland 7228 Portland 7400 Portland 6838 12th 6944 12th 7214 12th 7438 12th r 7401 Bloomington 7231 Bloomington 7225 Bloomington 7119 Bloomington 6839 Bloomington 6827 Bloomington 6815 Bloomington 6745 Bloomington 70th & Bloomington 67th & 18th 1 -2- .-tt 3 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 76 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Q� Subject: Public Hearing for Street Lighting Project on Penn, Nicollet and Portland Avenues On September 280, the city council established a street lighting policy for"T%hfield's arterial streets. Also at that time, the council requested that NSP install street lights on the existing poles along 76th Street and charge us a monthly operating fee. This method of lighting installation is consistent with the street light- ing policy established for the other east -west streets during the permanent street program. The arterial street lighting policy proposed street Ilght installation for Penn, Portland and Nicollet Avenues because, although these streets have a high volume of vehicu- lar traffic, high pedestrian use, and high density housing, they are not illuminated as highly as our residential streets. These streets have lights only at the intersection (no mid -block lighting) , whereas the residential streets have two mid -block lights as well as an inter- section light. The policy also specifies that the street lighting assessment rate should be the same as the rate used in the permanent street program, that is, $2.00 per front foot. The actual construc- tion cost is estimated to be about $3.08 per front foot. On October 13, 1980, the city council scheduled a public hear- ing on the arterial street lighting project for March 9, 1981. This delay since October has allowed sufficient time for the staff to assess the feasibility of using low pressure sodium lights in this project. This type of lighting has been installed as a test on Lyndale Avenue between 74th Street and 77th Street and on Cedar Avenue between 66th Street and 76th Street. Low pressure sodium (LPS) lighting provides substantial energy and dollar savings to the city. The test installation on Lyndale Avenue will provide a yearly savings of almost $1,800 over the previously existing fluorescent lights, and Cedar Avenue will provide a yearly savings of almost $1,000 over the previously existing mercury vapor lights. These savings were made possible by a $10,000 investment. An award of $8,000 for an Energy Competition sponsored by the Minnesota Energy Agency and the League of Minnesota Cities provides all but $2,000 of this $10,000 investment. The primary disadvantage to the low pressure sodium lighting is the yellow light that is emitted. The staff surveyed the property owners along the Cedar and Lyndale Avenue test sites to help evalu- ate the low pressure sodium lighting. A copy of the questionnaire, � � "- �• �:.:;. n ✓� „s«.a�s.w...,w..a.�- +�►aM^c'R r•*F�a�f',"y ,. ..r:,. ...ri.•..,..,.w -+rew .- �p!•++fts�"�<..y�,.- ...•w; Mi.�': •�:AW,+�- ,e.aw► .!rac �.e.�.- :�....,�♦yp.y.,•.� -, �...• rwr«.4�.s..�eR >w(+weo..w.a•�o.. -w.r..... .,F- ,4,z... ,....a.:...r• •. ww..a.” <w...M.�rr.H.w�wr�a.fw�. - .�r�.w.�...w.�.r...s.,.�vr•s w.+• a.r+ran...y..- sw+�raww +w...• «.+.�..... «... , ,,K��It� �.K. -.. ..,w -,. :.. �s,,, enJ+. w.. w+., �: ewVf'- �..► vT^ �sMw-►*.:+ oaw- +.+�•A..a1!wvY+o.•+rw.� „4�wr Y. .,r_ +'^�• .. � .�Fw.. ��u�..'ry�0 + -��� � -.r.. •.•t.w`r .,-•- tv:.+ s.,. e. �-........ a.., ,e•�Ra:..�.�,.�...+ttMSw�iw�nr. YN►�w�;.w'sa�w•++� �r.,.,,... �rw- _- „:.�.wr..•nMNRt+�••��:se.y.. �.,..,.wi...r•er MC,M' =� �. �•.. ....,. ...r, .: -+� tee_ �"r'a".°” "� -. r+ iws. s...«. o. w�Y�, �. r..: aw.. raA•..+ rr: �•...:- � «.,9.+.nse./+�:wa.s..•.�fir...v a'-= :r ^w►�r .. .: �'. ..ate �...,� .�..w: wx��: �""*" ^'^ #�'�vMrrs��.uR. a�aa,«. wawa •:...w,"e:�+w+r <. «• »ea�aw,.sx+ �wa•..w.,,w,...: ,.vvs -r. �.,.M �.'�1 Nwe�rw� ,.. ,R.�,- •'s,�.r yaa...r�.- t«- .<..n.�ar. ,,.:,,- a,re,,.,...r .<.s ,.. ,ww a,..ow..r- ....�.w+N4. �- ...+r...,« . .,.•, gr..K+..•..,w►.,,Nla�v�l,,,a.7r Council Letter No. 76 -2= March 9, 1981 with the results of the survey, are attached. The survey indicates that the residents along the test site actually preferred the yel- low light. The survey overwhelmingly supports low pressure sodium as an acceptable energy and cost saving alternative system of light- ing. The Energy Awareness Commission helped formulate the question- naire and has been an advocate of low pressure sodium. After review- ing the survey, the Energy Awareness Commission passed the attached Resolution No. 6, which recommends that the city council choose low pressure sodium as the type of light to be installed on Penn, Nicollet and Portland Avenues. Light meter readings taken before and after the installation of the low pressure sodium lighting indicate that the light levels on Lyndale Avenue increased with installation of the low pressure sodium lights. On Cedar Avenue, light levels decreased, however, the light levels on Cedar Avenue were within design standards for a local residential street. The city will probably maintain the new low pressure sodium fixtures because Northern States Power (NSP) does not yet maintain low pressure sodium lighting. This maintenance by city forces will reduce the NSP maintenance bill by an estimated $1,512 a year, although it will create additional pressures on city maintenance personnel to do this work. Further contacts will be made with NSP to determine if a suitable maintenance agreement can be negotiated if the city decides it is not feasible to maintain these lights. At the close of the public hearing, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, ordering a project for installation of street lighting for Penn, Portland, and Nicollet Avenues. Because of the long -range energy saving potential,.the staff recommends that the street lights to be installed through this project be low pressure sodium. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director City Engineer Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator RESOLUTION No. 6 ENERGY AWARENESS COMMISSION STREET LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS, the Energy Awareness Commission has as one of its objectives to promote energy conservation; WHEREAS, low pressure sodium street lights provide a definite energy and dollar savings; BE IT RESOLVED, THEREFORE, by this Energy Awareness Commission of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the Richfield City Council is urged to choose low pressure sodium lights as the type of light to install in the proposed street lighting project for Penn Avenue, Nicollet Avenue and Portland Avenue. Passed by the Energy Awareness Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 3rd day of February 3, 1981. Dennis Louis, Chairman Bonn Moon, �cLi : tail' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR CITY PROJECT 761 0 WHEREAS, a resoluti n of the city council adopted the 13th day of October, 198` fixed a date for a council hearing on improvement of street lig ting on Penn Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, and Portland Avenue from C.S.A.H. 62 to Interstate 494 (except 64th to 67th Street on Nicollet Avenue). AND WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon on the 9th day of March, 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 improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in council resolution adopted the 13th day of October, 1980. 2. The City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 9th day of March, 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, City Cler 63 SURVEYS 120 suRVEys December 30, 1980 Dear Resident: RET Okr16D Se-nT otxr The City of Richfield installed test areas of low pressure sodium lighting on Lyndale Avenue, 74th Street to 78th Street and Cedar Avenue, 66th Street to 76th Street in mid - November. This type of lighting provides an energy savings of 60 percent and a substantial dollar savings to the city. For example, the installation on Lyndale Avenue will provide a yearly savings of almost $1,800.00 over the previous fluorescent lights and the Cedar Avenue installation will provide a yearly savings of almost $1,000.00 over the previous mercury vapor lighting. To help the city better evaluate the impact of this type of lighting, please indicate your responses to the following questions and return i;; the enclosed envelope. Do you feel the amount of light provided on the roadway has Thank you for your cooperation. Increased Stayed about the same I� Decreased G L+ 0 17 Do you feel the amount of light provided on the boulevard has F-lincreased Q Stayed about the same F—] Decreased )O 33 a.o Do you find the new light color objectionable? Yes No Do you prefer the previous lights? F1 Yes 7 No 19 43 Do you feel the new type of lighting is an acceptable energy and cost saving alternative system of lighting? Yes F—] No 5� 5 Comments: Thank you for your cooperation. Keith J. end ',endy P. Brown 681') L ortland 'Xe . R ic }field, Mn. 55423 869 -6707 3 -S -81 Members and Staff Richfield City Council Richfield City Hall 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, Mn. 55423 Dear Council Members, We regret not being able to attend the public hearing of March 9th. We hope this letter will be taken into consideration with the other public testimony heard.at that time. We are writing in opposition to the proposed street lighting project being considered for Penn, Portland and Nicollet Avenues. We are new residents in Richfield, we moved here about fourteen months ago. 'h4i�"of the thins tt racted -""-to the city was the rrTPlity its neighborhoods. live on Portland AmM. and although it is a main thoroughfare in the city it is still a r�5_:,id.ental street. `f feel that any ,additional lighting would destroy that residental feeling. We would not like to see the quality of the neighborhood deteriorate and the additi ^n of more li -hting ,could change the street giving it the looki.-of a commerical zone. The amount of lighting now on Portland Ave. is more than sufficient to meet the needs and insure the safety of the home owners who live here. Any additional lighting would be a waste-of money and energy. With the cost of energy rising and the supply dwindling it would be irresponsible to increase the demand for energy needlessly. With tax payers calling for an end to government spending you have an opportunity to cut unnecessary spending at the ground level. an additional objection to the project is the Engineering Departments plan to instal the new yellow street lights. These new lights give off an unpleasant, harsh end unnatural glow which would only further detract from the neignborhood. Richfield is not downtown and we don't think city residents want it to loo.- that way. Richfield has a quality of life that may be one of its best ascasts, blease do not compromise that quality. The money targeted for this project could be 'setter spent on such. improvements as hrindic,ap ramps on the stre..:t corners � -,hich wc� uld add to the nuality -WI-W, — .. 4 Ift - "Am""Ideft of life in Richfield not tarnish it. Our neighbors join us in res_oectfully asking you to reject this project and retain thfit quality of life that sets Richfield a-Part from its neighbors. C Keith J. nd Wlendy P. Brown CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 75 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Relating to Vacation of Alley on Block 1, Oaklane Addition (Area. bounded by Nicollet Avenue, Blaisdell Avenue, 68th Street and St. Peter's Church Property), Second Reading At thelFebruary 9, 1981 meeting, the city council received a petitionvgequesting the vacation of an unimproved alley on Block 1, Oaklane Addition, and set a public hearing for March 9, 1981. The council also gave first reading approval to a transitory ordinance which would vacate the alley as requested. A copy of the previous council letter reviewing this request is attached for your infor- mation. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached transitory ordinance providing for this alley vacation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer City Clerk V.. •.�.w..as <WNne.wJRY'w uMrirrlllM'Y.e...r*k►Yt� - 9rrrir...e.: •... ..� ^.r ' -:1' „a ♦�'�..:. ;�:� NR� .♦ .. r.r. . a.......Fl/- kM�alN.e r. �,.-:. �ya�n+If+M�'INF��M• ♦ >..e .� ... t.. y:,. .I� • . - .. � r. i�lMln.MV�Ife►Y'Mw. .�..�.•'�. M. re1M:� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 41 Attached to this council letter is a petition requesting the vacation of the alley on block 1, Oaklane Addition. The petition is in proper form and has the required number of signatures to initiate the alley vacation process. The block is bounded by Nicollet Avenue on the east, Blaisdell on the west, 68th Street on the south and St. Peter's Church property on the north. Staff Findings ing: The staff has reviewed the application and found the follow- 1. That the alley is unimproved and not used for prop- erty access; 2. That vacating this alley would not pose any hazards to the property owners of the city; 3. That NSP has utilities in the alley, and has requested a 10 foot wide easement; 4. That when the city vacates an alley, the alley is equally divided between the abutting property owners. Staff Recommendation Because the petition has the required number of signatures to initiate the alley vacation process, and since the staff has found that the proposal will not be detrimental to the public welfare, it is recommended that the city council approve vacation of this alley with the following stipulation: 1. That the necessary utility easements be granted to the utility corlpanies to maintain the utilities that exist in the alley right -of -way. Council Letter No. 41 -2- February 9, 1981 Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends approval of the alley vacation request with the noted stipulation. Summary It would be appropriate for the city council to approve the resol -tion receivinq the vacation petition and setting a date of_ Pub -Lic_ hearina for Marct1 9, 1981 The city council should also give tirst .reaui -icy uvu,;i.iaera-cion to the attached ''transitory ordinance providing for this vacation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer L .Ln , • r .ti4. { + �'1ti rA i .................. ;.... — ,1 I 385 CC II Church _ - i ��' :t` , Propeirty a, i IT- B AT LIJ Alley —(t (` ` - - _ I i . �, � : '11 � ^�'•�i_ /+� ','� ,pew �. e� i' " e�"1� -: -1 ' 'r•- -\ --r ..�_ _ �(0� L •SI i. { ?: } ?: ?::> %::S,:t ✓ ,�� s 461 ! '1. . 1r 3 4H (1 --,4, 7 . T 4. 68th Street } •r r�'1 I)Jv)j ' 'W,1 •.', �331oi 1 nrr i ' '� 1 L! 1 (1 3) . ;8—' S3 i� 3 j -,. -? -5 -j rr__.liJ ' / r.•.e y _1 /v '�..ST•`ERicl SU7Y - T Y a AD 1US f �/cra2�),.� •'� ;(/711)10'1 S�l.r:�) �+•��v31 �: �f Y~ i.� '� o. :r �r „� A/ (V- 01 - Q•!` ,,xi;�,yi� ''l�'� l�C�)'i Lj . r ,!1 � I ''4% . •i. � ' i I w �• �r•% ��).� �.:Y.) /^fit= l y,i., I � i.1� � �'•'1. M y�; Y . i`�'9) i I •� � / .� �� I'� N % ��'� �'� � �•��� '�l'1, \" , •' .. a _. .. .. _. _.... . ,. _... •_ - r� �1 E. G9 th� ., ST '1.1 �LQ - Signatures on Petition �. TRANSITORYi ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR THE VACATION OF A PUBLIC ALLEY ON BLOCK 1, OAKLANE ADDITION Section 1. The following public alley right -of -way within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: The alley on Block 1, Oaklane Addition Section 2. That the necessary utility easements be granted to the utility companies for maintaining existing utilities. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing Section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk i t. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 74 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Off - Street Parking Contract 0 Qn September 8, 198 *the city council approved an amended gLL=reet parking permitm&or the Lyndale Hardware Store at yndale Avenue, to allow the construction of additional office space on the second floor of the building. As a stipulation of that approval, the council indicated that 12 additional parking spaces should be provided. The council also suggested that the owners pursue vacation of the north 26 feet of Circle Place to provide these additional spaces. The property owners have subsequently petitioned for the Vacation of the north 26 feet of Circle Place and the council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing and to give second reading consideration to a transitory ordinance vacating the street on March 9, 1981. If the council approves the requested street vacation, the council will need to approve a revised off - street parking layout to include the additional parking in the vacated portion of Circle Place. The revised layout will result in W additional parking stalls. This is 11 spaces more than required by the above - mentioned stipu- lation. The layoffo u nTy appTuvIlu Tly uouncil has also been revised. The revisions are minor and include the loss of two spaces adjacent to the north side of the building, due to addition of a new entrance to the building, the loss of the pedestrian walkway connection to 66th Street, due to a steep grade change (this results in one additional parking space), and minor island design changes for better circulation and drainage. It is recommended that the council approve the revised layout. The revised site plan will then be made a part of the off - street parking agreement between the city and S & M Corporation, owners of the property. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer rii-i7 Pl Ann ar '�:.,; _ .. -,. �.. :mss r�:s* �.w... , ►�, R Yt n .y...w..... y{-. R.'• R'rYi1R'�R3' - "7 <y1^`R. A.:. ' ..fMT"';•�• F-!!*'.18!w • r _ v _ :eft ,� ,. -.: ... 1►r.s -:ra! "�- a�x148 .. �y++ r....:..• e. �lw. s. e•.- Mw..•..,!„ r•... wF+ awvMtlwao.• .... ys:. �r�h'.+ �l MM+' IUS�•�.:...�y,�.r..4i-4.'90r'� �w ;..,.a--a:wM °R^<:0�" a "lilt ailGMelc y�i ty ►wvlyMRv;o:.•a- ...wg7MA,ygg� �t►wr+ �u..e�.a.....+w...•�,...•_.w, Wlb ....: aw. �•.��.r...•rwrewww�.rw..���.r�F + wwM' retlrai�r:..• �1N+ �t^'. M+*. n�M1+ to ['R'*!4�M4M�'e+`kll�M�"•"w -.�': w.w.,�r; -'MyM .4ow�snw N•+s: wenw +�.�s....> .:w..a•...:. - .gresi�l� �'►w •.•r•�w•.s•..��w•:.. ..._ s _ ,. .yyW,r+,..~<,�r,�,..•.,r�,7+PV� vs�e. win., yca.- ...�Vey11l.. .. <•....rpe +�M'n1�R'FM+� �' iA�M1M�QI�IM' N+ N'+ Al ���MM► M 'w.M�alw.'af"!+.�ib1i- 7�.rM'y�/ ,�,,r,.....u,,.,.. .fp�r.tws >.:�s,:.,,�7+'o-x: -s+. y!• .f.• ark•^« r .�.:,�r...►,yy�p�.�+►4�:M/M4',. .�..h<�etK M•+pyh. �'"�:� r ay- m- ^.-���^•vv:ay +•v�lc uMr '`_.. �'!..z�'f' - '• �w IN w Z J } F- w a IO m a .0 Z H �x w I H N t � � I W 0 w U m a ¢ m VAA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 73 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Relating to Vacation of the Portion of Circle Place Immediately South of the Lyndale Hardware Building at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, Second Reading On the February 9, 1981 meeting, the city council received a petition requesting the vacation of the north 26 feet of Circle Place between Lyndale Avenue and Graham Avenue and set a public hearing for March 9, 1981. The council also gave first reading approval to the transitory ordinance which would vacate the por- tion of, s.tx -eet requested. A copy of the previous council letter reviewing this matter is attached for your information. It is recommended that the city council conduct the public hearing on this matter and give second reading approval to the attached transitory ordinance, providing for this street vacation. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 44 Agenda February 9, 1981 `,. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject Vacation of a Portion of Circle Place (That area immediately south of the Lyndale Hardware Building, 66th and Lyndale) First Reading. The S & M Company, owners of the property being leased to Lyndale Hardware (at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue) are request - -ing that the city vacate the northerly 26 feet of Circle Place adjacent to their property. This request is being made to expand the amount of off - street parking available for the Lyndale Hard- ware business. The city council approved an off-street parking agreement with the owners of the property for their planned im- provements with the stipulation that they provide an additional 12 off - street parking spaces. This is the alternative suggested to provide this space. Staff Findings ing: The staff has reviewed the application and found the follow- 1. That the petition submitted has the proper number of signatures to initiate the street vacation process; 2. That there is an existing sanitary sewer line in a portion of the street to be vacated. The owners will provide the city with the proper easement; 3. That the proposed vacation will not adversely affect adjacent property owners. Access to all properties will not be affected. Parking is currently occurring on this portion of the right -of -way so usage will not change; 4. That a small portion of the building is located on the current city right -of -way, so the proposed vacation will help correct this situation; 5. That the vacation will not result in traffic congestion on surrounding streets; Council Letter No. 44 -2- February 9, 1981 6. That the vacation will help correct the existing parking shortage on that property. City guide- lines indicate that 145 spaces should be provided. There are currently 100 spaces provided. The vaca- tion will result in a total of 20 plus spaces; 7. That the proposed vacation will not adversely affect the redevelopment going on in that area. - - - - - - Staff Recommendation The staff has found that the petition is in proper form and has the proper number of signatures and that the proposed vacation would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Therefore, the staff recommends that the portion of Circle Place be vacated as requested. To accomplish this, the council should acknowledge re- ceipt of the petition; and-set a public hearing on this matter for Marsh 9, 1981, by passing the attached resolution. It is also recommended that the council give first reading approval to the attached ordinance, vacating the requested portion of Circle Place. _ Planning Commission Recommendation The planning commission recommends that the portion of Circle Place be vacated as requested with the following stipulations: 1. That an agreement be reached between S &-M Company and the city concerning maintenance of that portion J, of Circle Place. 2. That the present parking use be continued and that this off- street parking agreement be amended to include this area. The applicant will be submitting a site plan showing the parking within the portion of Circle Place to be vacated. This site plan will be part of the developer's agreement which the city has entered into with the applicant. The off - street parking contract previously approved by the city council can be amended by attaching the above - mentioned site plan to the off - street parking agreement. This will insure that parking will continue and require the applicant to maintain all parking areas on the site. The remaining portion of Circle Place will continue to be maintained by the City of Richfield. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /ej a cc: Community Development Director City Planner City Engineer TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF CIRCLE PLACE Section 1. The following portion of Circle Place within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated: That part of Circle Place as platted in "Fairwood Shores" descirbed as follows: Beginning at a point in the south- erly line of Lot 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" therein distant 47 feet westerly from the southeast corner of said Lot 14; thence southerly, parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 14 and its southerly extension, a distance of 26 feet; thence westerly, parallel with the southerly line of said Lot 14 and its westerly extension, to the inter- section with a line drawn from the most easterly corner of Lot 6, Block 3, "Fairwood Shores" to the southwesterly corner of Lot 11, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores "; thence northeasterly, along said line so drawn, to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 11; thence easterly, along the southerly line of Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 1, "Fairwood Shores" to the point of beginning. Section 2. The City of, Richfield, Minnesota will retain a permanent easement over, under and across the southerly 10 feet of the above described tract of land for maintaining an existing sanitary sewer. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing section 1. Passed by the City Council cf the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1981. Donald J. Priebe, tilavor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Lerrii, Cit. Clol'': 9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 72 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Transitory Ordinance Providing for the Vacation of Pillsbury Avenue Between 65th Street and 66th Street, Second Reading A public hearing was scheduled on October 13, 1980 to consider a request to vacate that portion of Pillsbury Avenue lying between 65th Street and 66th Street. At the request of the petitioner, the public hearing on the matter was continued until November 10, 1980 and again to January 12, 1981 and again to March 9, 1981. United National Corporation has now requed_,&_at c:' ' n on this matter be deferred indefinitely. United National has re- quested this action because they do not feel tliA-t--t-h" y` could carry out the Phase 2 site improvements within one year after the vaca- tion, required by agreements with the city. They have had problems with vacancies in the shopping center and with coming to a lease agreement with Burger King. They feel that they need these leases to help them pay for the required site improvements. It is recommended that the council continue this hearing until May ll , 1981. If United National Corporation is not readpwto proceed at that time, it is then recommended that the city coup—i-- t-Arminate all action on this request. At such time as United National Corpora- tion is ready to proceed on this project, it will then be necessary for them to reinitiate the entire set of street vacation proceedings. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner •, .T :;•varx�'iw�:.r,.e awe. +�,•.. r.�,� �+ >. -. -r'�'^� «..; ,l�r� �1�,: -' �,�,....,,.� .yq...:. .- r , fro. ; -�r. -. • -. •. <+� � - .� -,.... _. .. ..3, , .. � . -.... 7P11 w .. . . .. .A a• ..ie•-•v,l :.nt +e •'Rm- +..t•�4. �-x�Y .. ,.�VkM.!rlN. n� ....o..Y,iyi - �f'l)4.'. -.. .� v. r •.. ;.'� �Cti :.. r.. �.�Y: �.%i��'!lrr..'- r s.t 1'e .. �q.. �► M +'�. ..may. - •.)ae^.�. .,.�y. -,... v.. .... �R:.. -sue ., � .... -, .. .. v. ar- �.,+rse•'•+� -.. n A'wA[aYr... n, *+/►- ..�ew,� .. . � . w -v: 'w•.*+ <.., ... cq...ara.+.*,. .. _ ,.i -1b. �. .. -, .. ., .. n .rrrn.� r, . +s!"qM- 'r'�pg.,s�,cr•^ r .:.y. �on� .... �,.. -... .. . .. H:.�.. i�.e: .�w. ao, r . n - � - v�.o,w�r - . � .,,�a: —•, w�, - >y...: +Mfg. -,. � . ,. , ,.yfi� i�' �vr+► - ,.....vn' •�'1N�0' ii w � y4.. .. .� -s..s. r.T .?y. .. 9 - Y.. � '�� �'.'.n �ejyt iw..n�...N.. r . t ^1. t� .'VIM •.�l "t'?�' Y ..,-• ., w". -e.:a•�. �,.., .'tr- a.:N.t� �- 9..t :1C. .. .v.. R. ., .. - uF�. ,. ... �nen- y,.���''1�!4lMRA'a9tr "C:'.l..4Y,r.:�. >... ..�, "..�,.�.ty,. .. ... ,� r.. �:. .. ,� UNITED NATIONAL CORPORATION 745 FIFTH AVENUE • NEW YORK, N.Y. 10151 212) 758 -9200 February 23, 1981 Mr. Rick Jopke Associate Planner City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Richfield Hub-Superblock Dear Mr. Jopke : This is to confirm our request that the Second Reading of the Petition to Vacate Pillsbury Avenue, presently as we understand on the agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled for March 9, be deferred until the related building construction program has been confirmed. We understand that the previous passage of First Reading will remain in effect and that suitable advance notice from the developers will serve to have Second Reading reinstated for Council action. It is our earnest desire to implement Phase 2 of the PUD (which entails the vacation of Pillsbury) as early as practicable; at the same time it will be appreciated that the development has to be based on the sound economics which the building program is to provide. Negotiations with Burger King for their proposed new building continue to be protracted; new layouts are under consid- eration, responding to the desires of Burger King and to the new planning opportunities and imperatives arising from current cir- cumstances such as the departure of Sibley's and the recent fire. If the plans are indeed to be changed we will of course submit the proposed revisions to you very promptly. Please be assured that we will continue to keep you informed and to consult with you on aspects of the development involving the public interest, of which we are constantly mindful. We also wish to express our appreciation to City Council and to the City staff for their continued c000eration. Ver truly yours, Richard Naiman Vice President /Construction RN /b cc: Rich Simon Robert Levine, Esq. ; � E F Bill 1980- TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. + AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF PILLSBURY AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following described portion of the Pillsbury Avenue South right -of -way is hereby vacated: All that part of Pillsbury Avenue lying between the extensions across it of the north line of Block 2, Richfield Plaza Addi- tion and the extension across if of the south line of said Block 2, Richfield Plaza Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Section 2. There are currently located within the street right -of -way hereby vacated certain water mains, storm sewers, sani- tary sewers, telephone and electrical facilities and the respective appurtenances. Said vacation is subject to easements running in �\ favor of the authority or authorities owning or operating any such facilities for the purpose of operating, maintaining, reconstructing, constructing and repairing any such facilities over, under, across and through the following described portion right -of -way vacated: Beginning at the southwest corner of Block 2, Richfield Plaza Addition, thence west 8.08 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence north parallel to the east line of Richfield Plaza Addition 576.84 feet, thence west 42 feet, thence south 576.84 feet parallel to the east line of Richfield Plaza Addition, thence east 42 feet to the point of beginning, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Section 3. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to take all such action as is required to give effect to the vaca- tion of the portion of Pillsbury Avenue South provided in the foregoing Section 1. L r. -2- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minne- sota this day of , 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk } Donald J. Priebe, Mayor 50'" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 71 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Variance Request at 7200 Park Avenue South Proposal Robert and Renee Small have submitted an application for a variance to reduce the required side street side yard"tetback of 30 feet to 14.02 feet. The variance will allow a 16'- .1rfr-14' addi- tion to the existing house. The proposed addition will be con- structed so as to match the existing structure. The property is zoned "R" single family residential. Zoning Ordinance Requirements Section 3.40, subdivision 6, sets three conditiions for granting variances. Staff Findings The staff reviewed the request and found the following.: 1. There are no special conditions affecting this particular lot. This is a typical size lot and is not significantly different than any other lots in the City of Richfield. 2. Denial of this application would not preclude existing or reasonable property use. There are alternatives for constructing the addition that would not require a variance. 3. The proposal will be an improvement to the appli- cant's property and should not be detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed addition will be 14.02 feet from the north property line and 27.52 feet from the roadway of 72nd Street, and should not pose any vehicular visability problems in the area. However, the proposed setback will be 14.0' less than the adjacent lot to the west. Staff Recommendation Because the proposal does not satisfy all three criteria for granting variances, the staff recommends denial of this application. The city manager recommends approval of a variance for a 15 -foot side yard setback. Council Letter No. 71 -2- March 9, 1981 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commissioliimend e for a 15 foot side street side yard setback.. The commission indicated that a 15 foot side street side yard setback should be maintained to be in compliance with the proposed revisions of the residential zoning ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner �.:.�. �.....�., � �- rtanis, ta�M• a�MMtwwiws+ w�+ l�' � 'M►ar,w�,ar-�- w�=w.yr.:w�rwa.er �.a.w..�e.w �err� ,...+r4s +......,�,..�,.w:.,riA : a� .+.r�.rs.a�rr+�w�Ml�wws� +.�..�> ,,e.: - .�..uR..,.. .e�.. -. v�. HR .w�rMtf•- ,v�y:�►'tM"'�N.'!IMR� r EAST Land -Use` and ;,Zoning Map REE w o ,40 0 - i Z ! - I c , ZUBERT c Single Family Single Family Single.Family, 'E , ea uj t)u 12 - . ='• I i 57 y,: J i . to LJ EAST 72nd .,- -Single Family ' .� F I , •, I i '- ;Single Family � Single Fam:i - = 7, k, Sin ` �+ I _ gle�Family - ig Y' 1 _y II i y J C _mil EAST 73'(I LIJ Ld •�. ono �' o < ° o � o .� Iz O ID Single Family ' Single Famil — y J 1 N c. :D Y, (n (n co t 1 1 ' S `" � � � _� Y � . P OR Z) s c i j �— -- EAST ;n � 74 .. LUSL-HEN > i a {r I a E i H T5 - PETITION MAP. i EAST :7Is' STREET _ LLJ } T I l - '_ -- �d k �� •I _ z c {,'�z' ZUBERT ,- Ld LIJ 1 _. 5 'I i I 1 I• s!!l.,.....,.. :•`•a l�;:i -;:_ ?:::w::, - �� x� EAST 72nd TIM _ r J i I_ W Y i i I _ f I J I' cn - I - i _ - .. � 4 ............ .: �'� �:!• iii :� %�:: t 1 LLJ EAST 7 3rn LLJ C) LIJ Q Q Q - 1 ` , p p. P h � p C) s ,o S Signatures on Petition Q ' n p N cv � N D O � rn z c rn v I I I I I I I N �J I I • n • •rR w .`R. .;� Ni ICI i i i N r ol 0 rm m z� m� I I r 1 — N — n /! I I T 1 1 co O n 0 m "i N Q /V m 1 1 X . N r ol 0 rm m z� m� I I r 1 — N — n /! I I T 1 1 co O n 0 m "i N Q /V m 1 1 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: y Council Letter No. 70 Agenda March 9, 1981 U Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 7750 Morgan Avenue South A public hearing was scheduled for riarcn 9, 1981, to con- sider a request for a special use p_.______ __ allow the construction of a restaurant at 7750 Morgan Avenue. Mr. James R. Hoffman has subsequently withdrawn his application for this special use per- mit. Notice of the public hearing on this matter has been pub- lished in the February 25, 1981, issue of the Richfield Sun, therefore, the council should acknowledge withdrawal of this application. Attached for your review is a letter from Mr. Hoffman request- ing withdrawal of his application. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director •w......�....ywwr• a+.a,.....s ..aa� - . <var,...�...tdN�.�A+s1.s .fin . - �..,��� � rAi� 'A{+•. - �� -�.. A1�•;�'N Yr�`�• �rwr�. o+• on++ ria► rart�- �^ n•.;-, o.=. a+„ �, �, �, �..�r�.r..ypn�«vw'�t�9���•+�c.� ���IM�...4i�yre+N4�laeY- --'k.: •. ;++griAr wnr� .,.,y. .. _ _ w � �.'� �... � March 5, 1981 City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Council: Please accept this letter requesting withdrawal of a special use permit at 7750 Morgan Avenue South. Due to the fact that the rental space at the Viking Center is not available, we are not able to pursue our proposal. I hope this has not caused any inconvenience to the City. Sincerely, James R. Hof fVa % / /,/ 6 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 69 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Appointment of Alternate to the Community Health Services Advisory Committee The state statutes relating to the Community Health Ser- vices Act of 1976 require an advisory committee to be established to advise, consult with and make recommendations to the state board of health on matters relating to the development, mainten- ance, funding and evaluation of community health services. Imman- uel Roesler, environmental health manager, is.currently serving a two -year term as the City of Richfield's delegate to this committee. The by -laws of this alternate member also be January 6, 1981 Advisory Board of Health selected sent the City of Richfie Advisory Committee. It is recommended Johnson as an alternate Advisory Committee. KN/ ej a advisory committee require that an appointed to.this committee. At the Board of Health meeting, the Advisory David Johnson as the alternate to repre- Ld on this Community Health Services that thesCG ty Council appoint David member to the Community Health Services Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Environmental Health Inspector Public Safety Director .. ...uA� any ..�.ncs�+r.l�r'v.,�RVV�^Ka7.. "Y►. >;.:- »o.n.,r..: ..yf. -..,. ,. r ._.... -, ... .:. •..... «: ..•. •. ems. i,. .. c� ,,..yr.� -. , . .k ...� .. .. .. °mil CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City.Council City of Richfield Council Members: /U Council Letter No. 68 Agenda March 9, 1981 Subject: Application for Kennel License At the February 9, 1981 cit,y.,uncil meeting, the city council considered a request for a kennel-minicense (3 dogs, 1 cat) at 6703 48th Avenue. A neighbor of the applicant appeared at this council s eak agai":t...the ctrgpting of this kennel license. The city council deferred action on the kennel license and requested that the health inspector reinspect the premises and prepare a report for a future council meeting. The health inspector made a reinspection of the premises on February 18, 1981, and a copy of that report is attached to this council letter. The report notes that there are several mainten- ance problems at this address and for this reason it is the recommendation of the health inspector that the city council deny this request for a kennel license. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: City Clerk .Public Safety Director q"aq!T,-#k,-iwrm.'j-- s? A*-W, WOW-,. .. *, , "'Iwe = '$*Nft 4� CP RESIDENTIAL ANIMAL KENNEL REPORT APPLICANT: Joe Garcia C ADDRESS: 6703 18th Ave. S. rx, NEW APPLICATION RENEWAL The property was inspected a second time as requested. The inspection - was unannounced, consequently the interior of the house was not seen as the occupants were not home. Comments at the bottom of the page point out general maintenance problems. 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. 3 2) Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair ?. Fair 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? Yes Is the fence in good repair? Yes If the occupant has dogs Will the fence keep them on owner's property? Yes 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? Not all of it S) Are garbage cans kept out of public view? Yes S) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? Yes 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? No 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? Feces were not removed. on 8) Is driveway in good repair? Yes a routine basis 9) How many animals requiring licenses reside at this address? Dogs 3 Cats I 10) Give breed and sex of animals: (1) English sheep dog, male (2) Miniature collies, both female (1) Black cat, male 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept for breeding purposes? Yes No. X _ 13) Flow many pets were licensed last year? 2 14) How are pets exercised.(areawise) ? Enclosed fence area in hack yard 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? Yes 16) Date 2 -18 -81 re e Kitchen door window broken and covered with plywood. Storm door has no self closing spring, weather stripping torn off /in areas. The pick -up truck-in rear yard loaded with full refuse bags and other material. There is only one metal garbage can -�'' Feces have not been removed from the ,yard for some time. An appliance is stored beside garage. Firewood on ground between garage and fence. The fence is being pushed out of line. The area is a rodent harborage. iyA CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 67 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Appointments toOffnergy-Awareness Commission The resolution establishing the Energy Awareness Commission states that the makeup of the commission shall be no more than W"_membeva. At the present time, there are eight members on this commission. Attached to this council letter are copies of applications received from =,s and PRIPUP Winftlopem, both of whom have . These applications have been placed on the March 9, 1981 city council agenda for action by the city council. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: City Engineer ;;.:3te F-P—b 2-, !9' APPLIC A T ICN ?• %R CII•i OF RICHFIELD ADVISOR' COM ",4ITTEE OR ('Ot.iWSSION APPQTNT,%TF'�"' NAME �5 t tt } ^g .: _ E' cr h Last HOME ADDRESS l/C 0 IV HL 1171, le /1'%l2; SSy23 Street No. City Zip _ MAILING ADDRESS (if clifferent from home address) Street No. PHONE: Home APPOINTMIENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory C3mmission B!uslness Hunan Pigh!s Comn issio- C -tri1 Service C3mmiissior Advisory Boar; c` HC,eaiti Briefly discuss aspects of your experience %Vhic i you !ielieve quslify .':�u ,,r _ ^is municipal commission, committee :and why ..ou are Interested in Sery :rq: %a'e ka r ct(m f i H 'ha i F1 •¢Q r i Mci GU A& 42F, % a�cr� �nY iYta /i res ptcr� �`�°C {•trti "Ccz% /!�i- taue %�c�a�s ..Z �1e�G'� �ae�,n iN�a ✓r?c�� -� �t'1. �lna� ✓'ecrc�ivrH n�c�u�t'N�rJ% Yr y1e/r? t o e—e i s Ptf(/ %_ and ;i IA't%!�i S a r 7 J �i%G�IJ{Y. Z�Lr SGrUe_ f?It�rry TTY✓ �u�Ur�e [ an � to /NS "UtL° FF1QYYt� cDur 60V1r3r-1 1G. We /I bV-jt•ty CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL, AND COMMUN ?T•i ACT ?V ITIES: OCCUPATION: Employing .firm, agency /142 Joke- /' M-1, Address Pa., Lv A'. Position n� .v► ? �r _ "ears " "'firm c, Other work experience (optional) "Ye REFERLNCES (Optional) A. Dwe T:;9 v -r Co • i���� �c tY. Full name Relations'aio agcy -e Z %no A141, �SO'a0 Mailing address _'hone nu! ,ber B. - -Aess Full name Mailing address 7N ri r a a-1 i,V,, cI(-n7- a ):-,, Relattonsh,,a S�7— 916 6 S y U Phone number C. Full name ReLat1onsh:J �"' �.�• � � c.l,�; e ion • SS`ia 3 967- 7R L3 Mailing address Phone number Return to: City 'vIdna(jer'_- ,:fice b700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Ott: Eileen An -erson L: -i te February 25, 19F1 APPLIC ITION FOR CIT': OF RICHI'IELD ADVISORY 'COMMITTEE OR COP -- MISSION APPC;INTMENT7 NAME Sandstrom _ Jane Eli zabeth Last HOME ADDRESS_ 6415 1ST AVE. S. Richfield 5,5423 Street No. i'it;' Eip I ode MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address? Street No. p PHONE: Home 869 -31P:8 Business 540 -6046 APPOINTPAENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Coir.m. Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Commission Human ! ?ty Its Commission Ci%lil Services C.:Jr T i3Sl�n Advisory Board of Heaith OtherEnerey Awareness '.ommis.s on Briefly discuss aspects of your experience /Mc i you het��ve uu3iify you for this municipal commission/committee and why ,.ou are .nterestea in serving: First, my enfineeri..nm background makes me oualif. ied and interested in this area. My job also gives me valuable expertise and contacts within this area. I also feel that my spec'-al role as Energy Conservation Coordinator for the South Mi.nnegasco Region will benefit the city. I am interested in serving because I feel energy awareness is an important aspect and that I should use my expertise to benefit those around me. CIVIC, PROFESSIONAi, AND CORIMLI *;'T'r ACTIVITIES: Member American Society pf Heating, Refrigerating, and Air - conditioning Engineers (Publicity Chairman), t,ember Society of Women Engineers, i•;ember Richfield Lutheran Church (Long range planning committee;,h;anaeer Co -ed volleyball team, Soli c =tor for United ?Jay Fund drive -iSi nnegasco. OCCUPATION: Employing ,firm, agency Finnesota Gas Co. (N:innenasco) Address 0[2r, Wayzeta Rlvd. L'Air.neapolis, T'.N 5 426 PositionSouth Region Energy En- '_veer _cars .v, is a; 1.5 Other work experience (optional) Rosemount Inc. Eden Prairie, VN - Intern En -aineer REFERENCES (Optional) A. Pastor Ted Johns Church Pastor - Full name Relationship Richfield Lutheran Church g W 60TH B.61 -2265 Mailing address Phone nurn.ber B. Full name Relationship Mailing address Phone number C. Full name Relationshio Mailing address Phone number Return to: City %'Lanager's C:fice 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield 55423 Att: Eileen An.:erson CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 66 Agenda March 9, 1981 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Report on Activity of Hennepin County Solid Waste Site Selection Process 14r. Don Sweden, haa4.&&U,�iez.ted an.oppor- tunity to appear before the Richfield City Council at their March 9, 1981 city council meeting to answer any questions regarding the Mr. Sweder is a volunteer working on the site selection process. Attached to this council letter are copies of material forwarded by Mr. Sweder which contain commonly asked questions about landfills and parameters and criteria regarding locations of landfills. Mr. Sweder does not intend to make a formal pre- sentation at the council meeting, but will be available to an- swer questions regarding the selection process. Respectfully submitted, kL, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Community Development Director E February 10, 1981 Mr. Karl Nollenberger, City Manager City of Richfield (869 -7521) 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Nollenberger: z It is requested that the following informational topic be added to your City Council agenda of Monday, February 23, 1981. "Summary of activity by Hennepin County Solid Waste Site Selection Process." I am attaching 12 copies of two handouts to be included with your mailing to Council members. 1. Commonly Asked Questions About Landfills. 2. Seminar I & II Summary - Parameters and Criteria. I do not intend to make a presentation but only to answer questions relative to the handouts at the meeting. I am one of many volunteers working on the site selection process. Any technical questions will be referred to Fred L. Hoisington of Brauer and Associates who can be reached at 941 -1660. Sincerely, e%� Q. 0 Don Sweder 5115 Wooddale Glen Edina, Minnesota 55424 (348 -4414) Attachments cc: Fred L. Hoisington Brauer & Associates HENNEPIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE SITE SELECTION PROCESS COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT LANDFILLS 1. How many and how larqe must landfill sites be? The Waste Management Act of 1980 requires the identification of five (5) candidate sites of 80 -250 acres each plus an equal area in buffer. 2. By when must the candidate sites be identified? The Act requires each Metropolitan County to submit ,J*e ;^"°^- At*&, of fi,Y&wm. " sites to the Metropolitan Counc" low. 3. Can't we deal with solid waste by means other than land isposa ? Yes. Other efforts to reduce volume and to use waste to pro- duce energy are already underway. The Metropolitan Council has just completed a land disposal reduction plan which calls for resource recovery, recycling, waste separation and other waste reduction methods. Hennepin County is studying resource recovery technology and expects to adopt a plan in the spring of 1981. The degree to which these reduce the volume of solid waste will reduce the demand for future landfills. On the other hand, the very best reduction program possible is estimated to reduce waste by no more than 70 -80 %. The remainder will still need to be disposed of in sanitary land- fills. 4. What is the likelihood that all five (5) candidate sites will need be developed? If all Metropolitan Counties can identify the required five (5) sites, the Metro Council's land disposal reduction program is successful, and the County's resource recovery program is implemented, all five (5) candidate sites may not have to be developed. At least two will be required. 5. What if the County can't or chooses not to identify the reauis to sites. That authority will transfer to the Metropolitan Council. 6. Can't wastes be hauled to sites outside the County for di sposal ? Yes. Over 60% of Hennepin County's wastes are now hauled to other counties (primarily Dakota County) for disposal. Whether or not it is able to be hauled elsewhere, the Act requires the selection of five (5) candidate sites within each County. 7. Can wastes from other counties be hauled to Hennepin County andf i 11 s? Yes. The degree to which this happens in the future will depend on the availability of sites in those other counties and the success of their respective waste reduction programs. 8. How much capacity remains in existing landfills? Based on the present generation rates, all existing capacity in Hennepin County will be used by 1985. All remaining capa- city in the Metropolitan area will be used by 1987. 9. If selected for a landfill site, or sites, what burdens can the local unit of government expect to ear? With Metropolitan Council approval, the local unit may impose additional restrictions over and above the County's rules and regulations, in order to minimize nuisance aspects. The Act requires consideration by the Legislative Commission on Waste Management, methods of mitigating and compensating for local risk, costs and other adverse effects including at least the following measures: 1) Payment outside of levy limitations in lieu of taxes, for loss of tax base. 2) Preference A -95 reviews for federal grants. 3) Payment of all service costs (roads, monitoring, inspection, enforcement, police, fire, and litter cleanup). 4) City c, Town control of buffer zone design. 5) Elimination of the 'tipping' charge for waste collected within the City or Town. 6) A guarantee against all liability. 7) Payment for reclamation of closed sites, to local design specifications. 10. Who will acquire, own and operate the landfill? The County is required by the Act to acquire and devejon the landfill sites. The County also has the responsibility o regulating the construction, operation, maintenance, moni- toring, inspection, and termination of facilities, and the responsibility for enforcement. It is the policy of—the County to lease or contract the operations to private operators. 11. How long can a site be expected to be operated? Ten to twelve years. 12. What will happen to the site once it is filled? Once a landfill site is full, the landfill operator will place a final cover on the fill and then prepare the land for its ultimate use. The final touches could include seeding and landscaping. The final surface will be designed to minimize water infiltration through the landfill which is the key to minimizing leaching. State and Federal laws identify the roles the landfill operator will have in the years after closure. In general, the operator will retain the respon- sibility for leachate collection and the operation of the groundwater monitoring system. The ultimate use of a landfill is generally an open space use. Golf courses, parks, botanical gardens, ski hills, etc. are some of the possibilities. Development of buildings is somewhat limited due to the settlement of the solid waste as it decomposes. Finally, with proper planning, the land can be returned to agricultural use as either pasture land or for hay production. If the final cover is thick enough, other crops may be grown. 13. What are the hours of operation? Usually sixteen (16) hours per day. 14. How much traffic will each site generate? The Woodlake landfill near Hamel currently generates between 60 and 80 vehicles per day. The Flying Cloud landfill in Eden Prairie generates between 150 and 400 vehicles per day. Transfer trailers and resource recovery programs will reduce traffic by two - thirds. 15. What are the dangers of groundwater pollution? As solid waste decomposes, leachate will form and become a potential source of surface or groundwater pollution. Control of leachate is directly related to good site selection and site development. If the solid waste could be kept wry, little leachate would form and the problem would be minimal; however, in this climate that is virtually impossible, so spe- cial measures must be taken. Some water will seep through the cover material into the solid waste, but the object is to keep contact between water and solid waste to a minimum. Once leachate forms, it must be prevented from creating a groundwater problem. Proper site selection helps the situation by placing the landfill above the water table, away from areas where a groundwater problem could result. In addi- tion, some landfills are designed with special protective barriers and underground drainage systems to convey leachate to a point where it can be collected and treated. The interactive group is expected to recommend the use of such barriers and drainage systems for all sites. Referred to as a "leachate collection system ", a special plastic layer or in some cases a natural tight (low permeability) soil is placed on the bottom of the landfill before it begins operation. Drain tile, gravel, etc. are placed on the protective barriers and then covered with soil. The waste cells are then placed on top of the leachate collec- tion system. Also, before landfill operation, a groundwater monitoring system is installed and the landfill operator must take samples regularly to make sure leachate is not reaching groundwater systems. 16. If selected for a candidate site, will the City have a say in the decision ma ing process which will select sites for development? Yes. The Act requires that local units of government, where sites are likely to be developed, will be represented on the County Site Selection Authority. This group will consist of the County Board plus one member appointed by the governing body of each City or Town within the County containing all or the majority of a site in the Metropolitan Council's disposal site inventory. There is, however, a provision in the Act requiring the appointment of additional members to assure a majority of one on the authority of members residing in Cities or Towns not containing all or any part of a site or buffer area. (Art. X, Sec. 16.) If this authority has not selected the requisite number of sites in accordance with the Metropolitan Council's standards, criteria, and procedures by June 1, 1983, the Council shall make the selection. 17. What is the entire selection /development schedule? ;) County must submit its five (5) site inventor,, to the Metropolitan Council by June 1, 1981. 2) Metro Council adopts a Metropolitan inventory by October 1, 1981, begins environmental review process and reports to the Legislative Commission on Waste Management the methods of mitigating local effects, compensating local governments, etc. 3) Metro Council adopts a development schedule and identifies the number of sites required in each County by January 1, 1983. 4) County establishes Site Selection Authority, makes selec- tion of sites from inventory by June 1, 1983. 5) County acquires all sites in fee to meet 1990 needs, acquires development rights for sites required to meet needs from 1990 through 2000 and develops sites according to demand. Development rights in buffer areas are also to be acquired. �.s 18. What is the role of the interactive group of 80 in the site selection process? 1) To establish parameters and criteria to guide the pro- fessional consultant. 2) To review the consultants' work. 3) To make recommendations to the County Board on: -final candidate sites -site ranking or priorities - development conditions - mitigation measures 19. How will acquisition of sites be paid for? The Metropolitan Council will issue up to $15 Million in general obligation bonds, hence the cost will be spread throughout the Metro area. Debt service on the bonds is to be allocated by the Council among cities and towns in a manner favorable to communities that reduce the need for land disposal. Cities and Towns containing disposal facilities are to be exempted forever from payment on the bonds. Since the sites are to become commercial operations, other costs will be paid by user charges. The County Board will finance the remainder, most likely from general taxes or general obliga- tion bonds. 'Kev�s�o►rls i -aa -8i December 23, 1980 HENNEPIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE SITE SELECTION PROGRAM SEMINAR I & II SUMMARY - PARAMETERS AND CRITERIA The parameters, criteria and sub - factor weights assigned by the interactive group will now be applied by the technical consultants in the search for candidate sites. In April, we will conduct another seminar, in which you will review the ranking of candidate sites to be presented to the Hennepin County Board. The purpose of this process, you will recall, is ultimately to select five solid waste disposal sites in Hennepin County, as mandated by the Minnesota Waste Management Act of 1980. Four sites are for mixed municipal solid waste; the fifth is to be for construction and demolition debris. Parameters and criteria developed for transfer, processing and recovery facilities will be utilized in the Hennepin County Waste Management Plan. The approach used was an open, public process, with people selected to represent a community -of- interest, and all others welcomed to participate. Small group discussion with open reporting was employed. After three information meetings, two seminars were held to identify siting parameters and to select and weight criteria for the site search. Maximum par- ticipation at any one session was 80 people. Parameters Parameters define the search area. You helped to choose these at Seminar I on November 12. They are essentially exclusion- ary directions for site selection; that is, the technical consultant should not consider areas near water features or wetlands, historic sites, park reserves, and other such areas. An earlier mailing to you showed the modifications and addi- tions made to the parameters by the interactive group at Seminar I. They read as follows: 1. Sanitary Landfill Siting Parameters A. The disposal area and surrounding buffer shall not be within one - fourth mile of: 1) Sites having historical value where listed on the National or State registers of historic places. 2) Environmentally sensitive or unique wildlife areas. B. The actual disposal area, excluding buffer, shall not include or be: 1) Sites requiring substantial removal of heavy, valuable timber. 2) Cemeteries. 3) Designated highway rights -of -way for which actual planning has been done. 4) Less than 1,500 feet from the normal high water level of a lake or pond. 5) Less than 1,000 feet from a stream. 6) Within a 100 -year floodplain (legal). 7) Within wetlands (Types 3, 4 or 5) (legal). 8) Less than five (5) feet above the high water table for putrescibles and protection of the water table with an impervious barrier. 9) Less than 300 feet from a state or federal highway. (variance required.) 10) Less than 1,000 feet from a residential area (of 10 units or more) exceeding one unit per acre density. C. The disposal area shall have or be: 1) Not less than 80 (80 acres is legal minimum) nor more than 250 acres (legal maximum) with an equal acreage in buffer. 2) Dirert access to a nine (9) ton capacity roadway, or to a road which can be upgraded to 9 -ton capacity. D. Additions: 1) The 'isposal area and buffer area shall not be in or adjacent to a park reserve. 2) The disposal area shall not be within 1,000 feet of a park. 3) The disposal area shall not be within a designated agricultural preserve. 2. Transfer /Process /Recovery Station Siting Parameters A. Facilities should not be located within: 1) Sites having historical value where listed on the National or State registers of historic places. 2) Environmentally sensitive or unique wildlife areas. 3) Cemeteries. 4) The distance from residences and schools specified in the applicable zoning ordinance. 5) A 100 -year flood plain unless constructed to withstand flood damage. B. Facilities should be located on sites: 1) Zoned or able to be zoned for industrial purposes. 2) Having direct access to a nine (9) ton capacity roadway. 3) Of two or more acres in size, as specified in the applicable zoning ordinance. Criteria Criteria define the factors to be considered in site selec- tion from within the study area. The numerical weighting assigned to them establishes the relative importance of each. The work of the interactive group at Seminar I on December 10 produced a set of 144 criteria weights in the areas of technical, socio - cultural, cost, efficiency /energy use, operational, and future use considerations. Twelve discussion groups were involved. The average and high -low scores indicate that a quite good concensus was achieved, more so for landfill sites than for transfer /process /recovery stations. (See Table 1.) (No adjustment in figures was made for arithmetic errors.) The average score column implies that the group considers the technical criteria, for example, to be more important than cost and efficiency /energy use criteria. Future use appears as a minor consideration. The high -low columns tend to reflect individual interests within the small discussion groups. We tested the scores for validity by a statistical method and consider them usable as they stand. If every discussion group had been able to assign a weight to every sub - factor, we would have had to tally 1,224 responses. The actual number was about 1,100. Tables 2 through 13 show the sub- factors adopted at the seminar on December 10, and the average and high -low scores assigned. Statistically, the sub - factor weights correspond slightly better for landfills than they do for transfer /process /recovery stations. We feel that this again reflects individual interests among the group, plus a bit less understanding of the nature of transfer, processing, and recovery facilities. However, the latter was explained to be a secondary consideration to landfills, and from the first, no participant was expected to be or become a technical expert on solid waste management. The sites will first be ranked, highest to lowest, for each of the six criteria (technical, socio - cultural, cost, effici- ency /energy use, operational, and future use). The technical consultant may further use the sub - factor weightings assigned by the interactive group to rank sites. What Happens Now? 1. Application of Parameters and Criteria by the Technical Consultants: HDR, the technical consultant, has begun mapping the county to eliminate areas excluded by the parameters. They will search for candidate sites within Hennepin County, utilizing the interactive group's weightings. The rankings will be presented at Seminar III, on (tentatively) April 8, 1981 at which time the group will evaluate the preliminary inventory and ranking of sites prepared h,,• the technical consultant. 2. The citizen committee will communicate the parameters and criteria to local units of government. We asked for volunteers from the interactive group to assist in explaining the workings and findings of the group to interested city councils and commissions. Twenty -one persons have volun4eered at this time. The interactive consultant and the County Department of Environment and Energy will provide coordination and—assistance to this committee. 3. Seminar III is scheduled (tentatively) for April 8, 1981. An announcement of the time and place will be sent to you. The purpose will be to review, confirm, revise or reject the ranking of sites, and also to formulate miti- gation, compensation and other recommendations. It is possible that the group will reject some or all of the ranked sites. In that case there will be a need to reassess the criteria weighting and send the consultant back to study sites previously eliminated or leave the selection to the County Board. 4. After Seminar III the inventory representing the group's recommended ranking of sites will be sent to the County Board. 5. The County Board must adopt its site inventory by June 1, 1981. We are, of course, available to discuss individual questions or concerns at 941 -1660, our office number. We wish to see you at the next seminar, as you will be reviewing and con- sidering actual site locations. BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC. m x 'a � r -I (9a C)0 z m — O Z O r r_ <m(n m m u) M r m \ (n N Cn 3 -n o m 0 (n m (7 (n c' X00 m c 000D < -+ (D mom. to A A -+ CD m N A A I, C -ti = --+-= c -1 = -.4 -5 + i s CD A O '1 a CD A O � (D -+ l -i (D f l 1 — m Cx 7 O C� O (n (D 0 A C a a d A 7 A d C A n — mac�< — ma c•< - m — to \ c — N \ c Z7 (D l CD a a D A_ O In O O In VI In O VI O O u In VI I (J -i I Z G7 IID Z O In0 t) co 0u O Vio NOo O� INO W W IIN O J O m A O O J O ON A O O O t.A AA%O ID W AA�D\0 IA O LA Nn O In V1 O u %.n O VI In O %_n VI O I VI O N)NINN N J NNO� I� CA O N N V1 IJI A �O • O VI I71 OD VI W I J O �1 0 00 0 O CD 00 O O NOD O( -� \.n CO ONi O\ %.n A. ON 10 _ _ I� ' O V7 V1 VI VI O O O VI O VI O O O O O O 00 0000 00 0000 .n OO In I %.n n O INn O O lJl O In I.n u N O ln0 O0 In0 O ln0 OOUO IlN -NN IN D A N W In N O In 0 N %�4 In IA j< 10 A NA (O InN Nco �o co In W—W N W A J N%0 a%W 0 C -4 -.A N (D u IJ1 In O o In 0 W O O In 0 7 �r 00 O W OO O1.11 OCb In INiI ,E • TABLE 2. LANDFILLS: Criteria Sub - factor Weighting: 33.02 Weighting Low Non- TECHNICAL CRITERIA(Natural Environment Compatibility) Average H__i_g_h Zero Zeroes • potential for ground water pollution 37.1 60 20 0 • quality of agricultural soils /land 11.8 30 2 2 • amount of vegetation to be removed 2.2 5 1 4 . effects on sensitive environments 13.8 25 7 1 . adaptability of natural environment 4.5 15 1 3 . direction of prevailing winds to 4.5 20 1 3 sensitive receptors . feasibility of leachate barrier 3.5 15 2 5 system . availability of cover material 3.5 10 1 3 . potential for surface water pollution 13.3 40 5 2 . quantity of agricultural land 5.4 15 1 4 Total 99.6 TABLE 3. LANDFILLS: Criteria Sub - factor Weighting: 25.0 Weighting Low Non - SOCIO/CULTURAL CRITERIA(Peo le, Land Use, Institutional Average High Zero Zeroes ompatibility) • degree of impact on local community 23.0 60 10 2 • previous landfill burden on community 6.0 20 3 4 • noise impacts on community 2.73 10 2 6 • displacement of residences /people 10.55 25 5 2 • loss of agricultural land 15.55 50 5 0 • degree of compatibility with and possible 7.82 30 5 5 effects on surrounding land uses • distance from residential development 9.45 20 4 2 • traffic impacts on residential areas 5.0 15 1 4 • degree of compatibility with local plans 8.45 20 5 2 • degree of exposure to view 1.45 6 1 6 • traffic impacts on areas 2.64 10 4 7 • distance from historical, archeological and 2.45 10 2 6 culturally significant areas • distance from parks, recreational and 4.55 15 5 6 educational areas Total 99.64 TABLE 4. LANDFILLS: Criteria Weighting: 13.33 COST CRITERIA • loss of tax base • acquisition and relocation costs • development costs • operating costs • net life cycle costs (Including acquisition, development, operations and energy costs minus resource recovery costs) • closure costs associated with final use • costs associated with leachate collection and disposal • potential for recovery of tax base • fiscal Impact on value of surrounding property • closing costs associated with maintenance • environmental protection costs • availability of markets Total TABLE 5. LANDFILLS: Criteria Weighting: 12.67 EFFICIENCY /ENERGY USE CRITERIA • energy consumption • length of haul (time) • feasibility /potential for energy and materials recovery • proximity to waste generation areas site area available • number and location of transfer stations • ratio of transfer stations to landfills • proximity to markets Total Sub - factor Weighting Sub - factor Weighting Low Non - Average High Zero Zeroes 5.91 20 2 5 4.09 20 10 8 2.27 16 4 8 1.18 8 5 9 53.10 100 15 1 2.27 10 2 7 2.27 10 2 7 7.0 35 2 6 10.82 30 6 3 2.27 15 2 8 5.18 20 2 7 2.45 20 2 8 98.81 Sub - factor Weighting 100.17 Low Non - Average High Zero Zeroes 23.45 50 8 1 20.64 50 15 2 13.36 30 10 2 21.36 40 20 2 10.55 40 5 4 3.27 10 1 6 3.45 10 1 5 4.09 10 2 5 100.17 TABLE 6. LANDFILLS: Criteria Weighting: 10.79 OPERATIONAL CRITERIA • timing of operation relative to surrounding development • nuisance and hazard potential to adjoining properties and along haul routes • servicing capabilities • Impact on traffic (total /peak) • availability of maximum hours of operation for some sites • effectiveness of fire protection • total hours of operation Total TABLE 7. LANDFILLS: Criteria Weighting: 5.42 FUTURE USE (End -use) • degree of compatibility with planned future use • need /use potential of end -use Total Sub - factor Weighting Sub - factor Weighting Low Low Non - Average High Zero Zeroes Non - 80 25 0 Average High Zero Zeroes 17.64 40 5 2 34.91 50 24 0 13.91 40 5 1 18.64 50 10 0 2.73 12 2 6 7.45 25 2 4 5.64 25 1 5 100.92 Sub - factor Weighting Low Non - Average High Zero Zeroes 52.64 80 25 0 47.36 75 20 0 100.00 TABLE 8. TRANSFER /PROCESS /RECOVERY FACILITIES Criteria Sub - factor Weighting: 27.83 Weighting Low Non - TECHNICAL CRITERIA(Natural Environment Compatibility) Average High Zero Zeroes • potential for ground water pollution 10.2 30 10 5 • quality of agricultural soils /land 3.2 10 5 6 • amount of vegetation to be removed 3.4 15 4 6 • effects on sensitive environments 28.8 69 15 2 • adaptability of natural environment 15.4 70 1 3 • direction of prevailing winds to 25.8 100 5 0 sensitive receptors 11.55 25 5 2 • feasibility of leachate barrier - - - - system 9.82 30 2 3 • availability of cover material - - - - . potential for surface water pollution 11.0 30 10 4 • quantity of agricultural land 2.4 15 3 7 Total 100.2 30 5 4 TABLE 9. TRANSFER /PROCESS /RECOVERY FACILITIES Criteria Sub - factor Weighting: 22.91 Weighting Low Non - SOCIO/CULTURAL CRITERIA(Peo ie. !.and Use, Institutional Average High Zero Zeroes ompatibility) • degree of impact on local community 21.73 60 15 3 • previous landfill burden on community 2.36 10 1 6 • noise impacts on community 5.45 20 2 4 • displacement of residence: /people 8.09 30 5 4 • loss of agricultural land 2.45 14 5 8 • degree of compatibility with and possible 11.55 25 5 2 effects on surrounding land uses • distance from residential development 9.82 30 2 3 • traffic impacts on residential areas 10.0 30 4 4 • degree of compatibility with local plans 9.82 25 3 1 • degree of exposure to view 1.45 6 1 7 • traffic impacts on areas 11.45 30 5 4 • distance from historical, archeological and 2.18 10 2 7 culturally significant areas • distance from parks, recreational and 3.64 15 5 7 educational areas Total 99.98 • TABLE 10. TRANSFER/PROCESS /RECOVERY FACILITIES Criteria Weighting: 15.83 COST CRITERIA • loss of tax base • acquisition and relocation costs • development costs • operating costs • net life cycle costs (including acquisition, development, operations and energy costs minus resource recovery costs) . closure costs associated with final use . costs associated with leachate collection and disposal potential for recovery of tax base fiscal impact on value of surrounding property . closing costs associated with maintenance • environmental protection costs • availability of markets Total TABLE i1. TRANSFER /PROCESS/RECOVERY FACILITIES Criteria Weighting: 18.25 EFFICIENCY/ENERGY USE CRITERIA • energy consumption • length of haul (time) • feasibility /potential for energy and materials recovery • proximity to waste generation areas . site area available . number and location of transfer stations . ratio of transfer stations to landfills proximity to markets Total Sub - factor Weighting Sub - factor Low Weighting Non - Low Average High Zero Zeroes 3.36 13 2 6 2.91 12 10 8 2.36 17 4 8 1.36 10 5 9 59.9 100 5 0 1.64 10 2 8 1.09 10 2 9 4.09 30 15 9 9.91 25 6 4 0.09 1 1 10 4.55 20 15 8 7.55 50 6 7 98.81 Sub - factor Weighting Low Non - Average High Zero Zeroes 12.82 25 10 3 13.45 25 5 3 23.36 50 15 2 39.0 100 20 1 2.27 10 5 7 1.36 10 5 9 1.82 10 5 8 5.55 20 2 5 99.63 TABLE 12. TRANSFER /PROCESS /RECOVERY FACILITIES Criteria Weighting: 12.42 OPERATIONAL CRITERIA _ • timing of operation relative to surrounding development • nuisance and hazard potential to adjoining properties and along haul routes • servicing capabilities • impact on traffic (total /peak) • availability of maximum hours of operation for some sites • effectiveness of fire protection • #otal hours of operation TABLE 13. TRANSFER /PROCESS/RECOVERY FACILITIES Criteria Weighting: 4.25 FUTURE USE (End -use) _ • degree- compatibility with planned future use • need /use potential of end -use Sub - factor Weighting Weighting_ Low Low Average High Zero Zeroes Non - 100 40 1 Average High Zero Zeroes 10.45 26 5 4 27.55 50 15 1 16.64 60 10 2 22.45 50 10 0 4.27 30 2 7 8.82 25 1 4 9.0 50 5 5 Total 99.18 Sub - factor Weighting Low Non - Average High Zero Zeroes 53.1 100 40 1 36.9 60 15 2 Total 90.0