01-26-81 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 34
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Approval of 1981 Labor Contract Agreement
With Richfield Police Officers Federation
There is an extra item on the January 26, 1981 city council
agenda providing for council approval of the labor contract
which has been negotiated with the Richfield Police Officers
Federation for the period of January 1 through December 31, 1981.
Provisions of this labor contract apply to all dispatcher, police
officer and investigator /agent employees of the Public Safety
Department. There are presently 37 employees in these position
classifications.
The 1981 contract is the second year of a two -year contract,
and contract articles open for negotiation were limited to those
regarding insurance and wages. The changes in those articles
which have been negotiated for 1981 include the following:
1. An adjustment in monthly pay rates of 10.475 percent
for dispatchers, 10.25 percent for investigator /agents,
and 10.76 percent for police officers, establishing
the top police officer rate at $1935 per month.
2. An increase of $10 per month per employee in the max-
imum city contribution for health insurance, to $93
per month per employee.
3. Implementation of a dental insurance program on April
1, 1981, which provides a maximum $10 per month per
employee city contribution for the cost of the em-
ployee's coverage.
The change in the city's health insurance contribution and
addition of the dental insurance plan, are consistent with the
council approved 1981 insurance programs for the city's general
services and management employees. The adjustment in wage rates
for this bargaining unit is established first for the police
officer classification, and then for the dispatcher and investi-
gator /agent classifications. In negotiating the 1981 police
officer rate, the following factors were considered:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE RICHFIELD POLICE
OFFICERS FEDERATION BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE
YEAR 1981
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Officers
Federation Bargaining Unit have reached a complete understanding
concerning rates of pay, hours and other conditions of employ-
ment for the year 1981, and
WHEREAS, the Personnel Ordinance requires that contracts
between the City and the exclusive representative of employees
in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be implemented by
council resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does
hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield
and the Richfield Police Officers Federation Bargaining Unit for
the year 1981 and orders the provisions of the labor agreement
to be implemented effective January 1, 1981.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
26th day of January, 1981.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
Council Letter No. 34 -2- January 26, 1981
. 1. Police wage settlements in other area communities,
which range from $1925 /month in Minnetonka to $1960
month in Bloomington;
2. Duties of police officers in Richfield as compared
to other communities;
3. Richfield firefighters wages, which in 1980, because
of a formula in our firefighter labor contract tying
our wages to those of other cities, some of which
adjusted firefighter pay on a complete cost -of- living
basis, exceeded police officers wages. Historically,
police wages in Richfield have been slightly higher
than f ire wages.
I believe that the 1981 contract which has been negotiated
with the Police Officers Federation recognizes these concerns
and represents an equitable settlement for both the city and the
bargaining unit employees. It is recommended that the city
council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing implementation
of this labor agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
J `t r
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja.
cc: Public Safety Director
Administrative Services Director
Personnel Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
n'7'4-c° of City Manager
Council Letter No. 33
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:.
Subject: Minutes, Tabulations, Award of Contract
Lime Sludge REmoval
On January 6, 1981, bids were opened for the purpose of exca-
vating and disposing of water plant lime sludge. A copy of the bid
minutes and tabulations is attached for council review.
To the east of the municipal water plant, located at 62nd Street
and Portland Avenue, are two lime sludge basins measuring approxi-
mately 105' X 390'. The sludge is a combination of waste chemicals
(primarily calcium carbonate with varying amounts of other chemicals)
left from the lime softening of the municipal water supply. This
sludge, which is mud -like in consistency, is approximately five feet
thick in each of the basins, and must be removed about once a year
to provide adequate storage space for the new sludge that is con-
stantly being produced.
Bidders were given the option of bidding one to five years on
a contract for sludge removal. The city received ten bids, five
of which were for the full five year period, and five which were
for the one year period. Some of the bids received this year were
very good compared to previous years. In 1977, the city paid
$36,750 to remove 8,000 cubic yards. In 1978, the cost was $59,904
to remove 10,068 cubic yards. In 1979, the cost was $47,223, for
removal of 8,586 cubic yards. In 1980, bids were opened February 14,
with only one bid received in the amount of $107,730. Other speci-
fication holders indicated a problem in hauling the sludge and in
locating a disposal site that would accept sludge. The one bid was
rejected by the council as being too high, and the staff was directed
to pursue alternate methods for lime sludge excavation and disposal.
On March 14, 1980, bids were opened for the second time, with five
bids received. The bid awarded was at a unit price of $5.90 for an
estimated 9,000 cubic yards or total cost of $53,100. The low bidder
used the sludge for agricultural purposes. The number of bids and
the prices received in 1981 indicate that this use of sludge for
agricultural purposes is a growing possibility for removal and
disposal.
The lowest bid for the first year was submitted by Ray N.
Anderson in the amount of $5.00 per unit for an estimated total cost
of $45,000. It is our understanding that this bid was offered so
that the sludge could be used for agricultural purposes.
Council Letter No. 33 1 -2- January 26, 1981
A five -year bid by Kamahill, Inc. started in the first year
at $5.40 per unit. The city attorney's office felt uncomfortable
with awarding a bid for five years when the first year of the pack-
age was not the low bid. In addition, our recent experience is
that there is a growing market for lime sludge for agricultural
purposes. Our price to remove the sludge in 1980 was $5.90 per
unit compared to $5.00 per unit in 1981. It is possible that a
five -year contract would work to our disadvantage.
It is recommended that the city council approve the bid minutes
and tabulations, award the contract for excavation, removal and dis-
posal of approximately 9,000 cubic yards of lime sludge to Ray N.
Anderson at a unit price of $5.00 per cubic yard, for an estimated
total contract amount of $45,000.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
January 6, 1981
avating and Disposing of Lime
_,edge
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 Excavating and Disposing of Lime Sludge, as
advertised in the official newspaper on December 24, and 31, 1980.
Present: Ken Conway, Water Dept. Superintendent
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Marshall Raaen, Technical Operations Supt.
Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND BID SECURITY FIRST YEAR SECOND YEAR THIRD YEAR FOURTH YEAR FIFTH YEAR
Park Construction Co. $18 /unit
B.B. 5% $16:2,000
G & L Contracting, Inc. $12 /unit $14.40 /unit $17.28 /unit $20.75 /unit
B.B. 5% $108,000 $129,600 $155,520 $186,750 $225,000
-qJ Contracting Services $10.85 /unit
B.B. 5% $97,650
Kamahill, Inc.
$5.40 /unit
$5.50 /unit
$5.60 /unit
$6.25 /unit
$6.50 unit
$2430 cashier's check
$48,600
$49,500
$50,400
$56,250
$58,500
Wangerin, Inc.
$9.85 /unit
$11.33 /unit
$13.03 /unit
$14.98 /unit
$17.23 /unit
B.B. 5%
$88,650
$101,970
$117,270
$134,820
$155,070
G & T Trucking Co.
$9.20 /unit
B.B. 5%
$82,800
W & G Rehbien Bros, Inc.
$9.45 /unit
$10.87 /unit
$12.50 /unit
$14.37 /unit
$16.53 /unit
B.B. 5%
$85,050
$97,830
$112,500
$129,330
$148,770
Strom Contracting
$9.48 /unit
$4270 certified check
$85,320
Stanley E. Pond, Jr.
$8.80 /unit
$9.24 /unit
$9.70 /unit
$10.18 /unit
$10.68 /unit
B.B. 5%
$79,200
$83,160
$87,300
$91,620
$96,120
Ray N. Anderson & Sons
$5.00 /unit
$2500 Certified check
$45,000
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city
council meeting of January 12, 1981.
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No. 32
Agenda January 26, 1981
J�
Subject: Approval of Community Services Fees
and Charges
The purpose of this council letter is to submit a proposed
user fee schedule for community service department areas, facil-
ities and programs. The areasinclude the ice arena, swimming
pool, nature center, recreation programs and the Rich Acres
Golf Course. Background information is provided in each area to
which a change in fee structure is proposed. The Park and Recre-
ation Advisory Commission has reviewed those proposals included
in the commission's scope of responsibility, and has recommended
adoption by the city council.
Tr'P 21RPMA
Background: Groundbreaking at the ice arena took place in late
September, 1970, and the facility opened to the public in October,
1971, with the grand opening in December, 1971. Based on city
council action, the priority system for reserving ice time at the
arena has been that hours are first scheduled by the city for city
sponsored events and programs, second priority is to the Richfield
School District, based on the joint facilities agreement, and third
priority is to the Richfield Hockey Association. All remaining
users are on a first -come, first - served basis. For ice rental
time, the Richfield Ice Arena has one of the lowest fee schedules
among area arenas. One hourly rate structure is generally one
year behind other arenas; i.e., fees adopted at this time are
generally those currently charged at other arenas, but do not go
into effect until the following season here. If other arenas have
prime time and non -prime time rates, the prime time rate is the
higher. In Richfield, based on the adopted policy for priority
of scheduling, our "prime time" rates are our lowest rates, be-
cause most of these hours are used by the high school and the
hockey association. A fall, 1980 rate structure survey of other
arenas was recently conducted by the city staff and is attached
for council review.
Although contract or hourly rental of Lce is the largest
ni4
Council Letter No. 32 -2- January 26, 1981
revenue producing activity at the ice arena, there are other
events and activities that produce revenue. This include high
school games and open skating. Prior to the 1976 joint facilities
agreement, the arena received 60 percent of the gross gate receipts
from high school games. Since then, the arena has received a flat
hourly rate. For the 1980/81 season, that hourly rate is $75.00.
Until the adoption of the 1980 fees and charges, the arena offered
discount ticket books which could be used for admission to open
skating sessions. In the last year, the sale of discount ticket
books was discontinued, while the arena continued to accept discount
tickets previously sold through December 31, 1980. During 1980,
a discount ticket would be accepted for admission to an open skating
session or a per time admission price of $1.25 for adults and $.75
for students. As of'January 1, 1981, discount tickets are no longer
accepted.
Recommendation: It is recommended that rates for hourly ice rental
be increased as follows for the 1981/82 ice arena fees:
Basic rate
10 hour contract
100 hour contract -
Richfield School District
Games
Current Proposed
$55 per hour $60 per hour
$52.50 per hour 57.50 per hour
$50 per hour $55 per hour
$75 per hour $85 per hour
It is recommended that rates for open skating be adjusted by a
$.25 per session (generally a one and one -half hour or two -hour
period) as follows:
Adults
Students
SWIMMING POOL(S)
Current Proposed
$1.25 $1.50
.75 1.00
Background: The olympic -sized outdoor swimming pool in the vicin-
ity of 66th Street and Portland Avenue opened in 1962. In 1976, the
indoor school pools became available to the public. With the
start of the new year in 1977, the city leased the indoor pools
during the school year. In the summer of 1977, the school district
began its policy of draining the pool at east middle school each
summer, so that indoor summer swimming was available only at the
west middle school pool. In 1977, there was a ticket system that
allowed either for admission only to the outdoor pool or a ticket
system that allowed admission to both the indoor and outdoor pool.
With the 1978 season, one ticket was made available that allowed
admission to both the indoor and outdoor facilities in the summer.
Recommendation: It is recommended that there be no change in
admission systems for open swimming. Resident Family would re-
main at $29.50; Resident Single at $19.50; 'ion- Resident Family at
$35.00 and Non - Resident Single at $21.00. _)wily admission rates
would remain the same, $1.25 for open swimr::_ng at the outdoor
pool, $.75 per hour or $1.50 for a three -hcar session, summer
Council Letter No. 32 -3- January 26, 1981
and school year sessions.
Increases for swim lessons are recommended as follows:
Class
1980
1981
Synchronized Swim
$4.00
$6.00
Basic water safety and rescue
6.50
8.50
Advanced lifesaving
13.50
14.00
Swim and stay fit
8.00
8.50
Beginner and advanced diving
4.00
6.00
Tiny tots
8.00
8.00
Water babies with parents
8.00
8.5.0.
Water babies without parents
7.00.
7.00
Adult lessons
8.00
8.50
Red Cross lessons
Indoor
5.50
8.00
Outdoor
4.50
6.00
Comparison data on fees for swimming programs was collected
for the 1980 summer /fall season and is attached for review.
WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER
Background_: This facility offers a number of special events and
programs. With these activities, as with similar activities
through the Community Services Department, the total estimated
cost of a program is divided by the total estimated number of
participants to arrive at the fee or charge per participant. This
facility also offers snowshoeing, cross country skiing and is.re-
sponsible for administration of the community gardens, which are
located on lands leased from the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
Recommendation: The community garden program has not had an in-
crease in fees since its inception. It is recommended that the
charge per garden plot be increased from $5.00 to $6.00. The
recommended increase for cross country ski rental is from $2.00
to $2.25.
RECREATION PROGRAMS
Background: Until 1970, the school district provided recreation
or programming functions for the community and the city provided
the park or facility functions for programs, and non - structured
opportunities offered for the community. In 1970, the city
assumed both roles and the park and recreation department was made
a part of the city operation. Unlike many other communities or
municipalities, the City of Richfield has a large number of
special interest groups varying from those organizing athletics
for all ages and interest, to clubs such as rocks and minerals.
The recreation division works closely with these organizations,
as well as offering recreation programming not available through
another organization or club. It has been the policy of the city
to provide various recreation opportunities to the community
without charge or user fees. These includj general, open park
space, and various amenities such as ballf� ids, tennis courts,
Council Letter No. 32 -4- . January 26, 1981
play apparatus, multi -use paciway '_ = Wirth, which provide
unstructured use of leisure time, and the summer and winter
playgrounds which provide a more structured use of leisure time.
Other program offerings are available on a self - supporting basis,
where user fees cover the city's direct expenses. With -P:e
joint facilities agreement, the city incurs little cost . - -)r fac-
ilities such as gymnasiums at the schools. Cost of fac - -_ -ties
such as outdoor tennis courts are generally minor. User gees
generally reflect the cost of a supervisor or instructor cost
and the cost of incidentals such as materials or transportation.
If fees are charged for a specific, limited use, such fees re-
flect actual costs and are not charged to provide a profit to
the city.
Recommendation: It is recommended that program fees be calculated
to reflect cost, as has been done in the past. Inflation factors
such as salary adjustments, increases in the cost of transporta-
tion, increases for materials, or the increases in state or AAU
registration fees would be calculated. Most classes would realize
a small increase in cost, generally about ten percent. The
following is a sample of the proposed adjustments in program fees:
Activity 1980
Adult Co -Rec Volleyball (8 wks) $2.50
Co -rec volleyball (6 wks) 2.00
Co -rec volleyball and swim (8 wks) 5.00
Co -rec volleyball and swim (6 wks) 4.00
Womens volleyball (8 wks)
womens volleyball (6 wks)
Womens volleyball league
Co -rec volleyball league -Wed.
Co -rec volleyball league -Mon.
Mens basketball league
Mens activity night
Cross Country Ski lessons
Child/youtW teen tennis lessons
Adult tennis lessons
Dance lessons
Child /teen /adult
Discounts:
Students registering for two
classes
Students from same family -2nd
child
Students from same family -3rd
child
2.50
2.00
40.00
team
15.00
team
30.00
team
160.00
team
7.50
5.00
team
6.00
team
12.00
team
13.00
12.00
12.00
11.00
1981
$2.75
2.25
5.50
4.50
2.75
2.25
44.00
team
20.00
team
35.00
team
170.00
team
8.25
6.00
7.00
13.00
15.00
14.00
14.00
13.00
The city currently has 30 tennis courts available to the
public. In addition, the school district has six tennis courts
which are available to the public outside of the time that they
are used by the school district. All of t,ese courts are avail-
able to the public on a first -come first- s_.-ved basis during the
season. Eighteen of the thirty courts are lighted. Because of
the cost for lighting installation and operation., it has been
Council Letter No. 32 -5-
January 26, 1981
the policy of the city, L^ ,a-qe for use of the lights on a tennis
court. This charge will also provide a reserved time and court
space for the user. It is recommended that the $3.00 per hour
fee remain unchanged.
It has been the policy of the city to charge for special or
additional use of ballfield space which may or may not, include
use of lights on softball, baseball or football /soccer fields.
_Several recommendations relate to this policy:
1980 1981
Lights - baseball $11.50 /field /hr $12.00 /fd /hr
Lights - softball 8.05 8.50
Lights - football /soccer 9.79 10.00
Limited field maintenance (field maintenance charges include one
field worker for up to 8 hours. A charge of $4 /hour is recommend-
ed for those hours over 8 hours per day). Games during or after
regular season play (includes practices and exhibitions for non-
Richfield groups only) $28.75/fd /day $30.00 /fd /day
Tournaments /Revenue Producing
Evts. 28.75 30.00
For games (including practices or exhibitions) the limited field
maintenance is optional. If this option is not selected by the
user, it is recommended that the charge for the park shelter be
increased from $2.50 /hour with a $5 minimum, to $4.00 /hour with
an $8 minimum on weekdays and that for weekends, there be a $16
minimum charge.
Damage and clean -up deposit:
Games during or after regular
Leagues and playoffs
Tournaments /Revenue Producing
Events
season
$50.00 $100.00
200.00 250.00
200.00 250.00
The leagues, associations, organizations, schools and official
teams using Richfield facilities are independently organized and
operated. Fees collected by the leagues have not provided any
reimbursement to the city for maintenance of fields during regu-
lar season play. It is recommended that a $30.00 fee per team
be assessed to the participants in the local adult softball organ-
izations which would include men, women and church teams. These
leagues play at Taft Park. Last season there were 80 teams play-
ing on these four softball fields which are considered to be some
of the finest, if not the finest, facilities in this area. The
$30.00 per team fee would equal approximately 20 percent of the
maintenance costs in terms of manpower, equipment, materials and
lights.
GOLF COURSE
Background: The driving range opened in Ju 2, 1980. The front
Council Letter No. 32 -6- January 26, 1981
nine of the Regulation 18 course opened August 1 and the back
nine opened August 29, 1980. In 1981 it is anticipated that
the nine hole Par 3 course will also be open for play. The
fees and charges used during the 1980 season were based on the
recommendation of the golf course citizen ad hoc committee and
the park and recreation commission. 1980 fees were comparable
to those of other courses in the area.
Recommendation: The only proposed fee changes relate to greens
fees. All other charges are recommended to remain as is. The
recommended green fees are as follows:
Activity
1980
1981
Regulation 18 hole weekday
$6.50
$7.00
Regulation 9 hole weekday
4.50
5.00
Regulation 18 hole weekend
7.00
7.50
Patron 18 hole weekday
5.50
6.00
Patron 9 hole weekday
4.00
4.50
Patron 18 hole weekend
6.00
6.50
Twilight l QauT-z-e. `
4.00
4.50
Junior with permit
3.25
3.50
Senior with permit
3.25
3.50
Par -3 regular
3.00
3.25
Par 3 patron
2.50
2.75
Par -3 junior
2.00
2.25
Par -3 senior
2.00
2.25
Par -3 senior with permit
1.50
1.75
Par -3 junior with permit
1.50
1.75
f\
REFUND POLICY
'V
�
i
Background: As with all fees and charges for programs, there are
occasions when a program is cancelled or the registrant is unable
to attend or participate for one reason or another. Over the
years, fees for various activities and programs have increased
and the current refund policy could produce a hardship to some
people who may otherwise participate in the many programs and activ-
ities offered. At the present time, the city's refund policy
reads as follows:
"Registrants cancelling before the midpoint of a program
are given a 50 percent refund, providing that the 50 per-
cent amount is more than $3.00. No refunds are given for
cancellations after the midpoint of the program, and NO
REFUND WILL BE MADE FOR AMOUNTS LESS THAN $3.00."
Recommendation: It is recommended that the new refund policy
read as follows:
Refunds will be made in accordance with the following schedule:
1. Full refund of all registration fe=- will be made:
A. When a program is cancelled by the City of Richfield
Council Letter No. 32 -7- January 26, 1981
B. When a program schedule is changed by the City
of Richfield and a registrant is unable to
attend the program with the new schedule
C. When, in the opinion of the instructor, the
registrant should be transferred to another
class and the registrant is unable to change
times
2. A $2.00 administrative processing fee will be charged
at any time a registrant wishes a refund.
3. If a refund is requested prior to the start of a
program, the refund shall be the registration fee
paid less the $2 administrative processing fee
and less any nonrecoverable costs of the program
such as transportation or materials obligated at
the time of the registration
4. Late fees and /or transfer fees are not refundable
5. Refunds for cancellation after the start of a pro-
gram will be prorated based on the number of
classes or meetings offered in the program. There
will be no refund after the midpoint of a program.
6. All cancellations are effective as of the date of
refund request by mail or by telephone.
7. Refunds are paid by check only and mailed to the
registrant. Refunds are processed through the
city.council and it may be some weeks between the
time a refund is requested and a check is mailed.
8. No refund will be made for less than $2.
SUMMARY
The staff recommendations outlined above for various programs,
facilities and activities are not intended to produce a profit for
the city, or to create a hardship on user individuals or organiza-
tions. It is the intent of the city to continue to offer as many
opportunities as possible to the citizens of Richfield. The park
and recreation advisory commission has reviewed the recommenda-
tions at their January 13, 1981 meeting and'it was the unanimous
recommendation of the commission that staff recommendations be
adopted by the city council. However, the commission did express
concern that some of the fee increases recommended by the staff
were too modest, and would not be sufficient to recover the city's
cost of providing the program.
The community services director will be available at the
January 26, 1931 city council meeting to a:..:wer any questions the
Council Letter No. 32 -8- January 26, 1981
council members may have. Many of the recommenc..- -- - -)ns affect
1981 summer programs and activities and it is recomri- e._.�_: _
the city council take action at that meeting to adopt the fees
and charges so that information regarding the new fees and
charges may be included in the Spring Community brochure which
is now being finalized.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Community Services Director
C�
.-1
N J
W J
C3 Q
OC LL
�'= Q
S
U
N
N
LiJ
W
L.L
T
Q
Z
LL,!
CY
Q
.W
I
• 4-) 41
O O Ln
..
O Ln
LO O
G
Ln L[)
O O O
C O
Ln O 1l%
• -)
Ln O
O 1-,
Ln . LO
O
O Lo O
Qi
3- O E
L U
L U
L
N L 1\ L
N
i 0 E
L O E
Efi (!3
Ln
4f} 4f} 4l}
sN�
tnLn
CEO
CD C)
C) CD
4f? 41�
ZI
N
\ L
u1O
4!
Nom•
OO
" "OO
tnO
:iS3L, BOO
,. _,.yt
OO
N \ry r+ \N
ENO'
iA _a :ii t 4- • S
O
O S
O S_
Ln i
O J.
Ea4 i -b9 1 LJ
r -D r
r-r
r
O
N�4
N.-1
NN
NN
LJJ
+1 (4 \N \N
NN
r� \N
NN
^ -v
4f}
-4-) O
F-
�
r 1 4-) 1 1
N 1
N 1
d• i
N 1
-0 d-)
'O Z
Q
L') O b 41 CO
b4 O
4d)- Ol
fA• M
4f} O
4f} co
:
1
_0 O O
r f
<.A•
. -1
r-1
4s4
-0 4j
N
Q >- f--
if} *Olt
Q N
r:
Q
rt7 L
m L
(0 L
(a L
to L
r0 L
0.1
O. U-
a- U-
a. U-
d IL
CL Li.
tl LL
>'V)l
O O
_
w
Ln in
Q;
O O
CD
Ln Ln
+ +
O
J
O O
LP
s-
'
O
'--r N
O
O
O
\
.0
S
4f* 4}}
M
In
nk
W
O
\
U
\
\
Z
O
to
N
I
l
N Iv
C:)
+
O
O
.-•I
n
E E
i�
z
b4
tf►
S
r0 ro
O
OT O7)
N
- H
N
S
.--1 LV
4f}
- O
C�
.-1
N J
W J
C3 Q
OC LL
�'= Q
S
U
N
N
LiJ
W
L.L
T
Q
Z
LL,!
CY
Q
.W
I
• 4-) 41
O O Ln
..
O Ln
LO O
G
Ln L[)
O O O
C O
Ln O 1l%
• -)
Ln O
O 1-,
Ln . LO
O
O Lo O
Qi
3- O E
L U
L U
L
N L 1\ L
N
i 0 E
L O E
Efi (!3
Ln
4f} 4f} 4l}
O
..0 C
N
N .n .4 .
O
4f? 41�
ZI
N
\ L
O to
L LJ j
.-I L .--1 L r-1 L
O L
O L
O L
O S-
O L
N \ry r+ \N
J i
iA _a :ii t 4- • S
O
O S
O S_
Ln i
O J.
Ea4 i -b9 1 LJ
r -D r
r-r
r
O
00
00
00
O O
LJJ
+1 (4 \N \N
Ln \N
r� \N
C; :N
^ -v
4f}
-4-) O
F-
�
r 1 4-) 1 1
N 1
N 1
d• i
N 1
-0 d-)
'O Z
Q
L') O b 41 CO
b4 O
4d)- Ol
fA• M
4f} O
4f} co
:
1
_0 O O
r f
<.A•
. -1
r-1
4s4
-0 4j
N
Q >- f--
if} *Olt
Q N
UI C'>1
h-r
Qi
NI
LLJ
d
OI
O S-
O C
O \N
N 1
4R OO
O :n
• 4-) 41
O O Ln
O O
O Ln
LO O
G
Ln L[)
O 1-�
C O
Ln O 1l%
• -)
Ln O
O 1-,
N O
C O
Nr-I
Qi
3- O E
L U
L U
L
L
L O E
i 0 E
L O E
Efi (!3
Ln
4f} 4f} 4l}
O
4f} ifi
t4 AA-
ifi' 4f}
O
4f? 41�
ZI
N
\ L
O
\
\
\ S-
O
\ S-
us
O O Q.
C) 0 4•-L
O O 4-)
O
O
O O O.
O O C].
O O a-
r "C7
r-'1
r -D r
r-r
r
O
00
00
00
= 7
if}
= r
4f}
7
7
4f}
-0 4-J
N
-0 4 s`
Ln O U
-0+-)
-0 4.1
-0 d-)
O Ln
O
Q Ln
LO -:31
Q N v
Ln Ln
Q Ln
d Ln
Q v)
LD C '
d Ln
• Cl C
/n 4J
•r
• 4-) 41
CT
rc5 rCS
]L
G
CU
J(
C O
+-L
• -)
O O
O O U O U
t= 0
C O
C O
Qi
3- O E
L U
L U
L
L
L O E
i 0 E
L O E
F-•
t C •r
� rC
L rOJ
�
..0
L C •r
L C •r
t C •r
ZI
\ L
\ L
\ L
\
\
\ S-
\ L
\ S-
us
O O Q.
C) 0 4•-L
O O 4-)
O
O
O O O.
O O C].
O O a-
Lr
Lnln
00 C
00 C
O
O
00
00
00
. p
p
W
N
LO O U
Ln O U
O
Lf)
Ln Ln
O Ln
Ln LO
U
LO -:31
Ln u
Ln Ln
Ln
L!-)
LO
LD C '
lO t 1•)
e:
<.A•
rf?
4i} 4}
4s4
b9'
4f} All).
4R 4R
if} *Olt
r:
• Cl C
/n 4J
•r
• 4-) 41
CT
rc5 rCS
]L
G
CU
.r
n� F`
C -+ C
(a
O O
O O U O U
O
•
Ln
Ln
C
r
ui
ca
U
rtS
S..
4J
O
U
C
O
S,
S
\
O
O
O,
'O7 .
C
O)r0
C s=
•r- U
tT
• 4-) 41
rc5 rCS
S- O L
CU
i-J O +-)
C -+ C
(a
O O
O O U O U
O
•
Ln
Ln
CU
(a
N
r
C
r
rp
CA
r
O
•�
�
L
d1
C
C
r
CL
Lr
_; N
' ir`�. �e� �y1: W 'LYt�',fiV R -.iA ._. 0.
- �. .. .i .f•.A.
,rtJEES
AND .CHARGES
POOLS
1980 SUMMER /FALL
RICHFIELD
EDINA
BLOOKI'NGTON
ST. LOU. PK.
BLOOMINGTON
RICHFIELD
SCHOOL
Family Seas.
*$29.50
$24.00
$8.00 + $4.00
$8.00
$23.50
-
per swimmer
+ 40
Single Seas.
*$19.50
$14.00
$10.00 + 4%
$14.50
Family Seas.
*35.00
$30.00•
$27.50
non - res.
Single Seas.
*21.00
$20.00
$18.50
non -res.
Daily Adm.
$1.25
$1.25
$1.00
$.75
outdoor
youth
$.75 /hr.
$1.50
indoor
adul t
Red Cross
$4.50
$13.00
$12.00
$6.00
Lessons
outdoor
13 -45 min.
12 -45 min.
10 -30 min.
$5.50
indoor
10 -50 min.
Synchronized
$4.00
$13.00
Swimming
5 -50 min.
Basic Water
$6.50
$13.00
$10.00
$12.00
& Rescue
Advanced
$13.50
$13.00
$15.00
$15.00
Lifesaving
Swim and
$8.00
$12.00
Stay Fit
Beg. Diving
$4.00
$13.00
$10.00
10 -50 min.
13 -45 min.
Adv. Diving
$4.00
$10.00
5 -50 min.
Tiny Tot
$8.00
$12.00
5 -30 min.
12 -30 min.
"ater, .babies
$8.00
,fPar4 ^ts
5 -45 min.
Water B a 0 i e S
$7.00
$12.00
'uiln ' Parant-,
5 -45 min-
- -
*Includes both indoor/outdoor-pool.
x Fees
& charges,
DYc.. JS. � "'f' 1i t X_ -.' t
.. r 'f IV " ! i
Pools
-
cont.: =�4 -,_
Y'
-- RICHFIELD
EDINA BLOOMINGTON ST. LOU. PK. BLOOMING-;,,. RICHFIEL-D
_.
SCHOOL
SCHOOL
Adult
$8.00
$13.00
Lessons
.
5 -60 min.
10 lessons $12.00
12 -45 min .
_ .
*Includes both indoor/outdoor-pool.
Adopted February 25, 1980
BALLFIELD AND LIGHT USE CHARGE POLICY
(Donaldson and Taft Parks)
KEY: (B') = Baseball
(S) = Softball
(F /S) = Football /Soccer
CLASS A - All non - profit Richfield based association, organizations, schools
and official teams (i.e., American Legion Red, American Legion Blue,
Richfield High School, Senior Babe Ruth, KCYO, Holy Angels, Richfield
Slow Pitch Softball, Richfield Women's Softball Association, Richfield
Church League, Richfield Football League, Richfield Soccer Club).
I. Regular Season and Playoff Games
Weekdays
Holidays and Weekends
A.
Field Maintenance
Free
Free (limited)
B.
Lights
Free
Free
C.
Base /Goal Net Use
Free
Free
D.
Park Shelter
Free
Free
II. Tournaments and Exhibitions During Regular Season Play
A.
Field Maintenance
Free (limited)
Free
Free (limited)
B.
Lights
(B)
$11.50 /field /hour
$11.50 /field /hour
NA
NA
(S)
$ 8.05 /field /hour
$ 8.05 /field /hour
NA
(F /S)
$ 9.79 /field /hour
$ 9.79 /field /hour
C.
Base /Goal Net Use
Free
Free
D.
Park Shelter
Free
Free
E.
$200 Damage and Clean -Up
deposit
for tournament only
III. Practices
A.
Field Maintenance
Free (limited)
NA
B.
Lights
NA
NA
C.
Base /Goal Net Use
NA
NA
D.
Park Shelter
NA
NA
(Optional $100.00 deposit for use of bases and shelter at Donaldson
Baseball)
(Note: Due to the tremendous damage to turf, football and soccer practices
are not allowed at Taft or Donaldson Park fields.)
- 2 -
Ballfield and Light Use Charge Policy
CLASS B - All non- Richfield associations; organizations, schools and teams (also
includes single unit within a Richfield association, organization,
school or official team)
I. Games during or after regular Richfield season play (includes practices and
exhibitions for non - Richfield groups only).
A. Limited field maintenance
(optional in all cases)
B. Marking compound
and liner
C. Lights
D.
E.
F.
G.
Base /Goal Piet use
Park Shelter
Weekdays Holidays and Weekends
(B) $28.75 /field /day
(S) $28.75 /field /day
(F /S) $28.75 /field /day
(B) $28.75 /field /day
(S) $28.75 /field /day
(F /S) $28.75 /field /day
$ 6.00 /day $ 6.00 /day
(B) $11.50 /field /hour (B) $11.50 /field /hour
(S) $ 3.05 /field /hour (S) $ 8.05 /field /hour
(F /S) $ 9.79 /field /hour (F /S) $ 9.79 /field /hour
Free Free
$ 2.50 /hour ($5 min.) $ 2.50 /hour ($10 min.)
$50 damage and clean -up deposit.
Richfield Class A has first priority, and in case of an emergency, Class B
reservations may have to be revoked on short notice. During regular season
play for Class A organizations, no reservations may be made on dates
designated as rain -out dates.
II. Leagues and Playoffs
A. Limited field maintenance (B) $28.75/day*
.(S) $28.75/day*
(F /S) $28.75/day*
B. Lights (B) $11.50 /field /hour
(S) $ 8.05 /field /hour
(F /S) $ 9.79 /field /hour
C. Goal base net use Included in Field
D. Park Shelter Included in Field
E. $200 damage and clean -up deposit
F. Reservations may not be made more than 60 days in
(Note: Reservations may not be made for neighbor
III. Tournaments or Revenue Producing Events
A. Limited field maintenance
(B) $28.75 /field /day*
(S) $28.75 /field /day*
(F /S) $28.75 /field /day*
(B) $11.50 /field /hour
(S) $ 8.05 /field /hour
(F /S) $ 9.79 /field /hou.r
(B) $28.75/day*
(S) $28.75/day*
(F /S) $28.75/day*
(B) $11.50 /field /hour
(S) $ 8.05 /field /hour
(F /S) $ 9.79 /field /hour
Maintenance Flat Charge
Maintenance Flat Charge
advance.
hood parks).
(B) $28.75 /field /day*
(S) $28.75 /field /day*
(F /S) $28.75 /field /day*
(B) $11.50 /field /hour
(S) $ 8.05 /field /hour
(F /S) $ 9.79 /field /hour
- 3 -
Ballfield and Cigna :.Y.� Lnarge r'oi icy
C. Base /goal net use Included in Field Maintenance Flat Charge
D. Park shelter Included in Field Maintenance Flat Charge
E. $200 damage and clean -up deposit.
F. Reservations cannot be made more than 60 days in advance. Class A or a
single unit from Class A may reserve at any time during the current season.
*Field maintenance charges include one field worker for up to eight (8) hours. A
charge of $3.00 per hour will be levied for those hours over eight (8) hours per
day.
Scheduling
1. Softball games shall not be scheduled after September 15 of each year.
2. Non - Richfield organizations shall not be scheduled for use of any athletic
field.
3. Tournaments shall be limited to two per month, with tournaments to be
scheduled for no more than two consecutive weekends.
4. The city shall resod football /soccer fields as needed.
5. The city staff, through the park and recreation department, shall have the
authorization to close any field due to special problems; i.e., excess
wear, turf disease, water problems, etc.
6. Any request for use of these facilities by a non - profit Richfield based
organization or a non - Richfield organization shall be considered and
acted upon by the Richfield Park and Recreation Advisory Commission.
WA
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNE7
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 31
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Board and Commission Appointments
The city council made several appointments to various city
boards and commissions at their January 5, 1981 city council
meeting. The following vacancies still remain to be filled:
Advisory Board of Health
There is a vacancy on this commission for a 2 -year term
which will expire in January, 1983. Copies of applications re-
ceived from Helen Yates and Charlotte Anderson for .catncil con-
sideration are attached.
Human Rights Commission
There is currently a vacancy for an unexpired one -year term,
on this commission for a youth member. No applications have
been received from youth members at this time.
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
There is currently a vacancy on this come' ^n � ^r.4ne
youth member. An application from Mark Rundquisi for consid-
eration of appointment to this commission is attached.
South epin Ni Services CounciLe
There is currently a vacancy for a•iwo -year term which will
expire-17" Wnt- aT7"i'4f'983. Helen Ya h-n expressed a desire to
be appointed to the Advisory Board of Health with liaison as a
board member of the South Hennepin Human Services Council.
KN /eja
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Program Directors
1.
NAME
Date 2f O
APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD
Last first
HOME ADDRESS U-ZC
Street o. City
MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address)
Street No. �T City
PHONE: Home �— �1 Q Business_
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Planning Commission
Park and Recreation Advisory Comm.
Senior Citizen & Handicappe,d
Advisory Commission
N1iddle
i / I ���
Zip Code
Zip Code
3
Human Rights Commission
Civil Service Commission
Advisory Board of Health__
Other
Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
municipal commission /committee and why ,you are interested in serving:
o �
i
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
OCCUPATION:
Employing ,firm, agency
Address
Position
Other work experience (optional)
i
S-1
ears w: firmagenc..,
REFERENCES (Optional)
� �
A. a CGr,�
Full name Relationship
Mailing address Phone number
Full name R71ationship
Mailing address Phone number
C.
Full name
Mailing address
Relationship
Phone number
Return to: City Manager's Office
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield 55423
Date January 7, 1980
APP?_TCATION FOR CITY OF
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
NAME Yates Hel en Mary
Last First rvl1c:dle
HOME ADDRESS 6737 First Avenue So. Richfield 55423
Street No. City Zip Code
MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address)
Street No. City Zip Code
PHONE: Home 866 -5816 Business 874 -5107
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Planning Commission Human Rights Commission
Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil Service Commission:
Senior Citizen & Handicappe,d Advisory Board of Health X—
Advisory Commission Other With Liaison as Board Member
0 SoutM Hennepin Human SErvices
Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
municipal commission /committee and why you are interested in serving:
Please See Attachment
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
Former Chairperson East Middle School Parents Advisory; Former Campfire
Program Leader; Member, Minnesota Nurses Association; Member, Richfield League of
Women Voters; Member Minnesota omens Political Caucus, Education airperson
for 1981; Member, Minnesota Society for Public Health Education; Member,
Citizen's League; Member, Richfield Health Advisory; Member, Richfield Consultation
Committee to South Hennepin Human Services.
OCCUPATION-
L,npioying ,firm, agency Abbott- Northwestern Hospital Corporation
Address 2727 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, Mn. 55407
Position Corporate Planning /R.N. 1ears w/firrr,/agency Eleven
Other work experience (optional)
Registered Nurse, employed in hospital and clinic nursing.
REFERENCES (Optional)
A. Mrs. Charlene Swanell Chairperson, Health Advisory
Full name Relationship
6220 Fourth Avenue So. 866 -6948
Mailing address Phone number
B. Gordon Sprenger. President, Abbott- Northwestern Employer
Full name Relationship
2727 Chicago Avenue South, Mpls. Mn. 55407 874 -4204
Mailing address
C.
Full name
Phone number
Relationship
Mailing address Phone number
Return to: City Manager's Office
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield 55423
Attachment to Application for Advisory Board of Health
Helen Yates
Registered Nurse
Health Care Professional for sixteen years
Developed Free Clinic for indigent senior citizens, 1974.
Six thousands patients now receiving free medical and hospital care
Traveled to Washington, D.C., to appear before the House of Representatives
Committe on Aging, 1975
Developed programs for cancer patients and disabled patients, working closely
with the Metropolitan Health Board and its sub - committees.
Developed long range plan for major health care institution
Developed Goals and objectives for health care delivery system
Member of Richfield Health Advisory since 1979, reviewing services to
persons in the community of Richfield.
Member of the Richfield Consultation Committee to South Hennepin Human Services
(This committee worked directly with SHHS in the development and evaluation
of the survey to assess needs in the community. This committee will complete
its work in the next 2 months and disband.)
I am applying for the position on the Health Advisory because I believe I have
been a contributing member for the past two years (completion of another members
term). During the two years of my tenure, the Health Advisory has become an
active participant in the monitoring of the needs of citizens, offering input to
many agencies.
The Richfield Health Advisory has recently developed goals and objectives
for the next year. I believe my appointment to this advisory will add to the
continuity of the fulfillent of these goals, particularly in our new endeavors
of monitoring health needs and "push" towards health promotion.
In the past twelve months, I have had the pleasure of serving on the Richfield
Consultation Committee to South Hennepin Human Services. The entire focus of the
committee was the development of a survey on needs assessment in the community
of Richfield, Edina, Eden Prarie and Bloomington. The committee members are
now evaluating the survey and evaluating the services provided by Health and
Human Service organizations.
Because of my experience in health care, the Richfield Health Advisory, and
the Richfield Consultation Committee to South Hennepin Human Services, I am
asking to serve as a Board Member to the South Hennepin Human Service Agency.
I beleive membership on this board by myself as a member of the Health Advisory
will add continuity to the monitoring of needs of citizens, monitoring of
implementation of new programs, and imput in to the direction South Hennepin
Human Service Organization takes in relation to the human services for citizens
in our community.
/X
f
Richfield, Minn. 55423
January 7, 1981.
To: Karl Nollenberger
City Manager of Richfield
From: Lia Ozols
��Iember ARH Clity of Richfield
Re: Letter of recommendation for HELEN YATES
I strongly support Helen Yates candidacy to serve as a liaison to
the South Hennepin.Human Services and also be reappointed to
the ABH. This would provide an excellent continuity between AB.H
and the South Hennepin Human Services*
I have had the privilege to know Helen Yates and watch her perform:
* As a skilled nurse, who is concerned to provide the best health
care to all in a most effective economic way possible* Inla large
hospital she was capable to organize and coordinate the best
health care for older citizens, based on the needs of the community*
* As a manager, who directed the consolidation of two hospitals.
Her willingness to listen and to weigh issues is evident to
all who have worked with her* She is always able to harmoniously
orchestrate all the necessary elements together - the interpersonal
relationships, logistics, planning, etc. -w -to accomplish the
ends sought.
* As a member of the AB-H, she is a buoyant, warm and vibrant, and
has a genuine interest to plan, organize and promote, maintain
or restore health or minimize the effects of illness and
disability*
Helen Yates is universally viewed as a dedicated and most
remarkable career woman*
Sincerely,
Lia Ozols
l� Date
APPLICATION FOR CIT "L OF RICHFIELD
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOII\1T1\/FFT.,1T
NAME _ i 1' , ✓,�'�
Last first M1,uie
HOME ADDRESS
Street No. City Zip Code
MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address)
Street No. City Zip de
PHONE: Home`s {;' s Business AIM, AJ:-
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Planning Commission Human Rights Commission
Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Ci,.il Service Commission
Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Board of Health
Advisory Commission Other
Briefly discuss aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
municipal commission/ committee and why you are interested in servLng:
11-L / 7 7Y
2 F -z � C0)
I
TO 111L S-Q�S-
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUINIT'r ACTIVITIES:
7tf Ccvlb r-cwE--
1��"��6� Jf/ / .",Cl� �Yw: /�. �a f#��� �O '..�`i�ftk "`t I s l..✓d �W � �T.u-! ow...+ .w�" I���t� F' J..P.. "t<� b�����3
.`! _... ._`�,�, b " BA IL `
=- -r
?22r,�6 41W /34YNV"�G LS - 3�y5 5� - GE ES" <3 --Itl%*
t!.<AI -ff A d45PA 1, 1►' �+.� I A '*— _mss �t €�f %T �� ! ` f�d�� .� f� ['�
1%
OCCUPATION:
Employing ,firm, agency
Address
S77 / ,6al V/,
Position Years w /firm /agency
cad-g&5,
REFERENCES (Optional)
A.
Full name
7290 7_4N1E-<, AV E7
Relationship
<� ('0 6 - /2 7/
Mailing address
Phone number
B. Ix
Full name
Relationship'
7/ ��` /7 T V1_ U� c�
( � �`6 /,
Mailing address
Phone number
c. GEAJ9 ,i- /�' STEIL A/
�- �,�
Full name
Relationship
730/ 01-Lyf,-R
2(96-7361
Mailing address
Phone number
Return to: City Manager's Office
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield 55423
Att: Eileen Anderson
�rcwf
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO'_''
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 30
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Relating to Parking Restrictions
at the Richfield Liquor Store Parking Lots
Recently, problems have been experienced with the fact
that large trucks do from time to time, park overnight or for
several hours, in one of our municipal liquor store parking
lots. Very often in cold weather, these trucks also leave
their motors running. The city has received several complaints
from surrounding residents regarding the noise generated by
this practice.
Chapter IX, Section 9.03 of the Ordinance Code stipulates
that parking restrictions on any public property must be done
by council resolution and the parking restrictions must be
conspicuously posted in the parking area. Therefore, there
is an item on the January 26, 1981 city council agenda regard-
ing proposed parking restrictions for the city's three munici-
pal liquor store parking lots. The resolution (copy attached)
provides for the limitation of parking in the liquor store
parking lots to vehicles of persons engaged in activities
at the liquor store and prohibits overnight parking.
Re$pectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Liquor Operations Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CERTAIN
PARKING RESTRICTIONS AT THE PARKING
LOTS OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES
WHEREAS, there is a city -owned parking lot adjacent to the
City of Richfield's municipal liquor stores located at 6444 Lyndale
Avenue, 6444 Penn Avenue and 6636 Cedar Avenue, and
WHEREAS, each lot was constructed and located so as to serve
the liquor operations, and
WHEREAS, certain vehicles do park overnight or during weekends
in these parking lots, often with their motors running and create a
disturbance in the surrounding neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, Richfield Ordinance Code Section 9.03 subdivision 9
(19) authorizes the city council by resolution to either prohibit
or limit parking in city -owned parking areas;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Parking of vehicles in the liquor store parking lots
shall be limited to vehicles of persons engaged in
activities at the liquor stores and overnight parking
is hereby prohibited.
2. The City Manager is authorized to take the necessary
steps to implement this resolution, including the
posting of all suitable signs.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, City Clerk.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter "No. 29
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Resolution Amending Resolution Number 6356
Establishing the Process for Specially
Assessing the Cost of Current Services in the
LHN Redevelopment Area
On December 22, 1980, the city council adopted the above -
mentioned resolution providing for the special assessment of all
properties in the LHN redevelopment area, with the exception of
single- family and duplex residential properties. The purpose of
this special assessment is to cover the cost of current maintenance
services within the LHN area for the period January 1, 1981, to
June 30, 1981.
A public hearing on this subject was held on January 12, 1981.
At that meeting, several affected property owners commented on this
special assessment. A majority of those speaking owned multiple
family residential properties within the area. The basic theme
voiced by most of them was that their multiple family residential
properties did not benefit from the special level of maintenance
to be provided in the LHN area. Subsequent to the close of the
public hearing, the city council decided to exempt all residential
properties in the L /H /N area from the maintenance special assessment.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution, amending Resolution No. 6356 to all residential properties
in the L /H /N area from the maintenance special assessments.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Administrative Services Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTlviv NO.
PROVIDES FOR A PROCESS OF SPECIALLY ASSESSING
THE COST FOR CURRENT SERVICES IN THE LYNDALE/
HUB /NICOLLET PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Richfield provided
for a process of specially assessing the costs of current
erv' in the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet (LHN) redevelopment area;
and
WHEREAS paragraph number three of this resolution states
that "The area proposed to be specially assessed for such
current services consists of every assessable lot and parcel of
land within the district.. it is proposed that special assess-
ments on commercial property be made on the basis of the area
with each square foot of assessable commercial property within
the district being assessed an equal amount. "; and p�fi
WHEREAS subsequent to a public hearing on this item by
the City Council on January 12, 1981 due consideration was give q
to the comments made by affected property owners;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Richfield hereby eliminates all residential
property within the LHN redevelopment area from the special
assessment levy.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
26th day of January, 1981.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk
UK
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 28
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to License and
Permit Fees and Charges, Second Reading -
On December 22, 1980, the city council gave first reading ap-
proval to an ordinance amendment which would change various city
license fees and charges.
The attached ordinance amendment reflects an incre n many
icense fees. The existing fees are shown in brackets,
with the new fee underlined. Basically, the proposed amendment to
the fee schedule reflects an effort to more accurately recoup the
ost for licensing and regulating certain activities, while
seeking to establish a fee structure which is still fair to the
' licensee and is consistent with the general cost of licenses and fees
in adjacent communities. Most or unchanged for..
many years, and are currently establishe"'at"W level so low that it
co_ s� s the city as much to process the license applications or more,
gain from the revenues derived from the fees.
It is recommended that the city council give second reading
approval to the attached amendment to Appendix D of the ordinance
code, relating to miscellaneous permit, license and other fees, at
the January 26, 1981 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
11/ ti
\cz—N,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Program Directors
Finance Coordinator
City Clerk
AMENDME_1
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix D of the Ordinance Code of the,City of Richfield,
Minnesota establishing the permit, license and miscellaneous fees
is amended in the following respects:
I. Appendix D, Section 5, paragraph (12) is amended by amending
subparagraphs e, f, and g as follows:
TYPE
SECTION
FEE
PERMIT
REQUIRING
SCHEDULE
FEE
"e Commercial
5.28
1 year
[$50]
$100
Kennel
f Residential
5.28
1 year
[$10]
$ 25
Kennel
g Pigeons
10.05
1 year
[$ 51
$ 15"
II. Appendix D, Section 6, is amended by amending paragraphs (3),
(4) , (5) , (6) , (7) and (10) as follows: .
TYPE SECTION
PERMIT REQUIRING
"(3) Food Vehicle 6.01
a. Baker
b. Catering
c. Readily
Perishable
FEE
FEE
1 year [$15] $ 50
$100 /year plus [$5]
$50 /year for each
additional catering
food vehicle under
same ownership and
operation
Per vehicle per year or [$5] $ 40
Per fleet per year [15] $120"
TYPE
SECTION
FEE
PERMIT
REQUIRING
SCHEDULE FEE
(4) Garbage and
6.06
[$25] $100 per year for
Refuse
first vehicle and
Collection
[$10] $25 for each
additional vehicle.
(5) Motor Vehicle
6.07
Dealer
a. New Vehicle Sales
[$50] $100 /year for first
place of business [$15]
$50 for each additional
place of business.
(6.) Motor Bicycle
6.08
[$50] $100 /year /place
Dealer
of business to sell motor
bicycles
[$75] $50 /year /place of
business to sell, rent or
lease motor bicycles.
(7) Sound
6.14
Annual fee [$50] $100 /vehicle
Truck
Daily fee [$3] $10 /vehicle
[for first day
and $1 /vehicle for
each additional
day.]"
"(10) Rental of
6.22
[$25] $50 /year for
Utility Trailers
each place of business."
and Trucks
III. Appendix D, Section 7, is amended by amending paragraphs (2),
(3) , (5) , (6) , (7) , (8) , (10) , (12) , (13) , (14) and (16)
thereof as follows:
TYPE SECTION FEE
PERMIT REQUIRING SCHEDULE FEE
"(2) Itinerant 6.01 1 year [$15] $25
Establishment
(3) Retail Candy 6.01 [$25] $50 /year plus [$5] $15
Shop for each additional facility
on same premises."
"(5) Vending
Machine
6.01
a. Food Vending 1 year [$5] $10
Machine Requiring
Coin or Token
z
TYPE
SECTION
FEE
PER1-1IT
REQUIRING
SCHEDULE FEE
b. Other Food
[$5] $10 /year for each
Vending Machine
food dispensing unit in
the machine [not to
exceed $50]
c. Ice Vending
1 year $10
Machine
(6) Automobile
6.04
1 year [$25] $75"
Washing
Establishment
(7) Scavenger
6.05
$20 /year or portion thereof
per vehicle plus [$1] $5 permit
fee for opening cesspool or
dumping contents of each
cesspool into city sewer.
(8) Incinerator
6.06
1 year [$5] $25
"(10) Soft Drink
6.13
1 year [$5] $25
a. Vending
One license included with (10).
Machine
$5 /year or fraction thereof
per each additional machine."
"(12) Wagon
Peddler
(13) Christmas
Tree Sales
(14) Motel
6.16 1 year [$50] $100
6.18 1 year [$25] $40
6.19 [$5] $10 for first unit,
[$2.50] $5 per year for
each additional unit."
"(16) Outdoor 6.23 Permit [$10] $50"
Merchandising
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of 1980.
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
Donald Priebe, Mayor
7 V 1_/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 27
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance.Amendment Relating to Billing
Procedures, Second Reading
On December 22 {., 1.980, the city council adopted an ordinance
amendment which would %iarify the time sequence in which water and
sewer utilitrebills � to be prepared and sent to customers. Rich-
field water and sewer customers are billed every quarter for their
usage during the previous quarter. However, existing city ordinance
indicates that customers will be billed during the third month of
the three months included in the quarter. 4w6wis impossible to bill
on this basis, because meter readings and t- computation of total
water and sewer usage for the quarter can not be completed until the
end of the month. It has been common practice to bill during the
month following the three month period that the bill covers. For
this reason, it appears appropriate to revise the ordinance to
specify the billing dates in accordance with the actual billing
schedule.
The attached ordinance amendment would accomplish this change.
It is recommended that the city council give second reading approval
to this ordinance amendment at the January 26, 1981 city council
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
Central Services Manager
ORDI`,ANCB _\11E ,?DMENIT RELATED TO
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter VIII of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield is hereby amended by the following:
"Part II. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE - RATES AND CHARGES
Section 8.12. RATES AND CHARGES
Subdivision 3. Metered Flow Charge. Where there are one or
more water meters measuring water usage on the premises, sanitary
sewer service rates and charges shall be based upon the metered
use of the :Dater except to the extent. otherwise provided in this
subdivision. The rates and charges shall be based upon the actual
use of water on the premises for the last preceding winter quarter
for the customer billing district in which the premises are
located. For this purpose the winter quarter for each billing
district is as follows:
Citv Water District #1 - Three month use period beginning in
December, Cof January, February, and March,] billed in March
of current year.
i, City Water District #2 - Three month use period beginning in
January, Cof February, March, and April,] billed in April, of
current year.
City Water District #3 - Three month use period beginning in
November, Cof December, January, and February,] billed in
February of current year.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this .26 day of January, 1981
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request
Planned
Permit
History
Council Letter No. 26
Agenda January 26, 1981
for Approval of Lyndale Garden Center
Unit Development Plan and Special Use
In
n , an
located at 6412 Lyndale Avenue
South.
The new
proposal is generally the same as the previous proposal. The Planned
Unit Development ordinance does, however, require consistency between
the Final Development Plan and the Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Plan and defines what changes can be made. The changes which have
been made exceed those which are allowed by the PUD ordinance, and
it is therefore necessary for the city council to approve an amended
PUD plan. Rezoning of the property to Planned General Commercial
(PC -2) has been accomplished. The city will have to approve a final
development plan, final plat and street vacation before the construc-
tion can be completed.
Proposal
s
Mr. Burt Rutman, an owner of the property, is proposing to
construct a 48,000 square foot building in the same general location
as in the previous proposal. The building will have 15,000•square
feet of greenhouse area along the front of the structure and 33,000
square feet of general sales area towards the rear of the structure.
The existing basement will be utilized for storage if it is found to
be structurally sound. Exterior building materials will be masonry,
wood and greenhouse glazing.
The existing print shop building is proposed to remain and to
be renovated using exterior materials similar -to those used on the
main structure, so that the two structures .:_-id visually relate.
The existing house on the site is to be relc:ated as in the previous
proposal. The design, location, screening and access points of the
Council Letter No. 26 -2- January 26, 1981
off - street parking and loading areas will remain the same as in the
previously approved proposal, with the exception of the changes which
were stipulated as part of the original approval. The changes include
narrowing of the parking lot island adjacent to the main entrance to
provide smoother traffic flow, and alteration of the southwest corner
of the parking lot to keep the parking lot above the ordinary high
water line of Richfield Lake. This alteration was required by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and resulted in the loss
of 11 parking spaces.
The owners have expressed a need to be open for business by
April 1, because that is when their peak business period begins. To
accomplish this, they propose to "stage" construction. They hope to
begin construction of the two south sections of the general sales
area around the. first of February, to be complete by April 1. They
will then begin construction of the north general sales area. This
should be complete in 30 to 40 days. The greenhouse units will then
be constructed and complete by approximately September 1. The final
stage will be completion of the parking lot. This staging scheme
will allow them to be open for business on April 1, but have the
project complete by the end of the construction season. City ordin-
ance requires a performance bond in the amount of 10 percent of the
estimated value of the proposed buildings and improvements. to be
constructed.
Staff Findings
Because the proposal is to amend the previously approved PUD plan
and because the changes being proposed are not significant, the staff
has limited its review to changes proposed. A copy of the staff
report on the original proposal is attached for your review. Addi-
tional staff findings are as follows:
1. The proposed building will be 5,000 square feet smaller in
area than the original proposal. This is a 9.5 percent
change in floor area, within the 10 percent change allowed.
The total floor area of 48,000 square feet is well under
the maximum of 236,565 square feet allowed by the PUD
ordinance.
2. The setbacks of the building have changed. The following
table analyzes the setbacks:
Front
Re ar
North Side
South Side
Parking Lot
General
Reauirements
40 feet
25 feet
0 -15 feet
0 feet
15 feet
Previous
Proposal
16 to 36 feet
45 to 210 feet
170 to 345 feet
70 to 230 feet
10 to 21 feet
Current
Proposal
40 to 80 feet
60 to 230 feet
170 to 345 feet
50 to 150 feet
10 to 21 feet
As can be seen by the preceding table, .�-e proposed building and
parking lot setbacks equal or exceed the set_-acks of the previously
approved proposal, with the exception of the south side setback. The
Council Letter No. 26 -3- January 26, 1981
proposed south side setback will still substantially exceed the
ordinance requirement. All building setbacks will meet or exceed
the ordinance requirements.
3. The amount of off - street parking available will be reduced
from 238 to 227. Because of the reduction in floor area,
the number of parking spaces required changed from 250 to
241. The proposal will be 14 spaces short of the city
requirement, whereas the previous proposal was 12 spaces
short of the requirement. It is the opinion of the staff
that sufficient off - street parking is available, and that
the shortage will not be detrimental. The possibility for
an additional 12 spaces exists in the northwest corner of
the parking lot, should additional parking be required.
4. The appearance of the building has changed. The front of
the building will now be predominately glass and green-
house glazing material, whereas the previous proposal used
much more wood and brick. The current proposal will have
a much "harder" appearance and would not, in the most strict
sense, meet the LHN Urban Design Guidelines which call for
the use of warm natural materials in earthy tones. However,
because of the unique requirements of this particular type
of use and because of the fact that the appearance will be
softened by plant materials visible inside the greenhouses,
the building materials proposed are generally acceptable
to the staff. The greenhouse will be a display greenhouse
rather than a growing greenhouse. This means that the glass
will be clear rather than "white- washed ". The greenhouse
will have a one -sided slope roof rather than the typical
two -sided slope roof. Lighting and color will also be used
to highlight the planting, and to improve the appearance.
Because the greenhouses will be used for sales and display,
maintenance should also be better. The proposal indicates
that the.greenhouse sections will be offset and wood will
also be used where possible on the front and on the sides
to break up and soften the appearance and to bring the
building into closer conformance with the Urban Design
Guidelines. The rear portions of the building will be
masonry, although the exact type and color has yet to be
determined. The design must meet the requirements of the
Urban Design Guidelines.
5. The proposed changes would not affect the findings made in
the review of the original proposal.'
Staff Recommendations
It is the opinion of the staff that the changes being proposed
are not substantial, and that the proposed development would still
be in substantial compliance with applicable ordinances and plans.
The project will be in conformance with the ~ -als of the city's
comprehensive plan and the LHN Redevelopment -'-'Ian.
Council Letter No. 26 -4-
January 26, 1981
It is recommended that the city council approve the amended PUD
and special use permit with the following stipulations:
That all site lighting, landscaping and signing conform
to city standards;
2. because it lacks
harmony withthe other buildings on the site, and would be
visually disjointed from the overall development;
That the masonry to be used on the building conform to the
Urban Design Guidelines;
That a turn - around be provided on Aldrich Avenue where it f
.deadends at the Lyndale Fruit and Vegetable Market, Inc.
proposed ew north property line.,.' �
Planning Commissio Recommendation
The Planning Commission considered this matter on January 19,
1981, and recommends that the amended Planned Unit Development Plan
and special use permit be approved with the following stipulations:
1. That all site lighting, landscaping, and signing conform
to city standards;
�2)_ That the exterior of the print shop be renovated to match
the other buildings on the site;
3_ That.the masonry to be used on the building have integral
color and conform to the Urban Design Guidelines;
4. That a turn - around be provided on Aldrich Avenue where it
deadends at the Lyndale Fruit and Vegetable Market, Inc.
proposed new north property line;
The Planning Commission also passed a motion expressing their
concern to the city council about the aesthetic appearance of the
front of the proposed Lyndale Garden Center. The concern was that
the design of the greenhouses along the front does not meet the LHN
Urban Design Elements because the primary building materials, are not
warm, earthtoned, natural materials.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nol.lenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Development Director
City Planner
cam,
kl�
1 0
Ar
pf
w—b
b7m
m
------------ 14.51Z j;M
() ❑� s .� . o El F1
ED
F1
T
>
12
TI
09
.
z m
9
gj
rq
Ll
11 04A I,; v. tuf�
rM
TI
09
.
z m
9
gj
0
it 2.
4
rn
it 2.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 32
Agenda January 14, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Approval of Planned Unit Development
Rezoning Ordinance, and Preliminary Plat, for
Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable Market, Inc. Improve=
ment Project
HISTORY
The redevelopment plan for the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet redevel-
opment plan adopted by the city council originally called for the
existing Lyndale Fruit& Vegetable Market, Inc. to be relocated
to the "home improvement center area at 66th Street and Lyndale
Avenue. Multiple residences were to be developed on the present.
Lyndale,Market site. Subsequently, the staff determined that it
was no longer economically feasible to relocate the Lyndale Fruit
& Vegetable Market, Inc. as planned. On March 26, 1979, the city
council.amended the redevelopment plan to allow the existing Lyn-
dale Fruit & Vegetable Market, Inc. building to be rehabilitated
and expanded at its existing location. On November 13, 1979 the
city council gave first reading approval to the attached ordinance
amendment to accomplish the rezoning.
PROPOSAL
Mr. Burt Rutman is proposing to rehabilitate the existing
22,000 square foot Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable Market building and
construct a 31,000 square foot building addition to the north of
the existing building. The new addition would be used for stor-
age, general sales, and greenhouse sales. The existing building
would continue to be used as a general sales area. Exterior
building materials to be used on both the existing and new build-
ings will be brick, wood and greenhouse glazing.
The existing print shop will remain, the parking area to
the south of the existing building will be moved, and the ex-
isting house to the north of the existing _._ding will be re-
located, either on the site or adjacent to There will also
Council Letter No. 32 -2- January 14, 1980
be outside display areas south and west of the building, and also
east of the new addition. All outside display areas will be en-
closed by architectural picket, `cFiair IYit1�'73c�d see-- fences
d�seriaing on a ion. -
The proposal involves several land acquisitions. The appli-
cant will be requesting that the HRA acquire land adjacent to the
north edge of the existing Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable Market prop-
erty. This land would then be sold to the applicant to allow for
the development of a new parking lot. The applicant also proposes
to lease two small parcels of city owned land adjacent to Richfield
Lake to increase the amount of outdoor display space available to
him.
Parking areas for 238 cars will be developed to the north of
the building. Two existing homes would have to be removed to
allow the proposed parking lot development to take place. The
proposed parking lot would be lower than the adjacent residential
properties and will be screened by a six -foot wood fence.
Access to the parking area will be from one entrance to the
site from Lyndale Avenue at 64th Street. An easement of 8 -20 feet
wide, in the amount of $55,000, along Lyndale Avenue for the
planned Lyndale Avenue public improvements will be dedicated to
the city at no cost, if the project is approved.
Landscaping will consist of overstory trees, shrubs, bushes,
and ground cover which: ill conform to city standards.
The applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned from
C -2 General Commercial, R. Residential, and MR Multiple Residential
to PC -2, Planned General Commercial. The applicant is'contemplat-
ing using-Industrial Revenue Bonds to finance the development.
Construction is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1980, with com-
pletion'in early winter, 1981.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Section 3.32 and 3.33 set standards for commercial
developments in commercial zoning districts.
2. Section 3.34A sets standards for planned unit develop-
ment districts.
3. Section 3.41 establishes criteria for J.ssuing special
use permits.
4. Section 3.42 establishes procedures for zoning district
changes.
OTHER ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
i. Relationship to Ordinance and Pla
i
The PUD ordinance requires that a _ -'UD project be
compared with zoning ordinance rec'.1irements otherwise
Council Letter No. 32 -3- January 14, 1980
applicable to this type of development. Shown
below is a comparison of city standards for this
type of development and what is proposed in this
development.
Zoning Ordinance PUD Proposal
1. Parking spaces 250 238
2. Maximum Floor area 174,307 52,025
3. Setbacks Front -40' Front -16'
(existing bldg.)
Front -36'
(new addition)
Rear -25' Rear -60'
Side -15' South side -234'
North side -170'
The comprehensive plan indicates that this site should be developed
as medium to high density central business district development in-
cluding retail commercial establishments. The site is within the
boundaries of the L /H /N redevelopment project. The L /H /N redevel-
opment plan calls for the rehabilitation and expansion of the
existing Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable Market. The project plans have
been coordinated with the subdivision regulations of the city and
there is no departure from subdivision regulations.
It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed project is
in general conformance with the comprehensive plan, the redevelop-
ment plan and the subdivision regulations of the city. The prop-
osal does depart from the general commercial zoning district re-
quirements for front yard setback. The existing building is set
back 16-feet from the existing property line and 8 feet from the
public improvement easement along Lyndale Avenue. The new addition
will be set back 36 feet from the existing property line and 16
feet from the easement area. It is the staff's opinion that the
proposed setbacks will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
The front yard setback of the new addition will be similar to
the setbacks of the buildings to the north and to that of the
Lyndale Avenue liquor store to the south.
2. Availability of Public Services - The site is adequately
served by utilities including gas, water, electricity and sanitary
sewer from lines within the Lyndale Avenue right -of -way. A storm
sewer line runs through the property to Richfield Lake. North-
western Bell has requested a five -foot wide utility easement
through the property.
3. Traffic Circulation and Control - Access to the site will
be provided by one entrance oft of Lyndale Avenue at Goth Street.
There will be a 22 -foot wide entrance land and a 22 -foot wide exit
lane separated by a six foot median. There will be a left turn
lane on northbound Lyndale Avenue to facilitate access into the
site.
Council Letter No. 32 -4-
January 14., 1980
The fact that there will only be one access in
poses some safer-y and traffic `low nroblems because all traffic
is concentrated in one area. Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable Market
can generate approximately 1700 ADT during peak seasons. The
proposal would more than double the floor area of the building
which could mean that up to 4000 ADT could be generated by the
completed development. This estimate would be high, however,
because the use is already established on the site and it has an
established clientele. Some increase*in traffic can be expected
however.
Lyndale Avenue adjacent to the site presently carries 14,700
vehicles per day. Once the L /H /N redevelopment project is com-
pleted, traffic projections indicate that 16,300 vehicles per day
will travel on Lyndale. Eighteen accidents occurred on Lyndale
Avenue in 1978. according to public safety department records. The
additional trips due to the proposed development could result in
one or two more accidents over this segment of Lyndale Avenue.
The planned public improvements, including channelization and
signalization, will increase the capacity of Lyndale Avenue and
reduce the number of accidents in the area.
4. Parking - City parking guidelines indicate that 250 off-
street parking spaces should be provided on the site. Only 238
spaces are shown on-the site plan. The proposed parking areas
would not meet city parking standards in that some parking stalls
will be only 18 or 19 feet deep, rather than the required 20 feet
and some driving aislers would not be 24 feet wide. Also, the
proposed parking lot would not provide the required 15 foot setback
from the residence zoning district on the north edge of the prop-
erty. '•A 10 to 12 foot setback will be provided. Sufficient land
area exists on the site to provide sufficient number of spaces and
to comply with city standards. The amount of outdoor display space
would have to be reduced, however. A 6 foot high wood screen
fence will be provided to protect the adjacent residences from
the parking lot impacts.
5. Lakeshore Issues - Because the site is adjacent to Rich-
field Lake which is classified as a public body of water, the plans
have to be approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Minnehaha Watershed District.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has indicated
that no cutting, filling, destruction of existing vegetation, con-
struction or use of property can occur within the ordinary high
water mark of the lake without a DNR permit. The DNR has deter-
mined that the ordinary highwater mark occurs at an elevation of
115.95 feet. A portion of the outside display area and a portion
of the new parking lot will fall within the ordinary high water
mark. The applicant has indicated that the parking lot will be
redesigned so that it will not be within the ordinary high water
mark. DRN has approved a permit to allow t.,e outside storage
area to exist below the ordinary high wate 'ine. The applicants
have agreed to provide runoff control mean _s which have been re-
quested by the watershed district.
Council Letter No. 32 -5- January 14, 1980
Potential problems exist also because of the proposed bike-
way around Richfield Lake. The applicant has indicated that there
is insufficient space on his property to provide the city with an =-
easement for the proposed bikeway. This means that the bikeway
would have to be constructed outside the property and probably
within the ordinary high water mark. This would limit the design
possibilities of the bikeway and increase its cost.
6. Light Exposure, Air Circulation, and Open Space - There
will be adequate light exposure and*air circulation on the site.
There will be adequate space between the proposed buildings and
adjacent buildings which will insure sufficient light and air cir-
culation to all buildings. Considerable open space will be main-
tained around the proposed buildings.
7. Impact of Protect on the Neighborhood - The project should
have minimal effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Two single
family residences will have to be removed to allow for the devel-
opment of the north parking area. No undue increase in traffic
will occur in surrounding residential areas because access to the
site will be from Lyndale Avenue only. The primary building mater- -
ials to be used on the existing and proposed addition will relate
well with surrounding buildings. Proper screening will be installed
to protect adjacent residences from the proposed use on the site.
8. Preliminary Plat - The attached sheets 1 -3, constitute the
preliminary plat. All required information is shown except for a
5 foot utility easement for Northwestern Bell through the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1.': Preliminary PUD Plan - It is the staff's opinion that the
proposal is in substantial compliance with applicable ordinances
and plans. The project fulfills the goals of the city's comprehen-
sive plan and the L /H /N redevelopment plan. The proposal will be
compatible with surrounding structures and will have minimal impact
on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Traffic generated by
the proposal can be handled adequately by the planned improvements
on Lyndale Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the city
council approve the PUD plan with the following stipulations:
A. That all site lighting, landscaping, and signing
conform to city standards;
B. That the 16 foot parking lot island north of the new
addition be reduced to 6 feet to provide smoother
traffic flow;
C. That a turn -a -round be provided on Aldrich Avenue
where it deadends at the Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable
Market, Inc. property.
D. That the exterior of the print shop be renovated to
match the other buildings on the site;
E. That the parking area be redesigned so that it will
not be within the ordinary high water site.
`-f 2. Rezoning Ordinance - It is recommended that the city
council approve the rezoning ordinance on second reading.
Council Letter No. 32 -6- January 14, 1980
3. Preliminary Plat - It is recommended that the city
council approve the preliminary plat with the following change: r
.. A. A 5 foot wide utility easement for Northwestern Bell
\ be shown across the property.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The planning commission recommends that the PUD plan be
approved with the following stipulations:
A. That all site lighting, landscaping and signing conform
to city standards;
B. That all DNR, watershed district, and city lakeshore
issues be resolved;
C. That the 16 foot parking lot island north of the new
addition be reduced to 6 feet to provide smoother
traffic flow;
D. That a plan be developed acceptable to staff to provide
_ a turn -a -round on Aldrich Avenue where it deadends at_ _
the Lyndale Fruit & Vegetable property.
2. The planning commission recommends that the preliminary
plat be approved with the following change:
A. A 5 foot wide utility easement for Northwestern Bell be
shown across the property.
3.' The planning commission also found that the proposed land
acquisitions would be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan
and the.L /H /N re evelopment plan.
-P oWQ l of rZZ.&A ir1a�
It should be noted that a plan change has occurred since the
planning. commission considered.this matter. The plan they consid-
ered called for the removal of the print shop and the developer
is now proposing to keep the building and use it for storage. Also
another plan change may occur. The existing house which was to be
relocated on the site may be relocated to a vacant lot adjacent
to the site. If the city council feels that these are major
changes which should be considered by the planning commission, they
can refer the PUD plan back to the planning commission for further
_consideration. It is the staff's opinion that these changes will
not have detrimental impact on the project or the surrounding area
and, therefore, that there is no need to refer the PUD plan back
to the planning commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollcnberger
City Mani -2r
KN /eja
cc: '_Manning Dlr ^ctor
Acting Redevel-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 25
Agenda January 26, 1981
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Limited Use Permit for Proposed Sidewalk
The adopted 1980 sidewalk program includes a project to con-
struct a sidewalk in Nicollet Park. The Nicollet Park project in-
cluded the area west from Stevens Avenue along the Crosstown /35W
roadway to Nicollet Avenue through the north sector of Nicollet
Park. In researching the project it was discovered that the city
did not have clear right -of -way for this project. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation was contracted, and has prepared a
limited use permit which would allow the City of Richfield to
utilize portions of the Interstate 35W right -of -way for the
proposed sidewalk.
To complete this part of the process so that work may continue
with this sidewalk project, it is necessary for the council to auth-
orize the mayor and manager to execute the limited use permit. It
is recommended that the city council approve the attached resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Services Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND MANAGER TO EXECUTE
LIMITED USE PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING
AND MAINTAINING SIDEWALKS SOUTH OF 35W IN THE
VICINITY OF NICOLLET PARK
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has determined that a sidewalk
from Portland Avenue to Nicollet Avenue, south of 35W is in the best
interests of the community, and
WHEREAS, to construct and maintain such sidewalk for public
purposes it is necessary to secure a limited use permit from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
WHEREAS, said limited use permit has been prepared by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield finds said document acceptable
to plans prepared for said sidewalk,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City
of Richfield that the mayor and manager are hereby authorized and
directed to execute said permit.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 26th day
of January, 1981.
Donald Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, DlliriivESUTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Council Letter No.
Agenda Jury 1981
y
Subject: License Renewal Request for Tip Top Car Wash,
6601 Bloomington Avenue South
The city has
As the council may recall, the council considered the 1980 business
license renewal for this establishment on June 23, 1980. At that
time, the applicant had been operating for over five months without
a current business license. Additionally, at that time the applicant
was conducting his business in violation of several requirements of
our ordinance code and without providing the city with proof of the
required insurance coverage.
The council action on June 23, 1980, was to deny the license
renewal requested by the applicant, Mr. David S. Colehour. On June 24th,
the applicant retained an attorney and obtained a temporary restrain-
ing order in Hennepin County District Court to prevent the city from
initiating any action to close the business. The restraining order
was based on evidence presented to the court which indicated that the
applicant would apply for a new business license and would offer a
program to correct the problems which had resulted in the original
council action denying the 1980 business license. At the council
meeting on July 24, 1980, the council heard the applicants request
for a new business license, and authorized issuance of the license
for the remainder of 1980 with the following stipulations:
a. Automatic shut -offs for both water and power be installed;
b. The premises be maintained in a clean condition;
C. The required barrier be installed around the trash dumpster;
d. All conditions set forth in the existing ordinance code be
observed;
e. The council shall keep abreast of remodeling progress by
Mr. Colehour.
For council consideration during this current license hearing,
it should be noted that the applicant has conformed with the require-
ment for automatic shut -offs, as well as posting his property with
the hours of operation. The concern of the city council in establish-
ing this particular stipulation was to assure that the applicant's
business did not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.,
as required by our city ordinance code.
Council Letter No. 24 -2- January 26, 1981
With regard to the condition that the "premises be maintained
in a clean condition ", it has been the observation of the Public
Safety Department that some progress has certainly been made with
regard to this condition. However, the city continues to receive
complaints of trash and litter problems for the residents in the
immediate neighborhood. A part of the original problem which
formed the basis for this condition was the fact that the trash
containers around the premises were uncovered. While the applicant
has provided covers for the trash receptacles, the recepticles them-
selves continue to frequently be uncovered.
The third condition set by the city council for the issuance of
the 1980 business license requires that a "barrier be installed
around the trash dumpster ", in conformance with established city or-
dinance codes. As yet, there has been no action on the part of the
applicant with regard to the requirement to enclose the trash dump -
ster in conformance with this ordinance requirement.
The fourth condition established by the council in issuing the
1980 business license required that, "all conditions set forth in
the existing ordinance code be observed ". This basically referred
to the stipulations within our licensing ordinance related to in-
surance coverage and hours during which the business was allowed to
operate. Additionally, this related to the special use permit or-
iginally granted for this business establishment which requires that
the general operation not create a community nuisance which is in-
compatible with the residential neighborhood in which it is located,
and that the business not be obnoxious or detrimental to the community
in general. In this regard, the requirements in the licensing code
appeared to have been met. However, there continues to be some con-
cern with regard to the compatibility of the business operation
adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Primarily, this problem has
seemed to manifest itself in continuing noise problems created by
the operation of the business, as well as traffic congestion extend-
ing onto Bloomington Avenue as a result of the business operation.
The final stipulation made by the council in granting the 1980
business license required the applicant to furnish the council with
progress reports relative to a proposed major rehabilitation and
remodeling of his car wash structure. As the council may recall,
Mr. Colehour indicated at the council hearing on July 14, 1980, that
he intended to immediately move ahead with plans (a preliminary draw-
ing of which was shown to the council during the hearing) to sub-
stantially upgrade the appearance -of the building and make it more
compatible with the neighborhood in which it was located. At that
time the council requested that the applicant show at least a "good
faith" effort to accomplish this remodeling project prior to the end
of the license year. As yet, the city has not been provided with
any of the required status reports on this project. The Community
Development Department was contacted by Mr. Colehour with a proposal
to dramatically increase the size of the facility and to utilize
industrial development revenue bond financing. After the initial
contact, there was no follow -up by Mr. Colehour.
Council Letter No. 24 -3- January 26, 1981
Both the Public Safety Director and a city attorney will be
in attendance at the license hearing scheduled for the council meet-
ing on January 26. They will both be able to comment on this matter,
and respond to any questions which the - ncil may have with regard
to the requested license renewal for the Tip Top Car Wash for the
current license year.
The applicant has been informed of our concerns with regard to
his license renewal application. Additionally, the applicant has
been informed of the hearing on this request scheduled for the city
council meeting on January 26, and advised of his right to be
represented at that hearing by legal counsel. Attached, for the
information of the council, is a copy of the letter sent by the
Director of Public Safety to the applicant with regard to this matter.
Adjacent property owners have also been notified of this hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Public Safety Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
January 19, 1981
N
q*
David S. C:clehour
0
President,
Pres.nt , J & L Investment Company
LO
4706 Fairhills Road East
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
O
®
Dear Mr. Colehour:
CD
As you know, the. Richfield City Council has scheduled
a hearing with regard to your request for a renewal
of your business license for the Tip Top Car Wash at
6601 Bloomiii(Iton Avenue South, for the year 1981. As
you will recall, the did
when city council renew your
1980 business license they did so on a conditional basis,
based upon the following stipulations:
ttt�
1. Aut- omoatic shut -off for both water and power
=
be installed to assure that the business will
not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and
6:00 p.m., as required by our city ordinance code.
CU
2. The premises will be maintained in a clean con-
dition.
=
3. A barrier, as required by our city ordinance code,
CU
will be installed around the trash dumpster.
ELM
4. All conditions set forth in the existing special
O
use permit and licensing sections of the city
Q
ordinance code will be observed.
0
5. You will make a "good faith" effort to proceed
0
with the remodeling plans which you presented
h
to the city council on July 4, 1980, and the
0
council will be provided status reports with
regard to your progress in this matter,
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
January 19, 1981
Page 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 hearing is open to the public and you have the right to
be represented by legal council during this hearing process.
You also have the riqht to cross examine anyone speaking in
opposition to your license renewal.
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 /lje
qD
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. 23
Agenda January 26, 1981
Council
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
several such items on the city council agenda of January 26, 1981.
Driving Range Balls
The driving range at the Rich Acres Golf Course proved to be
most successful when it opened in June, 1980. At that time, the city
was somewhat late in ordering balls for use on the driving range as
the manufacturers typically make enough to cover early orders and
only a limited number of balls are made for late or expanded orders.
Therefore, to obtain the amount and quality of ball desirable for
the driving range operation during 1981, it is important that an
order be placed as soon as possible. Quotations were obtained from
Hornung's Wittick and Spalding for the purchase of 500 dozen high
compression driving range balls, yellow with black stripe, under
warranty. Items for consideration included: 1) Warranty, 2) Billing
Date, 3) Gross price, 4) Discounts, 5) Freight Charges, and 6) Net
Price. Looking at net price, the quotation from Hornung's was in
the amount of $2,720.50, Wittick quoted $2,475.00 and Spalding
quoted $2,275.00.
It is recommended that the city
of 500 dozen driving range balls as
Company, in the amount of $2,275.00.
Golf Balls for Resale
council authorize the purchase
outlined above from Spalding Golf
There are a variety of brands and grades of golf balls typically
offered for resale at a golf course. Top grade balls, for example,
are available through Spalding, Titleist and Wilson. A "counter ball"
is a lesser grade of ball for golfers that have less concern for
brand and other variables. For the best resale market, staff sought
the lowest priced, highest quality counter ball on the market. The
Spalding Pro Flite has been a high grade, solid counter ball for
many years and has built up a tradition among buyers in pro shops.
It is also the ball that was stocked at the Rich Acres course in 1980
Council Letter No. 23 -2- January 26, 1981
with good sales success. Spalding makes such balls available at
$5.25 per dozen. The only competitor with a comparative ball on the
market is Titleist's Club Special which sells for $6.25 per dozen.
These are the only two vendors offering a ball of this quality and
price line.
It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase
of 240 dozen Pro Flite golf balls from Spalding Golf Company at a
unit price of $5.25 for a total purchase price of $1,260.00. To
offer a variety, this same purchase order would include 24 dozen
Top Flite golf balls at $12.15 per dozen and 48 dozen XL Top Flite.
golf balls at $12.15 per dozen. The total amount of the purchase
order would be $2,134.80. These balls, along with other brands,
would be available for resale at the Rich Acres Goif Course.
Light Fixtures
During 1980, the city recieved a grant for two test areas using
low pressure sodium light fixtures. There has been some damage to
these light fixtures from vehicles running into the poles, and it has
been necessary to secure replacement fixtures for current damages and
to keep on hand for future repairs and replacements. The materials
are from North American Philips Lighting Corp. It is recommended
the city council approve the purchase of three light head and lamp
sets at a unit price of $119.00 and three light head and lamp sets
at a unit price of $230.00 for a total purchase price of $1,047.00.
Brochure Paper
Four times a year a joint publication between the city and school
district is distributed to.each Richfield residence. The spring
publication is currently scheduled for distribution in early March
with printing to start mid - February. There are 19,500 copies of the
publication printed. The spring publication is a cover and six in-
side pages. Quotations for the paper have been recieved from Butler
Paper, Turnquist Paper and Wilcox Paper. The cover is ordered
separately, so the quotations cited in this letter pertain only to
the inside pages. Butler submitted a quote of $16.15 /M. Wilcox
quoted $13.83/M. Turnquist quoted $16.58/M.
It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase
of 117,000 sheets, 11X17, long grain, 60# Nekoosa Pink paper from
Wilcox Paper Company, for a total purchase price of $1,618.11. This
actual cost of the purchase will be shared with the school district.
Toro Side Discharge Deck
The side discharge deck is a cutter attachment to the city -owned
Toro mowers. Toro is the only vendor providing a unit that will fit
existing city equipment. Due to high summer demands, the city typically
tends to routinely replace such items and retain an older one as a
spare. Purchase of this item is included in the 1981 operating budget
for park maintenance. It is recommended that the city council auth-
orize the purchase of a 72" Toro side discharge deck in the amount
of $1,630.00.
Council Letter No. 23 -3-
Underground Wiring
Work on Lift Station #4, locate
in 1980. One of the items included
for the new pumping system. This wi
NSP, whereas the former arrangement
The cost of this underground wiring
improvement project for Lift Station
that the city council authorize this
Transmitter - Receiver Attachments
January 26, 1981
d at Wilson Pond, was completed
in that project was the wiring
ring was placed underground by
had included overhead wiring.
as part of the city capital
#4 is $2,500. It is recommended
expenditure.
The 1981 Capital Outlay Budget for the Police Division provides
for the purchase of eight Ear Comm Transmitter - Receiver attachments
for portable radios. As the council may recall, these pieces of
accessory radio equipment provide the capability for silent two -way
radio communications for field personnel. This is particularly im-
portant in police tactical situations which require the officers to
operate without individuals in the area of the operations overhear-
ing the radio communications which are taking place. Additionally,
this device provides for the ability of officers or firefighter
personnel to maintain radio communications while wearing face masks.
There is only one local distributor of these devices which are
compatible with our existing General Electric portable radios. The
Public Safety Department has negotiated with the Fire Safety and Com-
munications Corporation in Rochester, Minnesota for. the purchase of
eight of these devices for a total amount of $2,232. It is recom-
mended that the council authorize this purchase from the 1981 Capital
Outlay budget appropriation for the Police Division.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Community Services Director
Public Safety Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
#tS
Council Letter No. 22
Agenda January 26, 1981
Qua'
Subject: 1982 -1986 Capital Improvement Program
An item is scheduled on the January 26 council agenda con-
cerning the 1982 -1986 Cap i -r l lmgrov °r t- Pro's The council
has previously received a copy of the 1982 -1986 CIP recommended
by the Planning Commission and discttss.ed....khe c7 iti with the
Planning Commission on January 19A A copy of the previous coun-
cil letter discussing this item is attached for your review.
It is recommended that the city council s
which may be necessary, and adopt the 1982 -1986 Capita Improve-
ment Program by passing the attached resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN /jf
cc: Program Directors
1 LlJ o LL-1 M (,t em J'LS
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 442
Agenda December 15, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: 1981/86 Capital Improvement Program
On Monday, December 8, 1980 the city council received copies
of the 1982/86 Capital Improvement Program recommended by the
Planning Commission. This item has been scheduled for council
consideration at the December 15, 1980 city council meeting.
The Planning Commission has indicated that there should be
sufficient funding available to carry out the projects as sched-
uled, with the exception of the 1986 projects which show special
revenues as the funding source. Projected expenditures for that
year exceed projected special revenues available by approximately
$520,000. The Planning Commission has prioritized the projects
scheduled for 1986, where expenditures exceed revenues, or the
event that the project availability of various funding changes in
the future.
The project priorities established by the Planning Commission
are as follows, with No. 1 being the highest priority and No. 3
being the lowest priority: (a rating of 3 means that the Planning
Commission feels that the project is deferrable).
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3
Park land Acquis. Legion Lake Park Jefferson Park
Forestry Railroad Signals (3 or 2)
Street Lights Water Meters (this
Lime Sludge Drying priority would also
apply to 1984 and 1985)
The following is an outline of the differences between the
1982 -86 Capital Improvements Program and the 1980 -85 Capital Im-
provements Program approved by the Planning Commission a year ago:
1. MINOR PARK DEVELOPMENT
The 1980 -85 CIP indicated that $25,000 would be spent
on improvements every year. The 1982 -86 CIP indicates
that $50,000 would be spent every other year. The 1982
-86 CIP also indicates that these funds will be spent on
Council Letter No. 442 -2- December 15, 1980
Little Bobs Park in 1983 and Garfield Park in 1985.
This change was made because it is financially almost
impossible to make any significant improvements with
only $25,000 funding.
2. FAIRWOOD - MONROE PARK
The 1980 =85 CIP indicated a total project cost of
$410,000 ($50,000 in 1981 and $360,000 in 1982). The
1982 -86 CIP indicates that $450,000 will be spent in
1982. The 1981 Capital Improvement Budget allocates
$50,000 for the project. The total project cost is,
therefore, $500,000, a $90,000 increase, over last year's
Capital Improvement Budget.
3. MEMORIAL PARK
The 1980 -65 CIP indicated a total project cost of $200,000,
to be spent in 1984. The 1982 -86 CIP indicates that
$10,000 will be spent in 1983 for planning and $200,000
in 1984 for construction. This is an increase in project
funding of $10,000.
4. JEFFERSON, NICOLLET, MADISON, WASHINGTON AND SHERIDAN PARKS
These are new projects which were not covered in the 1980-
1985 CIP because they are scheduled for 1986 and beyond.
$500,000 is allocated to each project. One park will be
done every other year. These projects are consistent
with the city's "neighborhood park" development goal.
5. LEGION LAKE
The 1980 -85 CIP indicated a total project cost of
$1,500,000 ($350,000 in 1985 and $1,150,000 beyond 1985).
The 1982 -86 CIP indicates a project.cost of $1,690,000
($300,000 in 1985, $450,000 in 1986 and $940,000 beyond
1986). The 1981 Capital Improvement Budget allocates
$10,000 to the project for planning purposes. The total
current project cost is therefore $1,700,000, an increase
of $200,000 over last year's CIB, primarily reflecting
inflationary cost increases and the large scale "regional
park" nature of the project.
6. PARK LAND ACQUISITION
The 1980 -85 CIP allocates $25,000 a year to this project,
while the 1982 -86 CIP allocates $30,000 a year. This re-
flects, again, the pressures of inflation and the limited
scope of purchases which can be made for $25,000.
7. PERFORMANCE CENTER
The 1982 -86 CIP allocates $75,000 to this project. The
project is scheduled for 1986 and beyond and will be
coordinated with the Legion Lake project. No such project
appeared in the 1980 -85 CIP.
8. MINOR IMPROVEMENTS AND FURNITURE
The 1980 -85 CIP allocated $5,000 a ,ear to this project.
This project does not appear in the 1982 -86 CIP. This
project is rather included in the treneral operating budget
of the city.
Council Letter No. 442 - ?- December 15, 1980
9. SIDEWALKS
The 1980 -85 CIP allocated $20,000 a year through 1985.
The 1982 -86 CIP allocates $100,000 a year through 1986
and an additional $460,500 beyond 1986, consistent with
the council's previously expressed policy to implement
a city -wide sidewalk construction project.
10. XERXES 66TH STREET STORM SEWER
The 1980 -85 CIP scheduled this project for 1982 while
the 1982 -86 CIP schedules it in 1983, to coordinate
with other projects in the area.
11. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT 70TH STREET AND 12TH AVENUE
The 1980 -85 CIP allocated $42,500 for upgrading the
traffic signals at 70th Street and 12th Avenue. No
such project appears in the 1982 -86 CIP.
12. RAILROAD SIGNALS
The 1980 -85 CIP scheduled this project for 1984 and allo-
cated $125,000 for signals on 65th- Street and -76th Street,
while the 1982 -86 CIP schedules it in 1986 and allocates
$65,000 for signals on 76th Street only.
13. ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
The 1982 -86 CIP allocates $461,670 a year from 1982
through 1984 to this project. No such project appears
in the 1980 -85 CIP.
14. PENN /66TH STREET INTERSECTION
The 1980 -85 CIP allocates $200,000 to this project while
the 1982 -86 CIP allocates $500,000 to this project.
15. 66TH STREET PENN TO XERXES
The 1982 -86 CIP allocates $750,000 to this project in
1983. No such project appears in the 1980 -85 CIP.
16. PENN AVENUE 76TH/494
The 1980 -85 CIP scheduled this project in 1985, while the
1982 -86 CIP schedules it beyond 1986.
17. PORTLAND /66TH STREET INTERSECTION
The 1980 -85 CIP allocates $200,000 while the 1982 -86 CIP
allocates $350,000 to the project..
18. LYNDALE AVENUE 67TH/494
The 1980 -85 CIP allocates $.700,000 in 1981 while the
1982 -86 CIP allocates $751,000 to this project in 1982.
19. STREET LIGHTS: LOW PRESSURE SODIUM
The 1982 -86 CIP indicates that $50.,000 a year from 1982
through 1986 will be allocated tc 'his project. No such
project is indicated in the 1980 CIP.
Council Letter No. 442 -5- December 15, 1980
30. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The redo- = °nt pro -Jects which appear in the 1980 -85
CIP do not appear in the 1982 -86 CIP. These are HRA
projects so they need not appear in the city Capital
Improvement Program.
These changes have been made to more realistically reflect estim-
ated project costs, to coordinate projects where possible, and to
schedule projects consistent with when potential funding sources are
available.
The 1982 -86 Capital Improvement Program recommended by the
Planning Commission is the same as that recommended by the staff with
two exceptions. The Planning Commission recommended elimination of
the traffic signal project at 70th Street and 12th Avenue and the
railroad signal at the 65th Street crossing.
It is recommended that the city council review the 1982 -86 Cap-
ital Improvement Program, make any changes necessary, and approve
the document by passing the attached resolution.
Res ectfully submitted,
)qt,
Karl Nollenberg &rte
City Manager
KN /eja
cc: Program Directors
Finance Coordinator
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1982 -1986
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program for the
1982 -1986 period has been prepared for review to the Planning
Commission in accordance with charter requirements, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and
benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning
Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE-IT RESOLVED that the 1982 -1986 Capital
Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to
annual review and revision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized
and directed to initiate procedures which lead to more formal and
detailed consideration of those projects in accordance with the
aforementioned laws and practices.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
day of , 1981.
Donald J. Priebe
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh City Clerk