Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-27-80 agenda
) t3L- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 199 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Authorization to Withdraw Utility Billing From LOGIS System The purpose of this council letter is to request city council authorization to withdraw the city's computerized production of utility bills from the LOGIS (Local Government Information Service) and begin producing those bills on the city's in -house computer. On January 23, 1978, the city council authorized execution of a joint powers agreement with the LOGIS organization to perform the city's utility billing services. Prior to January 23, 1978, the city staff evaluated the data processing needs of the city and de- termined that a very limited use of LOGIS would be advantageous to the city in terms of reducing the conversion time required on an in -house computer system and to provide for the staff to gain ad- vance training on use of the terminal oriented system which would be installed later in 1978. It was also anticipated that the city might some day convert totally over to the LOGIS system for all data processing needs. At that time, LOGIS estimated that the annual cost of producing utility bills for the City of Richfield would be $12,000. In October, 1978, the city accepted delivery and implemented the five -year lease agreement with Four Phase Computer Systems, Inc., to provide in -house data processing services. Since that time, the city staff has completed converting all of the on -going computer applications to the Four Phase system with additional capacity still available on the hardware with existing personnel. It now appears that it would be financially advantageous to bring the utility bill- ing production back in- house: LOGIS - 1979 Actual Production Costs $17,424 LOGIS - General Development Assessment 2,000 TOTAL LOGIS COST, 1979 $19,424 Estimated Cost of Internal Utility Bill- ing Production 16,170 NET DIFFERENCE $ 3,254 I Council Letter No. 199 -2- May 27, 1980 The net cost difference of $3,254 is a direct savings to the city's water and sewer utility funds. In-addition, the $16,170 would be additional revenue to support our internal data processing services, thereby reducing the overall burden of support by other users of the city's computer system. The entire total LOGIS cost of $19,424, less approximately $400 for form costs, can be considered as savings because the internal production of utility bills, after conversion, can be achieved within the current time available on our in -house computer without increase in personnel or equipment costs. There is, however, a cost associated with withdrawing from LOGIS. Under terms of the joint powers agreement, LOGIS has established con- tingent assessment for Richfield of approximately $28,000. This amount appeared originally in the 1979 LOGIS budget for the purpose of assuring that adequate funds be available to meet their obliga- tions for purchase of computer equipment, and that no additional financial burden would occur to other members of LOGIS should any member withdraw or substantially reduce their processing volume. If we were to withdraw from LOGIS, this contingent assessment could be paid over a period of five years, at approximately $5,000 per year. Our contingent assessment would be reduced as additional members join the organization. The approximate annual cost of $5,000 to pay off the contingent assessment from LOGIS would be more than offset by the $19,000 in savings gained through the production of utility bills in -house and providing the additional revenues to support our on -going data pro- cessing system. For this reason, I believe that it is financially advantageous to the city to begin producing the utility bills in- house as soon as the conversion to do so can be completed, which would be approximately October, 1980. However, I believe it is also im- portant that we retain our evidence of our commitment to the concept of intergovernmental cooperation which is embodied in the LOGIS agree- ment. For this reason, it would be my recommendation that the city council authorize Richfield's withdrawal from LOGIS as an operating associate, but support the city's on -going LOGIS involvement in the coordinating associate category. The annual cost of being a coordin- ating associate with LOGIS is $100, which provides essentially that we have the opportunity to participate with LOGIS in deliberations on new program applications, etc., while not participating in the actual data processing functions of the organization. In summary, it appears that Richfield would experience signifi- cant financial advantages by producing utility bills internally. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize the city manager to withdraw from LOGIS as an operating associate, while maintaining the status of cooperating associate as provided for in the original joint powers agreement. KN/ j f Resp ctfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members.of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: it /� Council Letter No. 198 Agenda May 27, 1980 Subject: Remodeling of Central Garage Facility Improvements at the city garage facility, located at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue, have been budgeted and made in the Capital Im- provement program over the last several years. The majority of the city maintenance functions centralize at the garage facility. Current functions include, but are not limited to, spaces for storage of equipment, washing facilities, painting facilities, metal working, a sign shop, welding and mechanic services. While improvements can be made to current functions, there are additional items of benefit to the maintenance operation and ultimately to the city as a whole. For instance, there should be a woodworking shop. Much of the new construction in the city involves wood; in the L /H /N and the parks to name but two. Also there should be locked, secured, permanent storage for parts, tools and supplies. There should be outside bin storage for items such as soil, gravel, sand, agri -lime, cold patch and asphalt. Finally, it is important to provide sufficient office space, lunchroom and public reception space. In order to meet all of these needs, preliminary plans and specifications for improvements at the central garage facility have been drawn up. The preliminary concept plans call for an enlargement or expansion of the facility, primarily in the office workspace or public area. There are currently 10 supervisory personnel and a receptionist using the three offices available in the facility. Altogether there are 44 fulltime positions making use of the central garage facilities for office space, lunch room, lockers and restrooms. If the work were performed totally on a contract basis, the architect estimates a cost of $88,676. By using force labor, and contracting only those items the city staff is not qualified or certified to perform, the estimated cost would be reduced to an approximate $60,000. This plan calls for a "people space" ex- pansion of approximately 1,000 square feet. This space is roughly the equivalent of recently constructed or planned park shelter buildings. By providing the extra space, the design of the central garage facility should allow for greater flexibility, Council Letter No. 198 -2- May 27, 1980 facilitate the coordination efforts of maintenance services in the city and organizational efficiency would increase. Prelim- inary plans have also been drawn up for the outside bin storage, the woodworking shop and the secured storage. The outside bin storage is anticipated to be an arrangement of six foot tall, 30 -foot square, heavy timber wooden fenced, open top cubicles. The location would be on the west side of the property consumed by the central garage facility and south of the existing. salt storage building. The staff estimate of the cost for this work is approximately $7,000. The woodworking shop and secured storage would be inside the enclosed eastern portion of the garage facility. The woodworking shop would be north and adjacent to the area where the mechanics work and the secured storage would be in the mechanics work area. Cost estimates for this work are difficult to prepare until working drawings can be made. The city has characteristically had a high standard of main- tenance. This includes all city owned and operated areas, facil- ities, equipment and has been the attitude of the community as a whole. Richfield is an aging community in the process of redevel- opment as has been demonstrated by the L /H /N project, park redevel- opment and the new street program. The city can be proud of its highly talented maintenance staff. However, the cost of labor appears to be continuing to rise and it is important to provide as many tools, workspaces, equipment, and other facilities as possible to maintain the high standard and quality of maintenance with a limited work force. An improvement to the central garage facility should be approached in terms of quality with the hope that additional improvements will not be needed for many years to come. When compared to an annual operating expenditure for maintenance, the improvements to the central garage facility are a minor expense that will provide long -range efficiencies and economy. It is the recommendation of the city staff that the city council approve the preliminary plans for the remodeling of the city central garage facility as indicated and authorize preparation of final plans and specifications, and the solicitation of bids. The ex- pansion and improvements would be designed with the understanding that force labor would be used to the extent possible to complete the construction. The funding for the remodeling project is in- cluded in the central garage project of the capital improvement program. There is $95,000 in the 1980 and 1981 budget plans for this final phase of the central garage project. p-Ou'-co KN/ e j a cc: Community Services Director Re, ectfully submitted, �o Karl Nollenberger City Manager EXISTING LOCKER ROOM I EXIST. STORAGE EXISTING GARAGE AREA EXISTING EXISTING LUNCH ROOM MIENS JE-XMTING WOMENS NEW PLAN RM. NEW SECRETARY NEW WORK AREA NEW OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 7L AREA OFFICE OZ 0 fFOREMANS < OFFICE LLj NEW ADDITION 36-0" CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 197 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Uonorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Presentation of Award to "Employee Of the Quarter" An item has been scheduled on the May 27, 1980 city council agenda providing for formal council recognition of John Heddle, Government Buildings Superintendent for the city, who has been selected as the "Employee of the Quarter" for the period Janu- ary - March, 1980. The "Employee of the Quarter" is a new program which has been established to give recognition to city employees who make significant contributions to the overall city organization. John Heddle was selected for his energy conservation innovations at the Richfield Ice Arena (for which he won an award presented by Governor Quie), and for his work on the in -house remodeling project at the Richfield City Hall. Mr. Heddle will be present at the May 27, 1980 city council to receive this award. Respectfully submitted, V'. Z ollenbercV City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Services Director PRESS RELEASE John Heddle, Maintenance Superintendent for General Govern- ment Buildings for the City of Richfield, is the first recipient of the "Employee of the Quarter" award at the May 27, 1980 city council meeting. This award covers the period January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980. When he first began his.employment with the City of Rich- field, John was the maintenance superintendent for the ice arena. In January, 1980, John assumed responsibility for the maintenance of all government buildings. Much of John's effort has been geared toward energy use and conservation. John was the impetus behind the application for, and receipt of, an $8,000 state grant for the conducting of energy mini - audits in the city. He has received training and is certified to personally conduct the energy audits. John is responsible for the ice resurfacing maintenance at the ice arena, all maintenance of city owned and operated buildings, and the scheduling of employees and work responsibilities for custodial workers at city hall. John is helping oversee the remodeling project being done at the city hall municipal building. John's work on the energy efforts at the ice arena were submitted for state recognition, and on April 21, 1980, John and the Mayor of the City of Richfield received an award from Governor Quie as the winner in the large services category. With state and federal mandates relating to energy such as temperatures in public buildings, John has made every effort to assure compliance with VPthe mandates, provide for the comfort of the employees and the public within those guidelines of the mandate. It is with great pleasure that the City of Richfield awards John the certificate as the "Employee of the Quarter ". May 27, 1980 Mayor and City Council City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mayor and Council Members; I am sorry I was unable to attend your meeting this evening and take the liberty of forwarding this letter. On Friday, April 11 the C.I.C. met and Bruce Palmborg presented the West 66th Improvement Project to the members. Since the date of this meeting various members have dis- cussed the project and are in support of the improvement and encourage the Council to proceed with the project. One concern has been expressed, and that is that the inter- ruption of traffic be minimized to allow our residents and customers in and out of our commercial and residential areas. Thank you again. r Sincerely, Carl E. McBride, Chairman C.I.C. k CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 196 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and y � Members of the City Council I City of Richfield TU Council Members: Subject: Authorization to Implement Contract Agreement and Initiate Right -of -Way Purchase, 66th Street Improvement Project In December, 1979, the city council reviewed the proposed design for improvements to the portion of 66th Street between Lyndale Avenue and I35W. This project has been under discussion between the City of Richfield and Hennepin County since 1976, although various funding constraints and coordination with other improvements in the general vicinity have postponed the project to its present anticipated construction date of 1981. However, because the project will entail acquisition of several properties, and numerous other property easements, there is an item on the May 27, 1980 city council agenda requesting council authorization to initiate the acquisition phases of the 66th Street project. Several properties will be purchased in total. The Wolfe property at 6556 Emerson would be purchased to provide space to construct a right turn lane for vehicles entering the freeway, thus reducing traffic congestion in the westbound lane of 66th Street. Acquisition of this property is also necessary to re- route the alley through this property for access onto Emerson Avenue rather than 66th Street as it currently does. The Johnson property, 901 West 66th Street, and the Keegan property, 911 West 66th Street, would be purchased to provide for the relocation of Lake Shore Drive to a point opposite Rae Drive. The two dangerous "T" intersections would be eliminated and a traffic signal installed. Turning movements will be safer, and pedestrians and bicyclists will also enjoy easier crossing of 66th Street. The Turek property at 920 West 66th Street may also be pur- chased because of the steep slope at the front of the property. The slope will become steeper with taking of a twenty -foot ease- ment, and access to the garage may become impossible. The impact on the property may be substantial and purchase of the entire Council Letter No. 196 -2- May 27, 1980 parcel may be the best solution. It may also be feasible, however, to resell the property with the existing structure following the taking of the twenty foot easement. Within the LHN project area, the Mobil Station, 735 West 66th Street will be purchased. This property has been identified for acquisition since 1975. A portion of the property will-be utilized for.the street project, with the balance becoming part of the multi- family redevelopment site. The Betty Crocker Pie Shop and the par- cel occupied by Jerry's Standard were previously purchased. In addition to the purchase of total parcels, fourteen permanent easements must be obtained to provide space for median strips and to permit flattening of the curves. Six easements are located on the north side of 66th Street. These easements are twenty feet deep, except for a very small one located at 66th and Lyndale Ave- nue. Superamerica has previously provided the necessary easement. On the south side of 66th Street, the easement areas range from ten to twelve feet deep. Two of them will be taken from property already owned by the HRA in the LHN. In accordance with a request by the city council, the staff has held a series of meetings to discuss the proposed project with the neighbors. In January, people owning property which would be pur- chased were informed of the project via a letter and maps. Indi- vidual meetings were held with the owners of the properties which are to be wholly purchased. The four affected home owners were aware of the proposal because of previous meetings, and all but the Johnsons, 901 West 66th Street, are in support of the proposed purchases. A series of meetings followed. On April 2 the residents and businesses which utilize 66th Street for access were invited to a meeting at Wood Lake Nature Center. The CIC met at the Godfather Restaurant on April 11 to discuss the project, and was generally supportive of the improvements, although concern was expressed about the need for thoughtful scheduling and coordination of the 66th Street improvements with the Lyndale Avenue construction project, to minimize disruptions of the traffic flow. A series of meetings was held with RING on April 15, April 29 and May 14. The proposed plan was discussed, as well as possible alternatives. At the last meeting, motions to endorse the proposed plan•or an alternative plan died for lack of a second. The RING committee's four members present at that meeting did, however, identify several perceived shortcomings in the plan, and also urged that a comprehensive study of the traffic flow be undertaken. Mr. John Kenealey, chairman of that group will be attending the coun- cil meeting to elaborate on the committee's position. Council Letter No. -3- May 27, 1980 The concept plan endorsed by the city council in December is the result of many meetings with Hennepin County. It is in conformance with the adopted policies related to redevelopment of the LHN area, and is supported by traffic engineers representing the city and the county. Within the constraints imposed by a developed area, the ap- proved design appears to be a solution which most efficiently uti- lizes limited resources. That design contained several provisions suggested by Hennepin County which will result in increased project costs. For this reason, Hennepin County has amended the 1976 design contract to reflect their increased participation in reconstruction of West 66th Street. The amendments follow current county policy standards. The $1,615,000 project will now be funded by $967,000 from the county and $648,000 from the city. This agreement reduces the city's obligation from $861,000 to $648,000 and increases the county participation from $751,000 to $967,000. The city's source of funding will be mostly from Municipal State Aid Construction Funds. It is recommended that the lution, authorizing Hennepin right -of -way, and authorizing an amendment in the contract of the project costs. KN /jt city council adopt the attached reso- County to purchase the necessary the city manager and mayor to execute with the county, relating to sharing Respectfully submitted, J Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Development Director City Engineer HRA Commissioners h- N 4- o N ° cr 3 0 4-) r[S r 1 • • L O o S- � QJ :3 � •r +-) N -0 N Cn C 3 O r t 4-) C tri 'a O 4-) (1) r N L O L N •r ilo i Ol r-1 c'7 ri 3 O z N O > O S- r A C O0 U N E•) L O 4- >) F) r U ) ►-� L r6 a) L Q N C O � 3 L) U aJ ca_ N 'L7 C (o (A C r d a) Fes- r >) 4-) L rC3 ^ Ol I '-' Z � a) (1) L Q (a (A 4- r--r P--4 a) r U r 4-3 L Q 4- _&_- CL S- 0) ice. L1 C O - 4-) (A L �- 4- C F -- •• 4J L O (1) L a) 4'3 4-) O 4 •r d-) N Q (A D7 O r O 4- N L 4-) -a c •a QJ a--) a1 1-- O >> L .oC a) L •r D L N E a N 10 N L O C M N 4-3 •r E a) a 3 O N 4-) t r L r r rJ L r Q• U r r rts ..0 N •�� C O U F— •r M O N 4-) r L _0 •fu V) 4- O S- C ai L 4-) L rC d a) -0 E a C rt Q = •I-) •r -0 •r .0 X W a Y E ^ o al s- s aJ U u Q. E l0 QJ N fl LO Q a) -a S- O 4- a a1 r L O a• U L QJ L to t U •r +-i U rri L 4-3 -a L p r 0 U to N f-) r- a) tC (C Q = r r C u C E E >O• Q M :V Ol N •r 0 l0 N Lf") I rn 3 v a--) v c rn a- 4 C L C r I Z M C -a 4- C Q 3 Z n r1 O >= O a �" {-) tC U C (A O i-) - 4-) N aJ 4- o aJ - o E z � Z a O Z n Z L 4j 4-) 0 N N N 4-) N >' Z =3 C C W L O a) " 7 a) J N C L 4J 0 ? r d 4J 4- a) •r N `- S C d C L O L L 00) r6 N 4- N Q > L •r UJ (L) O 'S 0 O -a Q •r C I r rp rCf ^ ! r -I-) U S Z •O r 4--) Ql O N • OU C i-) 4- M: d -a 4-) 4- U C N O W dJ (1) N N 4- E >) O C O rt U >) C Q N -0 4 C (a O O 0- :3 a") =3 _0 O •F-) ry F— O ^ C a) m =• O >) _ > U 4-) r -I-.) L -) r W S C Q 4- O +) C -a C (L) C.t3 CY r a) (0 Q r U r O (a _ Q N "a C •r O U C p }. Z a) N N U t1. r�i Z7 ) m _ (3 (IJ a) -a L C C C dJ L 4-•) 4- C F) r 4-) O r a) W O O ^ r 4- t S _ui s u N rC N a-) C a) -I-) U L U N to Q C O r r ix (CS C O N •I-) r O 4-) X S- a-) �--) F- a a c o -o v -0 c o - C) a !r a QJ a) O (a a. L C) L L l0 U C +' •a aJ • • c rn s C) ~ `� U F— Ii O 'O � W ro (L) Z 4J 3 a) ^ N W m 3 N N Q co Q S L 4- L � Z � c O W Q) F— W a) -0 -0 Q' -0 n r 4- F— W :3 +-) r w 44-) - 3 (D al R5 ►--a S 7 L S rO O a a) 3 3 0) CV 3 C Z rts N C a) N S a) U L 4-) L C r6 4- O N O N E QJ L a) Q •-r in 4- O )- QJ r U •r L Q 4- O iZ r[S O- TJ C O U al N a) C al U C 4J 4-3 C a) N •F-) N L •r 4 Q) Imo— • • L O o S- � QJ :3 � •r +-) N -0 N Cn C 3 O r t 4-) C tri 'a O 4-) (1) r N L O L N •r ilo i Ol r-1 c'7 ri 3 O z N O > O S- r A C O0 U N E•) L O 4- >) F) r U ) ►-� L r6 a) L Q N C O � 3 L) U aJ ca_ N 'L7 C (o (A C r d a) Fes- 4- O 4-) C E L Q 0 1) p N O C C O >✓ 4-3 4- O O + r b a) 00 r� m r1 N i) -C C 3 a) U C 'a L O U (CS C '" a) r L N C E QJ r 0- a O N C rd C CO •r u = L 4-) N C U M t a) r L o N C 0 -P (o U .r. 4- U O L V) -0 ro 'a C co +-) (/') C o r 4-) � L 0 C L F— 0 L (1) �) L rC3 ^ Ol I '-' Z � a) (1) L Q (a (A 4- r--r P--4 a) r U r 4-3 L Q 4- _&_- CL S- 0) ice. L1 C O - 4-) (A L �- 4- C F -- •• 4J L O (1) L a) 4'3 4-) O 4 •r d-) N Q (A D7 O r O 4- N L 4-) -a c •a QJ a--) a1 1-- O >> L .oC a) L •r D L N E a N 10 N L O C M N 4-3 •r E a) a 3 O N 4-) t r L r r rJ L r Q• U r r rts ..0 N •�� C O U F— � •r U C >) n '13 aJ L •r Q U (CS QJ a) -0 >, r N O •r > Q O C 41 > td i-) (a .0 1-) 4-) C E p L Q E •r N Q O L O OC L 40 a O O N L -0 a) O r O U C 3 O 0 -a C ref r 4- O N 4-3 rri +-) QJ N O .0 4-) t- r ra al -0 O U C •r C N (C 3 4- O N N C a) it cn O N 4-) r L _0 •fu V) 4- O S- C ai L 4-) L rC d a) -0 E a C rt Q = •I-) •r -0 •r .0 X W a Y E ^ o al s- s aJ U u Q. E -a _ rC N C O C 3 O .0 N +-) O C �� N Q) Q O r N C O •r L L +-) N C O U L 40- N }-) u 4-) r aJ a O r- C p r r >> 3 QJ N fl LO Q a) -a S- O 4- a a1 r L O a• U L QJ L to t U •r +-i U rri L 4-3 -a L p r 0 U to N f-) r- a) tC (C Q = r r C u C E E >O• Q a (D SL N fi O_ O N I N I O N Cl+ CA C+ C SZ fD (D • O -h C7 (D < J• C N C C.A. (D h N -1 (D L7 cD (D C C-+ f ' i S C N V O i J. O 'S "F O II C _0 (D (D Q- fL J• (11 'CT Q J (p• C1 c'F O O C Cn C h l C+ O h N i (D S C1 'C fD i h C- Sl1 Ca N i (D (D (D (D d cr S fD O C =3 C< < CT N (D V) f+ N �' L17 (a N O i (D V) O (D C ca• (CD i J• C O N C+ N lD 'S (D (v (D E r• FJ cD I CT -+• N C' fD fD Cr < lD — (D (D Q W [Z + 3D °h O cp �� T + ;-F D Z a D �- fD J. (1 N fD t h (D C f D C+ -h -�. N IL 'S pi =' O �) C+ h (D C O -h N Q) l D (DD (D fD C+ p ' S h J• N C+ J. C' !_ C+ CD y C S 10 0) (D << fy (D Iy O N h S X h (D N -.� Al a N O t'f C" iD fD (D -+ AI C (] N 1 O 1 C CD C' C< i1 (-D N y l< O C C C+ •C fD -+. O N SL C S n C 1_ h S 11 'C h N (D J. -� (D C+ CL C+ 0) C+ O fi S (D .a C: J. N - �• C+ C• -+I O C' Cf' O L pi C+ (]+ C+ -S C C iv S (D Cl) O l< J. C+ lD 'S N C+ -J. C C h S (D h N N 0) C -5 O t h S C7 O c :3 CG --I S (D h N O S fD (-� c + C< O CD L±. !D < CD O (D O "5 "h -5 << C+ r (D J• << Ci "S 'o N C+ 0) -+ J LU N c'F S (D O c+ J O O � C ,S C' a) ca H O (D < (D C h C' (D n C+ C1 CD fD O (D e+ S y N i S (D (D hD N N Q N 0 fD (OD a i2 I -5 O' A% i ID Q. O C+ CD N IL (D C• Ili -A. C 1 << of C1 -� h O N C+ N I1 C CL 'S fD fD J. C N fi O 23 (D O O i N (L N cam( (D i h a C N '' O E -+ --� v O N C+ O << C CA h C' (D h (D N N C+ 7r J. C Ca J• -+ lD N (D 1 J. -h -p n (D Cam+ n p O :3 < 1y /1 -h -h C+ l< fD -5 0 C --h C'+ =r (D -C C+ (n S fD -5 C+ O O C+ (v _� -� << to (D CD S 0) N 0) fl. CD X (D Lnn C" 7r �• N lw -1 O (D W fD --I S CD -I - 7C' cn N -+. C (D X (D N N O -fI (]1 C+ (A C C m S -+• C" D i• .1 -+ O < C' eT n O N S (D (D "5 fD J. -+• dl C 1l v O O O O _ _ -i (D N C-} 3 f1 (D C1 h O C ! O -h J. (a C+ -h O O C h _'' S (D C' S O C7 O C << f1 N (D N h Cr (D Cl C' J• i << � O Q1 N Ai C+ (D ^$ N C: C :3 t+ f+ -� << C+ (D e') O c � .< - S fD C7 c+ N S Al 5 (D O N t1 ¢ h N (A 11 _� J O' (D O rD (D C (D 0) C Sy < ° O J• C J. C O C+ (D C7 C+ l< C+ (D N Q 0 O C C (A N S � C �, i SL << i1 C C1 n Ci -0 J• C+ C h O N J. C h -S "5 (D C L --i (D C") O c+ << -�• -' D J. O C1. h fL 'J w N W h "5 (D n h ..a c • (D rD C1 (D 0 'S � N O cr E C+ -�• C+ << -h -S C+ S 3 O (D (D N -0 i O C N L7 S (D O h "S O to N h S J. Ca C+ << E (D S OS N n S 0) (D N• h (D (D Cl p- C< fi (D O C CG O S C' (D O O Cl -�• N O -S O C+ S 5 C h -S (D N -� h C+ D O O O C c't (D O J C Cl C+ 7r (D C O -s C1 f]i Ca O - �• (D -S (A h _, C C1 C ca -a (D C C+ J. J. J toil C L J C to O - fD J• C ca O -1 a. v. CN+ J. C to Di -+. C O N C+ N � im- J. O (n C C+ O -+ J. J• C+ Q c h C =5 ¢i _ _, Cl C(D N O C -S C+ O _0 (CDC ! O C p 'S (D C+ O CG h C+ N J. C C -1 'S Q N N h � C" tl fD f'SD C N -+ _ C C1 � _. Q) h C -�• J. C+ J• n O C IL (.T7 O (D Z C7 f F c+ c h C (D C) C+ N P) J. CL Ca S O -h i f< << C7 ^S c+ N !1 C O 'S fD E N N S -� Q fD C7 p O J O CC 1 O h fD C C+ p � (D J. a J. i1 (D Q N p� J. p S C C+ D C N J CO + N J. C h C (D (D C (D n C << C Iy h .a c J. J. C Ca O r O i S- u C a) S- (3) r. rn r� 1 M 3 a O Z .4...i C a) E Q1 a) i Q 4- O N C O •0 C 0 U -0 C N i a) ra C .Qj i O .0 CU 4- 'O O E N ra 0. ai U X w 4-•i U (1) 4- 4- tU C ra a) U S- o 4- r 4- C C .tio E (L) i r— J I i I M I a) N i N N N 0 CL ra 4- a) N r +� S- Q) Q) a) .4..) CJ) 7 ai d L O r N U m N _0 = i. O 4-3 a) r 3 O U (D S- r C C r a) E a) CO E 7 a) E U O Q a - • � S- o >✓ U 4-3 a) m ra 41 -a U a) ra (A U .0 "0 i i >) t7 (0 +-) C C ra i 0) 0) +-3 S- S- ra i 0 i-) r0 C 7 +) O C N r L N (A i-) 3 ra C >> i 4-1 N 04-) a) C -1-3 o r rt3 a) C V U •r- a) a) N U r ..0 i U O a) U E i N O al -0 •r.) •r- a) ra -0 '0 > C C C O r > •r- C i-) -1--3 Q) O ra i O ra C ca ra = N N •r' Cl- d d •r (A E O O C F > C a) C U ra (a o r •0 >) i a) 0) N r— S- •r its L. ra a) -C •r •r _0 Z7 C CL 4) +-J C ro 3 -C +� N a) a) o n U 0) -0 ai a) +-) C '0 N a) (i) •r C > _0 _0 ra O r ra 0) CL N ra •r- ai -0 L r > a) iO 4-) O i = C r N II 0 -0 i 3 ► a O a a) 4- () a) a N m i N O O C r E r ' c C >> O O. a) 4-) •0 a) O C C t.) (15 O •I-) i > a) a) i + ra U N 0 C +-> o) N U 4- SO.. 4, T3 ' C U O o C L N a) a) ra ra •r U U O a) -0 .0 L., O ) r 4- .0 M ai d 4- -a 0) QE) O r N C era 4- ?) 4- S- •r O r +� +-> S.- r O O O H N +•) i r- S- r N ra (n 3 3 S- o S- ai r- C E a. O 00 C X r N a) (L Cl C •r- .-4- +-) a) O U .0 ra +•) N +-) a) N . .0 C 4-) '0 (0 •I J --) ra C r -C= O •4•) ra •r- +-t S- ') U i 0 +- r a-•) U C ra C r N 0- +•) 3 4- +) a) o E a) 3 O N co +> O C a) U -0 ai S- i i S- (1) rt3 (1) 3 U a) (C% o a a. a-) U r= N E 4-3 ra C + a 4-) cu ,r I 1 1 ra U 0 i '0 b E fu r a•„) -0 S- a) r' r N 0 4- oo O U C r d -P a) o O .N1 U E a) i w ra •0 C T3 ra _ E C r- O � "� •F-� ra > > C 1-� ra ra a) "0 O -0 O 4) i -P IML - i •�,) ,P - al 0 S C. r O i S- u C a) S- (3) r. rn r� 1 M 3 a O Z .4...i C a) E Q1 a) i Q 4- O N C O •0 C 0 U -0 C N i a) ra C .Qj i O .0 CU 4- 'O O E N ra 0. ai U X w 4-•i U (1) 4- 4- tU C ra a) U S- o 4- r 4- C C .tio E (L) i r— J I i I M I 0 c+ (D i 4 T c+ if J. O � D sv � C (D a.. 3 Q, �.Q N rD a_ c+ rD 0) l< O 5 0 Ti r7 m m r 0 pi CD Q X o rD rD c I Q Z J. e+ lC N % C+ M�1 • rD C) (D m 0 O m a tL C. J. C+ rD tO J. (D N -1 (D (D 0. c+ O O J. C 0 rD rD 0 fL v� N (D 0 CL -h c+ C+ J. S N rD Q) a <a l< 0 P) a rD a � `+ (D c+ Q) o -s -n rD J. V) ° l< -•-0 ° a (D -i o � � (D c m N � N J. --� C (D Q J. N rl% (D (D c V ` ` + O 2.A ( X c (D O , m D >D c+ 'J• O O J. -'r. C+ C+ 0 O O =5 rh (< a. o rD LO (D • mm� m V O Z CD m 0) l< m ° 0 l< rt. m (D CD M O c+ rD Q c+ Z 3 iv (D m S (D N Q' v r) m z a. (n O f-1 z C. CD o m 0-. O V Q = Q) C-+ C-f' (D J. m .D v = c-) -mss Lo 0 (D r C) � n rfDn D 0 r o Qj i V) -s a Pi a N o ° T c+ if J. O � D sv � C (D a.. 3 Q, �.Q N rD a_ c+ rD 0) l< O 5 0 Ti r7 m m r 0 pi CD Q X o rD rD c I Q Z J. e+ lC N % C+ M�1 • rD C) (D m 0 O m a tL C. J. C+ rD tO J. (D N -1 (D (D 0. c+ O O J. C 0 rD rD 0 fL v� N (D 0 CL -h c+ C+ J. S N rD Q) a <a l< 0 P) a rD a � `+ (D c+ Q) o -s -n rD J. V) t . RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, Layout No. 7, Project No. 7625, showing .the proposed improvement of County Highway Numbers 53 and 52 within the limits of the City has been prepared and presented to the City. NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED: That said layout No. 7 be in all things approved and that Hennepin County is hereby authorized by the City to acquire all rights of way, permits and /or easements required for said improvement in accordance with said Layout No. 7. Dated this 27th Day of May, 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor t R � v s o � I� � F L m G C G Cu PPOPO .55D RI -4L ZZ 2i �NF PI 49 c Ig 30.8 800 so 9 Coy R Z?h ° , ko 1 S= ® - uP-�- AREA I UAT� 1 FzES I u 19 18 IL �, , a• OTI, ti \\ 17 . 16 14 � ti -- - - '', :!!:!! - � G - i j I � L V�. N © I \ i G R ID RE D / , SNP P.l.= 37 +51.0 L.T. R = 5-7 Z.9G' ACQUISITION MAP LAYOUT NO.7 C.S.A.H. 53 (W. 66TH ST) FROM: LYNDALE AVE. TO: 1 -35 W 8-16-79 1 11= 50' B.R.W. f?E ✓. 12 - 12 - 79 4 J, �Jf { slq A EA i CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 195 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that purchase of materials, construction or supplies in excess of $1,000 must be approved by the city council. There are four such items on the May 27, 1980 city council agenda. Grass Seed At the golf course, two types of seed are used in the seed- ing program. A combination of bluegrass and rye grass is used in seeding of the Regulation 18 and Par 3 disturbed areas, and in an overseeding program of disturbed and undisturbed areas. Approximately 70 acres have been seeded in the last year. Of the 40 acres seeded in 1979, 20 %, or 8 acres, failed to germinate and need to be overseeded. Of the 30 acres to be seeded this year, an equal percentage, or 6 acres, are anticipated to fail in ger- mination and will need to be overseeded. Additional seeding is required on the undisturbed areas of about 10 acres to insure a good surface of turf. Work is currently being done on installa- tion of the irrigation system on the Par 3 and additonal seeding, an approximately fifty pounds, will be needed for areas disturbed by irrigation work. The city currently has sufficient rye grass on hand, but will need to purchase 2,060 pounds of bluegrass to complete the 1980 seeding program. For best germination of the seed, it should be on the ground by June 1, 1980. The bluegrass used on the golf course since.the project began has been from O. M. Scott. The purchase price is $2.60 per pound. One ton of phosphorous fertilizer will also be needed in conjunct- ion with the seeding program. When the fertilizer is purchased from O. M. Scott, in the amount of $630, the vendor will provide a 15% discount on the cost of the bluegrass. O. M. Scott is the sole bidder on the seed. Other vendors such as Elmac, Turf Supply and R. L. Gould were asked to submit quotations, but have indicated an inability to supply the same seed. It is recommended that the city council authorize the pur- chase of 2,060 pounds of bluegrass at a cost of $5,356, the Council Letter No. 195 -2- May 27, 1980 purchase of one ton of phosphorous fertilizer at a cost of $630 (less a 15% discount or $803.40) for a total purchase of $5,182 from O. M. Scott. Improvements to Air System at City Hall Work on the ventilation system for the printing room and for the computer room was included for the remodeling and upgrading project of city hall. The work includes such equipment as a blower, fire dampers, time clock, override switch, the wiring and related labor costs. A quotation to complete this work has been received from Midland Heating Company in the amount of $3,515, from Seasonal Control, Inc., in the amount of $3,820, and from C.O. Carlson Sheet Metal in the amount of $4,990. It is recommended that the city council authorize this pur- chase from Midland Heating Company in the amount of $3,515. A $5,000 appropriation for this project is included in the 1980 general government buildings operating budget. Dredging Storm Sewer Holding Ponds As part of the routine maintenance of the storm sewer holding ponds, it is necessary to dredge inlets and outlets. This project was originally scheduled in 1979, but was not done at that time. It will be necessary to revise the 1980 budget to reflect this expenditure. Norby's Pond, in the vicinity of 70th Street and Second Avenue, Wilson Pond in the vicinity of-74th and 14th Avenue, and Milner's Pond in the vicinity of 64th Street and 4th Avenue particularly need this work. The work would include an estimated five days of labor, use of trucks and a drag line. Quo- tations were received with aspects of the project bid on a unit or hourly basis. The quotations received from Bolander Construction would equal $176 per hour or $1,408 per day, from Purcell Construct- ion, the quotation would equal $270 per hour or $2,160 per day, and Park Construction submitted a quotation equal to $235 per hour or $1,880 per day. It is recommended that the city council accept the quotation from Bolander Construction with a total estimated expenditure of $7,040. Grill and Fryer Ventilation System This item calls for the purchase of a backdraft ventilation system to be used in conjunction with operation of a grill and fryer-in the concession operation at the golf course. The work includes the labor and material to fabricate one, 7 -foot, 18 gauge stainless steel canopy with grease filters, exhaust fan, shutter and shutter fitting, 16 guage black iron welded duct work, metal roof curb, fire thimbles, necessary re- roofing, spot roof curb permit and drawings. This work includes all labor and materials, but does not include electrical work. The electrical hook -up k n Council Letter No. 195 -3- May 27, 1980 would take place as soon as the unit is in place and is estimated to cost about $350. The quotation received from Nielsen Sheet Metal, Inc. was in the amount of $2,879. The quotation from Commercial Air Condition- ing, Inc. was in the amount of $3,385, and a quotation received from Frank's Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. was in the amount of $3,395. It is recommended that the city council authorize this pur- chase from Nielsen Sheet Metal, Inc. in the amount of $2,879. KN /ej a cc: Community Services Director Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager t 1 /7-,9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 194 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Final Plat, Wood Lake Village Addition At the November 13, 1979 city council meeting, the council ap- proved a final development plan, special use permit, and final plat for the "Coach Homes of Richfield Lake" condominium development presently under construction on the site formerly occupied by Wood - lake Elementary School. It has been discovered that the council did not pass a resolution approving the final plat, and the final plat cannot be filed with Hennepin County until the council approval is provided in the form of a resolution. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution and authorize the mayor and city manager to sign the final plat, in accordance with the council's previous action of November 13, 1979. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLAT OF WOOD LAKE VILLAGE ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the application for a subdivision plat entitled "Wood Lake Village Addition" is approved and the appropriate city - officers are directed to take the necessary steps to evidence this approval. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of May, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 193 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: r0Aa Subject: Request for Rezoning at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South At-the April 28, 1980 meeting of the city council, the council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would rezone the property at 7645 Nicollet Avenue South from C -1, Neigh- borhood Business, to C -2, General Commercial. This rezoning was requested by Super America to allow them to replace their existing service station on the site with a new service station store. Second reading on the rezoning ordinance has been scheduled for the May 27, 1980 city council meeting. Subsequent to the April 28, 1980 city council meeting, the staff has received evidence that the petition submitted by Super America to initiate the rezoning did not contain the required number of valid signatures. Section 3.42 subdivision 5 of the zoning ordinance, states that a rezoning may be initiated in one of two ways: 1. An amendment initiated by the city council; 2. By petition of landowners of not less than fifty percent of the land proposed to be rezoned, and by the owners of at least fifty percent of the land within three hundred feet of the land proposed to be rezoned. Upon analysis of the evidence received by the staff, it has been found that the petition contains signatures of owners of only 35.07 percent of the land within three hundred feet of the subject property. A number of signatures on the petition were those of managers of businesses or of renters, rather than of the actual owners of the property. Because the petition does not contain the required number of signatures, the city attorney has advised us that the rezoning process cannot continue in its present process of origination by petition. The council can either initiate the requested rezoning on its own, or can direct the applicant to submit a new petition with the re- quired number of signatures on it. In either case, the city review process would have to start over again including planning commission consideration of the matter. The staff is also reviewing its peti- tion verification procedures to insure that only valid rezoning petitions are processed in the future. Council Letter No. 193 -2- May 27, 1980 It is recommended that the city council reject the applicant's petition for rezoning, and terminate the rezoning process pending submission of a valid rezoning petition from Super America. Respectfully submitted, KaA l r k Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Attorney BILL NO AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the city enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28, Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following respects: 1. Appendix C, Section 2, is hereby amended by repealling paragraph 11. (11) [That area lying Nicollet Avenue pany's Nicollet the centerline line of Lot 10, between the center lines of and Block 4, A.G. Bogen Com- Avenue Addition and between Df 77th Street and the north Block 4, of said addition] 2. Appendix C, Section 3 is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph 76 after paragraph 75. (76) That area lying between the center lines of Nicollet Avenue and Block 4,A.G. Bogen Company's Nicollet Avenue Addition and between the center line of 771-h gtrPAt An(9 the nnrth line of T,nt 1n_ Block 4, of said addition. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of , 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 192 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Issuance of Certain City Licenses, Second Reading On April 28, 1980 the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment which would redefine the authority for issuance of certain city licenses. This ordinance amendment was developed by the city attorney's office subsequent to council discussion on some seeming inconsistencies in the city code which provided that certain licenses be approved for issu- ance by city staff, and that certain other licenses be issued only upon city council approval. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached. Essentially, the proposed ordinance provides that all licenses that are issued by the staff be issued by the city manager -or his /her designee, rather than having a variety of different staff personnel named in the ordinance and licensing authority. The proposed amendments also provide that certain infrequently issued, or non - controversial types of licenses which now require specific council authority for issuance, be issued upon approval of the city manager. Where the ordinance refers to staff per- sonnel other than the city manager, position titles have been changed to correspond with position titles under the city's administrative reorganization. Finally, the ordinance amend- ments provide that any applicant whose application for any license is denied be provided an opportunity for a hearing be- fore the city council. Presently, some types of license denials are granted in appeal before the city council, and others are not. 'During the council's discussion of this ordinance amend- ment in April, the city council requested that several changes be made in the proposed ordinance amendment. Specifically, the city council requested that the council be the designated licen- sing authority for motor vehicle, public dance, pigeon, and wagon peddler licenses. In all instances but the license for motor vehicle dealer, the city council is, under current ordin- .F X Council Letter No. 192 -2- May 27, 1980 ance, the licensing authority. The proposed ordinance was published without the amend- ments suggested by the city council during first reading delib- eration of the ordinance amendment, and it is, therefore, nec- essary that the city council take specific action to amend the ordinance prior to giving it second reading approval. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: City Attorney Deputy City Clerk t r AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS V, VI AND X OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: A. Chapter V, Part II of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the regulation of certain amusement and recreation activities is hereby amended by amending the following sections thereof: 1. Section 5.22 regulating and licensing general amusements is amended by amending subdivsion 4 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 4. Approval. The application shall be presented to the [council at its first meeting thereafter and the council shall review such application. No license shall be issued unless approved by the council] city manager or his /her designate who shall review the matter and either approve or deny the license." 2. Section 5.22 regulating and licensing general amusements is amended by amending subdivision 5 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 5. License Fees. Upon the payment of the license fees provided in Appendix D of this Code the clerk shall issue a license to the applicant whose application has been approved by the [council] city manager or his /her designate." B. Chapter V, Part III, Section 5.30 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the licensing and regulation of fortune tellers and related trades is hereby amended by amending subdivision 5 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 5. Issuance - Review by Police Department. The application shall be submitted to the [chief of police] Director of Public Safety for in- vestigation and recommendation. The clerk shall then submit the application to the [council] city manager or his /her designate [which] who shall determine whether such application shall be granted." C. Chapter V, Part IV, Section 5.35 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the regulation and licensing of aircraft is hereby amended by amending subdivsion 4 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 4. Approval, Issuance and Revocation. The application shall be presented to the [council] city manager or his /her designate [which] who may either grant or deny the same. If the [council] city manager or his/ her designate grants a license, [it] he /she may impose conditions or limitations upon the granting thereof. Any such license may be revoked for failure to comply with this section or with any limitations or con- ditions so imposed." D. Chapter VI of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the licensing of certain businesses snd trades is hereby amended by amending the following sections thereof: 1. Section 6.05 regulating and licensing scavengers is amended by amending subdivisions 7 and 12 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 7. Application for License. Application for a scavenger's license shall be made to the city clerk, shall be signed by the applicant and shall contain the name and address of the proposed license and of the owner and license numbers of the vehicle or vehicles to be used and equipment to be used. Such application shall be filed with the clerk who shall forthwith transmit the same to the [director of public works and] the [chief of police] Director of Public Safety for approval. Each vehicle so used shall have a separate license. Upon approval by the [chief of police] Director of Public Safety [and the director of public works] the application shall be submitted to the [council] city manager or his /her designate for consideration." "Subd. 12. Bond Requirements. No license shall be issued until and unless the person, firm, association, partnership or corporation applying for such license first files with the city clerk a corporate surety bond in the principal amount of $2,000, conditioned upon the faithful performance by the applicant or his /her agents of all things required by this Code and is further conditioned so as to guarantee that said applicant restores all streets, alleys, or other public grounds, or sewers, manholes or appurtenances thereto to their former good condition to the satisfaction of the [council] city manager, if any such public property is damaged by applicant or his /her agents in the course of operating as a scavenger." 2. Section 6.13 regulating and licensing soft drink vendors is amended by amending subdivision 2 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall sell, nor offer for sale by means of vending machines or otherwise, any soft drinks within the city without first obtaining a license from the city manager or his/ her designate." 3. Section 6.15 regulating and licensing transient merchants is amended by amending subdivision 6 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 6. Duration of License. Upon approval of any license application, the [council] city manager or his /her designate shall specify the period for which the license is valid. Such period shall not exceed the period remaining in the calendar year in which the license is issued." 4. Section 6.18 regulating and licensing Christmas tree sales is amended by amending subdivision 2 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 2. License Required. No person [within the city] shall [give away, trade, barter or] sell at retail any Christmas tree without first having secured a license. The license required by this section shall be issued by the city manager or his /her desi pate." -2- V 5. Section 6.21 regulating and licensing taxicab drivers is amended by amending subdivision 8 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 8. Investigation and Issuance. Each application shall be referred to the [chief of police] Director of Public Safety who shall investigate the applicant and make a report to the [council based on his findings] person issuing such licenses. The [council] city manager or his /her designate shall act on the application." E. Chapter X, Part II of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield requiring licenses for the keeping of certain animals is hereby amended by amending the following sections thereof: 1.. Section 10.06 regulating and licensing keeping of nondomestic animals is amended by amending subdivision 4 thereof to read as follows: "Subd. 4. Temporary Permits. The city [council] manager or his /her designate may grant temporary permits, for a period not to exceed 60 days, for the keeping of any nondomestic animals for use in connection with an exhibition or seasonal display thereof, provided that [the council] he /she finds that such animals are not likely to be dangerous; that they will be kept in safe and sanitary surroundings; that they will not be maintained in any inhumane manner or be subjected to in- humane tratement; and that their presence on the premises will not be a source of nuisance or annoyance to the occupants of adjacent property. In granting such permit the [council] city manager or his /her designate may impose limitations upon the permit to insure that such animals will be kept under such conditions. It shall be unlawful for any person having such a permit to keep such animals without maintaining such conditions or without abiding by the limitations imposed [by the city council]. Any such permit shall be subject to immediate suspension by the city manager if he /she determines that such animals constitute a safety or sanitary hazard, are being subjected to inhumane treatment or conditions, or a source of nuisance, and such suspension shall remain in effect until the subsequent meeting of the city council. At such meeting the city council may revoke such permit or may reinstate the same subject to such limitation as the council shall deem necessary. The permit fee for any such permit shall be as provided in Appendix D of this Code." F. Chapter V, Part I, Section 5.11 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield dealing with the disapproval of licenses is hereby amended to read as follows: "5.11. Disapproval of License. [The clerk may provisionally disapprove any license application when disapproval is necessary to the fair ad- ministration of this chapter, Chapter VI, or any other provisions of this Code. The council has authority to give final disapproval.] In all cases under this code where the citv clerk. the citv manager or his /her designate has been given the authors to issue licenses, any applicant aggrieved by action that person denying such license may annly to the city council for a hearing to determine whether the license should be issued." -3- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of 1980. Attest: Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk Mm Donald J. Priebe Mayor / _�( CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 191 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Demolition of Betty Crocker Pie Shop Earlier this month, The Red Lobster, Inc. notified the city that they would be vacating the Betty Crocker Pie Shop building at the end of the month. The lease agreement between the city and The Red Lobster, Inc., provides that either party to the agreement may terminate the agreement upon 30 days notice. The City of Richfield purchased the Betty Crocker Pie Shop in 1977 because that property is necessary both for the widening of 66th Street, and redevelopment of the southwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Since construction of 66th Street will begin early next spring, the building must be demolished before that time. To avoid a winter demolition job, which creates difficulty in ground compac- tion, the work should be done this fall. Because of this schedule, we would like to proceed with the advertisement for bids for demo- lition of the building. It is recommended that the city council authorize the adver- tisement for bids to demolish the building. The cost of this pro- ject will be supported by C.P. 705, the L /H /N public improvement project. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Engineer 4 4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 190 Agenda June 9,1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council .City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Application for On -Sale Wine License Millers Fireside Pizza, Inc. 6736-Penn The city has received an application for an on -sale wine license from Millers Fireside Pizza, Inc. The application has been referred to the Department of Public Safety for investiga- tion and that investigation has now been completed. On May 12, 1980 the city council approved a special use per- mit for a restaurant to sell liquor for the applicant's place of business. The final matter for council consideration regarding this issue is the wine license application itself. The applica- tion has been submitted by Mr. David Miller, and Mrs. Lucille Miller, Secretary, of the applicant corporation. The criminal record investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety, indicates that neither officer of the applicant corporation has any criminal history record which would preclude issuance of the re- quested license. The applicants have operated the existing rest- aurant business at its present location since 1960. During most of the period of operation the applicants have held a non- intoxi- cating malt liquor beverage license issued by the City of Rich- field. During this period of operation, the Public Safety De- partment has no record of significant complaints involving the business. The only present proposed change in the business opera- tion is the addition of on -sale wine service with meals. The investigation conducted by the Department of Public Safety indicates that all taxes associated with both the premises and the business are current and in order. Additionally, there are no encumbrances on the property as described in the legal description provided with the application. This information has been verified by examining the records in the Hennepin County Recorders office. Therefore, there are no outstanding business or tax debts which would preclude issuance of the license. The applicants have provided the required certificates of in- surance in connection with their license request. The required bond has been issued on a conditional basis, pending approval of the license application. Should tre requested license be approved Council Letter No. 190 -2- June 9, 1980 by the city council, the Department of Attorney's office will monitor issuance the bond format. Public Safety and the City of the required bond and In-accordance with the provisions of the ordinance code, the Public Safety Department has conducted the required reference in- terviews as a part of the license investigation process. The re- sponse to all of these reference interviews was very positive with regard to the character and business ability of the applicants. Based upon the information provided by the applicant, and the information developed during the background investigation, it is the opinion of the Director of Public Safety, in which I concur, that there are no existing conditions which would prohibit the issuance of the license requested. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Public Safety Director Deputy City Clerk -!� /I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 190 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Recommendation for Adjustment in Mileage Reimbursement Rates There is an item scheduled for the May 27, 1980 city council agenda providing for council consideration of an adjustment in the per mile reimbursement rate which the city provides to em- ployees who use their private vehicles on city business. Background Information The last time the city council adjusted the mileage reimburse- ment for employees who use their personal automobiles on city bus- iness was in March, 1980. At that time the reimbursement was in- creased from 18� per mile to 19� per mile, which is the current rate. The adjustment authorized by the city council in March was limited to a maximum reimbursement of 19� per mile under provisions of state legislation, which stipulated that no city could reimburse its employees at a rate greater than that provided by the Minn- esota Commissioner of Personnel for state officers and employees; that rate is presently 19� per mile. The 1980 Minnesota Legisla- ture eliminated the linkage between the permissible mileage reim- bursement for state employees and that for local government employ- ees, so that the city may now establish its own mileage reimburse- ment rate. The City of Richfield has generally supported the concept of providing a mileage reimbursement as the most economical means of allowing city employees to conduct city business where it is not possible or economically feasible to provide those employees with a city owned vehicle. The purpose of a mileage reimbursement is to. provide fair compensation for city employees who are required to use their own vehicles on official city business. It has been the city's practice to provide mileage reimbursement at a rate which neither rewards or penalizes the individual for using his private vehicle. However, the cost of operating a vehicle has increased substantially in recent years, and is, in fact, higher than the 19� per mile reimbursement which the city presently pays. Now that we have the legal authority to establish a mileage Council Letter No. 190 -2- May 27, 1980 reimbursement at any rate we wish, it is my feeling that we should establish a mileage reimbursement rate which is more comparable to the actual costs of operating a vehicle. Analysis of Costs In the past, the city has attempted to relate the mileage reimbursement paid to employees to the actual cost per mile for the operation of the motor vehicle. This per mile operating cost includes not only expenditures for gas and oil, but also for maintenance, insurance and depreciation costs. In early 1980, the American Automobile Association issued its most recent figures describing the cost of operating a vehicle. These costs were determined for a 1980 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu, 4 -door sedan, having a six - cylinder engine, and equipped with stand- ard accessories including a radio, power steering, power brakes, and automatic transmission. The AAA, in determining tiie vehicle cost per mile, breaks the costs into two categories, variable and fixed. Variable items relate directly to the number of miles driven, how the car is used, and the cost of service and repair, and would include items such as gasoline, oil, maintenance, and tires. Fixed costs, though they may vary slightly from car to car, or place to place, are generally established beyond the control of the motorist and change very little with the amount or type of driving that is done. These costs would usually include items such as taxes (license and registration fees) depreciation, and insurance. The question of an adequate mileage reimbursement for city employees relates in part to the basic concept of mileage reimburse- ment, which is to neither reward or penalize a city employee for using his private vehicle on official city business. The operating costs which have been identified by AAA for various classes of vehicles indicate that the costs of operating a sub - compact vehicle are approximately 20� per mile, a compact 23� per mile, an inter- mediate, 25� per mile, and a standard -sized vehicle, 28� per mile. These costs are based on a high cost area, which would be reflect- ive of the Twin Cities or any other large metropolitan area. Al- though the specific breakdown of these costs is not calculated for a sub - compact or compact vehicle, the generally smaller engines and greater gas economy of those vehicles is the major component in the reduced costs. The Hertz Corporation calculates the cost of operating a vehicle in a way similar to the calculations made by AAA, and released their most recent figures on May 6, 1980. The Minneapolis Tribune edition of that day, in describing the Hertz figures, indicated an estimated operating cost per mile for sub - compacts of 30� per mile, for compacts of 32� per mile, 36� per mile for small mid- range models, and for a full -sized vehicle of 43� per mile. The Hertz figures, however, are calculated for a car assumed to be driven 10,000 miles per year for three years. The assumption of mileage driven and the turnover of three years are the basic factors in the Hertz figures being so much higher than the AAA Council Letter No. 190 -3- May 27, 1980 figures. In actuality, even the Hertz Corporation acknowledges that many motorists are keeping their vehicles for longer than 3 years. The AAA figures, which have been prepared in conjunction with Runaheimer and Company, a management consulting firm special- izing in statistical analysis of transportation, taxes, meals, lodging and housing costs, indicate that a typical motorist in the United States is more likely to drive 15,000 miles per year. For these reasons, it is my feeling that the data prepared by AAA more accurately reflects the "average" costs of operating a motor vehicle, while the Hertz figures appear to reflect the maximum costs of operating a vehicle. It is recommended that the city council establish a mileage reimbursement of 22� per mile for city employees. This rate is recommended because it reflects approximately the cost of operating a car between the sub - compact and compact size range, and it appears to be consistent with the city's general policy of promoting all forms of energy efficiency, while still providing employees the opportunity to recoup their actual costs of driving on behalf of the city. In 1979, the city reimbursed 78 employees a total of $7,068 for 42,269 miles driven in their personal vehicles on city business. The 3� increase in mileage reimbursement which is proposed in the attached resolution, would represent a possible annual increased cost of $1,301. Sufficient funds can be provided in the 1980 budget to provide for this adjustment in mileage reimbursement. Summary It is recommended that the city council approve a resolution changing the mileage reimbursement rate from 19� per mile to 22� per mile, and authorize the city manager to implement this adjust- ment effective June 1, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ' A_ arl Nollenber r City Manager KN /ej a cc: Program Directors c RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield does provide a mileage re- imbursement to city employees driving their personal vehicles on official city business, and WHEREAS, the purpose of a mileage reimbursement is to provide fair compensation for city employees who are required to use their own vehicles on official city business, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has the legal authority to establish mileage reimbursement rates comparable to the actual costs of operating a motor vehicle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that as of June 1, 1980, the mileage reimburse- ment rate be set at 22� per mile. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of May, 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Mayor r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: 11�7 Council Letter No. 189 Agenda May 27, 1980 Council Execution of Perpetual Easement Purchase Agreements, Lyndale Avenue Project On October 23, 1979, the Hennepin County District Court granted title and possession to the city for easement areas needed for the Lyndale Avenue improvement project. The staff since that time, how- ever, has continued negotiations with the property owners in an effort to acquire the easements without needing to undergo condemnation pro- ceedings. A map depicting these easement areas is attached. On June 25, 1979, the city council established just compensation of $7,500 for the permanent easement area on the Trestman Music Store property, 6630 Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Trestman and the several individ- uals with an ownership interest in the property have agreed to provide the permanent and temporary construction easements for $9,910. Al- though the amount is greater than just compensation, it does include both easements, and is lower than the costs we would incur by reach- ing a settlement through the condemnation process. For the Goldman property, in the vicinity of the Lyndale Garden Center, just compensation of $1,200 was established on May 14, 1979. Mr. Goldman has agreed to provide both the permanent and temporary easements for $1,500. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached reso- lutions, authorizing the mayor and city manager to enter into a pur- chase agreement for the acquisition of easements at the Trestman Music property and the Goldman property, for the amounts of $9,910 and $1,500, respectively. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Attorney 7 CI1'Y OF RICHFIELD_ RIGHT -OF -WAY AND /DR EASEMENT AQUISITION G � e a �� s3 OO Y Q� 0 TOTAL AREA ' /7, /OD S Ff PARCEL NUMBER RIGHT -OF —WAY APPARENT OWNER Trash",mjv Alimic NET AREA PERMANENT EASEMENT 1410 SQ. Ft PL.+0.4: Twv...a"WK -M e.i.EU.+a MJ.TeCTMi TEMPORARYEASEMENT "?.*A M -,G^°u WoLs ft° ftc 612 °,-". +,0, rO m • sw4 soj TM 10~ r+r1e SOT• I.MD Resolution AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE OWNERS OF 840 WEST 65th STREET FOR LYNDALE AVENUE EASEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield authorized negotiations to purchase an easement at 840 West 65th Street, known as the northeasterly 20 feet of the northwesterly 15 feet of Tract B. Registered Land Survey 675; and, WHEREAS, just compensation was established at $1,200 and an offer to purchase was made in that amount; and, WHEREAS, the owners of the property have agreed to sell a permanent and temporary easement for $1,500; and, WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City purchase these interests for $1,500; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Richfield City Council: 1. The mayor and city manager are directed to enter into a purchase agreement for $1,500 for the easement areas. 2. The city manager and city attorney are directed to complete the purchase process. Passed by the Richfield City Council this day of ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh., Acting-City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Mayor Resolution AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE OWNERS OF 6630 LYNDALE AVENUE FOR LYNDALE AVENUE EASEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield authorized negotiations to purchase an easement at 6630 Lyndale Avenue, the location of Trestman Music; and, WHEREAS, just compensation was established at $7,500 and an offer to purchase was made in that amount; and, WHEREAS, the owners of the property have agreed to sell a permanent and temporary easement for $9,910; and, WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City purchase these interests for $9,910; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Richfield City Council: 1. The mayor and city manager are directed to enter into a purchase agreement for $9,910 for the easement areas. 2. The city manager and city attorney are directed to complete the purchase process. Passed by the Richfield City Council this day of ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk Donald J. Priebe Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD RIGHT -OF -WAY AND /OR EASEMENT AQUISITION tit ` `� � , to � �`�� ,��[� � •�' ` p5; (l }� Y 13- s ^!rij Y- Y,e TOTAL AREA PARCEL NUMBER 28 RIGHT -OF -WAY APPARENT OWNER S. M. Friea/e /l NET AREA PERMANENT EASEMENT 300 So. Ft k"LlO� PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARC"TECTURE TEMPORARY EASEMENT RATHER RINGROSE WOLSEELO INC 6128312300 7101 YORK AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 188 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Authorization to Submit Application for Community Development Block Grant Bonus Funds The city has recently been notified that the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has approved the release of approximately $600,000 of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to the Metropolitan Council. The monies being released are bonus funds to our metropolitan area, which represent unspent monies originally allocated to communities for use in 1978. The Bonus money must be used in a timely manner to increase housing opportunities for low and moderate income families. Applications for the Bonus funds must be submitted to the Metropolitan council and the HUD Area Office on or before Monday, June 9, 1980. On May 20, 1980, the Rich- field HRA authorized submission of an application for these Bonus Funds, and requested that the city council authorize submission of an application at the May 27, 1980 council meeting. The application being formulated suggests two alternatives for utilization of the Bonus funds. With the first alternative, the HRA would acquire substandard houses, relocate occupants, demolish the structures, and sell the cleared parcels. A private developer would construct, own and manage five scattered site, three and four bedroom rental housing units for low and moderate income families. The oc- cupants would be participants in the HUD Section 8 rental assistance program. This alternative would be similar to the soon -to -be com- pleted project involving the Ames Corporation. The second alternative requires the same responsibilities of the HRA and the private devel- oper, however, the five, scattered site, three and four bedroom homes would be owner- occupied. Owner occupied housing would be financed with the HUD Section 235 mortgage assistance program. Two alternatives are suggested in one application to ensure fund- ing feasibility from at least one of the assistance programs. Although both rental and ownership units can count toward achieving the city's housing goals, the priority is for rental assistance to large families. However, funds for financing the development of new homes under Sec- tion 8 may not be available, thus, by submitting an application for each alternative, the chances for gaining funding are increased. The supporting information for developing this type of project is in the "Housing Program Activities" report, Part II, prepared by the HRA staff in February 1980. The Metropolitan Council and HUD are responsible for the approval of Richfield's annual CDBG applica- tion. Projects previously funded through CDBG have included housing Council Letter No. 188 -2- May 27, 1980 programs, park improvements, and modifications to the Community Center. One of the criteria used in evaluation is the distribution of rental assistance payments to families and the elderly. The policy goal of the Metropolitan council is to distribute assistance on the basis of 60 percent for families and 40 percent for the elderly. Within the last three years, Richfield has provided assistance in reverse of this goal: 62.6 percent to elderly, 36 percent to families and 1.4 per- cent to large families. (These figures reflect the 150 units of elderly housing) at Richfield Towers. Thus, 45.5 percent of the needs of the elderly and 18.5 percent of the needs of families have been met. As indicated in the Housing Report, Richfield must better meet the needs of families before additional subsidized housing for the elderly,will be funded. A significant step to increase rental assistance to families was taken in 1979. In January, the then active Ad Hoc Housing Committee appointed by the city council made recommendations for developing family housing. The committee supported the addition of five new Section 8 family rental units to the housing supply. CDBG Bonus Grant funds were subsequently applied for and received. Proposals for new construction were solicited. The Ames Corporation was selected as the developer. The time available prior to June 9, to prepare and submit an ap- plication for bonus funds was not sufficient to organize and convene the housing committee. The former chairperson, Joe Ertman, and other committee members were invited to attend the HRA meeting on May 20, to discuss this application if they desired. They have also been notified of the public hearing to be held at the council meeting. An advertisement was also placed in the Richfield Sun indicating that public testimony would be received on this proposal at both the HRA and council meetings. As stated earlier, the CDBG Bonus funds would be used for acquisi- tion, relocation of occupants and clearance of sites for new construc- tion. The project cost estimates are based on costs incurred by the HRA in providing the five scattered sites last year. Scheduling the new project involves developer selection, developer funding, site selection and purchase. Specifications for developers must be com- pleted by the end of May to permit advertising early in June. Sites will be acquired through voluntary sale after funding of the appli- cation by HUD and Metropolitan Council. If the funds are provided, the Richfield HRA will be involved in several actions to permit the implementation of the project. While the HRA will be responsible for the implementation of the Bonus Grant Program, the city is required to make the application for funds and comply with reporting require- ments similar to our annual CDBG application. Council Letter No. 188 -3- May 27, 1980 Following is the tentative schedule and budget for the proposed project: Project Activity Amount Bonus Fund Application $194,560 Implementation Date Completion Date June 9, 1980 August, 1980 ( fund approval) Selection of Developer -- June 1980 July, 1980 Site'Acquisition $152,500 August, 1980 September, 1980 Relocation $ 60,000 September, 1980 October, 1980 Demolition $ 16,500 November, 1980 November, 1980 Construction -- November, 1980 May, 1981 Administration and Property Maintenance $ 6,300 During execution November, 1980 (Advertising, title insurance, appraisals, legal assistance) The total estimated cost of the project is $235,300. The $194,560 Bonus Grant would be combined with a fund balance of $39,162 that re- mains from the previous Bonus Grant, and a minimum of $2,000 expected proceeds from sale of the acquired parcels to a private developer. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached reso- lution, authorizing the city manager to submit an application for Community Development Block Grant Bonus Funds. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director HRA Commissioners f RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BONUS GRANT PROPOSAL WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development have Community Development Block Grant Bonus Funds available; and WHEREAS, these funds are to be utilized to provide housing assistance to low and moderate income families; and WHEREAS, the City has a need to provide additional housing opportunities for low and moderate income families; and WHEREAS, there are, within the city, certain substandard properties in need of redevelopment; and WHEREAS, these monies if obtained by Richfield would be utilized to provide the needed housing opportunities by acquiring substandard property to build new housing units; and WHEREAS, the application for funds must be submitted on or before June 9, 1980; and WHEREAS, in connection with the application, a public hearing must be held and a person authorized to act in connection with the application; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That authorization to make applications for Community Development Block Grant Bonus Funds is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to act in connection with the application by fulfilling necessary federal reporting requirements and submitting the application by June 9, 1980. 3. A public hearing has been held in connection with the application. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 27th day of May, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 187 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Recommendation for Denial of Taxicab Business License - Public Taxi Service, Inc. On February 26, 1980, Mr. Gary A.Tournier appeared before the city council requesting a taxicab business license to operate fif- teen (15) taxicab vehicles within the City of Richfield. This li- cense application was referred to the Department of Public Safety by the council at that time for a routine background investigation of the applicant and his business organization. As a result of this investigation of the applicant and the applicant's business organization, a number of discrepancies have developed between the information provided by the applicant on his application and the information developed during the course of the investigative process. On March 21, 1980, I provided a status report on this investigation to the council.; At that time I'included a copy of a letter sent to the applicant by the Director of Public Safety, requesting an explanation with regard to the discrepancies. To date, the applicant has refused to communicate with the public safety department regarding these matters. On May 5, 1980, the public safety director again attempted to solicit the cooperation of the applicant in resolving the discrepan- cies between the information provided by the applicant in his busi- ness license application and the information developed by the Depart- ment of Public Safety. A copy of our May 5, 1980, letter to Mr. Tournier is attached. To date, the applicant has not responded to this request for clarification. Because of the lack of cooperation on the part of this appli- cant in resolving the issues raised by our public safety department we havQ been unable to verify that the insurance coverage required under our ordinance code exists on the vehicles for which the ap- plicant seeks licensure. Additionally, the applicant has blatantly violated the ordinance code by attempting to operate his taxi busi- ness in our community without a license. Based upon the issues 0 Council Letter No. 187 -2•- May 27, 1980 outlined in the public safety director's letter of May 5, it is his recommendation, in which I concur, that this application for a taxi- cab business license be denied. The applicant has been informed that this recommendation would be made to the city council at the May 27, 1980 meeting, and has been offered the opportunity to appear before the council in behalf of his license request. The applicant has not informed the city clerk of his desire to appear in this matter. KN /jf cc: Public Safety Director Deputy Clerk City Attorney Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager t N 41 0C Lf) U Lf) CU 0 ■� 0C c U £ co 0 � co M O ■� O O ti t0 May 5, 1980 Mr. Gary A. Tournier 7708 Morgan Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. Tournier: On March 20, 1980, I wrote to you regarding a number of problems the Richfield Department of Public Safety has encountered in attempting to conduct the required background investigation with regard to your application for taxicab licenses in our community. In that letter I requested your assistance in resolving numerous and serious descrep- ancies between the information you furnished to us as a part of your application and the findings of our investigative efforts. To date, I have received no reply from you with regard to this matter. Add- itionally, Police Agent James Slater, has made repeated attempts to contact you to provide you an opportunity,to respond to questions related to his investigative findings. To date, you have not responded to any of Agent Slater's efforts to discuss this matter. During the course of our license investigation we have determined that your present business activities do not conform to Richfield City Ordinance Code 6.20, which regulates the licensure of taxicabs within our city. Specifically, our investigation has disclosed: 1. At the time you applied for your license you provided in- accurate information with regard to the insurance coverage which you alleged to exist for your taxi fleet. 2. Of the fifteen vehicles for which you submitted certificates of insurance coverage, the insurance carrier has informed us that coverage only exists for five of the named vehicles. Therefore, ten of the certificates of insurance which you furnished to us appear to be for non - existent coverage. 3. Of the remaining five certificates of insurance which you furnished to us, the insurance carrier has informed us that both the stated classification and the stated geographical area of operation are improper for the use you have set forth in your application for licensure within our community. There- fore, these certificates of insurance are invalid under the conditions which you have claimed in your application. telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer J e May 5, 1980 Page Two 4. The office address for your operation which you have listed on your license application and the office address to which the insurance certificates have been issued are distinctly different. Additionally, the name of the corporation listed on your application and the name of the company listed with the insurance carrier are distinctly Jiff- ' erent. Therefore, the information with this regard which you have provided on your application is inaccurate, or at best, incomplete. 5. On your application you have indicated that the taxicab fleet for which you seek licensure is "owner operated ". During the course of our investigation we have determined that you claim to "lease" taxicab vehicles to your individual drivers. One of the alleged conditions of this lease operation includes the provision of insurance coverage to these drivers. The Minnesota Commissioner of Insurance has informed us that you are not licensed to sell insurance within the State of Minnesota and therefore, the validity of any such policies, should such policies actually exist, are invalid under the insurance laws of the State of Minnesota. On the basis of the foregoing information, it would appear that none of the taxicab vehicles for which you seek licensure have the insurance coverage re- quired under our city ordinance code. Since the documents you have submitted as part of your license application do not correspond to our investigative findings, it would appear that there has been a distortion of the factual in- formation required of license applicants. In my letter to you on March 20, 1980, I informed you of the fact that our routine monitoring of taxi radio dispatch frequencies indicated that you were conducting business in our community without a license. At that time, I clearly informed you that this practice was in violation of our city ordinance code. On March 28, 1980, members of our police division conducted a routine monitoring procedure with regard to your business activities. During this process your dispatch office was called with a request for taxi service from one location within the City of Richfield, to a destination within the City of Richfield. Even though you were unlicensed to conduct this business, your firm dispatched a cab to the requested pick -up point. A Richfield police officer entered your cab and was transported to a destination within the City of Richfield. A short time later this same police officer was again transported, in one of your taxi- cabs, from the original destination to a second location within the City of Richfield. It would, therefore, appear that your firm is condoning a practice of conducting business in our community in clear violation of our ordinance code. I find the fact that I had brought this matter to your attention prior to our monitoring activity and the situation was not corrected, to constitute a blatant disregard of our ordinance code on your part with regard to the manner in which you presently operate your business. f May 5, 1980 Page Three On the basis of the foregoing discussion, I have no alternative but to recommend to our city council that they deny the taxicab licenses for which you have applied. You have not met the terms set forth in our ordinance code with regard to licensure and have further chosen to ignore our ordinance code requirements by knowingly operating your business illegally within our community. I would like to inform you that you do have the right to appeal my recom- mendation in this matter to the Richfield City Council. This appeal can be made at the regularly scheduled council meeting on May 27, 1980, provided that written notice requesting such appeal is filed with the Richfield City Clerk on or before May 16, 1980. I wish to further notify you that the hearing of your appeal before the city council will be open to the public and that you have the right to appear and to be represented by legal counsel at that hearing and to offer such evidence as you may wish on behalf of your license application. At that time you will also have the right to cross examine any witness which may be called in support of my recommendation to deny the taxicab license for which you have applied. Si--nc-e-r rely, Thomas A. Morgan, Jr. Director of Public Safety TAM/lie cc: City Manager City Attorney City Clerk C CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA �� Office of City Manager / Council Letter No. 186 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract, Hot Mix Asphalt On.May 6, 1980, bids were opened for Hot Mix Asphalt in accord with legal requirements. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. Two quotations were received, one at a delivered price and the other F.O.B. at their mixing plant in Golden Valley, MN. The esti- mated quantity of purchase was 500 tons. This hot mix asphalt is used throughout the season in a number of street maintenance activi= ties, including patching of streets due to potholes and general wear, repair of streets after digging up to repair water main breaks and grade corrections due to settlement around manholes or catch basins. The mix purchased through this bid would also be used to make repairs in paving Areas 1 and 2 prior to the sealcoating project scheduled for those areas this season. In reviewing the bids submitted, the staff considered the dis- tance from the City of Richfield to the plant locations of the bidders, and held conversations with the bidders to assist in determination of the low bidder. After discussion, it was determined that the formal bids of the companies were in excess of the price for hot asphalt that the city has paid so far this year. McNamara - Vivant is willing to commit to selling us 500 tons of hot asphalt at $14.75 per ton that we have paid for small quantities purchased in May. It is the recommendation of the staff that the bids submitted on May 6, 1980, for hot mix asphalt should be rejected, because of the inconsistency of the bids. The city council is requested, however, to authorize a purchase of an estimated 500 tons of hot mix asphalt from McNamara - Vivant at a unit cost of $14.75 per ton, with the city responsible for pick -up of the materials as needed. The total estimated purchase price for hot mix asphalt from McNamara - Vivant would be $7,375.00. In summary, the city council is requested to take the follow- ing actions: V i CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening May 6, 1980 Asphalt Material Bid No. 80 -16 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Assistant City Manager, Joyce L. Wilde, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for Asphalt Material as advertised in the official newspaper on April 30, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager Marshall Raaen, Technical Services Supervisor Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY PRICE PER TON TOTAL BID Bury & Carlson B.B. 5% (Not Delivered) $16.45 $ 8,225.00 McNamara- Vivant B.B. 5% 1 (Delivered) $24.00 $12,000.00 The Assistant City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of May 27, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk / t7-,O CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 185 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council C ity , of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids, Approval of Minutes, and Award of Contract for Sealcoating of Area 2, and Change Order for Area 1 On May 6, 1980 bids were opened for a sealcoating project in Area 2 in accordance with previous city council authorization. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. This sealcoating project is part of the first phase of an- ticipated seven -year project to sealcoat all of the city's perman- ent streets. The source of funding for this project is the revenues ($148,000) derived from the one -time adjustment in the levy limit base for purposes of initiating new street maintenance programs. These revenues, and an appropriation for this project are included in the 1980 street division operating budget. After award of this contract for Area 2, the total of the three contracts awarded for street maintenance programs (two for sealcoating, and one for crack sealing) will be $148,122. Attached to this council letter is a map depicting the area to be sealcoated through this project, and through the sealcoat work for which the council previously awarded bids. Three bids were received for this work. The low bidder was Allied Blacktop in the amount of $61,180. As long as we have contracts for sealcoating on the city streets, it is an opportune time to do the necessary sealcoating on city parking lots at Wood Lake Nature Center and the Richfield Community Center. A change order to the first sealcoat contract with Allied Blacktop Co. is being prepared to do this work. In summary, it is the recommendation of the city staff that the city council take the following actions: 1. Award a contract to Allied Blacktop for sealcoating in the amount of $61,180 in Area 2, shown on the attached map; i Council Letter No. 185 -2- May 27, 1980 2. Authorize a change-order in the original sealcoat contract with Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount of $3,03.9.70.tQ sealcoat city parking lots. The adjusted amount of that original contract will then be $61,370.20. KN /eja cc: Community Services Director Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager i t 61 C14 Ln r- I ----------- 71Y i ILI= MM It 11EE3F_=4FzHEE3 U x 0 CCCLJ 7 L J --- IF- ----------------------- r e I ra 1 4J 4J (J En (a rl 0) 0 V ro 0 0 $A Q) 0 w U) LH "i I 4J1 > 4J �4 0 �4 r. 04 0 Q4 41 (0 0 U r--i ro a) 4.J 4J M 4J �4 r. -,1 0 FX4 F:4 .... ...... CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening May 6, 1980 Sealcoating Bid No. 80 -15 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Assistant City Manager, Joyce L. Wilde, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for Sealcoating as advertised in the official newspaper on April 23, and 30, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Assistant City Manager Marshall Raaen, Technical Services Supervisor Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY _ TOTAL BID Batzer Construction Co. B B 5% $65,440.75 Allied Blacktop B B 5% $61,180_.00 Blacktop Service Co. B B 5% $63,365.00 The Assistant City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of May 12, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk �f'M CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 184 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Human Rights Commission Sponsorship of Ethnic Festivals The Richfield Human Rights Commission has been planning to hold "ethnic festivals" during the month of August, 1980 at the Hub Shopping Center parking lot. It is planned at this time to hold the festivals on four consecutive Saturdays, be- ginning on August 2. The festivals would include a Hispanic Day, an Indian Day, an Asian Day and an Afro - American Day. A proposed schedule of each day's activities is attached to this council letter. The Human Relations Commission of the City of Edina has also been working with the Richfield Commission during the planning process. Mary Jane Samples, Chairperson of the Rich- field Human Rights Commission, will be present at the May 27, 1980 city council meeting to present further details regard- ing these proposed festivals, and to request formal city council support for presenting these festivals during the month of August. Respectfully submitted, o Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ e j a I Typical Ethnic Day: 9:30 A.M. - parade - like actors used to do - announcing day's activities 11:00 A.M'. - Operate booths, concessions with items for sale - crafts, art work, food, cookbooks, etc. Period special demonstrations such as Japanese paper cutting or Indian sand art Early evening: Contests, drawings 7:00 P.M. - Show, play, sing along, etc. 9:00 P.M. - 12 midnight -- dance, pow wows, fiesta, party, concert t 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 183 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Human Rights Commission Appointment At the present time, three terms on the Richfield Human Rights Commission expire in May, 1980. One term is a three - year term for an adult member,,and the other two are one - year terms for youth members of the commission. The incumbent adult member, Ralph Olson, has indicated a desire to be reappointed to another term. Also attached for council consideration are applications received from Roxanne Johnson and Nancy Lindberg. Mr. Steve Sable, one of the youth members will be a senior in high school and has indicated a desire to be reappointed to another term. The other youth member, Dawn Nilsen, will be attending college out of the city and has indicated that she does not wish to be reappointed. No other youth members have applied for these vacancies. Appointments to this commission have been scheduled for the May 27, 1980 city council meeting. e Respectfully submitted, Ac' Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja f APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE 01: COMMISSION APPOINTMENT NAME Johnson Roxanne Gay Last First Middle HOME ADDRESS 1617 W. 75th St. Richfield, MN 55423 MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) PHONE: Home 869 - 3362 Business Appointment Preference: 296 -8790 Planning Commission Human Rights Commission ?( Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Civil 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 serving: I, myself, have been the victim of discrimination in employment and have initiated a lawsuit in my defense. Because of this, I co- founded a support group for other women who are also involved in such action oe who are contemplating such action. I am a member of the affirmative action committee with the Department of Economic Development. Most important: I am committed to safeguarding human rights for all of use CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: DFL 37th Central Committee, Board of Directors fir- the DFL Feminist Caucus, member of the Coalition for a Progressive DFL, member of Minn- esota Women's Political Caucus, Delegate to 1978 DFL state convention. OCCUPATION: Employing firm, agency Tourism Bureau, State of Minnesota Address 480 Cedar Street St. Paul Minnesota Position Tourism Representative years with firm 11-2. Other work experience (optional) Cabin Attendant with Northwest Airlines, sold food products, romotional writer for the Star and Tribune, freelance copy-_ writer and artist. REFERENCES (optional) a, n n r., l T1n �lr a n friend 7520 Cahill Rd. 944 -6678 b. Beverly Braun friend 1385 Skiles Ln 645 -1744 c. Mike Steinberg friend 6065 79th Ave. N. 566 -5577 Date i _��_;,n APPLICATION FOR CITY OF RICHFIELD ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION APPOINTMENT NAME j,indberr 1-1 nn7T a Last First Middle HOME ADDRESS 6726 Co l)ribus -ivy sn. - ?'5 Street No. City Zip Code �.!IAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address) Street No. City PHONE: Home PF;l _;2AC)7 Business APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE: Planning Commission Park and Recreation Advisory Comm. Senior Citizen & Handicapped Advisory Commission Zip Code Human Rights Commission X 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: As ? concerned ii "T i*o r. si d-ent activelT iryol y^nd i -I community orr-anizations. 1 feel the �!ums.n Rij hts Co-, issi.on -ill ena-ble ^?e to becoge rlore se, siti_ -ve to otner - osident' need-z. T sense thpt tnpre is -uah a'.'`i?tl -r rP`"nrc?l'n.^ lct ^ -1 n[T-- onvrp.v�t and this Co' —,is ,ion nnryPa as y7i CF' for CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUP)ITY ACTIVITIES: 1. Yrodect•l;h^,r15e TTT Srot-rin; - ttr -p; Pift-1 c, '7�alntjon ee 2. Ysrent advisor :r =tt u; -sr, 'i.c'.c11e w;l,00l (2nc? Year) 3. 'Title T Zeoresentive for the -�ichf' _old Sc'-ioo1 Pistriet fro::, Elliot Ele:muntary (2nd Y e �- r ) �. 'deMber of ;ti ^ ,fi elm 5. Member of the university of Minnesota I o:,.e_nakers t ro b O 10 1 I~ (2) (1) a) W a) (1) v I~ >, W Q) 1= 4J 4-4 rl O .0 �4 !-- • 4J r(J t) (3) 4-) -4 (0 •,-1 .iz: O O •r1 P 4-4 r, E1 O - is rd 4-1 U (0 •r1 >, •r1 -11 (0 .{J ro •r1 W b H 4-) O 444 W •r1 Q) U U> A W U (2) O rd r1 v 4-) a) >r m O I~ 1-1 O O r-1 rij rc5 b) I~ x - 1 (1) U (d is U (0 U �4 4J 4--1 >~ • (a) A cd U 4-1 (d r i �q T5 a) (1) 4-4 r� (0 a) W i, �4 •r1 r I O r I (L1)' is tr N 3 tr (d 1~ a a) �, rd 0 (d •1-) Tc .4J a) 4J r>i a, �4 ri ra -1 i Y O 4-1 -H 1~ (d 4J 1~ a-) r0 •ri 4J 4J 4J 1~ •-I • (1) �l :2: I~ O a rd U I~ C 4J (0 W O S"-. •C 4 •r1 4J 1-1 rCs tT ro U 34 (1) i, - O rCl (1) r(J t3' Q) (0 4J Q) f." Q) t3� 1-4 tr ro W (0 m � •r1 I~ (1) (1) (a) 4-) O W S-1 W (1) 4J s~ a () r-1 in C� � U �+ >~ (a) U �l �4 -H is O W (d �4 F a, X -H r- 4-1 �4 (d o �4 (TJ O r C: (d 1~ 4J O U) O is .0 41 O (1) 4-1 (a a) (1) -H O (1) 4J is O A 4-) U O 4J •r1 •r-i E-i (1) 41 r`4 > �4 •r{ a) W 4J (d •r1 (1) 4J -4 �-4 t7� W W a) A (D Q) •r-4 res W a 4-4 r-1 (n 1~ U -1 S~ (d U tP 4 is >i 4-J s~ W 4-4 >i W > S~ 41 ,C: a) (d 0 r-4 0 41 (d (d 0 1~ rO >~ 4-) r1 .4-1 —4 •ri zj) r-4 W rO rn 4J 11 41 > 3 .�" 41 Q) •r-I to 3-1 4-1 -H -H 0 (d tai —4 �-I ?-I (d •r! S~ 4J l0 � rd (d � •r1 4-4 r-1 4-) W (n > i~ is 4J W 4J tr 4J 0 -H 3 0 0 U r I •ri ?-I •ri (L) ro 0 3 •ri M 3 0 4-4 0 S~ (d 41 •r1 � 1~ a) -H •r1 �4 m r-I 4-4 U Q) W a) O 0 > is 4J Q) •11 �4 W •r1 0 TI W �4 W Q) •r1 W Q) �4 a •r �4 'Cl � � r-i (n •ri F� a) •ri W U Q) O O (0 0 U U U 4J f~ � A t ) a) 4-3 4J I~ 4J Q) W O - •ri r- r- •r1 (n a) >~ t~ 41 �:l a a M I~ I~ •r1 O r I 4J •rl > () 4-I U) (d -H 4J (d ri� r U O ,[ O � Z3) 4J 4a () (1) J•, (d 4J rd �J -H r 1 (n rd > (2) 3 4J 3 4J N �-: •r1 •ri 4J Q) • 4J •r1 0 a) W C: (a) (d 1~ (d +) to 0 aJ (d t1 FC CO > (d �:5 �5 co 4J 0 �4 W I~ > (2) 441 'C� 4J 3 s~ rd 44 U 0 (d 4J A (a) tsr(:J t` �P I~ F� TJ O 4J O •r-I U r 1 H (d I~ (d ro r 1 -N s~ O (2) O �-1 U O �4 a) W U 7 a) Q) 0 (1) (d U - rl (d y a 4J U >r (44 •r-I 4J Tc aJ O r I ri m 4J 0� 0 4 Q) ?, -4J -H rd �4 -4J 44 U U •;J r 4 Q) 0 41 1 1 rF 1~ W -rl CO dJ tP Q) �4 a) Q) 4J (1) l-4 � (1) O r� -H S~ (d (d -H a 0 > Q) ro U (d W 4J 'Cs (1) �ml .Sl' a aJ 4J (n rO >, 0 Q) r--I (4-a (1) 3 U Q) 4J U tT a 4J 0 U 41 f~ (1) a) = Ei � t3) F)a 4J iA W •r-I (0 4-4 0 > r-1 (2) I~ r~ H }-4 co � 4J Q) r-i t3' f~ .(~ 0 4-4 Q) .C� E� O r5 rCJ (d W A Fi W 4J 0 -r1 (1) W W a r--i O o U 4-4 (d Q) •ri rCj o 4J 4-1 0 3 -u (2) 4) �-4 4J tr �-4 U s~ - 3 Q) a a U (n (1 W >~ .4-1 � O W I~ aD 0 4~ � r� .0 a) v co rd s~ •4J 4-4 00 4m-) 3 TC Q) rO >, (0 O (d O 4-4 1~ -H a 44 •r1 (1) 4-4 a) S~ 0 O d-) U (1) (` Q) is I~ r-1 (d i~ () i~ I~ 3 •r1 (2) -H 4J (d 1~ > 0 4J �>i .4~ 4-) a >, 4J �:5 Q) 4J rij •r-i 0-) (1) rd O W 41 •r-1 (d 4J i-4 O rO O O rO O 4-) (d A (d O r-I O �-I •r1 0 t3P N W •r1 l4 r1 -4J 4J r I (d 4 U 4J 44 W O U (1) U U raj �4 r-1 W W W U 4J >y a W 4J U H +3 (L) O O (d rd 4-I rO r--1 rU (1) O rd Q) rO a (d (1) •rl c a) 41 c— rd •r1 2 >1 (n - r1 a W tP N 3 r-1 4-) r--1 Q) a r--1 Q) > (1) 1~ (n O Q) • (d �-4 Q) rij lD F r i A 4J (d • 4J -r1 S~ rd Q) -1 0 (d rc� W Q) > 0 4-1 4J -H O 1~ 41 .C~ U a �J (d 4j o N �4 4-4 �4 a) U (d a) :~ r1 O I~ +1 Iy �-! �4 0 +-J •r1 is a •r1 4-) rl F� W 4J U =tk O JZ� W a) ra tr) H 4J is 4J 3 (n Q) •ri �4 a) r1 N •r1 o U 4J H 0 (d W 4-4 4-4 0 a 0 H r--1 S 4 (d U •r•I Tc i�-. 4J Q) a �4 E r4 �4 i-4 (d W U Q) (d 0 Q) >, 4a I~ U 4J 0 U (d (d r-1 •ri W .IJ a, •r1 -r1 X tr A a A Q) O 044-4 Q) M I E W 4J Q) •rl -H }-4 CO - 4J r 1 • 0 4-I U 4J rO Q) $ (d W �l a I-- >1 a) "0 Q) �l -ri -4-1 5~ a 4-4 >-i CO rO 4-4 4-I 0 Q) •r1 (D H (d W W I~ tS' rn s~ a) U (d U 4J rcj is 44 I~ I~ (d rts (d a U � � I~ rO is � 3 (d 0 ro Q) r cd •r1 N 4J (d U Q) S i •r1 ,1 Q) 41 0 rd -H O W �4 4J (n 0 Q) tT r-4 •ri (1) W a) 3 --i Q) rs; a &A bP U 4-4 (D a) r I 71 W a W 4-1 a 4J �4 r, 4J Q) •-I 3 -H •r1 W (v �4 rd 41 > F Q) A l 0 N F� Q) rd 0 Q) -r1 !-- 4-1 (n �5 A 0 rd 0 >, (d 4 I Q) 4J -1 } 1 W r I 3 W O •.0 .(~ Q) r1 �4 r aJ (d W A Q) 4J Q) U U 0 •• W 4J N U 4J r-1 a) •r-I I •r1 (d U 4J 41 t3) W (d •r1 0 -1 01 Q) L ro U rri -C" •r-I •r1 > 4 I U 4J +1 r, U >v Q) •rl 4-4 U 5~ dr)l 3 (d •r1 Q) -N 4J I r--I f~ C 4a .4J (d rd f~ H r i a) Q) U 0 I, U 4J H 4 0 4J > r-1 a) (d -H 4J (D (d 3 a •r1 A W is A I~ r- �j 4-1 is rCj (n O U Q) >i >~ 4J 4J rI aJ 4J a n A r1 s~ Q) O �5 rl O A rI b) •ri a) O r`4 A 4J O W O Q) � (d C I~ (d >I U] •rl > O O O U U �4 s~ -H U) -i �-A �4 a M 4J rI rO s~ O ``4 U U O O I~ to 41 4) U) 3 4J = a aJ E + W �" U •r-♦ a) •r1 -4J 4-4 rcl i 0 0 (n r-1 Q) 4-4 U 14-4 Co rc5 -C� Q) 4J 'H U •r1 t3) -r1 4J ? 4 W •r1 (n •r1 a, (d O •r4 ? -P f a) 4-1 Q) N W 4J Q) U W FC N a) Q) S Q) ..-" 3 ro 3 4J -H (n Q) (o W •r-I a) r -H 4-4 (d r-1 4J r-A > tT ,.(-' •r.1 (n (d .S~' C -4-1 X. .j-, 4J 0 �', r-i (D a 4-I 0 ri O "1 O ro 3 Q) •-1 O 5-, O s~ E-1 •r1 4J �l 4J (d I~ 4-) A +-1 4J +) 4J P r 1 a) ' Q) �4 U t3' Q) C.' rO �4 > � U U •r1 04 4-4 •r 1 > W °o Q as ? 4 (d r--1 tT •r1 o a Q) U >1 4-J rO M �4•� ((nnrO —i W4J.4J � 4J�� Q) (d �4 W Q) r'O a) (d r-i •r1 (d (d 4J 00 }4 4.4 W ?4 3 Q) 4 � > i= 4J •��4J 3 4J�z 3•r�i o o a� U�4J 4J � -TJ a, H ow a4J Council Letter No. 182 -2- May 27, 1980 Because this sign, and the sign installation did not origi- nally conform to city ordinance requirements, and will not conform under terms of the amended application, it is the opinion of the city attorney that the city staff cannot recommend approval of the permit. Therefore, this matter is being returned to the city coun- cil for consideration of the new request for installation of this advertising sign. The staff is still concerned about the fact that approval of this sign permit will create a precedent which may invalidate our ability,to enforce the existing Richfield outdoor advertising sign ordinance provisions. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council deny this requested sign permit. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Public Safety Director City Attorney CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: /7 Council Letter No. 261 Agenda August 27, 1979 Subject: Request to Erect Outdoor Advertising Sign 'The Nordquist Sign Company, Inc., has requested permission to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the Twin City Tire, Inc. prop- erty, 719 West 77 1/2 Street. A diagram of the proposed sign and sketch of its location is attached. The chief building inspector has determined that the proposed sign would not meet city ordinance requirements, and has denied the sign permit. The applicant has requested an opportunity to appeal this sign permit application to the city council. The staff is recommending that this sign permit be denied for the following reasons: 1. Section 3.47 (13) defines "business sign" as a sign that states the proper name of the business, organi- zation, or institution located on the premises on which the sign is located. Section 3.49, subdivision 9, stip- ulates that signs placed on property located adjacent to any freeway within the city shall be business signs advertising business being conducted on the premises on which the signs are located. It is the opinion of the chief building inspector that the proposed sign is not a business sign, and may, therefore, not be placed in the location for which the permit is sought.. 2. The proposed sign face is to read "Michelin ". The Michelin tire product is one of several product lines carried by the Twin City Tire Company. This sign appears to meet the definition of section 3.47 for "advertising signs ", which means a sign of which the primary function is to draw attention to a product, service or activity that is sold or offered either elsewhere or upon the the premises where such sign is located. An advertising sign is defined by the ordinance as something separate from a "business sign ". As noted, the sign ordinance specifies that only business signs may be located adjacent to a city freeway. The �- proposed sign is to be placed adjacent to Interstate 494, �`�'%H` f rt` fF '":':'�Lar.JhB'af'` ` t '� . i::E3uss�= �.aestnicatzsraik!w a w.a 2.� _ e it 1 I I 1 I I I r i I I i 1 I I 1 I I i I 1 I I N J Ct' I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 V Al I { I { cD M; rt I t v 1 I i i i 15 foot setback r' r d x H CJ x MARKET DRIVE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 181 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Recommendation for Denial of Taxicab Drivers License The city has received an application from Mr. David John Conley for a taxicab drivers license. The background investigation con- ducted by the Department of Public Safety with-regard to this li- cense application reveals that the applicant was convicted in 1974 on a Federal bank robbery charge. The applicant is currently on parole as a result of this conviction. It is the opinion of the Department of Public Safety that this conviction relates directly to the license for which the applicant has applied. The uniform policy used by the Department of Public Safety in recommending the approval of taxicab drivers licenses requires that the applicant has completed one year which is free from license - related convictions. Since the applicant is currently on parole, he does not meet this uniform standard. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that this application for a Richfield taxicab drivers license be denied. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Public Safety Director Deputy City Clerk 4 G / )9 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 180 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Establishment of Special No Parking Zone The city council recently amended ordinance code 9.03, Subd. 1 (22) to provide an opportunity for certain handicapped residents to have "no parking" zones established upon the city street in front of their residence. We have received a request for the establishment of such a special no parking zone from a Mr. Gerald Huggett, 6331 Blaisdell. Avenue South. The public safety department has examined the peti- tion and finds the applicant qualified for the requested special zone. It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council approve establishment of a special no parking zone adjacent to 6331 Blaisdell Avenue South, as requested. The zone will be one car length in size. Upon approval by the coun- cil, the city will install the necessary parking restriction signs. KN /jf cc: Public Safety Director Re /sJpectfully submitted, _ 4 Karl Nollenberger City Manager I + RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS "SPECIAL NO PARKING ZONE" ON THE EAST SIDE OF BLAISDELL AVENUE FOR A DISTANCE OF ONE CAR LENGTH ADJACENT TO 6331 BLAISDELL AVENUE SOUTH BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Community Services Department is hereby authorized and dir- ected to erect the following signs at the following location, to wit: "Special No Parking Zone" on the East side of Blaisdell Avenue directly adjacent to 6331 Blaisdell Avenue South and extending for one car length (25 feet) 2. That when the aforementioned traffic control signs have been so erected on said street, they shall be official traffic control signs of the City of Richfield and failure to observe such signs shall constitute a violation of the traffic ordinance of this city. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of May, 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk 4W Donald J. Priebe Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 179 Agenda May 27, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Police and Fire Pension Legislation The 1980 session of the Minnesota Legislature approved an act which provided that all new police officers and fire- fighters hired after June 15, 1980 would become members of the statewide PERA pension plan rather than local police and fire relief associations. Previous to that time, the City of Rich- field had adopted an ordinance which put all new hirees in our police and fire operation into the statewide PERA pension plan subsequent to April 1, 1980. The state legislation confirmed the City of Richfield's position and ratified our ordinance retroactive to April 1, 1980 in order to make sure that no legal question existed as to the enforcement of our ordinance. The new state legislation deals with two types of instances as it relates to police and fire pension matters. On one case, the procedures in the bill relate to cities which had previously adopted charter amendments, ordinances, or special legislation putting all new police officers and firefighters into the state- wide PERA plan. In the second instance, the legislation dealt with cities which had not yet begun a phase out and which would be affected by the timetables established in the legislation. Those cities which had already begun the phase out had certain provisions made applicable to them in order to receive the state funding added to the legislation to help amoratize unfunded lia- bilities. The City of Richfield will receive in excess of $60,000 per year under the legislation which wouldctherwise be subject to property taxation on property within our municipal boundaries. The City of Richfield can be interpreted in the legislation as being either a city already phasing out or a city newly be- ginning a phase out. It has been our position so far that we are a city which had already begun the phase out procedure with our ordinance ratified by the legislative process. However, if for some reason in the future, this position was challenged, it would behoove us at this point to make sure that all procedures 0 Council Letter No. 179 -2- May 27, 1980 necessary to comply with aspects of the act governing cities which have already begun the phase out are adhered to. In that regard, cities already under the phase out must adopt a resolution in order to protect their availability of financing from the State of Minnesota to pay the unfunded liability. The resolution enclosed with this council letter would clarify that position for the City of Richfield and protect our right to receive the state contribu- tion in the future. It is recommended that the city council adopt this resolution at the May 27, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Director Administrative Services Director Public Safety R RESOLUTION 80- RESOLUTION RELATING TO POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL: IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA LAWS 1980, CHAPTER 607, ARTICLE XV, SECTIONS 6 AND 23. BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. This Council by Ordinance No. (Richfield City Code, Section 2.41) (the "Ordinance ") has provided that all salaried police and fire personnel hired after the effective date of the Ordinance are members of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund. (A certified copy of the Ordinance is attached as Exhibit A.) 2. The Minnesota Legislature has ratified and confirmed the action of the City in adopting the Ordinance by Section 23 of Laws 1980, Chapter 607, Article XV (the "Act "). The Act provides for, among other things, the automatic membership of all paid police and fire personnel hired after June 15, 1980 in the PERA Police and Fire Fund. It is hereby determined that Section 23 of the Act is a special law applicable to the City of Richfield. 3. Section 6 of the Act provides that any City which under a special law is required to have retirement coverage provided by the PERA Police and Fire Fund may by resolution have made applicable to it any provision of Section 4 of the Act not previously applicable to it o.r which is in substantial conflict with any existing provision relating to such personnel. 4. It is hereby found and determined that the City of Richfield desires to have all of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act apply to the City of Richfield. 5. The City reserves its right under the Act to consider separately the alternative benefit increase provisions of Section 7 of the Act. 6. The City Manager is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the appropriate state officials as provided in Section 6 of the Act. Attest: Clerk Mayor