Loading...
02-25-80 agendaRESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution. 2. The charge for taking a final meter reading where a customer is discontinuing water service shall be $10.00 per final deter reading. 3. The charge for removal and reinstallation of outside meter readers when physical modifications to the customer's property necessitate such removal and reinstallation shall be $15.00 per removal and reinstallation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the city shall be $30.00 per hydrant per year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1980. City Clerk Mayor 0 SAMPLE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Justice System Improvement Act of 1979 (JSIA) reauthorizes and restructures the LEAA Federal Grant -In -Aid Program to state and local units of government; and, WHEREAS, certain units of local general government are eligible individually or in combination to function under the JSIA as entitlement jurisdictions and in that status enjoy significant autonomy with respect to the utilization of a pre- determined allocation of federal funding; and, WHEREAS, units of government within the State of Minnesota must formally advise the Minnesota Crime Control Planning Board of their intentions regarding participation in the JSIA no later than March 10, 1980; BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of formally declares its inten- tion to participate in the JSIA as a member of the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (HCCJCC) under a joint Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis and suburban unit of government combination entitlement jurisdiction; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the Minnesota Crime Control Plan- ning Board proposes an alternative to entitlement jurisdiction status which maintains the integrity of pre - determined funding allocations and provides for the maintenance of cooperative intergovernmental planning and coordination as embodied in the HCCJCC, such a proposal will be considered by the City of at that time. �. 9 a , h 0 �0 �001 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 82 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Authorization to Implement Interim Salary Adjustment for Local 1215 There is an item on the February 25, 1980 city council agenda providing for council authorization to implement an interim wage adjustment under terms of the 1980 labor contract agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215. That labor contract provides that the 1980 wages of Richfield firefighters would be based on the 1980 wage rates of six compar- able communities, and that the specific pay rate for a Richfield firefighter would be established at the average wage rate of the second and third highest cities amongst those six. On December 27, 1979, the city council implemented an interim wage adjustment for Richfield's firefighters, based on wage settlements reached by three of the other cities. Since that time, the City of Coon CO�_Pr Rapids has established their 1980 wage rates. The last remaining city, South St. Paul, wnich has not settled 1980 wage rates, is in arbitration and appears likely to have a several months delay be- fore establishing 1980 wages. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council make another wage adjustment for Local 1215 em- ployees, based on the formula prescribed in the contract and the 1980 wage settlement which has not been established in Coon Rap- ids. The comparable cities and their 1980 monthly wage rates are as follows: \ o,\ �ko Coon Rapids West St. Paul St. Louis Park Richf ield ( interim) Edina Columbia Heights South St. Paul 1821 172-8 �� J 1693 1680 1668 1659 Not settled Based upon the formula outlined in the contract, the interim 1980 monthly pay rate for top Richfield firefighter would become $1710, or 8.43% over the 1979 monthly pay rate of $1577. (The first in- terim wage adjustment established a top monthly rate of $1680). Council Letter No. 82 -2- February 25, 1980 In addition to the basic wage adjustment, it is necessary to transfer funding from the contingency account to the fire divi- sion budget to cover the city's 1980 pension contributions. As you know, the city's pension contributions are based on the wage rate for top firefighter. At the time that the city council approved the first interim 1980 wage adjustment, I did not recomm- end that the council transfer funding for the corresponding in- crease in retirement contribution, since it appeared likely that a subsequent wage adjustment would become necessary. However, I believe that the recommended adjustment at this time represents a salary which is likely very close to what the final 1980 wage rate will be, and that we should transfer funds to the fire divi- sion to represent the increased costs of the city's pension con- tribution at this time. A contingency resolution authorizing the transfer of $20,446 from the contingency account to the fire div- ision account, to implement the wage and retirement contribution adjustments described herein, is attached. It is recommended that the city council adopt this resolution. After the council approves this resolution, the unallocated contingency balance will be down to $13,720. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator Public Safety Director a RES0LUTiO1 NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTERIM ADJUSTMENT IN SALARIES TO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6130 appropriated funds for each department of the City for the year 1980; and WHEREAS, contingency appropriation was made in the General Fund for various purposes, including the 1980 salary adjustments and the related fringe benefit contributions; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6067 approved the Agreement between the City of Richfield and the Members of Local 1215, International Association of Firefighters, AFL -CIO for the years 1978 -1980 which provides for a pay plan and establishes the maximum employer contribution for health insurance purposes; and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined necessary to adjust the 1980 budget appropriation by $20,446 to reflect adjustments required by this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the sum of $20,446 be transferred from the contingency appropriation of the General Fund to the Public Safety Department. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of February, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST• Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk c± xp� vsxi r fin•,.+ ... _ .., �. ., CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager \ Ali The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: _�:� / 21 Council Letter No. 81 Agenda February 25, 1980 Subject: Report on Annual Spring Clean -Up Week At the February 11, 1980 city council meeting, the council requested that the staff undertake a random survey of Richfield residents to determine community interest in continuing some form of spring clean -up campaign. The purpose of this council letter is to report on the results of that survey, and to request that the city council make a final determination regarding whether a spring clean up program will be undertaken this year and, if so, what the form of that program might be. Attached to this letter is a copy of the survey that was sent to 400 randomly selected Richfield homeowners, (Attachment A). Also attached is a copy of the tabulated results of this survey (Attachment B). Out of the 400 surveys mailed out, approximately 180 responses were received, which represents an excellent return. As shown on the tabulation of results, approximately 102 of these responses were from people who had participated in the spring clean -up program in previous years, while 73 responses were from persons who have not participated in the program. However, an overwhelming majority of the respondents (146 compared with 26) indicated a desire to see the program continued. Of these, 143 wanted to continue the curbside pick -up, even with a $2.00 charge for the pick -up service, while 25 people supported the alternative program which would provide a designated site where residents would bring disposable items for the city to haul away, at no charge. The program in previous years has provided curbside pick -up at no cost to the resident, but.at a 1979 cost to the city in excess of $26,000. As council members are aware, the 1980 adopted budget did not contemplate continuation of the curbside pick -up spring clean UP program. In addition to-the problem orthe unbudgeted cost of providing.this program, the annual curbside pick -up has consumed almost a full month of street maintenance employees time, meaning deferral of numerous other work activities, many of which are particularly crucial to be done during the month of May (i.e., street sweeping, tree trimming, etc.), which is the same time that the-clean-up has been scheduled. The alternative of providing a designated site, somewhat limited clean -up program which would Council Letter No. 81 -2- February 25, 1980 still entail dumping costs for disposal sites, would have the major advantage of limiting the city's manpower costs for the clean -up campaign. The alternative of continuing curbside pick - up'and charging $2 would help defray part of the city's direct costs of the clean -up program, for the maintenance employees who participate in the clean -up, but would present the city with other administrative costs of charging and collecting the $2, as well as deterring the maintenance personnel from other sched- uled work activities. Numerous comments attached to the returned survey forms indicated a reluctance on the part of the residents to be unilaterally charged $2 for a program in which they may choose to not participate. I believe the council has five alternatives with regard to the spring clean -up program, as follows: 1. Totally eliminate any city- sponsored clean -up activity; 2. Reinstate the curbside pick -up at no'cost to the residents, but at considerable financial and manpower cost to the city) 3. Provide curbside pick -up with every household in the-, city to be charged $2 (which is possible not equitable for those persons who do not participate in the program) 4. Provide curbside pick -up with a $2 charge per each participating household (which presents considerable administrative problems and costs for the city and provides far less revenues than the program will cost) 5. Provide a one -site, designated disposal location where people can dump their discarded items at no cost to them (still has cost to city for hauling to landfill site). A variation of this alternative is to estab- lish a number of disposal sites, around the city which would be more convenient to the residents. If the city council wishes to continue a city - sponsored annual clean -up program, I believe the most effective means of meeting residents' needs to dispose of discarded goods, while mini- mizing the financial and manpower costs to the city, is the alter- native of designating a specific item and place where residents can' - discard items. This alternative would enable those persons who wish to participate in the program to do so, eliminate the concerns of those who do'not participate in the program with piles of discarded items sitting along city boulevards for several weeks in May, and significantly reduce the city's cost to offer a clean -up service, enabling the personnel assigned to that program to continue meeting their other springtime work obligations. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Services Director M0 co N ® Lf) u) cu ■ U) i E ■ cu CU M LM O a ■ O ATTACHMENT A February 14, 1980 Dear Resident: For the past several years the City of Richfield and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce have jointly sponsored "Richfield Clean -Up, Fix -Up, Paint -Up Week" which is usually the first or second week of the month of May. At this time, residents are encouraged to place articles which they want to dispose of at the curb of their prop- erty for a one -time pick -up by city crews. In this way, property owners could dispose of items which are not normally picked up by their regular refuse haulers. Items which cannot be handled by this pick -up service are building materials, junked cars, etc. Because of the time and expense (over $26,000 in 1979) involved in a project of this size, the Richfield City Council has asked the city staff to re- evaluate this project. We would, therefore, appreciate it if you would complete the following questionnaire and return it in the enclosed self - addressed envelope so that we may receive it no later than February 21, 1980. Thanks your help! Sincerely yours, �, Q, Ka"_% Karl Nollenberger City Manager 1. Have you previously participated in this clean -up? Yes No 2. Should the project be continued? Yes No 3. If the project is continued, would you support: A. Curb -side pick -up with a $2.00 charge or B. One designated site where residents would bring disposable items for the city to haul to a dump site at no charge. Curb -side at $2.00 Designated Site telephone: 869 -7521 (612) an equal opportunity employer ATTACHMENT B TABULATION OF RESULTS, COMMUNITY SURVEY RE: SPRING CLEAN -UP 1. Have you previously participated in this clean -up? Yes 102 No 73 2. Should the project be continued? Yes 146 ._ No 26 3. If the project is continued, would you support A. Curb -side pick -up with a $2.00 charge or B. One designated site where residents would bring disposable items for the city to haul to a dump site at no charge. Favor Alternative A 143 Favor Alternative -B 25 Up k on Annual Spring Clean Up Survey 240 responses received 108 had previously participated in spring cleanup 79 had not 168 wanted the program continued as opposed to 26 who do not. 162 favor curbside pickup, while 29 support designated site Y Pr U /4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 80 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Request for Authorization to Submit Grant Application There is an item on the February 25, 1980 city council agenda requesting council authorization to submit a grant application to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for assistance in replacing equipment used in the city's shade tree disease control program. For several years, the City of Richfield has participated in the state - assisted shade tree disease program, directed es- pecially toward containment of Dutch elm disease and oak wilt diesase. As part of this program, the city has received funding from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to support some of our personnel and equipment costs in operating the tree trimming and removal program, as well as to provide subsidy monies to homeowners to help defray the cost of having diseased trees re- moved. The Department of Agriculture's shade tree grant program also provides funding to assist municipalities in acquiring the equip- ment necessary to administer an effective shade tree program. The approved 1980 central garage operating budget includes an appropriation of $43,000 to replace fully depreciated mobile aerial bucket equipment which is used extensively in the tree trimming and removal program. It appears that this equipment replacement might be eligible for funding assistance through the state shade tree program. An additional $7,000 appropriation is contained in the central garage budget to replace a brush chipper, also used extensively in the shade tree disease program. It appears that the brush chipper might also be eligible for state funding assistance. It is also recommended that we seek funding assistance to acquire a log splitter, which would facilitate the ease of removal of wood from downed trees, and enable us to prepare diseased tree wood for fire wood purposes. The estimated cost to acquire these three pieces of equip- ment is $66,000. If state funding is available for this purpose, Council Letter No. 80 -2- February 25, 1980 the state share of the financing would be 50 percent, or $33,000 of the total cost, with the city being responsible for the additional $33,000. This funding formula would enable the city to acquire the truck and aerial bucket and brush chipper equipment, already scheduled for acquisition in 1980, as well as a log chipper, for $17,000 less than the $50,000 appropriation included in the 1980 central garage budget to acquire just the aerial equipment and brush chipper. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize submission of a grant application to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture for this equipment acquisition. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Services Director Technical Operations Superintendent Finance Coordinator CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 79 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and ",�, NA, 0, l ^7 Members of the City Council c�. �o o-Q City of Richfield Co:znc it Members: Subject: Apprbval of Recreation Program Fees and Charges The purpose of this council letter is to submit a proposed user fee schedule for park and recreation areas, facilities and programs. The areas of the proposals include the ice arena, swimming pool(s), community center and recreation programs. Background information is provided in each area.to which a change in fee structure is proposed. These new fees and charges have been reviewed by the Park and Rec- reation Commission and recommended for adoption by the city council. Ice Arena - Background Ground breaking at the Richfield Ice Arena took place in late September, '1970, and the facility opened to the public in October with the grand opening in December of 1971. Based on city council action, the priority system for reserving ice time at the arena has been that first hours are scheduled by the city for city sponsored events and programs, second priority is to the Richfield School Dis- trict based on the joint facilities agreement and third priority is to the Richfield Hockey Association. All remaining users are on a first come, first serve basis. The most recent fee structure for ice rental went into effect with the 1979/80 season: 1. Purchasers of 100 or more hours of ice are charged $45 per hour (basically the school district and the hockey association). 2. Purchasers of 10 or more hours of ice are charged $47.50 per hour (basically the skating club, Holy Angels and a few other groups or individuals). 3. Purchasers of a single hour of ice are charged $50 per hour (these are usually the non -prime time hours or those hours between 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekdays and midnight to 7:00 a.m. on weekends). 4. The fee schedule applies equally to any purchaser of ice time, resident or non - resident. 5. The staff evaluates the city sponsored open skating schedule and has the authority to determine revisions based on usage and revenues (when the outdoor rinks are available, open skating sessions may be cancelled at the indoor arena with the hours sold for more rev- enue than is generally generated by open skating). Council Letter No. 79 -2- February 25, 1980 For ice time rental, the Richfield Ice Arena has one of the lowest fee schedules among area arenas. Our hourly rate structure is generally one year behind other arenas; i.e., fees adopted this year are generally those currently charged at other arenas but do not go into effect until the following season here. If other arenas have prime time and non -prime time rates, the prime time rate is the higher. In Richfield, based on adopted policy for priority of sched- uling, our "prime time" rates are our lowest rates because most of these hours are used by the high school and hockey association. A current rate structure survey of other arenas was recently conducted by the city staff and is attached for.council review. Prior to the 1976 joint facilities agreement the arena received 60% of the gross gate receipts. Since then, the arena has received $50 per hour. Because of increased manpower costs for clean -up and running the game, this has been a losing proposition for the arena. An increase in the hourly rate or a return to a split gate is needed to make this a more realistic charge. In the last few years the ice arena has had a deficit of approx- imately $50,000. That is to say that expenditures exceed revenues and the difference is supported by the general fund. The arena does not operate on a break even basis overall. With the adopted 1980 budget for expenditures and revenues, including the salary adjust- ments allowed in 1980, the arena has an anticipated deficit of $61,500. If a change in fee structure is adopted ath this time, the increased revenues would not be realized until the 1980/81 season. If $12,000 in increased revenues were to be realized with the new rates, only one - fourth to one -third of that would apply to the 1980 budget, re- ducing the 1980 deficit to approximately $58,000. Although the contract or hourly rental of ice is the largest revenue producing activity at the Ice Arena, there are other events and activities that produce revenue. This includes open skating. At the present time a variety of discount ticket books are available. When the discount ticket system first started in 1971, tickets were good forever. Since then the policy has been changed so that tickets bought during a calendar year are only good for that calendar year. As an alternate to tic, bo ks, a per -time admission may be paid. This is a flat rate of $1.25 er session with no distinction as to age or residency. Gene 1 , there is at ,least one open skating ses- sion every day of the week that the arena is open to the public (the arena is closed for approximately 3 -4 weeks in September for mainten- ance and repair and to put in a new ice sheet for the coming season). The typical week would include the following open skating sessions: Monday 10:00 am - 12 noon 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm (adult night) Tuesday 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm Wednesday 10:00 am -- 12 noon 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm Thursday 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm Friday 10:00 am - 12 noon Saturday 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm Sunday 2:45 pm - 4:45 pm 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm Council Letter No. 79 -3- February 25, 1980 Another activity at the arena is private skating lessons. While the city offers group skating lessons, individual professional in- structors may provide private skating lessons. At the present time the arena collects the fees for private instruction from the student and then pays the instructor or pro 85% of the fees collected. Recommendation It is rental be the recommendation of the staff that rates for hourly ice increased as follows for the 1980/81 Ice.Arena fees: V� Basic Rate yI 10 hour contract UUU 100 hour contract ,Richfield School District Games It is the recommendation of the skating be adjusted as follows: Current Proposed $50.00 per hour $55.00 per hour 47.50 per hour 52.50 per hour 45.00 per hour 50.00 per hour 4-5=-80 per hour, 75.00 per hour 5o -00 $6.00/571 $.75/12,108 214,861 19631 12.00/3,505 city staff that rates for open 16.50 /'1. Eliminate discount tickets for open skating. 0- 2. Charge $.75 for skaters under the age of 18.E 3. Charge $1.25 for skaters age 18 and over. 1 1114, 41' The use of discount tickets has steadily declined over the years the arena has been in operation. Elimination of this system would reduce the expense of producing the ticket books and handling same. By providing a divided admission price, based on age, for open skating, the younger will pay a reduced price and the adult skating will pay the same price as previously. It is the recommendation of the city staff that the opportunity for private skating instruction at the ice arena be adjusted with an internal bookkeeping change whereby `1 the city collects only the city's 15 percent share of the private instruction rates and the instructor retain immediately upon collect- ion, their 85 percent share. Swimming Pools_- Background Following is a brief history of the fees and attendance at the Richfield municipal outdoor pool since its opening in 1962: Family Single Daily Total Year Season /Tick /sold Season Tick /sold .Admission /sold Attend. 1962* $12.00/3,132 $6.00/571 $.75/12,108 214,861 19631 12.00/3,505 6.00/686 .75/ 8,633 276,496 1970 16.50 8.25 1975 20.50 13.50 19762 21.00 Q 16.00 $1.00 1977 32.0Q�� 20.00 1.00/6,126 *Peak attendance year 1 first fee adjustment 2 comination ticket, provided admission to outdoor and indoor pools Council Letter No. 79 -4- February 25, 1980 In 1976, the indoor school pools became available to the public. In the summer of 1976, the city leased the indoor pools at West Junior High School and East Junior High School from the school district. At the indoor pools open swimming was available from 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. seven days a week and from 7:00 p.1n. to 10:00 p.m. six days a week (excluding Saturdays). Daytime attendance at the in- door pools averaged 171 total, for 57 per hour, and evening,attend- ance at the indoor pools averaged 70 total, or 23 per hour. At the indoor pool, daily admission was $.50 per hour or $1.00 for a three hour session. With the start of the new year in 1977, the city leased the indoor pools during the school year and provided open swimming at a charge of $.50 per hour. For the summer of 1977, the school district began its policy of draining the east pool each summer, so that in- door swimming was available only at the west pool. In the summmer of 1977 a variety of season ticket options were made available to the public. A resident family season ticket to the outdoor pool cost $21, a resident single season ticket to the outdoor pool cost $16, a non - resident family ticket to the outdoor pool cost $30 and a non- resident single ticket to the outdoor pool cost $20, the same price as in 1976. For the first time a combination ticket, provided admission to either the municipal outdoor pool or the indoor pool at West Junior High School, at the following rates: Resident family, $32, resident single, $20; non - resident combination, $48. At the municipal outdoor pool hours of open swim were 8 hours a day, seven days a week. At the West Junior High School indoor pool hours of open swim were 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m., Sunday through Friday, and 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday evenings. That year, there were only 831 resi- dent family outdoor tickets and 177 resident family combination tickets sold, 169 resident single outdoor tickets and 47 resident single combination tickets sold, 42- non - resident family tickets were sold and 7 non - resident single tickets were sold. Only 6,126 people paid on a daily admission basis for both the outdoor and indoor facilities. Total 1977 attendance, both pools combined, was 50,757, less than one - fourth the attendance of 1962 when only the municipal outdoor pool was available. In 1978, ticket prices were increased again, with one ticket allowing admission to both indoor and outdoor facilities. For those using the outdoor pool, the price increased. For those using the indoor facilities, the price decreased. Resident family tickets were now available for $29.50, single tickets for $19.50, non - resident family for $40 and non- resident single for $25. In 1979 ticket prices were: resident family $28.50, resident single, $18.50, non- resident family, $35 and non - resident single, $21. The season ticket continued to allow admission to either facility during open swimming hours. Statistics from 1979 indicate a sale of 651 resident family tickets, 193 resident single tickets, 54- non - resident family tickets and 4 non - resident single tickets. Paid daily admissions, both facilities, totalled 9,452. Total summer season attendance at the outdoor pool was 36,188, at the indoor pool 7,918, for a-total comb, bined attendance of 44,106. ' Council Letter No. 79 -5- February 25, 1980 Recommendation With regard to summer season tickets, it is the recommendation of the staff that the following fee schedule be adopted: Resident family $29.50 f �' Resident single 19.50 i .;moo Non - resident family 35.00 Non - resident single 21.00 �9 Purchase of season tickets would allow admission to either the indoor facility or the outdoor facility during open -swimming summer hours. VCP It is recommended that the daily admission to open swimming at o the outdoor pool be increased to $1.25 and that admission to the in door pool be increased to $.75 per hour or $1.50 for a three -hour �_ session, summer and school year seasons. '� There are a number of swim clubs that use the outdoor municipal swimming pool. It is recommended that the charge for such activity be increased from $12 per hour to $14 per hour for use of the entire outdoor pool facility. Should only half of the pool facility be used by a group, the charge would be $7.00 per hour. Typically the swim instruction fees have been calculated by de- termining the cost of the instructor and materials such as lifesavin, ' 7.c� gT manuals that may be provided, and dividing this by the number of students per class to determine the cost of the swim instruction per student. It is recommended this same procedure be used. Classes may anticipate an increased rate of 10 - 15 percent. Typically this would be about a $.50 increase for ten hours of instruction. Background- Community Center The building at 7000 Nicollet Avenue was constructed by the City of Richfield several years ago and leased by Hennepin County to provide library services to Richfield and surrounding community. The city provided janitorial services for the lower level where the ' community room was available on a rental basis to various groups and organizations. In the mid- 1970's, the Hennepin County Library system � requested an addition to the building or an alternate site to be sold to the county for construction of a new community library if Richfield were to choose to continue to offer library services. Approximately four acres of land at 72nd Street and Nicollet Avenue were sold to Hennepin County and the new Augsburg Park Community Library was con- structed by the county. The city owned facility was then determined to best fit the needs'of the community by becoming a community center with emphasis on the senior and handicapped citizens. The grand opening of the Richfield Community Center was in May, 1976. Recommendation It is the staff recommendation that there be no change in rental fees for the Community Center at this time. As for programming, it Council Letter No. 79 -6- February 25, 1980 is recommended the same calculations as used with other programs be Qr used to determine user fees. This includes determining the cost of supervisor or instructor as well as materials provided divided Q by the number of participants per class and thereby determine the pJ fee. VS v Recreation Programs -_Background Information Until 1970, the school district provided recreation or programm- ing functions for the community and the city provided the park or facility functions for the programs and non - structured opportunities .offered for the community. In 1970 the city assumed both roles and the park and recreation department was made a part of the city oper- ation. Unlike many other communities or municipalities, the City of Richfield has a large number of special interest groups varying from athletics for all ages and interest to clubs such as rock and minerals. The recreation section of the city works closely with these organiza- tions as well as offering recreation programming not available through another organization or club. It has been the policy of the city to provide various recreation opportunities to the community without charge of user fees. These include general, open park space and various amenities such as ballfields, tennis courts, play apparatus, ' multi -use pathways and so forth, which provide unstructured use of leisure time, and the summer and winter playgrounds which provide a more structured use of leisure time. Other program offerings are available on the basis that user fees equal direct expenses for the given program. With the joint facilities agreement, little cost is incurred for facilities such as gymnasiums at the schools. Cost of facilities such as outdoor tennis courts are generally minor. User fees generally reflect the cost of supervisor or instructor cost and the cost of incidentals such as materials or transportation. If fees are charged for a specific, limited use, such fees reflect actual costs and are not charged to provide a profit to the city. Recommendation It is the staff recommendation that program fees be calculated to reflect cost as has been done in the past.. Inflation factors such as salary adjustments or increases in the cost of transportation would be calculated. Most classes would realize a small increase in cost, generally less than $1 for a participant per session or program offering. The city currently has 30 tennis courts available to the public. In addition, the school district has six tennis courts which are available to the public outside of the time they are used by the school district. All of these courts are available to the public on a first -come first -serve basis during the season. The city does have 18 of the 30 tennis courts lighted. Because of the cost for lighting installation and operation, it has been the policy of the city to charge for the use of lights on a tennis court. This charge will also provide a reserved time and court space for the user. Because of the increased cost of salaries for the staff handling the reserved Council Letter No. 79 -7- February 25, 1980 times on lighted courts and the increased cost of energy, it is recommended the cost of one hour reserved tennis time with lights be increased from $2 to $3. While the city provides ballfield space at no charge for regular season games scheduled by a recognized Richfield organization, it .has been the policy of the city to charge for special or additional use of ballfield space which may or may not include the use of lights on the softball, baseball or football /soccer field. The current policy calls for a damage deposit prior to the event and a billing is made to reflect actual costs of the event. These costs include use of the field space, an attendant on duty and the cost of lights, if they are used. In the last two years, the city has experienced increased problems in the collection of bills made for these special uses. It is recommended the deposit be increased from $100 to $200 or the estimated cost for use of the facility, whichever is greater. It is also recommended that the hourly rate for use of lighting be adjusted to reflect actual cost of energy use. The fees currently charged were established in 1974 and have not been increased despite the increasing costs of energy since that time. Summary The staff recommendations outlined above for various programs, facilities and activities are not intended to produce a profit for the city or create a hardship on user individuals or organizations. It is the intent of the city to continue to offer as many opportun- ities as possible to the citizens of Richfield. The park and recrea- tion advisory commission has reviewed the staff recommendations, and at their February 12, 1980 meeting it was the unanimous recommendation of the commission that staff recommendations be adopted by the city council. At the city council workshop of January 28, 1980, materials were distributed and discussion held related to fees.and charges. Addit- ional information is attached to this council letter. The community services director will be available at the February 25, 1980 city council meeting to answer any questions the council members may have. Many of the recommendations affect 1980 summer programs and activ- ities. It is important that the city council take action as soon as possible so that publication deadlines may be met to keep the community informed. Respectfully submitted, I<r`Q. N "Q Karl Nollenbergeru City Manager KN /ej a cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Inter- Office Memorandum DATE January 21, 1980 To Dave Skrien FROM Lil Hipp SU9JECT Fee Structures in other communities I believe the greatest concern regarding the Community Center is the fee structure for room use on evenings and weekends. I contacted Bloomington, Edina, St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. A. Bloomington (Creekside Building) allows groups to use the building at no charge on evenings and weekends. These are private, non - profit groups. B. Edina does not have any building which is available for rental to the public. A council chambers and one meeting room in city hall may be used by civic groups. This cannot be on an "on- going" basis. No charge is made for these occassions. :. St. Louis Park - The City owns the Nelson Building which is open to civic groups, private, non - profit organizations, advisory groups, etc. There is no charge for usage of this building. It is open evenings and weekends. D. Minneapolis has many recreation centers within the City. These Centers are rented on evenings and weekends to the public; each Center having its own fee structure. 1. At the Armatage sight the fee structure is: Civic groups or private non - profit groups who do not charge for their activity - No Charge. Private, non - profit groups which do charge their membership or private weddings, parties, showers, are charged: $5.00 - Kitchen $5.00 - Meeting Room $5.00 - All Purpose Room r -_ January 21, 1980 Memo - Page 2 Dave Skrien Adaptive & Senior Citizen Fees Fees are directly comparable for our senior citizen programs within the area. Programs are basically cost effective; paying for instructors and materials used. The adaptive program cannot be compared*to the other communities since we are "one of a kind" in the area. The City of Edina and Eden Prairie do not offer year round adaptive programming. Minneapolis has designated certain sights to offer adaptive programs. Fees are based on an "at cost" basis for materials or special events. i jy. -VT 4!) 4y-t 4vv 411). 4A Ul A N -v z 3 J. .... C+ a (D J. 0 0 0 0 0 0 -� (+ 0 Cl 0 0 J• O r n. =r (D a! -•S O (D O C-+ 3 -< c J. _0 O m J. 3 rD ..f CD PO L u u u 0 (D o cn J w 3 -n 0 0 (D O o a m b -s 's (D t< r J n •. -VT 4!) 4y-t 4vv 411). 4A Ul A Ul Ul Ul cn U1 O o Cn o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N o ? o O+ N 3 v (D -h _r- 0 0 J• J. J. J. m 3 3 3 3 CD PO v u u u 417 An 40011 b7 tii' E>T S m m ca Z 7+ ;a C7 (.n Ul Ul 0) Ul Ul C -•• o O to v n I:ry m cn o 0 O N o ? o O+ N 3 v (D -h _r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 m • • t-) CD PO 0 0 0 0 0 o cn J C+ 0 00 0 0 (D O -z -+ m b (D t< r 417 An 40011 b7 tii' E>T S Z 4fr -WT Z 4fT 4fT N C7 (.n Ul Ul 0) Ul Ul C Ul o Ul o o O T1 cn o 0 o v, o z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 -< 0 0 0 0 0 0 m • • t-) 0 PO 0 0 0 0 0 o cn •-4 0 00 0 0 0 -z 0 m 3 Z Z 4fl +� 4,a 414 4-A- 4f Z 4fr -WT Z 4fT 4fT N O o 4�1 -A Ul -P Ul o Ul (n o -P. -0. v z z cn o 0 o v, o z o o (n v m m m m m • • t-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cn •-4 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0o b r N S S n •. �� O O 00 O O ar n to =3 O O O D "S ' :3 Z c-I- 77- =' c+ O -i 'S 5 c+ 'S 'S cl n J. J. (D J• J. - D =r C+ J 3 3 Di 3 3 c N O 3 n (D (D 3 rD (D O- N O rD n O O O c+ f> c+ C+ v Z 4fT 4 N 4n N . Z O' 4f} to N Ul Z V C7 C) 41-T N E.? b4 Z. 4v"+ S CD Cn N O -T w -a c O O O O to c N N ::E O cn z Ul v cO v (o O -J co \ : c -0 aj cn (n v co O — O G') m cn Di (n a) m cn o — -s Ul I w -+, � -1 o a, cn (v o c+ c-) S CD E3 . 3 ai (D . C+ 0) On o (D J• a) 3• 3 O O o (D O (D 3 \ O m O 'S r+• = O (D O (D O Sv o N O N O (D (n O C-+ to c cn (D C-+ O vn O O n -1 n •O LO fn O (D "0 -h -0 = (D CO J• to '0 S (D O t0 O c Co (D -• (D — n (D 0(c O c Z7 c+ (D (D O 'S 'S c­5 w V) c -•• -5 -• (D S c -S w (D l< S o w -z -o w o c+ rD c+ o ai -s Z ( r Ul j cn 01 — Z i. c (n "'S cn '-5 Ul a) O CD Q) O= -.a, n 00 Oa O7 cn O m c �, c -- r+ c+ = cn (D 3 m \ c \ (-+ a1 La c -5 Cn r+ Cn (D C+ O (D o Ul r+ U1 (D 3 -i Z 3 O (D O (D (D \ N \ O rD O (D (D (D m rD d. (D Ul 4�!- (D d (D N a a. o o a n O G') m —I o n sL A . x (D sv O << L (D (D O N C+ =r 0-5 `U C+ n N O D E3 n (D 52o C n (D J. N D n C+ C+ N O O \ O \ \ C-h J• (D r I c O (D IZ < (D CD J• ko N n -< c * N IZ O Ul L z z {f- 00 I'- O (cwt o0 CD O N -- N C+ O' (n LTI -a n 1 I I \ 2- (D 0) � (D n —I -< 1 J. 'i n �.-• d (D O ru J u I = C0 O Q' n n ANH C (D C n O Ul A 01 OI C cn I (D N C+ =r `U C+ C T 'i -5 I w sv w C+ o Al 52o (D (D (D -S O (D C -S D A D A— '—'OOA D ca C+ n n O O \ (D Ul E — (D \ \ C-h N << a :�E :3 (D -P (D O (D IZ (n J H3 :3 E3 CD crl C O t--�, Ibl+ Ul L z z {f- 00 I'- O O n A w o0 CD O c (D -- n O O CD LTI -a (D ( O \ O (D 0) � Cr 1 Z 'i n co I� ru J co O 'EA fsT {i4 / \'(s>• «tf7fl;• 'Ef3 4�rEt5f 4- ')E.fT Ul V U'1 V I- I-- N F-+ dl Ul Ul \ (D • ulN• N NN U EA OC O O • U1 000 O I+ O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O i N I \ CD CD I O I I I 00 W 00 F--' O I co I m Ql m i I C O 1 00 Co 0000 N U O u I zjb-r -61)- = z O-(� -bqz z ANH n O Ul A O Ul (D l0 Cn cn I fl.. (D n -5 (o \ n m `U C+ I w sv w C+ o Al w \ -S O (D C -S D A D A— '—'OOA D O O O O \ (D Ul E — (D \ \ C-h C 0) :�E :3 (D -P (D O (D IZ (n J H3 :3 E3 CD crl C zjb-r -61)- = z O-(� -bqz z ANH n O < --o A O (D l0 Cn cn I n -5 (o \ n I w sv w C+ o Al w \ -S O (D C -S 0" (D (D Ul E — (D C 0) -P (D (n J crl O t--�, Ibl+ Ul L z z {f- 00 I'- O O n A w o0 CD O -- n O O CD LTI -a O \ O (D 0) � 1 Z 'i n co I� N co O Ol O (D C (� J O _ (D (L Q O C L N U <� z AAIJ NA O O O O O I I v � 4114-Zb� Z Z 00DcI AA O O O O I rn 00 EA {fT Et3 Z f�T �-+ co D m ClN• • O o 00o O 001 I I 1 0 00 rn rn 000 Z '? -- Z Ef? n A A A co O O 00 n n —I H G H cn r m m (/) z V) m H OS Z C) H C-) S n H m r 0 m H Z A N r 0 _c N .0 A A v r m C A r r m 0 c N C m n O 't7 D n r' m m 0 D D SNIMMING POOL COMPARISON PRICES 1979 Richfield Bloomington Edina Family Season Ticket Resident $28.50* $8.00+14.00 $22.00 Non - resident $35.00 + tax, per $27.00 swimmer) Individual Season Ticket Resident $18.50 $10.40 $13.00 Non - resident $21.00 $18.00 Daily;Admission $ 1.00 $ 1.00 $ 1.25 Swimming Lessons $ 3.00/ Public School $12.00/ 8 hr. 40 min. 10 hr.15 min. Adult Swim-Lessons $ 7.00/ $12.00/ 5 hrs. 12 hrs. Synchronized Swimming $ 3.50 $12.00 Advanced Life Saving $12.00 $15.00 $12.00 Basic Rescue & Water Safety $ 5.50/ - $10.00 $12.00/ 12 hrs. - 12 hrs. C!° Diving $ 3.50/ $10.00 $12.00/ 4 hr.10 min. 10 hr.15 min. * Includes both outdoor and indoor pools OPEN SKATING 1980 ARENA COST Bloomington $ .50 11 years & under $1.00 12 717 years $1.50 18 "& older Edina $1.05 Everyone $33.00 Season Pass (All Edina Hockey Assoc. players MUST purchase one. Assoc. then gets reduction in ice cost.) Minnetonka $1.00 Everyone $7.50 Book of 10 tickets Parade $1.00 Children $1.25 Adults St. Louis Park $ .75 Youths (16 & under) $1.00 Adul is $5.50 10 Youth tickets $8.00 10 Adult tickets $25.00 Family (20 youth /20 adult) Burnsville $ .75 13 & under $1.00 14 - 17 years $1.25 Adult F CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 78 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Establishing Musical Concerts. First Reading. At the February 11, 1980 city council meeting the city council directed the city attorney to prepare an ordinance amendment which would establish.a licensing program for mini - theatre.and musical concert types of activities. The city attorney's office has indicated that this ordin- ance amendment will be available for council review and discuss- ion at the February 25, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberg r City Manager KN /eja 0 L .w ,44 C AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER V, PART II, AND APPENDIX D 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 licensing and regulation of certain types of amusement and recreation is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new section: 5.22 A Musical Concerts Subdivision 1. Definition. For the purpose of this section, the term "musical concert" shall mean and be limited to a live musical performance by a single performer,/which is conducted and observed entirely indoors. 0 C. %,,-v r\k Subdivision 2. License. No person shall conduct a musical concert without first having obtained a license to do so. Subdivision 3. Application. Any person desiring to obtain a musical concert license shall make application to the City Clerk upon the forms provided for that purpose. The application shall be accompanied by the license fee established in Appendix D of this Code. Subdivision 4. Approval. Each application shall be reviewed and approved or disapproved by the City Council. Subdivision 5. License Duration. The license granted under this section shall permit only one musical concert. The applicant may request multiple licenses in the same application. Subdivision 6. Conditions Governing Licensure. The following conditions govern the licensure of musical concerts under this section: (1) Musical concerts may be conducted only in the commercial districts of the city. (2) Not more than 50 persons may attend any single musical concert. (3) The licensee shall prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises. (4) No instrumental or voice amplification may be used. Electrified instruments must be kept at such a volume level that sound is not transmitted to neighboring properties. 4 .4 (5) Only one musical concert may be performed per day on the licensed premises and such performance may occur only between the hours of 12:00 and 10:00 p.m. (6) Adequate parking shall be available on the licensed premises in compliance with. the provisions of Richfield Ordinance Code Section 4.05 to accomodate any anticipated traffic generated by the licensed activity. (7) The licensee shall be responsible for maintaining order on all parts of the licensed premises. (8) The licensed activity shall be conducted in such a manner and located in such a place as to be unlikely to result in injury or damage to persons or property in the neighborhood or be injurious, annoying or disruptive to patrons of other businesses located in the area. Subdivision 7. Revocation or Suspension of License. The license may be revoked or suspended by the City Manager whenever the licensee, its owner, manager, employees or agent has engaged in any of the following conduct: (1) Fraud, deception or misrepresentation in connection with the securing of a license. (2). Conduct inimical to the interests of public health, safety, welfare or morals. (3) Conduct involving moral turpitude. (4) Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude,by any court of competent jurisdiction. (5) Failure to comply with.any of the provisions of this section or engaging in conduct which would be grounds for denial of an initial application for licensure. The matter shall then proceed as provided in Richfield Ordinance Code §5.14 Subd. 4. B. Appendix D of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield establishing fees for various licensed activities is hereby amended by adding to Section 5 thereof the following paragraph: "TYPE OF SECTION FEE LICENSE REQUIRING SCHEDULE FEE (12) Musical Concert 5.22 A Per Event $5.00" t . r 1 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 1980. Donald Priebe, Mayor ATTEST Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk I'� /OR CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 77 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Amendment of Final Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Coach Homes of Richfield Lake Development On November 13, 1979, the city council approved a final devel- opment plan for development of the Coach Homes of Richfield Lake, on the site formerly occupied by Woodlake Elementary School. The developers have since filed construction drawings to obtain the necessary building permits. Section 3.34A, subdivision 7, paragraph 2 of the zoning or- dinance requires that the planning director certify that the con- struction drawings are in substantial compliance with the PUD plan, the final development plan and any other conditions imposed by the council. Section 3.34A, subdivision 7, paragraph 1 of the zoning ordinance indicates that a development will not be in substantial compliance if the following occurs: 1. More than 10 percent change in floor area in any one structure; 2. More than a 10 percent change in the original approved separation of buildings; 3. Any change in the original approved setbacks from property lines; 4. More than 5 percent change in the ground area covered by the building; 5. Any change in the ratio of off - street parking and load- ing space to gross floor area in the building. In reviewing the construction drawings, it appeared that the development would not be in substantial compliance with the final development plan for the following reasons: 1. The floor area of four garages (19,27,37, 36) adjacent to buildings G and K have been reduced from 968 square feet to 748 square feet. This is a 23% decrease and only a 10% change is allowed. Council Letter No. 77 -2- Agenda February 25, 1980 2. Building location has been altered, resulting in more than a 10% change in building separation. These changes range from 10% to 66% and include both increases and decreases. A complete list of these changes is attached for your information. 3. The setbacks of garages 38 and 28 to. the north property line have changed. No change is allowed. 4. The ground area covered by garages 19,27, and 37 and 36 has been reduced by 23 %, and only a 5% change is allowed. 5. The number of off - street parking space available on the site has been reduced from 134 to 1;, This reduces the ratio of off- street parking space two the gross floor area of the buildings. No change in this ratio is allowed. The developers of this project are requesting that the final development plan and special use permit previously approved by the city council be amended to reflect these changes. It is recommended that the city council amend the "Coach Homes of Richfield Lake" final development plan and special use permit by substituting the attached new site plan for the site plan previously approved. The floor area, building separation, setback, and ground coverage changes previously discussed will not adversely affect the general public welfare of residents living on the site or on adjac- ent properties. The number of parking spaces available on the site will still be greater than what the PUD ordinance requires. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Acting Planning Director i ' t BUILDING SEPARATION CHANGE LIST 1. Distance between structure 27 and structure G has been reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet. (17% change) 2. Distance between structure 15 and structure E has been reduced from 16 feet to 14 feet (13% change) 3. Distance between structure 15 and structure F has been reduced from 20 feet to 14 feet. (30% change) 4. Distance between structure E and structure F has been reduced from 30 feet to 25 feet. (17% change) 5.. Distance between structure 9 and structure A has been reduced from 83 feet to 75 feet. (10% change) 6. Distance between structure 7 and structure 8 has been reduced from 13 feet to 10 feet. (23% change) 7. Distance between structure 6 and structure 5 has been reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. (50% change) 8. Distance between structure 44 and structure I has been reduced from 35 feet to 30 feet. (14% change) 9. The distance between structure 30 and structure J has been reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet. (20% change) 10. The distance between structure 31 and structure J has been reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet. (20% change) 11. The distance between structure 33 and structure J has been reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet. (20% change) 12. The distance between structure 34 and structure J has been reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet. (20% change) 13. The distance between structure 42 and structure 41 has been reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet. (17% change) 14. The distance between structure 23 and structure 24 has been reduced from 9 feet to 6 feet. (33% change) 15. The distance between structure 37 and structure K has been reduced from 14 feet to 10 feet. (29% change) 16. The distance between structure 13 and structure E has been reduced from 15 feet to 12 feet. (20% change) 17. The distance between structure-23 and structure C has been reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet. (17% change) 18. The distance between structure 24 and structure C has been reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet. (17% change) -2- 19. The distance between structure 36 and structure 35 has increased from 3 feet to 6 feet. (50% change) The distance between structure 38 and structure 37 has increased from 3 feet to 6 feet. (50o change) 21. The distance between structure G and structure 20 has increased from 5 feet to 12 feet (58% change) 22.. The distance betwfeetst (duce 19 change) structure 20 has increased from 2 feet to 6 23. The distance between structure 16 and structure 17 has increased from 3 feet to 6 feet. (50% change) 24. The distance between structure 25 to structure H has increased from 6 feet to 10 feet. (40o o change) 25. The distance between structure 7 and structure 6 has increased from 35 feet to 44 feet. (20% change) 0 LLJ 0 Ix z 0. r CL >-,W' cn cn Ix a. IH 12� W ST d !E 2 . a IL NORTH .t It a tiw 16 WlA FAR. MA '� `�, �© snow, WU� Fill Mull" ppl- IS 1 1- Z uj cn Lij Z fig X "Li Lit: . . . . . . . . . . . . . oe ILI uj 0 to w "", .01:66 - -V T �Q iy id 04 0 3: 0 z W );I y - 4t133HIS H199 /S CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 76 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Final Application Materials for Community Development Block Grant Program On November 13, 1979, the city council approved preliminary Year VI Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application materials and directed the staff to submit the application to Hennepin County for review by the Hennepin County Planning Area 2 Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee ( PACAC). The staff presented Richfield's proposed CDBG program to the PACAC on February 6, 1980. The PACAC indicated that our proposed program was not consistent with the Urban County Comprehensive Strategy, which requires that a minimum of 75 percent of the funds in the 3 -year plan (Years V -VIII) be used on projects which principally benefit low and moderate income persons. Because of the use of CDBG funds for projects in the L /H /N area (which qual- ifies under the funding category of projects which remove slums and blight, rather than as projects which directly benefit low and moderate income persons), only 65% of the funds in our 3 -year program are to be used for projects which directly benefit low and moderate income persons. We have discussed this problem with Hennepin County and staff from the U.S. Department of HUD, who indicated that this would not be a major problem, because Rich- field's program would be incorporated into the overall urban county program, which would have more than 75% of the total CDBG funding going for projects which would principally benefit low and moderate income persons. The PACAC also indicated concern with the proposed de- crease in funds for housing rehabilitation from Year VI ($105,000) to Year VII ($85,000). We have increased the funding allocated for housing rehabilitation from $85,000 to $107,000, in response to this concern. The PACAC also expressed concern about our ability to spend the funds within two years after HUD approval, and indicated the necessity for a plan to meet the needs of the handicapped. A copy of the written PACAC comments is attached for your information. The final Richfield CDBG application differs from the prelim- inary application in the following ways: Council Letter No. 76 -2- February 25, 1980 1. The amount of funds which we will potentially have available has been increased from $352,000 to $374,000. The additional $22,000 has been added to the land acquisition project in Year VI, making funds available for that project equal to $64,000, instead of $42,000. This will permit acquisitions of an addi- tional site for low and moderate income housing. The additional $22,000 in Year VII has been added to the housing rehabilitation project, increasing that amount from $35,000 to $107,000. 2. The types of projects for which the CDBG funds will be used in the L /H /N project have been expanded. The pre- liminary plan indicated that the funds would be used only for public improvements along Lyndale Avenue and along 66th Street between Lyndale Avenue and 35W. The final plan expands this to include other eligible activ- ities, such as acquisition, clearance, relocation, and construction of utilities. This change has been made to provide maximum flexibility in use of the CDBG funds, so that we can best utilize these funds in conjunction with other L /H /N funding sources. Also included in the application materials is the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP). The HAP establishes goals for housing assistance to low and moderate income persons. Part of the applica- tion which was approved last year included a 3 -year Housing Assist-, ance Plan and the HAP included in this application is unchanged programatically. However, some of the numerical goals have been revised to reflect the actual funding available. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resol- ution, approving the final application materials and authorizing their submittal to Hennepin County for inclusion in the Urban Henn- epin County CDBG application. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Acting Planning Director Acting Redevelopment Director e] RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN AND OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION MATERIALS AND AUTHORIZING THEIR SUBMITTAL TO HENNEPIN COUNTY WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has executed a Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County agreeing to participate in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program, and WHEREAS, a Community Development Program and a Housing Assis- tance Plan have been prepared consistent with the Comprehensive Urban Hennepin County Community Development strategy and the Com- munity Development Program Regulations, and WHEREAS, the Community Development Program and Housing Assis- tance Plan has been subject to citizen review pursuant to the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield approved the proposed Community Development Plan and Housing Assistance Plan and authorizes the City Manager to submit both plans to Hennepin County for consideration as part of the Year VI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Application. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of February, 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk • r . FEDERAL ASSISTANCE i Loetre 2. APPU• I A. RUMHER 3. STATE APPL'CA. +. NUMBER States, ate.) BER OF ('ERSONS CANT'S a. To the bet of sry knaal.aas and belief, TTON ' 5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO. L TYPE ❑ PRPJIPPUCATION BENEFITING 1 APPLI• b. DATE IDENTI. DATE ACTION ❑ APPLICATION G STATE CATION 1pr t.e.rA day 19 FtER I0. ASSIGNED OM0 ADOMYSl No. 29 -8022! Year -LA day 19 (Mark ay- ❑ NOTIFICATION OF 14MT (Opt) Pra r'uso Loetre 11. ESTIMATED NUM • 112. -- i>as) ❑ REPORT OF FEDERAL AMON 191a.c States, ate.) BER OF ('ERSONS 4. LEGAL APPLICANT /RECIPIENT a. To the bet of sry knaal.aas and belief, b. It Metric t? OMB Circular A-95 this ■olu.ution ' 5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO. .. Appliowdham City of Richfield BENEFITING 1 )}.Renewal D-00tiouatla sliucttom in"&. to apwoc4uts uunnaoeusn and all esaporoes am artaned: aPatua It. Drtaoludon Unit .G THE true and oomct, the dodm.nt W base G STATE sa"r appro9riate kite+ I I 1 C. Stt■d/P.O. Bo: 6700 Portland Avenue S. dolt ..0 ritad by the .warning body of PRO • ••'NUU8ER • I "" Richfield ` G°`n' Hennepin Ilia sWicant and the aoollraat will 0001 It the GRAM b. TITLE t. State :Minnesota S. ZIP `°''a: 55423 FDR e►. (Prose Fodaral APPLICANT ►. Cantu! Panon (Natwo B- O."eass Oollan a. TYPED NMtE ANO TITLE Cata)ap) It. SIGNATURE F A teLapAc:u No.) c DATE SIGNED I` I CERTIFYING . APICAM ri 7. TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT B. TYPE OF APPLICANT /RECIPIENT i STATE A -S=eta H-C Muwty Action Agency PROJECT E- .7ntuiauos B-In :■nets 1 -Ngner Eauuronal Inswabon jl DATE Yew wu.4 Any 117. DURATION f.Su&mts }Intl.- 7..ot Dismcs K-Otna (Spd6fv): kC} 'd. LOCAL I .00 D- Caua:y 31ow'1 u jc-" utur(a) I�I E -C h ,pO ID. ESTIMATED DATE TO F -Scnoel DIab1C EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BE SUBMITTED TO C io.nal Porposn District Ea4r aPPreyriate letter 129. f TOTAL S 9. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE FEDERAL AGENCY ► 19 A48aaic Grant D- lnsunnu g Y-Supplementol Gtwt E -0Lwr E.W o"P Clan P,+ " 4cterisr 20. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST (Name. City. Stan. Zl? sod.) I0. AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Ivawsae of titian, oosiotha. 11. ESTIMATED NUM • 112. TYPE OF APPLICATION F� 29. ADORES3 130. FEDERAL GRANT IDENTIFICATION States, ate.) BER OF ('ERSONS A-N. C- Rer(uon E- A.1 -M.Ii. a. To the bet of sry knaal.aas and belief, b. It Metric t? OMB Circular A-95 this ■olu.ution Ilia submitted. purwsrt to in. 1(o rt- Reryo n BENEFITING 1 )}.Renewal D-00tiouatla sliucttom in"&. to apwoc4uts uunnaoeusn and all esaporoes am artaned: aPatua auackd .G THE true and oomct, the dodm.nt W base G STATE sa"r appro9riate kite+ I I 1 37. REMARKS ADDED LL PROPOSED FUNDING dolt ..0 ritad by the .warning body of 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: 115. TYPE OF CHANGE (For :so - its) ❑ CERTIFIES Ilia sWicant and the aoollraat will 0001 It the (11 ❑ A,4aems sa Doll. rs F- 0th" (S7seeiiy): THAT ► FDR e►. DO APPLICANT ❑ B- O."eass Oollan a. TYPED NMtE ANO TITLE It. SIGNATURE as 12 b oven a u b..ad sou. c DATE SIGNED I` I CERTIFYING . APICAM .O D -Ow... Duration i STATE 16 PROJECT START PROJECT E- .7ntuiauos AGENCY NAME .W DATE Yew wu.4 Any 117. DURATION sat■roPPro- 'd. LOCAL I .00 19 31ow'1 u jc-" utur(a) I�I a. DIV. ER ,pO ID. ESTIMATED DATE TO Y"r surib day EXISTING FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BE SUBMITTED TO 129. f TOTAL S .00 FEDERAL AGENCY ► 19 20. FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST (Name. City. Stan. Zl? sod.) 12L REMARKS ADDED 127. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 123. FECERAL APPLICATICN IDENTIFICATION F� 29. ADORES3 130. FEDERAL GRANT IDENTIFICATION 1"1 Yen ED No 3L ACTION TAKEN 22. a. To the bet of sry knaal.aas and belief, b. It Metric t? OMB Circular A-95 this ■olu.ution Ilia submitted. purwsrt to in. 1(o rt- Reryo n e O data in this prr00iutla /■polleatlon an sliucttom in"&. to apwoc4uts uunnaoeusn and all esaporoes am artaned: aPatua auackd .G THE true and oomct, the dodm.nt W base G STATE d. LDS 37. REMARKS ADDED Y APPLICANT dolt ..0 ritad by the .warning body of ,O0 1 ❑ ❑ CERTIFIES Ilia sWicant and the aoollraat will 0001 It the (11 ❑ ❑ THAT ► with the afbch.d assurances aelus- saes is aopiwsoL m ❑ ❑ _ 23. a. TYPED NMtE ANO TITLE It. SIGNATURE as 12 b oven a u b..ad sou. c DATE SIGNED CERTIFYING Karl Nollenberger 424 -I01 STANOARO FOR4 421 PAGE 1 (1G -75) pnwnb.d by GSA. F.a.ra/ JJa.ap...e.s Ci-ar 14-1 Year fe'tA "y REPRE• Ci SENTATTVE City Manager 19 AGENCY NAME APPLICA• Year wo.IA say Ili TION 124. RECEIVED 19 r26. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT 127. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 123. FECERAL APPLICATICN IDENTIFICATION F� 29. ADORES3 130. FEDERAL GRANT IDENTIFICATION 3L ACTION TAKEN 3L FUNDING Year wowU day 134. Year -.wA soy STARTING s. FEDERAL 1 a. AWARDED 4 REJECTED c RETURNED FOR t .t)D 33. ACTON DATE 10- 19 GATE 19 b. APPLICANT .CD 13L TON (Nadu R A�Di`DiITIONALw I FORMA• •00 36. Year o.o"A day ENDING DATE 19 G STATE d. LDS 37. REMARKS ADDED - AblEJ(DMINT ,O0 1 C DEFERRED e. OTNER f. TOTAL Gt a. WITHDRAWN f .001 Yes -No 3t tntnaw gran ran. le tatrat an.ra action. any aom..nd t-a o.0 eu a. m ra +ra uder■d. It ea-cy moo.w is aw o ar prwtai t of FsR 1, I1M9 Grsulr A-i5, I L FEDERAL AGENCY A-95 OFFICIAL (Now. a.4 &w P• wa) FERAL AGENCY F as 12 b oven a u b..ad sou. i A-45 ACTION 424 -I01 STANOARO FOR4 421 PAGE 1 (1G -75) pnwnb.d by GSA. F.a.ra/ JJa.ap...e.s Ci-ar 14-1 Form Approved U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT �" �" ^IC OF APP LICA hT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING PLAN SUMMARY Richfield, Minnesota COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY 2. APPLiCATION,3RANT hu�nae� 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY 14. 7 Oriainal(Every three Years) From Aug 1980 TO: Jt1.ly 1982 j_ Revision _ Amendment (Dated) f Da red) S. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY: (Providea narrative in accordance w,tn instructions.) FUNDED PR=TS 1) Housing The City of Richfield is a fully developed inner -ring suburb. Because we are fully developed with very little vacant land for new housing development, the community will.use CDBG funds to provide housing assis- tance to low and moderate income persons through housing rehabilitation grants, and by providing sites for scattered site new housing. These projects represent a continuation of existing projects. The projects funded in the final 2 years of our current three -year plan will be completed within 2 years of project approval by HUD. 2) Handicapped Accessibility to Public Buildings The Richfield Community Center houses all local programs for the elderly and the handicapped. While some space is used by other canTunii groups when it is available the majority of the users of the center are elderly or handicapped. Richfield will use funds from Year VI'and VII to remove architectural barriers at the community center to make it more accessible to the handicapped. An elevator will be constructed in Year VI at a cost of $80,000 to provide interior access from the upper level to the lower level." The handicapped currently must go outside to get from one floor to another. If sufficient funds are available new hand railings will be installed along exterior walkways. An additional $22,000 will be used in Year VII to make the lower level kitchen accessible to the handicapped. This includes replacement of appliances, cupboards, counters and a center work gable. These projects would benefit the elderly and handicapped and would be completed within two years of project approval by HUD. 3) L/H/N Improvements General Description of Project: $125,000 will be used i.n Year VI and $245,000 in Year VII for improve- ments within the Lyndale Hub Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area. The money will be used for improvement of Lyndale Avenue between 64th Street and 67th Street and 66th Street between Lyndale Avenue and I -351K. These two streets serve a developed commercial area and have a high accident rate. The improvements will decrease the accident rate by an estimated 50 percent. Other possible uses would be acquisition and clearance of additional public right -of -way and /or clearly inappropriately developed land, payment of relocation benefits, and the construction of utilities. The funds will be expended-within two years of project approval by HUD. (Checx if continued on additional page(s/ and atracn) Replaces Forms HUD - 7015.3 and HUD - 7015.4, wn cn are oosolete Page of Paoes HUD -7054 i6-78) -2- Program Benefit.,(570.302) This street improvement project will aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight within the Lyndale /Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Project (L /H/N) . In November of 1975, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and City Council established the LHN. This was done in accordance with the Minnesota Housing and Redevelopment Authority Act; Minnesota Statutes 462.411 et seq. In establishing this project resolutions nine and 5445 were adopted (see attached certified copies). Each of these resolutions contains a finding that the project area is blighted within the meaning of 462.421, subdi- vision 11. The blighted conditions are in part the result of this area developing in the late 1940's and early 19501s; strip commercial development with free standing buildings and individual ownership. There are many land use problems present in the area which have led to deterioration. Each parcel tends to be developed independently of each other resulting in many access points off of streets, duplication of facilities, under - utilization of land, pedestrian access problems, deteriorating property values, and traffic safety problems. There are conflicts between residential and commercial uses. Because of the lack of separation and buffering residential uses are suffering frcan the visual and traffic impacts generated by the commercial uses. On 66th Street west of Lyndale Avenue are three curves; one is 30 percent and two are 10 percent. These curves are not safe because of the high traffic volumes, current Department of Transportation and Hennepin County standards and the problems they cause for drivers. The result of these conditions are deteriorating and inappropriately developed land and streets which are not safe. There is congestion from the high traffic volume, uncontrolled turning movements and sharp curves. The accident rate is high. Planning Considerations (570.301), Comprehensive program The Lyndale Hub Nicollet project is a "comprehensive program to remedy the conditions which qualify the area as a redevelopment project ". As indicated above, in resolutions adopted by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 462.411, the area is a redevelopment project. A proposed land use plan was also adopted. The land use plan and a series of goal and objective statements provide a comprehensive framework for renewing the area of approximately 100 acres. (This policy is also in conformance with the comprehensive plan for the City). The policy provides for public and private rehabilitation and redevelopment activities. The keyC.tone of the project is a new prcmotional department store, K -Mart. The HRA entered into a contract with a developer; the HRA agreed to acquire the site and the private developer agreed to construct a 72,000 square foot store. This type of public and private cooperation will be followed in other areas of the project. The proposed street improvement project is compatible with Metropolitan Council plans and policies; is being supported by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the federal highway administration; and, is in conformance with Hennepin County plans (the county, state, and federal governments are involved in implementing portions of this project). The specific objectives to be accomplished through the use of CDBG funds are: -3- 1) provide separation between opposing lanes of traffic for protected turn lanes to increase capacity and driver safety; 2) provide medians and consolidate driveway openings to control random turning movements and increase driver safety; 3) provide a more efficient signal system through the inter - connection of traffic signals improving traffic safety, capacity, air quality and noise levels; 4) improve transit facilities by providing bus turnout lanes and shelters; 5) improve pedestrian safety by providing crosswalk and sidewalks (there is no existing pedestrian sidewalk system within the project); and, 6) improve the appearance and visual impact of the traffic corridor through use of plant materials and street furniture. 7) acquire and clear parcels currently deteriorated or inappropriately developed to encourage appropriate development; 8) provide relocation assistance to displaced residences and business; 9) provide utilities to sites for new development; 10) provide adequate buffers to protect residential uses from commercial uses.- Basic eligible activities (570.201) The proposed projects are eligible under Section 570.201a: acquisition, 570.201b: disposition, 570.201c: public facilities and improvements, 570.201d: clearance activities, 570.201i: relocation, 570.2012: privately owned utilities. UNFUNDED PROTECTS If additional funds are available the following projects would be proposed for funding. 1) The construction of ramps, railings and restrocm improvements in Richfield City Hall to remove architectural barriers to benefit the handicapped. 2) Improvements to the Richfield Community Center to benefit the elderly and handicapped. Improvements necessary are expansion of meeting space and coat storage area, purchase and installation of adaptive play equipment for the handicapped, construction of a storage area for building and other equipment, and correction of existing heating and ventilating problems. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENvOEPIN ) ss CITY OF RICHFIELD ) I, Sylvia K. Bergh, being the duly qualified and acting clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certif -T that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution No.5445 , duly passed by the City Council of said City on November 24, 1975 and that the same is on file and of record in my office. Given under my hand and seal this 20th day of November, 1979 ' 14 Sylvia K. Bergh v Acting City Cleric Citv of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 5445 (^ FINDINGS AND DETE%1HINATIONS BY, AND RESOLUTIO:iS OF, THE CITY COUNCIL OF T11E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MI,�Ni ESOTA, RELATIVE TO AND APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR k AN URBAN RENE4AL PROJECT FOR, T11E LYNDALE- HUB- NICOLLET AREA IN RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, ENTITLED "LYNDALE- HUB- NICOLLET CO�i'1ERCLIL IMPROVEMENT PROGRa •1 ", DATED OCTOBER 15, 1975 WHEREAS, it has been the intent and desire of the City of Richfield for many years to improve conditions in the section of the City of Richfield re- ferred to as the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet commercial area; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority "), has now prepared a redevelopment plan for an urban renewal project for the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet area of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Project Area")-.% entitled " Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program ", dated October 15, 1975 (the "Plan "); and WHEREAS, the Plan has been prepared by the Authority with the cooperation and assistance of the appropriate City departments; and WHEREAS, the Authority, by resolutions duly adopted at a meeting held on October 15, 1975, did approve the Plan and did authorize application to the City Council of the Plan, including a statement of the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan, ant the *.•�ritten opinion of the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, dated October 15, 1975; and WHEREAS, application for approval of the Plan has now been made to the City Council, and the Plan, a statement of the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan,.and the written opinion of the Planning Com- mission have now been duly submitted to the City Council, and the City Council on.November 10 and November 24, 1975, duly held a public hearing on the Plan pursuant to published notice, all as required by Minnesota Statutes 5462.521; and WHEREAS, the Authority may not proceed with the plan unless the City Council, by resolution, makes certain findings with respect to the Project Area and Plan and approves the Plan; and , WHEREAS, the Authority has studied the location and the physical condition of structures, land use, environmental influences, and social, cultural, and economic conditions of the Project Area, and the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, being the duly designated and acting official agency of Richfield, has found and determined that the Project area is a deter- iorated and deteriorating area within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes J462.421, subd. 11, as set out in its written opinion submitted to the City Council, which finding and determination was concurred in by tl:e Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the written opinion of the Planning Commission, the Findings and Determinations, and Resolutions of the Authority dated October 15, 1975, the material and information included in the Plan, and the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing on November 10 and November 24, 1975, and Resolution No. 5445 Page 2 WHEFEAS, the members of the City Council have knowledge of the conditions prevailing in the Project Area and in the locality generally; and WAE RFAS, the City Council has been fully apprised of all action that will or may be necessary to be taken by the City of Richfield relating to the Plan and the implementation and carrying out of the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, does hereby make the following findings and determinations: 1. That the Project Area is a deteriorated and deteriorating area within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes' §462.421, Subd. 11; 2. That the urban renewal project proposed by the Plan is necessary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of, such deterioration; 3. That the acquisition of real property as described in the plan is necessary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of such deterioration; 4. That the Project Area is subject to conditions preventing private development and would not be made available for redevelopment without the governmental assistance and financial aid proposed by the Plan; 5. That the Plan affords maximum opportunity for redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise, consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole; — 6. That the Plan provides an outline for the development and redevelopment of the Project Area and is sufficiently complete to indicate the relationship of the Plan to the objectives of the City of Richfield as to appropriate land uses within the Project Area, and to indicate the general land uses and general standards of development or redevelopment within the Project Area; 7. That there is a feasible method for the temporary relocation of families who may be displaced from the Project Area, and that there are available, or.will be provided, in the Project Area, or in other areas not less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings at least equal in number to the number of families who may be so displaced; that the Authority, in acquiring any prop- erties, must and will provide all relocation assistance and benefits required by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistan.:e and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, any acts amendatory thereof, any regulations duly adopted pursuant thereto, and any regulations duly adopted by the State of Minnesota, its agencies, or political subdivisions pursuant to law; 8. That the Pl_-n conforms to a general plan for the development of the locality as a whole;_ �'J r Resolution No. 5445 Page 3 9. That the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan is feasible and adequate to properly and fully finance the project. TREREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve and direct as follows: A. That the Plan, in all respects, including the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan, is hereby approved; B, That the City Clerk is hereby directed••to maintain on file a copy of the Plan as hereby approved, together with the written opinion of the Planning Corru-iiission and the Findings and.Determinations, and Resolutions of the Authority, dated October 15, 1975; C. That the City Council pledges its cooperation, and that of all officials, 'departments, boards, and commissions of the City, in helping to implement and carry out the Plan, and directs that all such officials, departments, boards, and commissions cooperate in all appropriate ways to assist and expedite all actions to implement and carry out the Plan, including, but not limited to all actions that are necessary or desirable to implement the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan. D. That the Mayor and Manager be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed, for and on behalf of, and in the name of, the City of Richfield, to execute all such documents and agreements, and to take all such action, as they deem necessary or desirable to assist in the implementation and carrying out of the -Plan. Passed by the City Council, City of Richfield on the 24th day of November, 1975. • / ice" —,Z_ / :.. L ,Loren L. Law TIayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran r City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COWi TY OF HENNEPIN ) ss CITY OF RICHFIELD I, V. L. Luettinger, being the duly qualified and acting secretary of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 9 duly passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of said City on October 15, 1979 ; and that the same is on file and of record in my office. Given under my hand and seal this 20th day of November, 1979 0 �1. V. L. Luettinge Secretar% HoL1Sin,, and Rc� velopment Authority, Cite of Richfield Richfield, 1 ennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 9 FINDINGS AND DETERMINr�TIONS BY, AND RESOLUTIO':S OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, RELATIVE TO AND P_PPROVI1111C A REDEVELOP'eTNT PLAN FOR AN URBAN RENZ -TAL PROJECT FOR THE LYNDALE- HUB- NICOLLET AREA IN RIC?H'IELD, MINNESOTA, ENTITLED "LYNDALE- HUB - NICOLLET CO:-DIERCIAL IMPROV12:PENT PROG RAM DATED OCTOBER 15, 11,175 WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority "), has prepared a redevelopment plan for an urban rene:aal project in the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet area of Richfield, Minnesota, entitled "Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Comme•rcial-Improvement Program ", dated October 15, 1975 (the "Plan "), which Plan consists of and includes a statement of the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan was-duly transmitted by the Authority to the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, being the duly designated and acting official planning agency of Richfield, for its study and with a request for its written opinion thereon; and WHEREAS, the said' Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15, 1975, did, by resolution duly adopted, render its written opinion of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Authority, prior to proceeding with the Plan, must firat approve the Plan and then apply to the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, for approval of the Plan, and receive such approval. NOW, THEREFORE, the Authority does hereby make the following findings and determinations; 1. That the area included within the Plan (the "Project Area ") is a deteriorated and deteriorating area within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §462.421, subd. 11; •2. That the urban renewal project proposed by the Plan is necessary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of, such deterioration; 3. That the Project Area is subject :o conditions preventing private development and would not be made available for redevelopment without the governmental assistance and financial aid proposed by the Plan; 4. That the Plan affords maximum opport, -ni'_y for redevelopment of the Project Area by private enterprise, consistent with the soui.d I1 c, of the locality as a whole; 5. `neat the Plan provides an outline for the development and redevelopment of the Project Area and is sufficiently•co::iplete to indicate the relationship of the Plan to the objectives of the City of rictlfiCld as to appropriate land uses within the Project Area, and to indicate the general land uses and general standards of development or redevelopment within the Project Area; Resolution No. 9 Page 2 6. That there is a feasible method for the'temporary relocation of families who may be displaced from the Project Area, and that there are available, or will be provided, in the Project Area, or in other areas not less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings at least equal in number to the number of families who may be so displaced; that the Authority, in acquiring any prop- erties, must and will provide all relocation assistance and benefits required by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and acts amendatory thereof, any regulations duly adopted pursuant thereto, and any regulations duly adopted -by the State of Minnesota, its agencies, or,political'subdivisions ,pursuant to law; "7.- That the objectives and purposes of the Plan conform-to and are consistent with the general land use proposals and planning objectives previously, from time to time, established by the Planning Co=ission of the.City of Richfield for the de- velopment of the Project Area; 8. That the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, by resolution dated October 15, 1975, did render its written opinion on the Plan, which opinion was that the Plan should be approved by the Authority and the City Council and be implemented and carried out as soon as possible. THEREFORE, the Authority does hereby resolve and direct as follows: A. That the Plan, in all respects, is hereby approved; I B. That tke Authority should apply to the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, for approval of the Plan, and does hereby authorize and direct the Executive Director of the Authority, for and in behalf of, and in the name of, the Authority, to make application to the City Council of the City of Richfield for approval of the Plan, and to submit, with the application, the Plan, including a statement of the method proposed for financing the project pro- -posed by the Plan, and the written opinion of the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, dated October 15, 1975, and to take such other action and submit to the said City Council such other information _ and material as the Executive Director may deem necessary or advisable in order to obtain and expedite the approval of the Plan by said City Council; . C. . That the Secretary of the Authority is hereby directed to file a copy of the Plan and a copy of the written opinion of the Planning Commission of the. City of Richfield with the minutes of this meeting of the Authority; D. That the Executive Director of the Authority is hereby further author- ized and directed to transmit to the State dousing Commmission certified copies of the Plan, including a statement of the method proposed for financing the project proposed by the Plan, and the written opinion of the Planning Coi,.nission. Resolution No. 9 Page 3 E. That the Executive Director of the Authority is hereby further author- ized and directed, i=ediately upon approval of the Plan by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, to request, for and on behalf of, and in the name of, the Authority, the Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, to certify the assessed valuation of all taxable real property within the Project Area as then most recently determined, in order to fix the "original taxable value" for•tax incre- ment financing purposes, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §462.585, and to do all other acts and furnish to the said County Auditor all documents the Executive Director deems necessary or desirable to fix such "original taxable value" as soon as possible after the Plan is approved by said City Council. F. That the Executive Director of the Authority is hereby further author- ized and directed to take all'such action, including furnishing of documents, as he deems necessary or desirable, for and in behalf of, and in the na:me of, the ,Authority to obtain and expedite approval of the Plan by all necessary or desirable agencies, political subdivisions, persons, and authorities, and to obtain and expedite all necessary financing in conformance with the financing method proposed by the Plan. Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Richfield this 15th day of October, 1975. ATTEST: A. P. Anderson Secretary Oren L. 'Law l l Chairman pG 6 d tr I ^J V C1 I O� I N Ul 1p. v - rI F'•il M co -+ > r � O I��ji'! F��.11.i � i n i r �� N ImIC > IO IN I v 4 F� �%� 3 'TV ff (D U1 I ? N, a Z: :�0OI CI I h�i • — Im X IO �• '�i3 - ZI O ZI n m IZ Io I F� Q1 C7'�d .'j• x (U F'• C, Ci lfi I I SI DI> C) �. N. 'Z7 N I O IC I> N ~ O �• I " Im IO I S1+ F'• b F'• =•� I C 3I (D ZH I i� I Cb l 7v' V [n (D ff `•j F'• I Z, m I ZZ 7 Z r < 0 ,�, Oy D �LfJI I I Z m O (D ; I0 m Z I. N > p 'n I C Z f1 C, 90 m l -1 > O C.. `� al D m > Z m -� co O m { < 2 T >I O N C O Z r.l mozmmmin= \ ' >m D Z p 00 r m 0 N O c N > -I JC JC 9C 9C ( =! oo�'-gOr I c O > z zc r n z < I -�i 0 c -1 cmm-Z - iznic.mc -� C c N vs i m o C R Z c oz W Ul 00 n m \ F: r O a N O N T 0i -< <� W > > m I >I \ N � m m 00 7 O M N m 0 O O _I I 1� xl> <z ylzl �n a r O z0 m m N r �m -+ > � T m <. N l01 m 0 I. m OI C o N N Z: I N m Tm Ul Ul - mI p0 I OI�I 'm c v. l m I' N O irI z? 0 -+o Im D C', N ININ I I m V IS1I �;M I 1 q LnI vi n- I mm I I I —I I 00 Form Approved OMB No. 63•A151E U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1. NAME OF APPLICANT City of Richfield Minnesota ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUMBER PROJECT SUMMARY 3. PEP.IOD OF APPLICABILITY d. :X ORIGINAL (eats year) FROM TO i r! REVISION, DATED ❑ August 1, 1980 July 31, 1982 •• i AMENDMENT, 'DATED S. NAME OF PROJECT j S. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS i Housinq Rehabilitation- jl ertification B, ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER Richfield Housing and'Redevelopment Authority 869 -7521 10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Provide grants to low and moderate income persons and the handicapped to rehabilitate single family dwellings. This shall include grants for rehabilitation of single family dwellings for handicapped, grants to low and moderate income persons for flood proofing hcmes,in areas where flood problems have occurred in the past and grants for general repairs to low income persons.. Flood proofing grants shall be used for such things as water proof doors, glass block windows and low walls to divert water away from homes. ❑ Check if continued on additional pages) and attach. 11: CENSUS TRACTS) /ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S) City wide 12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS ' Improve the housing conditions and housing options of low and moderate income persons within the city. ❑ Check if continued on additional page(s) and attach. . 13. COBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS (in tnousanas of S) CDSG I OTHER (List component activities using nerves of sctivities shown LOw /MOO I OTHER I AMOUNT SOURCE inPattA, COSTSUMMARY, FormHUD.7067.j BENEFIT BENEFIT (a) (b) i ' (cl I (d) I (e) Rehabilitation and preservation 1$ 212 5 - �5 0 activities I 14. Totals is 212 �s - ig 0 15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Develooment °IOCK Grant Funds (Sum of Columns b and c) S 212,000 Reduces Form HUD-7015.1. wmcn Is OtA01tte Page of P32e5 HUD•7C66 i6•731 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN OEVELCPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNIT Y DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY FROM TO August 1, 1980 July 31, 1982 5. NAME OF PROJECT Form Aovroved O.MS No, 63 -8161 1. NAME OF APPLICANT 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUMBER a. MI ORIGINAL leiI= yeari t REVISION. DATED C AMENDMENT, DATED 5, PROJECT NUMBER 1 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS I ncu>.u1.v.c - __..._. - S. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT ' City of Richfield Community Services Deparldnent 869 -7521 10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT truction of improvements at the existing The project will involve the cons community center to make it more accessible to the elderly and handicapped. Presently it is necessary for the elderly and handicapped to go outside to get frcn one floor to the other. The community center houses all local pro- grams for the elderly and handicapped and the majority of users of the build ing are elderly or handicapped. $80,000 will be used in Year VI to construc an elevator to provide the handicapped interior access to both floors of the center. $22,000 will be used in Year VII to make improvements to the main kitchen on the lower level to make the kitchen accessible to the handicapped. Improvements include new appliances, sinks, p o uj aed a and work tables. Check l s >�h 11: CENSUS TRACTS) /ENUMERATION OISTRICT(S) Census tract 245 — 12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Provide interior access to both floors of the community center for the elderly and handicapped. 0 Check if continued on additional Page(s) and attach. PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS fin Mousan. of Sl 13. COBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES CDBG j OTHER (List component activiries using names o (activiries$nown LOW /MOO I OTHER in Part A, COSTSUMMARY, formHUD- 7067.) gMOUNT SOURCE NEFIT BENEFIT (a) Removal of archi BE fb) I (c) I (d) (e) S IS IS 14. TOt31s IS x-02 I S (S I 15. Total Costs To 6e Paid With Community Development °loci Grant Funds (Sum of Columns b and c) S 102,000 HUD•7C66 (6•78) Replaces Form HUD•7015.1, wntcn is OOso�ete Page of Pages Form Approved U,S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 1. NAME OF APPLICANT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT SUMMARY 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUMBER 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY d. � ORIGINAL (BaCn year) FROM TO r� ❑ REVISICN, DATED August 1, 1980 July 31, 1982 i ❑ AMENDMENT, DATED 5, NAME OF PROJECT i 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STA7'.s L /H/N Public.Improvements ! Under review B -,N TI V WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. 'E_ ?HONE NUMBER Pdchlie`ld" L Housing and " "Redevelopment Authority I 869 -7521 10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The acquisition, clearance, and disposition of land for new development, payment of relocation assistance, construction of utilities and the con- struction of public improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and landscaping to improve traffic and pedestrian movement in the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet Redevelopment Project Area (LHN). The LHN project meets all state statutes for deterioration and blight. The construction of public improvements will act as a stimulus for private investment in the area and provide additional jobs for low and moderate income persons. ❑ Check if continued on additional page(s) and attach. 11: CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION OISTRICT(S) _ Census tract 244 12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Redevelopment of a declining central business area to reduce shins and blight, increase the tax base of the city. ❑ Check if continued on additional paves) and attach. 13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES (List component activities wring names Of activities shown in Part A. COST SUMMA RY, Form HUD•7067.) PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS (in C,lousanos of S) CDBG OTHER OWIMOt o I BENEFRT AMOUNT SOURCE (al (b) i (c) I fd) I (e) Street Improvements g I 370 $ S County funds, FAU, I 5628 14, Totals is 370 !S is 5628 15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Develooment Blocx Grant F unCS (Sum of Coiumns band c) S 370,000 Huo.7ces ;�.7at Reputes Form HUD•7015.1, wmcn is Uoso'ece rage GI parrs Form Aooroved O'AS No. 83 -R1619 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF'.HCUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COST SUMMARY 1. NAME CF APPLICANT City of Richfield, Minnesota 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUMBER 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY �(; d. 1Y ORIGINA:L (eaGh year) ❑ REVISION,OATEC ❑ AMENDMENT, DATED FROM I7p August 1, 1980 1 July 31, 1981 Line I PART A. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM ACTIVITY (Important: See instructions before classifying cosm.) I FOR HUD AMOUNT USE ONLY 1 I Acquisition of Real Property S 58,000 I S 2 Disposition 3 Public Facilities and Improvements 125,000 a Senior Centers I� b i Parks, Playgrounds and Other Recreational Facilities c I Centers for the Handicapped d I Neighborhood Facilities e I Solid Waste Disposal Facilities i f Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment g I Parking Facilities h I Public Utilities, Other Than Water and Sewer Facilities i I Street Improvements 125,000 j I Water and Sewer Facilities k I Foundations and Platforms for Air Rights Sites I j Pedestrian Malls and Walkways I m I Flood and Drainage Facilities n Specially Authorized Public Facilities and Improvements (List) (1) I $ (2) I I (3) 4 Clearance Activities 41000 5 i Public Services I 6 Interim Assistance i 7 I Completion of Previously ADDroved Urban Renewal Projects I -0-7 Replaces Form rIUO.7015.5, wn,cn Is Obsolete Page 1 of pages "U D., o lo-7t1 FOR HUD AMOUNT ( USE ONLY 8 � Relocation Payments and Assistance S S 9 Payments for Loss of Rental Income i 10 Removal of Architectural Barriers 80 OOO 11 Specially Authorized Assistance to Privately Owned Utilities 12 I Rehabilitation and Preservation Activities 105,000 a Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures b Public Housina Modemization c I Rehabilitation of Private Properties 105,000 d i Code Enforcement e Historic Preservation 13 I Specially Authorized Economic Development Activities a Acquisition for Economic Development b� Public Facilities and Improvements for Economic Development c I Commercial and Industrial Facilities 14 Special Activities By Local Development Corporations, Etc. (List) aI S bl c d 15 I SUBTOTAL 374,000 16 Planning and Urban Environmental Design (See Part B of this form.) a ( Development of a Comprehensive Community Development Plan b Development of a Policy - Planning- Management Capacity c I Specially Authorized Comprehensive Planning Activities I 17 I General Administration (From Part C, Line 6) 18 I Contingencies and /or Local Option Activities (Not to exceed 10`K of amount shown in Parr D, Line 1) 19 TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS (Sum of Lines 15 thrbugh 18) IS 374,000 ; S Page 2 of pages HUG -7067 16.781 Page 3 of pages Hk,0•736; 64,el PART B. DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING AND URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN COSTS ❑ Check if continued on additional oage(s/ and attach. Lint PART C. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION COSTS (See instructions for descriptions of administration activities before classifying costs below.) AMOUNT FOR ONLY USE ONLY I 1 General Management, Oversight and Coordination g I $ 2 Indirect Costs (Allowable it charged pursuant to a cost allocation plan) 3 I Citizen Participation 4 I Environmental Studies Necessary to Comply With Environmental Regulations 5 Other (List) a I 5 b C d 6 I Total General Administration Costs (Sum of Lines T rproup) 5) I S i S Page 3 of pages Hk,0•736; 64,el Page 4 of pages HUO.7067 (&78) Line I PART 0. BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM COSTS l AMOUNT I FOR HUD USE ONLY 1 Entitlement Amount 1 S 374,000 I S 2 Less: Repayment of Urban Renewal /NDP Loans (AMch Schedule) S 3 I Grant Withheld for Repayment of HUD-Guaranteed Loan S 4 Grant Amount For Program Activities (Line 1 minus sum of Lines 2 and 3) S I S 5 Program Income S S 6. Surplus From Urban Renewal /NDP Settlement S I S 7 I Loan Proceeds $ I S 8 I Reprogrammed Unobligated Funds From Prior Program Year (Attach Schedule) S I S 9 I TOTAL BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM COSTS (Sum of Lines 4 thru 81 5 '374,000 I S Line I PART E. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM BENEFIT AMOUNT FOR HUD USE ONLY 1 I Costs Subject to Program Benefit Rules S 249,000 I $ 2 I Expenditures Principally Benefitting Low- and Moderate- Income Persons S 249,000 S 3 I Line 2 as a Percent of Line 1 100 %1 % 4 I Other Expenditures S 125,000 ( S 5 I Line 4 as a Percent of Line 1 50.2 %1 % Page 4 of pages HUO.7067 (&78) Form Approved CM6 No. 83.1519 Replaces Form HUD-7015.5. wmcn 1s Obsolete P32e I of pages - U3-7C67 o•icl U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COST SUMMARY 1. NAME CF APPLICANT City of Richfield, Minnesota 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUMBER 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY d. i4r1 ORIGINAL IeaCh year) r❑r REVISION. DATED LJ AMENDMENT, DATED FROM p August 1, 1901 O I July 31, 1982 Line I PART A. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM ACTIVITY (lmporranr. See instructions before classifying cosm) AMOUNT I FOR HUD USE ONLY 1 ' I Acquisition of Real Property S I ' S 2 Disposition 3 I Public Facilities and Improvements 245,0W . a Senior Centers b I Parks, Playgrounds and Other Recreational Facilities c ` Centers for the Handicapped d I Neighborhood Facilities e I Solid Waste Disposal Facilities f Fire Protection Facilities and Equipment g I Parking Facilities h I Public Utilities, Other Than Water and Sewer Facilities i I Street Improvements 2-45,000 j I Water and Sewer Facilities k I Foundations and Platforms for Air Rights Sites I j Pedestrian Malls and Walkways m I Flood and Drainage Facilities n Specially Authorized Public Facilities and Improvements (List) (1) I S (2) (31 4 Clearance Activities 5 i Public Services 6 I Interim Assistance 7 I Completion of Previously Aporoved Urban Renewal Projects Replaces Form HUD-7015.5. wmcn 1s Obsolete P32e I of pages - U3-7C67 o•icl Page 2 of pages HUD-71067 i6•78) AMOUNT j FORHUD ` USE ONLY 8 Relocation Payments and Assistance i IS is I 9 Payments for Loss of Rental Income I i I 10 Removal of Architectural Barriers I 22,000 11 Specially Authorized Assistance to Privately Owned Utilities 12 Rehabilitation and Preservation Activities 107,000 a Rehabilitation of Public Residential Structures b Public Housing Modernization c Rehabilitation of Private Properties 107,000 d I Code Enforcement e Historic Preservation 13 I Specially Authorized Economic Development Activities a I Acquisition for Economic Development b I Public Facilities and Improvements for Economic Development c i Commercial and Industrial Facilities 14 I Special Activities By Local Development Corporations, Etc. (List) aI S bl C d 15 SUBTOTAL 374,000 16 Planning and Urban Environmental Design (See Part 8 of this form.) I a I Development of a Comprehensive Community Development Plan b Development of a Policy - Planning- Management Capacity c I Specially Authorized Comprehensive Planning Activities 17 I General Administration (From Part C, Line 6) 18 Contingencies and /or Local Option Activities (Not ro exceed 10% of amount shown in Part D, Line 1) 19 I TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS (Sum of Lines 15 through 18) IS 374,000 s Page 2 of pages HUD-71067 i6•78) ' t< t PART B. DESCRIPTION OF PLA.:NING A tJD URBAN _,.VIFO;.,..ENT A L C S1G.' J CC TS s ' i 1 Chi ^k %!c^ ^ued on a ci;: n is �!si any ar. =cn. ` PART C. GENERAL COS I S Line I ( { I AMOUVT FOR HUD' See instructions or ces r;otrons of aomrnisrrarion d ; ;Yi;ies reicre I us. Ly cla�ir: inq cx _ b�lov.r ! i 1 I General Management, Oversight and Coordination I c i S 2 I Indirect Costs (r4llosv3ble i/charyed purSoant ;o a ecst allocation pianl 3 I Citizen Participation r 4 I Environmental Studies Necessary to Comply Pith : nvironmental Regulations 5 Other (List) a b l d l r G I Total Genarar ., r.r. strat.on Cr.;s :n c' _xes 1 c2ruvan :) I j $ P. Vaec 4 Ot pages HUU -rwi 10,0) Line I PART D. BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM COSTS ( AMOUNT FOR HUD USE ONLY 1 I Entitlement Amount S ` 374,000 ! S 2 I Less: Repayment of Urban Renewal /NDP Loans (AMch Schedule) S 3 I Grant Withheld for Repayment of HUD-Guaranteed Loan S 4 I Grant Amount For Program Activities (Line 1 minus sum of Lines 2 and 3) S S 5 Program Income S I S 6. Surplus From Urban Renewal /NDP Settlement S I S 7 I Loan Proceeds $ I S 8 I Reprogrammed Unobligated Funds From Prior Program Year (Attach Schedule) $ $ 9 TOTAL BLOCK GRANT RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM COSTS (Sum of Lines 4 thru 81 S 374 000 I S Line PART E. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM BENEFIT I AMOUNT FOR HUD I USE ONLY 1 I Costs Subject to Program Benefit Rules S 129,000 I $ 2 I Expenditures Principally Benefitting Low- and Moderate - Income Persons S 129,000 I S 3 Line 2 as a Percent of Line 1 100 %1 % 4 I Other Expenditures S 245,000 I S 5 I Line 4 as a Percent of Line 1 190 %1 % Vaec 4 Ot pages HUU -rwi 10,0) U.S. I COMMUNITY DEVEL3PIMENT duuCK 6HAa,4 PvSOGriAM City Of Richfield "i 1 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUM8tr'�i• I HOUSING A-S..i1STANCc PLAN I I TABLE ill - THREE YEAR HOUR ;NG PROGRAM THREE YEAR GOAL Jjt r 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY t'v,l't" Win- ❑ ORIGINAL FROM TO Years VI & VII " -` r:wa /'�mv? "' ❑ REV1510fV, DATE August, 1980 July 1982 • r. �/4.� i fed. � S /. +� ❑ AMENDMENT, DATE ' 110 NUMUER OF LOWER - INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO BE ASSiS7ED — 1. Nwv Construction Assistance for Homeowners (sum of 3 and 4) 1 ELDERLY I TYPES AND SOURCES OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE 1 (1 2persons/ S�1ALL LARGE FAMILY FAMILY other' TOTAL AND 2. Renabilitation Assistance for Homeowners (sum of lines 6, 7 and 81 109 HANOI- (4 or less I (5 or more I Community Deveiooment Block Grants 38 I CAPPED) parront) peryonsJ (aJ i lib) (C) i (dl el 1 A, Total Goals for Housing Assistance for Homitowners (sum of lines 2 and 5) 110 1 1 2 1. Nwv Construction Assistance for Homeowners (sum of 3 and 4) 1 3 HUD Assisted Programs 1 4 other' 22 5 2. Renabilitation Assistance for Homeowners (sum of lines 6, 7 and 81 109 6 Community Deveiooment Block Grants 38 I 7 HUD Assisted Programs %` 8 Otr.er' MHFA Loans & Grants 71 91 S. Totat uoais for mousing Assistance for riorruowners oy Percentage of Household Tvoe 1010 j 10i C. Total Gosis ror Housing Nisistancii, ror nenters (sum of lines 11, 14, 17 + 231 9 5 1 1. Assistance for Prosoactive Hor"wowners (sum of lints 12+13) , 0 i 121 HUD Assisted Programs I 1 131 Other' 141 2. New Rentai Units (sum of lines 15 + 16) _ 0 I i - _ t5 HUD Assisted Programs I 1 Other- 1 i 17 3. Renaoriitation of Rental Unin (sum of lines 18, 1s - 22) 30 _ 181 Community Deveiooment Block Grants 191 HUD Assisted Programs sum o1 liner 0 + 1 1 20 Sucsiantfai Rehaoilitatton I 21 I Section 8 Exnnng with Moderate Rel,ebilitsuon 221 Otter' 30 I I 23 4. Existing Rental Units (sum of sleet 24 •271 65 241 HUD Assntod Programs (sum of lines 25 + 2,3) -- 65 1 251 With Repair 261 Without Reoeir - -- 16 65 271 Cher* . 0 28� O. Totai Goan for Housinq Asustancst for ethers by Percenteoa of Housenom Tvoe, 100% 29 E. Total Goan for HUG Assisted Rentai Un#ri ov Percentage of Housenoia Tvoe I 100-13 NARRATIVE (Attach additional ;he-rs if nrrcessary and idenrify with items above) �J 1 Footnote units to he provided specifically for the handicapped. 2. Describe the progi,ims listed under this category 3. Descrihe those actions necs -scary to facilitate the accompushment of the goais. 33 1nn1 u 68 i 9 0 1 1 0 1 33 1 68 I a 11 I 24 3 22 1 44 _ 7 30 %, 62 %` 8 ° 36 i 55 I 4 38 ; j 58 i � 4 30 I 63 �° 7 16 14 0 16 14 _ U 20 20 1 41 41 4 4 I 20 � 41 _ 4 38 ; j 58 % 4 30 ^: 63 �° 7 L I CHECK iF APPLICANT WISHES TO REVIEW ALL STATE HFOA YQUSiNG PROPOSALS. ` U.$. OEPAATTAENT Or -A ti AN OeV_Z .: -' -r MUNITY GdViE:.uPMdN•,• aLGCX ::RANT PRG,: AAM 1. NAM., Z,4 Aer_ ;C.+N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA HOUSING A_:-S)bTANCE PLAN � 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUMBER TABLE IV - GENERAL LOCUTIONS FOR PROPOSED HOUSING 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY 4�1' y , y,[ A. 'tS�i ORIGINAL FROM TO �r \�: ,u.N',•cY„�:. s� ❑ REVISION, OATS .August 1 1980 - July 31 1982�'j'���/�'t ' ,:'"3r. �`"a ' ❑ AMeNOMENT, DATE �— 1'��s�rACtilev'.t . ' itL� A. IDENTIFY GENERAL LOCATIO:NZ ON MAP IN THIS APPLICATION 1. New Construction: Census Tract or Enumeration District Numbers, or other lecstionai designation I ITY WIDE Z Rehabilitation: Census Tract or Enumeration District Numbers, or other locational designation CITY WIDE S. EXPLANATION OF SELECTION OF GENERAL LOCATIONS 1. New Construction i The City of Richfield is a fully developed suburb. Locations of cities for newi construction are limited. Site selection will be based on availibility of sites with substandard dwellings on them. Specific sites have not yet been selected. ' I 2. Rehabilitation Rehabilitation will be city -wide based on applications received. I f i i Re960cei F Wm nUo•7015.11. wnr.:h .1 otmole[e MUD•: :» O•.o; 0ZVE,-C "'MZ,"I ' L U.D. Dcr'%1nT.Ac.V' �.? nJuStNG :.h.: .r :• >N 1 City Of Richfield 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BL3CK GRANT GROGRAM 2. APPLICATION /GRANT NUMBER HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN TA6LEE V• ANNUAL HOUSING ACTION PROGRAM g- ANNUAL GOAL 4. ❑ ORIGINAL 3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY ,yfiyrr!as r F ROM aw•,,1, ^; n ` 3a• TO s ; ° /t��i' f ❑ REVISION, PATE Year VIN, August ti�� 1980 July 1981 F:, a <•���..� >�� <` ";u: C3 NUMBER OF LOWER- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO BE ASSISTED ELOCRLY SMALL I LARGE TYPES AND SOURCES OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE (1.2aorsons) TOTAL AND FAMILY ' I FAMILY HANOI- (4 or /ra (5 or more _ CAKED. ! parsons) Aenonsl lal (bl- (c) .. (d) (e) 1 A. Total Goals for Housing Assistance for Homeowners I I j I (sum of lines 2 and 5) 66 20 40 6 1. New Construction Assistance for Homeowners 2 2 0 0 i 2 1 (sum of lines 3 And 4) I 3 HU0 Assisted Programs 4 Omer 5 1 2. Rehabilitation Assistance for Homeowners 64 I 20 i 4 0 4 (sum of lines 5, 7 and 8) 21 1 11 I 9 1 6 Community Development Block Grants 7 ; HUD Assisted Prograrrts 3 -- oth.r` INff Grants & Loans 43 9 31 1 3 9 ` 8. Total Goals for Housing Assistants for Rentsrs I hum of lines 10, 13, 16 and 221 50 I 15 34 1 10� 1. Asslstxxe for Froso€nctive Horrvownen I 0 ! (sum of lines 1 1 + 12) - t 1 i HUD Assisted Programs 12 Other I 13 2. New Rental Un,n 0 I I (sum of lines 14 and 151 14 HUD Assisted Programs j I 15 Other' 16 i 3. Rehabilitation of Rentai Unln 15 i 8 7 I 0 (sum of lines 17, 18 and 21) 17 Community Oe+ro+opment Blocx Granrs ' t 18 i HUD Assisted Programs (sum of lines 19 +20) — -- t 19 Substantial Rrrheollitation 1.5 g i 20 Srctlon 8 Existing with Moderate Rehabilitation 21 Other' 22 1 4. Existing Rentai Units I I I 1 (sum of tins 23 + 26) 35 ; 7 27 1 23 — HUD Assrfted Programs (rum of lines 24 +251 35 7 27 1 24 I With Rep4,r :5 ;— - _ Witho t Roon'r 35 -- 1 - 26 1 Other • I NAR RATI VE (AtraclJ additional sheers if necessary and Identify wJrri items adove) J I. Footnote units to be provided specifically for this handlcanoeo. 2. Describe cne programs listed under this Category. 3. Oescrlbe those actions necessary to facilitate the accomplishment of the goals. Inr;remental Year of Submission i - Tahles I, II and IV of the Three Year HAP approved r . 2 3 incorporatec w referer._e trio are not Contained in his (se[ond) (tr71rl1l year ru firm. iwS n .., .n •nczc .,a .. i planning area 2 citizen advisory committee 2353 government center, minneapolis,mn 55487 February 19, 1980 The Honorable Donald J. Priebe City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Priebe: In accordance with the approved Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan, the proposed Community Development Block Grant program of the City of Richfield was submitted to the Planning Area II Citizen Advisory Committee. The Planning Area II Citizen Advisory Committee is composed of appointed citizens from Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Richfield and St. Louis Park. The charge of the Committee is to provide citizen comments and recommendations in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant Program. The Committee has been meeting throughout the last year. At the meetings the Committee has reviewed the federal requirements and regulations of the Community Development Block Grant, reviewed and commented on the Urban County Comprehensive Strategy and monitored the implementation of Richfield's community development program and housing assistance plan. The Committee has reviewed the proposed programs based upon the eligibility of the projects, the benefit to the low and moderate incomed, and compliance with the Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Community Development Strategy. The Committee is submitted the following comments for consideration by the Richfield City Council prior to approval of the final program. 1. The proposed program is not consistant with the Urban Hennepin County Comprehensive Strategy which requires a minimum of 75 percent of the funds ,available over the three year program period shall be used for projects and activities which principally benefit low and moderate income persons. The three year program should be amended to reflect that requirement. 2. The Committee strongly recommends that the City of Richfield develop a plan for handicapped accessibility improvements. Presently, it is difficult to ascertain the priority of handicapped improvements. The plan should be subject to review by local handicapped residents. The Honorable Donald J. Priebe -2- February 19, 19£30 3. The third program year proposes a decrease in funding for housing rehabilitation. In reviewing the progress of approved projects, city staff indicated that present funds have been committed six months before more funding becomes available. It would appear that there is a demand for housing rehabilitation assistance and the proposed decrease in funding is not appropriate. 4. The proposed projects of housing rehabilitation and site acquisition and clearance are acceptable and the Committee recomends approval. 5. The Committee strongly encourages the City to implement and complete all approved programs within the two year period as required by the Joint Cooperation Agreement. The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to the City for its submittal of this proposed program and particular thanks to Rick Jopke for his presentation. The Committee looks forward to the City Council's response to its recommendation and comments and to the program officially adopted by and for the City of Richfield. Respectfully submitted, Jayne Marecek PACAC II Chairperson ma cc: Rick Jopkes% CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA / O Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 75A Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor - and Members of the City Council City of Richfield .Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the cost exceeds $1,000. Since the regulation 18 holes of the golf course were seeded in the fall of 1979, it is important that the city acquire the appropriate equipment for turf management by the spring of 1980. This equipment will include four types of grass mowers.! Arrange- ments have been made with the Toro Comp to use the �ic.hfield golf cours -e1 as an experimental site fo5ough mower: *— reens mowers and 'tee mowers wi ,1/ also be needed. The most expensive, largest size mower is th <.: Council Letter No. 75A _2- February 25, 1980 It is recommended that the city council authorize the purchase of the used fairway mower in the amount of $9,000. Respectfully submitted, J4 arl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager l� Council Letter No. 75 Agenda February 25, 1980 aD The Honorable Mayor .. ',S� and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are two such items on the February 25, 1980 city council agenda. Cross Country Skis For several years, the Wood Lake Nature Center has provided cross country ski trails, and a limited number of skis for people (on a rental basis), and naturalist - guides to take beginning cross country skiers on tours of the Center. Periodically, the skis used in this program, and ski bindings, need to be replaced. Quotations have been received for 22 pairs of skis and bindings. The low quotation was submitted by Four Seasons Equipment, 6409 Lyndale Avenue, in the amount of $1,232. It is recommended that the city council approve this purchase, which is provided for in the operating budget for the Nature Center. Signs The City of Richfield is part of a joint purchasing venture with Hennepin County. The county has obtained bids for street signs, and it is now time for the city to order signs based on contract award through Hennepin County. Based on past experience, the city anticipates replacement of 70 24" x 24" stop signs, 20 30" x 30" stop signs and 20 30" x 30" dead end signs, during 1980. The low bid received was from U.S. Standard Sign Company. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council approve this purchase in the amount of $1,393.50, from U. S. Standard Sign Company. Funds for this purchase are available in the 1980 street division budget. - Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Ser. Dir. Finance Coordinator CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 74 Agenda February 25, 1980 _ -rl o,. Subject: Review of Bids and Recommendation to Reject Bids for Lime Sludge Disposal On February 14, 1980, bids for excavating and disposing of lime sludge were opened in accordance with previous council author- ization. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. To the east of the municipal water plant, located at 62nd Street and Portland Avenue, are two lime sludge basins measuring approximately 105' x 390'. The sludge is a combination of waste chemicals, primarily calcium carbonate with varying amounts of other chemicals, left from the lime softening ot'the municipal water supply. This sludge, which is a mud -like consistency, is approximately five feet thick in each of the basins, and must be removed about once each year, to provide adequate storage space for new sludge that is constantly being produced. The one bid received from lime sludge removal quoted a unit price of $11.97 /cubic yard for the estimated 9,000 cubic yards of sludge. The total amount of $107,730 is extremely high, compared with the expense to excavate and dispose of the sludge in recent years. In the last three years the contract awards have been as follows: CONTRACTOR QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST 1977 Phoenix Trucking 8,000 cu.yds. $4.59 cu.yd. $36,750.00 1973 Central Landscaping 10,068 cu.yds. 3.95 cu.yd. 39,76860 Flying Cloud Landfill 1.0,068 cu.yds. 2.00 cu.yd. 20,136.00 TOTAL 1978 $59,904.60 1979 Progressive Contractors Inc. 8,586 cu.yds. 5.50 cu.yd ,2 3000 Other specification holders have indicated a prbblem in hauling the sludge and in locating a disposal site that will accept the sludge. Because of the high bid received, the staff is interested in exploring alternate means of completing the sludge removal. v or Council Letter No. 74 -2- February 25, 1980 Therefore, it is recommended that the city council reject the bid for excavating and disposing of lime sludge, and direct the staff to investigate further alternatives and implementation of an alternate method of lime sludge excavation and disposal. KN /ej a cc: Community Services Director Acting City Clerk Respectfully submitted, AgV��9 oll J enberge City Manager r CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 14, 1980 Lime Sludge Removal Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce L Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for Lime Sludge Removal as advertised in the official newspaper on January 30, and February 6, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Manager Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Sandra Rosenow, Administrative Aide The following bid was submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY Wangerin, Inc. B.B. 5% AMOUNT $107,730.00 The Acting City Manager announced that the bid would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of February 25, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 73 Agenda February 25, 1980 l 7_; n . �-/ CC�LV r� �� A SW tT CCi TV rf&3D/r'l Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to City Holidays, Second Reading. On January 28, 1980, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to employee holidays. A copy of this proposed ordinance amendment is attached for city council review. The attached ordinance amendment makes two changes in the existing employee holiday structure, by eliminating Columbus Day (the second Monday of October) as a municipal employee holiday, and substituting the Friday after Thanksgiving in its place, and by establishing an eleventh holiday, the date of which shall be designated each year by the city manager. This provides the opportunity for the city manager to determine, on an annual basis, which holiday during the course of any given calendar year would be most beneficial to the city and to the city employees, and provides flexibility as conditions change from year to year. The city will continue to have city offices open for the serving of papers and other legal documents. This can be done by having one person at the switchboard to answer incoming calls and to service the public. The day which will be selected as this designated holiday would be, by definition, a day of minimal telephone commun- ication and walk -in traffic, so that one person should be able to handle the public service needs on that occasion. It is recommended that the city council give second reading consideration to the attached ordinance amendment at the February 25, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Department Directors 14 I AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.34, SUBDIVISION 2, OF THE RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO EMPLOYEE HOLIDAYS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 2.34, Subd. 2, of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to paid holidays for city employees is hereby amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 2. Holidays. The following paid holidays will be observed by the city: New Year's Day on January 1st; Washington's and Lincoln's Birthdays on the third Monday in February; Memorial Day on the last Monday in May; Independence Day on July 4th; Labor Day on the first Monday in September; [Columbus Day on the second Monday in October;] Veteran's Day on November 11; Thanksgiving Day on the fourth Thursday of November; the Friday after Thanksgiving; Christmas Day; a holiday the date of which shall be designated each year by the city manager; and one floating holiday." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 2'ith day of February 1980. ATTEST: City Cler Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and ,Members of the City Council City of Richf ield ' Council Members: Council Letter No. 72 Agenda February 25, 1980 P Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Pay Plan and Compensation Policies, Second Reading. On February 11, 1980, the city council gave first reading approval to an ordinance amendment relating to the pay plan and compensation policies of the city. A copy of this ordinance amendment is attached for city council review. The attached ordinance is designed to more specifically clarify which city employees are eligible for certain types of overtime compensation. The ordinance contains two major changes. The first major change appears in paragraph one, and more specifi- cally defines the employees who are considered ' administrative employees, and who are exempt from overtime compensation. The or- dinance has always designated certain employees to be exempt from overtime compensation, but the former language of the ordinance provision has become obsolete, particularly in light of reorgani- zational changes recently made in the city's administrative structure. The provision that these employees are exempt from overtime compensation, but may be granted reasonable time off by the city manager when he determines that such time off is warr- anted, is virtually unchanged from the previous ordinance. The second major substitute change appears in paragraph 5 and then again in subdivision 18, section 2.33. The effect - of these changes is to specify that overtime compensation to any em- ployee eligible for such compensation, shall be either.in the form of cash payment for overtime at the rate of time and one -half, or in the form of compensatory time off on a straight time basis, and that the city manager shall make the determination as to which form of compensation is granted to any such employee. The previous or- dinance provision appeared to mandate that certain employees work- ing overtime could only be paid in cash, and that it was the em- ployee's choice if they elected to receive compensatory time rather than a cash overtime payment. The attached ordinance pro- visions clearly provide the appropriate management authority to make a decision as to whether employees working overtime are to be Council Letter No. 72 -2- February 25, 1980 compensated in cash or by compensatory time off. It is recommended -that the city council give second reading consideration to this ordinance amendment at the February 25, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Department Directors AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUB- DIVISION 17, PARAGRAPHS (1) AND-(5) AND AMENDING SUB- DIVISION 18 OF SECTION 2.33 OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO THE PAY PLAN AND COMPENSATION POLICIES OF THE CITY APPLYING TO CITY EMPLOYEES. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Paragraphs (1) and (5) of Subdivision 17, Section 2.33 the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to pay plan and compensation - policies for city employees are hereby amended to read as follows: 11(1) Administrative Employees. [Department heads, assistant department heads, division heads, all categories of administrative assistants and interns, the personnel director, programmers, police captains, police lieutenant, assistant fire chief, deputy city clerk, recreation supervisor and the chief water plant operator shall not receive overtime compensation either in the form of pay or time off as described herein for other employees. The city manager may, however, grant reasonable periods of time off to department heads, and administrative assistants and interns when he feels such time off is warranted. Other personnel filling classes of positions referred to in this paragraph may likewise be granted reasonable periods of time off by their department heads when such time is warranted.] The employee classification plan established pursuant to Section 2.30 of the Ordinance Code of the city shall include a designation of those administrative employees who have responsibilities which are managerial and supervisory in nature. Pex:sons. holding ..such positions, in the city's service-may be referred to as 'administrative employees' or 'managerial- supervisory employees'. Such employees shall not receive over compensation either in the form of pay or. time off, as provided for herein for other employees. The city manager may, - however, grant reasonable periods of time off to administrative employees when he determines that such time off is warranted. "(5) All Other Employees: [These employees shall be compensa- ted in cash at the rate of time and one half for work performed in excess of their first eight hours per day and for work performed in excess of a regular forty hours per week.] Employees other than administrative employees and shift employees shall be compensated for work ordered and- performed in excess of their first eight hours per day-and for work ordered and performed in excess of a regular forty hours per week. Such compensation shall consist of either compensatory time off on a straight time basis or payment in cash at the rate of time and one - half." W -2- Subdivision 18 of Section 2.33 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to compensatory time off for overtime work of city employees is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 18. Compensatory Time Off. [Employees may elect to receive time off on a straight time basis in lieu of cash payments with the permission of their department head.] The manner of compen- sating an.employee for overtime work, i. e..whether such compensation shall be compensatory.time off on a straight time basis or-cash pay- ment at the rate of time and one -half, shall be.determined in each instance by the city manager." Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of February -, 1980. ATTEST: ty Clerk Mayor 13 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 71 4 Agenda February 25, 1980 002o The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: "L Subject: Ordinance Amendment and resolutions Relating to Certain Water and Sewer Rates and Charges, Second Reading. On February 11, 1980, the city council adopted an ordinance amendment which would enable the council to establish water and sewer utility rates and charges by resolution, rather than through the more cumbersome process of ordinance amendment. This ordinance would also authorize the city council to establish some kind of specialized rate structure or a different application of the ex- isting rates for elderly, low income senior citizens and disabled persons. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached for city council review. Also attached are resolutions establishing sanitary sewer rates and charges, and water rates and charges. Each of these resolutions implement the existing established sewer and water user rates, and do not make any changes in the basic rates which the council has previously established. The resolution establishing water rates and charges includes a paragraph four which establishes a different means of calculating water rates for senior citizens and disabled persons who meet certain criteria. The resolution provides that a senior citizen aged 65 years of age or older with a household income of less than $5,000 per year, or a disabled person, shall be billed only for water actually used in an amount of less than 10,000 gallons. The impact of this proposed "rate break" is to waive the minimum water charge to qualified senior and disabled persons. The suggested basis for establishing age, disability, or income criteria is the Minnesota Property Tax Refund Return, which must be shown to the city before a person is eligible for this reduced water charge. The resolution also provides that eligibility must be determined each year. It is recommended that the city council give second reading approval to the proposed ordinance amending sections 8.12 and 8.23, relating to sewer and water rates and charges at the February 25, „ Council Letter No. 71 1 -2- February 25, 1980 1980 city council meeting. After taking that action, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolutions establishing sewer and water rates and charges, pursuant to prov- isions of the proposed ordinance amendment. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: City Attorney Administrative Services Director Finance Coordinator Acting City Clerk AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBDIVISIONS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF SECTION 8.12 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RELATING TO SANITARY SEINER. SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES AND AMENDING SUBDIVISIONS 1,2 AND 4 OF SECTION 8.23 OF SUCH ORDINANCE RELATING TO WATER RATES AND CHARGES. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES'ORDAIN: Subdivisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Section 8.12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield relating to sanitary sewer service rates and charges are hereby amended to read as follows: 118.12. RATES AND CHARGES. Subdivision 1. [The following rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established; such charges and rates to be made against each lot, parcel of land, unit or premises which may have a connec- tion directly or indirectly into the -city sanitary sewer system and which discharges only normal sewage into such system.] Rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system shall be established, from time to time, by resolution of the city council. Such rates and charges shall be made against each lot, parcel of land, unit or premises which may have a connection directly or indirectly into the city sanitary sewer system. "Subd. 2. Flat Charges. [Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges shall be made effective with the winter quarter of each year for each customer billing district as defined in Subdivision 3: A) Residential per unit B) Commercial For the equivalent of 10 or less persons More than 10, less than 16 More.than 15, less than 21 More than 20, less than 26 1979 1980 1981 1982 11.00 11.55 12.35 13.35 11.00 11.55 12.35 13.35 27.50 28.88 30.89 33.37 41.25 43.31 46.34 50.00 55.00 57.75 61.80 66.74 C) Institutional For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: -2- 1979 1980 1981 1982 For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof 19.80 20.79 22.24 24.02 For each 100 junior high school students or high school students or fraction thereof 55.00 57.75 61.80 66.74 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in Subdivision 3 and a certification charge as determined in Subdivision 12.1 Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the council may establish quarterly flat charges. Such flat charges shall be made effective with the winter-quarter of each year for each customer bil- ling district. Such flat charges may vary among the various classes of customers as established by the resolution establishing the rates and charges. In addition to such flat rates, there may be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in such resolution and a certifica- tion charge as provided in Subd. 12. -of this secti(5n. "Subd. 3. - Metered Flow Charge. [A) Residential For all residential premises where the rate is to be based upon metered use of water, the rate shall be as follows based on the actual use for the winter quarter per thousand gallons effective with the winter quarter for each customer billing district: 1979 1980 1981 1982 55 cents 58 cents 62 cents 67 cents For purposes of this ordinance the winter quarter shall be defined as follows: City Water District #1 - Use period of January, February, and March, billed in March of current year. City Water District ;2 - Use period of February, March, and April, billed in April of current year. City Water ;district 03 - Use period of December, January, and February, billed in February of current year. B) Commercial and Institutional For all commercial and institutional premises where the rate is to be based upon metered use of water, the rate shall be as follows per thousand gallons of water effective with the winter quarter for each district: 1979 1980 1981 1982 55 cents 58 cents 62 cents 67 cents C) Customer Charge In addition to the flat charges and metered flow charge there shall be a customer charga for each invoice rendered effective with the winter quarter of each year as follows: 1979 1981 $1.50 $1.751 -3 - Where there are one or more To7ater meters measuring water usage on the premises, sanitary.sewer service rates and charges shall be based upon the metered use of water except to the extent otherwise provided in this subdivision. The rates and charges shall be based upon the actual use of water on the premises for the last. preceding winter quarter for the customer billing district in which the premises are located. For this purpose the winter auarter for each billing district is as follows: City-Water District #1 - Use period of January, February, and March, billed in March of current year. City Water District #2 - .Us` period of February, March, and April, billed in April of current year. City Water District #3 -'Use period of December, January, and February, billed in February of current year. Where it appears that metered water use for the winter quarter is not normal, by reason of the fact that for some or all of the winter quarter the premises have.not been-occupied or there have been other interruptions in the normal use of water, the volume of water to be used for the purposes of establishing sewer charges may be based.up.on water usage at comparable occupied premises elsel,%Mmere In she city. Sewer charges so established shall be determined by the city manager. Any customer x,,TI'lio believes that his or her sewer charcres have been determined in an ineauitable manner may petition for and shall receive a redetermination of such charges by the city manager. Such redetermination shall be subject to appeal to and final determination by the city council. In addition.to the rates and charges established on the basis of the metered use of water, as hereinbefore provided, there shall be a cus- tomer charge for each invoice rendered by the city. "[Subd. 4. Rate - Industrial Waste and Large Units. On each lot, parcel, premises, or unit not enumerated in this subdivision the use of water shall be metered and the rate shall be the same as that provided in Subdivision 3 of this section.] to Subdivisions 1, 2 and 4 of Section 8.23 relating to water rates and charges are hereby amended to read as follows: "8.23. WATER RATES. Subdivision 1. Basic Rates. [The rate due and payable to the city by each water user within the city for water taken during any quarter from the water supply system shall be seventy - four cents per 1,000 gallons. Such water charges shall be payable quarterly.] The rates due and payable to the city for use of city water shall be established, from time to time, by resolution of the city council. Billings to water customers shall be rendered quarterly. "Subd. 2. Minimum Charges. In case the meter is found to have stopped or to be operating in a faulty manner, the amount of water used will be estimated in accordance with the amount used previously. [The minimum rate for water service is $7.40 per quarter and such minimum rate shall be applicable where the amount of water used is r. -4- 10,000 gallons, or less, for the quarter.] The council may, from time to time, by resolution establish minimum rates for water services. The council. may also, from time to time, establish reduced rates, below the prevailing minimum rates, for senior citi- zens or disabled j2ersons who qualify for such reduced rates under the standards established by such council resolution. Where ser- vice is for less than a quarterly period, this charge will be pro- rated on a daily basis. "Subd. 4. Water Bills. Water billsshall be mailed to the customers quarterly and shall specify the water consumed and the charge in-accordance with the [foregoing] established rates." Passed by the City Council of the City-of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of February , 1980. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER RATES AND CHARGES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS: .1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23• of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for city water and water service ar.e hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution. 2. The charge due and payable to the city by each water customer of the city, during any quarter, shall be 74 cents per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly.. 3. The minimum rate for the water service is $7.40 per quarter and, except as otherwise provided in this resolution, such minimum rate shall be applicable where the amount of water taken.by the cus- tomer is 10,000 gallons or less, for the quarter. 4. Water charges for any quarter may be reduced below the minimum charges provided in the foregoing paragraph 3, for the benefit of customers who are senior citizens or disabled persons, . in the following circumstances: A) The customer account shall_ involve premises constituting a separate water customer account. B) The premises shall have, as the principal occupant or occupants, one or more persons who are 65 years of acre or older. C) The household income of the occupants of the premises shall have been less than $5,000 for the preceding calendar year, as determined in accordance with Minnesota Property Tax Refund Return 1979, line'6. D) The amount of water taken at such premises during the quarter shall have been less than 10,000 gallons. An application demonstrating eligibility may be made by any adult member of the affected household. Eligibility shall be granted to. a customer prospectively only, for a period ending with the end of the first billing quarter of the next calendar year. Continued eligibility can be established by reapplication. An eligible customer account shall be charged for water on the basis of the actual amount of water taken. `j :. RI'SOLUTTON NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING S iTIy'A?Y SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOTIS: 1. Pursuant to the- provisions of Section 8.12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution. 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective with the winter quarter of each year for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. A) Residential per unit 1980 1981 1982 11.55 12.35 13.35 B) Commercial For the equivalent of 10 or less persons 11.55 12.35 13.35 More than 10, less than 16 28.88 30.89 33.37 More than 15, less than 21 43.31 46.34 50.00 More than 20, less than 26 57.75 61.80 66.74 C) Institutional For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 19000 1931 1982 For each 100 arade school students or fraction in excess thereof 20.79 22.24 24.02 For each 100 j ar It �. school students or high school students or fraction thereof 57.75 61.80 66.74 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 8.12 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on the actual use of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons, F � ' -2- effective with the winter quarter for each customer billing district and shall be.as follows: 1980 1981 1982 58 cents 62 cents 67 cents For the purposes of this paragraph A,.the winter quarter shall be the winter quarter specified in Subdivision 3 of said Section 8.12, B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial and other premises the rate per thousand gallons of water, . effective with the winter quarter for each district, shall be as follows: 1980 1981 1982 58 cents 62 cents 67 cents C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered . effective with the winter quarter of each year as follows: 1980 1981 $1.50 $1.75 If the invoice is for water service as well as sanitary sewer .service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated equally between the city's water fund and its sewer fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 8.12. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. ✓ f . e N CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 70 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor "^ and t 1$0 Members of the City Council 1� J City of Richfield n Council Members: Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract, Two Wheel Utility Trailer On February 7, 1980 bids were opened for a two wheel utility trailer, in accordance with previous council authorization. Bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. The utility trailer is part of the park management operation, and is used to transport grass mowers and to haul park maintenance equipment. Funding for this unit-is included in the adopted 1980 park maintenance budget, in the amount of $1,980. Two bids were received. It is recommended that the city council award the contract to Minnesota Toro, Inc., the low bidder meeting specifications, in the amount of $1,890. KN /eja cc: Finance Coordinator Community Services Director Respectfully submitted, kL\, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 7, 1980 Industrial Tractors and Utility Trailer Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for one Industrial Type Four - Wheel Drive Tractor, two Industrial Type Tractors and one Two -Wheel Drive Utility Trailer as advertised in the official newspaper on January 23, and 30, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Manager Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Rick Jopke, Acting Planning Director Art Bailey, Engineering Technician Marshall Raaen, Technical Services Supervisor Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY ITEM BASE BID DEDUCT TRADE-IN TOTAL BID Truck Utilities & Mfg. One 2 -Wheel B.B. 5% Utility Trailer $ 2,740 Toro B.B. 5% $ 1,890 Hayes Service Inc. Two Industrial $1,121 check Type Tractors $22,420 $ 4,000 $18,420 Valley Equipment $1,400 Check $33,596 $14,346 $19,250 Midway Tractor B.B. 5% $21,764 $ 5,000 $16,764 Midway Tractor One 4 -Wheel B.B. 5% Drive Tractor $11,647 $ 3,700 $ 7,947 The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of February 25, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Council Letter No. 69 Agenda February 25, 1980 "6A Subject: Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and Award of Contract, One Industrial -Type Four Wheel Drive Tractor On February 7, 1980, bids were opened for an industrial type four -wheel drive tractor, in accordance with previous council authorization. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. This unit is to replace a fully depreciated 1968 model 2200 Massey Ferguson tractor, used primarily for park maintenance functions in the winter program operation. One bid was submitted by Midway Tractor and Equipment Co., Inc. for a Ford 1900 tractor with cab and snow blower. The new tractor was bid at $11,647, less a trade -in amount of $3,700, for a total bid of $7,947. It is recommended that the city council award the contract to Midway Tractor and Equipment Co., Inc. in the amount of $7,947, which is $4,053 less than the 1980 budget appropriation for this purchase. KN /eja cc: Community Services Director Finance Coordinator Respectfully submitted, �1A .tiC.� 1 � Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 7, 1980 Industrial Tractors and Utility Trailer Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for one Industrial Type Four - Wheel Drive Tractor, two Industrial Type Tractors and one Two -Wheel Drive Utility Trailer as advertised in the official newspaper on January 23, and 30, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Manager Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Rick Jopke, Acting Planning Director Art Bailey, Engineering Technician Marshall Raaen, Technical Services Supervisor Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY ITEM BASE BID DEDUCT TRADE -IN TOTAL BID Truck Utilities & Mfg. One 2 -Wheel B B 5% Utility Trailer $ 2,740 Toro B B 5% - $ 1,890 Hayes Service Inc. Two Industrial $1,121 check Type Tractors $22,420 $ 4,000 $18,420 Valley Equipment $1,400 Check $33,596 $14,346 $19,250 Midway Tractor B B 5% $21,764 $ 5,000 $16,764 Midway Tractor One 4 -Wheel B B 5% Drive Tractor $11,647 $ 3,700 $ 7,947 The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of February 25, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk V I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 68A Agenda February 25,1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Waiving of Parking Restrictions for Week of Pre - Screening for Kindergarten Classes Councilman Ivan Ludeman has requested that an item be placed on the February 25, 1980 city council agenda to request that the "No Parking" restrictions on certain streets around the Richfield High School be bagged during the time that the school district is conducting the pre- screening for the 1980 kindergarten classes. Specifically, the "No Parking" signs to be bagged are those on the 7100 block of Harriet Avenue and on 72nd Street between Harriet and Pleasant Avenues. It is requested that these signs be bagged for the period February 26, through Feb- ruary 29, 1980. KN /eja cc: Public Safety Director Respectfully submitted, U Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 68 Agenda February 25, 1980 � 6 a The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Waiver of Parking Restrictions for Richfield Lions Club Pancake Breakfast The Richfield Lions Club has scheduled their annual pancake breakfast for Sunday, May 4, 1980, to be held at the Richfield Community Center, 70th Street and Nicollet Avenue. The Lions Club has again requested that the city council waive the existing "No Parking" restrictions on the south side of West 70th Street between Nicollet and Pillsbury Avenues, from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., on May 4, 1980. 4 Parking is currently prohibited on both the north and south sides of 70th Street, westward from Nicollet Avenue. The parking regulations on Nicollet Avenue in this area permit Sunday parking. However, since the time of the Lions Club breakfast coincides with Sunday morning services at Wooddale Baptist Church, the Lions Club feels that the Nicollet Avenue parking will not be sufficient. The Public Safety Department has indicated that they would not anticipate any significant safety problems arising from the requested waiver of parking restrictions, since Sunday traffic volumes on West 70th Street are generally lower than during other times of the week. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council authorize waiver of the parking restrictions on the south side of West 70th Street between Nicollet and Pillsbury Avenues, from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, May 4, 1980. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Public Safety Director •, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 67 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor L-4,-ao o and Members of the City Council a City of Richfield `"" tL `�`"' n Council Members: Subject: Tabulation of Bids, Minutes and Award of Bids for Two Industrial Type Tractors On February 7, 1980, bids were opened for two industrial type tractors, in accordance with previous council authorization. The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for city council review. Two 1973 fully depreciated White tractors are to be traded in with the new tractors to be replacement items for the existing equipment. Approximately $24,000 is appropriated for this purchase in the 1980 Central Garage budget:- The tractors are to be used primarily for park maintenance functions, including snow removal for winter programs, and grass cutting and ballfield maintenance for summer programs. The tractors would also be used for sweeping sidewalks. Three bids were received. Midway Tractor submitted the low bid meeting specifications, of $21,764 for the two new tractors, less $5,000 for the trade -in, equalling a total bid price of $16,764 for the two tractors. The model to be provided is a Ford 3600 with cab. It is recommended that the city council award the contract for purchase of two industrial type tractors to Midway Tractor and Equipment Co., Inc. in the amount of $16,764. KN /ej a cc: Community Services Director Finance Coordinator Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD Bid Opening February 7, 1980 ,Tndustrial Tractors and Utility Trailer Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for one Industrial Type Four - Wheel Drive Tractor, two Industrial Type Tractors and one Two -Wheel Drive Utility Trailer as advertised in the official newspaper on January 23, and 30, 1980. Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Acting City Manager Don Fondrick, Community Services Director Rick.Jopke, Acting Planning Director Art Bailey, Engineering Technician Marshall Raaen, Technical Services Supervisor Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk The following bids were submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY ITEM BASE BID DEDUCT TRADE -IN TOTAL BID Truck Utilities & Mfg. One 2 -Wheel B.B. 5% Utility Trailer $ 2,740 Toro B.B. 5% $ 1,890 Hayes Service Inc. Two Industrial $1,121 check Type Tractors $22,420 $ 4,000 $18,420 Valley Equipment $1,400 Check $33,596 $14,346 $19,250 Midway Tractor B.B. 5% $21,764 $ 5,000 $16,764 Midway Tractor One 4 -Wheel B.B. 5% Drive Tractor $11,647 $ 3,700 $ 7,947 The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the regular city council meeting of February 25, 1980. Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk i "L CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 66 Agenda February 25, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Recommendation for .Denial of Taxicab Drivers Licenses The city has received applications for taxicab driver licenses from a David Lee Devore and a Joseph Frank Dotray. The background investigations conducted by the Public Safety Depart- ment with regard to these license applications reveals that both applicants currently have limited status Minnesota driver licenses. In both cases, the limited status is the result of conviction for traffic related violations, both of which involve alchohol- related offenses. The Public Safety Department policy used as a standard in recommending approval of applications for taxicab driver licenses requires a minimum of one year driving experience which is free from traffic related convictions. In both of the above cases, the convictions which resulted in the limited license status, occurred within the past year. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the city council deny both of these requests for taxicab drivers licenses. Respectfully submitted, { Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN/ ej a cc: Public Safety Director Acting City Clerk