12-10-79 agendale
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 397
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Report on Workers' Compensation and Disability
Pension Payments for Public Safety Personnel
At the November 29, 1979 city council meeting, the city council
was advised that the staff was completing a study on workers' com-
pensation and disability payments which are made to public safety
individuals. This study was initiated because of concerns that
employees receiving workers' compensation and disability pension
payments are eligible to receive after tax income through those
payments which exceeds after tax income which they would earn if
they were still employed by the city. The purpose of this council
letter is to provide some background informction on this matter,
and to suggest actions which the city might use to minimize the
problems of such payments exceeding salaries paid to individuals
working in the same job classifications.
Background
Minnesota Statutes 423 and 425 outline the basic provisions
of retirement programs for police and fire personnel. Cities,
through special legislation, may have pension systems different
from the basic plans outlined in the statutes. As you know, both
the police and fire relief associations of Richfield have obtained
special legislation which prescribes benefits for the employees
enrolled in those plans. Attached is Exhibit A which compares the
benefits for employees in both the police and fire pension funds.
In each of these plans, the pension paid former employees is tied
to existing salaries for current employees. In the case of the
fire relief association, the pension is based upon current salary
of a firefighter. In the case of the police relief association,
the pension is tied to prior year's salary for a police officer.
The effect of these pension provisions is to somewhat "in-
flation proof" the payments to pensioners, and to provide for an
escalation. Neither of the Richfield plans, nor those of any
other cities which have local pension funds, provide for coordin-
ation of benefits of the disability pensions and the workers'
compensation benefits. In fact, Minnesota Statutes 424.27 spec-
ifically prohibits pension plan laws from being construed in a
Council Letter No. 397 -2- December 10, 1979
manner which abridges, repeals, or amends, workers' compensation
laws. The effect of this legislation is that an employee who is
eligible for, and receives, a pension through one of the Richfield
relief associations, who is also receiving workers' compensation
benefits because the disability was judged to have occurred in a
work related situation, is eligible to receive the total pension
and the total workers' compensation payment, regardless of the
amount which he is receiving through either pension. The result
of this is that some Richfield employees who have retired on a
disability pension and are receiving workers' compensation pay-
ments for job related injuries, are actually receiving more after
tax money through these payments than they would receive if they
were currently employed in the job classification in which they
were previously employed. The rest of this report will describe
the methodology and conclusions and data used in reaching these
conclusions.
In performing the research, the following methodology was used:
1. A random group of ten police officers and seven
firefighters on the payroll at the top step
were used.
2. These individuals had varying amounts withheld for
state and federal taxes due to their number of ex-
emptions so the average amount of state and federal
tax was used for computation purposes for each
group.
3. The monthly costs of average employee contributions
for federal and state taxes, pensions and union
dues were deducted from monthly gross income to
determine the average net income for each group.
4. Net pay as a percentage of gross pay was determined.
Findings
Exhibit B shows the net pay of a Richfield police officer
and a Richfield firefighter as a percent of gross pay. This cal-
culation was completed because the actual dollars which are avail-
able for a person to live on relate to the net dollars, more
specifically than they relate to the gross pay. This is particu-
larly important in comparing the money available to pensioners
receiving workers' compensation payments to that of current em-
ployees, because disability pensions are non-taxable for state
purposes and for federal purposes are only taxable for amounts
received annually in excess of $5,200. Workers' compensation
payments, on the other hand, are non-taxable at both the state
and federal level. Exhibit C and D compare the current employed
firefighter and police officer net pay to the net pay of employees
receiving pensions and workers' compensation.
In analyzing this data, the following conclusions were
reached:
Council Letter No. 397
-3- December 10, 1979
1. The average firefighter receives after tax income
of 71.2% or $1,123.12 of the gross taxable monthly
income while the average disabled firefighter re-
ceives 56.8% or $895.82. In other words, the aver-
age working firefighter nets in terms of base
salary, $227.30 more per month than the average
disabled firefighter.
2. one disabled firefighter, Jack Lindborg, nets
$415.57 more per month than the average net salary
of a firefighter at the top step who is working
for the city.
3. The average police officer receives after tax income
of 74.4% or $1,202.65 of gross taxable monthly in-
come, while the average disabled police officer rece-
ives 67.1%, or $1,084.98. In other words, the average
working police officer nets $117.67 more per month
than the average disabled police officer.
4. Two disabled police officers, Duane Iverson and
Dennis Johnson, each net $242.62 more per month in
terms of overlapping disability pension and workers'
compensation payments than the average net base
salary of police officers currently working for the
city.
Summary and Recommendation
As previously noted, state law appears to condone the situation
which is occurring in Richfield, (i.e. that of retired employees
receiving more after tax income through a disability/workers' com-
pensation retirement benefit than they would if they were currently
employed.) This is of concern to the city for several reasons.
For one thing, the fact that an employee can do as well financially
by retiring on a job related injury as he could by continuing to
work, could serve as an incentive to employees who are marginally
disabled, but who might physically be able to meet their job demands.
There is little incentive for those employees to come back to work
when they can earn as much money by not working. This could result
in unnecessary turnover among certain employee groups as well as
result in increased cost to the city to recruit and train replace-
ment employees. A second major concern for the city with this du-
plicate payment situation is a financial one. Since the city
self-insures its workers' compensation risk, any workers' compen-
sation liability which we will incur for employees in the future,
will come directly from city funds. Of course, when the city was
purchasing workers' compensation insurance on the open market,
the premium cost to the city was a direct function of the amount
and type of claims and the workers' compensation payments made.
Similarily, the city also has a major financial commitment to the
police and fire relief associations in terms of funding those
• associations and, in fact, will likely incur additional future
costs as we seek to retire the unfunded liability of those re-
Council Letter No. 397 -4- December 10, 1979
lief associations in accordance with the provisions of the
state legislation which established those associations in the
first place.
The issue of duplicate and excess payments being made as
described in this report has come to the attention of the
League of Minnesota Cities in previous years. The LMC has not
adopted any policy concerning this situation nor actively
pushed for elimination of this situation. If Richfield were to
seek to eliminate the practice of paying certain individuals both
disability pensions and workers' compensation, it would be necess-
ary for us to encourage legislation to alleviate the situation.
In addition, we should consider the matter a factor to be consid-
ered in any potential special legislation on local police and fire
pension plans for Richfield. '
It is recommended that the city council encourage the LMC to
adopt policy concerning this matter and push for a legislative
solution. In addition, it is recommended that the city council
direct the staff to consider this matter in discussion of special
legislation on the local police and fire pension plans.
Respectfully submitted,
KN/eja
1
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
n
LJ
tT] n
O
rd ?J ?
n?,,3 rr
o H. rt K
rt (D H-
(D
rr
H.
O
tT]
n
a
I
ly
rt
O
K
> -rh m rt Id
(n h rt H• (D
C) (D
do rt N.
(D O r' O
t-h
~
(D r O P)
p, ri rt
(D 0
y O (n rt 'U
(n h rt N• (D
(D n
c? s2 (D O ('• O
do G K
N. Ft
r j z1 0 ^Lj
(D S? F
p rt Ft
K O v
O
F-? fn
0
O
o n c
? rt N• ?
F,• U7 rt ?
10 t? co
p
O ?
z
O O C
rn n, (D
'Z7 rt
n O
(D 10 O
C ?
N• ? O
O ft
Ir (D
P) rt
ti tY \
• O
H L-1
N
C
N
J
i
*d 'd to
n CID n N
O :i K ?l
c
In o nn
H• ',?5 D
O
n O m
d K
K In
O
o u m ?
C O rt O
(D O O n
K to "C7 O
rt N'
N• ? ? C
? O N- O
(D r(KD.
Ft
(D o
(D i M
rt
O
n 'C n r') ?) n ro0 r- r)
(D fi ?, K N D p
¢ K S? f Dl n lD C
(D (n N X rt H. O Fl- (D
• rt N- P• rt o m C 2)
O (n D O U O i
to N- in o?
(D O O
(D n H K J- w O
rt rt O (D cn r h
?• O n? D C
K (D N J C n
(D O ;! n rt (-:z? (D
• NNri P. - H.`1
J O rt C
O n
I N O
3
d?
Y_
a1 H
rt
(D
rt
O
cn ro
00
zr
H
Ut U C) n
l_n O
f? rt R
1 O t z
co H- ? n z
?, K I n N• ?'
p (D C1 O
K rh ro
Cc H'
(D
Ai 'Z7 h-' cn
rh K G
rt P.
(D O
K K
? N-
O n
l.'1 H• 1-n
n N-
C) 0
N
N
C
[n
x
H
tT?
H
H
9
rn C
G ?
n n ?
C O '?
P. rt
C P. m
O K
ri CD ?
b' • • fJ O
(D ?:5
Fr
(D
tfi
P.
(n
rt rt (D ?i H - r n ! -7 c-, o :?E:
Z
P. O x S) ?l O O u pj ? r-h N•
J?Q 'C? 0 x rt P.n "rf Q
co ?3' (D I ()0 H. rr r-' ?3' Fl H. ? O
co rt to O O f J?:) ( N- O:2:
CD rt C , F- n n (D
• C (
? • In Q o
- ?' ?
(j
O? CO U d.? r 0 V- Ca 2
rt ao PJ (U ?)j - C (D O
i O g t, t-t (D to C CD
(D rt (D N• n O co
I O
1 } 'C 1 O F' n
rt I-
QO n
un ' C C)
&P rt
- 0 ? H -U) C) C-"j
{n x N SJ 41) ? I
-1 x NG O W ?•n
N (J N O?l m rf• O
nCJ O P. N?
G J t 0
Ql C) cc) U W lz? `i
co w ;D N•
v ? cD n
G) rC U '? F `? ri () L
U O CD (D O
n kC ti P. n
fl F] 0 0
(D n r. O O
C•-' i O C? ct 1
r t N
F'-
O
(t
• O
In
t7
N•
w
N•
N
'r-
? 1
Ul ?3 7
? p O I
n ? N•
?c r N•
r-r, tir N• ,?
-cn N• ? r?,
J ri O 0 H-
OD (D rh (J
00 M F-
• F rt
c? O
(t
O
n
J (?
N O
.A N.
Gl (? 'L N•
00 O O
? N• rh
O N•
O O
N.
rt
r•
m
0
0
1-h
It
0
r•
m
F'-
(D
r•
0
ro
m
w
H
Lwt
H
H
a
EXHIBIT B
NET PAY AS A % OF GROSS PAY FOR
POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS
Police Officer
Base $1,616.00
210.27 Average Federal Tax
101.12 Average State Tax
96.96'Employee Contribution for Pension
- 5.00 Employee Union Dues
$1,202.65 Average Net Pay
Net Pay as % of Gross = 74.4%
Firefighter
Base $1,577.38
- 225.16
- 99.38
94.64
35.08
$1,123.12
Average Federal Tax
Average State Tax
Employee Contribution for Pension
Union Dues
Average Net Pay
Net Pay as % of Gross = 71.2%
0
0
V
0
0
C-
0
s
0
0
v
n
CD
0
-h
(®
z
0
in
MO
U)
v
Cl)
0)
cr
y
CD
CL-
m
0
0 /
\V
0
n
(D
z
0
-v
W
x
H
H
y
0
U1 V cD O O
O O O
? O O O O O
0
W -
W ?
CO O
to
v
cii
• f
¦f;
CD
M
fffa f
?i
T
pz
(D
f"q"'
^M
V /
¦
0)
t¦
CD
C.
(ev?¦
?f
(D
Tz
\V
?.-.i
.1 -A
7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 396
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Relating to
Adjustment in Water Utility User Rates
First Reading
M
Earlier this year, the city council was advised that it would
probably be necessary to consider an increase in the water util-
ity rate, to be implemented in 1980. The purpose of this council
letter is to propose such an adjustment in the water utility user
rates. The adjustment in the water rate is necessary primarily
to enable the city to meet increasing costs of operating the
water utility and to be able to adequately fund the water util-
ity. The proposed adjustment would increase the average quarter-
ly water user fees for a Richfield residential property from
$5.80 to $7.40. Even with the proposed increase in water rates,
Richfield's charges for water service will be approximately com-
parable to rates charged by other water utilities in our area
which treat water in a way similar to the way Richfield treats
its water.
The procedure for changing the water utility user rates in-
volves amending the rate ordinance, a copy of which is attached.
It is proposed that the water utility user rate adjustment be-
come effective April 1, 1980. This would mean that all customers
purchasing water in 1980 from the City of Richfield will pay for
that water at the increased rates, since there is a three month
delay in billing after water is used and water used beginning
in January will not be billed until after April 1, 1980.
History of Water Utility User Rate Adjustments
The city council adopted Richfield's first water utility
user rates in January, 1964, when the municipal water utility
began operating. Those rates were in effect for approximately
10 1/2 years, until August, 1974, when the city council amended
the water utility rate structure.
When the water utility was established in 1964, the user
rates provided for a $.45 per 1, 000 gallon basic rate. The
Council Letter No. 396 -2-
December 10, 1979
rate structure at that time also established a water availability
charge for all properties, a minimum water user fee (per quarter)
and a quantity water discount.
The rate adjustment implemented in 1974 increased the
basic rate for water usage to $.58 per 1,000 gallons. That rate
structure eliminated the water availability charge for those prop-
erties connected to the city system, but continued the charge for
those properties not yet connected, on the basis that the non-
connected properties are, in effect, paying for the availability
for water for fire protection services and for the ability to immed-
iately connect to the municipal water system should their private
source of water fail. That rate adjustment finally established that
the minimum fees and quantities discounts be eliminated so that all
users were paying equitably for the amount of water used.
When the water department and treatment plant began oper-
ation in January, 1964, there were approximately 2,800 buildings
hooked up to the city water system, and the city produced approx-
imately 533 million gallons of water per year. Since 1964, the city
has increased the number of water connections to 11,158 and in
1978, produced more than 1..3 billion gallons of water. In the mean-
time, the water utility is 16 years old and has been, and will
continue to be, facing some major capital investment requirements
to meet existing environmental and operational demands, while keeping
the plant technologically sound in terms of control and checking
mechanisms.
Finally, the cost of maintaining and operating the water
utility system has risen sharply in the years since the last rate
adjustment was implemented. Some of the more dramatic cost increases
from 1974 to 1979 include the following: Labor, 39%; chemicals,
87%; utilities, 80%.
History of Water Utility Fund Balance
The city charter provides that public service enterprise
funds such as the water fund may not make a "profit", and that in
the event this happens, excess funds must be transferred to the
special revenue fund. In the past, it has been a general city
policy to establish utility rates so that the rates will be firm
for several years and there would not be the need to change rates
frequently. I believe it is for this policy reason that the city
has not changed water utility rates since 1974. Until the last year
or so, the water utility was self-sustained with the rates which
were established in 1974. However, since 1978, the fund balance
in the water utility has decreased dramatically, creating a potent-
ially serious cash flow problem to the operation of the water util-
ity and evidencing the need to implement a rate adjustment so that
user fees are once again supporting the cost of the water utility
enterprise fund.
is For instance, at the end of 1978, the water utility fund
balance was $145,447. Revised 1979 revenue and expenditure
Council Letter No. 396 -3- December 10, 1979
estimates indicate that we will end this year with a fund balance
of $30,779, and that the fund will be in a deficit position at the
end of 1980, if no rate increase is adopted. The water utility
needs a fund balance of $200,000 - $250,000 just to meet cash flow
requirements, based on accounts receivable, inventory, etc.
Proposed Rate Adjustment
Attached to this council letter is a proposed water rate or-
dinance amendment which would accomplish the following rate adjust-
ments:
1. Increase the basic rate from 58? per 1,000 gallons
to 74? per 1,000 gallons;
2. Institute a minimum quarterly water fee in the amount
of $7.40, which will cover the cost of 10,000 or less
water consumed during that quarter;
3. Authorize a billing charge to cover costs of billing
and collection;
4. Authorize a certification charge (preparation for
certification to taxes of delinquent accounts);
Preparation of this special assessment and letters to
absentee landlords explaining the transfer warrant
some form of additional charge.
The customer service charge and certification charge for util-
ity billings was established earlier this year when the city council
amended the sewer utility rate ordinance. Also attached to this
council letter is a proposed amendment to the sewer rate ordinance
which modifies the charges included in that ordinance for billing
and certification. Historically, the sewer utility has covered the
entire personnel cost of water and sewer billings, and the water
fund has borne only the postage and miscellaneous charges. I under-
stnad that this practice arose because for many years the sewer fund
was in better financial condition to support the costs of billing.
However, as the city seeks to improve our financial control and
budget on a programmatic system, I believe it is more appropriate
for the water and sewer utility funds to share their proportional
costs of customer billings, and, similarily, to be credited with
the revenues derived from the customer service charge. Similarily,
the water utility fund should receive the revenues generated by the
certification charge for delinquent water accounts.
The proposed ordinance amendment includes a final change which
would provide that the city council can, by motion, establish a
specific charge for special services rendered to water system
users, to be based on the actual cost to the utility in taking final
meter readings. We have not historically charged customers for this
service, but it seems appropriate that persons receiving special
16 services should pay for those services.
Council Letter No. 396 -4-
December 10, 1979
Analysis of Recommended Rate Adjustment
One of the major factors in analyzing and establishing utility
rates relates to benefits accrued to the user, and actual costs
to the utility of providing the service. This is a particularly
difficult analysis to complete for a water utility because a muni-
cipal water system in a community such as Richfield has to have a
capacity almost as large to meet fire suppression and protection
needs as it would require just to meet fire usage demands. For this
reason, a minimum user fee could justifiably be established based
on the cost of maintaining the system, or the cost of customer
services (those functions such as water treatment which are more
specifically related to water consumption) or the total cost, both
to maintain the overall system, even if no water were sold, plus
the cost of providing customer services which are specifically re-
lated to water usage and demand.
In analyzing the 1978 water utility operation, it was determined
that $568,943 was the fixed cost of the system operation. That cost
does not include the costs which are specifically related to water
production, but rather include only costs such as maintenance of
the system, utilities to keep the plant functioning, etc. Taking
that system cost and dividing by the 1,250,000,000 gallons of water sold
in 1978, it would appear that a minimum quarterly water bill per
user should be fixed at $12.52. This minimum system cost would be
cut approximately in half if bonds and interest were excluded. How-
ever, since bonds and interest are a very real portion of the system
cost, the system users should generate the revenues to retire those
bonds and interest, to avoid the necessity of placing the water util-
ity debt service on the general tax rolls.
We began looking at reinstituting the minimum fee for the
reason that all system users are benefitting from the presence of
the water utility, and that this basic reliance on the system should
be reflected in the rates that people are charged. Perhaps this
minimum charge system is similar to the water availability charge
that was formerly levied against all water system users. The-prob-
lem with looking at the minimum charge concept is one of determining
how many gallons of water a user should be able to purchase for that
minimum charge, and what revenues beyond the minimum must be gener-
ated to support the cost of production. In 1978, the cost of water
production, beyond the fixed cost, was $428,441, making the cost of
production based on water sold that year equal to 43? per 1,000
gallons. The combination of costs between the fixed costs and the
cost of production in 1973 equals 79.8 per 1,000 gallons, which
is considerably higher than the 59? per 1,000 gallons in revenues
that the city actually derives to support the water utility in 1979.
In 1980, the water utility cash requirements are approximately
$940,962. This would be the cost both for the basic system main-
tenance as well as the cost to produce an estimated one billion,
three hundred million gallons of water. Assuming that approximately
$40,000 in revenue could be derived from implementation of the
proposed customer service charge, total cash requirements in 1980
Council Letter No. 396 -5- December 10, 1979
will be approximately $900,000. This means that it would be
necessary to charge 79? per 1,000 gallons to support the 1980
water utility operation, if our projections of water usage are
correct.
I believe that it would be unwise to anticipate that more
water would be sold in 1980, given the pattern of decreasing water
sales since 1976, and current emphasis on conservation of all nat-
ural resources. Of course, it is possible that 1980 would be a
very dry year and that water sales would increase over those of
this year and last year which were wet years when people did little
lawn sprinkling and, therefore, used less water than they might
in a dry year when they purchase water to sprinkle their lawns, and
water their flowers.
Several alternatives exist in terms of implementing a water
rate adjustment. We could initiate a base rate increase from 58?
per 1,000 gallons to 78? per 1,000 gallons, using anticipated 1980
costs and allocating the appropriate share of the customer billing
charge to the water fund. This rate structure represents a substant-
ial cost increase, and does nothing to recognize that the utility
has certain system costs which, perhaps, should be borne equally
by all water users that are not related to that users' consumption
of water.
I believe the most equitable way of charging for water usage
is to establish a minimum rate which reflects the approximate cost
of the system, but which may also be applied toward purchasing water.
The proposed minimum charge of $7.40 per quarter reflects a base
rate of 74G per 1,000 gallons.- This rate provides sufficient fund-
ing to support the fixed costs of the water utility system and
provides some revenues toward retirement of the bonded indebted-
ness. Although the outstanding debt on the water treatment plant
will be expired in 1985, the age of the water treatment plant nec-
essitates some major and-potentially very costly capital investment.
The capital investment to the system is a function of age and the
system's existence more than it is a function of the level of water
consumption. For this reason, I believe some small portion of the
minimum water charge should be allocated toward retirement of the
debt during the next few years, and then toward the necessary capital
investment to improve and maintain the overall system in a function-
ing manner.
A final factor which is important in evaluating the water util-
ity operations and financial condition, relates to the provisions
of special services. Richfield's meter readers in the first 9 months
of 1979 completed 680 final meter readings, for persons who were
moving or who for one reason or another, needed to determine their
water consumption at some time other than at the end of the regular
quarterly reading. The city's cost to read a meter is approximately
$4.29 per special reading. This does not include the cost of ren-
dering a special bill to collect revenues for the water used during
a period other than the standard three month period, nor does it
reflect the cost of disruption to the readers' regularly scheduled
work.
Council Letter No. 396 -6- December 10, 1979
The attached ordinance amendment provides that the city council
may establish special charges for special meter readings by
council motion.
The effect of implementing these rate adjustments, in our
estimation, fit the President's Council on Wage and Price Stability
Guidelines in that the rates are not being increased as a means of
raising profit margins. The proposals are based on our most re-
cent revenues and expense history and projections and provide only
for equalization of the fund balance to a position which is necess-
ary to support the cash flow requirements of the utility operations.
Even with these user fee adjustments, the charge for Richfield's
water utilities services will, be within the range of water utility
rates charged in most suburban communities of a size comparable to
Richfield, which treat their water in the way that Richfield does.
Attached is a table comparing the proposed 1980 residential Rich-
field water user fee with the water utility-user rates in other area
municipalities.
Summary
It is recommended that the city council give first reading to
the ordinance amendment, and schedule the public hearing and second
reading consideration of this water rate ordinance amendment for
the December 27, 1979 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
LAY
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ej a
cc: Finance Coordinator
Community Services Director
0
x w w C) r? ro dy rd c? vl
ri o o w t-- o H. r• a n O C?
0 0 o CY N O (D ?:j r' I-li z
x
O
O
w
O
<
(D
(D
a (n a H
n7 ?' ?' r• ? o ? C rD ? w (D t7'
H
F?
F?
G
H.
r•
w
rt (D O
0 H
rd
co W
Co rT (D F-
C) ro a r? 0 H.
w
H
(D w U) (D m w
rt pl;,
0
rt
(D (D S'-+ Cn
a O
F-? z z z z z z rc z ?c z z '? '?'
o O 0 O o 0 0 (D 0 (D O z
o
U) 0 b b Z
F - tai
(n U) C
d ? V N N N
N In In V P H
0
O
b Cn
O~
O
r-T FT
O.
C?
(D
(D
0 O 0 O
;n H
O Cn
C/)
(D F? w
V
Lo O rt
ri
M•-'
N rn
00 rn
G\ 0?
P- `. ON
O ri r N
F- N 4-1 V W
00 O H
C?
?o CD
rn
3
00 O 07 O r
O O CD
04
o
00
N Co z
w
co to
{/} 1R -U> F- t1 Ul 4n- {h {/? F- Lo Ul ?n [!T C)
V V O 00 r-J O O \ w \?O w \\ V N H
F--' h--' 00 -1-- W
CD
0 _
CD
O
O
(7) 2?
O O In O N
to "k- N
F-4 4n
O0 O
`3(. O O
O> w
w
co 41
F
l
Gr O v
O O O O O
• G,
O d.
H Cii
z z z v? z z z z z z "' z
0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
_
• O vl ? ,? r
y ?
O O H. r• a
y
N
C ? ? C G G
(D (D (D
a m ri
rt
CT1 H
.P 4- 4- ? ? lv?- w 0 -1:> L? ? t
w rt
- z
G?
a a ?
b w Z Z
0 w
O
m H
(D f-A
o a z z z z z F-- z x o o ~
In co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n
(D
0
l<
x ,.b
a v cr tT' 9
(D (D ?
n ro
cn H ?n r- (n m C) m H z
1--' ri w • (D M C. w ri O
o r 1? ri m ri 0 O
In
O
vl O
C
(D 11
:3,
?:l
(n O
O O n
?
I
rt a E n rt ? `C ri ri
(D
Cn
(D w
(D
rr
(D
(D
C CTJ
q cr rt w 9 r•
O
C CD rt N
n ()
a- a ri
w w ri 0
C (1
(D
(D Ul a) :1 rt 00 (D
(1. (D En ry (D O ri n
H • 017 (D rT
C C] (D r? E (n w
H. (D n
n If G N
(D V rr 'd (D
4V? ?o
N r•
V - rr
vl 0
H
1-
Z rtJ
a
H
t?
H
t>7
Cn
•
ct ct ct H (t
(D (D (D
n n n ?n
H-
C? t?] ?o O '-0
? x m
'U C ?
(D (D 'u
t:j ::j o a
a G rh LQ
(D H- (D (D
l v
F- • n
(D In p
?n
co rn ?'D rn J rt
? o w p,
u, o
co o 110 0
0 0
io n
?o rn J w J rt
N m
" W dl J G1 Q1
O N W O
Ul ' O
W w O
l0 (?
Co J J W J rt
N rn N N W
G) U1 cn Ul p)
O to XA O
t0 00 -' O
J Ul O
t7 C-I
6 0-It
1
co J W J ft ?-
dl O (J1 61 l0 H- k,?
l0 Gl p tia
J W O -? (t
lD cn O Gl (D
J V7 O -?
C7
U)
Jrta
N- (D
of rn
G) O J lD p1
co m W m (t (D
(D Fl
J W -1 A
1-0 to -' w
J Ln N -+ []
co rt
O H
O 00 m
N 0 J l0 Q1
co J w rn rr
` (D
N O -? W
? J N ---+
•
AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 8.12 OF THE
RICHFIELD ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES
AND SECTION 8.23 RELATING
TO WATER RATES AND CHARGES
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 8.12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield relating to sanitary service rates and charges, and
Section 8.23 of said code relating to water rates and charges
are hereby amended in the following respects:
(1) Paragraph C of Subd. 3 of said Section 8.12 is hereby
amended to provide as follows:
"C) Customer Charge
In addition to the flat charges and metered flow
charge there shall be a customer charge for each
invoice rendered effective with the winter quarter
of each year as follows:
1979 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 bet-
ween the city's water fund and its sewer fund.
(2) Subdivision 12 of said section 8.12 is hereby amended to
provide as follows:
"Subd. 12. Collections. All charges of sewer service are
due on the quarterly due date specified by the city for
the respective account and shall be delinquent 15 days
thereafter. It is the duty of the city to endeavor
to promptly collect delinquent accounts, and in all cases
where satisfactory arrangements for payment have not then
been made, all such delinquent accounts shall be certified
to the city clerk who shall prepare an assessment roll each
year providing for assessment of the delinquent amounts
against the respective properties served. To each account
there shall be added a Certification Charge (Preparation
for Certification to Taxes of Delinquent Accounts) of $10.00.
This assessment roll shall be delivered to the council for
adoption on or before October lst of each year. Such action
may be optional or subsequent to taking legal action to
collect delinquent accounts. If the certification includes
a certification of a delinquent water bill, the certifica-
tion charge, when collected, shall be allocated equally
between the city's water fund and its sewer fund.
(3) Subdivision 1 of said section 8.23 is hereby amended
to provide as follows:
"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 [fifty-eight]
seventy-four cents per 1,000 gallons. Such water charges
shall be payable quarterly.
(4) Subdivision 2 of said section 8.23 is hereby amended
to provide as follows:
"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 10,000 gallons, or less, for the
quarter. Where service is for less than a quarterly period,
this charge will be pro-rated on a daily basis.
(5) A new subdivision 8 is hereby added to said section 8.23
to provide as follows:
"Subd. 8. Final Meter Reading Charge. The city may charge
for making a final meter reading where a customer is dis-
continuing water service. The amount of such final meter
reading charge may be determined, from time to time, by
resolution of the city council."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1979.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Cler
0
r
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 395
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Outdoor Advertising Fee/Maintenance Schedules
Mr. Robert Naegele, Jr. of Naegele Outdoor Advertising
Company, has requested that an item regarding the fee schedule
for outdoor advertising be placed on the December 10, 1979 city
council agenda. A copy of Mr. Naegele's December 4, 1979 letter
is attached.
As noted in Mr. Naegele's letter, city employees who were
involved in this matter are no longer with the city, and Mr.
• Morgan and_ m-Uself are unfamiliar with this situation. There-
fork--I, I would recommend that the city council defer action on
this request until the December 27, 1979 city council meeting
at which time a full report can be presented to the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
KN/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Chief Building Inspector
1
r
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
Qj), Lt?0El 11 E LI? D' LE C 4 1979
Ricnfie,d City Manager
NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY OF THE TWIN CITIES, INC.
1700 WEST 78TH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5,5423/612-866-338'
December 4th, 1979
PRESIDENT ,
Mr. Karl Knollenberger
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Knollenberger:
Since 1977, we have attempted to resolve
which exists between our company and the
the fee schedule for outdoor advertising
date we have still not reached any agree
that the change in two key employees has
solution.
a situation
city regarding
signs. At this
nent. I recognize
not expedited a
With this as background, I would like to request a hearing
before the City Council at their December 10th meeting to
discus hopefully resolve this situation.
incerel ,
Ro rt O. Na gele Jr
RON:bap
P.S. Would it be possible to schedule the hearing toward
the latter part of the agenda; I am a councilman in
another community and we are having a short work
session the same evening.
a
-2z 14
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of Citv Manager
Council Letter No. 394
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointments to Wine Ordinance Study Committee
l?
At the November 29, 1979 city council meeting; the city council
received a report from the wine licensing study committee and
requested that the liquor study committee of 1976 be reactiva-
ted to make a recommendation to the city council on a proposed
wine licensing ordinance.
The following individuals served on the liquor study committee
in 1976:
Wayne S. Burggraaff, City Manager
Council Member E. E. Jacobsen
Council Member Vern Luettinger
City Attorney Clayton LeFevere
Stanley Olson
George Kenealey
Wesley Borgerson
Kermit Randall
Mr. Kenealey, Mr. Borgerson, and Mr. Randall have all agreed
to serve on the wine ordinance study committee. At the
December 10, 1979 city council meeting the city council may wish
to appoint these three members as well as any other members to
this commission.
Respectfully submitted,
f 4
II I (?` '.? fI
vu P?IO?l?i7?r't
City Manager
KN/eja
•
0
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 393
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council'
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Setting Date of Hearing Regarding Resolution
Adopting and Approving Franchising Documents
for Cable Television
The Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission is finalizing
work on the franchising documents for cable television. Under
the regulations of the Minnesota Cable Communications Board,
a public hearing must be held to adopt a resolution adopting
and approving the franchising documents and authorizing the
SWSCC to distribute documents, and to arrange applicant hear-
ings.
At this time it is recommended that the city council set
the date of public hearing for January 14, 1980 to consider
adoption of the attached resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
0
IV
TO: Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission Members
FROM: Anita Benda
SUBJECT: Resolution to be passed by individual cities acting on franchising
documents and authorizing further Commission action
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND APPROVING FRANCHISING
DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN
CATV STUDY COMMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE DOCUMENTS,
AND TO ARRANGE APPLICANT HEARINGS
WHEREAS, The City of has resolved that the development of
a joint CATV system is in the best interest of the city;
WHEREAS, The City has received a study report from its citizen advisory com-
mittee and has determined to continue the cable franchising process;
WHEREAS, Documents relating to franchising per rule of the Minnesota Cable
Communications Board have been developed by the city, its advisory committee
and the Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission;
WHEREAS, The city wishes to seek applicants for a franchise for a cable communi-
cations system to serve Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield.
• BE IT RESOLVED THAT,
The city authorizes the Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission (Commission)
to issue the Invitation for Applications as adopted by this city after a full public
hearing;
The city authorizes the Commission to distribute the Invitation, Preliminary
Franchise Ordinance, and Communications Needs Report to potential applicants,
the Minneso to Cable Communications Board, the public and others;
The city authorizes the Commission to publish and distribute the Notice of Avail-
ability of the Invitation for Applications;
The city participate in hearings on the applications submitted together with tf-e
cities of (name the other four, as organized and publicized by the Commission;
The city will receive the Commission's recommendation on the final ordinance
and franchisee prior to making its decision on these matters.
•
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 392
Agenda December 10, 1979
f
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Status Report, Civic Marker Committee
0
Dr. Felton Jenkins, Chairman of the Citizen Committee working
to raise monies for the civic marker/plaza project, will be
present at the December 10, 1979 city council meeting to present
a brief status report on the committee's activities.
Respectfully submitted,
Farms Nollenbergr
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Acting Redevelopment Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 391
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members-
Subject: Authorization to Advertise for Bids, Seal Coating
and Joint Sealing, and Central Garage Improvements
The purpose of this letter is to receive council authorization
to advertise for bids on the following items:
Seal Coating
Seal coating is a process of rejuvenating the permanent street
surface by the oil oxidized out of the surface. The process re-
establishes traction and seals blemishes and other undesirable con-
ditions. The 1980 operating budget provides for the initiation of
a seven-year project to sealcoat the city's permanent streets,
treating approximately one-seventh of the city's roadways each year.
The specifications for the 1900 project call for sealcoating all
streets and avenues east of 12th Avenue South and south of Diagonal
Boulevard.
Joint Sealin
This process is performed on concrete street surfaces. Deteri-
orated asphalt is removed from presawed cracks in the concrete sur-
face, and new asphalt is placed in the cracks. Sealing of the joints
in a concrete roadway is done to prevent moisture from entering the
cracks, freezing and breaking out the joints, thereby damaging the
surface.
Specifications call for joint sealing of 76th Street from Lyn-
dale Avenue to 35V7 and Lyndale Avenue from 74th Street to 494 in
1980.
Central Garage Improvements
The city's central garage has been included in the Capital Im-
provements Program for the past few years as a significant facility
remodeling and upgrading project. At the present time, the garage
facility does not meet health codes in that there are no toilet fa-
cilities for women. As part of the city's reorganization implemen-
tation plan, the community service director is planning to relocate
Council Letter No. 391 -2-
a female employee
inventory control
the garage. This
until adequate fe
garage. A design
attached.
December 10, 1979
to the garage facility to provide clerical and
support to the maintenance functions assigned to
employee transfer cannot be completed, however,
male toilet facilities are constructed at the
for these facilities has been prepared and is
It is recommended that the city council authorize advertisement
for bids for the items listed above.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberge
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
I
`F/ 1-t I. -, , .. . _
0
0
9
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 390
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
a
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
is one such item on the December 10, 1979, city council agenda.
NSP Underground Service
The city elected to not include the provision of underground
electrical service to the golf course buildings as part of a con-
tractor's responsibility, but rather to contract directly with
Northern States Power Company for this electrical service. Both
the clubhouse and the maintenance building at the golf course are
to receive the Excess U.G. Distribution Lateral or Primary Cable.
This work is included as part of the golf course construction pro-
ject and funding for providing the electrical service is included
in the project budget.
It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase
of the new underground service to the golf course as furnished by
Northern States Power Company in the amount of $3,000.
Resp ctfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
9
/O
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 389
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Award of Contract, Motor Pool Equipment and
Fertilizer
There are two purchase items scheduled for council action to
award contracts at the December 10, 1979, city council meeting.
Motor Pool Equipment
The City of Richfield participates in a joint purchasing agree-
ment with numerous other municipalities and jurisdictions in Henne-
pin County. The advertisement for bid for various vehicular and
motor equipment has been conducted by Hennepin County, who has de-
termined the lowest bid by a responsible bidder and awarded contracts
accordingly. Now each individual municipality included in the joint
purchasing agreement must award contracts for those pieces of equip-
ment they wish to purchase. By awarding contracts at this time,
prior to January 1, 1980, the municipality can save the 8% increase
in cost scheduled to go into effect at that time.
It is recommended that the city council award the following
contracts:
1. Purchase of three compact cars for use by the electrical,
building and plumbing inspectors. The low bidder was
Rosedale Chevrolet, with a unit cost of $4,831.86. The
total award of contract on this item is $14,495.58.
2. Purchase of two 3/4 ton pick-ups for use by the street
division. The low bidder was Suburban Chevrolet with a
unit cost of $6,146.00. The total award of contract on
this item is $12,292.00.
3. Purchase of four , ton pick-ups for use by the street and
park divisions. The low bidder was Iten Chevrolet, with
a unit cost of $4,980.00. The total award of contract on
this item is $19,920.00.
All of these are replacements for vehicles that are fully de-
preciated and scheduled for replacement in 1980. The depreciated
vehicles will be sold at auction after the replacement vehicles
go are received.
Council Letter No. 389 -2-
0
Fertilizer
December 10, 1979
Hennepin County has also received bids for fertilizer that will
be used on the golf course. Discounts can be realized for quantity
purchase, pre-season delivery, and by paying for the purchase within
30 days of delivery. The council is requested to award contracts
for fertilizer purchase as follows:
1. Greens fertilizer: Vne need 1,544 pounds of nitrogen fer-
tilizer with no phosphorus. The granular homogenous fer-
tilizer provides for uniform pellet size. The low bidder
for this item was O.M. Scotts, Inc. The total amount,
before discount, on this item is $2,730.00.
2. Fairway and tee fertilizer: This is 2,395 pounds of nitro-
gen fertilizer plus dicot weed control. This purchase
would provide for one application to the fairways and tees.
The low bidder was O.M. Scotts, Inc. The total amount,
before discount, on this item is $4,053.50.
3. By combining the contract for items #1 and #2 purchased
through O.M. Scotts, Inc., and applying the discounts that
are available, a discount of $782.55 can be realized. There-
fore, the total contract award to O.M. Scotts, Inc., for
greens, fairway and tee fertilizer will be $6,000.95.
is
4. Having made one application of fairway and tee fertilizer
with dicot weed control, additional fertilizer applications
need not have the weed control duality. These additional
applications of a controlled release nitrogen source fer-
tilizer call for 10,440 pounds. The low bidder for this
fairway and tee fertilizer was Minnesota Turf Supply, Inc.
The total amount before discount on this item is $11,256.00.
By applying the formula, the net discount to be realized
is $997.29, making the total contract award to Minnesota
Turf Supply, Inc. for fairway and tee fertilizer $10,258.71.
Summary
It is recommended that the city council award contracts to the
followin g vendors:
Rosedale Chevrolet $14,495.58
Iten Chevrolet $19,920.00
Suburban Chevrolet $12,292.00
O.M. Scotts, Inc. $ 6,000.95
Minnesota Turf Supply, Inc. $10,258.71
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberget'
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
,e,?l
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 388
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Temporary Improvement Bonds,
City Project 705
In September, 1977, the city council approved the issuance
of $2,300,000, Temporary Bonds of 1977, to finance construction
of the L/H/N public improvements, City Project 705. This tempor-
ary issue, maturing on September 1, 1980, was sold to the Improve-
ment Bonds of 1973, Debt Service Fund, at the interest rate of
five percent per annum, payable semi-annually.
In order to continue this public improvements special
assessment project, it is requested that the council authorize
the issuance of additional temporary improvement bonds bearing
interest at the rate of five percent per annum. The temporary
bonds will finance the project until the permanent bonds are sold.
The attached resolution provides for the issuance of tempor-
ary bonds dated September 1, 1979, in the amount of $700,000.
These temporary bonds will finance the "front-end" project design
and engineering costs, as well as acquisition of the permanent
and temporary easements necessary to complete the pedestrian sys-
tem associated with the project. They will mature on September
1, 1982, but may be recalled earlier. The bonds will be purchased
by the Refunding Bonds of 1978, Debt Service Fund. This fund will
have approximately $2,000,000 available for investment during the
coming year.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached
resolution, authorizing issuance of these temporary bonds.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
• KN/ e j a
cc: Acting Redevelopment Director
Finance Coordinator
0 RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF TEMPORARY
IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 32 TO THE REFUNDING BONDS
OF 1978 SINKING FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 429
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The total estimated costs of City Project No. 705,
otherwise known as L/H/N Public Improvements, Street Surfac-
ing, Sidewalks, Storm Sewer, Water, Landscaping and Pedes-
trian Improvement Construction, has been estimated at
$3,500,000. It is now estimated that the sum of $fr6;T00"
is currently necessary to provide additional financing for
the cost of said projects, and it is hereby determined to
be necessary to borrow said amount for the payment of
obligations now incurred and for expenses necessarily incurred
in connection with the construction of said project. There
has been created City Project No. 705 Bond Funds into which
shall be paid the proceeds of temporary bonds issued pursuant
to this resolution and out of which shall be paid all amounts
• due and payable as costs or expenses incident to or incurred
in connection with the making of said improvements. There
is also hereby created Series 32 accounts in the Temporary
Improvement Bonds Common Sinking Fund into which fund shall
be paid the proceeds of all special assessments levied against
benefited property by reason of the making of said improvements
and out of which shall be paid principal and interest on all
temporary improvement bonds issued to finance said projects.
2. It is hereby determined that the sum of $700,000
shall be borrowed to finance said City Project: -
City Project No. 705 $700,000
by issuance of Temporary Improvement Bonds of the city as
authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subdivision 3.
Said bonds shall be payable from the Temporary Improvement Bonds
Common Sinking Fund, Series 32 accounts, but the city further
recognizes its statutory duty, as provided by Section 429.091,
and covenants and agrees with the purchaser and all holders
from time to time of said temporary improvement bonds, at or
prior to the maturity thereof it will pay and retire such
bonds and the interest thereon out of the proceeds of definitive
improvement bonds which the council shall issue and sell at or
prior to the maturity of the Temporary Improvement Bonds, to the
extent that the same cannot be paid out of funds available in
the Temporary Improvement Bonds Common Sinking Fund, Series 32
accounts, or out of other municipal funds which are properly
available and are appropriated by the council for such purpose.
3. It is hereby determined to levy special assessments
against benefited property by reason of the making of City
Project No. 705 and ad valorem taxes, if necessary, to produce
sums at least 5 percent in excess of the amounts sufficient
to pay principal and interest when due on said temporary
improvement bonds and on any definitive bonds to be issued
as herein provided, such special assessments to be placed on
the tax rolls subject to the time when said City Projects
have been completed and the total costs thereof have been
determined.
4. Said temporary improvement bonds in the amount of
$700,000 shall be dated September 1, 1979, shall be one in
number inclusive, in the denomination of $700,000 shall bear
interest at the rate of 5 percent per annum, payable March 1,
and September 1, semi-annually of each year and shall mature
September 1, 1982, shall be subject to redemption and prepay-
ment of any interest payment date, at par and accrued interest.
Not less than 30 days before the date specified for redemption
of said bonds the City Treasurer shall mail notice of the call
thereof to the holder, if known, and said Treasurer shall main-
tain a record of the names and addresses of the holders of said
bond insofar as such information is made available to him by
the holders thereof, for the purpose of mailing said notice.
The principal of and interest on said bond shall be payable
at the Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield,
Minnesota, 55423.
• 5. Said Temporary Improvement Bond shall be offset printed
with attached interest coupon in substantially the following
form:
E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
• COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT BOND SERIES THIRTY-TWO
NO. ONE $700,000
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the City of Richfield,
a duly organized municipal'corporation of Hennepin County
Minnesota, acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value
received, promises to pay to bearer the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS on the first day of September, 1982, or on
a date prior thereto on which this bond has been duly called
for redemption, and to pay interest thereon from the date
hereof until paid or until this bond has been duly called
for redemption at the rate of five percent (50) per annum,
payable semi-annually on the first day of March and the
first day of September in each year, interest to maturity
being payable in accordance with and upon purchase and
surrender of the interest coupon appurtenant thereto. Both
principal and interest are payable at the City Hall, City of
Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, 55423,
in any currency or coin of the United States of America on
which the respective dates of payment is public tender for
. private and public debts. For the prompt and full payment of
such principal and interest as the same became due the full faith,
credit and taxing powers of the city are hereby irrevocably
pledged.
This bond is one, a series in the aggregate principal amount
of $700,000 issued by said city for the purpose of defraying
expenses incurred and to be incurred in the construction of
improvements designated as "City Project No. 705" by the
City of Richfield, consisting of Permanent Street Surfacing,
Sidewalks, Storm Sewer, Water, Landscaping and Pedestrian
Improvement Construction, and is issued pursuant to and in
full conformity with resolutions duly adopted by the city
council after hearing as required by law and pursuant to and
in full conformity with the constitution and Laws of the
State of Minnesota thereunto enabling, including Minnesota
Statutes, Section 429.091, Subdivision 3. This bond is
payable primarily from the Temporary Improvement Bonds Common
Sinking Fund, Series 32 accounts of the city, but the council
is required to pay the pincipal and interest thereon out of
any funds in the treasury in the event that the monies on hand
in said funds are at any time insufficient to meet the payment
of maturing principal and interest, and is further required at
or prior to the maturity of this bond, to provide for the
payment and retirement thereof by the issuance of definitive
bonds, to the extent, if any, that the assessments and taxes
or other municipal funds theretofore collected and received in
said Sinking Fund may be insufficient for such purpose.
This bond is subject to redemption and pre-payment at the option
of the city on any interest payment date, at a price of par and
accrued interest upon notice of call for redemption mailed not
less than 30 days prior to the date specified for such redemp-
tion, to the holder, if known. Bond holders desiring to receive
such notice may have their names and addresses and the serial
numbers of their bonds recorded by the City Treasurer.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all
acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and
to be performed preliminary to and in the issuance of this bond
in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of
said city according to its terms have been done, to exist, have
happened and have been performed as so required; that the city
has duly determined the necessity of and provided for the con-
struction of said improvements; that the Temporary Improvement
Bonds Common Sinking Fund, Series 32 accounts have been duly
created and provision has been made for the support thereof by
ad valorem taxes and special assessments to be levied, at or
prior to the time of issuance of said definitive bonds, for
the years and in aggregate amounts not less than five percent
(50) in excess of sums sufficient to pay the principal and
interest on all bonds payable from said fund as such principal
and interest become due, and additional taxes, if needed for
said purpose, may be levied upon all taxable property in the
• city, without limitation as to rate or amount; that the holder
hereof shall have and may enforce by appropriate proceedings
all duties imposed by said Chapter 429 upon the city and its
officers with reference to the levy and collection of said
assessments and taxes and the issuance of said definitive bonds;
and that the issuance of this bond did not cause the indebtedness
of said city to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this bond to be
executed in its behalf of the signature of its mayor and
manager and sealed with its official seal, and the interest
coupons appurtenant thereto to be executed and authenticated
by the facsimile signatures of said officers, and has caused
this bond to be dated as of September 1, 1979
Mayor
Manager
Unless the bond described below is called for earlier
redemption
0 NO.
$17,500
On the first day of March, September, 1980, the City of
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, will pay to bearer
at the City Hall of the City of Richfield, 6700 Portland
Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, 55423, the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED
THOUSAND DOLLARS lawful money of the United States of America
for interest then due on its Temporary Improvement Bonds,
Series 32, Dated September 1, 1979.
Mayor
Manager
?J
6. Said bonus shall be prepared under the direction of the
city clerk and shall be executed on behalf of the city by
the signatures of the Mayor and Manager, and the corporate
seal of the city shall be affixed thereto, and the appurtenant
interest coupon shall be executed and authenticated, by the
printed, engraved or lithographed facsimile signature of
said Mayor and Manager. When said bond has been executed and
authenticated, it shall be delivered by the Treasurer to
the purchaser thereof, upon payment of the purchase price
heretofore agreed upon and said purchaser shall not be obliged
to see the application thereof.
7. The Acting City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed
to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County
Auditor of Hennepin County, together with such other infor-
mation as he shall require and to obtain from said County Auditor
a certificate that said bonds have been entered on his bond
register.
8. The officers of the city and the County Auditor of
Hennepin County are hereby authorized and directed to prepare
and furnish to the purchaser of said bond and to the attorneys
approving the legality of the issuance thereof, certified
copies of all proceedings and records relating to said bond
and to the financial affairs of said city, and such other
affidavits, certificates and information as may be required
to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability
of said bond as the same appear from the books and records
under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them,
and such certificates, certified copies and affidavits, includ-
ing any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of
the city as to the correctness of all statements contained
thereon.
9. It is hereby determined that there is at the present
i time a total amount in excess of $700,000 in the various sinking
funds and other funds of the city which will not be required for
other purposes prior to September 1, 1932.
10. It is hereby determined to purchase the aforementioned
$700,000 Temporary Improvement Bond, Series 32, upon initial
issuance, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.56 and 475.66, out of funds in the follow-
ing Funds and in the following amounts and on behalf of said
funds, at par and accrued interest as of the date of delivery
of said bond and completion of such sale:
Fund Amount
Refunding Bonds of 1978 $700,000
it being further determined to be reasonable and advantageous
to the above funds to invest in said Temporary Improvement
Bond, Series 32, and it being further determined to be
reasonable and advantageous to the city to sell said
Temporary Improvement Bond, Series 32, in accordance with the
provisions of this resolution.
11. The city manager, mayor and acting finance officer
are hereby authorized and directed to take any and all steps
• necessary to affect the provisions of the foregoing resolu-
tions and to make transfers of funds as may be necessary
from time to time, to give effect to the provisions thereof.
Passed by the City Council of the Cityof Richfield this
day of
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk
/5?_
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. 387
Agenda December 10, 1979
Subject: Appointment of Housing, and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioner
As a result of a number of questions from council members
we have done some research concerning appointment of Housing
and Redevelopment Authority Commissioners in the City of Rich-
field. Historically, the city council has made appointments to
the HRA in January of each year. Those appointments, as a matter
of policy, have been made for terms of office which are five year
terms with the proviso that the council member appointed to the
term will serve only during their tenure as a council mpmhPr. rrris
is the basic policy which the city council adopted in 1974, when
the HRA was created.
The state statute which sets up the HRA provides for five
year terms of office for each commissioner. The original appoint-
ments in 1974 were made for one, two, three, four and five year
terms with subsequent reappointments for a five year term. In
this way one commissioner was to become subject to reappointment
each year. However, with the city council's policy that council
members would also serve as HRA members, a number of appointments
to unexpired terms also came up as a result of vacancies, or
changeovers in council office. This was the major reason that
appointments were handled in January of each year, since new
council members traditionally take office in January.
The actual term of office for HRA Commissioners goes from
October 28 of one year through October 27 of the year in which
their term expires. Commissioner Ludeman was appointed to a term
in 1975, which expired on October 28, 1979. This was an unexpired
term of a previous HRA Commissioner. As a result, the current HRA
term for Commissioner Ludeman is subject to reappointment at this
time. The Mayor has requested that this appointment be on the
December 10, 1979 city council agenda for council's confirmation
of a Mayoral appointment.
As was previously stated, the state law allows the city
council to appoint its own members to the HRA subject to their
tenure as council members. It appears that this has been the city
policy in the past. All of the appointments to the HRA have been
Council Letter No. 387 -2- December 10, 1979
made with that proviso except for one. On January 12, 1976,
Mayor Law appointed Loren L. Law to the office of Commissioner
of the HRA for a five-year term. That appointment was confirmed
by the city council. The minutes do not indicate a proviso being
added to the appointment subjecting the appointment to the term
of office as Mayor. The appointment to that term went through
October 27, 1980. It is the opinion of the city attorney that
the minutes may read in error for the 1976 appointment, If the
intent of the Mayor and City Council in 1976 was to make the
appointment subject to term of office as council member, then it
would be appropriate for the,term of office to end on December
31, 1979. If, however, the Mayor and Council in 1976, did not
desire to make their appointments subject to that proviso, the
term of office of Loren L. Law as HRA Commissioner will continue
through October 27, 1980. `
The two matters discussed above (i.e. appointment of an HRA
Commissioner for the new five year term, previously held by
Commissioner Ludeman and consideration of whether a vacancy exists
on December 31, 1979 for the commissioner term of Mayor Loren L.
Law) should be considered by the city council at this time.
Respectfully submitted,-
0
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Acting Housing and Redevelopment Director
Acting City Clerk
0
1
0
/a
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 386
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Extension of Loan to HRA, LHN Redevelopment
Project
s
During 1976 and 1977, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
purchased several properties on Graham Avenue. The purchases were
made upon request of the property owners. The source of funding
for these acquisitions was a loan from the city's permanent improve-
ment revolving fund (PIR). The PIR loan was to be paid back to the
city in three years. The purchases and loan arrangements were based
on the plan that development of the area as a home improvement cen-
ter would become reality within that time period. However, in March
of this year, the redevelopment plan was changed to provide that
the western part of the area be designated for multifamily use, and
the eastern part of the area, and existing land uses in that area
for commercial rehabilitation. This change in the redevelopment
plan has contributed to delays in initiating development of the
area occupied by the HRA-owned homes. However, because the HRA
does anticipate redevelopment of the area occupied by these houses,
it is recommended that the city council authorize extension of the
loans for an additional three years.
Property
719 Graham Avenue
723 Graham Avenue
715 Graham Avenue
Loan Maturity New Loan Maturity
7-1 -79 ?` 7-1 -82
8-30-79
1-1-80
+-S, a?-0-0
ZS, l So
8-30-82
1-1-83
6610 Graham Avenue 5-1-80 5-1-83
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached res-
olutions, authorizing execution of extended loan agreements with
the HRA.
Respectfully submitted,
?? n r
Karl Nollenberge_r
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Acting Redevelopment Director
Finance Coordinator
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF AN
AGREEMENT TO LOAN MONEY TO THE RICHFIELD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE THEREOF BY
ADVANCEMENT FROM THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
REVOLVING FUND
WHEREAS, the HRA desires to continue to borrow money
for the purpose of funding.certain real property purchases
pursuant to and in furtherance of the L/H/N Redevelopment
Project heretofore adopted by the City and HRA, said real
property being described as follows: Lot 6, Block 3, Fairwood
Shores, Hennepin County, Minnesota (719 Graham Avenue).
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.445, to purchase real property and to borrow
money from the City therefore, and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.581, to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD:
1. That the Mayor and City Manager be, and hereby are,
authorized to execute, as agents to the City of Richfield, an
• agreement with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
entitled "Loan Extension Agreement," a copy of which is hereby
given Clerk's File No. HRA and is ordered placed on file.
2. That the City Clerk be, and hereby is directed to
continue to provide monies to the Richfield Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority in such amount and at such time as is provided
in the above agreement, said monies having been loaned from
the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund and to return to said
fund all payments made by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
pursuant to said agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
10th day of December, 1979.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk
.7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF AN
• AGREEMENT TO LOAN MONEY TO THE RICHFIELD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE THEREOF BY
ADVANCEMENT FROM THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
REVOLVING FUND
WHEREAS, the HRA desires to continue. to borrow money
for the purpose of funding.certain real property purchases
pursuant to and in furtherance of the L/H/N Redevelopment
Project heretofore adopted by the City and HRA, said real
property being described as .follows: Lot 7, Block 3, Fairwood
Shores, Hennepin County, Minnesota (723 Graham Avenue).
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.445, to purchase real property and to borrow
money from the City therefore, and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.581, to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD:
1. That the Mayor and City Manager be, and hereby are,
authorized to execute, as agents to the City of Richfield, an
• agreement with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
entitled "Loan Extension Agreement," a copy of which is hereby
given Clerk's File No. HRA and is ordered placed on file.
2. That the City Clerk be, and hereby is directed to
continue to provide monies to the Richfield Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority in such amount and at such time as is provided
in the above agreement, said monies having been loaned from
the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund and to return to said
fund all payments made by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
pursuant to said agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
10th day of December, 1979.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF AN
AGREEMENT TO LOAN MONEY TO THE RICHFIELD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE THEREOF BY
ADVANCEMENT FROM THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
REVOLVING FUND
WHEREAS, the HRA desires to continue. to borrow money
for the purpose of funding.certain real property purchases
pursuant to and in furtherance of the L/H/N Redevelopment
Project heretofore adopted by the City and HRA, said real
property being described as follows: Lot 4, Block 3, Fairwood
Shores, Hennepin County, Minnesota (715 Graham Avenue).
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.445, to purchase real property and to borrow
money from the City therefore, and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.581, to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD:
1. That the Mayor and City Manager be, and hereby are,
authorized to execute, as agents to the City of Richfield, an
• agreement with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
entitled "Loan Extension Agreement," a copy of which is hereby
given Clerk's File No. HRA and is ordered placed on file.
2. That the City Clerk be, and hereby is directed to
continue to provide monies to the Richfield Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority in such amount and at such time. as is provided
in the above agreement, said monies having been loaned from
the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund and to return to said
fund all payments made by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
pursuant to said agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
10th day of December, 1979.
Loren L. Law Mavor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk
0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF AN
AGREEMENT TO LOAN MONEY TO THE RICHFIELD
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PERFORMANCE THEREOF BY
ADVANCEMENT FROM THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
REVOLVING FUND
WHEREAS, the HRA desires to continue to borrow money
for the purpose of funding certain real property purchases
pursuant to and in furtherance of the L/H/N Redevelopment
Project heretofore adopted by the City and HRA, said real
property being described as follows: Lot 9, Block 3, Fairwood
Shores, Hennepin County, Minnesota (6610 Graham Avenue).
WHEREAS, the HRA is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.445, to purchase real property and to borrow
money from the City therefore, and
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.581, to make loans to the HRA in aid of projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD:
1. That the Mayor and City Manager be, and hereby are,
authorized to execute, as agents to the City of Richfield, an
agreement with the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
entitled "Loan Extension Agreement," a copy of which is hereby
given Clerk's File No. HRA and is ordered placed on file.
2. That the City Clerk be, and hereby is directed to
continue to provide monies to the Richfield Housing and Redevelop-
ment Authority in such amount and at such time as is provided
in the above agreement, said monies having been loaned from
the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund and to return to said
fund all payments made by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
pursuant to said agreement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
10th day of December, 1979.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk
0
jot*
C7
CJ
SURROUNDING CHARACTERISTICS
West 73rd Street
--------------+
1 1
1 1
1-1-49 l?J I
I i
i I
U) 1
-------------1
i I
Ld t`-49?
I 1
> ,------------a
1 i
Q 1 49 4-1 1
I I
-------------
F- 1-- 46
1 I
Z I--------------a
I
O-6ovlTE
I
-- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I
? rE-56?
1
- - - - - - - - - - - -
i 1
1 I
1 i
I. I
?54?{ I I
I UU 1
-------------?
1 I
[4-- 53?
I I
I-------------1
I i
11-52? I
I-----•---.--- - 1
I - 1
1?-52 -? 1
1 1
L------------?
West 74th Street
12?
Scale: 1 "equals 60'
Richfield, Minn.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 385
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Variances, 7321 Dupont Avenue South
Ronald A. Brekken, 7321 Dupont Avenue South, has applied for
three variances to: 1) reduce the required rear yard setback of
25 feet to the existing rear yard setback of 22 feet; 2) reduce
the required residential swimming pool side yard setback of 10
feet to 4 feet; 3) reduce the required residential swimming pool
rear yard setback from 10 feet fo 5 feet.
The required rear yard setback is 25 feet. The existing rear
yard setback is 22 feet. Therefore, the property is classified as
a nonconforming use. The proposed rear yard variance is needed to
reclassify the property use as a conforming use to allow construc-
tion of a swimming pool and to relocate the garage. Section 3.16,
Subdivision 30, the swimming pool location ordinance, requires that
no portion of a swimming pool or appurtenances be located at a dis-
tance less than ten feet from any side or rear property line. A
6 foot variance to the side property line and a 5 foot variance to
the rear property line would be needed to permit construction of
the proposed swimming pool on this property. Because of the close
proximity of the pool to the adjacent properties, the applicant has
agreed to design a 4-foot deck around the pool to prevent pool
deck waste water from draining on to the adjacent properties.
The following items are attached to this council letter:
1. Applicant's Letter
2. Petition and Map
3. Site Plan
4. Zoning and Land Use Map
5. Surrounding Characteristics
The following ordinance provisions relate to this request for
variances:
1. Section 3.29, Subdivision 2, paragraph 1, describes
nonconforming uses.
2. Section 3.16, Subdivision 30, sets location require-
ments for swimming pools.
3. Section 3.40, Subdivision 6, sets three conditions
for granting variances.
Council Letter No. 385 -2- December 10, 1979
•
The staff reviewed Mr. Brekken's variance request against the
three conditions that must be met for granting a variance and found
the following:
1. Because the large front yard setback of 60 feet results
in an extremely small rear yard, a special condition does
exist on this property.
2. Denial of the variances will not preclude use of the prop
erty for its existing residential use.
3. The proposal would be an improvement to the applicant's
property and would not be detrimental to public welfare,
if noise related to use of the recreational swimming pool
is minimized.
E
Because the three conditions for granting a variance are not
met, the staff must recommend that the variances not be granted.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends that the variances be
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
kL r? ?" Nr\
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Acting Planning Director
nor.,__ .il-:e r -I ?j ,, _:3 (:1 f SL'; :?cl' Sn,? C s 1h
1
SnaC9 5 l1^i..> 1 ..3C.^u:: of .,_.., r r-ro-, Pn!
extrene set Cac"{ oLir ??O:<SF:.
Thank you for your can3id6r8tion. Also, inci 1ded is the list of
na` es of the i"Lmf cli,at3 7;27_ hb-):`5 who _Ve their abnroVal and t'iose
others vhom wei-o not _fyed of t [ pN:5c 7 7r Jject and also a J?' VB.
t ?
^. :v1Ci is :3:'•ai'.?.o7: a .7a 7: ;: 3i?..S= 9:.., ...
732 Faros`. Ave.
?o.
•
October 15, 1979
Would you please consider amending the variance request
dated October 5, 1979. In that request, we asked for a six
foot variance to the side yard set back requirement. We would
like to amend the variance request to read as follows:
1. Six foot variance from side yard set back
requirement of ten feet. (To reduce side
yard set back to four feet)
2. Five foot variance from back your set back
requirement of ten feet. (To reduce back
yard set back to five feet)
•
Res tfully su mitted:
Ronald A. & Sandra Brekken
•
r
or n
io"1 C.. t' ( Y' ^:1 t .. n-)rt., seal- c` th(' I.^1
L?y
??.?Lf?_?i \ / ??d E! j?...Jn?V`??lef: ??_____ (i - l .. iC?`; ? .•'v (. e - ,,
u
•
?l 3 1 2
PEE ITIOICJ M
r`? ui . 5 U f j - LLJ
ss
?? a S?, 3 ?? ?? <0 6 5
2 -.
7 T
L-J
r E 17
t.LJI " C I s
Lij
r; C 14 9
- J
.
21
Z", -,tc v
J 2 O _I 7 2 U
--\D _ - o
?•21?4 11,4
20?5 ' ° 10 !5 dr - -
1 96
--?
1LLJ
87
N
17 8 d [-7
--
N
i
N y
IJ-
- 15+10 F KI
14,11 1
t h
24 1
232 ) t
--23 :J
25,2
!._ ?
-
= 2413
n? 2 J Q_ __.-? o
241 i
u .
23'? L i
-L 22.3 -- ?_?
-- -
- 2 y
I- C , 8 n .
E 17-3
?_
- -
15.10 1 =.
- - -
r? 1=r 1 I
rr; 13 ,r r-?_
24,1 U
t 232
L Sr??i?w
12,6=
18 7
E
-
17S -
= C 15 10 ,
1411
3 ; 2 n
L
_J
U
L
L
=C
r
0
?J
-
SIGNATURES ON PETITICN]
- + v
- - 24i 1
_ 23 2 -
22,3
0
-' ---232-- --?7
2^j3 °
> C. -, C-
9 r 8
2I
2C15
I J: 7 C
ST
24' 1
J--' -23.2 - ,--
2?3 i
o=
0
•
n
al S
'I
I
I
LO
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\0
N
I
I
-------------
Im
S6l E o I
1 N S
1 ,_ I
1 X
1
W
Ir
kkk? I
i
i
I
I
?0
I
I
OS
0
lZE L
O S 3 n b 1 N O d n a
i
[BB
Y" ?I
YY®
O
N
N
cS
Z3
;T
_N
cu
U
z
0
J
W
LL
S
U
S
0
( J.' i 1
3 2
°0"
LAND USE MA
_ L1 = .
L-J
---may= - -? ? --- - --?- '? ?f
4.3
3
?/Y1 LJ I
u ,
23- --- LJI--
Ul _ `- `? I 2 L ?+J
- 205
1H 5
t 1 7 6 C C 18 7_ ?` O I°_ 7 ? l
I73 - - - C i-i I7 1
1
- J.8
l ?
' 14'9 - i - 16J0 J i^ 1=,:10 ? L7
1310 ? I
- ? 1=rI( J Li 14 1I _ '?
12 11- 13)2
2:? 2
?o
- r
M( LJ u
I 1
I...,
Ig'6
- 1817 ti
I
178 -
•so L All
241
232
22 3 L J
0
-196 - -?
--
--C
18 7
17 8
..
15 10
I4II
J ; 2 L?
?C
-L - r-,
I"
U
f ?
1' 2
O
I1i?`. - N
105-?- -
N
b r
J
-
F
n ' - =.
?.a n
17 7
- ~1
' ; 5 I
_ .
r ? f
S, 7
Zoning and Land Use- is Nesldentlal
14111 h
2
24 1
232
-;3
-:r-t
I
r 24:1
23 2
?'> 3
'? : J 1.:i 11 I
_ `4
2312 - - ??
? =I
? I.
- m
2 5.2 ---j F
- , 243
-= 234
- - ---241
- _23'2
c
U
.;'? rl I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 384
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Authorization to Execute Contract with Hennepin
County
•
There is an item on the December 10, 1979 city council agenda
providing for council authorization to execute a contract with
Hennepin County relating to the C.E.T.A. program. As you know,
the City of Richfield does not anticipate receiving any C.E.T.A.
monies during our fiscal year 1980. However-,-the federal 1980 fis-
cal year began on October 1, 1979, and the city did receive some
C.E.T.A. funds for two positions during early October. Because of
this participation in the federal 1980 fiscal year C.E.T.A. program,
the city must execute a 1980 C.E.T.A. contract with Hennepin county,
the prime sponsor for the C.E.T.A. program in which Richfield par-
ticipates. This contract is the same as that executed between the
city and county in previous years, and essentially describes the
nature and purposes of the funding which the city receives from
C.E.T.A., and our responsibilities in accounting for the use of
those monies.
It is recommended that the'city council adopt the attached
resolution, authorizing execution of a contract with Hennepin
County for the C.E.T.A. program.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
0
KN/jf
cc: Personnel Director
Finance Coordinator
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY RELATING TO CETA PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has cooperated with Hennepin
County in the delivery of municipal services through the use of
CETA funds, and
WHEREAS, the city and county must execute a contract agree-
ment to provide for delivery of these monies to the city, and
WHEREAS, this contractual agreement applies to the federal
fiscal year during which said monies are allocated to the City
of Richfield, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received some CETA
funds since October 1, 1979, which was the beginning of federal
fiscal year, 1980.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Richfield that it is necessary to execute a 1980 contract
agreement with Hennepin County relating to the use of these 1980
CETA monies, and
BE IT FURTHER STATED that the City Council does hereby
authorize Karl Nollenberger, City Manager, and Loren L. Law,
• Mayor, to execute said contract with Hennepin County.
Done at the City of Richfield this 10th day of December,
1979.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
0
. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 383
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Execution of Perpetual Easement Purchase Agreement,
Lyndale Avenue Improvement Project
On June 25, 1979, the city council established just compensation
of $11,000 for purchase of a permanent easement area at 6700 Lyndale
Avenue (also referred to as the Star Auto property.) The just comp-
ensation was established after several discussions with the property
owners to design an acceptable easement. The owners, represented by
Dr. S.K. McHutchison, have recently agreed to sell the permanent and
temporary easement areas for $15,000.
• This figure is higher than the established just ccmpensation.
However, it does include the temporary construction easement as well
as the permanent easement, and it is lower than the costs we would
incur by reaching a settlement through the condemnation process.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached res-
olution, authorizing the mayor and city manager to enter into a
purchase agreement with Maplewood Medical, Inc. in the amount of
$15,000, for permanent and temporary easements related to the Lyndale
Avenue Improvement project.
Respectfully submitted,
V" c
ct ?? (q 0 ,?- z ?a
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Acting Redevelopment Director
City Attorney
0
Resolution
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND MAPLEWOOD
MEDICAL, INCORPORATED
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield authorized negotiations to
purchase an easement at 6700 Lyndale Avenue, the location
also known as the Star Auto property; and,
WHEREAS, Just Compensation was established at $11,000
and an offer to purchase was made in that amount; and,
WHEREAS, the officers of Maplewood Medical, Inc. have
agreed to sell a permanent and temporary easement for $15,000;
and,
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City purchase
these interests for $15,000;
NOW, THEREOFRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield City
Council:
1. The mayor and city manager are directed to enter
into a purchase agreement for $15,000 for the
easement areas.
2. The city manager and city attorney are directed to
complete the purchase process.
Passed by the Richfield City Council this 10th day of
December, 1979.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk
b
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 382
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Joint Powers Agreement, Suburban Police
Recruitment System
Richfield has been actively involved in the past few years
in the development of a legally defensible job-related selection
process for police officers. The project started in 1975 and has
been jointly sponsored by the Metropolitan Area Management Assoc-
iation and the Metropolitan Council. The project has involved
the cooperative effort of 55 metropolitan area suburban communi-
ties.
• The project has consisted of a research design which was
established by a task force of local consultants with expertise
in the areas that might affect police selection. Following that,
a very thorough job analysis was conducted which involved repre-
sentative police officers from the 55 participating communities.
In all, approximately 400 officers participated in this job an-
alysis. Following the job analysis, appropriate job-related sel-
ection standards were developed; these standards have been vali-
dated against the 400 participating police officers. This
$235,000 project has been funded through LEAA grants. Richfield's
Public Safety Director has served as Chairman of the Project
Management Committee throughout the process and our city attorney
has served as a legal consultant to the project.
The end result of this project will be a cooperative initial
screening process for police officers that will eliminate the need
of Richfield independently advertising, providing an initial
written examination and a physical agility examination for police
officer recruitment. The city will continue to independently con-
duct oral interviews, psychological and medical examinations, and
background examinations of police officer candidates.
To effectively accomplish implementation of this project, a
joint Power Users Board will be established. This board will
provide the operational management of the Suburban Police Recruit-
ment System. Richfield's Civil Service Commission has discussed
f.
Council Letter No. 382 -2- December 10, 1979
this project, and determined that this process represents a
very real improvement over the existing process for initial
screening of police officer candidates. At the Civil Service
Commission meeting on September 12, 1979, the commission unan-
imously agreed to support the project and to request that the
city council enter into the necessary Joint Powers Agreement to
enable Richfield's participation in this program.
It is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in
which I concur, that the city council adopt the attached resolu-
tion, authorizing the Mayor 'and City Manager to execute the Joint
Powers Agreement. A copy of the proposed Joint Powers Agreement
is also attached for your background information.
Respectfully submitted,
;x!31
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Public Safety Director
Acting City Clerk
0
0
RESOLUTION NO.
•
•
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN
THE SUBURBAN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is authorized by Minnesota
Statute 471.59 to enter into joint and cooperative agreements with
other governmental units; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has.reviewed a joint and cooperative
agreement among suburban municipalities in the seven-county metro-
politan area which will establish a Suburban Police Recruitment System;
and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Suburban Police Recruitment System will
be to recruit candidates for entry-level police positions in the cooper-
ating municipalities and to assist the cooperating municipalities in
evaluating candidates for these positions; and
WHEREAS, this City Council
geous to the City of Richfield
Recruitment System;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Moyor and the City Manager hereby are authorized
to execute the Joint and Cooperative Agreement which
establishes the Suburban Police Recruitment System and
which provides for City membership in said System.
2. The Director of Public Safety and the City Manager hereby
are designated as the City's initial Director and Alternate
Director in the Suburban Police Recruitment System.
3. The City Clerk hereby is directed to file an executed copy of
the Joint and Cooperative Agreement as provided therein, together
with a certified copy of this Resolution.
Adopted by the City Council this 10th
day of December , 1979.
Loren L. Law, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
has determined that it will be advanta-
to participate in the Suburban Police
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
SUBURBAN POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM
PREAMBLE. The parties hereto are municipal governmental units of the State
of Minnesota. This agreement is made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statute
§471.59.
I. General Purpose. The general purpose of this agreement is to establish and
provide the operating framework for a joint powers organization which will recruit
candidates for entry-level police positions in the cooperating municipalities and which
will assist the cooperating municipalities in evaluating candidates for these positions.
Establishment of the proposed organization represents the conclusion of the Suburban
Police Personnel Selection Standards Project, a four-year research effort by the
cooperating municipalities, the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Area
Management Association to develop valid, non-discriminatory selection standards and
procedures for entry-level police positions.
II. Definitions.
Section 1. Board - the Board of Directors of the Suburban Police Recruitment
System.
Section 2. City Council - the governing body of a member municipality.
Section 3. Member - any suburban, municipality which has entered into this
agreement and which is in compliance with the provisions hereof.
Section 4. Suburban Municipality - any municipality within the seven-county
metropolitan area other than the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Section 5. Suburban Police Recruitment System (SPRS) - the joint powers
organization established pursuant to this agreement.
III. Membership.
Section I. Any suburban municipality shall be eligible to become a member of
the SPRS.
1
Section 2. Charter members of the SPRS shall be those
the system prior to February 1, 1980. Charter membership shall be
municipalities which have participated in the Suburban Police
Standards Project.
Section 3. Any suburban municipality eligible to join
February 1, 1980, may indicate its desire to do so by filing a duly
agreement with Public Management Consultants, 326 South Broads
mbers which join
stricted to those
-sonnel Selection
SPRS prior to
uted copy of this
Wayzata, Minne-
sota 55391. Said agreement shall be accompanied by a certified coy of a resolution
adopted by the City Council of that municipality authorizing execution of the
agreement and designating the municipality's initial Director and Alternate Director.
This agreement shall become effective when it has been duly executed by ten eligible
suburban municipalities and when executed copies from these municipalities have been
filed as set forth herein.
Section 4. Suburban municipalities desiring to join the SPR after February 1,
1980, shall be admitted only upon a favorable vote of fifty-one percent (51%) of the
total membership of the Board at a regular or special meeting. Tile Board also may
impose such conditions upon the admission of members, other than charter members, as
it deems appropriate.
IV. Board of Directors.
Section 1. The governing body of the SPRS shall be its B and of Directors.
Each member municipality shall be entitled to appoint one Director to the Board, who
shall have one vote. Each member municipality also shall be entit ed to appoint one
Alternate Director to the Board, who may attend meetings of the B and and who may
vote in the absence of that member's Director.
Section 2. Directors and Alternate Directors shall be appointed by a reso-
lution of each member's City Council. The Director and Alternate Director shall be
that member's chief administrative officer, assistant chief administrative officer, chief
of police (or equivalent) or chief's first assistant.
2
Ir-
Section 3. The SPRS shall be notified of the appointment of a Director or an
Alternate Director by the appointing member filing with the Board a copy of the
resolution making said appointment. Accompanying this resolution shall be the mailing
address of the person so appointed, to be used by the Board as that person's official
address for the purpose of giving any notice required either by this agreement or by
bylaws of the Board.
Section 4. Directors and Alternate Directors shall be appointed to serve until
their successors are appointed and qualified.
. Section 5. A Director or Alternate Director may be removed from the Board
a
at any time, with or without cause, by a resolution of the City Council originally
appointing that person to the Board. The SPRS shall be notified of the removal of a
Director or Alternate Director by the removing member filing with the Board a copy of
the resolution effecting said removal.
Section 6. Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled by the City Council of the
member municipality whose position on the Board is vacant.
Section 7. There shall be no voting by proxy. All votes must be cast in person
at Board meetings by a member's Director or Alternate Director.
Section 8. If at any time a member municipality is in default on any
agreement with the SPRS or is in arrears on any dues or charges of the SPRS, during the
existence of such default or arrearage the voting rights of said member shall be
suspended.
V. Meetings.
Section 1. The first meeting of the Board shall be held during the month of
February, 1980. At this meeting the Board shall elect a President, a Vice President,
and a Secretary-Treasurer, as provided in Section VII-1 hereof, and four additional
members of the Executive Committee, as provided in Section VIII-1 hereof.
3
Section 2. At the first meeting of the Board, or as soon
reasonably possible, the Board shall adopt bylaws governing its m
dures. Such bylaws may be amended from time to time as provided
regular meetings of the Board shall be held at least semi-annually
February and August each year.
:reafter as is
;s and proce-
-in. However,
the months of
Section 3. The specific date, time and location of regular and special
meetings of the Board shall be determined by the Executive Committee. All meetings
of the Board, however, shall be held within the seven-county metropolitan area.
Section 4. Notice of regular meetings of the Board shall be given to the
Directors and Alternate Directors by the Secretary-Treasurer at least fifteen (15) days
in advance of the meeting, and the agenda for all such meetings shall accompany the
notice. However, business at the Board's regular meetings shall not be limited to
matters set forth on the agenda.
Section 5. Special meetings of the Board may be called by he President, by
the Executive Committee, or by the Executive Committee upon the written request of
a majority of the Directors. Notice of special meetings of the Board shall be given to
the Directors and Alternate Directors by the Secretary-Treasurer at 1 ast five (5) days
in advance of the meeting, and the agenda for all such meetings sh 1 accompany the
notice.
VI. Powers and Duties of the Board.
Section 1. The Board shall take such action as it dee
appropriate to accomplish the general purposes of the SPRS and to pc
contemplated herein. Such action shall include, but not be limited to,
and operation of a cooperative recruitment and placement system f
and the establishment and operation of uniform testing and evaluati
police positions. These activities and any other activities authorized
or authorized at a regular or special meeting of the Board may be
or more of the manners outlined herein.
necessary and
ide the services
establishment
police officers
procedures for
this agreement
3ken in any one
-0
4 1
Section 2. The Board shall have full control over and management of its
affairs, which shall include the powers (a) to enter into contracts, leases or similar
agreements with others; (b) to provide for the prosecution, defense or other partici-
pation in actions or proceedings at law in which it may have an interest; (c) to employ
such persons as it deems necessary on a full-time, part-time or consulting basis; (d) to
conduct research into any police selection matter; (e) to purchase, hold and dispose of
property, both real and personal; (f) to purchase public liability insurance and other
bonds or insurance; and (g) to contract for space, commodities or personal services with
a member or a group of members.
Section 3. The Board may establish and collect membership dues, charges for
services to members and non-members, and charges for services to applicants or
potential applicants for employment.
Section 4. The Board may accept gifts, may apply for and use grants or loans
of money or other property from the state or federal governments or from any other
governmental unit, may enter into any agreements required in connection therewith,
and may hold, use and dispose of such moneys or property in accordance with the terms
of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto.
Section 5. The Board shall cause an annual independent audit to be made of
the books of the SPRS, and it shall make an annual financial report to its members in
writing prior to each year's February meeting of the Board. The books and records of
the SPRS shall be available and open to examination by all members of the system. at
any reasonable time. The Board also shall establish an annual budget for the SPRS, in
accordance with the applicable provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. The Board may delegate authority to the Executive Committee
between Board meetings, except that the Board may not delegate its authority to
establish membership dues and service charges. Any such delegation of authority shall
be made by a resolution of the Board, and it may be conditioned in any such manner as
the Board deems appropriate.
5
Section 7. The Board may exercise such other powers an duties as are
incidental to the above powers and duties, but which may be require to effectively
implement and carry out this agreement.
VII. Officers of the Board.
Section 1. The officers of the Board shall consist of a P esident, a Vice
President and a Secretary-Treasurer, all of whom shall be Directors. These officers
shall be elected annually at the regular meeting of the Board held duri ng the month of
February. New officers shall take office at the adjournment of the B oard meeting at
which they are elected.
Section 2. Upon the resignation or death of an officer, or u pon an officer's
ceasing to be an employee of the appointing member municipality, vacancy shall
occur in that office. Upon the occurrence of such a vacancy, the Execu tive Committee
shall fill the vacant position on an interim basis until the next meeting o the Board.
Section 3. The three officers of the Board all shall be embers of the
Executive Committee.
Section 4. The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board and the
Executive Committee. The Vice President shall act as President in the absence of the
President.
Section 5. The Secretary-Treasurer shall be responsible for ke eping a record
of all proceedings of the Board and the Executive Committee, for the custody of all
SPRS funds, for the keeping of all financial records of the SPRS, and for such other
matters as may be delegated to this position by the Board.
Section 6. The President and the Secretary-Treasurer shall si n all vouchers
disbursing funds of the SPRS.
VIII. Executive Committee.
Section 1. The Board of Directors shall have an Executi ve Committee
consisting of the Board's three officers and four other Directors, all of whom shall be
0
5
elected annually at the regular meeting of the Board held during the month of February.
Vacancies on the Executive Committee shall be filled by the Committee on an interim
basis until the next meeting of the Board.
Section 2. A quorum at any meeting of the Executive Committee shall be four
Committee members.
Section 3. The Executive Committee may adopt bylaws governing its 'own
meetings and procedures. Such bylaws, if adopted, shall be subject to this agreement,
to the bylaws of the Board, and to any applicable resolution or other directive of the
Board.
Section 4. The Executive Committee shall meet at the call of the President.
or upon the call of any two other members of the Committee. The date, time and
location of a Committee meeting shall be established by the person or persons calling
the meeting. At least forty-eight (48) hours advance written notice of any meeting of
0 the Executive Committee shall be given to all members of the Committee by said
person or persons. However, such notice may be waived by any five members of the
Executive Committee who actually attend a Committee meeting or who give their
written waiver of the required notice for that meeting.
Section 5. The Executive Committee may exercise those powers and perform
those duties delegated to it by the Board, subject to such conditions -and limitations as
may be imposed by the Board. The Executive Committee shall report on its activities
at each regular meeting of the Board.
Section 6. The Executive Committee shall cause to be prepared a proposed
budget for the SPRS for each calendar year, which shall be submitted to the Board at
least thirty (30) days in advance of the preceding year's August meeting of the Board.
The Executive Committee shall receive and disburse funds of the SPRS in accordance
with the budget for the system subsequently adopted by the Board.
7 ,
Section 7. Subject to the provisions of the adopted budget, upc
by the Board the Executive Committee may appoint, fix the conditions c
and remove any employee of the SPRS, and upon authorization by tl
negotiate and enter into contracts with consultants and contractors to
i authorization
f employment,
Board it may
he SPRS. The
Executive Committee shall direct and supervise the activities of all employees of the
SPRS and of all consultants and contractors to the SPRS.
Section 8. The Executive Committee shall not take any
authorized by this agreement or which is not delegated to it by the
IX. Financial Matters.
Section 1. The fiscal year for the SPRS shall be the calendar y
Section 2. An annual budget for the SPRS shall be adopted by
regular meeting held during the month of August each year. Copies
budget shall be mailed promptly thereafter to the chief administrative
member municipality. This budget shall be deemed approved by
municipality unless, prior to November 15th of that year, a membe
notice to the Board that it is withdrawing from the SPRS for the followi?
Section 3. The Board shall have the authority to
sharing operating costs of the SPRS in excess of any federal, state
assistance received. . Billings from the SPRS to member municipalit
when rendered. Any member whose bill has not been paid within fol
after a billing shall be in default, and that member's voting privileges
as provided in Section IV-8 hereof. In the event of a dispute regarding
is due and payable, a member nevertheless shall make the payment in
its membership status, but such payment may be made under pro
prejudice to dispute the bill and to exercise any remedies available to i
X. Administrator.
Section 1. An administrator of the SPRS may be appointed b
which is not
;Cil .
the Board at its
of the adopted
officer of each
each member
gives written
year.
a method for
other outside
> shall be due
-five (45) days
1 be suspended
amount which
to preserve
and without
the Board or by
0
I*
8
the Executive Committee, upon spedific authorization by the Board. Such an adminis-
trator may be employed on a full-time, part-time or consulting basis.
Section 2. An administrator, if appointed, shall have only those powers and
duties which specifically are delegated to the administrator by the Board. An
administrator shall report to the Executive Committee, which shall be responsible for
directing and supervising all activities of the administrator.
XI. Withdrawal.
Section 1. Any member may withdraw from the SPRS upon thirty (30) days
written notice to the Board.
Section 2. The withdrawal of a member shall not affect that member's
obligation to pay any fees or charges for which it may be obligated under this
agreement.
XII. Dissolution.
Section 1. The SPRS may be dissolved upon a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all SPRS
members.
Section 2. In the event of a dissolution the Board shall determine the
measures necessary to effect the dissolution and shall provide for the taking of such
measures as promptly as circumstances permit, subject to the provisions of this
agreement.
Section 3. In the event of a dissolution, following the payment of all out-
standing obligations, all assets of the SPRS shall be distributed among the members in
equal proportions. Should such obligations exceed assets of the SPRS, the net deficit of
the SPRS shall be charged to and paid by the members in equal proportions.
XIII. Duration. This agreement shall continue in effect indefinitely, unless
terminated in accordance with the terms hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned suburban municipality has caused this
agreement to be executed and delivered on its behalf.
9
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
MUNICIPALITY:
By
RECEIVED AND FILED
this 11th day of
December , 19 79 .
And
0
10
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 381
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Presentation by National Automobile Dealers
Charitable Foundation
The National Automobile Dealers Charitable Foundation has re-
cently initiated a program to provide support in training the gen-
eral public to deal with cardio-pulmonary medical resuscitation
problems. The program, sponsored by the NADCF provides training
mannequins to organizations which provide community wide CPR
training programs. Because of the extensive CPR activities con-
ducted by our Department of Public Safety, the City of Richfield
has been chosen as the first recipient in the State of Minnesota
• for a'Resusci-Anne" training device.
Mr. Al Gleekel of Penn Auto Plaza, who is a local director of
NADA., will be present at the December 10, 1979 city council meeting
to award the city this training mannequin. The choice of Richfield
as recipient of this award was supported by our three local auto-
mobile dealerships: Walser Buick, Winn Stephens Classic Cars, and
Lindahl Oldsmobile. Representatives of these three dealerships
have been invited to participate in this presentation.
Respectfully submitted,
KN/ ej a
cc: Public Safety Director
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
V V
V
/7
4 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 380
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for One Year Extension of Special Use
Permit
On December 11, 1978 the city council approved a special use
permit to allow the construction of a Super America Service Station
store at 2913 West 66th Street. The existing structure on the site
has been removed, but construction of the proposed new structures
on the site has been delayed because of soil problems. The appli-
cant has recently been able to solve the soil problem with the
addition of compacted fill and through relocation of the building
on the site.
• Richfield ordinance requires that the use for which a special
use permit is granted must be established on the site within a year
after it has been issued, or the special use permit becomes null
and void. The ordinance also provides that the council may grant
an extension of a special use permit of up to one year. Super America
has requested a one-year extension of the special use permit granted
them for 2913 West 66th Street to permit completion of the construc-
tion in 1980.
It is the staff's recommendation that the one-year extension
be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Acting Planning Director
i
1240 W. 98TH STREET
OTA 55431
SU PE RA p E R' C /? . BLOOMING6112-8871-6 00
DIVISION OF ASHLAND ' OIL, INC.
?f•?
November 13, 1979
•
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Subject: Special Use Permit
Superamerica
2913 West 66th Street
Dear Sir:
NOV 1.5 11079
Richfield City Niarag2r
A special use permit was granted by the Richfield City Council on
December 11, 1978. Since then a parking agreement has been
executed and a building permit has been issued. The old building
has been demolished and the site cleared in July, 1979.
Our intent is to start construction this fall, but with unstable soil
conditions that require compacted fill, we may not be able to start
until the spring of 1980.
We do not know if the work performed to date qualifies so that the
special use permit would continue from the last date work was
performed, or if the permit is good for only one year from date of
approval. If that is so, we respectfully request an extension of
one year to enable us to complete the construction in 1980.
Yours truly,
John J. Hogenson, Manager
Design, Construction & Maintenance
JJH/e
Ll
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 379
y
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, 7104 18th Avenue
. South
Edward and Donna Fritz, owners of Fritz Interiors, Inc. have
operated this drapery business out of their residence at 7104 18th
Avenue South for approximately ten years. Their daughter, Barbara
Fritz, has been employed in the business for approximately five
years. The business is located on the lower level of the house.
Three vans, owned by the business, are used for the sales and in-
stallation of draperies. There is parking space provided for the
vans behind the house. A six-foot fence on the southwest and north-
west property lines conceal the activities and help reduce vehicle
and other noises. Except for lettering on the vans, there is no
advertising. No special use permit for this activity has been re-
quired.
Barbara Fritz has recently moved to another address and wishes
to continue working for Fritz Interiors, Inc. Because she no longer
lives in the residence, she is now an outside employee. City ordin-
ance requires a special use permit to allow her to continue working
for the home occupation at 7104 18th Avenue South. No expansion of
the existing business is proposed.
The following items are attached to this council letter and
referred to throughout:
1. Letter from Applicant
2. Site Plan
3. Petition and Map
4. Zoning & Land Use Map
Ordinance Requirements
The following ordinance provisions relate to this situation:
1. Section 3.29, Subdivision 1, allows home occupations in
residence (R) districts.
2. Section 3.30, Subdivision 1, allows home occupations in
residence (R) districts.
3. Section 3.41, Subdivision 5, requires that it be demon-
strated that it be found that the proposal not be detri-
mental to the public welfare.
Council Letter No. 379 -2- December 10, 1979
• Staff Findings
The staff has found the following regarding the request for
a special use permit:
1. The city received a complaint regarding noise from the
closing of vehicle doors.
2. The site is an area zoned "R".
3. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site should be
developed for low density single family or two family
residential uses and for accessory uses compatible with
single or two family uses. Home occupations, if con-
ducted within the requirements of the home occupation
section of the zoning ordinance, would be a compatible
use with a single family dwelling.
4. Home occupations can be detrimental to the community in
the following ways:
a. They can lead to a change in neighborhood character.
Home occupations introduce commercial uses in resi-
dential areas, changing its dominant residential
character to a partially commercial one. This can
alter the quiet, traffic patterns, parking, and ap-
pearance of the neighborhood, which can damage the
• residential quality of an area and alter people's
perception and enjoyment of their neighborhood.
This particular site is located in a single family
residential neighborhood. It is the staff's opinion
that the existing home occupation has not altered
the neighborhood characteristics and since no ex-
pansion of the business is being proposed, there
should be no change in the neighborhood character.
b. They can pose a nuisance to neighbors.
Neighbors can become annoyed because of some char-
acteristics of the use such as noise, increased
traffic, parking or appearance. The primary problem
in this case, cited in a complaint to the city, is
noise. The closing of vehicle doors and engine noise
can be a nuisance to neighbors. Increased traffic
and the parking of delivery vehicles can also be a
nuisance. It is unlikely, however, that the dif-
ference in noise levels between this particular home
occupation and a single family residence with no home
occupation would be much different. Also, ample park-
ing space is provided for the business vehicles.
C. Home occupation can increase public costs.
As commercial type uses are introduced into residen-
tial areas, public services and facilities can become
strained because they were designed to serve residen-
tial uses and not commercial uses. Such things as
street improvements, and increased police and fire
protection may become necessary.
Council Letter No. 379 -3-
December 10, 1979
d. Home occupation may raise equal protection questions.
People who locate their businesses in commercial dis-
tricts have to absorb costs which home occupation op-
erators generally do not.
Althoagh the request does not go beyond a normal home occupa-
tion, the question does arise of when a home occupation becomes
a commercially established business, and at that point, should such
a business be allowed to exist under the home occupation ordinance
in a non-commercially zoned district.
Staff Recommendation
It is the recommendation of the staff that the special use per-
mit for a full-time outside employee be granted with the following
stipulations:
1. That the special use permit is for one full-time employee
only.
2. That there be no further expansion of the business.
3. That a six-foot aesthetically pleasing fence replace the
existing four-foot fence on the north property line to
reduce potential noise and visual impacts to surrounding
properties.
•
Planning Commission Recommendation
The planning commission recommends that the special use permit
be granted with stipulations 1 and 3 outlined in the staff's recom-
mendation.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Acting Planning Director
t
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave. So.
Richfield, 1•1n. 55423
Nov; 7:.1979
I, Edward H. Fritz, and my wife, Donna Frit%, have homesteaded 7104 18th :eve. moo.
Richfield since June o" 1950
. For the oast ten years we have operated a small
family business,consisting of making draperies it, the loner level of our home. Our
business has 3 employees, :d-,-lard, donna, and our 24 year old daughter, Dar'cara F rits..
Ne have 3 uconoline Vans which are used for the business. Donna and Barbara make
house calls with one van each, and dward uses the thi_•d van to install the draperies
which Donna and Barbara have sold and made. The vans are lettered on the side doors
with ^Frits interiors, lnc., Interior Design, 869-5114." :whenever all 3 vans are here
at the same time, they are parked. on the cement area behind our home. Our daughter,
Barbara, has an apartment at 7445 Lyndale Ave. .?o., Richfield, :n., and the majority
of the time, her van is parked there at night. Edward's and Donna's vans are always
parked on the cement parking area behind our home at night. :done of the vans are visible
from the fronting 18th Ave. So., and we have a 6 foot basket weave fence on the
south and west sides of the parkin; area, and also on the north side up to the garage.
'4e sent our daughter, Barbara, to the University of i'iinnesota, where she graduated
from the School of Interior Design with the intent of working with us, as she has
for the past five years.'"e do not have a large enou??h business to, afford rentin=
commercial space. we do not do any advertising, are not listed in the telephone
book as a business „ and all of our business is on a referral basis. Approximately
2 to 5 tires per week, a United Parcel Service truck delivers a few packages of
fabric. We insist that the U.P.3. track parks on the street, not drivin- up the
driveway, so as not to cause any unnecessary noise for our neighbors, '4e keep a very
well maintained home and yard, and have had no complaints from any of our neighbors.
• Recently however, a ccmplairit Hust have been made against us. Our neighbors to
the north of us at 7048 18th Ave. So. ( ilr. and_rs. Sheridan ), have been friendly
to us for the past 23 ,years, and we have installed draperies in their home.
Periodically, we have asked them t6 let us know if we cause them any problems, in
order that we may rectify them , as a good neighbor should-They have always said
there were no problems- To our surprise, 1,1r. and mfrs. Sheridan evidently called
Mr. Roesler at Richfield City Hall,.and made a complaint about us operating a
business in our home,,and employing our daughter Barbara. The Sheridans have never
discussed this matter with us at any time. Barbara's driver's license, voter's
registration., etc., designate 7104 18th Ave. 5o..as her address, even though she has
her own apt. John Dean, Richfield City Attorney, gave us his opinion, stating, that if
Barbara would live at least 50/3" of the time at 7104 18th Ave. So., there would be no
need for a special work permit for her. However„ since she does have her own apartment,
and spends some nights there, and some ni:rhts at 7104 18th Ave. So., it would be difficult
for us to insure that she would be livin:; at 7104 18th Ave. So., 5015 o f the time. Tile
enclosed petition of surroundin- property o:}rnc,rs was signed by both husbands and wives,.
with the exception of Mr. and firs. Sheridan. 3--cause we felt the petition would not be
signed by the Sheridans, it was not presented to them. Althouf4h ,.r. Roesler did not
disclose to us who made the complaint against us, his report will, in all probability,.
verify the fact that it was made by the Sheridans. I commend iir. Roesler for doing his
job of following through when a complaint is made, and in the conversations have had
with him,.he has been very cooperative in explaining the section of the City of :rich-field
ordinance involved.
In conclusion,,i am applying for a special use permit, in order that our daughter,
Barbara Fritz, may continue to work with my rife and I in our drapery business, located
• at 7104 18th Ave. So., without violating any Richfield city ordinance,.
Signed, ?? J
Edward Fritz
i
------_ - .__------.
6 w
?: a? 4a w
t< 30?
E: 0
?? Q I
E? A
GARAGE o1 N
C
? o
o
n 9
W ?? 1
fD 'E 6 ?1?12 n 2 4'-
- - - - - - - - - - - -----.__® .?.? s-`----.----.._.
7 1 0 4
is
1 8 t h A V E N U E S 0 U T H
i?
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF ,.;ta Inter ors Inc.
• FOR PURPOSE OF
business at 7i0-pith ve. So.
N T:
Legal Descri tion: _I _A- ?.
"ur is ..1Cn Id„ "In. 5f`+23
p
35-023-24 11 0034 42 gib` J
ENCBERG `%ALuEP' 2h:0 ADDN
CCUNiY C?_z %i 'LOCK .,,acs
4=315 ?&CO OC7 004
We, the undersigned, being owners of immediate adjoining land as above described,
do hereby concur with the Special Use as requested.
Signature of Owners Address Legal Descrir,tio-
C
0
lam. ?. I ?=? ? ?- I ? ? ? ? / ?-? . c_? ?? ?? ,? ? - ? •
` may/ ? ` ? ,
C- L)
17/
Le 7
7/, j
-- - r
1711,11
C, V? r?C'f?? 't,?r1L DAN
n? ? _J t
a 23
13 2
21 3
EJ,
1 - 'C > IN3
4 0 - vi
5
3 ?] Is 6
n
W
Q
s2s
10 (2
N
1 EI 5 5
- 5 [j
J
??
t
?
•1
5;6 U 0 ;r 7
A! 7 CO ?( a f? l
2 9 ? P
f-' .0 10
?-
10 D ^ _ 73rd
7 ill n
c?
G
?C
c?
LLJ
L;j
717
~ 7
j v
f.. . M, I
Signatures on Petition
r.
1 a i
?-Ti ZO IiJ I N G M P --- --- ---- ---
D- - lam' 2
21 3
20> , /9
i
7 4
22
D D 1 15
rte;
17 2
12 71
-T VL
103 -;
o
1I o 7 1 O ^.?? ,F- JIG 7_ G
W
Q
1-
4
,'6 U
Zz-
L u-
-•3
n " -1 GENERAL COMMERCIAL
? SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL :•:•:?:{:?:?:?: - =-=
W,
100- _ '
_ (JrU JI"
'-) I _.
u
C
r_
r?
? I
G
W
UI
3T
,q
E
W
Q
i4 `
v Y-
-,5
-6 O -oo
7 z m
r? J
110
? -
_? 11 D Y
A E IMAP ----- -- ,
2 I
22 2 Li "( Jl- 12 ; `Z FEA
U <?
21 3
/?' r•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'•'?'?'?:?
20 > ,,
sO
o s0,
?c
9
,C
,
X10 ' 10
73rd
i
12
12 9 Ll
11 lo
U
101 6 3
6 b F j? -
GENERAL C0,'Al iERCIAL ?.?
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
t:1ULTIPLE FAIMILY RESIDENTIAL
_ S T.
r! r, I i w I
0
1 ?
17 2
13 6 n
19
r to
X,,-4 4
,a
lam! .?
>
r?
I {.
c
L
C S-_
Q.
U
1, .
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
. Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 378
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf ield
Council Members:
Subject: Non-encroachment Agreement with Minnesota
Department of Transportation
There is an item on the December 10, 1979 city council agenda
requesting council approval of a non-encroachment agreement with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A copy of this agree-
ment, and a letter from BRW explaining this agreement, are attached.
This non-encroachment agreement relates specifically to the
Lyndale Avenue improvement project, scheduled to be constructed in
1980. The agreement is a standard one and is required because Fed-
eral Highway Administration funds are to be used for the project.
The agreement requires that certain roadway standards, traffic and
parking controls and speed limits be established, to conform with
federal highway regulations. The Lyndale Avenue improvements are
designed to meet all of the requirements of the agreement.
It is recommended that the city council authorize the mayor and
city manager to execute the attached agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
I, i r
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Acting Planning Director
Acting Redevelopment Director
Acting City Engineer
Community Services Director
•?:
I n!
PLAN NING/TRANSPORTATION/ ENGINEERINGlARCHITECTURE {?
1'" n I I
7?7 7C,
R-11 1 lI
November 21, 1979
?y;ar?ager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423
Attention: Mr. Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
Re: L/H/N Project, Non-Encroachment Agreement
with Minnesota Department of Transportation
•
Dear Karl:
12-7801
Enclosed herewith is a letter and attached agreements which were originally
directed to Carl Marinics, your former Public Works Director. The letter and
agreements pertain to the utilization of Federal Highway Administration funds,
in particular for Lyndale Avenue.
It is required by Mn/DOT when utilizing such funds that an agreement be entered
into between the City and the State of Minnesota providing that certain
provisions and stipulations with respect to the roadways be enforced.
Specifically, it is prohibited that on any streets wherein such Federal Highway
Aid is utilized that all signs and/or other traffic control or protective
devices be in conformance with the current Manual for Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Secondly, within the right-of-way of the roadway itself no signs,
billboards, or other related activities shall occur which in any way could
distract from the safety or utilization of the right-of-way by the public.
Thirdly, the speed limits shall not be set less than 30 mph and finally, parking
restrictions consistent with Mn/DOT and the Federal Highway Administration shall
be enforced.
0
BATHER. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55414 PHONE 612 1 3797878
s`
• City of Richfield
November 21, 1979
Page 2
The contract which they have requested the City execute is a standard form of
agreement used in conjunction with all cities utilizing Federal Highway funds.
It is my recommendation that you present this agreement to the Richfield City
Council for its consideration and it is our recommendation that it be approved
and returned to Mn/DOT in accordance with their request.
Sincerely,
BATHER-RINGROSE-WOL LD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC.
Donald W. Ringrose, E.
•
DWR:nb
Enc.
cc: Marshall Rahn
City of Richfield
0
?\NNESOT9
v? 2°-
i ? a
O
OF TRP?
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Novembel 16, 1979
Carl Marinics
Public Works Director &
City Engineer
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
In reply refer to: 608
Nonencroachment Agreement
City of Richfield
Hennepin County
Dear Mr. Marinics:
FENIIJ-1
NOV 1 9 1979
City c ??1L's3EB
Phan(, 612-296-9973
We are enclosing two copies of a Nonencroachment Agreement which must
be executed between the State of Minnesota and the Citv of Richfield
before an award of a federal aid contract can be made.
This Agreement, when properly executed by all parties, is intended
i to cover all federal aid projects constructed within the corporate
limits of the City of Richfield. It is submitted at this time because
S.P. 157-363-05, Minn. Project M 5205(1), is being scheduled for a
letting in the near future.
Please arrange for the execution of the agreement by the Mayor and
City Clerk. It will be necessary that the City Council pass a
resolution authorizing the signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk
to this Nonencroachment Agreement.
Please return both copies of the agreement with certified resolutions.
We will return one fully executed agreement for your files.
Sincerely, V ,
ohn D. Petrich
State Aid Urban Programming Engineer
Enclosures:
Nonencroachment Agreement (2 copies)
cc:
Wm. Crawford-C.E.Weichselbaum, Dist-5
File - 420
0 JDP:jmm
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mn/DOT 30721A (Revised 11/76)
AGREEMENT BET11EEN MUNICIPALITY AND
STATE FOR FEDERAL-AID H I GW.fAY
I MPROV &.9Ei`IT
THIS AGREEMENT made by the City of Richfield
Minnesota, hereinafter called the `-Municipality'- with the State of Minnesota,
hereinafter called the "State', WITNESSETH:.
WHEREAS, the United States Government, through the Federal High-
way Administration of the U. S. Department of Transportation does apportion
Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction and improvement of highway
projects on approved systems of public roads, and
NHEREAS, said approved systems within the limits of a Municipality
are now or may be eligible for the participation of these Federal funds in their
;_mprovement or construction, and
• WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration as a condition to the
use of Federal funds on approved Federal Aid Projects requires the agreement of
the Municipality to control road signs, traffic control devices., advertising
signs, miscellaneous installations; speed and parking.
NOV!, THEREFORE, THE Municipality in consideration 6f the expendi-
ture and use of Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction, or improve-
ment of any Federal Aid Street or Highway within the limits of the Municipality
agrees with the State as follows:
(1) No signs; traffic control devices or other protective devices
shall be erected on any Federal--Aid project within the Municipality limits except
as shall conform with the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways of the State of Minnesota.
(2) All right of way within the limits of the ?tunicipaiity on any
Wederal-Aid project shall be held and maintained inviolate as a public highway
and no posters, billboards, roadside stands, curb pumps, curb service devices or
Sheet I of 3 Sheets
other private installations other than utilities of public interest, and no
signs, other than traffic control or protective devices shall be permitted
within the right of way limits of the projects. The Municipality will with
respect to such items as are within its jurisdiction which may be or cause an
obstruction or interfere with the free flow of traffic or which may be or
cause a hazard to traffic, or which may vitiate the usefulness of the project,
shall remove or cause removal of the same at the request of either the State
or the Federal Highway Administrator.
(3) The speed limits on any Federal-Aid project shall be not less
than 30 miles per hour.
(4) Parking regulations generally recommended by the Commissioner
of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administrator for use under similar
conditions shall be adopted on any Federal-Aid project.
• Dated this day of Ia 79
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
State Aid Engineer Date
APPROVED AS TO FORT-1 AND EXECUTION:
Date
(Submit in Duplicate)
E
Sheet 2 of 3 Sheets
BY
Mayor or City
Attest: _
City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BY
Commissioner of Transportation
Da to
(SEAL)
• At a duly authorized meeting of the City of ^ Richfield
County of ____ Hennepin State of Minnesota, the following resol--
ution was moped and adopted.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the C i ty of Richf field a s a
condition of the receipt of Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction
or improvement of any Federal Aid Street or Highway within the City enter into
an agreefient with the State, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof :
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED., that the IIayor and Clerk be and they,
hereb\ are authorized to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City
•.
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution is a true and
correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Richfield
County of Hennepin State of flinnesota, at a duly authorized meeting
thereof held in the City of Richfield , Minnesota, on the
day of It 19 79, as disclosed by the records of said City on file
and of record in my office.
City Clerk
(SEAL)
Sheet 3 of 3 Sheets
Mn/DOT 30721A (Revised 11/76)
• AGP,EEPIENT BETI,'EEN MUNICIPALITY AND
STATE FOR FEDERAL--AID H I GIT'-SAY
l MPROV Ei?1E-NT
THIS AGREEMENT made by the City of Richfield
Minnesota, hereinafter called the ?-Mun i c i pa I i ty` with the State of Minnesota.
hereinafter c-il led the '-State'-, WITNESSETH?
I
WHEREAS, the United States Government, through the Federal High-
way Administ-ation of the U. S. Department of Transportation does apportion
Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction and improvement of highway
projects on approved systems of public roads, and
WHEREAS, said approved systems within the limits of a Municipality
are now or may be eligible for the participation of these Federal funds in their
.improvement or construction, and
• WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration as a condition to the
use of Federal funds on approved Federal Aid Projects requires the agreement of
the Municipality to control road signs, traffic control devices, advertising
signs, miscellaneous installations; speed and parking.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE Municipality in consideration of the expendi-
ture and use of Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction, or improve-
ment of any Federal Aid Street or Highway within the limits of the Municipality
agrees with the State as follows:
(1) No signs; traffic control devices or other protective devices
shall be erected on any Federal--Aid project within the Municipality limits except
as shall conform with the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways of the State of Minnesota.
(2) All right of way within the limits of the ?-Iunicipality on any
Federal-Aid project shall be held and maintained inviolate as a public highway
and no posters, billboards, roadside stands, curb pumps, curb service devices or
Sheet I of 3 Sheets
+ other private installations other than utilities of public interest, and no
signs, other than traffic control or protective devices shall be permitted
within the right of way limits of the projects. The Municipality will with
respect to such items as are within its jurisdiction which may be or cause an
obstruction or interfere with the free flow of traffic or which may be or
cause a hazard to traffic, or which may vitiate the usefulness of the project,
shall remove or cause removal of the same at the request of either the State
or the Federal Highway Administrator.
(3) The speed limits on any Federal-Aid project shall be not less
than 30 miles per hour.
(4) Parking regulations generally recommended by the Commissioner
of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administrator for use under similar
conditions shall be adopted on any Federal-Aid project.
0 Dated this day of
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
State Aid Engineer Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION:
Da to
(Submit in Duplicate)
9
Sheet 2 of 3 Sheets
19 79
CITY OF RICHFIFLD
BY
Mayor or City
Attest:
City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BY
Commissioner of Transportation
Date
(SEAL)
• At a duly authorized meeting of the City of Richfield
Y
County of _ Hennepin _ , State of Minnesota, the following resol-
ution was moved and adopted.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield
as a
,condition of the receipt of Federal funds for the construction, reconstruction
or improvement of any Federal Aid Street or Highway within the City enter into
an agreement with the State, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part
hereof :
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the t1ayor and Clerk be and they.
hereby are authorized to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City
is
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution is a true and
correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Ric.hfiteid
County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, at a duly authorized meeting
thereof held in the City of Richfield , Minnesota, on the
day of ? I9 79, as disclosed by the records of said City on file
and of record in my office.
City Clerk
(SEAL)
0
Sheet 3 of 3 Sheets
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 377
EJ
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Parking in Front
of Residential Walkways, First Reading
There is an item on the December,10, 1979 city council agenda
providing for city council consideration of an ordinance amendment
restricting parking in front of residential walkways. Council
members discussed the concept of this ordinance at the November 13,
1979 city council meeting. This type of ordinance was requested
to eliminate problems created in the wintertime when cars are parked
at the end of a residential sidewalk that has been shoveled, thus
making the sidewalk inaccessible to the homeowner, and forcing him
to climb over snowbanks to gain access to his property.
The attached ordinance amendment prohibits parking in front of
residential walkways between November 1 and April 1 of each winter,
without the permission of the resident. The ordinance provides
that lack of permission is assumed if the resident complains to
the city that the walkway is blocked.
While our city attorney feels the attached proposed ordinance
would be legally defensible our public safety director continues to
be very concerned about the practical enforceability of this type
of an ordinance. If the city council wishes to pass this ordinance
they should be aware of the fact that there will undoubtedly be some
confrontations between our officers and citizens, as well as some
potential confrontations between members of the city council and
some of our citizens. The major problem, as I see it, relates to
our ability to adequately communicate the very specialized provisions
of this ordinance to all of the citizens who may be affected by our
enforcement efforts. Citizens are inevitably going to park near
another persons house, receive a ticket as a result of complaints
by the resident and be upset over the lack of knowledge of this law
by posting or other notice.
It is recommended that the city council not approve the ordin-
ance on first reading.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Public Safety Director
Acting City Clerk
4
I
S
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IX,
SECTION 9.03 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter IX, Section 9.03 of the Ordinance Code of the City
of Richfield regulation parking and stopping of vehicles is
hereby amended by adding thereto to the following new paragraph:
(22) From November 1 of each year until April 1 of the next
year to obstruct access to a private residence without the
express permission of the residents thereon by parking or
stopping a vehicle so that any part of the vehicle is in front
of any part of a private residential walkway or other shoveled
path leading from a private residence to the street. Lack of
express permission shall be established if the resident whose
walkway or path is obstructed complains of such to the city.
This provision shall not apply to parking or stopping by police
and fire vehicles, ambulances and other emergency vehicles.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
• this day of , 1979.
Loren L. Law, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
0
4
1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 376
Agenda December 10, 1979
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Opening of Bids,
First Reading
There is an item on the December 10, 1979 city council agenda
providing for council consideration of an ordinance amendment which
would modify city requirements relating to the opening of competi-
tive bids.
The city code now requires that at least three city department
heads, including the City Manager, shall be present at a bid open-
ing. With reorganization of the city's administrative structure,
we only have five department heads, and it has been extremely dif-
ficult to meet the ordinance requirement that three department
heads and the City Manager participate in a bid opening. Accord-
ingly, I have asked the city attorney to prepare an ordinance amend-
ment which would permit bids to be opened with only one department
head, the city clerk and the City Manager or his designee present.
It is recommended that the city council give first reading
approval to the attached ordinance amendment relating to the open-
ing of bids.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Acting Planning Director
Acting Redevelopment Director
Community Services Director
Public Safety Director
Administrative Services Director
• Acting City Clerk
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER XII, PART
I, SECTION 12.03 OF THE ORDINANCE
CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD,
MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter XII, Part I, Section 12.03 of the Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield dealing with opening of competitive bids
is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 2 thereof to read as
follows:
"Subd. 2. Administrative Staff to open Bids. All
competitive bids submitted for any purpose shall be
opened by the City administrative staff. When such
bids are opened, [at least three City department
heads shall be present ncluding the City Manager]
the City Manager or hiS?esignee, the City Clerk and
one City department head shall be present.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of , 1979.
E
Loren L. Law, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
0