Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-24-80 agenda
0 to CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 412 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Appearance by Representatives of Northern Cablesystems Representatives of Northern Cablesystems have requested an opportunity to appear before the city council to address the city council on various cable television matters. Therefore, I have placed this item on the November 24, 1980 city council agenda in conjunction with the franchise ordinance for cable television. KN /eja Respectfully submitted, f (,C Karl Nollenberger City Manager 0 STATEMENT 11 -24 -80 When Mrs. Collins first mentioned what she had heard your representative at Southdale tell someone I was not greatly concerned. It appeared to be a comparatively minor infraction of the no lobbying requirement. However, I agreed that she should proceed with a complaint to nip in the bud any incipient effort to lobby the members of the City Councils. I Still feel it was a very minor incident and the event itself has had no influence on my thinking. More importantly, I believe Mrs. Collins feels much the same. However, your reaction to this event is quite another matter. You have by innumerable repdtitions endeavored tr -'.11 in our minds and Mrs. Collins mind the convictionthat this incident prejudiced her against your company and that her prejudice has caused her to influence us somehow against your proposal. You have sought to intimidate Mrs. Collins and this Counc l' `- T- -:fled threats of legal actions and in your letter requesting this have in my opinion liabeled this Council and staff by implying that we were somehow improperly influenced by the fact that one Richfield resident was an investor in a competing firm. While the Commission in its deliberations concentrated on t� iC provisions of the proposals I feel that this Council must nun take a broader view and consider other more general factors such as the management philosophy of the competing companies, their attitudes towards their customers and the strategies and tactics they employ in the resolution of disagreements. This is particularily important consiaering we are binding this community to a very close partnership lasting 15 years. i �I CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: r� J� `l Council Letter No. 411 Agenda November 24,1980 Subject: Public Hearing Regarding Alley Improvements A public hearing has been scheduled for the November 24, 1980 city council meeting to discuss a possible alley improvement pro - gram. All Richfield property owners who abut alleys have been notified of this hearing. Neighborhood informational meetings were held on November 5, 6, 12, and 13 to give the property owners a better understanding of the available alley improvement alter- natives. The good attendance and the response from residents attend- ing the meetings indicates a high level of interest in the gener - • condition of the city's alle al subject of the c s, although there Y Y 7 was considerable variation in opinion about what should be done to the alleys. Si n ce the informational meetings, a postcard questionnaire was sent to every property owner whose property abuts an alley. Responses to this questionnaire varied from "do nothing" to "con- struct concrete alleys as soon as possible." The poll listed 4 alternatives: 1- Resurfacing with an oil stabilization process; 2 halt paving -As P P g 3- Concrete resurfacing 4 -Do nothing. comments. An interim analysis space was also provided for o y P P of the results of the foll follows in the next paragraph. As of Wednesday, November 19, 1980, 638 of a total 1,792 questionnaires had been received and analyzed by the engineering staff. At that time, 56.4 of the respondents wanted some type alley improvement to be mande and 43.6 percent wanted on im- provement. Of those responding to the survey, 27.7 percent wanted the asphalt type improvement with concrete curbs, 19.4 percent w anted concrete alleys, 9.3 percent wa nt ed oil stabilization , and the remaining 43.6 percent wanted no improvements. Apart of the questionnaire allowed for specific comments to be made. These comments ranged from "why did you not construct concrete alleys Council Letter No. 411 -2- November 24, 1980 20 years ago" to "there is no need for any type of improvement for Richfield alleys." Of those not wanting improvements, 38 (6- percent of all respondents) stated that they do not use the alleys adjacent to their properties and 27 (4 percent of the respondents) indicated that they are on a fixed income. While it is assumed that most of those who are going to be responding to the survey have responded, the staff will continue to receive and tabulate this information as it comes in and an updated re- port will be made to the city council at the November 24 public hearing. Since the last time the council discussed alleys.at the September 22, 1980 city council meeting, the engineering staff has altered the asphalt alternative somewhat. The initial design for asphalt surfacing called for a very thick asphalt mat to be constructed. The reason for the extra thick mat was for edge support. Even with the extra depth, the integrity of the surface edge over time, was questionable. The engineering staff, with assistance from the city's consulting engineer, investigated a special curb design which would give the required edge strength and allow a thinner asphalt mat to be installed. The staff then made estimates based on contractor's quotes and engineering records, and discovered that the two designs were comparably priced. The all asphalt design was then abandoned in favor of an asphalt with curb concrete design, because of the superior edge integrity • of the latter design. In addition, the costs of alley improvement alternatives were recalculated over the next 30 years based on current estimates of costs (table attached). Certain conclusions can be drawn from the information gathered from the four neighborhood meetings and the questionnaire: -There doesn't appear to be any clear citywide concen- sus. A comprehensive citywide alley paving project would likely be rejected. -The people on certain blocks of alleys in the city clearly want nothing done. -On other blocks it appears that the people want some type of improvement, but no clear indication is given as to the relative appeal of oil stabilization, asphalt or concrete. Many of the property owners were reluctant to voice their opinion until certain procedural questions are answered. In order to answer their questions the staff recommends that the following alley procedures and policies be adopted, regardless of the final solution: 1. Alley Standard Design - the poll indicates that only a small percentage of the respondents want oil stabil- ized alleys. The staff recommends that because of this weak showing, the city abandon the oil stabilization surfacing option entirely. To make this option practi- cal, the project must be of sufficient size so that a contractor can buy the necessary equipment to do the Council Letter No. 411 -3- November 24, 1980 job, or so that the city could afford to refurbish and use its own equipment. The lack of support shown for oiling indicates that a large oiling project appears to be unacceptable to a large segment of the population. The choices for permanent surfacing are concrete and asphalt. Although concrete is more expensive, it needs no maintenance and should last longer. If an alley project is sent out for bids, bids could be solicited for both asphalt and concrete, which would give us a clear choice of surfacing options at that time. Pres- ently the construction market is in a state of flux, and it is difficult to make any accurate projects about next year's prices. For those property owners who want no improvements, a nominal assessment could be levied to support a reasonable level of maintenance. 2. Initiation of Projects - A. Initiation by Petition - alley paving projects may be initiated by preparation of a petition signed by the owners of affected property totaling 35 percent or more of the total project assessable footage. Upon receipt of such petition, the council by majority vote may order investigationof a project with scheduling of necessary procedures and hearings as required by law. • B. Initiation by Council - An alley paving project may be initiated by the city council at its discretion, provided that at least four - fifths of the council votes for the project. In case of such council initiation, the notification to and input from affected property owners shall be in accordance with normal procedures and legal i g requirements. With citizen comments received at a scheduled public hearing, the council could order construction based either on a determina- tion of need or a determination of public interest. Since alley paving projects are generally perceived as providing a specific benefit to specific properties, the council is to allow the major- ity opinion of affected property owners to weigh heavily in its decision. 3. Assessment of Costs - The abutting properties should be assessed for the costs of alley improvements. Only the shorter of the two primary lot dimensions should be utilized in calculating assessments. That is, re- gardless of which side(s) of a lot abuts an alley, a property owner will only pay an assessment based upon the shorter of the two primary lot dimensions. In order to pay for alleys which are constructed with- out abutting assessable property, revenue must be gen- erated from other properties which are assessed. The Council Letter No. 411 -4- November 24, 1980 city's consulting engineers, Orr - Schelen- Mayeron, have calculated the total length of alleys to be approxi- mately 55,000 feet. If all contiguous properties were assessable, there would be 110,000 assessable feet of property for an alley improvement project. However, Richfield has only 97,000 assessable feet of alleys which can be assessed. Therefore, the assessable foot- age (97,000 feet) msut carry 100/97 or 1.13 times the cost of construction of each assessable foot. In.using this method, each property to be assessed would pay 1.13 times the cost of paving alleys, based on the assess- able footage, or the city council can determine that the city would assume the costs of the difference. Commercial properties should be assessed regardless of whether they use the alley. If a commercail property owner wants a wider alley (over 11 feet) that owner then should pay the difference in cost for the additional alley width. Attached to this letter is a chart depicting alley improve- ment cost comparisons for a 30 -year period for the various alter- native types of surfacing, including oil stabiliation, asphalt with concrete curbing, and concrete alleys. 4. Private Contracts for Alley Improvements - If all of the neighbors on a block wish to have a private contractor construct alley improvements, they may petition for approval. It is suggested that engineering plans for such work be approved by the staff. The contractor must also submit a bond to the city for the full value of the work and an inspection fee of $300 should be re- quired. 5. Alley Vacations - Property owners who live on totally undeveloped alley right -of -ways were invited to attend the alley neighborhood meetings. Their invitations ex- plained the alley vacation process, and informed them this process would remove any claim that the city had to this land. After the neighborhood meetings, a post- card survey was conducted, and the results indicated that the property owners wanted no action taken, i.e. they apparently do not want their alley vacated. As long as the affected property owners don't mind the city continuing to hold an easement on their property, the staff re- commends that the city make no special effort to vacate any alleys. If residents wish to have their alley vacated, it is suggested that they use the normal vacation procedures. Recommendation It is the recommendation of the city manager that the city council receive testimony at the November 24, 1980 city council KI 0 Council Letter No. 411 -5- November 24, 1980 i hearing on alley improvements, and then direct the staff to pre- pare a policy resolution regarding alley improvements to be considered by the city council at the December 8, 1980 city c. of the include all council meeting. The r eco mmendati� __ would i matters discussed in this council letter, other issues addressed at the neighborhood meetings, and issues raised at the public hearing. Res ctfully submitted, Fj Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja CC,. Community Development Director Community Services Director Administrative Services Director ( SP -Ile <2 Oel l ell AD r �e `r AIV` r °y 3L 0 \ s t �v � � � f� � J � Q� � Nov. 20, 1980 City Manager City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota Dear Sirs Reference is made to City Project No. 734 and the forthcoming public hearing on this project scheduled for Nov. 24, 1980. Due to a physical disability, I will not be able to attend this hearing and I therefore wish to go on record by this means in opposing any assessment from this project against my property as identified in the Hennepin County records as 34- 028 -24 22 0081 Augsburg Park Lot 24 Block 009, specifically located at 7101 Garfield Ave. So. Richfield, i,Iinn. This property does not have access to the alley being considered for improvement. The driveway to my garage is located entirely on my property and the alley is not used for any purpose. In the past, this property has not been assessed for alley improvement and maintenance and I therefore request that assessment not be levied for this project either. Sincerely Thomas W. Cummins 7i (11 ^. a rf a 1 ri A vp _ R n._ November 19,' 1980 4837 Harriet Avenue Richfield, IT 55423 Richfield City Council P ".embers 5700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Plli 55423 Gentlemen: Ll I am unable to attend the November 24 Council Pieetin.g, but I would like to share my views about city project number 734 • with the Council and those in attendance. It was not the intent of the Village of Richfield to build the alleys and then make the residents that abut the alleys 100 percent responsible for the cost. They are not exclusively used by those residents that abut them. The City of Richfield should not have hired a public relations firm to tell us how much more our property would be worth, but should have first figured out a more equitable method of assessment for these alleys. Rather than believe that my property would be worth $1700 more with a nice new alley, I believe just the opposite. A special assessment against the property is not an asset. V f Stanley J. D7ik i November 18, 1980 The Honorable Donald Priebe Mayor of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota Dear Mayor Priebe: As I will be unable to attend the council hearing on alleys on the 24th, I would like to inject a thought that has not surfaced either during the meeting at the Nature Center or in the options presented on the card. I live on Nicollet Avenue and when we bought our property in 1951 had parking privileges on Nicollet Avenue. I am not so naive nor reactionary as to think that is practical or feasible today. While a different legi- lative body perhaps made the decision, no one asked us our wishes at that time as to whether we wanted Nicollet Avenue upgraded or did we agree with the parking ban - -- the decision was made without consultation of the residents on Nicollet Avenue. In no way would that issue have passed if left to the residents. I feel we are dealing with the same type of issue with the alleys. There is just no way that property owners abutting the alley are going to vote to have the alleys upgraded at the present cost figures. In my case there are only three garages in the alley where people have no other access. The other 12 property owners will disclaim any use of the alley and not agree to the assessment. I believe a more proper approach to the problem is to treat alley improve- ments as a village -wide concern, just the same as the parks and playgrounds and maintenance of the ponding areas, etc. I make no use of these facilities and yet I am expected to be taxed for them. I don't disagree with our making these facilities available - it enhances our community and serves a very worthwhile purpose, but so does good maintenance of the alleys. It's simply a matter of shifting the financial responsibility on to the abutting property owners for a village -wide concern. I continually sing the praises of our street maintenance program, especially as regards snow removal. It is the best!! All you have to do is cross over to the next suburb or city to realize how fortunate we are. However, I am distressed and apologetic when I have to tell people to come through the alley to visit me, and then present them with the deplorable condition of the alley. I can't seem to restrict my friends to come "only on Sunday ". I hope you will consider my thoughts in your deliberations and come to some equitable conclusion. 1 Sin ely yours / Irene errizo ALLEY COMPLAINTS FEEDBACKS January 1, - October 31, 1980 NAME ADDRESS 1. Ardyth Jahnke 7105 Stevens 2. Gordon Herrboldt 7212 Garfiled 3. Merle Sylstad 7025 Augsburg 4. Larry Gates 7505 Aldrich * 5. Robert Holler 6833 Grand * 6. Edna Koontz 6601 Third Ave. 7. K.A. Anderson 1536 E. 66th St. 8. Mary Okerman 6836 Grand 9. J.B. Fowler 6916 Penn 10. Milton Olson 7432 Nicollet 11. Warren Nilsson 6816 Garfield 12. Doris Knudsen 6840 Grand .13. David Newcomb 7427 Blaisdell 14. Stanley Carlson 7220 Garfield 15. Wm. Wallar 6641 Washburn 16. P.H. Ennen 6936 Sheridan ** 17. Woodrow Floten 6704 Washburn 18. Linda Hegel 7332 Portland 19. Donald McMahn 6717 Xerxes 20. Fred Guille 6429 Upton 21. Lawrence White 6837 Upton 22. Harold Husom 6921 Russell 23. V. T. ERickson 6824 Sheridan 24. Doris Lawson 6308 Knox 25. Jennie Juen 6840 Sheridan 26. Mary Miller 6832 Pleasant * 27. R. W. George 6624 Sheridan 28 Dean Johnson 6409 Cedar 29. Robert Jahnke 7317 Fourth 30. Kenneth Jacobsen 6900 Russell 31. John Lundberg 2801 W. 66th St. ** 32. Lois E. Johnson 6932 Thomas 33. Milton Fretty 6620 Sheridan ** 34. Robert Bayerle 6909 Washburn 35. E.H. Wahlin 1405 E. 62nd St. 36. Edna Koontz 6601 Third 37. C.M. Petersen 6625 Second 38. C. Burgett 6621 Fourth * 39. Lenzie Hennagir 6736 Blaisdell 40. Edward Nelson 6825 Nicollet 41. C. Swenson 7229 Lyndale 42. Wallace Johnson 7228 Stevens 43. Fern Harris 7240 Stevens 44. Octave Irey 6933 Upton 45. Joann Spencer 6937 Vincent 46. Vendel Quist 6940 Russell Is 47. R.W. George 6624 Sheridan 48. Woodrow Floten 6704 Washburn 49. Ronald Dahl 6840 Vincent 50. Rev. John Lundberg 2801 66th St. _.an COMPLAINT Doesn't want improvements. Fix Alley. Alley is rough. Fix alleys. Complaint on patching work. When is the blacktopping be-j done. Repave alley. Alley is awful. Patch holes. Holes in alley. Replace and sweep alley. Pave and sweep alleys. Holes not maintained. Fix alley. Light alley. Fix alley. Pave alley. Pave the 2 alley near her. Citizen's want alley paved. Fix alley. Trim trees in alley. Alley needs work. Repair alley. When is meeting on alleys. Give tax credit for alley paving. Patch or fix alley. Repair alley. Sweep alley. Resurface alley. Use road /bridge fund to oil alley. Fix alley. Oil alley. Repair alleys. Patch alley. Maintenance needed. Fill holes. Resurface. Repair alley. Repair alley. Repair alley. Water stands in alley. Repave alley. Maintain alley Oil alleys if can't repave. Holes in alley. Clean alleys. Alleys pitiful. Repair alley. Fix alleys. Are alleys being fixed. Name -2- Address Complaint 51. Richard Knotz 6809 Washburn Repair alley. 52. L.E. Johnson 6932 Thomas When are alleys being fi,i 53. Donald Haukoos 6613 Sheridan Fix alleys. 54. Raymond McLaughlin 6925 Vincent Alley bad. 55. L.J. Armstrong 6632 Vincent Light alleys. 56. Jerry Ziegler 6721 Sheridan Light alleys. 57. Bill Behrens 6829 Upton Surface alley. 58. Harold Renstrom 6932 Sheridan Repair alley. 59. R.J. Bayerle 6909 Washburn Repair holes in alley. 60. Michael Garin 6629 Upton Fix holes in alley. 61. Vern Habeck 7020 Garfield Holes, water stands in alle_ 62. John Gayeski 6325 Oliver Fix alley._ 63. Earle Anderson 7545 Aldrich Blacktop alley. 64. Duane TollefsonT- 7216 Third Fix holes and Sweep alley. 65. Sidney Richardson 7213 Second Fix alleys. 66. Paul Thoresen 7208 Nicollet Oil alley. 67. Irene Perrizo 7308 Nicollet Fix alley. 68. Charles Erickson 7341 Fourth Fix holes. 69. T. O'Leary 6640 Clinton Fix alleys. 70. R. Wickett 7224 Third Holes and no drainage. 71. Peter Kern 7333 Fifth Fix, pave or grade. 72. Wm Krueger 7207 Grand Alley full of holes. 73. Dr. W. P. Fredricks 7305 Third Poor alley. 74. R.H. Sandahl 7120 Garfield Grade and slope for drainage 75. R. Holler 6833 Grand Fix alley. 76. C.A. Knoderer 7233 Nicollet Repair alley. 77. A. Arnold 6628 Clinton Fix pot holes. 78. Nino Coiffure 6632 Penn Repair alley. 79. Lenzie Hennagir 6736 Blaisdell Patch alley or repair. 80. Alice Green 6944 Penn Fix pot holes. 81. Dorothy Holstrom 7044 Garfield Resurface. 82. Robert Bayerle 6909 Washburn Fix alley. 83. Doris Johnson 6319 Logan Repair alley. 84. H.T. Burns 7316 Harriet Keep plowed and resurface. 85. R. Lund 6721 Harriet Plow alley. 86. Woodrow Floten 6704 Washburn Resurface or fill holes. 87. C. Nelson 6810 Pleasant Fix alley. 88. Darlene Kuhn 6741 Sheridan Light alley. 89. Lois Johnson 6932 Thomas Pave or re -oil. 90. Tom Holmes 7538 Nicollet Resurface. * The same person has written twice. ** The same person has written three times. 0 0 ALLEY IMPROVEMENT COST COMPARISON Assumptions: 60 Ft. lot 30 year alley life 20 year assessment roll 8% interest 7% annual cost increase Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 OIL ASPHALT CONCRETE 5 Year 10 Year 1981 126.00 81.00 161.93 224.56 1982 118.80 77.40 156.95 217.65 1983 111.60 73.80 151.96 210.74 1984 104.40 70.20 146.98 203.83 1985 97.20 66.60 142.00 196.92 1986 1_76.74 63.00 137.02 190.01 1987 166.64 59.40 132.03 183.10 1988 156.54 55.80 148.58 176.19 1989 146.44 52.20 142.49 169.29 1990 136.34 48.60 136.41 162.38 1991 247.97 190.73 130.32 155.47 1992 233.80 182.25 124.23 148.56 1993 219.63 173.77 118.15 141.65 1994 205.46 165.30 112.06 134.74 1995 191.29 156.82 126.80 127.83 1996 347.76 148.34 120.05 120.92 1997 327.89 139.87 113.29 114.01 1998 308.02 131.39 106.53 107.10 1999 288.14 122.91 99.77 100.19 2000 268.27 114.44 93.01 93.28 2001 487.87 313.63 23.98 No Cost 2002 459.99 299.69 55.49 2003 432.12 285.75 52.64 2004 404.24 271.81 49.80 2005 376.36 257.88 46.95 2006 684.10 243.94 44.11 2007 645.00 230.00 41.26 2008 605.91 216.06 38.43 2009 566.82 202.12 89.19 2010 527.73 188.18 84.61 TOTAL $9,169.07 $4,682.88 $3,127.02 $3,178.42 PRE- PAYMENT $1,245.60 $1,727.40 Assumptions: 60 Ft. lot 30 year alley life 20 year assessment roll 8% interest 7% annual cost increase t i2iO 5u Final Alley Survey Results Frequency % of Responses OIL 84 9.3% ASPHALT 248.5 27.60 CONCRETE 174 19.4% NOTHING 392.5 43.7% SUB -TOTAL 899 100 % Vacation Responses 71 % of Total project 4.70 13.90 9.7% 22.0% 50.3% Total Responses 970 54.3% Thirty -one respondents specifically stated that their fixed income (Social Security or pension) was the deciding factor for this "No Improvement" choice. Forty -nine respondents stated that they don't use the alley and shouldn't bear the improvement costs, for their "No Improvement" choice. s �PI Vl QY G1G0 v► Q Res e",5- 'J" v / J, roc PG1IP�i zy/ 25� �/6X d I / 3 �0 2 0 !o R►cµ�lE�b 09A, y 9 / 5D 3Z a �^ u Jr�F:Rso�1 j 7 l 2-9% P� K { �` °, 1 leo x � a y ��i FyKA �h'wWk'Wi. Block Total 21 19 - 16 16 13 7 13 12 12 16 20 23 24 8 22 22 21 23 16 23 22 24 3 24 19 20 17 A U&6,80,9& Alley Survey Results Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Responses Responses Responses Responses 5 2 1 1 5 3 6 2 2 3 6 2 1 3 6 1 2 1 1 4 3 1 2 6 1 3 2 6 51-2 712 2 4 5 4 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 1 5 2 3 1 3 1 6 1 11 1 1 6 3 1 212 711 4 1 7 5 2 1 4 4 6 1 7 5 1 1 2 12 -2- It E� AU (0 s f3 Urt& (91) IZ K �O �9 CL �a C Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block # Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 26 24 6 4 7 27 24 1 4 6 4 28 23 5 2 4 29 20 1 2 7 30 14 _ (� 1 3 j � -16 � _ Ij f Total 570 18 94 79 y b 128 v It E� AU (0 s f3 Urt& (91) IZ K �O �9 CL �a C Ric H I-IFL-10 Block oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block # Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 51 19 3 3 5 52 24 6 5 6 53 20 5 2 11 54 23 1 2 10 55 10 8 56 7 5 57 12 5 58 9 1 7 59 11 1 1 60 6 3 61 15 3 1 62 19 1 5 3 4 63 21 3 64 18 1 1 5 65 19 2 2 6 66 17 7 67 16 1 5 68 19 2 3 3 3 69 23 1 1 3 70 12 2 3 71 5 1 2 72 7 1 1 73 17 1 6 74 3 2 rr Total 352 5 35�, 25 110 170 4:R C O/C 3l° L Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 101 7 1 2 102 3 (vacation) 103 12 1 5 104 20 1 4 6 105 23 1 5 2 3 106 23 2 3 4 107 22 2 4 3 108 17 109 6 1 1 1 110 4 111 6 3 1 112 7 1 113 8 1 114 4 1 1 1 115 4 116 4 1 117 7 1 118 9 1 1 119 8 6 120 8 1 2 1 jjj 121 7 1 _ 2 Total 206 4 -l� 25 �°l� 3 11 plo 38 /B � �� 41"12 - - . IV _-E Fr ERS©N P4i?K Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement Block # Total Responses Responses Responses Responses 151 24 1 3 1 5 152 21 3 5 1 3 153 24 2 3 2 4 154. 24 3 4 8 155 24 3 4 3 1 156 iQ 24 2 5 5 4 157 \)2 23 3,12 6 2 2 %2 158 19 3 2 312 2 4 159 24 5 13 160 24 1 2 z 11-2 4 5 3 161 24 2 2 162 24 1 3 2 7 163 24 1 2 3 164 23 3 6 165 24 1 3 3 166 8 1 3 167 24 2 6 3 3 168 22 7 1 4 169 23 1 5 3 1 170 24 3 4 4 2 171 23 3 4 1 8 172 23 3 5 3 173 17 5 3 174 \0 19 2 4 4 1 i X i -v .. •i t 40 -2- ?60, (t Block Oil Asphalt Concrete No Improvement $lock # Total Responses Responses Responses Responses G 175 18 5 2 2 176- 20 1 1 3 177 21 2 3 1 3 178 tl 21 3 4 4 3 179 22 1 1 2 4 180 14 1 1 1 2 181 11 1 0� — _ 940 583-, lO o 116 3 Total 660 57 ���l0 \$1 - 0 ?60, (t 0 A Z \'W vE•wrvcf�.re• 1 vrxD..0 rvE. Bxfn�o.a .rE artEw rvL xE.,a. rvf. r0..w rvE �.f.1 aVEf. ..YLf .vE wa.fDEO, .K C.FNOn rvE. LRUwL CEO rvf xua�Er rvF G— -E. :1 11E ttE.s.ai rvE Bl SDEEEx .KE O.xLUrDD rvEE cwc.w .K lo 0 cED.11 .K � • � i y - 3 2 S i S E S L s s s ■ a E+ ..- s a - s s s a a i 22 nl AVE f,u.afw rv. Ga M LJ l.y� oo ®� ^� K tii I r m / I awneEO .K �� ^�I �l 1 Et�i.aD.xrfrvE. C`�r`J aEEL.A...E LJ Ir^ X�9LELL w.Yt N muFnr rvC :yfwm .Yf La rvE vptuxC .K. Fp, LD.xxf� .YE. --'---J' L #3 LED...YE r �"— Bv.aafw .v[ 54 Z - - . ----- - - - - -- ' CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA is Office of City Manager w le The Honorable Mayor and < Members of the City Council s� City of Richfield O S Council Members: Council Letter No. 410 Agenda November 24, 1980 Subject: Resolution Establishing Water Rates and Charges There is an item on the November 24, 1980 city council agenda providing for council consideration of a resolution which would amend the present water user fee structure, and various charges related to water service customers. The proposal be- fore the city council on November 24, 1980 would make the follow- ing changes in the system of water rates and charges: 1. Increase the basic water user fee rate from 74� per 1,000 gallons to 80� per 1,000 gallons; 2. Increase the customer service charge to utility customers from $1.75 to $2.30; 3. Eliminate the minimum water user charge; 4. Revise the final meter reading charge of $10.00 from a final meter reading charge against the present customer to a service setup charge to a new customer. Background The present system of water user rates and charges was estab- lished by the city council in early 1980, with the 74G per 1,000 gallons user rate implemented for water service customers on April 1, 1980. During the process of evaluating and establish - ing new water user charges in early 1980, the council reinstituted a minimum water user fee. This minimum water user charge was established to reflect the basic system costs that are not dir- ectly related to water production and sales to specific customers. A municipal water system in a community such as Richfield has to have a capacity almost as large to meet fire suppression and pro- tection needs as it would require just to meet water usage de- mands. For this reason, a minimum user fee is justifiable based on the cost of maintaining the overall system. The minimum rate Council Letter No. 410 -2- November 24, 1980 established at that time reflects the approximate basic cost of the system, but also enables customers to purchase 10,000 gallons of water for the $7.40 minimum. The 1981 budget proposal of the city manager recommended a 16 percent rate increase from the current 74G per 1,000 gallons to 86G per 1,000 gallons. That rate increase would bring the anticipated water fund revenues for 1981 to $1,000,025, compared to annual cash flow needs in 1981 of $1,000,028. There is also an estimated $9,000 of miscellaneous revenue in 1981 which would provide a slight cushion to the water fund. However, the beginn- ing cash balance in the water fund in 1981 is a deficit of approx- imately $356,000. This cash deficit has been accumulated over several years, as water user fees and charges have not been sufficient to meet cash needs of the fund. In addition, the Richfield water plant is reaching an age during which on -going improvements will be needed to keep the plant up -to -date on a technological basis, which makes it particularly important that the water fund be brought back into an even cash basis. It is for this reason that the city council needs to implement a rate adjustment for 1981, and to make a commitment to annually evaluate the financial condition of the water fund to determine if addition- al rate structure modifications are needed. The city council in its previous deliberations on this matter indicated an interest in establishing the basic water rate structure for 1981 at 80� per 1,000 gallons, and at looking at similar annual increases through approximately 1983, at which time a bond issue would be sold to meet major capital improvement needs of the water utility. In that year, the city will have sufficient cash on hand to retire the remaining indebtedness assoc- iated with previous construction of the water system and plant. In addition to the basic water user rate, the council expressed an interest in eliminating the minimum water user charge and off- setting revenues lost with an increase in the customer service charge. It appears that the city is generating approximately $25,000 per year because of the minimum water user charge. If the mini- mum water user charge were to be eliminated, it would be necess- ary to generate this approximate amount of revenue through some other source, if we are to continue to meet the financial demands of the water fund. Although I believe it is philosophically preferable to charge system users a minimum fee to support the costs associated with simply having the water system and fire protection capabilities available, if the council wishes to eliminate the minimum water user fee, I would recommend that the lost revenues be off -set by an increase in the customer service charge. The attached resolution relating to sanitary sewer rates and charges contains an amendment which would increase the cust- omer charge from $1.75 in 1980 to $2.30 in 1981, which should be adequate to generate sufficient additional revenue to off -set revenues which would be lost if the minimum water user fee is eliminated. Council Letter No. 410 -3- November 24, 1980 The following is an analysis of the impact which these rates lbwill have on two hypothetical Richfield water system customers: 1981 With 1981 Without 1980 Min. Chg. Min. Chg. Cost of Water Used $11.10 $12.00 $12.00 Gist. Svice. Charge .75 '' .88 1.42 (15,000 gal.) 1- $11 .85 $12.88 �� 13.42 . $ User. Charge 7.40 8.00 5.60 Cust. Svice. Charge .75 j o' .88 1.42 ( 7,000 gal . ) $ 8.15. --$ 8.88 $ 7.02 The first customer is assumed to use 15,000 gallons of water per quarter which is close to the average use in our system. In 1980, that water would cost this customer $11.10. In addition, the 1980 customer service charge of $1.50 has been evenly split between the sewer and water funds, making the water fund portion of the bill equal to $.75 per quarter. This customer's total quarterly water bill would be $11.85 in 1980. In 1981, the water user charge would increase to $12.00 per quarter based on 80� per 1,000 gallons and the water bill portion of the customer service charge would increase to 88� (due to the service charge increase passed in 1978 for 1981) making the total quarterly bill $12.88, or 8.7 percent higher than the quarterly bill in 1980. If the customer service charge is increased to $2.30, the water customer's portion of that charge would increase to $1.42 making the actual 1981 quarterly bill for this customer, under this proposal, equal to $13.42, or 13 percent higher than the 1980 quarterly bill. The alternative scenario may be described for a water cust- omer who uses only 7,000 gallons of water per quarter, assuming elimination of the minimum water user fee. If the customer service charge is increased, but the minimum water fee eliminated, the customer who uses fewer than the 10,000 gallons of water provided under the minimum fee would experience a decrease in his quarterly bill of 14 percent without the elimina- tion of the minimum charge. The water rate would increase by 9 percent. The real impact of eliminating the minimum water user fee is to have all system customers subsidize those persons who use little water. It appears that somewhere between 15 percent and 20 percent of Richfield's water customers use less than the 10,000 gallons of water per quarter that is purchased by the minimum fee. A final change proposed in the water rate and charge sched- ule would modify the $10.00 final meter reading charge which was established in 1980. The resolution adopted by the city council in establishing rates and charges authorizes the city council to, d; 0 Council Letter No. 410 -4- November 24, 1980 from time to time, implement special charges for special services rendered to system customers. The $10.00 final meter reading charge was established to recoup the city's costs incurred in conducting special, non - scheduled meter readings, and rendering special bills when a property changes hands and it is necessary to close out an account prior to a property owner concluding the sale of the property. However, we have received numerous complaints from citizens who have been charged this final meter reading charge, essentially stating that they feel it would be more equitable to levy this charge and pass the cost on to the new customer as is done by many other area utilities. Since the final meter reading and the change of the billing records are associated with the changing of hands of property, I do not believe it is particularly more or less equitable to charge the $10.00 against either the old property owner or the new property owner. However, since the citizen feed- back we have received on this charge appears to consistently support the notion of charging this fee to a new owner, as a service setup type of charge, I believe it might be appropriate for the council to authorize this change as well. The appropriate resolution to accomplish this change is also attached to this council letter. In summary, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, establishing water rates and charges, amending the customer service charge, and modifying the final meter reading charge into a $10.00 service setup charge to new system customers. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Administrative Services Director RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES AND SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.12 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and 'charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby establish- ed to be those set forth in the following.paragraphs of this resolution. 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effect- ' ive with the winter quarter of each year for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. A) Residential per unit 1980 1981 1982 11.55 12 5 1 .35 q,1�10 (O -o ] B) Commercial For 'L'ie equivalent of 10 or less 11.55 12.35 13.35 persons More than 10, less than 16 28.88 30.89 33.37 More than 15, less than 21 43.31 46.34 50.00 More than 20, less than 26 57.75 61.80 66.74 C) Institutional For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 190 1981 19_82 For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof 20.79 22.24 24.02 For each 100 junior hig:i.school students or hig.n school students or fraction thereof 57.75 61.80 66.74 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 8.12 of the City Ordinance Code. 3,. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follor:s: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on the actual. use of water for the preceding) winter quarter, per thousand gallons, -2- effective with this winter quarter for each customer billing district and shall be as follows: 1980 1981 1982 58 cents 62 cents 67 cents For the purpose of this paragraph A, the winter quarter shall be the winter quarter specified in Subdivision 3 of said Section 8.12. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial and other premises the rate per thousand gallons of water, effective with the winter quarter for each district, shall be as follows: 1980 1981 1982 58 cents 62 cents 67 cents C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered effective with the winter quarter of each year as follows: 1980 1981 $1.50 $2.30 If the invoice is for water service as well as sanitary sewer ser- vice, the customer charge,.when collected, shall be allocated proprotionally between the city's water fund and its sewer fund, based on the costs incurred by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 8.12. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. WATER RATES AND CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23 of the Ordin- ance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for city water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution. 2. The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the city, during any quarter, shall be 80 cents per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.23 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution. 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $10.00 per account. %s y LI �g�+ -3- 3. The charge for removal and reinstallation of outside meter readers when physical modifications to the customer's property necessitate such removal and reinstallation shall be $15.00 per removal and reinstallation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the city shall be $30.00 per hydrant per year. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minn- esota, this 24th day of November, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh Deputy City Clerk y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager • Council Letter No. 409 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of $1,500,000 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the S & M Company (Lyndale Hardware Company) Earlier this fall, the city council approved the concept of issuing Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the improvement of the Lyndale Hardware property. The final step in this process is for the city council to adopt a resolution authorizing the is- suance and sale of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. This resolution is a general description of the transaction that is to occur, approves all of the necessary documentation, as well as orders the execution and delivery of the bonds and the related underlying documents. This resolution will also authorize the use and distri- bution of the Official Statement to be used in connection with the distribution and sale of the bonds by Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc., the underwriter. File copies of all of the documents to be approved by this resolution will be on file in the City Clerk's office at the time of the council meeting. By Monday, November 24, the final details relating to the in- terest rates on bonds and the price to be paid by the underwriter will be finalized, and the copy of the preliminary offering state- ment will be available. At the present time the underwriter is in the process of soliciting offers for bonds. It is possible that council members might have seen such a solicitation in Sunday's newspaper. This offering is, of course, subject to final authori- zation by the city council. Representatives of both the S & M Company and the underwriters will be present at the city council meeting to answer any questions on this issue. At that time, it is recommended that the city council adopt the necessary resolution, authorizing issuance of these bonds. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger is City Manager Community Development Director City Attorney a ` 0 Yi EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, ?'MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof_ a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, Hennepin County, P,as held at the City Hall in said City on , 1980, commencing at o'clock p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following written resolution and moved its adoption, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent: r 0- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAI, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT TO FINANCE A PROJECT THEREUNDER SECURED BY A SECURITY INTEREST IN CERTAIN REVENUES AND PAYMENTS UNDER A LOAN .AGREEMENT AND BY A MORTGAGE OF THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Authorization and Recitals. 1.01. General Authority. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act), to issue its revenue bonds and to make secured or unsecured loans to finance the acquisition of real property and the acquisition or construction of buildings and improvements on such real property and the installation of machinery and equipment of any and all kinds and any other personal properties deemed necessary in connection with a project, as defined in the Act. 1.02. Proposed Project and Bonds. Representatives of Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. (the Underwriter), and The S & M Company, a Minnesota corporation (the Company), have proposed that the City, acting under and pursuant to the Act, issue and sell to the Underwriter its $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (The S & M Company Project - Lyndale Hardware, Co., Lessee), Series 1980 (the Bonds), for the purpose of defraying the costs of a project under the Act consisting of the acquisition of certain land within the City and the acquisition, enlarging, remodeling and equipping of an existing building thereon (the Project) to be leased to Lyndale Hardware Co., its wholly owned subsidiary. Pursuant to the proposal the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Company and the Company agrees to make payments sufficient to pay the principal of, premium if any, and interest on the Bonds. As securitv for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds the City will grant a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined) to a Trustee (as hereinafter defined), and the Company will grant a mortgage on and security interest in the Project to the Trustee pursuant to a Combination Mortgage and Security Agreement (as hereinafter defined). ��Y F I I 0 �i 1.03. Prior Approval. This Council by Resolution No. 6281 adopted August 25, 1980, gave preliminary approval to the Project and the issuance of revenue bonds under the Act to finance the Project, following a public hearing duly noticed and held by this Council on July 28, 1980. Such prior approval is hereby ratified, confirmed and affirmed as the date hereof on behalf of the Company. 1.04. Project Cost. All costs of the Project in excess of the proceeds of the Bonds available therefor are required to be paid by the Company. 1.05. Documentation. Forms of the following documents relatin -g to the Project have been prepared and submitted to this Council and are hereby directed to be filed with the City Clerk: (a) a Loan Agreement (the Loan Agreement), to be dated as of November 1, 1980, proposed to be made and entered into by and among the City and the Company; (b) an Indenture of Trust (the Indenture), to be dated as of November 1, 1980, proposed to be made and entered into between the City and the National City Bank of Minneapolis, a national banking association, as trustee (the Trustee); (c) a Combination Mortgage and Security Agreement (the Mortgage), to be dated as of November 1, 1980, proposed to be made and entered into between the Company and the Trustee; (d) a Bond Purchase Agreement (the Bond Purchase Agreement), proposed to be made and entered into among the Underwriter, the City and the Company; and (e) a Preliminary Official Statement, dated November 25, 1980 and an Official Statement (collectively, the Official Statement) to be used in connection with the sale of the Bonds. Section 2. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the Project, as defined herein and in the Loan Agreement, constitutes a project authorized by Section 474.02, Subdivision la of the Act; (b) the purpose of the project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by encouraging and retaining the location, retention and p a . development of economically sound industry and commerce within the City so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; by promoting the use of available resources of the community thereby retaining the benefit of its existing investment in educational and public service facilities; by discouraging the movement of talented, educated personnel to mature age to other areas, thus preserving the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and by encouraging more intensive development of land in the City to provide an adequate and better balanced tax base to finance the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services; (c) the Project is to be located in the City, at a site which is readily accessible to employees residing within the City and the surrounding.community; (d) the Project when completed will add to the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing jurisdictions; (e) the Project will assist the City in attaining its development goals for the Lyndale- Hub- Nicollet Redevelopment Project; 40 (f) the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota, as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act; (g) the financing of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the principal amount of $1,500,000, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and of all other acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and the Charter of the City to make the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bonds valid and binding obligations in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (h) it is desirable that a series of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in the amount of $1,500,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture, under the provisions of which the City grants to the Trustee a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement as security for the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and serest on the Bonds; (i) the loan payments contained in the Loan Agreement are fixed, and are required to be revised from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient to provide for prompt payment of ;principal of and interest on all Bonds issued under the Indenture when due; and the Loan Agreement also provides that the Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project site and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement; (j) under the provisions of Section 474.10 of the Act and as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds of the City other than the revenues and payments pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon and no holders of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing powers of the City to pay any of the Bonds or the interest thereon nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City, except the revenues and payments under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof and the Project should the City ever acquire title to it; the Bonds shall not con- stitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the revenues and payments under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof and the Project should the City ever acquire title to it; each Bond issued under the Indenture shall recite that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues and payments pledged to the payment thereof; and no Bond shall constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, charter or statutory limitation; provided, however, that nothing contained in this paragraph (i) shall impair the rights of the holders of the Bonds or the Trustee to enforce covenants made for the security of the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Section 3. Authorization and Approval of the Project, Loan Agreement and Indenture. The City is authorized to provide for the acquisition, construction and equipment of the Project and to grant a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement, all as provided in the Loan Agreement and the Indenture. The forms of the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage, the Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Indenture referred to in Section 1.05 are approved subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the Mayor pursuant to Section 5.03 hereof, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by execution of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bonds by the Mayor and City Manager. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute the Loan Agreement upon execution thereof by the Company; the Indenture upon execution thereof by the Trustee; and the Bond Purchase Agreement upon execution thereof by the Underwriter, the Company. Copies of all of the documents shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided therein. The Mayor and City 'Manager are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments as may be required to give effect to the transactions herein contemplated. Section 4. Official Statement. The City hereby consents to the distribution of the Official Statement by the Underwriter to prospective purchasers of the Bonds and hereby ratifies the distribution thereof prior to the date hereof. The City has not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement and has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained therein or in any appendix thereto, and the City assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy or completeness of such information. Section 5.. The Bonds; Terms, Sale and Execution. 5.01. Authorization. In anticipation of the collection of revenues of the Project, the City shall proceed forthwith to issue the Bonds, dated November 1, 1980, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture and this resolution. The Bonds are hereby sold to the Underwriter at the prices and upon the terms specified in the Bond Purchase Agreement. The Bonds shall bear interest at the coupon rates set by the Underwriter and as set forth in the Official Statement, provided however that the net effective interest rate on the Bonds may not exceed 12.750 per annum. 5.02. Execution_. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds as prescribed herein and in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified copy of this resolution, the other documents required in the Indenture, and such other certificates, documents and instruments as may be appropriate to effect the transaction herein contemplated. The Trustee is hereby appointed authenticating agent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1. 5.03. Modifications, Absence of officers. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes an approval of such modifications thereto, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the Mayor prior to the execution of the documents. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence or disability of the Mayor, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed, may be executed by the acting Mayor and in,the absence or disability of the City Manager by.such officer of the City who, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may execute such documents. Section 6. Authentication of Proceedings. _ The Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to furnish to the Underwriter and bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officer's custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Section 7. Statement of Election. The principal amount of the Bonds being in excess of $1,000,000, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City to execute and file with the Internal Revenue Service a statement of election to issue its obligations in excess of $1,000,000 as provided by Section 103(b)(6)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 1.103(b)(2)(v_i) of the Regulations promulgated thereunder. Attest: City Clerk - Joyce L. Wilde R,t4•��Ft Mayor - Donald L. Priebe - • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor whose signature was attested by the City Clerk. - - - - W 4 ��M1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) SS. I, Joyce L. Wilde, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on , 1980, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (The S & M Company Project - Lyndale Hardware Co., Lessee, Series 1980, of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Clerk this day of 1980. Joyce L. Wilde City Clerk City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota F EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof_ a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, Hennepin County, was held at the City Hall in said City on 1980, commencing at o'clock p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: • Member introduced the following written resolution and moved its adoption, the reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent. 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT TO FINANCE A PROJECT THEREUNDER SECURED BY A SECURITY INTEREST IN CERTAIN REVENUES AND PAYMENTS UNDER A LOAN .AGREEMENT AND BY A MORTGAGE OF THE PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Authorization and Recitals. 1.01. General Authority. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act), to issue its revenue bonds and to make secured or unsecured loans to finance the acquisition of real property and the acquisition or construction of buildings and improvements on such real property and the installation of machinery and equipment of any and all kinds and any other personal properties deemed necessary in connection with a project, as defined in the Act. 1.02. Proposed Project and Bonds. Representatives of Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. (the Underwriter), and The S & M Company, a Minnesota corporation (the Company), have proposed that the City, acting under and pursuant to the Act, issue and sell to the Underwriter its $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (The S & M Company Project - Lyndale Hardware, Co., Lessee), Series 1980 (the Bonds), for the purpose of defraying the costs of a project under the Act consisting of the acquisition of certain land within the City and the acquisition, enlarging, remodeling and equipping of an existing building thereon (the Project) to be leased to Lyndale Hardware Co., its wholly owned subsidiary. Pursuant to the proposal the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Company and the Company agrees to make payments sufficient to pay the principal of, premium if any, and interest on the Bonds. As security for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds the City will grant a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined) to a Trustee (as hereinafter defined), and the Company will grant a mortgage on and security interest in the Project to the Trustee pursuant to a Combination Mortgage and Security Agreement (as hereinafter defined). • 1.03. Prior Approval. This Council by Resolution No. 6281 adopted August 25, 1980, gave preliminary approval to the Project and the issuance of revenue bonds under the Act to finance the Project, following a public hearing duly noticed and held by this Council on July 28, 1980. Such prior approval is hereby ratified, confirmed and affirmed as the date hereof on behalf of the Company. 1.04. Project Cost. All costs of the Project in excess of the proceeds of the Bonds available therefor are required to be paid by the Company. 1.05. Documentation. Forms of the following documents relating to the Project have been prepared and submitted to this Council and are hereby directed to be filed with the City Clerk: (a) a Loan Agreement (the Loan Agreement), to be dated as of November 1, 1980, proposed to be made and entered into by and among the City and the Company; (b) an Indenture of Trust (the Indenture), to be dated as of November 1, 1980, proposed to be made and entered into between the City and the National City Bank of Minneapolis, a national banking association, as trustee (the Trustee); • (c) a Combination Mortgage and Security Agreement (the Mortgage), to be dated as of November 1, 1980, proposed to be made and entered into between the Company and the Trustee; (d) a Bond Purchase Agreement (the Bond Purchase Agreement), proposed to be made and entered into among the Underwriter, the City and the Company; and (e) a Preliminary Official Statement, dated 1980 and an Official Statement (collectively, the Official Statement) to be used in connection with the sale of the Bonds. Section 2. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the Project, as defined herein and in the Loan Agreement, constitutes a project authorized by Section 474.02, Subdivision la of the Act; (b) the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by • encouraging and retaining the location, retention and development of economically sound industry and commerce within the City so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; by promoting the use of available resources of the community thereby retaining the benefit of its existing investment in educational and public service facilities; by discouraging the movement of talented, educated personnel to mature age to other areas, thus preserving the economic and human resources needed as a base .for providing governmental services and facilities; and by encouraging more intensive development of land in the City to provide an adequate and better balanced tax base to finance the increase in the amount and cost of governmental services; (c) the Project is to be located in the City, at a site which is readily accessible to employees residing within the City and the surrounding.community; (d) the Project when completed will add to the tax base of the City and overlapping taxing jurisdictions; (e) the Project will assist the City in attaining its development goals for the Lyndale- Hub- Nicollet Redevelopment Project; (f) the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota, as tending to further the purposes and policies of the Act; (g) the financing of the Project, the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the principal amount of $1,500,000, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and of all other acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and the Charter of the City to make the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bonds valid and binding obligations in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (h) it is desirable that a series of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in the amount of $1,500,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture, under the provisions of which the City grants to the Trustee a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement as security for the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds; • (i) the loan payments contained in the Loan Agreement are fixed, and are required to be revised from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient to provide for prompt payment of principal of and interest on all Bonds issued under the Indenture when due; and the Loan Agreement also provides that the .Company is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project site and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement; (j) under the provisions of Section 474.10 of the Act and as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds of the City other than the revenues and payments pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon and no holders of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing powers of the City to pay any of the Bonds or the interest thereon nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City, except the revenues and payments under the Loan Agreement . pledged to the payment thereof and the Project - should the City ever acquire title to it; the Bonds shall not con- stitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, except the revenues and payments under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof and the Project should the City ever acquire title to it; each Bond issued under the Indenture shall recite that the Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues and payments pledged to the payment thereof; and no Bond shall constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional, charter or statutory limitation; provided, however, that nothing contained in this paragraph (i) shall impair the rights of the holders of the Bonds or the Trustee to enforce covenants made for the security of the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds. Section 3. Authorization and Approval of the Project, Loan Agreement and Indenture. The City is authorized to provide for the acquisition, construction and equipment of the Project and to grant a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the • • City under the Loan Agreement, all as provided in the Loan Agreement and the Indenture. The forms of the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage, the Bond Purchase Agreement, and the Indenture referred to in Section 1.05 are approved subject to such modifica- tions as are deemed appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the Mayor pursuant to Section 5.03 hereof, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by execution of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement and.the Bonds by the Mayor and City Manager. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute the Loan Agreement upon execution thereof by the Company; the Indenture upon execution thereof by the Trustee; and the Bond Purchase Agreement upon execution thereof by the Underwriter, the Company. Copies of all of the documents shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided therein. The Mayor and City Manager are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments as may be required to give effect to the transactions herein contemplated. Section 4. Official Statement. The City hereby consents to the distribution of the Official Statement by the Underwriter to prospective purchasers of the Bonds and hereby ratifies the distribution thereof prior -to the date hereof. The.City has not participated in the preparation of • the Official Statement and has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained therein or in any appendix thereto,.and the City assumes no responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy or completeness of such information. Section 5. The Bonds; Terms, Sale and Execution. 5.01. Authorization. In anticipation of the collection of revenues of the Project, the City shall proceed forthwith to issue its Bonds dated as of November 1, 1980, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture and this resolution. The Bonds are hereby sold to the Underwriter at the prices and upon the terms specified in the Bond Purchase Agreement. 5.02. Execution. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds as prescribed herein and in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified copy of this resolution, the other documents required in the Indenture, and such other certificates, documents and instruments as may be appropriate to effect the transaction herein contemplated. The Trustee is hereby appointed authenticating agent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1. • 5.03. Modifications, Absence of officers. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes an approval of such modifications thereto, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the Mayor prior to the execution of the documents. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence or disability of the Mayor, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed, may be executed by the acting Mayor and in the absence or disability of the City Manager by.such officer of the City who, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may execute such documents. Section 6. Authentication of Proceedings. The Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to furnish to the Underwriter and bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officer's custody and control • or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Section 7. Statement of Election. The principal amount of the Bonds being in excess of $1,000,000, the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed on behalf of the City to execute and file with the Internal Revenue Service a statement of election to issue its obligations in excess of $1,000,000 as provided by Section 103(b)(6)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and Section 1.103(b)(2)(v_i) of the Regulations promulgated thereunder. Attest: City Clerk - Joyce L. Wilde 0 Mayor - Donald L. Priebe The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor whose signature was attested by the City Clerk. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) i ' COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF RICHFIELD ) SS. I, Joyce L. Wilde, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on 1980, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and correct copy thereof, insofar as the same relates to the issuance and sale of $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (The S & M Company Project - Lyndale Hardware Co., Lessee, Series 1980, of the City. • W.TTNESS My hand as such City Clerk this day of 1980. Joyce L. Wilde City Clerk City of Richfield Hennepin County, Minnesota .J e Is 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: _:ii // Council Letter No. 408 Agenda November 24, 1980 Subject: Cable Television Franchising Ordinance First Reading Over the past year and one -half the city council of the City of Richfield, the Richfield Cable Television Advisory Committee, and the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) have been involved in the franchising process for cable tele- vision. The process has been a lengthy one with ample opportun- ity for imput by the citizens of the City of Richfield as well as the potential cable franchisees and other interested parties. Written documentation has been received from the city council from the potential franchisees in the form of applications, from the Cable Television Information Center as the consultant for the SWSCC, from the Richfield Cable Television Advisory Committee, and from the SWSCC. The SWSCC has passed a Resolution of Findings of Facts, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission which is attached to this council letter. The recommendation from the SWSCC is that each of the five cities involved in the franchising process should aware a cable commun- ication systems franchise to Minnesota Cable.by adopting the franchise ordinance submitted to it by the SWSCC. A full ordin- ance, including addendum with exhibits granting a franchise to Minnesota Cable Systems- Southwest, a Minnesota limited partner- ship, to operate and maintain a cable communications system in the city, setting forth conditions accompanying the grant of the franchise, providing for regulation and use of the system and prescribing penalties for the violation of its provisions is also included with this council letter. The city council has received so much communication and attended so many meetings concerning the cable television fran- chise that I am not sure it is necessary to further elaborate on this matter. It is important that the council carefully consider all of the input they have received over the past 18 months in their deliberation of a franchise award. The city Council Letter No. 408 -2- November 24, 1980 council should be reminded that it is necessary for four of the five communities in the SWSCC area to award to the same franchise applicant in order for any of the communities to proceed forward. The City of Richfield entered into the franchise process with the other four communities on the basis that better bids would be re- ceived by acting jointly rather than independently. I think that that promise has been realized in the excellent franchise applica- tions which were received. It is the opinion of the SWSCC and the city manager that one application, that of Minnesota Cable- Southwest, is better than the other proposals. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval of this ordinance, and direct it to be published in the Richfield Sun. Second reading of the ordinance will not occur until after approval of the ordinance has been obtained from the 0� Minnesota Cable Communications Board which may take 30 to 60 days. Gja �r Second reading of the ordinance and a public hearing on the ordin- (� 5 ance will be scheduled after the first of the year when that approval is obtained. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager is KN /eja cc: City Attorney I0 1 0 Ll RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECO11MENDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CATV STUDY COMMISSION (HEREINAFTER SWSCC) WHEREAS, the SWSCC is a joint powers organization formed by the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield (hereinafter called Cities) under the provisions of Minnesota Statute 471.59 and authorized to study and evaluate a company to receive a franchise for a Cable Communications System in the Cities; and, WHEREAS, based upon the authority granted to it, the SWSCC has, for some time, undertaken its responsibilities and is now prepared to recommend to each of the five Cities a company to be awarded a franchise pursuant to an ordinance recommended by the SWSCC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, at a regular meeting assembled of the SWSCC, that the SWSCC does hereby make the following: I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The members of SWSCC are five separate cities seeking to work together to have a single joint cable communications system because of the ad- vantages that may thereby be realized, including a potentially better cable communications system. B. The Cities have delegated to the SWSCC duties, responsibilities, and activities to assist them in the franchising process. However, each City is the "franchising authority" as defined by rules of the Minnesota Cable Commun- ications Board (MCCB). It is anticipated that each City will adopt an ordinance to award a franchise to the same company for a cable communications system. L 0 �I u C. During the past two (2) years the SWSCC has assisted the Cities in the franchising process. It has developed an invitation for applications, pre- liminary ordinance, conducted public meetings, reviewed proposals, had discus- sions with consultants, received comments from the public and other interested groups and fullfilled the requirements of the MCCB. The Cities have been in- cluded in this process. D. The awarding of a franchise, by ordinance, for a cable communications system is not the award of a contract, or a competitive bidding process, subject to the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law applicable to Minnesota Cities. The franchising process is governed specifically by Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and the Rules of the MCCB. E. A cable communications system is exceedingly complex and technical. It is nc,t -_:=t specifications. Consequently, the SWSCC has und_; taken to provide a process which recognizes this fact, but, which requires that the technical standards of the MCCB are met and that certain desired per- formance characteristics be included in the applicants' proposals. The process allows the standards and desired characteristics and to make a full presentation of its proposal. It is recognized that judgment and discretion are required in making a recommendation because the highly technical nature of the applications make a point by point comparison impossible. The principal elements used in formulating and arriving at a recommendation by the SWSCC include the following: 1. A cable service territory (CST), that includes all of the Cities, has been approved by MCCB. An Advisory Commission of each City has met. Each City has evaluated and has determined the need for a cable communications system and determined to proceed with the franchising process. -2- Needs assessments of the Cities have been made part of the process. 2. The SWSCC hired Anita Benda and the Cable Television Inform- ation Center (hereinafter together called the Cable Consultants) to advise it in various aspects of the cable communications system. Cable Consultants have provided assistance and advice in the preparation of an invitation for applications and, thereafter, in evaluating proposals made in response to the invitation for applications. 3. Certain evaluation criteria were enumerated in the invitation for applications. These criteria are included in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto. 4. A lobbyist policy was adopted by each of the Cities as well as the SWSCC, and was distributed to each applicant. The purpose of the lobbyist policy was to insure fairness in the proceedings. It is the judgment of the SWSCC that these policies afforded all persons a fair opportunity to be heard, to present their viewpoints, and to object to any of the proceedings. 5. In response to the invitation for applications, three appli- cants submitted proposals detailing the individual methods of each ap- licant to develop, operate and maintain a cable communications system to serve the Cities. The applicants who made proposals were Teleprompter of Southwest Hennepin County, Inc., (hereinafter Teleprompter), Northern Cablevision, Inc., (hereinafter Northern), and Minnesota Cablesystems Southwest, a Minnesota Limited Partnership (hereinafter Minnesota Cable). 6. On June 16, 1980, at the time the proposals were received, a review process was initiated by the SWSCC to comply with the require- ments of MCCB. Further, it was the consensus of the SWSCC, prior to the time the proposals were received, to use Evaluation Categories & Elements 5910 to aid in its review of the proposals presented to it at its meeting of June 0 16, 1980. 7. All organizations and individuals interested in participat- ing in the process had an opportunity to do so and meeting notices were regularly sent to those who requested such notices.. 8. In the months of August and early September, 1980, each City, as a franchising authority, conducted a public hearing, in accord- ance with the Rules of MCCB. SWSCC recommended that each hearing include consideration of the following: a. Each applicant's technical ability, financial condition, legal qualification, and character. b. Each applicant's plans for constructing and operating the cable communications system, including specific consideration of all sections of the area to be served. --ach applicant's proposal comply with the MCCB's • Franchise Standards. d. That each applicant's proposal be non - exclusive. 9. SWSCC conducted a public meeting on September 24, 1980. Representatives from each City, as well as interested citizens were present The applicants made presentations and others were afforded an opportunity to be heard. 10. The Cable Consultants prepared a preliminary report, dated September 4, 1980. This report included questions of each applicant. All applicants responded to the questions and the Cable Consultants pre- pared a final report, dated October 17, 1980. 11. On October 17, 1980, the SWSCC distributed the final report and the following documents to its members and to each City: a. Eden Prairie City Council Minutes, dated September 2, 1980; -4- b. Edina City Council Minutes, dated August 18, 1980; C. Hopkins City Council Minutes, dated August 19, 1980; d. Minnetonka City Council Minutes,'dated August 25, 1980; e. Richfield City Council Minutes, dated August 25, 1980; f. Southwest Suburban School's Cable Commission Report, dated October 17, 1980; g. Minnesota Interactive Cable Association (MICA) Report, dated 1980; h. Staff Report regarding Track Records of Applicants. 12. On October 22, 1980, the SWSCC conducted a meeting to consider the final report of the Consultants. At that meeting, the Chairman described the proceedings of prior meetings and how the meeting would be conducted. He asked the SWSCC members, and any others in the audience, to comment or to point out any objections to all or anv . of the proceedings before he continued with the meeting. There were no objections made at that time. Each applicant was then permitted to make any final comments if desired. Further, other interested parties who had submitted recommendations or written comments, were afforded a similar opportunity. The Cable Consultants then discussed their final report. Each applicant agreed, at that time, to waive objections to specific deviations, identified as not material by the Cable Consultants. 13. The SWSCC concluded that each proposal was in compliance with the invitation for applications and that any deviations were not substan- tive and can be dealt with in a manner consistant with the invitation for applications. 14. At the meeting of SWSCC on October 22, 1980, the SWSCC, 0 after having reviewed the proposals of each of the applicants, the reports -5- I Aand recommendations submitted to them, as well as all oral and written testimony, proceeded to instruct its attorney to prepare proposed findings supporting the selection of Minnesota Cable as the recommended franchisee and to incorporate the salient features of that applicant's proposal into a Final Ordinance to be reviewed and acted upon by the SWSCC at a meeting to be held on November 12, 1980. 15. As to certain specific questions raised during the evaluation of the proposals, to the extent these findings have not otherwise addressed them, the SWSCC makes the following findings: a. The invitation for applications permitted each applicant to state its estimate of the amount of cable which would be required to be installed underground. Each applicant did this and the estimates among them were The cl,ljC�-, a,tlmates of applicants • will differ on this subject as well as in many other aspects of the appli- cation. In any event, the successful applicant will be required to comply with the Franchise as to undergrounding and all other requirements of the Franchise. More undergrounding will, obviously, be more costly whichever applicant installs it. The SWSCC finds that the cost of under- grounding is within the financial capabilities of each applicant. Also, initial rates will be those stated by the applicants. Applicants will have to stand by its rates. But, ultimately, capital costs will be factored into the rates of any sucessful applicant. Consequently, the SWSCC finds that the differences in the estimates of the amount of undergrounding should not be a controlling factor-An making a recommendation as to the preferred applicant. A question has also been raised regarding the com- pliance of Minnesota Cable with the Preliminary Franchise Ordinance. • U SWSCC finds Minnesota Cable will construct underground where it is a City requirement, i.e. where the Franchise Ordinance requires undergrounding. b. The method used by the Cable Consultants, to analyze and their conclusions about certain financial data contained in the proposal of Minnesota Cable was objected to by representatives of Northern. Also, Northern submitted to the SWSCC a report of its accounting firm to substan- tiate Northern's objection. The Cable Consultants had their financial expert at the meeting of SWSCC on October 22, 1980, to respond to this objection. Also, Minnesota Cable submitted its written comments to the SWSCC that the SWSCC concludes that the objections raised are not deter- minative and should not be a controlling facter in making a recommendation as to the preferred applicant or to the selection of Minnesota Cable. C. A question was raised by Northern representatives concernin an objection made by a Richfield member of the SWSCC about a Northern representative. At the SWSCC meeting on October 22, 1980, the member advised the Commission that her complaint should not be pursued, that it should not reflect on the judgment of the other commission members and further, that it would not affect her judgment. The SWSCC then asked Northern whether the withdrawal of the SWSCC letter would be satisfactory. Northern advised the SWSCC that a withdrawal by the Commission of its letter would clear the record and would satisfy Northern. Thereafter, the SWSCC withdrew the letter. The SWSCC finds that the making of the complaint and its withdrawal were not a factor in the decision as to the selection of an applicant. d. The report of the Minnesota Interactive Cable Association, dated 1980, though distributed to the members of the SWSCC for review, -7- is not an official document of the endorsed by the SWSCC, and has not recommendation. The issues raised by the Cable Consultants in their investigation of applicants' Track that information. SWSCC, has not been and is not been used by the SWSCC in making its in the MICA report were also analyzed ^eports and by staff members in their Records. SWSCC used these sources for e. The Cable Consultants informed the SWSCC that there was a question as to whether Minnesota Cable could provide a quality signal on Channel 5 and 6 for some subscribers on the Universal Tier. All applicants spoke to this question. The SWSCC concludes that there are a number of methods by which Minnesota Cable could provide a quality signal on Channel 6 in a manner consistent with Minnesota Cable's proposal and without any ability, financial condition, legal qualification and character to be awarded a franchise for a cable communications system by each City. 17. The SWSCC finds that Minnesota Cable's plans for constructing and operating a cable communications system, within each City, are complete and in conformance with the invitation for applications. 18. The SWSCC finds that, after having reviewed the Rules of MCCB, both those applicable at the time the proposals were submitted, and those now applicable, that the proposal of Minnesota Cable is in com- pliance with the Franchise Standards contained in the MCCB Rules. 19. The SWSCC finds that the evaluation criteria in Exhibit "A" is important to aid in the determination of Minnesota Cable, and has con- sidered these criteria together with the recommendations of the Cable deviation from its invitation for applications. 16. the SWSCC finds that Minnesota Cable has the technical ability, financial condition, legal qualification and character to be awarded a franchise for a cable communications system by each City. 17. The SWSCC finds that Minnesota Cable's plans for constructing and operating a cable communications system, within each City, are complete and in conformance with the invitation for applications. 18. The SWSCC finds that, after having reviewed the Rules of MCCB, both those applicable at the time the proposals were submitted, and those now applicable, that the proposal of Minnesota Cable is in com- pliance with the Franchise Standards contained in the MCCB Rules. 19. The SWSCC finds that the evaluation criteria in Exhibit "A" is important to aid in the determination of Minnesota Cable, and has con- sidered these criteria together with the recommendations of the Cable i 10 Consultants in the selection of Minnesota Cable. 20. The SWSCC has considered the expressed preference of the Southwest Suburban Schools Cable Commission and finds that it supports the selection of Minnesota Cable, as the applicant, to be awarded a franchise by each City. 21. The SWSCC has considered the evaluation given to it by its Richfield members, on October 22, 1980, Exhibit "B ", and finds that this evaluation was prepared according to the Evaluation Categories & Elements given to the SWSCC on June 16, 1980. The weights given to each applicant, in this evaluation were considered in the selection of a recommended applicant to be awarded a franchise by each City. 22. The SWSCC has reviewed a final proposed ordinance, together with a proposed acceptance prepared by its legal counsel. The SWSCC finds these zo oe in compiiance with all applicable rules of the MCCB and in d form that will tend to provide uniformity among the Cities. 23. It is the opinion of the SWSCC that an exact comparison of the proposals of the applicants is not possible and that there may be varying judgments as to the merit of the proposals. Based on all of the evidence and considerations involved, it is the judgment of the S41SCC that Minnesota Cable has the best proposal and that a cable communications system franchise should be awarded to Minnesota Cable by each of its member Cities. II. RECOMMENDATION A. Each City award a Cable Communications System Franchise to Minnesota Cable by adopting the franchise ordinance submitted to it by the SWSCC. 10 0 r B. Each City submit the franchise granted by it to the MCCB for confirm - ation pursuant to Rule 4 MCAR 4.14OE2. Motion by seconded by Ayes , Nays EDEN PRAIRIE By:_ CV1IIm By:- HOPKINS By: MINNETONKA By: f w • Dated: ATTEST: RICHFIELD By: By: Kenneth Rosland, Secretary By: Wayne Courtney, Chairman 0 l SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT ATTACHMENT A 0 0 • A -11 from INVITATION FOR APPLICAITTS- -March 17, 1980 Evaluation Criteria. In general, applicants will be rated according to the following criteria: • initial service area; • line extension policy; • • construction timetable; • plans for access programming support; • local origination programming and resources - plans; • two -way services; • technical standards; and • rates. Applicants will not be judged on the order in which communities will be constructed and provided service. Priority will be given to the applicant: • providing t' .,,,,,r reasonable orYo•ticlnn _ "licy; • proposing the shortest realistic timetable for serving the greatest number of people in the initial service area; • proposing the most comprehensive offer of services provided that such offering does not exceed the financial capability of the applicant to construct and operate its proposed cable com- munications system for the cities; • proposing to provide superior programming (broadcast and non - broadcast), the most reasonable subscriber rates, an excellent maintenance plan and the widest range of services to the sub - scribers; • showing evidence of providing sufficient, satisfactory, and dependable services to other communities and a management back- ground that gives evidence of excellent construction practices, ability to meet schedules, good planning and marketing prac- tices, a history of satisfied customers and good community re- lations; and • proposing discounted rates for senior citizens and homebound individuals. SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT ATTACHMENT B • F- L---j * Cn H (n U G C G C C G G ip � i t t t i i -� rt L< Q 0 n ro ro In CA O C ro I N -► rr Q r* = Cl n n r n 0 r tT7 G p N ~ � {r�r (N fni r�� ~ ► n � 00 rr N• t ::3 C O Cj �7 rt 0 r- rnrZ�7 O n ►-3 o o O ~ H- o '17 r- rt (D Vi ►� r rt (D rt n H 'i7 H, N V? � o N � Ro (n O (D dO rCj G n do n N 7 r"r 3 b n 0 0 0 � O wk r rt o ° ::3 n n c ri n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Z y-3 Z Z r � f t• q [�•l1• N 5 (DD fv 0 m rr n NF* rr Cn H y C I G C G C C G G i t t t i i -� 0-IjC GJN ro ro In CA O C ro I N -► N Cl Cn H y r+ 0 rt n H C ro GO b In CA O ro M!Z nno c m0 0 r Hz° <�: N � � iZ rte* r�r can � 00 rr N• r• to tom• O rnrZ�7 O n ►-3 o o rt (D Vi M H 'i7 N V? � o � .tom (n O (D dO rCj . r- n 7 ~ N 0 K b n 0 0 0 � rr rt o ° rt ti ri n Pr N- ri C r't O ft �G3 to n rr co Bi co tD 0 a N 1-3 (D ri O tD n (D �< n c� n• 0 V) ft U) z 0 n o � n (D Cn b rt n r Fr J K it Dom (vo. K n O �3 rt w►\-3 0 N ro n rr 0 pi C `< ::5 G b O rt_ `i r� 1< O l; G(D O cr, O O 0< cn H. 0 pOcDO pOCUn r0r n o n I G' rr (D tn 0 Cn On N 0 Win • (D °z' 0 �ci° to �r ft f i rr l�• �, y r+ 0 n H C ro GO b In CA O f i rr l�• �, O y r+ 0 n H C ro GO b m C ro M!Z by Mco m0 Hz° � N � 00 �� r. rnrZ�7 O n ►-3 0 o nZ:71 3 O H 'i7 N V? H O O y co O : C7 O y n H C GO b m C ro by SSA i i t K n c� n I 0 �i • 'I E►S Or �r `J0 rt Fl n� o� rt (D n Hti N 0O O K 2+ dO do (D (D n �t (D (nn In rt 0O W �D 0 0. Nrt N \I-' 0 rt n 0 0 D N N �-1 Fl- O 0 0 Z �(pp b rt O K O ri rD iw r ft W W v cn Vol LO U) N � C � o � F_ A� rt rt tom• (D (D 3 (D f O 0 O O O O 'n � to �(rpp� rr n �8 rt ((DD O = fi Fes-+• (D '� O t(Di !-� rt Fi rt PI r't 13 Ct (D (D � (fin O can �•'z7 0 M n K ti' O ar-� °M �(D rtC( (D ti (nom (D om CD p 0 3 (n N (D M rt t-I ID (D 0 1 �'+ N rt ft3 11 P71 ftj ►�+CC CCCC � �-� O OJrOv 0 (D • l S 40 s • SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT ATTACHMENT C wom 11 t M E M O R A N D U M L_] TO: MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION FROM: KEN ROSLAND, SECRETARY /TREASURER SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT C TO RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT DATE OF MEMO: 13 NOVEMBER 1980 At its 12 November 1980 meeting, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commis- sion approved its Resolution of Findings of Fact and authorized Chairman C. Wayne Courtney to forward these Findings and other materials to the City Councils. Also at this meeting, the Commission approved the addition of another attachment to the Findings (ATTACHMENT Cr attached). The purpose of ATTACHMENT C is to show that the Commission indeed reviewed and approved the rankings of the Evaluation Categories & Elements. These Evaluation Categories & Elements and rankings make up some of the information the Commission used to make its decision to recommend Minnesota CableSystems as the grantee for the Southwest CST. Attached to this memorandum is the portion of the 16 June 1980 Com- mission Minutes related to the explanation, dis,_ "on, and appro�--- the rankings of the Evaluation Categories & Elements. Attached also is the memorandum from Anita Benda (10 June 1980) which enumerates the Evaluation Categories & Elements. While these Minutes show the Commission to have reached consensus on the acceptance of the rankings, The Commission formally adopted these rankings at its 22 October 1980 meeting (as pointed out by Paul Redpath at the 12 November 1980 meeting). A B S T R A C T O F M I N U T E S SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION 16 JUNE 1980 1. DISCUSSION: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION CRITER.IA AND PRIORITIES FOR JIDGIG APPLICANTS PROPOSALS ADDEN- DUM B Anita Benda introduced ADDENDUM B as" a replacement for ADDEN- DUM D (14 May 1980 MINUTES). Ms. Benda explained that the Evaluation Categories & Elements found in ADDENDUMI B should be used by all evaluators of the proposals. This includes the Cable Television Information Center, Anita Benda, her- self, the Southwest Schools Cable Commission, the companies, public and special interest groups, local cable advisory committees, and the Commission and city councils. Ms. Benda went on to encourage the Commission to discuss and to understand these categories and elements -- to be sure these categories and elements make sense. Dr. Slaton men- tioned will have to rely heavily upon outside evaluators in the technical areas of the proposals. Ms. Benda replied that CTIC will provide thorough technical evaluations. Dr Slaton then suggested that the Commission devise a report which shows the Evaluation Categories & Elements and their relative importances. Mr. Courtney agreed, stating that this would show the city councils where the Commission stands on these evaluation issues. This way the city councils and local advisory committees could more clearly react to the Commission's thoughts. Karl Nollenberger then offered the following ranking guide which was worked out by the Richfield city council and local advisory committee: (PLEASE REFER TO ADDENDUM B.) Highest priority (most desirable) 1 6 2 8 3 9 Medium priority • 4 7 5 10 n U Medium to Low priority 11 16 12 17 13 18 14 19 15 Low priority 20 Mr. Nollenberger explained the rationale for the above list. The most important aspect of cable to the subscribers must certainly be the services provided by the networks. When one looks at the services categories & elements, one sees ser- vices that seem to be aimed at broad markets and at smaller markets. The services aimed at broad markets, thus serving more people more of the time, are items 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9. Items 4, 5, 7, and 10 are aimed at smaller audiences, and, should therefore carry less weight in the decision to choose a company. The remaining Evaluation Categories & Elements, 11 -20, -receive less weight than those in the Services area because the'` Technical and Financial items simply enable the systems to perform the services promised in the proposals. The Commission should seriously consider the Technical and Financial items when these items do not support the sere% ��� promised. Mr. Nollenberger further explained that the Richfield city council and local advisory committee assigned rough per- centages of weight to the Evaluation Categories & Elements; Highest priority 40 per cent ) 2/3 weight Medium priority 25 ) Medium to Low priority 32 X1 /3 weight Low priority 3 100 per cent 3/3 weight Paul Redpath agreed with Mr. Nollenberger's weights and re- minded the Cor.,mission that Eden Prairie, mindful of its lower density, expects to be cabled after the other four communities. Jim Miller agreed with Mr. Nollenberger's report adding that once the Cormission, councils, and other interested parties read over the proposals, a high degree of unity may orevail. Juanita Collins reminded the Commission that the track records of the companies in other markets is extremely important especially in the areas of system maintenance, reliability, and repair. Chairman Courtney recalled that the staff is doing such record checks and will present an interim report at the-July Commission meeting. Ken Ro_ —'_= -grCC� 77--h Mr. Nollenberger' s r .port leading Chairman Courtney to announce a consensus of the Commission. • In response to Karl Nollenberger's question, Adrian Herbst• explained that if consensus among Commission members is not reached regarding their recommendation for one company, the process is not stopped. Only a plurality is required. However, if more than one city council does not adopt the franchise ordinance naming the recommended company, we must begin again with applications for new cable service ter- ritories. The present southwest Hennepin county CST was applied for in November 1978. Anita Benda advised the Commission to view the proposals in terms of these Evaluation Categories & Elements and not of companies. r TO: . FROM: SUBJECT: -DATE: SGISCC f-TNUTES 616, 80 ADDENDUM TR Southwest Suburban CATV Study Commission Members Anita $enda /The Cable Television Information Center Judging Cable Applicants'. Proposals June 10, 1980 At the May 14, 1980 meeting, we discussed -how applicants' proposals will be judged by The Commission. Members discussed and dismissed> the idea of applying a numerical ratings system to the criteria and priorities listed in The Invitation for Application. A memo distributed at this meetin ( "Elements of Evaluation Criteria ") listed various elements of each criterion and priority. This list was not adequate to serve as a basis of a Commission discussion of the relative importance of the criteria and priorities. Following is a list of evaluation categories and elements thet will likely be used by CTIC in its written report to The Commission. It is important to note that all of The Commission's criteria and priorities listed in The Invitation are included in these categories. This is presented in hopes that the listing will serve as a better tool for the discussion at your June 16 meeting of issues prior to the discussion of applicants' proposals. As we discussed at the May meeting, devising a rigid numerical rating for each category is not recommended. The result of your June 16 discussion, then, may be only that each Co:- mission member knows how other members feel regarding the relative importance of the categories. After The Commission's discussion of issues, each city member should report on how their individual city council will be involved in the evaluation process (reactivation of citizen advisory committees, discussion at regular or special council meetings, etc.). To quote from an April 8, 1980 memo, "Having The five councils accept The Commission's recommendation will depend upon the cities' confidence in that recommendation. Therefore, it is important that the basis of The Commission's recommendation is understood by the city councils." Evaluation Categories & Elements Services Broadcast Signal Carriage (independent stations, specialty 1. stations, late -night carriage) Special Interest .Programming (number of hours, types of • 2. programming) Automated Programming (national services, locally- programmed 3. services, equipment & commitments to program) Local Ori;ination (equipment, staff, budget, programming y, plans, self - support) - _2- •� Access Support (channels, equipment, maintenance, staff, budget, allowance for growth) operating policies, promotion, relation- 05. ship to nonprofit corporation, universal service, community channels) Pay Services (number, type, lockout device, choice related 66 ' to tiers) Interactive Services (home alarm, device for reducing false ], alarms, opinion polling, data retrieval) 3. Tiered Structures (creation of choice, appropriateness) 9, FM, Audio & Shortwave Services (types) Service to Institutions (rates for installation & service, 10, video origination points) Technical System Concept (rub number, use and interconnection) distribution 11� system, design) System Engineering 3� Channel capacity (initially activated channels, upstream/ • -""� �= :._.y�r._,._. ��..".. , dt:l, narro7Casti:.) System Performance (technical standards) Service Security (pay security, tiering security) Headend and ImQortation Signals (plans for importing signals) System Interconnect (among _5 cities, Twin Cities area) Institutional Service (design for accommodating video) audio, 13 • and data transmissions among institutions) Subscriber Equipment (address ability -- remote control of 14, connections & pay services, data retrieval, interactive services, real time interactive services) Ancillary Services (FM service quality, emergency override 15. and channel, hole alarm) Construction Plans (initial coverage area, extension policy, 16. timetable) . Reliability, Maintenance & Repair (response to service calls, 17. system testing & maintenance, standby power) Financial 0. 13, Financial Goal (reasonableness, ability to meet goal) 19� System Financing (guarantees for financing, guarantee of parent company) 20 Rates stability and accountability over time (ADDED BY KARL NOLLENBERCER) 40 w 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. 407 Agenda November 24, 1980 Subjecy: Sheridan Park Outdoor Skating Rink Mr. Dave Burris, 6445 Vincent Avenue will be present at the November 24, 1980 city council meeting concerning the Sheridan Park outdoor skating rink. Mr. Burris represents some neighbors in reference to the closing of the Sheridan Park rink. The city council may recall that you decided to close ice skating rinks at Washington, Memorial and Sheridan Parks and a hockey rink at Madison Park for the 1980 -81 skating season. In order to refresh the council member's memories, a copy of Council Memorandum No. 237 and Council Memorandum No. 214 concerning the closing of the outdoor skating rinks are attached to this council letter. The four rinks were closed after recomm- endation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to the city council that the attendance figures from the winter warming house attendant records were extremely low over the past five years. The four rinks suggested for closing are the lowest attendance rinks in the community. During the 19.79 -80 skating season, the Sheridan Park rink averaged,2< persons during the ,y> day, and 2-1' persons during the evening hours. Since the time of the council decision it was discovered that Sheridan School does make utilization of the rink during the school hours for part of their physical education classes. This is a common practice for elementary schools, such as the fact that Lincoln Hills School uses Donaldson Park for ice skating for some of its classes. Donaldson Park is approximately six short blocks away from Lincoln Hills School. The school liaison to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission was apparently unaware of the use by Sheridan School of the ice skating rink at Sheridan Park. The alternatives for use of skating rinks for the Sheridan Parks area are the skating rink at Madison Park or the skating rink and hockey rink at Jefferson Park. Jefferson Park is two long blocks south of Sheridan Park, while Madison Park is eight short blocks east and two long blocks north of Sheridan Park. While Jefferson Park is located south of 66th Street, there are traffic signals at Vincent Avenue and Sheridan Avenue which allow for controlled intersection crossing of 66th Street. Sheridan School is approx- 0 i Council Letter No. 407 -2- November 24, 1980 mately two long blocks and one short block away from Jefferson Park. At the time of closing of the four park ice skating rinks the city council was made aware that the cost savings of approx- imately $7,000 in out -of- pocket costs for the closing of the four skating rinks would be used to expand existing programs such as "programs in the park" and to help provide new programs such as a bicycle motocross track, a community band or theater company. The city staff has been working on these alternate adult recre- ation programs. The cost of approximately $2,000 to open Sheri - dan Park would be off -set against any increase in the adult recre- ational program. In addition, the cost of maintenance for Sheri- dan Park would be approximately $1,000 for the skating season. Since the city crews would be working on other capital improvement program priorities in lieu of Sheridan Park, the reopening Of the Sheridan Park skating rink would cost the general fund of the city approximately $1,000. The total net cost of $3,000 in the general fund would have to be off -set against other priorities. With Jefferson Park located only two blocks away from Sher- idan Park, and with controlled intersections on 66th Street, it seems that alternative skating facilities are adequate in this neighborhood. Due to time considerations, the city council should indicate to the staff any desire to change its decision on the closing of the skating rink at Sheridan Park. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Services Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager October 17, 1980 Council Memorandum No. 237 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Closing of Outdoor Skating Rinks I On Monday, October 13, 1980, the city council took action _ whereby general skating would not be provided at Washington Park, Memorial Park and Sheridan Park and hockey would not be provided at Madison Park for the 1980 -81 winter season. This decision was based on data collected over the years and recomm- endations from the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and the city staff. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide some background information and a summary of data collection related to the closing of these outdoor rinks. The following chart will indicate the location of skating rinks from 1970/71 - 1979/80. It is the responsibility of the Community Services Department to build and maintain these areas. Maintenance includes the ice sheet, related facilities such as hockey boards and lighting, the building if one is provided. The city also staffs the buildings that are part of the outdoor skating program. The attached map denotes these site locations. OUTDOOR SKATING RINKS 1970 -1980 Location '71 '72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78 '79 Adams Hill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Augsburg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* Christian Park 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* Donaldson 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2* �* 2* 2* Fairwood 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 1 j Jefferson 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* -2- Location '71 172 '73 '74 175 '76 '77 '78 179 Madison Park 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* Memorial New Ford Town 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* Nicollet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Roosevelt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* '* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* 1* Sheridan Taft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* * ?* 2* 2* 2* 2* Washington 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Garfield 1 1 1 _ Rich Acres Fremnt 1 1 1 Wood Lake Sch. 1 1 1 Centennial School 1 1 1 Lyndale Field _ 1 1 1 _ _. __.. _ 19 21 26 28 28 26 26 26 25 *Denotes Hockey Rinks available The maintenance cost breakdown for skating and hockey rinks for the 1979 -80 outdoor skating season is attached. It is very difficult with our present system to give an actual cost per site. However, an average figure could be used, keeping in mind that actual cost would vary because of size differences and weather ._ at each site. The average cost per site for skating rinks would be $999 ($15,990.48 : 16), and for hockey rinks it would be $2,274 ($22,742.98 10). As mentioned in Council Memorandum No. 214, maintenance and administrative costs would not present immediate cost savings to the city as a whole, but would be reassigned to other programs, projects and priorities. The actual cost savings of approximately $6,000- $7,000, would be used to expand existing programs such as "Programs in the Park" and to help provide new programs such as a bicycle motocross track, a community band, or theatre company. Mr. Dick Blevins expressed concern about closing of the Sheridan Park rink because of its use by pupils of-Sheridan School. Bob Collison, a member of the Park and-Recreation Comm- ission, and a school district employee, was in attendance at the meetings when recommendations were made for closing of the three rinks, and did not see any problems with the recommendation for -3- for closing of the three sites mentioned. For additional informational purposes, the attendance records for the years 1975 -1980 are also attached. Res ectfully submitted, D Karl Nollenberger City Manager IAN /eja cc: Community Services Director I* • u r� LJ 9 9 1979 -30 SKATING SEASON LABOR & EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR SKATING RINKS Reporting Period Labor Sep. 23 6 hours - $ 45.23 Oct 20 Oct 21 29 hours - 221.75 Nov. 17 Nov. 18 399 hours - 3,061.97 Deg. 31 Year to Date 894 hours - 7,996.28 Aug. 23, 1980 Total 1328 hours $11,325.73 Total Labor and Equipment - $15,990.48 Equipment 6 hours - $ 13.35 21 hours - 50.20 20'9.50 hours - 1,295.58 875 hours - 3,305.62 1,171.5 hours $4,664.75 1979 -80 SKATING SEASON LABOR & EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR HOCKEY RINKS Reporting Period Labor Sep. 23 232 hours $ 1,777.51 Oct. 20 Oct 21 249 hours 1,857.03 Nov. 17 Nov. 18 619 hours 4,653.51 Dec. 31 Year to Date 1,041 hours 8,795.48 Total 2,141 hours $17,083.53 Total Labor and Equipment - $22,742.98 Equipment 130 hours $ 312.20 159 hours 322.70 361 hours 1,303.01 1,118 hours 3,721.54 1,763 hours $5,659.45 lu •vr>M w .•rm r � w •ws w uvrw aw w. F s F r QI _ t-1 [- —0 1 , , F s F r QI _ t-1 [- —0 - '•ice:_ -' -1 - -;`�; _';-_ ��- =.. - -_ = ,�'.`_ -: �� ,.,... =7 - n..... !r - —. tz '—�. G W i 1' � �l' � ��_ ®�"�4•�'�" --,i -- - —' it ,v .a.v» . Jam— ..._i._ - — ^L • `'�{ ��c - -r �= ; � il\ .: `d�; m. • : F : : t : L : t it 1 CL ao ., a �. • O Q a YW f it V.• .•.ea. , t: S F - '•ice:_ -' -1 - -;`�; _';-_ ��- =.. - -_ = ,�'.`_ -: �� ,.,... =7 - n..... !r - —. tz '—�. G W i 1' � �l' � ��_ ®�"�4•�'�" --,i -- - —' it ,v .a.v» . Jam— ..._i._ - — ^L • `'�{ ��c - -r �= ; � il\ .: `d�; m. • : F : : t : L : t it 1 W1 PARK Adams Hill Augsburg Donaldson Fairwood Jefferson Madison Sheridan Wood Lake • Christian Memorial New Ford Town Nicollet a Roosevelt Taft Washington Centennial 1975 -1976 WINTER WARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURES 11328, 49 40 36 53 52 53 55 42 36 55 34 35 45 38 55 55 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE 21 43 81 56 58 46 20 ) 11 44 40 34 38 60 54 18 19 TOTAL 1020 1736 2931 3011 3086 2460 1146 500 1598 2236 1151 1343 2718 2056 988 1060 1976 -1977 WINTER WARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURE PARK DAYS AVERAGE ATTENDANCE TOTAL Adams Hill 21 15 310 Augsburg 38 26 981 Donaldson 36 33 1178 Fairwood 31 31 969 Jefferson 35 36 1258 Madison 36 27 954 Sheridan 14 269 Christian 32 38 1211 Memorial 21 36 755 New Ford Town 37 30 1094 Nicollet 28 21 583 Roosevelt 31 39 1209 Taft 36 30 1069 Washington 24 20 483 0 • 10 1978 -1979 WINTER WARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURES r1 DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS TOTAL AV. EVEN. PARK OPEN ATTENDANCE T7 L1tD" 10E OPEN ATTEND. ATTENDANC Adams Hill 50 471 9 47 616 13 Augsburg 50 575 12 45 405 9 Donaldson 48 726 15 41 634 16 Fairwood 50 804 16 46 389 9 Jefferson 47 821 18 43 429 10 Madison 49 870 17 41 389 10 Sheridan 43 398 41 179 5 Christian 46 714 16 36 491 14 Memorial 47 387 9 43 186 5 Nicollet 35 350 10 29 281 10 • New Ford Town 49 453 9 43 352 8 Roosevelt 48 809 17 44 938 21 Taft 46 689 15 42 512 13 Washington 36 368 10 33 130 4 r1 1979 -1980 WINTER WARMING HOUSE AVERAGE ATTENDANCE FIGURES * i TOTAL AV. EVEN. 380 1,151 1,245 1,103 1,891 436 988 1,489 657 150 686 978 1,348 531 * Because of poor weather conditions and attendant reporting records, the actual number of days open is less than previous seasons. 11 26 30 27 15 33 15 17 2010 21 28 15 • DAYS TOTAL AV. DAILY EVENINGS PARK OPE ^! ATTENDANCE ATTENDA ^,CE OPEN Adams Hill 14 163 12 34 Augsburg 19 365 19 45 Donaldson 18 304 17 41 Fairwood 21 519 25 41 Jefferson 17 624 �v 37 49 Magison 27 259 10 30 Sheridan 19 371 f?0'-7 ? 48 Christian 19 637 34 45 Memorial 19 233 12 45 Nicollet 6 77 13 9 New Ford Town 17 200 12 34 Roosevelt 21 330 16 47 Taft 20 527 26 48 Washington 17 225 13 36 i TOTAL AV. EVEN. 380 1,151 1,245 1,103 1,891 436 988 1,489 657 150 686 978 1,348 531 * Because of poor weather conditions and attendant reporting records, the actual number of days open is less than previous seasons. 11 26 30 27 15 33 15 17 2010 21 28 15 • l� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager September 23, 1980 Council Memorandum No. 214 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Outdoor Skating Rinks On June 4, 1930, the city council had a goal setting meeting to discuss various areas of concern and interest to the council members. One of the items mentioned at that time was the outdoor skating program. At the present time the city has 16 general skating rinks and 9 hockey rinks. Weather permitting the season is typically mid - December to mid - February, - a period of approximately 8 -10 weeks. Council members indicated that by observation the attendance at the outdoor facilities appears to be decreas- ing and perhaps the program should be examined for the purpose of reducing the program. The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission was expressing similar concerns at about this same time. Staff did some preliminary research into data collected over the last few years. Attendance figures were presented to the Commission at the June 10, 1980 meeting. At that time the Commission members felt the outdoor skating program should receive further study in light of declining attendance, increasing costs to provide the program, and alternate demands for time and money for other programs. The Commission action of June 10, 1980, was: "the Park and Recreation Commission goes on record as concerned about continuing loss of ice skating activity in the winter skating program and requests the staff to make specific recommendations for realignment of the skating program beginning with the 1980/81 season with such recommendations to be brought back to the Park and Recreation Commission. Motion carried." In June and July the revised 1980 and proposed 1981 operating budgets were being prepared. Preparation of the budget included a status quo calculation for outdoor skating. At about this same time the 1980 census figures were becoming available and indications were that Richfield realized an approximate 20% population decline. Additional data such as cost of providing attendants at a warming house and an estimate of utility costs for the winter months was assembled by staff and presented to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission at the August 12, 1980 meeting. The data was assembled for the three rinks with the indication of the lowest attendance. These three sites were Washington Park, vicinity of 76th Street and 18th Avenue South; Memorial Park, vicinity of 68th Street and Portland Avenue South and Sheridan Park, vicinity of 65th Street and Upton Avenue South. A city map indicating the present location of these three sites in red and other sites in yellow is attached. Also attached is a copy of the data summary sheet for the three sites. W. C Council Memorandum No. 214 —2— September 23, 1980 The cost factors were limited to the attendance and utilities in that these could be immediate cost savings. Maintenance and administrative costs were not included in the summary as these aspects; i.e., labor and equipment which quickly convert to dollars, could be reassigned to other programs, projects and priorities and would not present immediate cost savings to the city as a whole. One maintenance factor that was considered was the cost of installing, maintaining and removing hockey facilities. The most costly site is the Madison Park hockey rink which calls for manual installation and removal of poles, wiring and boards. The Commission discussed the fact that the outdoor skating program has long been a traditional program in the city. Many people view the program as one where the family walk through the snowy evening to the local skating rink, but discussion throughout the country has indicated that skating is no longer a family activity and generally access to a facility is by vehicle in today's mobile society. The outdoor skating season is also in competion with the indoor skating season. Many skaters today will have separate equipment for indoor and outdoor ice. Data indicates'a reduced attendance figure without separating general skating and 'hockey attendance at those sites providing both facilities. The organized hockey, Richfield Hockey Association, has continued to reduce its request for outdoor hockey time. Other programs such as skiing appear to have increased attendance indicating that choices for winter activities are increasing and participants are mobile enough to make such choices. 1J • The Commission had extensive discussion related to the possibility of recommending a reduction in the number of rinks. Using the 20" reduction in population as a basis for reducing the number of rinks, about 3 rinks or sites could be eliminated. Using a percentage based on attendance decline, 3 -4 rinks or sites could be eliminated. While all of these alternatives that might serve as a basis for reducing the program, coupled with the ever increasing demand for services on a decreasing financial picture for the city, the Commission expressed great concern about notifying the public who typically seem to take the stand that something should be done "but not in my neighborhood. While difficult to put into words, the Commission generally took the position that services should continue to be offered to the community but in a realistic manner to afford the greatest number of opportunities to the greatest number of people. • • h c. Council Memorandum No. 214 -3- September 23, 1980 It was the recommendation of the Commission that the city council authorize the elimination of general skating facilities at Washington Park, Memorial Park and Sheridan Park and that the hockey rink at Madison Park be eliminated beginning with the 1980/81 winter season. A copy of August 12, 1980 Commission minutes is attached. On September 23, 1980, the city council will be reviewing the revised 1980 and the proposed 1981 operating budgets for the Community Services Department. Any change in the outdoor skating program will have an effect on several divisions, primarily the Recreation Division. The net effect of the recommended reduction in outdoor skating facilities is approximately $6,000 - $7,000. It is the opinion of staff and the Commission that such savings could be used to expand existing programs such as the cultural arts programs currently available and known as Programs In The Park and /or be put to use in providing new programs such as the requested bicycle motocross track. Copy for the winter brochure, which will be delivered to each residence about the last week of November, 1980, is due October 6, 1980, about the time budget hearings will be completed. Communication with the general public is most important if any change in the winter skating program is to be made. The winter brochure is one major media for this communication. Therefore, it is important that the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission recommendation and any action by the city council take place during the budget hearings. Respectfully submitted, r' tt Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Services Director � i =�A ?. �f �� � r�co�✓ .�A {5 � yl_N� �/% 5 r�� �csS J�AlL1LS %V !,� �1 Ar�-'yl- 1; /LG 5° CG 1 �f7 /� j -6 a G � Q L4 1 I q k,) z,� C / % 7-,19 Co- 0 3= CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 406 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Ordinance Amendment Providing for Assess- ment of Maintenance Costs in the L /H /N Improvement District. Second Reading. The 1981 budget approved by the city council provides a sep- arate budget item for maintenance activity in the L /H /N improve- ment district. It also provides that the cost of this concen- trated maintenance will be borne by the benefited property own- ers, through a special assessment program. At the November 10, 1980 city council meeting, the city council • gave first reading approval to an ordinance that would provide that the city may specially assess for current maintenance ser- vices. The purpose of the ordinance will enable benefited prop- erties to be assessed for all, or a portion of, the costs of certain current, or operational type, services provided to those properties by the city. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 specifies that maintenance activities such as snow, ice or rubbish removal from sidewalks and streets, removal or elimination of health or safety hazards, sidewalk or alley repair, street lighting oper- ations, trimming and care of trees, etc., may be specially assessed against benefited property owners. Most of these types of maintenance services are provided by the city on a citywide basis. However, as additional improve- ments have been made to the L /H /N area, the extent of maintenance needed to preserve the public area, sidewalks, lighting, and land- scaping improvements has become far greater than the level of maintenance to public ways in the rest of the city. It is also very important that the redevelopment area be maintained in an exemplary fashion, because of the extensive financial committ- ments and to serve as an example for the rest of the community in generating positive examples of property maintenance which is highly visible in this area. At the November 10, 1980 city council meeting, the city council requested that the staff check to see if any other muni- cipalities used this assessment procedure. At least three other metropolitan area communities have established special assess- ment districts for this same purpose: Council Letter No. 406 -2- Minneapolis- Nicollet Mall - Maintenance of public right - of -way is specially assessed against the benefitting property owners. Edina - 50th and France - Maintenance costs assessed in- clude those for repairs to the parking ramps, street furniture, decorative pavement, and landscape materials. Annandale - A system of wooden, decorative canopies was constructed over the sidewalks within the downtown improve- ment project. The installation and maintenance of the canopies is being paid for through a special assessment district. The HRA is paying one -half of the assessment amount for the first three years, and benefited.property owners pay the balance. The proposed ordinance which the council will consider at the November 24, 1980 city council meeting describes the ser- vices which are included and provides that the council may de- termine by resolution that certain, or all, of such services being provided in certain areas of the city can be specially assessed against benefited properties, and establish the process for determining and making such assessments. The process provides that assessments for such current ser- vices be established on a year -to -year basis and for the city council to hold an annual public hearing on the assessments for • these services. A public hearing on this ordinance has been scheduled for the November 24, 1980 city council meeting. A copy of the prop- osed ordinance is attached to this council letter. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: Community Development Director Community Services Director Finance Coordinator C� 0 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BY ADDING A NEW PART IV, TO CHAPTER XII THEREOF, PROVIDING FOR THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF COSTS OF CERTAIN CURRENT SERVICES. CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Chapter XII of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: "Part IV. ASSESSMENT FOR CURRENT SERVICES. Section 12.24. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the special assessment of benefited proper- ties for all or part of the costs of certain current services provided by the city. Section 12.25. DEFINITION OF CURRENT SERVICES. The term "current services" as used in this ordinance means one or more of the following: Snow, ice, or rubbish removal from sidewalks; Weed elimination from streets or private property; Removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 463.15 to 463.26; Installation or repair of water service lines; Street sprinkling, sweeping, or other dust treatment of streets; The trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees from any street; The treatment and removal of insect- infested or diseased trees on private property; The repair of sidewalks and alleys; The operation of a street lighting system; The maintenance of landscaped areas, decorative parks and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right -of -way; Snow removal and other maintenance of streets in commercial redevelopment areas. Section 12.26. PROPOSAL TO ASSESS CURRENT SERVICES. The city council may by resolution propose that some or all of the current services described in Section 12.25 hereof be undertaken by the city and that the cost or some portion thereof be specially assessed against benefited property. The resolution as to a proposed project shall state which current services are proposed to be undertaken and specially assessed and which properties are proposed to be specially assessed. The clerk, under the council's direction, shall publish notice that the council will meet to consider the undertaking of such current services and the levying of special assessments to pay costs thereof. Such notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least once, two weeks prior to a meeting of the council at which the providing of such current services on a special assessment basis is to be considered. Such notice shall state the date, time and place of such council meeting, the streets affected, the particular current services proposed and the estimated cost of providing the proposed current services in the area proposed to be specially assessed. Section 12.27. HEARING: ORDERING PROJECT. At such hearing or any adjournment thereof, the council shall hear property owners with reference to the scope and desirability of the proposed current services projects. The council shall thereupon adopt a resolution determining the extent to which the proposed current services projects shall be undertaken by the city. Such resolution shall provide the manner of accomplishing any project which is ordered, which may be by day labor, by city force, by contract or by any combination of these. Section 12.28. RECORDING COSTS. The Director of Community Services shall keep a record of the costs of the project and shall report such information to the city clerk. A project may consist of the costs of current services for a specified period of 12 months or less. At the end of the designated period of the project, the total costs of the project shall be determined. -2- Section 12.29. BILLING. The owner of property on which or adjacent to which the current services have been performed shall be personally liable for the cost of such services. When the costs of the services have been determined, the city clerk, or other designated official of the city, shall prepare a bill and mail it to each owner in the project area. Thereupon, the amount of such changes shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk. Section 12.30. ASSESSMENT OF UNPAID BILLS. On or before September 1 of each year, the clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for current services against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under this ordinance. After notice and hearing as required by law, the council may spread the charges against the properties benefited, as a special assessment, for certification to the county auditor and collection along with current taxes. Such certification may provide for the payment of the special assessments the following year or in annual installments, not exceeding ten, as the council may determine in each case. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, • this day of , 1980. ATTEST: '10 City Cler -3- Piayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 405 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Dates of Hearing for Renewal of On -Sale Liquor Licenses The municipal code requires that the city council set the date for a hearing on applications for renewal of on -sale liquor licenses. Notice of any hearing dates must be published in the official newspaper at least ten days in advance of such a hear- ing. It is recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for the • December 22, 1980 city council meeting to consider the renewal of on -sale and Sunday liquor licenses for the Godfather, Inc., the Left Guard Corporation, dba Maximmillans and Chi Chi's, and for the Ground Round Restaurant. is Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: City Clerk Public Safety Director Environmental Health Manager �5 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 404 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Year VII Community Development Block Grant Program Public Hearing A public hearing has been scheduled for the November 24, 1980 city council meeting, to provide citizens with information about the Community Development Block Grant Program and to obtain their views about the city's community development and housing needs. This hearing is required as part of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program citizen participation plan. Notices of the public hearing have appeared in both the legal and non -legal sections of the Richfield Sun. Notices of the public hearing have also been sent to various community organ- izations throughout the city. The staff will give an overview of the CDBG program require- ments, project eligibility and projects which have been approved in the past. A county staff person will also be present to an- swer any questions which may arise. A list of previously approved CDBG projects are attached for your information. The city staff will take the citizens comments received at the public hearing and will develop a preliminary CDBG application for council con- sideration at the December 8, 1980 city council meeting. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /ea cc: Community Development Director City Planner Ll CDBG PRESENTATION I. Hearing Purpose A. To provide information to citizens about the Community Development Block Grant program and to obtain citizen views about Richfield's community development and housing needs. B. To fulfill local citizen participation requirement outlined by Urban Hennepin County CDBG Citizen Participation Plan. II. CDBG Program Requirements A. Primary object of the Federal CDBG program is the provision of decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities, primarily for persons with low and moderate incomes. B. Eligibility Criteria: Projects must meet one of the following: 1. Principally benefit low and moderate income persons 2. Prevent or eliminate slums and blight 3. Meet a need having a particular urgency C. Eligible Activities Include: 1. Acquisition 2. Disposition 3. Public facilities and improvements 4. Clearance 5. Public services in neighborhood strategy areas only 6. Interim assistance 7. Payment of the non - federal share of other grant 8. Completion of urban renewal projects 9. Relocation 10. Loss of rental income payments to owners holding housing units for persons displaced by CDBG funded projects 11. Removal of architectural barriers 12. Improvements to privately owned utilities 13. Housing rehabilitation assistance 14. Economic development activities 15. Assistance to private non - profit entities, neighborhood - based non - profit organizations, local development corpora- tions, or small business investment companies 16. Planning and urban environmental design costs 17. Administrative costs D . In( 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. -2- eligible Activities Include: Buildings and facilities for the general conduct of government Exhibition, cultural, or spectator facilities Schools Airports, subways, trolley lines, bus or other transit terminals Hospitals, nursing homes and other medical facilities Sewage treatment works Purchase of equipment Operating and maintenance expenses General government expenses Political activities New housing construction Income payments III. Urban County Program A. Richfield participates with 42 other communities in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. B. Richfield received approximately $374,000 last year for projects in the community. We will use that same figure as a planning target for Year VII projects. Year VII runs from approximately August 1981 - July 1982. Preliminary application will be presented to the City Council on December 8, 1980. C. Schedule: 1. Preliminary CDBG application will be presented to the City Council on December 8, 1980. 2. County Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committees will hold a public hearing on proposed application in late December or early January. 3. Final application will be presented to the City Council in late January. 4. Final application submitted to Hennepin County by February 6, 1981. 5. Hennepin County application submitted to HUD on May 5, 1981. 6. HUD approval of Year VII application on August 1, 1981. D. Previous Projects Funded Include: (See list attached council letter) 6 Q 0 O O Ln C� v" Ul LI) Lr) N O Ln O -I LP) O LC) W �.o C C O N m O r C �p .7 co O CIO �-D Cl% Ln N M Ln ko C M O O co 'T t!1 �-o N .--'1 LP r-'i O N N O lJ M � (14 .--I Ln L() r LP Q0 I` E- r-1 M V) r ("1 c'"1 C) N ►-r N M-i co O Cl O O O O O O O O O O C C \ O O O O r o C) o O r,�, --I N r Ln 11' Q co N O -�r f- r-I H C"„ O O O O C O tP C O O O Ln O C \ O N O C [- O r O 00 O C) r O r O Cl N >4 \ M co O > co O O O O O O v O O O (D C) 0 c \ r o o �I r o o i---I V rn N O `' O N L() �r1 �. N cn co r O O O O O (D p') O Ln N O O O lD H\ U) N M O O r- r « 1 Ln O M O r m oo O Lfl Cc U r o rn Ln 110 r- N >+ \ �- M co H M H r O O O O O O N O O O O O O N [� O co co is I 1 1 rJ r N co U r M }� \ N M co r H r O O O r-i C1 �r Ln Lf) O O C O c" H\ V) co l7 O O O r r co m V) 00 (n tv 1.7 IlT c Lr•) O co 1-I G r r-i 1-4 co M Lf) O a0 H r O O LI) O O O O O O O O O O Ln \ O O V) O Lt ) )+ r O O co O p:) U Ln o c co o co >+ r Lr) M rn C, U u, :- l4 O U :� g r s� ^� C +1 r; r3 O U C J >. U U - C -0 r I r a -a 'U p n •.i r; r •-a p,.-I G c s~ S2 Q) .N O G C r4 c C I. C r-i O 13 In •ri C> «i H U U i. U :•I r O U C) )4 r U .-1 r✓ M ^^ E U 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 403 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance Declaring A One Year Moratorium on Development on the Godfather Block On October 27, 1980, the city council gave first reading ap- proval to a transitory ordinance which would declare a one -year moratorium on development on the "Godfather Block" in the LHN area. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow time for a study to determine if land use controls are necessary to insure that integrated development, such as that indicated by the LHN Rede- velopment Plan, takes place on the block. The council also re- ferred the ordinance to the Planning Commission for their recom- mendation. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at their November 12, meeting. They took no action on the pro- posed ordinance other than referring the council to their approval of the Redevelopment Plan amendment in February of 1979 which indicated their support for an integrated development concept for that block. A copy of the Planning Commission resolution con- cerning this matter, which was passed in February, 1979, is at- tached for your information. It is recommended that the council give second reading approval to the attached transitory ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director Public Safety Director 1' RESOLUTION NO. 21 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, PRESENTING THE OPINION OF THE PLANNING C01MIISSION ON THE "AMENDMENTS TO THE LYNDALE- HUB- NICOLLET COIMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM," DATED: FEBRUARY 27, 1979 WHEREAS, on November 24, 1975, the City Council of the City of Richfield adopted a redevelopment plan for an urban renewal project for the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet area of the City (the "Project Area"), entitled the "Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program" (the "Plan "); and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Authority "), has now prepared an amendment to said redevelopment plan entitled "Amendments to the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Commercial Improvement Program ", dated November 16, 1978 (the "Amendment "); and WHEREAS, the Amendment has been prepared by the Authority with the cooperation and assistance of the appropriate City departments: and WHEREAS, the Authority has now transmitted the Amendment to the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield for its study, and has requested the written opinion of the Planning Commission on the Amendment, all pursuant to :.Iinnesota Statutes SS 462.515 and 462.525; and WHEREAS, the Planninb Commission has now studied and considered said Amendment, which includes pronosed amendments to the Plan, includinh major changes which involve: 1) rehabilitation of the existin,- commercial uses on the west side of Lvndale south of 66th Street and !i development of multi -unit housint; west of the above described rehabilitated commercial area, including a change of boundary to allow such develonment; 2) public involvement in the redevelopment of the area bounded by 66th and 65th Streets, Lyndale, and Graham Avenues, in which area eit:ier cormnercial or multi - family residential uses, or a combination thereof, would be permitted: and .3) rehabilitation and expansion of the Lyndale Garden Center at its present location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, That, having studied and considered the Plan and the Amendment, the Planning Commission, by this resolution, advises the City Council, the Authority, and all interested persons, that it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that: 1. The Plan and the Amendment provide an outline for the i development and redevelopment of the Project Area and is sufficiently complete to indicate the relationship of the Plan and the Amendment to the objectives of the Citv of Richfield to appropriate land uses within the Project Area, as amended, and to indicate the crr -rera land uses and general standards of development or redevelopment within the Project Area, as amended; 2. The Project Area, as amended, is a deteriorated and deteriorating area within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes S 462.421, Subd. 11; 3. The urban renewal project proposed by the Plan and the Amendment is necessary to eliminate, and prevent the spread of, such deterioration; 4. The Project Area, as amended, is subject to conditions preventing private development and would not be made available for redevelopment without the governmental assistance and financial aid proposed by the Plan and the Amendment; 5. The Plan and the Amendment affords maximum onnortunity for a4' -:j - redevelopment of the Project Area, as amended, by private enterprise, consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole; 6. The objectives and purposes of the Plan and the Amendment conform to and are consistent with the general land use proposals and planning objectives previously, from time to time, established by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield for the develop- ment of the Project Area, as amended: 7. The Amendment should be approved by the Authority and the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota, and be implemented and carried out as soon as possible. 8. The property described as Lots 15, 16, 17, and 18, Block 3, Fairwood Shores Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, if acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota, be acquired by negotiations with individual property owners rather Is than acquired by the Housing a"d Redevelopment Authority through the use of its power of eminent domain. DULY ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING CO2MMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, THIS 27th day of February, 1979. `IIerb Ketcham,r Vice - Chairman ATTEST: ✓ an Ilelmberyer, Secretary 3 0 ,�t- / 714 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 402 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There is one such item on the city council agenda of November 24, 1980. For several years, the City of Richfield has participated in a tree nursery located in Eden Prairie. This fall, 219 trees were • moved from the tree nursery and planted at the golf course. There was no charge for the trees, and no labor cost associated with the Twin Cities Tree Trust, which has been coordinating and supervis- ing the Eden Prairie Nursery. The city did incur costs, however, for transportation of the trees to the golf course and for mater- ials used in the transplanting. These materials include such items as tree wrap and wire. Funds for these expenses are available in the Golf Course Tree Donation Fund. It is recommended that the city council approve the expenditure of $1,471.72 to Twin Cities Tree Trust for trans- portation and material costs incurred in the transplanting of trees at the golf course. KN /ej a cc: Community Services Director Finance Coordinator is Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 401 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Resolution Authorizing Continuation of Shade Tree Subsidy Program There is a resolution on the November 24, 1980 city council agenda providing for continuation of the city's diseased shade tree program. The original resolution authorizing this program was passed on June 27, 1977, and a subsequent resolution was passed on February 12, 1979. This second authorization is sched- uled to expire at the end of 1980. The attached resolution will extend the city's grant assist- 40 ance program for residents who are required by state law to remove dutch elm and oak wilt diseased trees from private property. Under terms of this program, the city provides reimbursement for 50% of the cost of the tree removal, or $100, whichever is less. The grant program also provides that a resident can waive any monetary reimbursement for a tree removal and instead have the city pick up and dispose of the tree's remains. The subsidy or, alternatively, removal of tree refuse provided by the city, appears to contribute to the cooperation we receive from property owners in promptly removing diseased trees. City crews provided pick up and disposal to approximately 100 homeowners during 1978 and 1979, and approximately 75 homeowners in 1980. In addition, 1978 subsidies in the amount of $15,741.23 were provided to 167 homeowners, 1979 subsidies of $10,970.82 were granted to 110 homeowners, and 1980 subsidies, to date, of $9,010.00 have been given to 87 homeowners. The state reimbursed the city approximately 28% of its tree removal and subsidy costs during 1978, 40% during 1979, and an estimated 50% in 1980. Funds to recover the cost of the city's portion of the subsidy and disposal program are included in the 1980 and 1981 forestry division budget. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing extension of the diseased tree subsidy program. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager cc: Community Services Dir. Administrative Services Dir. �5.:��,. Finanr -a ('nnrr�inatnr • i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CONTINUING A GRANT -IN -AID PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE YEAR 1981 WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota provides for the making of grants pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.023, to assist residential property owners in removal and disposal of diseased trees, and WHEREAS, such a program will be beneficial to Richfield residents and the community as a whole by reducing the spread of shade tree disease. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield: 1. That the City Manager continue to institute and direct the Richfield Grant -in -Aid Program for the year 1981. 2. That the City of Richfield will provide a local subsidy to residential property owners for the removal and disposal of eligible diseased trees with th following limits: a. The City's Grant -in -Aid per diseased tree shall not exceed 50% of the cost of removal and disposal of that tree or $100, whichever is less. 3. That the subsidy determined in Paragraph 2 above includes any reimbursement to the City by the State of Minnesota pursuant to the Minnesota Shade Tree Law, Minnesota Statutes,.Section 18.023, as amended in 1977. 4. That the City Manager and the Finance Director bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of November, 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia Bergh Acting City Clerk Donald Priebe Mayor CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 400 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Council Members: Subject: Release of Off- Street Parking Contract Bond Harriet Avenue and West 78th Street On July 14, 1980, the city council authorized execution of an off - street parking contract with Richard A. LaMettry, to con- struct an auto body shop at Harriet Avenue and West 78th Street. An inspection of the site by the city staff indicates that the owner has complied with all terms of the off - street parking agreement. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council izin release of the perform- ance • adopt the attached resolution, authorizing p ance bond for this off - street parking contract. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /eja cc: City Engineer RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND ON OFF- STREET PARKING • Richard A. LaMettry 6904 Russell Avenue Location: Harriet Avenue & W. 78th St. Use: Auto Body Shop WHEREAS, Richard A. LaMettry, 6904 Russell Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota, had an off - street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating to Harriet Avenue & W. 78th Street, which contract bears the designation of Contract No. 2323, and which contract was guaranteed by a bond in the amount of Fifteen Thousand, One Hundred Eleven Dollars ($15,111), and WHEREAS, said Richard LaMettry has substantially complied with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be relieved of any further obligation under said bond, and • WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring said Richard LaMettry to continue to provide a bond for security = t -e performance of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City Manager is hereby authorized and direczed to release Richard LaMettry for any and all acts committed or incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2323, on and after the 24th day of November, 1980. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of November, 1980. Donald J. Priebe Mayor 0 ATTEST: rc ` Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Cierk • November 12, 1980 6400 16th Ave. S. The kennel located at 6400 16th Ave. S. was inspected and found to be satisfactory as noted by the inspection report below. I. F. Roesler 1) Number of occupants residing in dwelling. 2) Does the house and garage appear to be in good repair? C/ 3) Is the yard enclosed with a fence? c?_S Is the fence in good repair.? S the occupant has dogs Will the fence keep them on owner's property ?2. -S 4) Is garbage kept in metal garbage cans? 1.., p E 5) Are garbage cans kept out of public view. Sri 5) Are cars and /or trucks parked on lawn - either front or rear of house? L) e� 6) Are there inoperable vehicles in outside storage? yq 7) Is the lawn well kept and grass under 6" in height? �' J 8) Is driveway in good repair? y E 9) How many animals requi Ong licenses reside at this address? Dogs � Cats 0' 10) Give breed and sex of animals: r's1t t4 Fe"lAGIZ t-Q,vta �e 11) Was food in open dish and available outdoors for pet at all times? Yes No (If so, advise owner to stop the practice). 12) Are pets kept 'for breeding purposes? Yes No 13) How many pets were licensed last year? 14) How are pets exercised (areawise)? 15) Are there unpleasant odors present? �l G 16) Date N- - 1--0 0 I. F. Roesler Environmental Health Director IFR /ab �`_�. C1 • �;6, /Z� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 399 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of the Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan Attached for your review and discussion is a draft of the utilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. The utilities element analyzes the city's existing utility systems and its needs, and also outlines policies to address those needs. It is recommended that the city council review the draft and make any changes which may be necessary. The staff will incorporate any council directions into the final document prior to sending the document to other communities for their review. The council should not formally adopt this element at this time. Respectfully submitted, t ; Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner UTILITIES ELEMENT I. INTRODUCTION Richfield is a fully developed community with its utility system in place and complete. No significant expansions are proposed for any of the systems. The purpose of this section of the Comprehensive Plan is to discuss the condition and needs of the existing public and private utility systems in the city and what actions will be necessary in the future to meet those needs. II. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM A. Introduction _ Richfield's sanitary sewer system, built from 1953 to 1956, services essentially the entire city through 118 miles of sewer lines shown in Figure 1. The system is relatively new and structurally sound. • Essentially all of Richfield has access to public sewers. The 11,322 sewer connections service virtually the entire population of Richfield estimated in 1980 to be 39,000. The number of connections is not expected to change significantly in the next ten years as the city is over 99 per cent developed and only one structure in the city is still served by an on- side di_posal system. That structure, a house in thn extreme northeast corner of the city, is below the level of the nearest sewer line. Given the isolation, condition and performance of this on -site system, and the cost of con- necting to the nearest lateral, the city has not required that dwelling to be hooked into the system. The possibility of one or two on -site disposal systems on the golf course on Metropolitan Airport Commission property is under consideration. B. Collection Network Laterals are mostly 9 -inch vitrified clay pipe. Pipes 12 inches and larger are circular reinforced concrete. The mains larger than 12 inches are shown in Figure 2. Richfield is serviced by four interceptors; 1 -RF -490, L -4F -491 and -1- .fAl" All —T — IPTEll Ale —ELL Ale, l.. All, Ale .E.— All. —A Ale IRll� All —T .. Ale ElAE.— E .—T Ale Al. --ALE —LI All. —1 Ale, —L Ave :T11E1 III All AN. E —1 All ELL. lol. Ale. _,..le. 1 1. 1 A. —.Ale — E 1 11 "A 1. A ILI- I— E 11.1 All All 14* Ale. 'n E 0 0 a r r 0 X.- ca > E: 0 to Z -A fT1 CA xxxA.EE Ale m Ale Ale. C� —OT Al- E.E.— Ave —T Ale. Ale .—T Ave LYNDALE Ale —EL. All ye F, I.—T Ale —T.— All KhtfTE Ale !N TEII"l Ale —L.. A., ..A .1 All 1. Ale 1. Ale Ave 1. le ft-- All ID .11. E 0 —11 All C—) (D L-1— Ale (D !lE Ave —.1. Ave 4 23, Ale, t — — — - — — — — — — — .fAl" All —T — IPTEll Ale —ELL Ale, l.. All, Ale .E.— All. —A Ale IRll� All —T .. Ale ElAE.— E .—T Ale Al. --ALE —LI All. —1 Ale, —L Ave :T11E1 III All AN. E —1 All ELL. lol. Ale. _,..le. 1 1. 1 A. —.Ale — E 1 11 "A 1. A ILI- I— E 11.1 All All 14* Ale. 'n E 0 0 the parallel lines 1 -RF -492 and 1 -RF -493. These inter- ceptors are owned and maintained by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC). All four interceptors serve over 1,000 acres of an adjacent community and were thus eligible for acquisition by MWCC. Interceptors 1 -RF -490 and 1 -RF -491 carry effluents from Edina. Interceptors 1 -RF -492 and 1 -RF -493 were built with a capacity sufficient to carry wastewaters from the Bloomington area through their junction with metropolitan interceptor 3 -BN -497 at Cedar and 70th Street. Since their construction, Bloomington's effluents have been diverted to the Seneca Wastewater Treat- ment Plant in Eagan. These two interceptors (1 -RF -492 and 1 -RF -493) currently serve as an emergency outlet for Bloomington and carry only wastewater from southeast Richfield, the Metropolitan Statium and some airport buildings (but not the terminal). A 27 -inch main runs down Diagonal Boulevard which is not classified as a metropolitan interceptor although it carries effluents from Metropolitan Stadium. This main is • owned by Richfield. The daily flow of effluents through the mains at selected locations in 1976 is shown in Figure 2 as estimated by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission "Combined Sewer Outflow Study" (1977). The flow entering interceptor 1 -RF -491 from Edina is more than half of the total flow. This flow into 1 -RF -491 has been increasing annually, while the total flow in Richfield as shown in Figure 3 has been declining with the decline in population. The system has experienced a net annual increase in flow of approximately 1.3 percent. C. System Capacity Based on the capacity of sewer facilities in Richfield and down- stream from Richfield, the Metropolitan Waste Control Com- mission has calculated that the metropolitan system is capable of handling an average wastewater flow generated by the city of 4.8 million gallons per day (MGD) excluding infiltration. The 1978 flow of 2.72 MGD including infiltration is less than 60 percent of that capacity. The Metropolitan Waste -3- -41 ----------- Al z LL. CL 16 3" v. 11 - L---j LU 777777-7t F r IL= 77— 101 3:1 . .............. go 3.T 11 11 3. 3x. xoax 17 v 3.1 al 30 LU 311 x.03b 3x, C 0 0 v to -; -0 E a O 'a 0 0 0 0 .0 E r 7; Ljc�— [ L L ----------- - --- -- -- 3.T 11 11 3. 3x. xoax 17 v 3.1 al 30 LU 311 x.03b 3x, C 0 0 v to -; -0 E a O 'a 0 0 0 0 .0 E r 7; E • Control Commission has similarly estimated the capacity of the system for wastewater generated by Edina and flowing through Richfield at 3.52 MGD. Edina's 1978 wastewater flow of 4.73 MGD is above that allocated capacity, although that includes infiltration. The 1978 total flow was still below the allocation for both communities. Figure 4 shows the results of an analysis of the flow and capacities of the inteceptors in Richfield. It indicates the flow in some sections of interceptor 1 -RF -491 is approaching recommended limits with a reserve capacity for peak flow. No problems have as vet been reported. It is questionable whether these sections are adequate for the complete development of southern Edina. Wastewater flow through Richfield shown in Figure 3 is pro- jected to increase about ten percent in both Richfield and Edina. The projection for Edina is probably too conservative. The total flow for the year 2000 is expected to be within the allocated reserve capacity for interceptor 1 -RF -490 for both Edina and Richfield, although the flow for Edina is projected to remain above reserve capacity allocation for interceptor 1 -RF -491. The adequacy of interceptor 1 -RF -491 to handle the additional sewerage flow from the development of southeast Edina is a concern of Richfield. While no problems have been reported and apparently monitoring of the flow indicates that actual flow levels are low enough that capacity problems may not be indicated, Richfield has not received anv statement from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission that interceptor 1 -RF -491 is adequately sized to handle the flow from the expected development of vacant land in southeast. Edina. In view of their reluctance to make a statement on the adequacy of the interceptor, the situation should be carefully monitored by the city. If such monitoring indicates that the interceptor is undersized, several options are available: 1) A freeze on any development that would increase sewerage flow in the tributary area of the interceptor until improvements to the interceptor are made. MI: n W 4: O MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY (MGD) .c n c m h M � _ £ g�v 0 N O � o N V G y mCi =3 C R = w d « '- ad$ C i i m d �+ N M R M C R O V M OC S d o O a H a LL I.i L 0 C. 4) V L � sr m O J . ` A iL. A n W n W M Qf H n " J • M o F n O o • 0 ON Asoi_ IAI 311 31S IAI 3-1 - IAI 11-1 3- X 11• A.— 7 1 17-1i 1,\ 1 :17L F: IAI 3. F)LU 0 Z51 3AI snenn,aa 3. A. IAI F= IAI FF IAI IA' I—— W 3. IN 1xa5.3t. CL 2L, IAI I- IA1 xi a IAI LIS A� G 7T 3- .1— 1 :17L F: IAI 3. F)LU 0 Z51 3AI snenn,aa 3. A. IAI F= IAI FF IAI IA' I—— W 3. IN 1xa5.3t. CL 2L, IAI I- IA1 xi a IAI 3AI 7T Lu �aaa ae LLI 3AI 1, faaa, IA. L:1 --- --------- ------ IF f a f 1 2. Increasing the size of the interceptor by its owner, the ^ "Atr^^nlitan Waste Control Commission. 3. Diverting sewerage flow to other interceptors. Richfield's wastewater flow is projected to increase to about 3 MGD by the year 2000; this flow is lower than that of six years ago. Richfield has no wastewater treatment facilities. Effluents from the city are treated at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant at Pig's Eye Lake. Capacity of the recently expanded treatment plant will not limit development in Richfield. D. System Condition According to the Infiltration /inflow Assessment conducted by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Richfield was one of only three cities in the 49 city Metro area tested which had no inflitration /:inflow detected. /The very low infiltration rate of groundwater into the sewer system is evidence of its good condition. Yet, even though the sewer system is relatively new and structurally sound, there are laterals in areas where flat terrain results in a slow flow which results in high vulnerability to blockage caused by roots. and other foreign matter. Last year sewers on four blocks were examined and then treated with a chemical foam to remove roots intruding into the pipe at joints and to retard their regrowth. If successful, this experimental program will be utilized in other areas of the city. The sanitary sewer system in Richfield is primarily a gravity system. The city does have four lift stations, however. The pumps and alarm systems at these lift stations need modernization and replacement. Replacement of the lift station pumps was begun in 1979 and will be complete in 1982. The replacement pumps are more efficient and pump with higher flow rates. The sanitary sewer system is in good condition with adequate capacity to handle wastewater flow from projected -8- development in Richfield but may be inadequate to hand c future development in Edina without improvements to inter- ceptor 1 -RF -491. III. WATER SYSTEM A. INTRODUCTION Richfield's water distribution system is complete and no expansion of the system is necessary. The existing wells and the treatment platn have adequate capacity to supply the needs of the city through 1990. -The main concern with the water system will be the continued maintenance of the system and the replacement of obsolete and worn components especially in the treatment plant. Changes in the disposal of the calcium carbonate sludge may require changes at the treatment plant, which are still under study. B. Water Supply Richfield built a completely new water system in the early 1960's including a distribution system with service available to all parcels of land within the city. The system pumps water from seven city owned wells with a total pumping capa- city of over 16 million gallons per day (MGPD). Two of the wells are located in Nicollet Park at Nicollet and 62nd Street. They are over 400 feet deep and draw water from the Jordan aquifer. The four wells located around Legion Lake are each approximately as deep and draw water from both the Jordan aquifer and the shallower Shakopee aquifer. A seventh well is located at Portland and 62nd Street to provide an additional water source which could bypass the treatment facilities in case of a breakdown. This well is over a thousand feet deep and taps water from the Hinckley - Mt. Simon aquifer. C. Water Treatment Water from the wells is treated at the treatment plant at Portland Avenue and 62nd Street. The treatment plant has -9- C S a capacity of 14.7 MGPD. Water is softened by the addition of lime and alum to a softness of 3.5 to 4 grains. It is filtered, chlorinated, fluoridated, and carbonated to stabilize the phH. Treated water is stored in a clear well under the plant with a capacity of 22 million gallons before being pumped into the water mains. Two elevated storage tanks provide an additional 22 million gallons of storage, for a total storage of 5 million gallons, which is adequate for Richfield's needs. Two 400 by 150 foot sludge 14 sposal beds are located behind the water treatment plant. They each hold eight to ten thousand cubic yards of calcium carbonate sludge which is the main waste product from the water softening process. Each be-d- takes about one year to fill. After the calcium carbonate is allowed tb- partially dry, it is trucked away at a current cost of about X50 - $60,000. This cost can be expected to continue to s iral unless recycling increases the demand for the sludge. The sludge has been disposed of in a sanitary__land- fill or has been hauled to a gravel pit for processing for experimental agricultural use. Calcium carbonate is used in large amounts at some electrical generating plants. While the sludge is of a high quality that would make it very desirable for this use, the high water content (70 -75 percent) makes it un- economical to transport to any of the identified markets. D. System Condition The water distribution system shown in Figure 5 is 15 years old. Its concrete lined cast iron pipes are expected to last between 50 to 100 years. The water towers should last about 50 years. Maintenance costs should not be very high. The treatment facilities, also 15 years old, have a life expectance of only 20 years and replacement of some componants, especially the electronic control equipment, is needed. The electronic control equipment and some filters are scheduled for improvement in 1984. The water department building itself is also in need of major repairs. Building repairs are scheduled for 1983. -10- I-] K 0 LAJ 2 L6 ....... -owls 3.1 7C O CL ' W Q L z ca cc W W I-. z IWZ W>--c 3:x> E. Water Demand Presently about 11,150, hock -ups out of a possible 11,325 or about 98 percent of the city is serviced by the water system. The remaining 175 users are on private wells, including several of the larger users. There are 24 commercial users with private wells including the Penn -66 Shopping Center and 8 institutional users including two public and two private schools. The location of private wells still being used as primary water sources is shown in Figure 6. Southdale Square and some homes on Xerxes north of the shopping center are serviced by the Edina water system. Some users along Xerxes Avenue in Edina south of 70th Street are hooked int^ ±' Richfield's system. In the last year approximately 60 users have hooked into the water system. The largest new hook -up was the Hub Shopping Center. As can be seen in figure 7, the number of customers is steadily approach- ,y �hemayi*num of 11,325 users. Richfield does not require users to connect to the public water system, but bills non -users with a small monthly "water availability" charge for the availability of water for fire protection. Some users have connected because of the policy of financial lenders to require such hook -ups when making home loans. State law now requires that residential water systems serving more than 25 people must be hooked into a public system if it is available. The trailer court at Lyndale and 74th Street has the only private water system that is not in compliance with this state regulation. The city monitors public wells reguiariy and private wells upon request to assure the drinking water is safe. Even though the number of users connected to the system has continued to slowly grow, the demand for water has stabilized at approximately 1.3 billion gallons a year as shown by Figure 6. In eight of the last ten years, annual water con- -12- 0 0 -ow ,lM 3...,n0 3n. Sx3n31i IA• 1. �Al W lAl UA Ff 5;7 QQQQ -_ QQQOQQ Elr JL Ir ui ---------------- - - ----- im lk 4101 N.1.111 S13A3LS W 311 1. 113-11. .Al —1. 3M x01,3. 311 .3— LU �l .:30 SxOten --A 13-1. E a 0 7@ E 0 L) .2 LLJ 0 (n O • * * 411 41., P. w cr m 0 R� *a#$ I I^mi e-'Al I MWC 0 sumption has been within five percent of 1.3 billion gallons, although water consumption was over 20 percent above that average in 1976 which was a particularly dry year. Main- tenance costs have continued to grow with inflation and the aging of the treatment plant equipment. These costs are passed on to the user. Richfield's water system was designed for a typical city of 50,000 people. Richfield's population currently estimated at 391000 has been declining in recent years and is expected to continue declining. Water capacity is more than adequate for existing and future needs. The reserve capacity of the system is an asset saving the city on operational costs by allowing the treatment plant to be shut down during the night shift. Water service availability and water system capacity _ significant factors in planning Richfield's future, although provisions must be planned for the continued maintenance of the system and the replacement of obsolete and worn components, especially in the treatment plant. IV. STORMWATER SYSTEM A. INTRODUCTION Richfield's stormwater sewer system, which was started in the 1930's and essentially completed by 1972, consists of about 56 miles of concrete pipe and eleven ponding areas. (See Figure 8). The system is primarily passive utilizing mostly gravity sewers to drain the water into eight drainage basins. Most of the runoff is captured by closed drainage systems which are drainage basins with no surface outlets, which are common in glacial areas. Water levels are maintained through groundwater flow. -15- B. Collection Network 0 The storm sewer system works primarily by gravity, it includes' a total of five lift pumps. Only the wet well pump in New Ford Town Park is a significant part of the system. The lift pump at Wilson Pond and the connecting force main is in place, but is no longer in use because it pumps water into the Norby's Pond system which is no longer able to handle the load from Wilson Pond. A portable pump is used as needed at Adams Hill. It is used primarily during the spring. The two remaining pumps relieve drainage problems in small low lying areas. C. System Capacitv Richfield's storm sewers are designed to engineering standards that require a capacity sufficient to handle the runoff from a five -year storm, which is a storm with a severity that past records show to have a probability of occurring on an average of once every five years. Stormwater storage ponds h_ve a design capacity for a 100 -year storm. in 1977 and in 1978 Richfield has had unusually severe storms. Such storms, which greatly surpass the design capabilities of the system can be expected to result in some flooding. While the system performed very well given the severity of the storm, its successful performance was of little consolation to those yhere the sewers failed to provide protection from flood damage. D. Problem Areas Richfield's Community Development Department and a consultant are studying the conditions and various alternatives available to mitigate the problems at locations with significant flooding shown in Figure 9. Of the 38 identified locations, two have been improved by a newer sewer line that was installed as part of the L /H /N Redevelopment Project and three are con- sidered to have no significant damage potential. Fifteen o= the problems were highly localized and could be greatly reduced in each case by flood - proofing one to four affected -16- —---- - - - - -- C f H! F tl z C C !y ]nr xnox..s E OL CL 3n , C= 3n.., , �ICCCC : CICfCCCC 3n... ui i ' 9F. F LCCC�CCCL;�CCC - I ";' -. ., 3n.• ]13�i0]�N I _ _ _ _ -- _J L— _. C •_— _ -- _ _ _ __ — __ ]n. „305�s,B A&I 311 .-1 y W`� �• �;, 3.r mN�n., _ 3nr ONUtli � w..3N a° LU lag _ If _ L C .. ro.e — - 3 , • fA Ri 3n cnl•I I =-- - ,.P- 0 ----------- 7=i - ---------- 3A. 11.1 E aE 3-1 I L 77 vl, -DF-- CP ------------- --- = --------- r cat con iAl IAI IAI ... ... ... W —1, 3—fi) 3. .11-2 .4- 0 U—j Al —1.1 1- 12 0 311 1 0 ,31L 34 -IN S L6 r cat con iAl IAI IAI ... ... ... W —1, 3—fi) 3. .11-2 .4- 0 U—j Al —1.1 1- 12 0 311 1 0 ,31L structures. Five other problems could be greatly reduced by constructing berms or cur": cuts. The most extensive berm construction would be along the east side of Penn from 69th to 70th Streets. The most significant problems according to a consultant's report relate to inadequate stormwater storage capacity at Norby's and Wilson Ponds. These can be alleviated by dredg- ing and installing pumps or by the construction of larger outfall pipes. Dredging and the installation of pumps are the less expensive alternatives and, -thus, are considered more cost effective, if the dredging does not break the bottom seal of the ponds. Eight flood problem locations relate to the inadequate storage capacity of these two ponds. Another significant problem area is the border between Richfield and Edina. Recent development in Edina has increased the runoff which now exceeds the capacity of the system for a five -year storm. The problem which extends along Xerxes Avenue from 64th Street to 70th Street is currently under study. Flooding, especially at Xerxes Avenue and 66th Street, could require the installation of an expensive system to Adams Hill Pond and permanent lift pump to remove water from the pond. These improvements are being incorporated in the Adams H.-1-1-1 Park Development currently under constru:ti Conditions at Washburn and 76th Street might also require the installation of an additional sewer to Adams Hill Pond, in order to reduce the traffic disruption that would result from flooding of 76th Street at Washburn. All together five locations on Xerxes and Washburn Avenues have been identified as having potential for flood damage. Richfield's stormwater sewer system is essentially complete, although some flooding problems which occur with heavy storms remain unresolved. The system is designed with sufficient capacity to handle runoff from a five -year storm with holding ponds having capacity for a hundred -year storm. -19 These engineering design standards are not anticipated to change. The system is able to handle stormwater runoff at design standards with two significant exceptions: 1. Storm sewers draining 66th Street from Xerxes to France are undersized to handle runoff from intense commercial development in the area. Installation of a new sewer line, as a joint project with Edina, Richfield, and Hennepin County to correct flood con- ditions near Washburn and 66th Street, is under study. Replacement of the existing line is probably indicated as reserve stormwater storage capacity is unavailable to the east. This project scheduled for 1983. 2. Wilson and Norby's ponds have insufficient storage capacity. High water levels in these ponds back -up storm sewers causing flooding in several locations. Improvements affecting these conditions are presently being studied. The flooding problems associated with drainage into Norby's and Wilson Ponds, the city's consultants believe, can be corrected without adding to or enlarging any of the storm sew-rs, but may require additional pumping capacity. In addition, the ponds require maintenance and dredging to remove years of accumulation of silt. Improvements are scheduled for -1981. other flooding problems are important, especially to the people directly affected. Many of these can be mitigated.by minor changes to the system or by flood proofing individual properties. Several problems are not cost effective to resolve because the expense to correct the problem is so much greater than the flood damage potential. A project to correct these needs is scheduled for 1981. Stormwater storage improvements are under construction at Adams Hill Pond. While flooding at the pond does not directly WOM result in significant property damage, the highly variable water levels at the pond are injurious to vegetation and not conducive to the use of the land surrounding the pond. Stabilization of pond levels will require the installation of a permanent lift station, which will be connected to a force main already utilized by the existing portable pump. V. PRIVATE UTILITY SYSTEMS A. Gas Natural gas is provided by MINNEGASCO (Minnesota Gas Company) through the distribution system shown in Figure 10. Gas piped up to Farmington, Minnesota from gas fields in the south is pumped into the city through 16 to 24 inch mains under Portland, Cedar and Nicollet Avenues and then dis- tributed through smaller mains and three -inch laterals to be available to essentially all parcels of land in the city. The mains were laid mostly during the 19401s, although the main under Cedar Avenue dates from the 19301s. All mains and laterals were repaired between 1972 and 1977 in conjunction with the city's permanent street program. Gas is also supplied to Richfield from the peak shaving plant on Pleasant and 61st Street where propane and air are pumped into the system to prevent the demand from exceeding Minnegasco's daily allotment of piped gas. Border stations where gas pressure is reduced to allow for its local distribution are located on Cedar and 62nd Street and on Nicollet and 68th Street. The average gas heated home in Richfield uses 155,000 cubic feet of gas a year. Many apartments, commercial and in- dustrial establishments pay cheaper rates for interruptible service with alternative fuel sources for back -up. According to Minnegasco, fuel supplies are sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth in Richfield. -21- E CL a) (U E 0. UJ C.0 :D Z z -C M" 6' Z. lw �•.. 0 0 E . B. Electric Power Electricity is supplied to Richfield by Northern States Power Company (NSP) through the main feeder lines shown in Figure 11. No high voltage transmission lines cross the city. The mains shown in Figure 11 are all 13,800 volt lines with the exception of a line in the vicinity of Pillsbury and 78th Street, which is in the process of being converted. This is the last section to complete a ten to twelve year project of upgrading the entire system in Richfield from 4000 volts to 13,800 volts. As part of this project all transformer capacity has been increased by 25 percent. The city has four way service; power to the city can be supplied to the local grid from four directions minimizing the chance and extent of any disruption. The city system is tied into sub - stations at Nicollet and 79th Street, at the airport, on Highway 100 in Edina, and in St. Louis Park. The electrical system in Richfield is in very good condition in terms of voltage and capacity. No major improvements are needed or planned, although some mains in the L /H /N area are planned to be buried. There is no plan to bury mains else- where in the city. NSP provides power and maintains the street lights in the city. NSP owns most bf the lights on the streets, while the city owns the lights on the north -south avenues. A program to install mid -block lighting on the avenues was recently completed. The locations of NSP and city owned lights are shown in Figures 12 and 13 respectively. Street lighting is deficient in the city along all the major thoroughfares* outside of the fluorescent lighted business districts. Improvements to the arterial street lighting system will be initiated in 1981 by the City of Richfield. * Seventy -sixth and Sixty -sixth Streets, Penn, Lyndale, Nicollet, and Portland Avenues. -23- I t 41 z- Tz:� ----------------- L I I r I cc t r I UA Z • * Z, LU NJ LL. U cc ;p Z - - ---- UA 0 • u. L I I r I cc t r I UA Z • * Z, LU NJ LL. U cc ;p Z - - ---- UA 0 • 0 0 i S ✓ i x - - - - - - - - - -- €, E CL W y K f K f y Z q tC CC i (7 O -_� ..., -- i i i s E CL 'NO w tw,. :e« ,�`•. 0 CD O O 18( 0 o o ( 7 an. ,.paa O O O O O O O O O O - E O O o 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 U Y 20 10 O O O ° ° m O O O _a o w ^ O ° O O O 0 O O C H : :.. 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0- o 0 0 0 0 �It U O ° O O O O O O O O O cc 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o- o 0 Al O o 0 0 0 O O O b O O O O O O ¢ O O O O O O O O O O O O .r< O O O O O O O O O O ,., .n...o J� ]8t ' V, ]a( 3m 39 iit o ) ffi 0° 0 M o]a °sot ISK Vat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ ° o ...' a ° ° ° 0 - -o ° w.. r -o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 l o o ? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ww �! 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 o O° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 o o o o a a � a I O O O O Od O O 'a W Z 0 O '� 0 0 0 o 0 0 ° m e n N S I+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AU z z 0 �f'' j i: S l �O P 160 f 0. B0 O 0 VaK gt , 0 0 J 0 0 90 0 o o o 0 0 0 o O Isc O O O O IK m= O O O » » 33" — 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 ]s 0 O O O O 6° o moo- 0 0 0 0 o o 0 Q a� j: � � 1 aM®iN if Orx 'J x H xi 8 Lm Ln ° 0 ° ° W 0 0 0 0 0 0 a c'm x J z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 z r � 0 W 0 a 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o o ° O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 { o - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O , J f n a x J 0 0 8 @B Q 8 � O O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 d a � i 0 0- o - -o -v- 0 0 0 0 0 �; >> N .._ - - - - -- -1 _ - ` o o a— o 0 0 0 0 0 ur a} ` o o <— - o 0 0 0 0 0 0 j LjJ >> O O - O O O -- O W t W W W W (yJ l0J �; 1 ICI G. � N i ....� ]nr .s,o„.is I -� � � c �� �' � (1. � ° .a ]nr ] „siawns �” • am v. r F OL - 0. ...o]0 0 ]n .•w" i 00000000 000 00 O OOQ.I'_ ]nom. Y i1 „.3]�.n.«. • . � .r•r; . .� . , r 0. 0 - 0 a9 0 00 .Do0 o.0 0 r o : a o Poo 00 o0 o a 0 ,400 00 000 0-01 006 , a o D c d E ba0600 O .,. e� o , A. V `00"O( Oa U ]nr oora „] Ow 00`. cr 1 0000 ]n. sne.moo ]n... .� -1 00- IpDD 0000 -400 000 a 0000 0 0a 0o cxo ao-o' . ^ti „ „.o $p0000. CrOOO a,��000 000,000C ti. o 0 ... 0-0 00 000 X000 >µ �: 000 0 c 000 iS ; 0 d cooaD Joa oo 000 000 '000 00 oa 0000 ooa,r� 0-0, 671 p-DO 700 _OO o0 o ate` oa;ooao 000 00'0400 1 . 0 0o �°��000 0 0 a croo �oan `aa"00 o oaa ; 00 00x000-” 0000 b ]n..a� : „„ ».a. lick, 0- 0 -0oOO i�_o0 - ]..„... 006O0 a' J Q d �o # dd: 0 � coo J� a r _Loll nao ,0 00 �O - •' \ \�„ p0 0000 000 ]n. 3. At10' ' 00 � �, „] � � A000, O ' 000 O Y �(O Oa��:. OC, 000 �� am 1-1. COY g `A00000 OO 000 00C EE I 3 i 0 0 0 00 0=00 s_ba0 QI 000 Ob 000 41101-0- Q O r -�QOp - - - w o„un I --- Q4QQI 00000 .000000 aa,' 000 0 O -Ob,,. I I o 1 bOOO oo .„„ .. 0 0000 00'1004] Eeo� ij ooD 0000 00 o„ ]nr «oi.H Q� I 400 00 000 �3- o 0000 0000 O 000 0000 0000 0 0 L 1y- ]n..] 000 0 o--o� 00 O OOQ-OO60 O CL 2AI t „.. mop 000 . »oi.n UJ z � on °oo .3 Mn• Q o 000D i+ M .. w D � y� W . \��� |���� ' �~ � / . -- \ � | L - ~~ ~- .. --'~~ -~ -- � --T J1 � ~- ~'~ ~' -~` ~~- ~~~ ~~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~-~ ~- ~`-~~ ---~ ~~~ ''-- ~~'~ '--~- ~~ ~^'~ ~~~ ~~~ -~~ -'-- ~-~ -~~ '--- .- ~~� ~~- � ~_~ ~^~^ � . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . ~- ~-� ~^ ~` ~- ~~ ,�. ~- -- ~~ ' ~~~ ~- ~~ ~'^ ~- ~~~ ~~- -^~ ~~ ~~ ~-~ ~~ ~^' ~~`~ ~- LLI -~~ca --_�� ~-- ' ~~~ ~~~-- ~~~�� .,.... ~~~~ ~-- LAJ ~~~0c ~~~� mj ~~~�� ~~�.�� C. Telephone System Northwestern Bell Telephone Company serves the City of 10 Richfield and some small adjacent areas of Minneapolis through its central office located at Pleasant and 66th Street. Local and long distance calls are routed through this office. The Telephone Company also maintains an installation and repair office at Cedar and 63rd Street. Where possible, Northwestern Bell is replacing its overhead cable and wire facilities with an underground system. Existing underground cable is shown in Figure 14. Northwestern Bell Telephone plans in 1980 to replace the call processing equipment serving the Richfield area with an Electronic Switching System (ESS) which is a computerized method of processing local calls that offers many optional services not available with the present equipment. This system will meet the service needs of the Richfield area for many years. VI. POLICIES The utility systems in Richfield are complete. The policy decisions which the city must make will be aimed at maintaining the existing systems and not towards substantial new development. A. Sanitary Sewer System Policies will be: 1. To provide sanitary sewer collection at affordable rates. 2. To continually monitor and maintain the sanitary sewer system facilities in the city. 3. To monitor the I -RF -491 interceptor to insure that its capacity is not exceeded. 4. To work with adjacent communities to insure that new developments do not adversely affect Richfield's sanitary sewer system. -27- . B. Water System Policies will be: 1. To continue to provide high quality water at affordable rates to Richfield residents. 2. To continually monitor and maintain the water supply, distribution, and treatment facilities in the community. 3. To develop an economically feasible lime sludge disposal method. C. Storm Sewer System Policies shall be: 1. To upgrade and maintain the existing storm sewer system to protect property owners from flooding problems. 2. To review development proposals to insure that new development does not place a burden on the city's existing storm sewer system. D. Private Utility Policies shall be: 1. To encourage the undergrounding of all overhead utility lines. 2. To encourage the maintenance of the existing systems to insure the economical provis -C:: of service to Richfield residents. MOM E CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 398 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Review of Airport Issues Element of the Comprehensive Plan Attached for your review and discussion is a draft of the Airport Issues section of the Comprehensive Plan. This section of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the impacts which the airport has on the City of Richfield and outlines the city's goals and policies proposed to deal with those impacts. It is recommended that the city council review the draft air- port issues element and make any changes which may be necessary. The staff will incorporate any council directions into the final document prior to sending the document to other communities for their review. The council should not formally adopt the element at this time. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director City Planner 16 AIRPORT ELEMENT I. INTRODUCTION One of the United States' major airports, Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (Wold- Chamberlain Field) is located adjacent to Richfield. The airport,in 1979,accommodated 278,000 total operations and moved 9,300,000 ticketed passengers through the facilities, the equivalent of more than two trips for every man, woman, and child in the State of Minnesota. In addition 122,000 tons of air freight were shipped via the airport. The airport is a major employer for Richfield and the metropolitan area, providing 16,000 permanent jobs and generating a payroll in excess of $330 million. An estimated additional 3.5 off - airport jobs are generated for every on- airport job. The purpose of this element of the comprehensive plan is to examine the airports noise, safety, and expansion impacts on the City of Richfield and to indicate the policies which the city will adopt to minimize the negative impacts which the city is exposed to. II. NOISE IMPACTS Noise is the airport impact which has greatest impact on Rich- field and is the most difficult problem to solve. Repeated exposure to noise not only can be a nuisance to everday acti- vities such as conversation but can also effect people's health. Researchlhas shown that there are links between noise and high blood pressure, heart disease, and psychological problems. Excessive noise can also inhibit the learning ability of child- ren. 1Noise: A Health Problem, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, August, 1978. -1- co cr cr O co cr cc cr q i I co - -t��^ _ � - -- -�. _fit _ - - -- a...... W o All ci QD IL 4p- U) j 1! ---- --- LA. re-j — - — -------- 1 1 81 1 - 3 t I During the 1960's air traffic'at Wold- Chamberlain under- . went a tranformation with the adoption of the jet for long distance transportation. From 1965 to 1969 passenger traffic increased by 87 per cent and landings and take -offs increased by 65 per cent. Noise also increased significantly. Since 1970, economic conditions and fuel prices have slowed the growth rate. Wide -body jets with greater capacity reduced the number of air carrier operations needed to carry the same number of passengers. Technological advances resulted in quieter engines. Concern with noise has prompted the adoption of noise abatement procedures, several of which were pioneered locally. According to a 1977 Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) study, operations at Wold- Chamber- lain decreased by 18 per cen-2 from 1970 to 1975 and noise units decreased by over 54 per cent. The Metropolitan Council through the Noisemap Project is coordinating a multi - agency effort to estimate the extent of the present and future noise problems around the airport, and to resolve the differences between the sound measures used in noise models and the sound measures used in Minne- sota Pollution Control Agency noise standards. Figure 1 shows the noise contours developed by the Noisemap project based on 1977 conditions. The Noisemap project uses Leq contours to predict noise impact. The Leq method predicts average levels. Areas within the 80 dBA contour receive severe noise exposure. Uses within that contour should have 2EPA used six months of 1970 as its base year. During the other six months, construction and strike disrupted normal operations. Actually, in 1975 total operations exceeded total operations in 1970, but daily operations in 1975 were 18 per cent below daily operations in the six months of 1970. 3Noise units are a measure of the impact of noise computed as the product of the base population times the increment in noise caused by aircraft measured in Ldn (Day -Night Annual Average Sound Level). -3- little sensitivity to noise and include such uses as fac- tories and warehouses. Areas within the 70 dBA contour receive significant noise exposure and are best suited for office and commercial uses. Areas within the 65 dBA contour receive moderate exposure to noise. Uses within these areas which are sensitive to noise such as residential and educa- tional uses may require sound insulation. Figure 1 shows that approximately two- thirds of Richfield is within the 65 dBA contour and close to half of Richfield is within the 70 dBA contour. The predominant land use with- in these contours is residential. This means that a substan- tial portion of the residences in Richfield are exposed to a significant amount of aircraft noise. There are a number of schools which also fall within these noise contours. There are two high schools and one elementary school within Leq 65 contour, two elementary schools and one middle school within the Leq 70 contour, and one elementary school within the Leq 80 contour. This means that 50 per cent of the schools in Richfield are subject to noise exposure. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) noise standards are based on noise exceedance levels. This standal,. sound levels which are exceeded over certain per cent of the time in a given time period. For example, the L10 standard is the sound level exceeded ten per cent of the time during a one -hour period. Table 1 shows the MPCA L10 and L50 noise standards. The Noisemap project concluded that the L10 stan- dards are similar to the Leq standards of the Noisemap project model. Therefore, much of Richfield is not in conformance with the .MPCA standards. Air traffic projections indicate that operations at Wold- Chamberlain will increase over the next few years, but the noise impact from the average operation will continue to decrease. The result of these two trends is that the future noise impact will approximate the existing pattern as shown in Figure 1, except where changes in procedures including ' -4- �l � x 0 TABLE 1 Minnesota Noise Standards Day (7 AM - 10 PM) Night (10 PM - 7 AM) NAC L50 L10 L50 L10 1 60 65 50 55 2 65 70 65 70 3 75 80 75 80 NAC 1 - includes residential, hotels, medical, institutional, cultural and religious and other sensitive areas NAC 2 - includes transportation terminals, offices, commer- cial, recreational centers and others NAC 3 - includes manufacturing, agricultural and others L50 is the sound level, expressed in dBA, which is exceeded fifty per cent of the time for a one -hour survey as measur_-f by approved test procedures. L10 is the sound level, expressed in dBA, which is exceeded ten per cent of the time for a one -hour survey as measured by approved test procedures. These standards describe the limiting levels of sound esta- blished on the basis of present knowledge for the preserva- tion of public health and welfare. These standards are con- sistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing conserva- tion requirements for receivers within areas grouped accord- ing to land activities by the Noise Area Classification (NAC) system. -5- take -off tracks will modify the pattern. The Metropolitan Council is considering adopting a similar map to Figure 1 • for making decisions on land use control. The question remains of what kinds of controls or regulations, if any, should be placed on land use in the heavily impacted developed areas, especially those inside the Leq 80 (L1080) contour in the northeast and southeast parts of Richfield. These controls and the mechanisms for their administration are now being developed. There are three primary approaches which can be used to abate aircraft noise. These are: 1. Source Reduction: This involves primarily the reduc- tion of aircraft engine noise and is a Federal and aircraft industry approach, that realistically the city cannot directly affect. However, the city should be on record as urging the Federal government to promote source reduction by setting and enforcing aircraft engine noise • standards to reduce aircraft noise. 2. Operational Restrictions: This involves aircraft opera- tional procedures and airport use restrictions. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has relied heavily on this approach to abate noise. Changes in operations have been accomplished through voluntary compliance by the carriers with such MAC operational recommendations as restricting night operations and diverting training flights to other airports and through adoption of MAC suggested procedures including the preferential runway procedures, flight tracks, and descent profiles by the airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which controls traffic at the airport. Most of these improvements were recommendations of the Metropolitan -6- Y:r - 0 C� Ej Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC). has a representation on MASAC. A noise abatement operations plan is currently studying operational changes suggested by MASAC. One of the noise abatement procedures implemented by MAC has significantly increased aircraft noise over Richfield. When weather conditions allow the free choice of using any runway, air traffic is directed to those runways with approach and departure tracks that affect the smallest population. While minimiz- ing the impact of noise on the general population, this procedure increases the impact of noise on those resi- dential areas under the flight paths utilized. Figure 2 shows the impact of the preferrential runway proced- ures on the amount of time the different runways are used for landing and taking off. Southeast Richfield has been strongly impacted by the preferrential run- way system with the proportion of operations increased from 8.5 per cent in 1970 to 27 per cent in 1977. Operations have also increased over Eagan, while decreas- ing over northeast Richfield and being reduced drastically over the Highland Park area of St. Paul. The question re- mains in implementing the preferrential runway proQra_m as to what is the optimal balance between minimizing the impact on the general population and avoiding excessively impacting a smaller population. In addition to existing noise abatement procedures, MAC plans to extend the take -off threshhold on Runway 4 to allow planes to become airborne sooner and fly higher over St. Paul, reducing the noise impact there. This runway change could affect noise levels in Richfield if back engine noise is not adequately screened by berms and other barriers. A study -7- FIGURE 2 43.5% 4 18.59'0 15 °0 23% 29 I _ I 1970 RUNWAY USAGE (Source_ EPA Noise Reoort No. 68 -01 -2^ -195. cab - ,19771 3% 3% j� 1977 RUNWAY USAGE (Source: Metropolitan Airoorts Commission) 0 MI of the impact of this proposal will be implemented before construction on the project can begin. An application has been made to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow the use of a take -off track that would direct traffic away from a corridor over I -494 and Richfield to over the Minnesota River valley. This application is currently stalled in process. Apparently, maneuvers associated with this track will cause some operational delays if instituted for all take -offs on Runway 22. The city should continue its participation on the MASAC and continue to encourage the development, implementation, and enforcement of operational restric- tions to reduce aircraft noise over Richfield. Such measures presently under study include a hard left turn on take -off down Cedar Avenue on Runway 22 which would reduce the impact of air traffic noise over southeast Richfield which has suffered the most signi- ficant increase in noise impacts of any area as a result of the adoption of the preferrential runway program, which has reduced noise impacts in other areas around the air- port. The city should also encourage the reduction of non -air- carrier operations at the airport. Other operational changes that would promote such a reduction include the transfer of cargo operations to Holman Field in St. Paul, the development of Anoka airport as a business jet airport, and additional instrument training facilities at other airports. 3. Receptor Intervention reduces the impact of noise by shielding the receptor or by controlling access in the impact area. Whereas, operational restrictions keep airplanes away from people, receptor interven- tion keeps people away from airplanes. Access is -9- usually controlled by land use regulation, which is an especially effective control on noise impacts in undeveloped areas. In developed residential areas such-as Richfield, land use control requires property acquisition and demolition. Richfield does not con- sider any land use change of developed land or restric- tion on development of the few isolated undeveloped lots within city boundaries to be a realistic alterna tive for reducing noise impacts. The city should urge the state government to set noise standards which do not limit development in the city and should aggressively participate in the Joint Airport Zoning Board to insure that land use control measures do not adversely affect the community. III. SAFETY An important factor relating to land use around the airport is safety- -both for the aircraft and the people on land around the airport. Airport safety zones have been esta- blished by state law for land in the approaches to the runways and around the airport. The boundaries of the safety zones are a function of runway length. The area within the three airport safety zones in east Richfield is shown in Figure 3. Safety Zone C is the least restric- tive in permitted land uses with only structures and sig- nals that would interfere with navigation prohibited. As shown in Figure 4 and 5, "very little of Richfield is within the most restrictive Safety Zone A. The safety zones are much more significant in southeast Richfield than in north- east Richfield. The airport five -year capital improvements program indi- cates that Runway 4 -22 will be extended 2,750 feet to the southwest. This expansion will result in more Richfield being included in Safety Zone A. Richfield recognizes the -10- w -..S" ♦ ...ti':.eg,.. tie. s ZA CL _ o ------- i�'.�� ------- .' _1� ,� -.Q - -� , J' -- /mil' -~ r r -awnx • N ir- LLJ LL i 1 t� ,.. w x C: a. N i i Ap ........... 0 .............................. ............ ............. C\j j •l A FR-P 0 RT M irA c .:._3TlN3AV zi HSIONnG 1'. Fil. 4 V11 C\J 3nN3AV CY) f Ouzz . , .. >• � a. �.. � �'r u to til , L co PIE .......... 2J1 3nN3AV CD 'S' — 3nN3A7 61 L'i _T W 7--w et — ----- it? *;////, , s f f Er_" 3AV Y I Y�vli lkoh c -S 1 0 1• 1, 1 . 1, 111. — _l i : IV --- '_4 Rio -= Us C-1 Z _j L �� c -S 1 0 1• 1, 1 . 1, 111. — _l i : IV --- '_4 Rio -= -5e ON kVMH91H i 3A V HV0 3 3) 17 V CL C.00y ONQD Boom =OS 1--3AV 4t9l i SN3CkiVD IA31AI VD) M- w WOS Si a39 A w 0 Eli '3AV gi —os '3AV 5 os -3AV cc --4 1 1 -' 1 W, w cc W Lo CD M �a as L 1011 LLI CL W Z rwor 17 V =OS 1--3AV 4t9l i SN3CkiVD IA31AI VD) M- w WOS Si a39 A w 0 Eli '3AV gi —os '3AV 5 os -3AV cc --4 1 1 -' 1 W, w cc W Lo CD M �a as L 1011 LLI CL W Z rwor C.00y ONQD =OS 1--3AV 4t9l i SN3CkiVD IA31AI VD) M- w WOS Si a39 A w 0 Eli '3AV gi —os '3AV 5 os -3AV cc --4 1 1 -' 1 W, w cc W Lo CD M �a as L 1011 LLI CL W Z rwor Boom =OS 1--3AV 4t9l i SN3CkiVD IA31AI VD) M- w WOS Si a39 A w 0 Eli '3AV gi —os '3AV 5 os -3AV cc --4 1 1 -' 1 W, w cc W Lo CD M �a as L 1011 LLI CL W Z rwor need to regulate land use in the approaches to the air- port runways to protect the safety of aircraft using those approaches and the people living and working there. Rich- field has joined the Joint Airport Zoning Board and recog- nizes its authority to regulate zoning, land use, building heights, and the issuance of special use permits and vari- ances only as these land use controls relate to safety in established safety zones. Richfield has almost no land in Safety Zone A, while Safety Zone B includes an area in southeast Richfield. The area in southeast Richfield includes significant development. The only vacant land is a one - acre parcel surrounded on three sides by residential develop- ment near 16th Avenue and 77th Street. Safety regulations restrict the construction of structures in Safety Zone C if they constitute navigational hazards. The city should actively participate on the Joint Airport Zoning Board to insure that land use control standards are instituted in established safety zones to provide for safe air travel while not adversely affecting the community. Richfield recommends that administration and enforcement of regulations adopted by the Joint Zoning Board be delegated back to the city. IV. AIRPORT FACILITIES EXPANSION The Airport Master Plan proposes expanding terminal.facili- ties to handle some of the passenger flow when this flow exceeds the capacity of the present terminal facilities. Figure 6 shows the location of the new terminal facility. Access to the terminal would be located at the approximate site of the old terminal in the northwest section of the airport and would be accessed from the Crosstown Highway at about 28th Avenue and from Cedar /T.H. 77 at about 63rd Street. Both 28th Avenue and 66th Street would be important access roads to the proposed terminal and would carry along with 63rd Street most of the traffic. The amount of traf- fic this facility would generate and the traffic impact -14- 0 0 0 to uj LL 1w: O O O 2 Luf o CL CC LLJ LIJ U- 4:V LLJ uj LU • -.T7- cn IL LU ------------------------------ o CC LLJ LIJ U- u 0 E 4) U. cc on New Ford Town area of the city, on 66th Street, on T.H. 77 and on C.S.A.H. 62 (Crosstown) are major concerns of • Richfield, which are not adequately analyzed by the Airport Master Plan. This scheduling of the development of the West Terminal is indefinite and construction is not expected to begin before the mid- 1990's. Before construction begins, Richfield will need sufficient lead time to assess the impacts on this area and to make any necessary adjustments to facilities. V. AIRPORT POLICIES The policies of the City of Richfield in regard to airport issues are: 1. Air Traffic Noise A. The city should urge the Federal government through our elected officials to set and enforce aircraft engine noise - standards to reduce aircraft noise. • B. The city should continue its participation on the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council and to encourage the development, implementation and enforcement of operational restrictions to reduce aircraft noise over Richfield. C. The city should urge the state government through our elected officials to reduce non - air - carrier operations at Wold Chamberlain Field. D. The city should aggressively participate in the Joint Airport Zoning Board to insure that land use control measures do not adversely affect the com- munity. E. The city should urge the state government through our elected officials to set noise standards which do not limit development in the city. 0 -16- 7- F. The city should promote the installation of noise attenuating materials consistent with city energy conservation policies in areas subject to high levels of aircraft noise. G. The city should encourage the establishment of a noise monitoring system to determine noise impact and to encourage compliance with adopted noise abatement procedures. 2. Safety The city should actively participate on the Joint Air- port Zoning Board to insure that land use control stan- dards are instituted in established safety zones to provide for safe air travel while not adversely affect- ing the community. 3. Airport Expansion That Richfield be given adequate advance notice of any • plans for expansion of air terminal and other facili- ties to allow the city to object to, review, comment on, or plan for resulting land use and traffic changes in Richfield. • -17- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 397 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richf ield Council Members: Subject: Amendment to Lyndale Hardware Developer's Agreement, Regarding Easement Areas The city council earlier this year approved a developer's agreement with the S & M Company, to provide for rehabilitation of the Lyndale Hardware property. On November 10, 1980, the council approved an amendment to the agreement, relating to the tax exempt financing. An additional amendment to this agreement is before the city council on the November 24, 1980 city council agenda. Part of the developer's agreement provides for the sale of city owned property to the S & M Company (portions of the former Amoco and Betty Crocker properties). The sale of these parcels was found by the planning commission to be in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan. The city council approved the sale in part through adoption of transitory ordinance No. 16.66. The trans- itory ordinance provided for sale of the property, subject to S & M Company granting easements in favor of the city to permit the in- stallation of street improvements along 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The easement description was included with the transi- tory ordinance. Review and refinement of the street improvement plans and S & M project plans indicate that the easement description must be modified to correctly align the projects where they share a common boundary along 66th Street. The Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County has also suggested certain modifications. Attached to this council letter is a transitory ordinance which repeals ordinance No. 16.66, previously adopted, and redefines the easement area. This change does not require planning commission consideration. It is recommended that the city council give first reading approval to the transitory ordinance regarding disposition of this property. The second reading of this transitory ordinance will be scheduled for December 8, 1980. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager APPENDIX A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 16. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY City of Richfield does Ordain: Part I Transitory Ordinance No. 16.66 is hereby repealed. Part II Section 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized to be sold and disposed of: Lot 18, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof. Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, across and through the easterly 22 feet of said Lot 18; and Lot 19, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof, except that part of the north 5.0 feet thereof lying east of a line drawn south at right angles to the north line of said lot from a point thereon distant 32.0 feet west of the northeast corner of said lot; and except that part of the easterly 10.0 feet of said lot lying northeasterly of a line drawn northwesterly at right angles to the easterly line of said lot from a point thereon distant 52.0 feet south of the northeast corner thereof. Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for pub- lic street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under - across and through the easterly 22 feet of that part of said Lot 19 hereinabove described. And also subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lot 19 hereinabove described, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the westerly line of said Lot 19 distant 35.0 feet southerly from the westerly extension of the northerly line of said Lot 19, as measured at right angles to said westerly extension, to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 19, lying 40.0 feet southerly from the north line of said Lot 19, as measured at right angles to said 0 northerly line; and Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof. it Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lots 3 and 4 lying northerly of the following described line and its extensions: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of said Lot 3 distant 25.0 feet southerly from the northerly line of said Lot 3, as measured at right angles to said northerly line; thence westerly to a point on the west- erly line of said Lot 4, distant 34.11 feet southerly, from the northwesterly corner of said Lot 4, as measured along said westerly line and there terminating. Section 2. The terms and conditions of such sale shall be determined by the City Council. 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 396 Agenda November 24, 1980 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Council Members: Subject: Proposal for Multiple Family Planned Unit Development, Lake Shore Drive Cooperative Living Center Richfield United Methodist Church and Knutson Companies are proposing a multi - family housing development in the Lyndale /Hub/ Nicollet Redevelopment Project area, and are requesting the following: 1. Approval of a preliminary PUD plan, zoning district change from "C -2 ", general commercial and "R ", single family residential to "PMR ", planned multiple family; • 2. Approval of a special use permit to allow multiple family dwellings; 3. Approval of a street and alley vacation; 4. A finding that the disposition of certain city -owned property is in compliance with the comprehensive development plan; 5. A variance to increase the maximum allowable floor area of 132,069.8 square feet to 217,937 square feet. Proposal Richfield United Methodist Church and the Knutson Companies are proposing to design, construct, and sell an eight (8) and twelve (12) story multi - family cooperative living center for per- sons 60 years of age or older. The site of the proposed develop- ment is generally bounded by Lyndale Avenue, 66th Street, and Graham Avenue and has been designated as a multi- family housing site in the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project plan. The pro- posal has been designed and will develop within the following guidelines as proposed by the developer. The proposed development will include 167- dwelling units, with an attached, two -level parking facility. The first eight floors will be seventy -six feet in height and will include sixteen dwelling units per floor, except for the first floor. Floors nine through twelve will have thirteen dwelling units per floor Council Letter No. 396 -2- November 24, 1980 and will be one - hundred and ten feet in height. There will be eight three - bedroom units of 1,385 square feet each; twenty -two two - bedroom units with two bathrooms of 1,130 square feet; fifty -four two - bedroom units with one bathroom of 1,040 square feet; forty - one deluxe one - bedroom units of 750 square feet; and forty -two standard one - bedroom units of 660 square feet. The first floor of the building will consist of three dwelling units, two guest rooms, activity rooms including hobby rooms, a library, an exercise room, a game room and a lounge. The first floor will also house the nec- essary mechanical apparatus, security offices, cooperative admin- istration offices and a dining area for the residents and their guests. The proposed parking facility is a two - tiered ramp with one - hundred and one covered parking stalls on the first level and eighty - three uncovered /surface parking stalls on the second tier. Vehicle access will be provided to the site from West 66th Street. The first level parking area will also serve as the refuse pick -up point. The applicants are requesting that portions of Graham Avenue and portions of the alley on Block 3, Fairwood Shores be vacated by the city. The applicant is exploring the possibility of using hous- ing mortgage revenue bonds to finance the project. The site for the development is to be purchased for the city and the HRA. • Zoning Ordinance Requirements -I. Section 3.31 and 3.37, of the zoning ordinance establishes standards for multiple family developments; 2. Section 3.34A establishes standards for planned unit development districts; 3. 4. 5. Section 3.41 establishes criteria for issuing special use permits; Section 3.40 lists three conditions fore a variance may be granted; Section 4.05 establishes standards ing areas. that must be met be- for off - street park- Staff Review The staff has reviewed this proposal and found the following: 1. Relationship to ordinances and plans. The PUD ordinance requires that a PUD project be compared with the zoning ordinances which would otherwise be ap- plicable to this type of development; i.e., if this pro - posal was not to be developed under the PUD ordinance, it would be necessary for the development to conform with the provisions for group housing developments, in Section 3.37 of the zoning ordinance. Council Letter No. 396 -3- November 24, 1980 Shown below is a comparison between the group housing sec - tion of the ordinance, the PUD requirements, and what is being proposed: PUD Group Housing Requirements Requirements Proposal A. Parking 183.7 250.5 184 B. Density 42.93 du /ac 22 du /ac 42.93 du /ac C. Floor Area 132,069.8 sq. ft. 217,937 sq. ft. D. Building Heights 110 Feet 75 Feet 110 Feet E. Setbacks: Front Yard 55 Feet 65 Feet 55 Feet Side Yards 125 -80 Feet 50 Feet 125 -80 Feet- Rear Yard 75 Feet 55 Feet 75 Feet • Although the proposed 184 parking spaces is 66.5 spaces fewer than the group housing requirements, the staff feels that because of the nature of the population (senior citi- zens), the proximity of the development to retail and commercial services, and a proposed cooperative -owned bus, the proposed 184 parking spaces is sufficient. The staff recommendation is further substantiated by a study con- ducted by the National Association of Housing and Redevel- opment Officials on specialized housing for the aging which indicates a need of only one parking space per two dwell- ing units. In terms of density, the proposed 42.93 dwelling units per acre is significantly greater than the group housing re- quirements, but is less dense than the 57.47 dwelling units per acre at the Richfield Towers. The Comprehensive De- velopment Plan indicates that this site should be developed at high density, and the L /H /N Redevelopment Project Plan indicates that the site should be developed with up to 250 units. The staff believes that the proposed density of 42.92 units per acre would not put an excess burden on the site. The proposed floor area of 217,937 square feet does exceed the maximum allowable floor area of 132,069.8 square feet. However, the staff feels that the proposed development of this site does allow sufficient open space to support the proposed floor area. The applicant is applying for a variance to resolve this matter. The proposal meets or exceeds all other PUD or group hous- ing requirements: E L_J i� Council Letter No. 396 APPLICABLE RATIO .606 X (Floor Area) .70 X (Open Space) .40 X (Livability Space) .065 X (Recreation Space) .9 X (Occupant Car) -4- LAND USE INTENSITY TABLE November 24, 1980 1.1 X 167 = (Total Car) (Living Units) of Spaces) 183.7 184 (Minimum No. (Proposed) of Spaces) 2. Relationship to the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Plan. The proposed location for this development is the multi- family site of the L /H /N Redevelopment Project area. The L /H /N Project Plan indicates that this site is to be de- veloped for multiple family purposes with up to 250 dwell- ing units and that the Richfield HRA is to acquire the remaining parcels along Graham Avenue to facilitate the development needs of this site. The L /H /N Redevelopment Plan also indicates that the site should be developed by a private developer constructing a five to seven story multi- family residential building. The development of this site, according to the L /H /N Redevelopment Plan, should provide buffering from development of the designated commercial use sites, to the east, which is being proposed for development by Lyndale Hardware, for the residential uses to the west. Rezoning of the site is necessary to implement and carry out the L /H /N Redevelopment plan. It is the opinion of the staff that this proposed multi- family development is consistent with the L /H /N Redevelop- ment Project Plan except for the proposed height of the structure. The parking area on the east side of the proposed site will serve as a buffer between the commer- cial uses to the east of this site, and, as a buffer between both the remaining single family residences on Lake Shore Drive and the Wood Lake Nature Center, and West 66th Street. ACTUAL FOR MULTIPLIER STANDARD PROPOSED PROJECT 239,535 = 132,069.8 217,937 _ (Gross Land Area) (Maximum Area) (Proposed) 239,535 = 167,674.5 222,315 (Gross Land Area) (Minimum Area) (Proposed) 239,535 = 95,814 125,294 (Gross Land Area) (Minimum Area) (Proposed) 239,535 = 15,569.7 20,500 (Gross Land Area) (Minimum Area) (Proposed) 167 = 150.3 184 (Living Units) (Minimum No. (Proposed) 1.1 X 167 = (Total Car) (Living Units) of Spaces) 183.7 184 (Minimum No. (Proposed) of Spaces) 2. Relationship to the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Plan. The proposed location for this development is the multi- family site of the L /H /N Redevelopment Project area. The L /H /N Project Plan indicates that this site is to be de- veloped for multiple family purposes with up to 250 dwell- ing units and that the Richfield HRA is to acquire the remaining parcels along Graham Avenue to facilitate the development needs of this site. The L /H /N Redevelopment Plan also indicates that the site should be developed by a private developer constructing a five to seven story multi- family residential building. The development of this site, according to the L /H /N Redevelopment Plan, should provide buffering from development of the designated commercial use sites, to the east, which is being proposed for development by Lyndale Hardware, for the residential uses to the west. Rezoning of the site is necessary to implement and carry out the L /H /N Redevelopment plan. It is the opinion of the staff that this proposed multi- family development is consistent with the L /H /N Redevelop- ment Project Plan except for the proposed height of the structure. The parking area on the east side of the proposed site will serve as a buffer between the commer- cial uses to the east of this site, and, as a buffer between both the remaining single family residences on Lake Shore Drive and the Wood Lake Nature Center, and West 66th Street. Council Letter No. 396 -5- November 24, 1980 The proposed main structure is also consistent with the L /H /N Urban Design Elements in that the building would be constructed with an earth -tone brick exterior. The proposed exterior lighting system for the parking area is mercury vapor on 20 -foot posts. This is contrary to the Urban Design Element which provides that lighting throughout the area be black square poles with black luminaires using high pressure sodium to ensure continuity throughout the L /H /N Redevelopment area. The proposal is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the L /H /N Redevelopment Project plan, which indicates that a vari- ety of housing types, including specialized housing for the elderly, should be developed. The L /H /N Redevelopment Plan also provides that Circle Place and Graham Avenue be vacated to facilitate development in this portion of the L /H /N project area. The proposal is in substantial compliance with Richfield's Com- prehensive Development Plan, which denotes this site to be developed with medium to high densities of mixed land uses, including multiple - family residential uses. In terms of public services, the proposed structure will have an internal fire protection system, including smoke detectors and sprinkling, and would not require any additional fire fighting equip- ment for the city's public safety department to provide adequate protection. The development would also improve the area, and would probably require less police patroling than is now necessary with the mixed land uses on the site. Some increase in emergency medical calls could take place. The existing utilities presently servicing this site have suf- ficient capacities to facilitate the needs of this development. The only vehicular access to the site is from West 66th Street. West 66th Street does have sufficient capacity to absorb the ad- ditional 500 vehicle trips per day estimated to be generated by this development. The proposal also provides that the cooperative purchase a small bus to be used by the residents for trips to banks, shopping areas and to accommodate similar needs, thereby reducing the total number of vehicle trips per day. Conversely, the site plan does not denote a drop off area near the building entrance, which could create potential traffic congestion on the driving lane ad- jacent to the entrance. The proposal does provide for adequate open, livability and recreational spaces. (See land use intensity table). Also included in the proposal are patios, garden plots and resi- dent walkways linking up to the existing public pedestrian systems, and to the Wood Lake Nature Center. The most significant impact on the neighborhood will be the visual impact of the height of the proposed structure. The proposed height of the structure, 110 feet at its highest point, would be the Council Letter No. 396 -6- November 24, 1980 tallest building in Richfield, four stories higher than the Rich- field Towers. The shadow effect of the development would not impact on any single family residential property or the Wood Lake Nature Center, but would affect the commercial property north of 66th Street. While commercial uses are generally not adversely affected from shadow effects, the question of solar access for commercial uses may pose a problem. The staff feels that as demand for solar energy increases such things as detached solar collectors will provide solar access for properties affected by the shadows cast from other property uses. The primary views of the remaining single family residents on Lake Shore Drive is the Wood Lake Nature Center. Although the impact of the building height will be significant, proper use of green space and landscaping is proposed on the site to reduce this impact. The proposal will not affect the primary views of these residents to Wood Lake. Other Impacts The staff is of the opinion that the request to vacate the northerly 380 feet of the alley on Fairwood Shores, could create city maintenance problems in terms of turning space. The abutting single family residents on the alley are opposed to this alley vacation be- cause the only access to their garages is from Lyndale Avenue. The remaining portion of the alley is sloped and may create traffic movement problems during the winter months. The staff has discussed the matter with the residents, and at this time three alternatives are being explored to alleviate the problem: 1. To regrade the alley, thereby reducing the slope and mimi- mizing access problems created by ice and snow; 2. To fill in the low area of the alley, including raising_ the garages; 3. To dedicate additional land on the property immediately northwest of 6617 Lake Shore Drive, and create an "L" shaped alley with two points of access ( Lyndale Avenue and Lakeshore Drive). There will be two curb cuts for access to 66th Street, one with full movement and one with right turn movement only. The staff feels that this aspect of the proposal is adequate to facilitate ac- cess needs to the site, and should not pose traffic problems for surrounding uses. The site was originally proposed for commercial development in the L /H /N Redevelopment project plan.. The redevelopment plan was amended in 1979, and the site was subsequently proposed for market rate multi - family housing. The proposed multi- family use for persons 60 years of age or older will generate fewer average daily vehicle trips than commercial or market rate multi - family developments. The existing transportation facilities are capable of absorbing the pro- jected increase of 500 ADT for this site. It should be noted that Knutson companies project an even lower rate of traffic increase • :7 c Council Letter No. 396 -7- November 24, 1980 due to the proximity of the site to commercial areas, the cooperative - owned bus which will provide transportation alternatives, and their experience with the similar 7500 York development in Edina. The proposal would help in meeting the other housing demands in the community. As persons 60 years or older become residents of the proposed multi - family development, single family detached homes would become available for larger, younger families. Richfield residency is not a prerequisite to live in the multi- family Cooperative Living Center, however, so Richfield may not realize the full benefit of single family homes becoming available. Staff Recommendations Based on the foregoing analysis, the staff has found the follow- ing with regard to this proposal: Preliminary PUD Plan This proposal is substantially in conformance with the L /H /N Redevel- opment Project Plan and the Comprehensive Plan; that sufficient open and recreation space is provided; that the floor area does exceed the maximum requirements; (however, because of the efficient utili- zation of open and recreation space, the staff feels that the site can absorb the extra amount of floor space and pose no adverse af- fects on the site or surrounding properties); that sufficient public utilities exist to facilitate the needs of the proposed development; that traffic generated at this location can be handled adequately with the improvements scheduled for West 66th Street in 1981. The staff recommends approval of the preliminary PUD Plan requesting the site be rezoned from "R" single family residential and "C -2" general commercial to "PMR" planned multi- family residential, with the fol- lowing stipulations: 1. That the proposed residential pedestrian system and parking area be lighted in accordance with the L /H /N urban Design Element; 2. That the necessary variance be obtained by the developer; 3. That sufficient vehicle "drop off" space be provided adja- cent to the main entrance of the buildina; 4. That sufficient buffering be provided adjacent to the single family homes on Lake Shore Drive to reduce the impact of ground level activities of both the residents of the proposed cooperative and the single family residents. Special Use Permit Because the proposal is in substantial compliance with the con- ditions governing the issuance of special use permits, the staff recommends that the special use permit for a multiple family use be granted. Council Letter No. 396 -8- November 24, 1980 Variance The staff has reviewed this proposal against the conditions which must be present for a variance to be granted, and found the following: 1. It is the opinion of the staff that, because this property is within the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project area, there are special conditions affecting this property; 2. Denial of this application would not preclude reasonable use of this property. 3. The proposed development is an improvement in the area and is necessary to implement and carry out the goals and ob- jectives of the L /H /N Redevelopment Project Plan. The variance, which would allow 85,867.2 square feet of addi- tional floor space, should not be detrimental to the public welfare or improvements in the neighborhood. Sufficient setbacks and green space are proposed to effectively mini- mize the impacts of the proposed development, and of the proposed additional floor space. Because the three conditions for granting a variance have not been met, the planning staff recommends denial of the requested variance. However, it is the recommendation of the city manager that the request for variance be approved. Vacation of Street and Alley The proposed development requires that the city vacate the northerly 430 feet of Graham Avenue and the northerly 350 feet of the alley on Fairwood Shores. Because the request to vacate these portions of said street and alley is in compliance with the L /H /N Redevelopment Project Plan, that staff recommends that the city approve this vacation request with the following stipulation: 1. That the alley access and maintenance problem be resolved by the city engineer. The council should acknowledge receipt of the vacation requests and set a public hearing for December 8, by passing the attached resolu- tion. The council should also give first reading approval to the attached ordinance. Finding that the Disposition of HRA and City -owned Property is in Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Minnesota State Statutes (Section 462.356) requires that, be- fore any publicly -owned interest in real property within a munici- pality can be disposed of, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed disposition is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City of Richfield own nine parcels of property in the designated multi- family site of th.e L /H /N Redevelopment Project Area. These parcels and other parcels of property in the multi - family site are to be is c Council Letter No. 396 -9- November 24, 1980 acquired by the HRA and sold to a private developer in accordance with the Lyndale /Hub /Nicollet Redevelopment Project Plan as amended in 1979. As stated previously, the proposed development of this site with high density multi - family use is in compliance with the Compre- hensive Development Plan of the City of Richfield. The city council should give first reading approval to a transitory ordinance auth- orizing the sale of the city owned properties. Planning Commission Recommendations 1. Preliminary PUD Plan: The Planning Commission recommends that the preliminary PUD Plan and rezoning be approved with the following stipulations: a. That the proposed residential pedestrian system and parking area be lighted in accordance with the L /H /N Urban Design Element; b. That the necessary variance be obtained by the developer; C. That sufficient vehicle "drop off" space be provided adjacent to the main entrance of the building; d. That sufficient buffering be provided adjacent to the single family homes on Lake Shore Drive; e. That further consideration be given to access on Lyndale Avenue. 2. Special Use Permit: The Planning Commission recommends that the special use permit be approved for the Lake Shore Drive Cooperative. 3. Street and Alley Vacations: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the vacation of the northerly 430 feet of Graham Avenue and the southerly 380 feet of the alley on Fairwood Shores with the following stipu- lations: a. That the developer dedicate additional alley -way creating an "L" shaped alley connecting to Lake Shore Drive; b. That any unusual improvements to the remainder of the alley be charged to the developer and not assessed to the remaining residential property owners in the area. 4. Disposition of Property: The Planning Commission finds that the sale of the site for me- dium to high density, multiple family uses is in compliance with the city's Comprehensive Plan. The resolution which the Planning Commission adopted, making this finding, is attached for your information. 5. Variance The Planning Commission recommends granting a variance to in- crease the maximum allowable floor area of 132,069.8 square feet to 217,937 square feet of the Lake Shore Drive Cooperative Living Center. Council Letter No. 396 -10- November 24, 1980 RING and CIC Recommendations The Residential Impact Neighborhood Group (RING) considered the proposal and made the following two recommendations: 1. It is recommended that further study be made to determine the impact of the development on the three remaining Lake Shore Drive single family residential properties. 2. They requested that the staff provide RING with a tax in- crement feasibility cash flow report before the HRA and City Council approve the developer's agreement, with the report to be both oral and written. The Commercial Improvement Committee also considered the pro- posal and all members present indicated their support for the project. Respectfully submitted, Karl Nollenberger City Manager KN /jf cc: Community Development Director HRA Specialist fa • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING ALLEY AND STREET VACATION PETITION AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the vacation of an alley and street easements described as follows: Alley: "That part of the alley in Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition lying between the south right -of -way line of 66th Street and the northerly extension of the easterly line of lot 15 Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition. Street: "That part of Graham Avenue South, lying between the south right -of -way line of West 66th Street, Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition and a point lying 127.05 feet southwesterly of the most easterly corner of Lot 10, block 1, Fairwood Shores Addition. WHEREAS, said petition complies in all requirements of Richfield Ordinance Code 12.04, subdivision 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AS FOLLOWS: 1. The petition for vacation of that portion of said alley and street described above is received. 2. A public hearing on the alley and street vacation in said petition shall be held on December 8, 1980. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the city and post notice of said hearing in the manner provided by Richfield Ordinance Code Section 12.04, Subdivision 3. Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this 24th day of November, 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor - RESOLUTION NO. 261- RESOLUTION FINDING THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed disposition of property described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 5, 6, 7, S, 9, and 10, Block 1; lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, Block 3; All in "FAIRWOOD SHORES" according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Also, That part of Auto Lane as shown on said plat lying between the northeasterly extension of the southeasterly line of said Lot 15 and the southerly right -of -way line of Nest 66th Street, as shown on said plat. Also, That part of Graham Avenue as shown and dedicated on said plat lying northerly of a curved line concave to the southeast, having a radius of 65.00 feet, said curve being drawn through the most southerly corner of said Lot 10, Block 1, and the most easterly corner of said Lot 6, Block 3. Also, That part of vacated West 66th Street as shown and dedicated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 11, Block 3, lying between the northerly extensions of the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of said Lot 11, -Block 3, Also, That part of vacated West 66th Street as shown and dedicated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 12, Block 3, lying between the northerly extensions of the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of said Lot 12, Block 3. WHEREAS, the proposed disposition is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, NOW TIIEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission finds that the proposed disposition for the purpose of medium to high density, Multiple Family uses to be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Passed by the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield, this 12th day of November, 1980. ATTEST: Erich J. Russell, Secretary Joseph Ertman Richfield Planning Commission E 0 0 mg R T, INA 1 .0 Ao ---------- LAKE SHORE DRIVE "]M� COOPERATIVE 123 — owl —1 ft—W�slm—, 155403, M1 Z 87* M 1 50 Ip m z o� s r%�rt�l I / r u\ 3' D �V fit Y y a } 111 a x x v k E i LAKE SHORE DRIVE COOPERATIVE }ig 23 0 Ll • LAKE SHORE DRIVE a , COOPERATIVE zT o. 3ra .2 el fJP vv is iY 0A e d6 9 lu LAKE SHORE DRIVE COOPERATIVE 0 LA Y �, . Lil k" > LAKE SHORE DRIVE COOPERATIVE I Z3 Z 1717� N Ga O O ill Al la z LAKE SHORE DRIVE COOPERATIVE FI 123— 9— 611"1,m,^-11.1m-1--l.l. 0(61Z07 row 0 .! 0 m LAKE SHORE DRIVE -,•_, - �� _:-� Y COOPERATIVE " +a wi ami sv.. unxnwcaium�� .•ouiss.wiainuurmo � R I" b a� v 1 � .. *•phi _� �- v a ym I tl � � � z 0 dt j m LAKE SHORE DRIVE -,•_, - �� _:-� Y COOPERATIVE " +a wi ami sv.. unxnwcaium�� .•ouiss.wiainuurmo � R I" ■ ■ m MEN LAKE SHORE DRIVE m ! COOPERATIVE 123 -1 g-, 0 1" ZY •'r. -- '4'::_j_ ;,. '"�,` �', �Sl =���.f , h � �`� ';iii:.. s_, _ ,I rte- •+'� �} ,.i -}�.� � - 3 r1 l a �_ �r I t_. a r��u � / / i� -' -� `- . y -k.a � /�;. �/�L.�yt ..,� I �'.t' :t�- ..., .:.may.- .!�•'?e�!'r'f (t rc� �..yt ��� � � ..711 ��Z, �\ \ � /°� V � '� ��/�/ � *I I '+'°�. „� �. 4 t `• _ �� �, - 'j�']' %%:.��'� -•4 y� ` �� •SOD � ,� *+. +71 _3. •' +,. r Vii._ "m `�1r y+�f 53 r , I� ` S•`Y a ?� �� '1 I .� 71; tt. � A - C__.� � `� L \I j� • -'� Rt 11; _µ S V �a - - "�f �}jLi "^-F � �t �, y�.T �- �6+ ... ~'� '�'". -x x. _ g-- _- -�8-�m 1 s; - �3,`t.S3`„`_I•. 'S �-F ; ��+1 - t+ d ,w a. C ^w, ;.4,'�• E yy¢ .: s .� ; - � =1 t VP w . ,1^4.. '� �' �.v �^+-° i .(r I F . F' a � --' IS �� i• S � S I :� �S 'i •rP }' ' � I `r '11 � _ - , i � ; ` , ti + i -_ P � ..r s -�-' I I' � L . v r� � . y � �:� � _ i�.r��F i" ;� � -•+'-t '.� '�, - I j �..� r '� j r• } .� 7a1 � # . •ii �-+� d .'Vti+ t hi-++i"`��'�*- � y �� - =_ =��- -- .. .............. . ..... .... --- s _ i'� 443 5 1 Fes;` - 4• ���.. .� 'y,c le r -IrI �,.,,v.� _•� 3P v y� gg D 3 s _ >f✓". ,jlom. l aa.. ' , xc _- xjt�a d' m i A m I f i c�-•a 's m K +�I' G _.l. +- �V.� 1 v 4r...+ '+'A`'yrr,;,+t w -;. -+ 1 ; •*i two f'� y m x��i -It•� _� i '¢ -1 ��{{'' Y. - . k. �'+i 'a'1$,�1'° "i':aL _ 3'. ,ij. tyt-. •� •� �IiI 1-a. m - � Fi � ! � � .r°_ , � ; �,� 1°": 4��_;. x ,�...••" e`er I fa i r , ► � I L r. � � • i�. id Ly -� 1. � � -� 1 �•�,, rat ;� jt;� ���, ,� , -� .. tt,,,, ��v'�^_ �aY �l 4.k•����cY`.i� Y'�F'� r � .`M -..1, -_.�� 3rr"�lkX '�rv, { w�•c i i+�.s�1i'�ftF J±d' 3. aSrg, ='� 0 7A, MII - F A3 r.. . r comprehensive e development plan for the LAND USE: description density principol uses Combination of multiple dwellings, office, research ---r Mixed Land Use High industrial, hotel, motel, institutional, and retail commercial Combination of office, I institutional, light and Mixed Land Use High /Medium research oriented industrial, retail commercial, and multiple dwellings Combination of office, retail commercial, entertainment and Central Business eating establishments, small District High /Medium comparison shopping and service Mixed Land Use businesses, institutional, limited cultural, recreational facilities, and multiple dwellings Combination of single family dwellings, mud dwellings, Mixed Land Use Medium townhouses, and neghborhood neighborhood convenience commercial Light and research oriented Industrial Medium industrial uses. Multiple High Multiple units with related accessory uses. Convenience Area Low Grocery, drug, hardware stores. L.=J Shopping 5inale family or two fomily Single Family Low units and accessory uses Residential compatible with single or two family units COMMUNITY FACILITIES: t� - - - -- Public parks and open space - - - -- Public schools Churches or church — related L�J - - - -- facilities Other public, quasi - public, or Q - - - -- private institutional facilitie! 'TRANSPORTATION: ..��. - - - -- Major arterial thoroughfare adopt.d by th. city of ri,hfi.ld this 15th day of January 1973 C7 I 0 • Bill 1980 -30 AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts of the City, enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28 subdivision 2 of such code, is hereby ammended: 1. Appendix C, section 3, is amended by ammending paragraph (26) to read as follows: ( (26) That area lying southerly of 66th Street, northwesterly of Lyndale Avenue and westerly of Graham Avenue) "Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 Block l; Lots 1, 2, and 3 Block 2; all in Fairwood Shores." 2. Appendix C, section 3 is ended by deleting the following paragraph ((59) ots 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 3, Fairwood Shores, together with that area lying adjacent to and northerly of said lots 11 and 12 and south of the south line of 66th Street, being the area heretofore vacated as a public street.) 3. Appendix C, section 8 is amended by adding a new paragraph which will read as follows: "(2) Lots 5 6 , 7 , 8, 9 and 10, Block 1; Lots 6, and 15, B oc ; All in "FAIRWOOD SHORES" according to the plat thereot on tile or of record in the office of the Registrar of i.t es, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Also, That part of Auto Lane as shown on said plat lyin between the northeasterly extension of the south- easterly line of said Lot 15 and the southerly right -of -way line-of West 66th Street, as shown on said plat. Also, That part of Graham Avenue as shown and dedicated on said plat lying northerly of a curved line concave to the southeast, having a radius of 65.00 feet, said curve being drawn through the most southerly corner of said Lot 10, Block 1, and the most easterly corner of said Lot 6, Block 3. Also, That part of vacated West 66th Street as shown and dedicated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 11, Block 3, lying between the northerly extensions of the north- easterly and southwesterly lines of said Lot 11, Bloc glock 3. Also, That part of vacated West 66th Street as shown and dedicated on said plat, adjoining said Lot 12, Block 3, lying between the northerly extensions of the north- easterly and southwester-, lines of said Lot 12, Block Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk - e C 0 Bill 1980 -27 fo TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 16.70 A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF GRAHAM AVENUE SOUTH CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The following portion of Graham Avenue South, within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby vacated. "That part of Graham Avenue South, lying between the south right -of -way line of West 66th Street, Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition and a point lying 127.05 feet southwesterly of the most easterly corner of Lot 10, block 1, Fairwood Shores Addition." Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing Section. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk i TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE ALLEY ON FAIRWOOD SHORES Section 1. The following portion of the alley on Fairwood Shore within the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is he--s'Ly vacated: "That part of the alley in Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition lying between the south right -of -way line of 66th Street and the northerly extension of the easterly line of lot 15 Block 3 Fairwood Shores Addition." Section 2. This vacation shall be subject to perpetual easements running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscaping purposes to permit improvements to West 66th Street. Section 3. The mayor and manager are authorized to take such action as is required to give effect to the vacation of the public right -of -way as provided in the foregoing section 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this day of , 1980. ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk Donald J. Priebe, Mayor is 0 0 Bill 1980 -29 APPENDIX A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE 16.72 ORDINANCE NO. 16. A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY City of Richfield does Ordain: Section 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized to be sold and disposed of: Lot 5, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof. Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk and landscape purposes over, under, art of said Lot 5 1 across and through that .part lying g northerl Y and northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the easterly line of said Lot 5 distant 34.11 feet southerly from the northeast corner of said Lot 5, to a point on the westerly line of said Lot 5 distant 33.00 feet southerly from the northwest corner of said Lot 5; and Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Fairwood Shores, according to the plat thereof. Subject to a perpetual easement running in favor of the City of Richfield, its successors and assigns, for public street, sidewalk, and landscape purposes over, under, across and through that part of said Lots 6, 7, and 8 lying northerly of a line parallel and /or concentric with and 50.00 feet southerly of Line A, hereinafter described: Line A Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of East, 475.00 feet along the north line of said Southwest Quarter; thence South 20 degrees 48 minutes 35 seconds West 6.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 44 seconds West 462.23 feet to the beginning of Line A; thence westerly 226.37 feet on a tangential curve, concave to the south, central angle 22 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds and radius 572.96 feet; thence South 66 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West 100 feet, tangent to said curve and there terminating. Section 2. The terms and conditions of such sale shall be determined by the City Council. K r� Passed by the City Council or the City o Richiieid, this day of 1980. Donald J. Priebe, Mayor ATTEST: Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk 0