Loading...
03-27-78 agenda�� /,r5- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 92 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Request for Special Sign Permit, Walser Buick Walser Buick, 2100 West 78th Street, has requested that the city council grant a special sign permit to allow construction of a 35 foot pedestal sign on their property. City Ordinance Chapter III, Part_V, limits the height of pedes- tal signs to 27 feet unless a special permit is obtained from the city council to erect a higher sign. This section of the ordinance also places conditions on the size of pedes- tal signs which may be constructed on a street frontage, stipulating that any sign more than 28 square feet in size shall constitute the main sign, and that no sign of larger size may be erected on the same frontage. The existing ped- estal sign on the Walser Buick frontage is larger than 28 square feet. This sign would have to be either removed or reduced in size to enable construction of a new pedestal sign such as that for which the special sign permit is requested. Walser Buick has agreed to do this. Attached to this council letter is a diagram showing the proposed new sign and its location on the property. If the council chooses to approve this special sign permit, it should do so with a stipulation that the existing pedestal sign in front of Walser Buick be either removed or reduced to a size of less than 28 square feet, before the new sign is erected. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraa City Manager WSB /eja cc: Public Works Director i RLSER B U I C K 2100 W. 78th Street, Minneapolis, Mn. 55423 Phone (612)859 -1492 March 179 1978 City of Richfield Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Gentlemen: Walser Buick hereby requests a sign variance to install General Motors product identification signs which will be 35 feet high. We understand that a variance is required because the City of Richfield's ordinance allows signs up to 26 feet high. We request this variance for the following reasons: 1. To obtain product identification from Freeway 494 and Penn Ave. South, since traffic on the frontage road passing in front of our facilities is not sufficient to support an auto dealership. 2. The General Motors sign program, which is used through out the country, requires 35 feet high signs. 3. Walser Buick obtains limited product identification from the east due to the blocking of existing signs by the rental sign located to the east of our facility It is not the intention of Walser Buick to have any signs that reflect unfavorably on the City of Richfield and Walser Buick as a business enterprise. However, proper product identification, utilizing General Motors established sign program is essential to the viability of Walser Buick as an automobile dealership. -- Your cooperation in this matter will be appreciated. Cordially yours, Walser Buick, Inc. Walser President ' WRLSER y BUICK 2100 W. 78th Street, Minneapolis, Mn. 55423 Phone (612)869 -1492 March 22, 1978 City of Richfield Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Gentlemen: Walser Buick hereby agrees to reduce or remove the pedestal sign (hereafter referred to as the "rental sign") located immediatley in front of Walser Buick's showroom floor. It is understood that the rental sign does not comply with the secondary sign provision of the of the City of Richfield. The reduction or removal of the rental sign place when a permit is issued to erect a 35 ft. Motors product identification pedestal sign for Walser Buick is seeking a special permit. Very truly yours Walser Buick, In . Dennis D. Gram Vice President DDG:es ordinance will take General which DPW' 101 4/20/76 Ground Sign {E Width Legend Wall Sign 1.6 Wi dth —� Legend Ground Pedestal Sign Width Legend nt Roof Sign Width Legend t n Roof Q, el � L91 e� 3� Hanging Sign ice-- -- Width —� Legend Indicate distance from the building Ground Indicate legend on the reverse side in Legend Place location of sign on this sketch with distance the sign is from property lines. Locate any traffic lights within 600 feet. 413.26 r.. - - - - - I• - -1. - - - - Indicate h IT �II ly LI l iV k 1= Ic Clz �o a° 0 O — C3 — s - - =-I m= c E d c `I 'vi1'J NL O o W� 1,W 1 tom I E ¢ V N r Z �. S �z 0 C) tL 2 Z F- C7 W G p J < w Z W oW C Q ¢ �L � I y J - VJ _ a - ch o . I't' z 'U 3 L" O y d Il p ILL p C ( II 4 y p R s E t c ] o m V I v Utn n c o d d� I C a N D O N t O N d` 9 m I >i C y I d 0mman I •C M M (") (7 I i i _ L I .O.. .E m is ! i cm .ro oomm 5, o, ='u mz� I E E I N� d� f.� o- i c I d c m o c OZ N I OO I G m y E C C O d C G I m o C N N N I m I W aL G m 1 L Z m i � I o c o N I LD �� rn n"o 3�� me om me >2Um I�cc= �c ry om o I I m o = a and of `n UmD a-5 c p o yoc� �wEai mm d.�I �4_o CL Hu,I�vmcv'm 00 D m C u C w II O I CL v o' 7mi m m. � � G I •� d m d c° c rn p�;> o l Q I G m p -°' o a� �tN dm° -�_m _vim a ��- 2• �- cz ?OLL-cc E O O Z p =c 'O .� m U O. G p T T 5 W p U a> S U m I m O Im „O�„ 9 1� C H m C� U m> > o Z ¢ U ;O -p W I n.v O O O L_ cm V fn to H v J Z_ Q O n m`> Q- O m {L O m U Q m s; D FJ Z u Diu CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 91 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Consideration of Grant Application to Acquire Senior Citizen/ Handicapped Transportation Van The City of Richfield recently learned that $385,000 in federal funds is available to support acquisition of transportation equipment and facilities. These funds are administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and applica- tions for funding through this program are now being received by the MNDOT. The grant program guidelines require that a private agency be involved in any application for funding through the program. The Richfield Lions Club has agreed to be the sponsoring agency with the city in an application for a trans- portation services grant. The agreement between the Lions Club and the city would provide that a grant application be submitted to finance purchase of a van, to be equipped to transport elderly and handicapped residents. Such a vehicle would carry 10 to 12 persons, and would cost approximately $20,000. The grant would fund 80% of the cost of the vehicle, or $16,000. The remaining acquisition cost would be shared between the city and the Lions Club, with each contributing $2,000. If the grant were approved and a vehicle purchased, it would become the city's responsibility to schedule, operate and maintain the van. The vehicle would be assigned to the central garage for maintenance purposes, although it would be necessary to depreciate the cost of acquiring a replacement vehicle through the operating budget of the Community Center. It would also be necessary to provide a driver for the vehicle. While we presently have a CETA- funded position of transportation coordinator, this position terminates in November because it is funded through a one year, Title VI CETA special project grant. There are presently proposals for extension of the CETA program pending before Congress, including proposals to limit future CETA funding to activities which have not previously been supported by CETA. If such a stip- I Council Letter No. 91 -2- March 27, 1978 ulation were attached to future CETA funding, we would be unable to continue supporting a transportation coordinator with CETA monies, and the burden of supporting that employee would fall on the city's general fund budget. Annual operating costs for the van and the transportation service are estim- ated to be approximately $25,000. It is anticipated that riders would provide a minor donation for the service. The Congregate Dining Program has also expressed interest in leasing the van from the city to pick up persons participating in their daily lunch program. However, any income from rider contributions or a lease arrangement with Congregate Dining would provide very little of the total cost of the program, and the city would continue to be responsible for most of the cost of the program. Council members are aware of the operating budget restrictions which have been imposed on the city by the state legislature. We are at our legal levy limit during 1978, and I see no change in 1979 which would free additional revenues to undertake new activities or support new programs. If the city were to apply for, and receive, a grant to purchase a senior /handicapped transportation van, the cost of operating that vehicle would have to come from the general fund budget. To implement a new program with an annual cost Of approximately $25,000 would mean that some other program or activities within the park and recreation department would have to be cut or eliminated, to free sufficient revenues to support the cost of this new program. I am providing this information to the council in response to their previously expressed interest in providing transportation services for senior citizen and handicapped individuals. Although the MnDOT program would help meet the initial cost of acquiring a van, which is considerable, the cost to the city for operating the vehicle is even more considerable. I believe it is important to carefully consider the impact that undertaking such a program might have in requiring other park and recreation activities to be severely curtailed or eliminated. WSB /eja Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 90 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Letter from Bloomington Mayor Concerning Hennepin County Detention Center Mayor Law has requested that the attached letter from Mayor James Lindau, Bloomington, be placed on the March 27, 1978 city council agenda for discussion purposes. WSB /eja Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager JOHN G. PIDGEON MANAGER CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BUILDING • OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD AT PENN • BLOOMINGTON, MINN. 55431 :March 17, 1978 Mayor Loren Law 6414 11th Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Law: JAMES H. LINDAU MAYOR The Hennepin County Commissioners may, in a few days, consider a resolution to sell the Hennepin County Detention Center to the City of Minneapolis. As I am sure you know, the detention center is on the site of the proposed downtown stadium. You may be somewhat amused at my interest in the detention center because of its location, but I assure you there is more to my concern than thz potential loss of the Bloomington Stadium. My chief concern is for proper representation by elected officials of those people whom they are elected to serve. There appears to be some haste on the part of._ the Commission to deal with this whole matter, and I would like to be sure that you are aware of some of the issues that need to be examined before any "deal" is concluded. As you know, there is a mixed feelir_g about the current iuvenile detention center and its adequacy. Without dealing with that issue, it should be noted that the Commission has not at this time completed a feasibility study to determine either our present needs or our future needs for handling juveniles. No architectural drawings have been developed, no cost estimates for a new facility have been discussed, and, of course, no financial plan developed to determine how a new facilty might be paid for. My final concern is that the City of Minneapolis m -;- t be expected to offer to pay book value ($2 to $3 million) for the site instead of market value or replacement cost which may be as high as $15 million. If you consider that construction might be rushed because of the need to move tiie facility, the cost, of course, could be substantially } i .•? b , n ... _ r ..mo. . I urge you for the sake of all taxpayers in Hennepin County to take an immediate interest in this issue. The Hennepin County Board should make no commitment to sell until the steps outlined above have been completed. We may, indeed, need improved facilities, but I sincerely hope that the decision will be based on systematic analysis, rather than hasty ill- advised reaction. JHL /et Sincerely, James H. Lindau Mayor A City where the Emphasis is on People AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER IV - CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 89 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Letter from East Richfield Babe Ruth Baseball League Councilman Luettinger has requested that the attached letter from East Richfield Babe Ruth Baseball League be placed on the March 27, 1978 city council agenda for discussion purposes. WSB /eja Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager Larch 5, 1973 Councilman Vern Luettiner 7045 - 14th Avenue South Richfield, iv '.innesota 55423 gear Councilman Luettinger•: Thank you for your interest in the Babe Ruth baseball program in East Richfield. Our program is the sole spring and summer baseball activity for boys age 13 through 15 in East Richfield after they have com- pleted Little League play. We have been accomodating about 120 boys who each play between 20 to 25 games from Kay 1 through the end of July at our field on E. 66th Street and 24th .Avenue South. All league officers, coaches, treat stand and other parent help is on a volunteer basis and we have always been able to fund the operatin; cost of the league through normal sources such as player registration fees and fund raisers, sponsor Participation, etc. Only when we run into capital improvement needs do we have to search for special financial sources. ,,e do face two projects this spring which must be taken care of, namely: 1. Vandalism at our field some time since last fall will require bu.ildin,�; two new cement block player dugouts. This we plan to pay for from our present funds and using volunteer labor. 2. Our present wooden bleachers at the field are many years old and badly deteriorated by weather elements. ;e have repaired them several times but much of the wood is getting so rotted out that we are not only concerned about having adequate seating for fans, but also their safety and possible liability to our league if an accident were to happen. These present wood bleachers are in two sets along first and third base, each being about forty feet long and eight seat levels high. Cur present league finances would be unable to handle the purchase of new bleacher facilities. For this reason our league officer's suggested we inquire whether the City of Richfield could be of any assistance either by providing bleachers not anymore needed from some other Richfield park facility or else by assisting.in some way to purchase bleachers through some contact trey have. ire thought perhaps they mi�.ht know of some place :-There good used bleachers are available and could be helpful in obtaining them.. Page 2. The si7e of our present bleachers of course is no requirement— we could use something of most any size for a typical baseball field seating and something even a little smaller than present would work out fine. I might add that a few of our officers/ parents also have suggested we inquire of the City about bleacher help since they see them provided at all the adult softball fields in Richfield and also because we understand the City aid provide some assistance to the :lest Richfield Babe Ruth league when their new field „as built at Donaldson Park a few years ago. Once again, thanks for your interest and whatever help, if any, the City could provide on the bleachers. Sincerely yours, �£..'�_ -�� J i� ; %Cif. , �'✓ Gerald N. Meyer r President East Richfield Babe Ruth Baseball Home .Address - 7501 -5th Ave. So. Telephone ,� - 869 -15+5 P.S. I might add that we do follow a policy of letting other youth baseball programs use our field when available and on request. For example, Richfield's East Junior High ninth grade teams (both A and B) have used the field during the spring in recent years for their home games. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 88 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Lease of Metropolitan Airports Commission Land for Community Gardens Attached to this council letter is a proposed lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission providing for city use of MAC lands for the purpose of providing community garden plots. This lease agreement is essentially the same as that executed in previous years for this purpose. The agreement provides that the city will use the MAC land at no cost to the city or at no cost to the MAC for land leased to Richfield residents as garden plots. It is recommended that the city council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute this lease agreement with the Metrop- olitan Airports Commission. Respectfully s 1h mitted, (�1 Wayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB /eja cc: Park and Recreation Director Finance Director GARDEN PLOT LEASE AGREEMENT made as of the 2nd day of January , 1978, by and between the Metropolitan Airports Commission (herein called "MAC ") and the City of Richfield (herein called "CITY ") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY has approached MAC for use of a portion of MAC lands con- stituting a part of Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport - Wold- Chamberlain Field, for use by CITY residents as "garden plots ", and MAC agrees to said use of lands as requested, located outside of the opera- tional areas of the Airport, and no charge to-CITY but at no cost to MAC, provided that CITY agrees to indemnify and save MAC harmless from any and all claims or causes of action which may be asserted arising out of such use; NOW THEREFORE, MAC, through its Executive Director, has designated and hereby transfers for the 1978 planting season at no charge to CITY and at no cost to MAC, land (250 ft. by 500 ft.) a portion of the Airport as designated in red on the Airport plot plan attached hereto as Exhibit 1, for use by CITY and its residents as "garden plots" with right of access to same by Cedar Avenue East Service Road and 69th Street adjoining the south side of Rich Acres Subdivision in the City of Richfield, such grant of use being subject however to the following: 1. Should emergency operating needs at the Airport require that MAC re- sume control of said area before the end of the 1978 planting season it may do so. 2. CITY will indemnify and save MAC harmless from any and all claims or causes of action arising by reason of the grant of use of said land to A -2- CITY for "garden plot" purposes, and out of the occupance and use of the same pursuant hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of the day first above written. MINNEAPOLIS -SAINT PAUL METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION By Executive Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Mayor By City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS County of ) On this day of , -1978, before me, a Notary with- in and for said county and state, personally appeared to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that he is the Executive Director of the Minneapolis -Saint Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, the corporation named in the foregoing instrument and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corpora- tion by authority of its Board of Commissioners, and said Executive Director -3- acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corpor- ation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS County of ) On this day of 1978, before me a Notary Public within and for said county and state, personally appeared and to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the and of the City of Richfield, the corporation named in the foregoing instrument and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said corpor- ation and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public �\` G LAJ LA- mill!! 4i / LLJ A. CD t pf jv / ,� ppl ° 1• Flo- �� t. �- ,.- fy<' C) \1/ it Ilk J' J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 87 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000 Chapter VI, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise, materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There is one such item on the city council agenda of March 27, 1978. Insulation of Heating Pipes, Community Center The adopted 1978 budget for the Community Center includes funding for the purpose of adding insulation to the hot water pipes in the building. This work is necessary because of difficulties experienced during the past two winters in controlling heat in some parts of the facility. It is anticipated that the expendi- ture for insulating the pipes should be partially offset by resultant savings in heating costs for the building. Quotations have been solicited to complete this work, with the low quotation submitted by E & S Insulation Company of Minneapolis, in the amount of $3,100. It is recommended that the city council approve this purchase in excess of $1, 000 in the amount of $3,100 forinsulating the hot water pipes in the community center building. Respectfully s u mitted, Wff Wayne S. Burggraa City Manager WSB /eja cc: Park and Recreation Director 4, 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 86 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Proposed Guidelines for Golf Course Citizen Committee At the January 23, 1978 city council meeting, the city council directed the staff to develop guidelines for creation of a golf course advisory committee. Such guidelines were to not only describe the composition of this committee, but also were to summarize the major tasks the committee would undertake. Attached is the staff recommendation relating to the size and purpose of the proposed golf course advisory committee. These guidelines have also been re- viewed by the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. It is recommended that the city council adopt the proposed guidelines for a golf course advisory committee. Once the council has finalized the direction or guidelines for the committee, committee members may be appointed at any time. However, based on the present timetable for the golf course project, it is important that the committee be established by early April. Therefore, the council may wish to consider appointments to the golf course advisory committee either at the March 27, 1978 or April 10, 1978 council meetings. - Respectfully s mitted, Wayne S. Burggraa City Manager WSB /eja &�PAi&A ka"bA cc: Park and Recreation Director ilarcn 21, I;/6 SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 7 -9 voting members representing a cross section of the community, male and female, including a variety of ages, abilities and interests with a commit- ment to anticipate and attempt to meet all the golf needs of the community, given the limitations of space and financial resources. Non - voting, ex- officio members from the following possible sources: 1) Park and Recreation Commission 2) Park and Recreation Staff . 3) City Council 4) Metropolitan Airports Commission Staff 5) Architects and Consultants PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 1. Develop a community communications process so golf course citizens committee, park and recreation commission and city council are aware of community ideas and opinions. 2. Develop goals and objectives for the golf course. 3. Develop and execute any community surveys that may be needed. 4. Make recommendations on initial fees and charges. 5. Make recommendations on information needed by economic feasibility study. 6. Review and make recommendations on preliminary and final plans and specifi- cations for site and building. 7. Review and recommend financial plan; i.e., bond. 8. Review and recommend compatible recreation facilities. 9. Recommend general rules and policies for the golf course and related facilities. 10. Recommendations for program development. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 85 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Consideration of Taxicab Driver License Revocation There is an item scheduled on the March 27, 1978 city council agenda pro- viding for council consideration of the suspension of a 1978 taxicab drivers license issued to Mr. Warren Franke. I took action on March 14, 1978 to suspend Mr. Franke's license on the basis of a criminal incident in which Mr. Franke was alleged to be involved on January 31, 1978. The incident alleges that Mr. Franke offered himself and /or attempted to solicit another for the purpose of prostitution contrary to Richfield City Ordinance, Section 10.16, subd. 10 and 11. As a result of this incident, a criminal complaint has been issued and court action regarding this matter is pending. Since the conduct upon which the criminal complaint is based represents a threat to the potential safety of taxicab customers, and since a basic intent of the city's licensure process is to protect the public, I took action to suspend Mr. Franke's taxicab drivers license before a criminal disposition of the matter. City ordinance requires, however, that the city council consider the suspension of this license at the next regularly scheduled council meeting following the suspension. Council consideration of this matter is scheduled for the March 27, 1978 council meeting in accordance with this ordinance requirement. Mr. Franke has been informed that the hearing on the license suspension is scheduled for March 27, 1978, and that he has the right to appear and to be represented by legal counsel. Subsequent to this hearing, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur, that the council give consideration to the revocation of the taxicab driver's license issued to Mr. Warren Franke. Respectfully su mitted, Wayne S. Burggraa City Manager cc: Public Safety Director City Attornev 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 84 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Market Analysis Update In 1974 the city retained a consultant to undertake a market analysis. This study was conducted to provide prospective developers and potential financial interests with pertinent information regarding the Richfield economic market, and to describe available commercial and residential development oppor- tunities within the Lynda le /Hub/Nicollet project area, and Richfield as a whole. The economic analysis is not only an important tool for guiding redevelop- ment project decisions and stimulating development interest in Richfield, but is also important in guiding citywide decisions related to zoning and comprehensive land use or plan revisions. Because of this, the Planning Commission has requested market analysis data to help them in their citywide zoning study and in their decision making efforts to assure that the proper amount of land is properly zoned for commercial development. A market analysis is also valuable in completing the inventory and analysis necessary to produce the housing and land use elements of the comprehensive plan revision which we are required by state law to undertake. The market analysis can also be used for land marketing within the L /H /N project area, and by the city and Chamber of Commerce for other promotions of Richfield. The initial market analysis study is now four years old. That study was conducted during a general economic recession and many significant changes have occurred since then with respect to general economic conditions and competitive market situations. For these reasons, it has become important that the study be updated to the current real estate market. The staff has contacted Mr. Ron Bussey of Metro - Economics in Northbrook, Illinois regarding the possibility of updating the original market analysis, which Metro Economics also did. Mr. Bussey has submitted a proposal to update the study for a fee of $3, 000. A copy.of Metro - Economics proposal is attached. The staff has also contacted the firm of Real Estate Research in St. Paul, who estimated that it would cost the city $8,000-$10,000 for their firm to do the market study update. Council Letter No. 84 -2- March 27, 1978 The cost of updating the market analysis could be funded through the Year IV Community Development Block Grant planning funds, and /or state comprehen- sive planning assistance grant funds. Because there is a high demand from de- velopers for the study information, it is anticipated that at least 100 copies of the study should be printed; 100 copies of the previous study have been distrib- uted. An additional $50.00 should cover all printing costs related to the study. At their February 21, 1978 meeting, the planning commission recommended that the Richfield market analysis study be updated. The staff concurs in that recommendation. It is, therefore, recommended that the city council authorize the city manager to engate the firm of Metro Economics to prepare an updated economic analysis, in the amount of $3,000 plus printing costs of approximately $50.00. Respectfully su itted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB /eja cc: Planning and Redevelopment Director Public Works Director Finance Director r METRO- ECONOMICS, INC. ? 899 SKOKIE BOULEVARD SUITE 240 RONALD J. BUSSEY NORTHBROOK, ILLINOIS 60062 PRESIDENT TELEPHONE 312- 564 -5560 February 21, 1978 Mr. Richard A. Jopke Planning Department City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: Proposal for Consulting Services Dear Mr, Jopke: Pursuant to our recent discussion and my promise, I am submitting herewith a proposal for services which outlines the scope and content of the con- sulting work that Metro - Economics, Inc,, would be prepared to undertake for the City of Richfield to re- assess the private sector development poten- tials which currently and prospectively accrue to Richfield's Lyndale -Hub- Nicollet commercial area. In this regard, it is my understanding that your immediate need is for an "updated" version of the "Development Potentials Analysis" I prepared for your department in 1974. It is understood further that the primary purpose of the above mentioned updated study is to make available to prospective developers and poten- tial financial interests pertinent information about the current Richfield market and the available near -term commercial as well as residential devel- opment opportunities within both the community and Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet study area. This updating was deemed essential because the original study was undertaken almost four years ago during a general economic recession, and many significant changes have occurred since that time with respect to local growth patterns and competitive market conditions. Also, a consider- able amount of relevant economic data has recently become available, which should now be taken into account, The initial development potentials study was designed to provide a basis for development planning decisions relating to the Lyndale- Hub - Nicollet Study Area commercial improvement program which was being pursued by the City and L -H -N Task Force Committee. A specific improvement concept was later formulated which was in keeping with the primary objectives of the community and Committee, and some of the actions designated by this plan have since been carried out. The approach I propose in updating the aforementioned development potentials analysis would be to test the marketability of each of the key uses essen- tial to the proposed improvement plan... identifying as precisely as possi- ble the potential demand sources for the quantities and types of uses being ,. Or Mr. Richard A. Jopke February 21, 1978 Page Two METRO - ECONOMICS, INC. suggested under the concept... including: (1) the retail business compon- ent; (2) the commercial office element; (3) the high- density housing use component; (4) the commercial services component; and (5) any other use of a specific nature deemed suitable. Such a re- analysis would re- identify the market support for the concept being advanced in terms of today's market situation, and provide a basis for judging each new use development site's best use as well as pending private sector development proposals relative to property within the study area. would make use of the still applicable content of the initial study, as well as take into account any changes which have occurred in land use in- ventories and the several other market factors examined in my earlier work, The concisely written report which would result would be designed as an up- dated version of the earlier development potentials study, and would be suf- ficiently detailed to meet fully the City's special requirements.relative to this re- evaluation, The determination of future requirements for the previously mentioned suita- ble types of commercial and residential land use within the L -H -N study area would be based upon a re- evaluation of: (1) historic and recent growth trends in the various applicable land uses; (2) present land use inventory characteristics; (3) the probable future expansion of the tributary region in terms of population and employment when v -iewed from this point in time; and (4) the competitive influences of competing existent tributary area de- velopment (of the various types of applicable land use) as they might relate to the potential for development within the L -H -N study area. The re- analysis previously described would provide an appropriate basis for formulating conclusions and recommendations regarding: (a) the adequacy of existing commercial and high - density residential facilities within Rich- field and in the L -H -N Study Area; (b) the opportunity for expansion or relocation of certain local tenants who are of considerable importance to ,the overall strength and customer appeal of the L -H -N commercial structure; and (c) the staging and space development potentials accruing to selected types of commercial and residential development in the L -H -N project area based upon the rate at which the market can absorb additional facilities of the types under study. The time required for completion of the updated study as outlined above would be forty -five (45) days following authorization to begin the study, the date of contract. In establishing the fee requirement set forth below... have examined the particular requirements of the study previously de- scribed, and have taken into account the economies which would be associa- ted with the avoidance of the "work duplication" factor in regard to those elements of the original study which would still be useful in connection with the re- analysis I am proposing... recognizing, however, that substantial up- dating work would still be required. Also, I have assumed a maximum cooper- ative input from City staff relative to my quest for local information deemed essential to the updating task. .� Mr. Richard A. Jopke February 21, 1978 Page Three METRO - ECONOMICS, INC. The total fee for the updated analysis as previously outlined in this pro- posal letter would be $3,000. The fee as quoted includes all expenses and costs which would be incurred by MEI in undertaking the subject assignment. MEI normally requires that certain monthly progress payments be made during the course of studies of this type we undertake, and that a certain portion of the fee would be payable upon delivery and acceptance of our final report and completion of the agreed upon work. I would suggest 30 -day and 45 -day progress billings of $2,000 and $500 respectively ... with the balance of $500 being retained until your department is satisfied that the work de- scribed herein has been completed in accordance with our agreement. would expect that twenty copies of the updated study report would be suffi- cient for your needs. Accordingly, this number of copies would be pro- vided within the fee quoted. Prior to the formal printing, draft copies of the updated report would be made available for purposes of your departmental group's review. Additional copies of the final report would be available at a later time, if required, at our cost of reproduction. am certainly pleased to have been provided the opportunity to submit this proposal of services and look forward to the prospect of being of further assistance to Richfield's Lyndale- Hub- Nicollet Study Area improvement efforts, Should you desire certain changes in the specifications as set forth, I would be prepared to respond quickly. Should the scope of services outlined previously correspond to your objec- tives, and you would desire that MEI proceed immediately with the work as proposed... your notice to that effect would suffice to get us underway. A formal agreement could then be drawn up as required or appropriate. RJ B/d s Cordially, METRO- ECONOMICS, INC. Ronald J. Bussey President CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Council Letter No. 83 Agenda March 27, 1978 Subject: Request for Authorization to Initiate Eminent Domain Proceedings, Flowertown Property The purpose of this council letter is to recommend to the city council that the attached resolution be adopted for the purpose of initiating eminent domain proceedings on the Flowertown property owned by Jonathan Corporation and others at the intersection of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue South. Attached is a map showing the property to be acquired. This property is necessary for public street purposes in connection with construction of the pedestrian plaza and bus turnouts which are to be located at the. corner of 'Lyn- dale Avenue and West 66th. Street. The pedestrian plaza area is part of the 1979 construction program which was approved in concept by the city council on November 26, 1976. This pedestrian plaza area is also included as part of the developer's agreement between the HRA and Financial Properties Develop- ers, Inc. for construction of a K -Mart store on the block immediately to the northeast of the 66th and Lyndale intersection. The HRA is under agreement to provide the area north and east of the pedestrian plaza to Financial Properties Developers, Inc. on March 1, 1979. While that date is still approximately one year away, we must have possession of this property this fall to allow sufficient time for clearance and soil compaction, to enable construction of the pedestrian plaza to begin in the spring of 1979. There are three owners involved in this property. The first party is a fee title owner who has leased a portion of the total property to Jonathan Corpor- ation. The second party is Jonathan Corporation represented by Mr. Norman Stillman, who has leased the rest of the property to Flowertown, Mr. Marvin Still- man and Mr. Shapiro. The council and HRA authorized acquisition of this area and set just compensation for acquisition of this property in the amount of $325,755. Formal negotiations between the city and the property owners were initiated on August 16, 1977. A letter of Notice of Intent to Acquire the property was sent on August 18, 1977. On January 13, 1978, the staff received a letter from Mr. Hyman Edelman, attorney for the Jonathan Corporation. This letter notified us that, as far as y Council Letter No. 83 -2- March 27, 1978 the Jonathan Corporation was concerned, the offer for the land and the basic building are unacceptable. Based on this letter, and private conversation between Mr. Edelman and the staff and public comments Mr. Edelman has made to the city council, negotiations for acquisition of this property have ceased. The complexity of negotiating with three parties and. the fact that negotiations have presently broken down, makes it necessary to initiate the eminent domain process at this time to assure that the city will be able to perform with respect to this property under terms of the agreement between the HRA and Financial Properties, Inc. In summary, it is still possible that we could succeed in reaching a negotiated settlement on this property. However, to insure adequate protection of the city, to maintain its schedule for development and the commitment of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority under the terms of the agreement with Financial Properties.. Developers, Inc. , it is recommended that the city council adopt the resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings on this property for public street purposes. Inasmuch as it is necessary for both the city and the HRA to initiate eminent domain proceedings on this property, the HRA has designated the city to act as its agent in these proceedings. It is recommended that the city council approve an agreement between the city and the HRA to provide for such an arrangement. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB /eja cc: City Attorney Planning and Redevelopment Director . ............... ILYM . ......... RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT ACQUISITION AGREE14ENT WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, 'Minnesota, has undertaken a program of public improvements within the Lyndale- Hub- Nicollet Commercial Improvement Project areas; and WHEREAS,.such public improvements include the acquisition of public park and open space areas, such improvements being for a public purpose; and WHEREAS, in order to construct such improvements, the City Council finds it necessary, proper and expedient in the interest of the public health, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Richfield, for the Citv to require fee title absolute to the properties hereinafter described for the public purposes hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, in order to expedite the making of such improvements it is necessary and in the public interest that title to and the possession of such property be acquired before the filing of an award by court - appointed commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority intends to acquire fee title to a part of the same parcels which are subject to this resolution; and WHEREAS, it would be desirable, efficient and expeditious if the proceedings hereinafter authorized were prosecuted jointly with the eminent domain proceedings to be authorized by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 117.016 proceeds for the making of joint acquisition agreements by and between authorities having the right of eminent domain; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Commencement of eminent domain proceedings in the name of the City of Richfield, Minnesota is authorized for the purpose of acquiring fee simple absolute title in the subject property for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining public park and open space areas. The real property to be condemned shall be the property being in Hennepin County and legally described as: That part of Lot 10, Block 4, "J. N. Hauser's Second Addition ", according to the recorded plat thereof lying Westerly and Southerly of a line described as follows: 'Commencing at a point on the South line of said Lot 10 distant 90.00 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Lot 10; thence Northerly 150.00 feet at right angles to the South line of said Lot 10; thence North- westerly, deflecting to the left 69 degrees, 65 minutes, 30 seconds to a point 117.56 feet Southerly measured at right angles from the North line of said Lot 10, and there terminating.' 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized on behalf of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, to execute the joint acquisition agreement given clerk's file number -2- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 82 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Confirmation of Citizen Appointments to Boa'rd of Review Section 7.04 of the Richfield City Charter states that the Board of Review shall consist of members of the city council and two residents of the city who are appointed for one year terms by the city manager and approved by the city council. The charter further states that the two resident members of the Board of Review must be experienced in real estate matters. The council has set 7 :00 p.m. Thursday, June 1, 1978 as the time and date for the 1978 Board of Review. I have-selected Mr. Harry Tickner, 6429 Russell Avenue, and Mr. Harley Witte, 2911 West 70 1/2 Street, for appointment as the two citizen members of that board. It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution approving the appointment of Mr.Harry Tickner and Mr. Harley Witte to the 1978 Board of Review, in accordance with city charter requirements. WSB /eja cc: City Clerk City Assessor Respectfully submitted,__ __ �. 9 Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CITY MANAGER'S APPOINTMENT OF TWO RESIDENT MEMBERS TO BOARD OF REVIEW BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby approves the City Manager's appointment of Harry Tickner and Harley D. Witte as 1978 resident members to the Board of Review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the compensation for the two resident members of the Board of Review be set at a minimum of $25.00 per session of the Board, or $10.00 per hour per session, of the Board, whichever is greater. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of March, 1978. ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk Loren L. Law Mayor O� CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 81 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Report of the Fire Protection Study Committee Council members have received copies of the final report of the Citizen's Fire Protection Study Committee. This committee was established in early 1976, for the purpose of investi- gating the adequacy of the city's fire protection system, and making recommendations regarding the fire protection system. The committee has held numerous meetings, both within itself, as well as with representatives of the fire protection industry, the Richfield business community, and various city staff personnel. The findings and recommendations included in this committee report represent many hours of study and review of fire protection needs within Richfield. The fire protection study committee has requested an opportunity to present its report to the city council at the March 27, 1978 city council meeting. Mr. Bill Watson will make the committee's presentation of the report to the council. The other fire protection study committee members, with the exception of Robert Gunderson, who is recuperating from a recent heart attack, plan to be present at the March 27, 1978 city council meeting. I believe the only action necessary for the council to take at the March 27, 1978 meeting is to receive the report. At that time, the council may wish to direct the staff to research implementation procedures for recommendations contained in the report and schedule further discussion at the first or second council meeting in April. Respectfully submitted, Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB /eja cc: Public Safety Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 80 Agenda March 27, 1978 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Authorization to Advertise for Sale of New Ford Town Lots On September 22, 1975, the city council passed an ordinance which author- ized the sale of several city owned lots in the New Ford Town area to gain revenue for the HRA's New Home Program. Last spring, the council approved the sale of three of these city owned lots to adjacent property owners.._ None of these three lots were buildable. The staff is now requesting authority to advertise for sale the remaining fourteen lots. Proposals for purchase of the lots will be accepted according to the following guidelines: 1. Neighbors in the immediate area will be given an opportunity to bid on the lots; 2. The lots will be sold to the highest bidder; 3. A bidder must submit a proposal to use the lot for either con- struction or moving of a three or four bedroom single family home, although a bidder may submit a proposal for multi - family develop- ment if such proposal includes a request for zoning district change to multi - family. Maps showing the location of the lots and providing additional data to prospective bidders are attached. The fourteen city owned lots in New Ford Town are located at these addresses: 6519 21st Avenue 6531 21st Avenue 6516 Standish Ave. 6413 22nd Avenue 6329 21st Avenue 6523 21st Avenue 6535 21st Avenue 6500 Standish Ave. 6332 22nd Avenue 6431 Standish Avenue 6527 21st Avenue 6533 21st Avenue 6521 Standish Avenue 6328 22nd Avenue Ten of these lots measure 50' x 135', three measure 50'x135.6', and one measures 53.6' x 135.6'. All of these lots are of buildable size. O. J. Janski and Council Letter No. 80 -2- March 27, 1978 Associates has completed appraisals of the properties and the appraised values range from $5,750 to $7,000 per lot. The advertisement for bids will be published on March 31 and bids received until April 14, 1978. In addition, property owners adjacent to each of the lots will be notified that the lots are for sale. Bids will be opened and reviewed by the staff based on the guidelines outlined above. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council authorize the staff to advertise for sale the fourteen city owned lots in the New Ford Town area. Respectfully submitted, e ter aff City Manager WSB /eja cc: Finance Director Planning and Redevelopment Director F,mc 24 63 rd Z3 FAM, L�'fil 3 it A_ 10O VAC Oe h 34 SIAC 17 )•0 15 M_& ry 10 AVOID coo I So 8 5* 10 �13' 14 Go So So c, u r. 50 1 �O MAC V1Do � 0i "-''1 I 0 -- li 2 13 17 S, 1 64th 1 24 22 Lf • 4 II 14 lcp 65th F,mc 24 St 2 Z3 FAM, L�'fil 3 it A_ 10O VAC Oe h 34 SIAC 17 ST C) I 14 ST• w di to 24 St 2 Z3 FAM, L�'fil 3 it A_ e, VAC 17 MAC SIAC 17 )•0 15 M_& ry 10 AVOID coo I So 8 5* 10 �13' 14 Go So So c, u r. 50 1 �O MAC V1Do � 0i "-''1 I 0 -- li ST C) I 14 ST• w di to ils.r. • St 2 24 FAM, L�'fil 3 it A_ e, VAC 17 MAC SIAC 17 )•0 15 M_& MAC 10 AVOID coo I So 8 5* 10 �13' 14 Go So So c, u r. ST C) I 14 ST• w di to ST. 23 .2 1 ,,e°4 24 0 I --a!-4 3 it A_ e, VAC MAC 7 MAC SIAC 17 )•0 15 M_& MAC 10 AVOID SO 50 1 �O MAC V1Do 14 -vo 14 2 13 ST. U-1 co T 44% I­ U) C.0 ,iAc 14 23 .2 1 ,,e°4 2 2 MAC 4 ' MAC --a!-4 4 "'000 M A C;. ---------- �F- e, VAC MAC 7 MAC SIAC 17 )•0 15 M_& MAC 10 AVOID SO 50 1 �O U-1 co T 44% I­ U) C.0 ,iAc 14 23 In ,C MAC 4 ' MAC --a!-4 - .. -MACS t✓ MAC 10 M A C;. 20 F 5 VAC MAC 7 MAC SIAC 17 17 MAC 10 AVOID 14 kO 13 ' 5 .35 M, .X 23 In ,C l"A 5j12 21 M A C;. 20 F 5 VAC MAC 7 7 SIAC 17 17 MAC "IC V_ 11 IVIAC MAC oe- 14 - Fg ,,'S 12- �A 1° 13 ,l, M, .X 23 0 IM A C ,C l"A 4 MAC 21 M A C;. 20 F 5 VAC MAC 7 ^e AC SIAC 17 MAC MAC "IC V_ 11 IVIAC MAC oe- 15,75 13 4 M, .X IMAC MAC 0 IM A C ,C l"A 4 MAC IMAC M A C;. MAC •".Ac VAC MAC 7 ^e AC SIAC MAC MAC MAC "IC V_ 11 IVIAC MAC Ac MAC O VIA c IMAC MAC 0 IM A C MAC MAC 4 MAC lk� 0 'A VNIAC '/N ' Ti YAC -0 .0 MAC 'I 2AQ qmc MAC SIAC i�c m Mi�CV '?�r. M_'l c MAC MAC VISA "IC V_ MAC ll$J 10 [ IlT PAAC I VAC{M 3 -MAC MAO Mai I- , 46 NEW HOME PROGRAM PROPOSAL DATA Proposals should include the following: a) Purchase price to be paid for the land; b) Statement regarding purchaser's willingness to assume responsibility for applicable special assessments, pro rata ad valorem taxes, and site clearance; c) Brief description of the structure to be built, including specifically the number of bedrooms (at.-least three), the total area of the dwelling, the architectural style of the structure, and the degree of finishing. Proposals which include alternate land prices with corresponding degrees of finishing in the dwelling to be built are encouraged; d) Site plan with the location of the house, accessory buildings, improvements, and public streets and alleys shown; e) Estimated market value of the house upon completion, which will be the maximum purchase price for which the property can be resold if built by a contractor /developer. This price cannot be less than $42,500; f) Estimated construction schedule; (construction should begin within two months and be completed within eight months) g) Security deposit of $200.00 in the form of a certified check or performance bond. (The proposal security will either be applied to the purchase price if the selected party does not default or returned to unsuccessful parties.) h) Executed purchase agreement -- purchase agreements will be furnished upon request, including the approved Addendum. The successful purchaser will also be given a special Warranty Deed to insure that the property is not purchased for speculative purposes and that the dwelling, if it is to be resold immediately, will be sold for the price stipulated in the proposal. The form of this Deed is included in this information packet. All proposals must be received at the Housing and Redevelopment Authority office at 7000 Nicollet Avenue South by 4:30 p.m. on April 14, 1978. A proposal may be submitted for more than one lot; however, all proposals must include each of the aforementioned items. NOTE: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Block 5 would be very suitable for a multi- family dwelling. The purchaser, however, must request a zoning change since each lot is zoned single- family. The following is the pertinent data for the lots. 1. 6519 21st Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $7,000 Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 5, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 2. 6523 21st Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $7,000 Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 5, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 3. 6527 21st Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $7,000 Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 5, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None -J- 4. 6531 21st Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $7,000 Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 5, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 5. 6535 21st Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $6,500 Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 5, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 6. 6533 22nd Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $6,500 Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 6, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None s 7. 6516 Standish Avenue South Size: 50' x 135.6' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $6,500 Legal Description: Lot 19, Block 6, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 8. 6500 Standish Avenue South Size: 53.6' x 135.6' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $7,000 Legal Description: Lot 23, Block 6, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 9. 6521 Standish Avenue South - Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $6,500 Legal Description: Lot 6, Block 7, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 10. 6413 22nd Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $7,000 Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 13, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 11. 6431 Standish Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' _ Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $6,500 Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 14, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 12. 6332 22nd Avenue South Size: 50' x 135.6' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $5,750 Legal Description: Lot 16, Block 19, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 13. 6328 22nd Avenue South Size: 50' x 135.6' Utilities: Public sewer, water, and natural gas Minimum Acceptable Purchase Price: $5,750 Legal Description: Lot 17, Block 19, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Special Assessments: None Taxes: No present taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None 14. 6329 21st Avenue South Size: 50' x 135' Utilities: Public Minimum Acceptable Legal Description: Special Assessment Taxes: No present sewer, water, and natural gas .Purchase Price: $7,000 Lot 8, Block 19, New Ford Town Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota s: None taxes; to be assessed following purchase Site Clearance: None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING AND ACCEPTING BIDS FOR THE SALE OF NEW FORD TOWN LOTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has passed an ordinance (No. 16.35) providing for the sale of certain real property, pursuant to and in furtherance of the New Home Program heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield, said real property being described as follows: Lots 5, 6, 7, Lots 8, 19 and Lot 6 in Block Lot 4 in Block Lot 9 in Block Lots 8, 16 and 3 and 9 in Block 5 23 in Block 6 7 13 14 17 in Block 19 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, according to the above stated ordinance, may authorize the sale of these lots at any given time; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that the above described lots are no longer needed for any municipal purpose and that the same may be advertised for sale. 2. The New Home Committee isauthorized to accept and review bids for these lots. 3. The New Home Committee is authorized to recommend to the City Council a purchaser for each lot based on the highest bid. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 27th day of March, 1978. Loren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk