11-14-77 agendaVA,
CITY OF RICHFIELD; MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 348
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Special Use Permit, Lindahl Olds,
1900 West 78th Street
A hearing has been scheduled on the special use permit application
submitted by Lindahl Olds, 1900 West 78th Street. However, the
applicant has requested that the matter be deferred and not scheduled at
the November 14, 1977, city council meeting.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council defer this matter
until a future city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /jkl
cc: Planning & Redevelopment Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
1_ '
Council Letter No. 347
Agenda of November 14, 1977
Subject: Request for Zoning District Change
2412 West 66tH. Street
Mr. Edward
representing Br
zoning district
hood commercial
ation of a real
66th Street.
Corzalla, 2412 West 66th Street, and
ados, Culhane and Sage, realtors,.are
change from multi - family residential
(C -1). The.purpose of this rezoning
estate office on the property locate
Mr. Dar. Cul.hane,
requesting a
(MR) to neighbor -
is to allow oper-
a at 2412 West
The following items are attached to this letter and will be referred
to throughout:
1.
Exhibit
A -
proposed site
plan;
2.
Exhibit
B
- current area
land use;
3.
Exhibit
C -
current area
zoning;
4.
Exhibit
D
- area included
in rezoning petition.
BACKGROUND
Parcel Size: 164.27' X 199.8' (32,821.15 square feet)
Existing Structures: One dwelling (2,340 square feet) built in 1941
and a detached double garage (528 square feet).
Proposed Structures: The existing structures will remain.
Setbacks: Dwelling: 81' front
44.9' west side
54.6' east: side
Site Zoning /Land Use: Multi - Residential /Single Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Land Use: N - single family residential
E - single family r. es:ident'Lal
W - single family residential
S - multi- family residential
Council Letter No. 347
-2- November 14, 1977
Zoning: N - multi - family residential
E multi - family residential
J W - single family residential
S - multi - family residential and general commercial
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan indicates mixed land
use with medium density. Single family neigh-
borhood commercial and multi - family are
planned uses for this area.
STAFF REVIEW
The following planning issues should be considered by the city
council in reviewing this requested zoning district change.
1. The effects of a spot commercial zone on both present property
and future development.
Although the Comprehensive Plan provides for mixed land uses
in this vicinity, implementation of the mixed land use policy
can create non - compatible spot zones of commercial development
along this part of 66th Street. This spot zoning can have a
detrimental effect on the immediate area.
2. The extension of strip commercial develo went along arterial
streets, and, specifically, the extension of the Penn Aveinue-
66th Street commercial area.
The centralization of commercial development in specified com-
mercial centers is a concept that was discussed and accepted
during the L /H /N planning process. Examples of commercial centers
in our area include the Southdale Square area, the 66th 6 Penn
Avenue area, the L /H /N area, and the 76th and Lyndale area.
The concept of centralized commercial centers has the advantage
of strengthening existing commercial areas, and limiting con-
flicts between residential and commercial land uses. Allowing
a commercial use one -half block away from the commercial center
is an extension of that existing commercial use rather than a
centralization. If the policy of the Comprehensive Plan is
followed, and if commercial uses are allowed to mix along 66th
Street between Southdale Square and the Penn /66th area, the
effect will be to create traffic, living and property value
conflicts along 66th Street and the adjacent neighborhoods.
This effect will diversify the commercial development away from
the commercial centers and create traffic congestion which will-
be detrimental to the existing commercial centers.
3. Is the land being used for its highest and best use?
The zoning district change:can also be addressed in terms of
highest and best land use. in this case, the argument can be
effectively made that single family development along 66th
Street is not the best use of the land. The argument can also
be made that the area immediately adjacent to 66th Street is
not suitable for single family living or any residential use.
Council Letter No. 347
-3- November 14, 1977
The lot size in this case is 33,000 square feet. Because of
the size of the lot and the existing use, the lot could be
easily developed into a land use more intensive than single
family housing or a real estate office.
The planning responsibility is to develop a land use inter -
face between the single family residential area and 66th Street.
With a small area in a C -1 zone, it is difficult to enforce an
effective buffer between land uses. At the same time, the city
has a responsibility to protect the public investment in 66th
Street by not creating a situation which will necessitate
additional tax dollar expenditures for upgrading 66th Street,
or create additional public cost to provide traffic safety
along 66th Street. Sixty -sixth Street is already used above its
design capacity.
4. Preservation of the Sheridan / Jefferson area neighborhood and
the conservation of housing stock.
Richfield is basically a residential community. Forty -nine per
cent of the assessed valuation in the city is residential. Thus,
a reasonable goal is to conserve the residential character of
Richfield. This goal is being accomplished by many different
means. Permanent street program, park revitalization and the
HRA's commercial redevelopment and housing rehabilitation pro-
grams are strong examples of the city's commitment to maintain
Richfield as a viable residential community. These programs
are complemented by zoning policies which conserve the residen-
tial character of the community and revitalize the commercial
elements of the community. Although the present proposed use
(real estate office) is compatible with single family develop-
ment, a zone change to C -1 would also permit future use of the
land for the following:
a. any use permitted in an "R" district;
b. any use permitted in an "MR" district;
C. grocery store;
d. fruit or vegetable market;
e. meat market;
f. drug store;
g. barber shop;
h. beauty parlor;
i. clothes cleaning;
j. dry goods pickup station;
k. business or professional office;
1. similar uses (special use permit required):
(1) restaurant;
(2) cafe;
(3 ) soda fountain.
The location of many of the commercial establishments listed
above adjacent to a single family neighborhood will often
encourage a depression of property values, and -can have a
blighting influence on the neighborhood. A continuation of a
sound land use control policy in the separation of uses can limit
the blighting effect of mixing land uses.
' Council
Letter No. 347
-4-
November 14,
1977
6. Need
for additional
multi- family
land and commercial
land.
One of the planning functions of government is to plan for future
land use needs and to manage those needs to accomplish community
goals. In Richfield, the future needs for various land uses
have been projected and should be planned for as follows:
1969 1980 1985 1990
Commercial 108.8 ac 191.4 ac 193.7 ac 196.0 ac
Multi- Family Residential 192.3 ac 216.0 ac 240.5 ac 270.0 ac
With these economic needs delineated, the city, through the compre-
hensive planning process,.and zoning implementation of the ccmpre-
hensive plan, must decide some basic issues:
1. Given the limited deman d for new commercial space, is it better
to direct such commercial space into established commercial
areas, and specifically into the L /H /N area, where the community
is presently investing millions of dollars?
2. Given.the relatively high demand for housing, should the city
maintain a reserve of land zoned multi - family. This question
is broader-than just a local land use planning question. Although
some of the economic demand for housing will be met in the L /H /N
area, this does not begin to meet the anticipated future demand
for housing.
The issue also affects Richfield's ability to continue to receive
funds from various federal sources and some state sources. In the
grant application process, the Metropolitan Council has a deciding
influence on whether the city continues to receive federal funding.
To continue receiving federal funding, we must rank high on the
Metro Council's priority listing. This priority list includes the
ability of the city to deliver its assigned allocation of low and
moderate income housing. Richfield's allocations are as follows:
1975 - 150 dwelling units
1977 - 298 dwelling units
1985 - 1,775 dwelling units
The conversion of suitable multi - family land into commercial develop-
ment could limit our ability to deliver suitable housing for not only
low income, but also moderate income people. An inability to deliver
housing would have long -range effects on the city's ability to receive
federal financial assistance.
What effect will the conversion of a single family home have on the
city?
Although many single family homes have been converted to business
uses in Richfield, this proposed conversion includes several unique
design considerations. These design considerations include handi-
capped access, ventilation for office workers, parking, fire protec-
tion (sprinkling and smoke detectors) and security devices. Most of
these problems can be overcome by modifications of the existing structure.
Council Letter No. 347
-5 November 14, 1977
One minor consideration of converting single family homes to commer-
cial use; in this case, is a loss of state aid revenue. State aid
funds are based on population. With the decreased population
(almost 5,000 people lost since 1970) it is essential to ask if the
city can afford'to allow single family homes to be converted to
other uses.
What will be the effects of traffic from this proposal?
The traffic generation from a real estate office such as that pro -
posed would be about the same as a single family house. About 27
trips per day will be generated from a real estate office type use.
If the land were rezoned and then used for other permitted C -1
commercial uses, it is estimated that the following trip generations
could be ex petted:
Convenience grocery (e.g., 7 -11 store) 278 ADT
Larger Office Building (doctor, dentist,
office- 15,000 square feet) 175 ADT
Group of small neighborhood type shops
(10,000 square feet) 1,158 ADT
If the lot were used for multi- family purposes, the following trip
generations per day could be expected:
Apartments 22 units
Condominiums 20 units
134 ADT
158 ADT
The difference between the commercial use and multi- family land use
is in the control which the city can exercise and the traffic volumes
generated. The multi- family use can only be accomplished if a special
use permit is granted by the city council. This special use permit
provides control on traffic access, parking arrangements, open space
required and buffering.
Traffic congestion in this area is a problem. The ADT on Penn Avenue
is 15,700, on 66th Street is is 17,200. The volume use to capacity
ratio on 66th Street is V/C 1:.85. Sixty -sixth Street in this area
is used beyond the capacity that the road was design to serve. The
volume use to capacity ratio for Penn Avenue is V/C 0:.91. Penn
Avenue volumes are currently lower than the capacity it was designed
to serve.
RECOMMENDATION
In summary, the proposed zoning district change is in conformance with
the city's Comprehensive Plan policy. The proposed real estate office
on the property will not adversely affect the public safety or health.
Considering the need for multiple family zoned land in Richfield and
the need for low and moderate income housing, rezoning of this proper-
ty to commercial will not be in the public interest, and could
adversely affec the public welfare.
Council Letter No. 347 -6- November 14, 1977
Because C -1 zoning districts allow commercial uses other than a
real estate office, and because the lot is large enough to increase
the intensity of land use, a zoning district change could have a
detrimental affect on the immediate neighborhood, public safety and
public welfare.
It is the recommendation of the staff that the requested zoning
district change be denied.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed this request for a rezoning at their
regular meeting of October 25, 1977. Three residents appeared before
the Planning Commission in favor of the rezoning and six residents
appeared opposed to the rezoning. The motion was made to recommend
that the city council approve change of the zoning district from MR
to C -1 but that motion failed 4 -2. The Planning Commission approved
a second motion, recommending that the city council deny the rezoning
request.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
cc: Planning 9 Redevelopment Director
AMENDMENT TO APPENDIX C
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Appendix C of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota defining the boundaries of the various zoning districts
of the City enumerated in Chapter III, Part IV, Section 3.28,
Subdivision 2 of such code is hereby amended in the following
respects:
1. Appendix C, Section 4 is amended by amending paragraph
(6) to read as follows:
"(6) That area lying between the center lines of Russell
and queen Avenues, and the center lines of 65th and 66th
Streets, _except Lot 4, Block 2 Harry Tickner's Subdivision
of Lot 15 Richfield Gardens.
_ 2. Appendix C, Section 2 is amended by adding after
paragraph (19) the following paragraph:
"(20) Lot 4, Block 2 Harry Tickner's Subdivision of
Lot 15 Richfield Gardens.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this day of , 1977.
Loren Law, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tom Moran, City Clerk
"£CCR £O
NOV g 1977
City of Richtiela
N
Scaler 1 " =30'
Snow
fence
hedges
y �
W. 66th
Rezoning
9AIO AA/ CCik CT
ST.
N
O
uj
D
T
a
5
5
A
3
5
Z
W
W
D
CY
E. K. S.
11/15/77
cra
Of
C"40
6400
n
-I t N
w� H _�_ 4 2c# it
_� �-- Ve
tii 71
-� LU
�,, `j
$444
Doo
t5 F-I
3 4Q�
2,
(A- Zq
7�
A 2-
-t 0-
l 14-2 5 G 0
ST.
mi
2 i'Ll
SO 7 8
2 1. 33-
LLI
Cc'
2412
P-1-
,
FAMIL:
5 4 13
66 TA
3z—
D te
1
661?
—G
!--1 '23
6
zy
7 1
i I — 21,
s L,12 0
21
25 20
�9
to d
29 F'j ig
io i 128
r i
r '
37;_ 17
12 1-134
kr
'31
4f i 16
T.3- - -
mi
2 i'Ll
SO 7 8
2 1. 33-
LLI
Cc'
2412
P-1-
,
FAMIL:
5 4 13
all, -. a
[644-5,
4Q, 7*
V 40 r-4
09
v
Q 15 is � � � �'�r.
...................
7
)o 110 :Z4
4
5
6500
3z—
D te
all, -. a
[644-5,
4Q, 7*
V 40 r-4
09
v
Q 15 is � � � �'�r.
...................
7
)o 110 :Z4
4
5
�� - • � ti:;4A
---- r•-- -�--'• "
y�
4rrr
Zoning Map,
' � i.- ,•��=- r� -•�'• � : � � �
t )6
w
F— 1 ����_— �— � —�•- -• 1 '� a I.,
u
r
a� 1 -� 4 P >t.?` •r � sit
ti �1: �� � ;..tea,.. -- �..----- --7�"� - '- -r- -.v ��•�.i••- i.�- .�- •..... - f {�
,,,' � ?may... �•- �.� _
1^0
7, J ?�* .r� ur � � �. � f ��`` tr• � aj� +' � '_� - _^ i�_�' ��a ja �..,....- ..� -_.. �.�.�..- .- .."_ -... -� � 1 � `...T.L.._..
tie
Li
_a,. .�_,r...�..�-- r--- •— • -•-;>� j_,.,_,.,..,�.�..5!_�S t � .._�.1 --- -
,,,, f ► !. i a p t s:i i w -M z r=— t
v� �--- t'°Z+ -:_— ._loci, � �� � .-r'a g �:,'i _ ---' -� -- �•. S'f ;- -j- --• _ ��
lr.. !I - 1 til i s��` 4jj�r�l i3 a'.. eso � ,p ___ _._ _ :.�.��-- s'--i• - -- t
`�_ s + q. t ti1a I - � _¢ a ._�� -.�Y ---•- rY ...- .L._.} •• t ..
r•w rr ---- +.1.�.a.S�+--- .._`..t�u�.� �R t c <� ` it$n .s - _.t.� -- r--•__ - _ -`.` - ..vi � .
r tr o p a{ s y 's I 1 - - _ rte, ,-lr k ,j_ _ �\
r �'• `- �.._.+...��s. � , -+!1'W _..�i�" * r•�,t�. . � �_ ?�s..l._12Lt�Y.i..1 ...- •_. yj. ir�.sa�'4�4Y!C_'^Kf --Y.� --= '°--'a fi��. Y�vv `•.•�"•'• a r y- ' _ -1 .. _ _ . -�
-_ -nrl .F J.7 � -Y✓ 3 i * n 5 .._.--- �_r_'_'. [�., �i _.y�T_..�~.r- .��-"'��""I'„��_'? :.x �....st�•�r�.z�i"� Fr -,ri/' f..- ,.-:ti� � ' r ,. ..- .��Y'_
1 t . Q" _t -fit.. � t �-.-- _ �'_j.__.''_ ".'"�` ^� � . '.r - •.Fy r-� r 1 »✓- •�,.i_,.:.._..- .- •- ....._ -
, ^� 'i. t �, �ifl.`t% {{ "• -'--i-" - -r--." `- -{,•. .. _- 1••'a••. *,l-_ -:� r �+�, •�r_� ='«"_?.Y' r�-
� -Y- °'mac_. +_Y"1.. ��_� .'.'- -__9TH ,__ }r ( - _ _� ••�- ...�.+r+.... _sFl ivy -• `.' .f
• � L � = Y--v7. �� v _ �� jig r • j ;�J I�}a. :. � y-� Y- � y i � ..1,1 .::_T�_.- _..:.+. t.•H r r� -� .....r...�_�__.- _. -•- -- -
y46 I- , . ; (t�, I•/ r� 7j 4( } —R7-rx r V - *v y 3 =- �_.�__� =H w # e .. �i
17" I 3� 1 ' ` 4 ` *� i I d_ l q•y j � 1 - . �'e ` .i'. _ ; �.7..�__..�.`� ' -_ �. _~. •..- ..+.......�.." ~_ � r�' f. � �__..- .•✓.+- -....• -.+ ;� -
' h _.._.i.,_. f i r,� > _. t _.._ _ -_ -y %..._;. _.__ _-" �:.i '_,�i.._�- ..a...: - - �'w~.�r. ,..,..._ ._..• -.t' f'. � >,,..,w,.,v....r_.. -0 --
'=Oz
•i► Y
Z. -, i ''+ A �- Z o. ,�, '. �, ti 9 - 7. �� y'r' _�_�.t....,.� `-r-^ �" �-. ....r.:.l �-� ... •-� , 2
14 H•� I J 1 j i' ! >Q� 1 J IL
1
;` i h ', 1 ., 17
fij t6: •• 1• � .tj� -z�� �'� 1k 4y` ,�, t� � +I ��.`�.y' �� � - _..,.� i- `..`!-I-.,'° .-- .i- �- :.:.., r 5.
t- •v' ` �� I� /i.i •{•i �.Ci'k •�•:�_'i`.:Y!. —....3 ��`?. 6- -.,� -� A �. ,�4.1_..�.�1 � -iJ .�i�l \ ���� -,-�,� ""..�.� � .1�� .�- .- .._.:....�..V.►... _.
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL � GENERAL
ivy �
.LIMITED BUSINESS L I MULTIPLE
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENCE
� � 1
<
i 40
i •444 1
BBUO -� �GS;r 2`_25 �?5• G421 i .5� 09 240
�.. -t ( n
: iti 2 r 4 r 44 it 4 Q 42
.- -•! � !- � � � - its - _ z�na -
• 6545 6.7 .1,250 2500 �24r2 j %4-
_ T
,F•�i .s 33 os � •
Fz�-- - �� =:� h�::;- -z- ,1- �•- ��_�'-- •t-`�1 Iz'�, � f� •v �?' � - -- —
23: �_ r - r•:_ J _ ��4
Lv
77j 7 t.� y
r5, s El
f2 tt tr 21 $ X20, zt 21 :g T�_�2 tr"".` 2 f 8 !6 20 �_�
(' f �` o j7 !
t
jc4 25; 20, 0 f24 `` 251- 2q S 1.124 251 -.._I 1[�'� �� {$ 1 26 �� tQ.3
��-�
}28 . 29 I` 19 !O 128 29 C –� = gl 10 '29 2!l j {`a !v ~ ` 17 i$ I
fR tl i fJ 18
3. Tp c— {;1 It � n; ^ i 31� � •S? •�; 3l
ac s; , _ -I1 12` -:�6 . 3�., -i7 f4 �ac t 17 '2— t., 10 - __oa
r (- - - (�- •;j 3 T L� 4) 1 -�
40 {1 9. f -$ �- 4I -� it-+ t.'� : -.14^ is -t i'-r ;t
C$ 4L 6� { "_._. :i,�d"r_
f R r( f 4 i � ` l TT L4
ST
i s Tao ( x0 Of , 6T10
� n
n R
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 346
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council.
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Provision for Off - Street Parking, Programmed Land
On June 27, 1977 the traffic control committee made a recommendation to
the city council that the present "No Parking Anytime" restrictions on the
north side of 77th Street be extended eastward by one block to Stevens Avenue.
Before taking action on that recommendation, the council requested the
the staff to investigate the provisions of off - street parking contracts with the
property owner of the LaBelles -Lee Ward's complex to determine whether the
city could take any action to require the property owner to close the fence
providing access to 77th Street.
The public works department and the city attorney have reviewed the
providions of these off - street parking contracts and will be prepared to make
a report at the November 14, 1977 city council meeting. The area residents
who expressed an interest in this matter have been notified that a discussion
is scheduled on this matter at the November 14, 1977 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Public Works Director
City Attorney
/S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 345
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Canvass of Election
Attached to this council letter is a resolution providing for canvass
of the city's general election which occurred on Tuesday, November 8,
1977.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
U��� •
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
_y RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF CITY GENERAL ELECTION
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1977
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that at
election held November $, 1977, for the purpose of electing the mayor
councilmen, the results were as follows:
Total number of ballots cast . . . 5,586
votes cast for candidates:
For Mayor: Loren L. Law 4,334
For Councilman: Geraldine Christensen 11879
Juanita Collins 2,778
Ivan Ludeman 3,068
Vern Luettinger 2,944
the general
and two city
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following candidates, having received the majority
of votes cast and counted are hereby declared elected to the following offices in the
City of Richfield:
For Mayor:
For Councilman:
Loren L. Law
Ivan Ludeman
Vern Luettinger
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following names were submitted as write -in votes on
he November 8, 1977 ballot for Mayor and City Councilman:
For Mayor: George Kenealey Stanley Olson Tonya Moon Leroy Bathern
Frances B. Riley Walter Ball Mary Iverson Lawrence Wozniczka
Thomas R. Taft
For Councilman: Gertrude Ulrich
William Schimmelmon
Tom Sachs
George Kenealey
Mrs. George Kenealey
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns
of said election:
Shirley Gisselquist
Alice Bjerva
Janice Nunn
Dorothy Chellsen
Joyce Emerson
Carroll Norling
Martha Prottengeier
Mary Ann Helleckson
Pat Sazdoff
George fiegdahl
Carol Ingersoll
Patricia Brenner
Margaret Seeger
Vivian Bennis
Arline Wick
Betty Workman
Marcella Okerman
Catherine Alfano
Franc Gray
Lois DeSantis
Chrystal Linn
Elaine Carlson
Joyce Morrell
Evelyn Pangilo
Ann Burkhardt
Bernadette Lais
Ethel Hommes
Eunice Aulwes
Jan Bray
Patricia Bunting
Alma Zeidler
Geri Stoffel
Phyllis Reinmuth
Elayne Gilhousen
Helen Connelly
John Gera
Gladys Stinar
Donna Peterson
David Arnold
Phyllis Anderson
Lois Awes
Collette Condon
Al Joubert
Carolyn Walker
Margaret Cummings
Lorraine Utterberg
Jean Lofstrom
Martha Siddy
Barb Lundeen
Margaret Joubert
Katherine Nelson
Corrine Cosgrove
Margaret LaValle
- 2 -
Kathleen Leckner
Jane Nelson
Jane Toler
Hazel Spear
Pat Toney
Sister Kenneth Youth
Audrey Winslow
Susan Lewis
Marie Ann Calvin
Donna Vidas
Adeline Bramwell
Rosemary Reynolds
LaVonne Nimerfro
Marion Alqui.st
Gertrude Herll
Leota Ostlund
Marie Gera
Rosemary Koelln
Jean Kallstrom
Beverly Lake
Elaine Zimmerman
Mary Jane Suess
Betty Obenchain
Celestine Dumas
Joyce Rodeberg
Marcia Boler
Barbara Cook .
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of November, 1977.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
14
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 344
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Public Safety Communications System
On September 26, 1977 the city council authorized entering into an agreement
with Michaud Cooley for engineering services which would result in improvements
to our public safety communications system: The preliminary study required a
consulting fee of $3400 with additional fees of $5400 required for new system
design and supervision of installation.
Following that action, there have been several meetings relating to the
possibility of combined police and fire dispatching facilities among several cities.
Those meetings finally resulted in a decision by the Hennepin Emergency Communi-
cations Organization to propose that the kind of engineering study contemplated by
Richfield be conducted for all municipalities with the goal of not only assessing
the current status of equipment, but planning for joint operation of facilities.
A copy of an October 28, 1977 letter on this subject as well as some additional
background information is attached for your review. You will note that the cost
for the engineering study to be conducted under the auspices of HECO would be
$4400 for the City of Richfield.
While these discussions have been going on we have not entered into our
separate engineering contract with Michaud Cooley. After reviewing all of these
matters, we have concluded that it would be more advantageous for the city to
participate in the HECO engineering study. The results of that study will not only
give us the same information that we would have obtained from our separate study,
but will provide information on joint dispatching operations. Therefore, it is
recommended that the city council authorize participation in the HECO study in
the amount of $4400 as an alternative to our separate agreement with Michaud
Cbcley with the understanding that we would proceed separately with Michaud
Cooley only if the HECO effort is not successful.
Respectfully submitte
�� 'f'
Wayne S. Burggraaff
cc Public Safety Director City Manager
SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT
W�a
b Courthouse _
FFMinneapolis, Minnesota 55415 V
HENNEPIN
ffuDon Omodt, Sheriff October 28, 1977
1
Mr. Wayne S. Burggraaf f
City Manager c 1 1377 ..i
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue .I
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Dear Mr. Burggraaff:
The Board of Directors of the Hennepin Emergency Communications
Organization (HECO) met on Thursday, October 20th. The main purpose of
HECO is twofold: First, we must prepare for the advent and implementation
of 911 telephone service. We can report to you that a work program has been
adopted, and we are proceeding on schedule and satisfactorily in this
regard. The second main purpose is to work toward a plan to better utilize
the scarce and.precious radio frequencies available to the several public
safety organizations in Hennepin County. The HECO Agreement contemplates,
at least, some consolidation or combination of police and fire dispatch
facilities. A target date of July 1, 1978, is established by the HECO Joint
Powers Agreement for a decision on this aspect. To date, we have made
little progress towards a resolution.
It is imperative, we believe, that HECO now commence an engineering
study from which, among other things, we can best combine or consolidate
some or all of the several dispatch operations and make better use of the
existing frequencies. The HECO Executive Committee is in the process of
preparing a Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) grant request
for the funds necessary to finance an engineering study that will recommend
alternative methods of achieving the objectives of HECO. The estimated cost
is $60,000. There is some doubt whether HECO will be able to get the grant
funds, not because of any questions regarding the importance and desirability
of this project, but rather because of prior commitments of the funds. It
seems that the best that HECO can hope for is the use of reversionary funds,
that is, funds that have already been allocated for some project but have
not been spent. We do not expect to receive a definitive answer to the
grant request until July 1978.
In the meantime, we believe that it is in the best interests
of the entire County that we proceed with the engineering study so that
we can have the information available before next July, (1978). and be
able to make.the necessary decisions. If this is done, it is possible
that immediate substantial savings in the 911 installation, and recurring
cost of dispatching can be accomplished.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
Mr. Wayne S. Burggraaff Page 2 October 28, 1977~
The Board of Directors has directed the Executive Committee-to
seek financial commitments from each of the members. Some money will be
needed and soon. If the grant request is unsuccessful, all will be needed.
If we get the grant, the direct cost to the members will be less. The
Executive Committee has evolved a formula for payment of the amount necessary
which we are calling "1978 dues ". This is not to be construed as an ongoing
amount. The formula is as follows:
POPULATION
NO. OF MEMBERS
1978 DUES
DUES x NO.
Over 50,000
3
$5300
$15,900
40 to 50,000
3
$4400
$13,200
30 to 40,000
4
$3500
$14,000
20 to 30,000
3
$2600
$ 7,800
10 to 20,000
3
$1700
$ 5,100
Under 10,000
5
$ 800
$ 4,000
$60,000
The Board of Directors will meet again on November 23, 1977. We
need to have your commitment, as well as all others, by that date. We trust
that this will allow adequate time for City Council consideration and action.
If any of us can be of help with additional information, please advise. Or,
you can get assistance from John O'Sullivan, Director of Hennepin County
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, telephone 348 -6497, or from Jim
Brekken, who is on loan to HECO from the Bloomington Police Department. He
can be contacted through Mr. O'Sullivan's Office or at Bloomington, 884 -3591.
If we do not receive the necessary commitments on November 23rd; some
members, because of immediate and pressing needs, will go ahead on their own
with what we consider a piecemeal engineering study. We do not believe a
limited study will be in the best interests of all, but we understand it
may be necessary considering the special needs of these member - communities.
Very truly yours,
HENNEPIN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DON OMODT, PRESIDENT
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF
GAMES WILLIS, SECRETARY- TREASURER
,J PLYMOUTH CITY MANAGER
JOHN PIDGEON, VICE PRESIDENT
BLOOMINGTON CITY MAN
THOMAS A. THOMPSON
ASSISTANT CITY COORDINATOR, MINNEAPOLIS
06wa&L O%W_4)
DONALD DAVIS
DO:ehs DIRECTOR, SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Enclosure
Vi 14.i�n �a
HENNEPIN EMERGENCY CON21JNJCATIONS ORGANIZATION
BOARD OF D1('.GCTORS
anici aP lity
CiLy of Bloomington
2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, Minn. 55431
City of St. Anthony
3301 N. E. Silver Lake Road
Minneapolis, Minn. 55418
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
_Richfield, Minn. 55423
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minn. 55364
City of Plymouth
3025 Harbor Lane
Plymouth, Minn. 55441
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minn. 55428
C of Golden Valley
76vo Golden Valley Road
Minneapolis, Minn. 55427
City of Brooklyn Park
5800 85th Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, Minn. 55443
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minn. 55416
Village of Excelsior
339 Third Street
Excelsior, Minn. 55331
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road
Shorewood, Minn. 55331
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street North
Hopkins, Minn. 55343
Director
John G. Pidgeon
City Manager
James Fornell
City Manager
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
Leonard L. Kopp
City Manager
James G. Willis
City Manager
Harlyn G. Larson
City Manager
James Crawford
Director of Public Safety
R. M. Henneberger
City Manager
John Elwell
City Manager
Donald E. Davis
Director, South Lake Minnetonka
Public Safety Department
Donald E. Davis
Director, South Lake Minnetonka
Public Safety Department
William Craig
City Manager
HECO BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Continued) Page 2
Municipality, Director
City of Edina - Robert Buresh
4801 West .50th Street Director of Safety
Edina, Minn. 55424
City of Minneapolis
David Niklaus
311 City Hall
City Coordinator
Minneapolis, Minn. 55415
Thomas A. Thompson
Associate City Coordinator
City of Eden Prairie
Jack Hacking
8950 County Road 4
Director of Public Safety
'Eden Prairie, Minn. 55346
City of.Orono
Walter R. Benson
Box 66 .
Administrator
Crystal Bay, Minn. 55323
City of Minnetonka
Robert Grewell
14600 Minnetonka Boulevard
City :tanager
Minnetonka, Minn. 55343
City of Crystal John T. Irving
4141 Douglas Drive North City Manager
Crystal, Minn. 55422
Hennepin County Don Omodt
Room 6, Courthouse Sheriff
Minneapolis, Minn. 55415 (Dave Duryee, Room #6)
and
A2309 Government Center Dale G. Folstad
Minneapolis, Minn. 55487 Director of Management Services
City of Brooklyn Center Gerald Splinter
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway City Manager
Brooklyn Center, Min-:. 55430
City of Maple Grove Robert A. Erickson
14310 93rd Avenue North City Administrator
Osseo, Minn. 55369
City of Robbinsdale John F.'Fischbach
4221 Lake Road City Manager
Robbinsdale, Minn. 55422
HENNEPIN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ORGANIZATION
TO: All HECO Members
FROM: Staff RECE
U, E
DATE: November 2, 1977 NOV t3 1977
SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The folZowing material was developed at the request of the Executive Committee
for your use when presenting the request for dues to your governing board.
Police communications, or more precisely the effective use of radio technology,
has been a subject of discussion and controversy ever since the two -way radio
was first used by police. As the technology and equipment have become more
sophisticated, generally, the police became more adept at making full use of
these resources. However, in recent years technological advances have not been
fully used due to extremely high costs and, perhaps more importantly in our own
jurisdiction, the limited number of radio frequencies has severely hampered the
implementation of changes which could insure a more effective use of radio tech-
nology. At the present time there are a number of agencies in Hennepin County
that are sharing police radio frequencies which are so congested by normal use
that the full benefits of two -way radio systems are not possible. In simple
terms, no additional frequencies are available and alternative solutions must
be found.
The most straightforward solution is the redistribution and sharing of the avail-
able radio frequencies. This sharing can take the form of two or more adjacent
communities sharing a single radio frequency with each maintaining its own dis-
patching center; or there can be "clustering" in which two or more communities
share a radio frequency and use one dispatching center with the costs of dis-
patching being shared among the participants; or there can'be full consolida-
tion where all public safety dispatching takes place in one center and all com-
munities pay a fair share of the operating costs.
Even though the solution seems simple, there was no mechanism whereby the vari-
ous communities in the county could cooperatively institute change without.
peripheral issues such as parochial interests, competition among agencies and
suspicion as to motives getting in the way. The result was a lot of talk and
speculation, but no action.
In response to these problems, the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Council
Communications Steering Committee initiated a series of planning activities
which resulted in a recommendation to create an organization wherein all members
participated as co- equals with adequate safeguards to assure user control.
The organization that evolved was the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organi-
zation (HECO), a joint power organization with 23 member units of government
which range in size from the city of Medicine Lake to the city of Minneapolis.
November 2, 1977
Page Two .
A review of the joint power agreement highlights why HECO was created. It
was created to plan for the "reallocation and the greater sharing of the
frequency channels available... "; to explore the feasibility "to have the
several existing dispatch facilities consolidated into a.lesser number, with
one centralized facility possibly providing enhanced public safety services
and the best opportunity for application of current and future technological
developments "; to develop "a plan and operating procedures for an integrated -
and coordinated public safety communications system which includes county-
wide 911 telephone service...."
In addition, the agreement provides a means to operate such a center or centers
should that be the decision of the HECO Board and to assess the operating
costs to the participating members based upon an established formula.
HECO as an organizational entity exists and appears theoretically able to
make significant improvements in public safety communications but, like a
rocket without fuel, it is a very static achievement. Just as the rocket
needs fuel to do the job for which it was intended, HECO needs "fuel" to ac-
complish results. The "fuel" needed for HECO is a mixture of participation,
cooperation and resources.
Each member of HECO has been asked to consider a request for dues to under-
write the cost of conducting a study which will, among other things, determine
the future of HECO. To begin to make system improvements, HECO needs a great
deal of information and advice which will serve as the basis for decisions by
individual members and as the basis for recommending detailed operational im-
provements. The study is crucial if system improvements are to be made.
The issues facing HECO can be summarized as follows:
1. Some radio frequencies are currently overloaded to the extent that
the quality of service is marginal. The County system is now at
this point.
2. Some radio frequencies in the county are underused.
3. When frequencies are licensed by an agency they are literally "owned"
by that agency.
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that a reallocation or sharing of frequen-
cies is necessary and that any sharing or reallocation will require the willing
cooperation of those members who currently control radio frequencies.
4. Capital costs of dispatching equipment contin
of the present radio dispatching centers will
investments for new equipment within three to
ing the number of dispatching centers through
dation, it is possible to minimize the impact
for dispatching equipment.
ue to increase and most
require significant
six years. By reduc-
clustering or consoli-
of capital spending
November 2, 1977
Page Three
5. By reducing the number of dispatching centers and by instituting
a procedure wherein each community pays its fair share of the dis-
patching costs, it is likely that the cost to each agency will be
more equitable and, in some cases, the cost per agency will actually
be less than its current expenditures for public safety communica-
tions.
The following will be included in the study.
1. Community profiles will be developed which will reflect the current
and projected public safety communications needs of each community.
2. An inventory and description of the current use of all radio fre-
quencies available for public safety purposes.
3. Professional engineering services will be provided to: evaluate
existing radio and dispatching equipment, recommend reallocation
of frequencies, recommend system improvements, recommend cluster
or consolidation arrangements (technical aspects), assist in dispatch
center site selections and design of facilities, develop specifica-
tions for modifying existing equipment for use in consolidated or
cluster center, revise county 911 plan to conform with system changes,
evaluate equipment needs, and assist in developing detailed imple-
mentation plans.
Several alternative methods of system improvement will be described as options
for consideration by the HECO members with each alternative including a des-
cription of its general operational features.
At the last HECO Board meeting a question was raised as to _the status of the
potential for LEAA funding for this purpose. The Executive Committee has directed
staff to continue the preparation of such a grant request; however, you should
be aware that at the time the HECO Executive Committee approved the work pro-
gram, there was a strong likelihood that LEAA funding would be available for
at least the first year of operation of HECO. Within the last few.weeks, that
situation has changed to the extent that it is now virtually certain that LEAA
funds will not be available for a grant to operate HECO. Therefore, if HECO
is to produce any results, the members must demonstrate their commitment to
improving public safety communications by underwriting the start -up costs and
this project directly by dues or other contributions.
JMB:bjr
1b
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 343
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Agreement for Auditing Services for 1977
Submitted herewith is a proposed agreement with the CPA firm of Olson
and Clough, 7514 Oliver Avenue, for auditing services for the City of Richfield
for the year ending December 31, 1977. It is presented now to allow the auditors
to begin preliminary auditing before the end of the year.
A copy of the proposed contract is attached. The daily rates calculated
on the basis of a seven hour day are as follows:
Partner $130.00
Audit Supervisor 118.00
Staff Accountants 82.00- 108.00
Typing @ $6.50 per hour
It is recommended that the city council approve the proposed contract for
auditing services for 1977.
WSB /eja
cc: Finance Director
Respectfully submitted,
.73 045
Wt
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this day of 1977,
k•�
by and between the CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, hereinafter re-
r
ferred to as the "City" and the accounting firm of OLSON & CLOUGH,
4 t!'
Certified Public Accountants, a co- partnership consisting of ROGER L.
OLSON and RICHARD G. CLOUGH, hereinafter referred to as the "Auditors ",
'
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of their mutual covenants and agreements
as hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto contract and agree as
follows:
1.
The Auditors agree to make a limited general audit of
i
the financial transactions and records of the City for the year
ending December 31, 1977. Such examination shall be conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and procedures
and in accordance with the minimum audit procedures for Minnesota
municipalities prescribed by the Minnesota State Auditor, and is
directed to the expression of an opinion on financial statements,
and is not primarily or specifically designed, and cannot be re-
lied upon to disclose defalcations and other similar irregularities,
although their discovery may result. The examination shall encom-
pass the following items on a test basis:
1. System of internal control
20 Details of all the books of account,
subsidiary records and supporting
documents as to:
(a) Legality
(b) Mathematical accuracy
(c) Completeness of all transactions
(d) Application of accepted municipal
accounting principles
t
It is understood and agreed that the responsibility for the estab-
lishment and enforcement of an adequate system of internal control
rests with the City.
The examination shall encompass the accounts and records
t
of the City of Richfield Police Relief Association for the same
period.
If circumstances disclosed by the audit call for a more
detailed investigation than would be necessary under ordinary cir-
cumstances, such circumstances will be called to the attention of
'
the City authorities before proceeding further with the investi-
gation. If authorized to proceed further with the investigation
in this area, compensation for the additional services will be
at the regular rates designated later in this agreement.
M.
The Auditors shall provide the City with at least ten
(10) copies of the report on their examination, and shall make
specific comments and recommendations with regard to the following:
r
(b) Non - conformity with procedure prescribed
by statute.
(b) Conformity to accepted principles of
municipal accounting.
(c) Defects in accounting plan and financial
procedure that make proper accounting and
auditing difficult.
(d) Any failure of accounting department to
make financial reports required or needed
for administrative purposes.
The report shall be addressed to the common council of
the City.
IV.
Final field work on the audit will be started by the
Auditors after receipt of.notice from the City that the accounts
are completed for the year and ready for the Auditors' examination.
If mutually convenient, the Auditors may start field work prior to
` the close of the calendar year 1977.
The City herewith engages the auditors for the work here-
_ '..,..,�
inbefore specified and agrees to pay to the Auditors for such work
on the basis of the following per diem rates (calculated on the
basis of a seven hour day):
1
Partner $130.00
Audit supervisor 118,00
Staff accountants $82,00- 108.00
2 Typing @ $6.50 per hour
Postage for mailing requests for and returns of direct
confirmations of consumers' accounts, bank balances and other con -
firmations to be a City expense, either directly or by reimburse -
ment to the Auditors for such expenditures.
The Auditors shall provide the City with a detailed state -
meet as to the names of accountants, classifications and hours worked.
Payment of the Auditors' fees shall be made as work progresses and
itemized claims therefor are submitted by the Auditors. Monthly
progress payments to be at the rate of sixty percent (60 %) of the
total fee billed for the time expended to the date of billing; with
final payment to be made within thirty days after receipt of the
Auditors' report and an itemized municipal claim form showing the
balance due the Auditors.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto set
their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
BY
MAYOR
BY
MANAGER
( Sea 1 )
OLSON & CLOUGH
Certified Public Accountants
B Y 7i't 4-
0;,knr.-I r_ r , ,„h Pnrtnor
IZ
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 342
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Resolution Objecting to Consideration of a Possible
Restriction or Moratorium on Additional Waste Water
Materials in the Metropolitan Waste Water Treatment
Plant
Attached to this council letter is a bulletin from the Association of Metropol-
itan Municipalities together with a proposed resolution on this subject.
While a potential restriction on new waste water materials would affect
different cities in different ways, the AMM is suggesting that each city in the
metropolitan area adopt a resolution similar to the one which is attached.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the proposed resolution with
the deletion of the one whereas clause which does not really affect the City
of Richfield.
WSB /eja
cc: Public Works Director
City Attorney
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
RESOLUTION #
A Resolution objecting to consideration of wastewater restrictions
and limitations to the metropolitan wastewater treatment plant at
Pig's Eye Lake in the matter of NPDES and State Permit Nearing
Docket No. PCA -78- 006 -EG.
WHEREAS, on November 7, 1977 the city of
learned through correspondence with the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities that as an issue in the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System and State Disposal Permits hearing (Docket No.
PCA -78- 006 -EG) commenced November 2, 1977 for the metropolitan waste-
water treatment plant located at 2400 Childs Road, St. Paul, Minne-
sota, 55104, near Pig's Eye Lake, a restriction or moratorium on
additional wastewater materials to .that plant from either new or ex-
isting connections was being considered; and
WHEREAS, the NPDES permit hearing notice did not include
as possible subject matter the above mentioned moratorium; and
WHEREAS, all parties affected by such moratorium issue were
not duly notified; and
WHEREAS, learning of this matter through a private organi-
zation does not constitute legal or proper notice; and
WHEREAS, the city of has not had proper
and sufficient time to analyze the impact of such a moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the 'ty of determined that
ther 1as obvious economic ' pact including but not iced to sub -
stantia current public invest t in stormwater, sanita sewer,
water and reef utilities based o mpending development ass ents
which would no be forthcoming that cou ause bond default or se-
vere taxing of the city's residents; and
Q0 �e WHEREAS, the city of has determined that
there WF- obvious social impact, including but not limited to the
loss .of necessary housing stock development and the loss of employ-
ment opportunities for our citizens,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city of
strongly objects to the consideration of waste inflow moratorium in
the current NPDES permit hearings for the metropolitan waste control
plant located at Pig's Eye Lake in St. Paul, Minnesota.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that this objection is based on
legal, economic-and social grounds which the city has not yet had
time to fully explore and present at the said hearings.
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the city of re-
quests that the Hearing Examiner accepts and places in the record this
Resolution as formal objection to the consideration of the moratorium issue.
Y
U'L -
associafion of'
metropolitan
municipalities J[J"
13 77
TO: MEMBER CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OF C.IALS- tits vi DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 1977
►ILti
The State Hearing Examiner's office is.currently holding hearings on the
renewal of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
and State Disposal System permits for the metropolitan waste water treat-
ment plant at Pig's Eye Lake in St. Paul, which expired July 1, 1977.
Federal law required that all plants meet secondary standards by July 1,
1977. This will not be possible for Pig's Eye until the $300 million con -
struction is completed in 198111982, which was partially delayed by im-
poundment of federal funds by the Nixon administration. Based on an in-
tent to file a lawsuit for non- compliance by a group of citizens in the
Winona area of Minnesota and Wisconsin, known as Citizens for a Clean
Mississippi, Inc., the MPCA has requested that the MWCC provide an interim
land disposal for sludge which will cost the metropolitan area cities and
residents between $6 and $14 million over the next four years.
The AMM Metropolitan Agencies Committee and Board of Directors did oppose
the additional interim proposals based on the limited value received for
the additional expense and the fact that a substantial "good faith" in-
vestment to solve the problem was in progress and would be completed wr:th-
in a reasonable time. In addition, any interim alternative could possibly
be delayed to near or beyond completion of Pig's Eye by several legal
measures, thus causing an unnecessary loss of metropolitan money.
Based on previous lawsuits in other areas of the country, impoundment of.
funds is not an acceptable legal reason.for non - compliance. Therefore,
the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission are
making provisions for studying alternative interim solutions.
However, the Wisconsin Department of
of issues requested consideration of
flow to the plant worded as follows:
Justice in its pre - hearing statement
a moratorium to new wastewater in-
"i'V. Whether any state disposal system permit which contains ef-
fluent limitations less stringent than the NPDES effluent lim-
itations should not also contain restrictions with respect to
sewage extensions and limitations on increased auantities of
waste from present users."
The Metropolitan Council objected to this issue as part of the NPDES hear-
ing, but the Hearing Examiner reserved judgment until after the hearing.
Thus, it is an issue and testimony is being taken.
300 hanover bldg. 480 cedar street, st -paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222 -2861
BULLETIN November 4, 1977
Since 75% to 80% of the metropolitan area effluent goes to Pig's Eye, a
possible moratorium would drastically effect most of our member cities,
The Board of Directors, at the November 3, 1977 meeting, directed staff
to prepare a sample Resolution and letter to be sent to the effected mem-
ber cities for their consideration. It was the Board's suggestion that
as soon as possible your city consider this matter, and if in agreement
adopt this or a similar Resolution, or prepare a letter from the Mayor,
and forward same to the Hearing Examiner,. If possible,your city may wish
to include some actual financial impact data in the Resolution.
The hearing will last at least through Thursday, November 10, 1977, but
' it is ancitipated that the record will be held open for some time there-
after, probably 30 days. It is being held in the Board room at the MPCA
office at 1935 West Country Road.B -2 in Roseville.
Correspondence should be sent to:
REP:sb
Enclosure
Mr. Eugene R. Gaetke
Hearing Examiner
Room 300
1745 University Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
RE: In the matter of the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System and State Disposal
System Permits for the metropolitan wastewater
treatment plant located at 2400 Childs Road,
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Docket No. PCA -78- 006 -EG
-2-
Rog * E. Peterson
Director of Legislative Affairs
R s.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 341
Subject: Purchases in Excess of $1,000
rnda November 14, 1977
Chapter 6, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates that the city
council must approve the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment
or construction when the amount exceeds $1,000. There are two such
purchases for the public works department on the city council agenda of
November 14, 1977.
Boulevard Trees
At the October 11, 1977 city council meeting, the council took action
to reject bids which had been solicited for boulevard tree planting. These
bids were rejected because the total cost of the bids was considerably
above the cost the staff had estimated, and exceeded the budget for this
project. At that time, the staff proposed that we solicit additional quota-
tions and make arrangements to plant the trees ourselves with CETA special
roject personnel.
Quotations for boulevard trees ha•.7e now been received from four nurseries.
The low quotation was in the amount of $59.00 per tree, balled and burlaped,
and was submitted by Minnesota Valley Landscaping.
It is recommended that the city council approve the purchase of 150
boulevard trees, at a cost of $59.00 per tree, from Minnesota Valley Land-
scaping. Funds are available in the 1977 budget for this project.
Overhaul of Tree Trimming Equipment _
Council approval is requested to enter an agreement with LaHass,
Manufacturing and Sales, Inc. to overhaul a hi- ranger bucket truck used
for tree trimming. This equipment was purchased in 1972 and because it
has been used extensively, many of the major components are due for a
complete dismantling and inspection
Council Letter No. 341 -2 November 14, 1977
The city attorney has advised that we may enter into an agreement for
this service without soliciting formal bids. However, quotations have been
solicited from the three local firms which do this type of work. Quotations
were received from two of these firms, and the third declined to bid on the
project. The low quotation, submitted by La Hass Manufacturing and Sales,
Inc, was in the amount of $7,487.80.
It is, therefore, recommended that the city council approve execution
of an agreement with La Hass Manufacturing and Sales, Inc, to complete the
necessary overhauling of this hi- ranger. Funds for this work are available in
the 1977 central garage budget.
Respectfully submi d,
vjv'�f d � , Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Finance Director
Public Works Director
7
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 340
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000
As council members are aware, state law generally requires that the city solicit
sealed bids for purchase of any goods or services costing more than $5,000. How-
ever, the legislation governing this purchasing process provides that purchases in
amounts in excess of $5, 000 may be authorized by the city council without bids being
taken, if it is determined that the purchase is non - competitive. There is one such
item on the November 14, 1977 city council agenda.
The mixing of softeners and other chemicals at the water treatment plant is
accomplished through a mechanism called an accelator which moves along a circular
track through which all water coming into the treatment plant passes. This track is
now quite worn and will need to be replaced soon. Since the track is part of a complete
assembly that was custom built for our water plant, it is necessary that the replacement
track be purchased from the same manufacturer, to insure that all dimensions and
tolerances of this part are compatible with the other components of the system.
Infilco Degremont, Inc. , the original manufacturer of the accelator assembly, has,
indicated that they can furnish a replacement track for $6,927. Because it will take
several months to manufacture the track, council authorization for the purchase is
requested now, so that we can plan installation of the replacement by water division
employees during the winter of 1978.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution determining
that the roller track is a non - competitive item and authorizing purchase of a
replacement track in the amount of $6,927.
Respectfully submi ted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
cc: Public Works Director
Finance Director
Y
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF
REPLACEMENT ROLLER TRACK FOR THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD WATER PLANT
WHEREAS, the Richfield water system requires a continual softening
and treating of water, and
WHEREAS, this softening and treating is accomplished through an
accelator mechanism moving on a roller track, and
WHEREAS, the entire assembly was custom built for the Richfield
water treatment plant, and
WHEREAS, the roller track is but one part of the entire accelator
assembly,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Richfield that the Council does find that this track is a non - competitive
item, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that they hereby authorize purchase of a replacement roller track in the
amount of $6,927 from Infilco Degrement, Inc.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of
November, 1977.
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
Loren L. Law Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 339
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Resolution Supporting Existing Method of Providing
Personal Health Services
House File 1', which would repeal the existing Community Health Act,
was passed late during the 1977 session of the Minnesota Legislature.
Senate File 459 , which is the companion legislation in the senate, is still
pending and can be expected to be considered by the senate when the legis-
lature convenes next January.
The City of Richfield has previously gone on record in opposition to those
portions of House File 1 which would result in a change in the provision of
health services in the City of Richfield, The purpose of this council letter is
to propose a resolution requested by Mayor Law to reaffirm the city's oppos-
ition to this legislation in the senate file.
At the present time, the City of Richfield receives state funds which are
used in part to support the provision of environmental health services and
personal health care services in the City of Richfield. Environmental health
services are provided by the City of Richfield personnel with personal health
care services provided through a purchase of services contract with the City
of Bloomington.. The proposed resolution, of which a copy is attached, is
similar in form to one which was recently adopted by the City of Bloomington.
Respectfully submitted,
0AWS-8
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
cc: Environmental Health Director
Administrative Assistant
WSB /eja
/7
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMMUNITY
HEALTH SERVICES ACT AND AMENDMENT
TO SENATE FILE NO. 459
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield currently provides environmental health
service with city personnel and personal health care services through a
purchase of services agreement with the City of Bloomington, and
WHEREAS, state funds authorized by the Community Health Act are used
to partially finance the cost of these services, and
WHEREAS, these services are currently provided in a highly competent
and professional manner by personnel from both the City of Richfield and the
City of Bloomington, and
WHEREAS, the city council is congnizant of the fact that the adoption of
Senate File No. 459 as presently drafted would repeal the Community Health
Services Act and other existing laws granting the City of Richfield authority for
the planning, funding, and provision of community health services; and
WHEREAS, the city council is further aware that Senate File No. 459
would transfer the authority for the planning, funding, and provision of commun-
ity health services to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, thereby
seriously jeopardizing the viability of the city's division of Public Health and
Environmental Health Services Section, and
WHEREAS, the city council endorses the provisions of Senate File No. 459
relating to the planning, financing and delivery of social services other than
community health services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, that the City Council hereby urges the Minnesota Legislature to
amend Senate File No. 459 by deleting all references to community health
services.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Richfield .
is hereby directed to provide a copy of this resolution to all appropriate
legislators and to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this 14th day of
November, 1977.
Loren L. Law Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
5
Council Letter No. 338
� y�0
U�0 Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen: ,(V1S WOOL, Su,r Trn
Subject: Appeal of Masseuse Certificate Revocation
Ms. Hwa Sun Tengesdahl
There is a public hearing scheduled for the November 14, 1977 city council
meeting regarding an appeal on the revocation of a masseuse certificate issued
to Ms . Hwa Sun Tengesdahl.
Ms. Tengesdahl was notified on October 20, 1977 that the masseuse certif-
icate issued to her by the City of Richfield was being revoked in accordance
with Section S .26, subdivision 9 of the Richfield City Ordinance, in that as an
employee or agent of Shangri -La Sauna she did engage in conduct inimical to
the interest of the public health, welfare, safety or morals; and did engage in
conduct involving moral turpitude.
This revocation is based on the following grounds:
That on October 14, 1977 Ms. Tengesdahl did offer
herself for the purpose of prostitution contrary to
Richfield City Ordinance Code Section 10.16, sub-
division 10.
Ms Tengesdahl was arrested in this incident by officers working under the
direction of the Richfield Department of Public Safety. Ms. Tengesdahl has
filed notice with the city clerk that she wishes to appeal this masseuse certif-
icate revocation and that she will be represented at the hearing of this appeal
by Mr. Stewart R. Perry, legal counsel.
Respectfully submit d,
M : 5' ,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
Public Safety Director
cc: City Attorney
r
1s
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 337
Agenda November 14, 1977
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Subject: Amendment to Moratorium on the Filling of Full
Time Vacancies
During the 1977 budget hearings, the city council established a moratorium
on the filling of full time position vacancies. This letter is to request that the
moratorium be lifted to permit the filling of the following full time vacancies:
1. Accounting Clerk II:
This vacancy is a result of a resignation. The position is crucial
to the Finance Department's operations and is fully funded.
2. Administrative Aide:
This new position will serve as a community development specialist
in the Planning Department and was approved in the 1978 budget. The
duration of this position is contingent upon the availability of federal
funding, but in any case, it will last at least one year. Funding for
this position comes from the community development block 'grant for
housing rehabilitation and new home program, the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency rehabilitation program and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development housing assistance program.
The major duties of this position include providing assistance to low
and moderate income families, implementing the housing assistance
plan, coordinating new subsidized housing with private developers
and implementing the H.R.A. new home program.
:Council Letter No. 337 -2-
3. Assistant Liquor Store Manager:
November 14, 1977
This vacancy is a result of a resignation. The person in this position
serves as general manager of the Cedar Store. The position is fully
funded.
It is recommended that the moratorium be lifted to permit their filling these
three positions.
Respectfully submitte
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
1. WSB /e j a
cc: Finance Director
Liquor Store Manager
Personnel Director
Planning & Redevelopment Director
i
is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council. Letter No. 336
Agenda November 14, 1977
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating to Taxicab Licenses
The city has recently received a request from the Yellow Cab Company to
license 48 additional taxicabs. The additional licenses are being requested in
order to implement the shared -ride program which Yellow Cab is proposing to
operate in Richfield, Edina and Bloomington. The city council'adopted a resol-
ution supporting the shared ride proposal at their September 12, 1977 meeting.
City ordinance presently limits to 67 the number of taxicab licenses which
may be issued. In order to permit licensing of an additional 48 taxicabs, it
would be necessary to amend the ordinance.
Attached is a proposed ordinance amendment increasing the maximum number
of taxicab licenses which may be issued from 67 to 115. It is recommended
that the council give first reading approval to this ordinance amendment at their
November 14, 1977 meeting.
WSB /eja
cc: City Clerk
Respectfully submitted,
OA4ttS . -E
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
JA
AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION 12 OF SECTION 6.20
OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Subdivision 12 of Section 6.20 of the City Ordinance Code
of the City of Richfield relating to the number of authorized
k„ taxicab licenses, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Subd. 12. Maximum Number of Licenses Granted. The
maximum number of taxicab licenses to be granted pursuant
to this section until next amended shall be limited to
[67] 115."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
i,
this day of 1977.
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
Loren L. Law Mayor
w J.
o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen-
Subject: Traffic Control Requests
luncil Letter No. 335
Agenda November 14, 1977
The traffic control committee met on Tuesday, November 8, 1977 to consider
several requests for traffic control devices. These requests were evaluated based
on the criteria previously adopted by the city council, a copy of which is attached.
The committee makes the following recommendations for traffic control devices:
Stop Sign Requests
76th and Vincent: The committee recommends that the request for a four
way stop sign at this intersection be denied. ' $i► v% c ,pQe S
67th and Grand: The committee recommends that the request for a two-way,!,
stop sign, stopping Grand Avenue traffic, be approved,
Parking Restrictions
6300 Block of Humboldt: The committee recommends that the request for +rAV-,#'CiC-0
parking restrictions on the east side of Humboldt Avenue be approved.
7600 Block of Clinton: The committee recommends that the request for � - O
parking restrictions at the end of the stub street in the 7600 block of
Clinton be approved.
Copies of the minutes of the November 8, 1977 Traffic Control Committee
Council Letter No. 335 -2- November 14, 1977
meeting are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Public Works Director
Public Safety Director
Administrative Assistant
Two -Way Stop Signs
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices lists four criteria or
warrants that should be reviewed in considering two -way stop sign install -
ations. These criteria are: _
~" 1. Intersection of a less important road with a main. road where
application of the normal right -of -way is unduly hazardous.
Where total traffic entering an intersection averages 500 cars
for a 24 -hour period the street with the larger vllbe inst lledbe
classified as the main road and stop signs shal
• • stopping traffic on the minor street.
• - 2. Street entering a through highway Aoexamp e oftthis type of warrant
that this warrant remain as is. r
application would be where residential streets ,enter into 76th
Street, Nicollet Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, etc.
3, Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. It is recommended
that this warrant remain as is. a .
4. Other intersections where a combination of high spzad, restricted
tr
view, and serious accident record indicates a need for c Y
the stop sign. High speed shall mean where one street is posted safety
in excess of 30 miles an hou
radar checks indicate that a s r ubstantia Pnblmber of peop eadr v'ng
le per hour speed limit. Serious accident
are exceeding the 30 mi
record shall mean three accidents in a twelve month Period or
°. five accidents in a .24 -month period.
°Four-Way or Multi -way Stop Signs
The Manual on Uniform Control Devices lists. three criteria or warrants
that should be reviewed in considering four -way or multi -way stop sign in- °
stalla-tions. These criteria or warrants are:
• . :i; An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported
° "accidents of a type susceptible -of correction b.y a multi -way
stop installation in a 12 -month period. Such accidents include
• right and left turn collisions as well as right angle collisions.
2; The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from
approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour forr
any 8 hours of an average day,. and
3. Potential obstructions and /or other street geometric problems. that affect
the safety of an intersection.
TRAFFIC CONTROL COMMITTEE
MINUTES
November 8, 1977
Members present: C. Marinics, T. Morgan, M. Raaen, J. Wilde
Members absent: R. Richardson
Others attending: F. Hoffman, representing the Traffic Control Committee
of the City of Edina
The Richfield Traffic Control Committee met at 10 :00 A. M. on Tuesday,
November 8, 1977, to review pending requests for traffic control devices.
The committee considered the following requests:
Stop signs:
76th & Vincent: J. Wilde reported that the neighbors .W' ho;ha .,circulated a
petition two years ago requesting a four -way stop sign: at this* intersection
had renewed their request. M. Raaen reported the results of traffic counts
taken last week at this intersection, and observed that these counts were
substantially unchanged from those taken in considering the previous request
for stop signs. Public safety records show no evidence of accident frequency
in this vicinity. The committee did note, however, the continuing problem
with speeding on 76th Street, and voted to install additional speed limit
signs and a notice that limits are "radar enforced." The committee voted
to recommend denial of the requested four -way stop.
67th & Grand: T. Morgan reported that Mayor Law had requested the committee .
to re- evaluate the possibility of installing two -way stop signs at this intersection.
Committee members who had visited the site observed that a hill and shrubbery on
the southeast corner of the intersection provided rather severe sight obstruction,
and the committee voted to recommend installation of a two -way stop sign at
the intersection, stopping Grand Avenue traffic at 67th Street.
Parking Restrictions :
6300 block of Humboldt: J. Wilde reported that a spokesman of the neighbors
in this block had requested posting one side of the street "no parking anytime."
This request was based on experience of last winter, with the permanent street
constructed narrower than the old streets, and problems with adequate snow
removal. The committee observed that the street was narrow enough that parking
on both sides prohibited adequate snow removal. The committee voted to recommend
establishment of a "no parking anytime " prohibition on the east side of the
6300 block of Humboldt.
7600 block of Clinton : T. Morgan reported that residents in this short
T -block had requested, by petition, establishment of some parking restrictions .
which could reduce congestion at the end of the street adjacent to the park.
The committee voted to recommend that signs be erected at either end of the
"T" which would read "no parking between signs. 'rt was the committee's
determination that this would reduce congestions, while still providing for
some on- street parking, in accordance with the neighbors concerns.
6800 block of Xerxes: T. Wilde reported that a petition had recently been
received from residents in this block, requesting establishment of some sort
of parking restrictions . Since any action taken by Richfield to restrict on-
street parking in this area could affect the Edina side of Xerxes Avenue,
T. Wilde requested Mr. Fran Hoffman, representing the Edina Traffic Control
Committee, to meet with us to explore possible solutions. The committee
determined that any further parking restrictions established by Edina would
only aggravate the parking problem on the Richfield side of the street, and
Mr. Hoffman suggested that Edina was willing to take no further action
restricting parking on their side. The committee voted to recommend establish-
ment of "no parking 8 a.m. to noon restrictions in the 6800 block of Xerxes,
with the feeling that such a restriction would eliminate parking by employees
of area businesses while still permitting residents to use the street for
parking when necessary. This recommendation will be explored with the
petiitioning residents before being presented to the city council.
The committee reviewed the criteria to be used in evaluating requests for
traffic control devices with Carl Marinics, Public Works Director and new
committee member.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Wilde, Chairman
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 334
Agenda November 14, 1977
Subject: Authorization to Call for Bids - Chemicals
for Water Treatment Plant .
On the November 14, 1977 city council agenda there is an item requesting
city council authorization to call for bids on certain chemicals necessary for
water treatment processing in 1978. The bids for chemicals will include lime,
liquid aluminum sulfate, liquid anhydrous ammonia and soldium silico fluroride.
Funds are provided in the 1978 budget for purchase of these items, and it is
recommended that the city council authorize the call for bids.
Respectfully submitted,
�.1
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /eja
cc: Public Works Director
Finance Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 333
Agenda November 14, 1977
Subject: Resolution Approving Classification and Sale
of Tax Forfeited Land
On September 30, 1977 Hennepin County notified the city of tax
forfeited lands located in the City of Richfield. The current list contains
one parcel, a one -foot wide strip located along Highway I -35W, north of
66th Street behind the homes facing Emerson Avenue.
The Hennepin County Board has classified this parcel as non- conser-
vation land and authorized its sale, however, Minnesota Statutes require
that the city council also approve the non - conservation classification of
land in order to make the land available for public sale. The county is
responsible for all public notification regarding the availability of tax -.
forfeited land.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the attached resolution
designating this parcel as non- conservation land and authorizing its sale.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
1
WSB /eja
cc: City Clerk
Ir
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CLASSIFICATION OF
TAX DELINQUENT LAND AS NON - CONSERVATION LAND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin
County, Minnesota has received from the County Auditor of Hennepin
County, Minnesota a list of lands in said city which became the
property of the State of Minnesota under the provisions of law de-
claring the forfeiture of lands to the state for nonpayment of
taxes, which said list has been designated as Classification List
Number 652 -NC, dated September 30, 1977, and described as follows:
Plat 44828, Parcel 4510
That part of W 20 acres of Gov. lot
6 lying ely. of state hwy. 35 -W
ex. road
WHEREAS, the parcel of land described above has heretofore
been classified by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin
County, Minnesota as non - conservation land, and the sale thereof
has heretofore been authorized by said Board of County Commissioners
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by said city..council acting
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes for 1957, 'Seetion.'2$2:01, Subd. 1,
that the said classification by said Board of County Commissioners
of the parcel of land described above as non - conservation land be
and the same is hereby approved and that the sale of such parcel
of land be and the same is hereby approved.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this
14th day of November, 1977.
ATTEST:
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk
Loren L. Law Mayor
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Gentlemen:
Council Letter No. 332
Agenda October 24, 1977
1\01 7 \$
1\ �c1 �
foal
lo/ � * 1,5 DD
4,cl,A
Subject: Award of Bid, 1500 GPM Fire Pumper with Water Tower
On October 19, 1977, the acting city manager opened bids for a 1500 GPM
fire pumping engine with articulating water tower. Copies of the bid minutes
and bid tabulation are attached.
Two bids were received for this piece of equipment. Since there are only
two major manufacturers of the articulating mater tower, the two bids represent--
ed both companies that manufacture the water tower. The bids received were
from American LaFrance , in the amount of $121,214, and the General Safety
Equipment Corporation, in the amount of $110,909. The Public Safety Director
and fire chief have reviewed these bids and determined that the low bid submitted
by the General Safety Equipment Corporation conforms with the city's specifications.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I
concur, that the city council authorize purchase of a 1500 GPM pumper with ar-
ticulating water tower from General Safety Equipment Corporation in the amount of
$110,909. The estimated production time for this piece of equipment is 14 months
from the date of order.
The pumper will be produced at the General Safety Equipment Corporation plant
in North Branch, MN. with an anticipated delivery date of January, 1979.
Respectfully suNitted,
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
cc: Finance Director
Public Safety Director
S_-
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
October 19, 1977
1,500 GPM Pumper and
1,500 GPM Pumper with
Articulating Water Tower
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
staff was called by Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for a
Pumper with Articulating Water Tower as advertised in the official newspaper on
September 21, 1977.
Present: Joyce Wilde, Acting City Manager
Richard Simpson, Fire Chief
Marshall Raaen, Acting Public Works Director
Kathy Wilson, Acting Parks & Recreation Director
Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER AND
BID SECURITY
American LaFrance
5% Bid Bond
ALTERNATE A ALTERNATE B
1500 GPM PUMPER RADIO CONTROL
PUMPER WITH TOWER ON TOWER
No Bid $121,214 $3,584
General Safety Equipment Corp.
5% Bid Bond $75,494 $110,909 $4,000
The Acting City Manager announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the regular council meeting of October 24, 1977.
Thomas J. Moran City Clerk