The URL can be used to link to this page

11-08-76 agenda~~ CSTY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City IVlanager Council Letter N o . 3 61 .Agenda November 8, 1976 he Honorable 1vIa or T Y and Members'of the City Council City of Richfield. Gentlemen: Subject: Proposed. Change in Constructs©n Permit FeEs The purpose of this council letter is to propose revissons in Inspection Division' permit. `fee s , r History One of the responsibilitses of tree Inspection Division is to enfcrce various. state laws acid city ordinances governsng the construction, alterations and repasr.s of. buildings located within Richfield. .One of the major requirements of 'these laws 'and ordinances is the issuance and inspection of permits related to the construction, alteration and-repasr of the building.;: The fees for triese permits have not been changed. since 19G7, During the 1977 city budget he~r- ings the staff indicated that it would be submitting recommendations to adjust various-fee schedules. in order to-bring the fees in line with the services received Constructs on Permits Building,' electrical, plumbing, heating and electrical permits are issued for work done on specific buildings. .The costs incurred by the city sn issuing -and inspecting-for these permits-are costs incurred in protecting and benefiting individuals, !For example, an electrical permit issued for electrical work on john Doe's property insures, through the inspection process, that the electrical work .done on Mr. Doe's property is done in a safe, acceptable manner. 1VIr. Doe is the one- who is protected and benefitted. For this reason it is logical that the permit. fee -paid by Mr. Doe or his contractor should cover the costs incurred by the city in providing him with-this service. in preparing a pr•~posed revised fee schedule the staff has attempted,to construct. a fee schedule -that will reflect the costs incurred by the city in issusng and inspecting for permits. The city staff does recognize, however, tha certain furctions performed by the. inspection division are of an overall. communsty benefit. Complaints and advisory inspections, code enforcement r: ,Goun cil Letter N~.- 361 -2- November 8 , 1 X76 programs, Ftc.'benefit the entire community and it i reasonable to have the community' support these types.:. of activities.. In preparing a revised schedule: the. staff anticipated that approximately 75% of the. cost of the :inspection div- ision budget should be financed by fees and 25% by the general fund. Propas~d Fees;:.. In preparing a proposed revised fee schedule the staff has .attempted to accomplish the following two objectives: 1. A permit fee schedulE that .will equate fees V~ith costs: incurred-by the city. 2. ~ simplified. format that will be easily understood by those obtaining pErmits . " The _proposed fees are shown on white paper and attached to .this council letter. The .existing fees are reproduced on.pir~k paper and are also attached. Tt is anticipated that the proposed fees would. generate an estimated.$65,000 to $70, 000 in revenue- during the first full year that the fees are in effect. This revenue estimate is essentially equal to 75% of the. expenditures in the in- spection division budget: The public works' Director has prepared a .present- -. ation for the November 8 city council meeting to review he fee proposal and demonstrate the differences between existing fees and tr~ose which have been- proposed. Recammenda tion It is the recommendation of the public works director in which I concur, that the city council approvethe proposed schedule and request the city attorney to prepare the appropriate ordinance amendments to implement the. fees in 1977. Respectfully sub fitted, _ , Vdayne S. Burggraaf City Manager WSB/eja cc; Public Works Director Finance Director City Attorney }3UILDING PERMIT FEES TO`.PAJ~ VAT,UATION FEE . $ 0 to $1 000 5 $15 $1,001 to $2,000 $15 for first $1,000 plus $1 for each additional $100 - or fraction thereof to $2,000 ., $2,001 to $50,000 $25 for first $2,000.-plus $3 for each additional $1,000 -~ or fraction there- kk of f $50,001 to $100,000 $109 for first $1+0,000 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000 - or fraction thereof to $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $231+ for first $100,000 plus $2 for each additional $1,000 - or fraction thereof to $500,000 $500,001 and up $1,031+ for first .$504,000 plus $1. for ~" each .additional $1,000 - or fraction thereof PLAN CIiECKIi~IG FEE ~: • 50~ of the building .permit fee. Exceptions: . 1) Existing single family dwelling alterations when habitable area is not i.nereased. 2) Single and two family repair and maintenance work. 3) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000. SWIP~RdING POOLS Pools of 21+" in depth or less and No permit I not exceedin g 15.' in diameter New above or below ground permanent Based on :building permit pOO1S Erection of portable pools $10 • MOVZIdG OI' $UII,DINGS `DkiEhT~ING ~~ pre:,inspection In Richfield Outside Richfield Moving Permit $25 $50 FEE ' Within Richfield $25 Outside Richfield $50 GARAGES r.-.------,- ~'re-inspection $15 Moving $10 lst stall plus $5 for each additional stall HOUSIT`TG INSPECTION FEE Housing Inspection Fee $?+0 f-•: ~,~=, ;;,v" f• This fee should apply to each. inspection when: Seller calls for minimum housing inspection. Horne owner calls for minimum housing inspection. House industry calls for minimum housing inspection. .Government agencies call'for minimum housing inspection. Private lending institution calls for minimum housing inspection. WRECKING OF STRUCTURES ~ • One and two-story single unit dwelling $10 Multiple dwelling $10 for first unit p]_us $5 for each unit thereafter Residential garages and other lesser $5 structures i• k• PLUMBING PERMIT FEES FEE A) RESIDENTIAL 1)" Minimum °ee $10.00 2) Fee per fixture, including: $ 5.00 Bath tub Lavatory Bidet Sewage ejector Clothes dryer Shower stall Dishwasher Sink Aisposa_1. Water closet Floor drain Water heater, gas Floor trap Water heater, electric, Laundry tray new ,or replacement 3) Gas piping; per unit, including: $ 5.00 Clothes dryer Grill Incinerator (up to 99,000 BTU) Light Oven Plate Stove Water heater (up to 99,000 BTU) ~+) Lawn sprinkler, anti-syphon system (includes water $1+.00 connection from building piping to yard side of syphon breaker) 5) Pool heater. (up to 199,000 BTU) $28.00 6) Water softener $ 6.00 7) Water supply or distribution piping extension $ 6.00 or alteration B) COMMERCIAL 1) Minimum fee $20.00 2) Fee per fixture, including: $ 5.00 Bidet Disposer , Ilrinking fountain Floor drain or trap Plaster interceptor Sinks: Bradley-type wash-up, service, flat-rim, bar, counter, laboratory, pot or scullery Urinal Any fixture not listed above. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES (Continued) i i~ FEE B} COMMERCIAL (Continued) 3) Clothes washer a) First 5 units or less $15.00 b) Each additional unit $ 4.00 ~+) vental chair $25.00 5 ) DishwasYier $10.00 6) Flammable waste trap, catch basin $10.00 'j) Food cold case condensate lines, each unit $ 500 8) Ground run, new for existing building $12.00 q) Ice-making machines $ 5.00 10) Indirect coil for hot water storage $10.00 11) Lawn sprinkler, anti-syphon system (includes $25.00 water connection from building piping to yard side of syphon breaker) 12) Neutralizing tank $10.00 13) Rainwater leader: a) All stacks 10 stories or less $10.00 b) A11 stacks over 10 stories $15.00 13) Roof area drain $ 5.00.. 1~+) Sewage ejector $10.00. 15) Shower, gang-type per head $ 3.00 16) Water softener $10.00 17) .Water supply or distribution piping, $15.00 extension or alteration 18) Installation of gas piping a) Up to 2 inches in diameter 1) First 3 openings $ 3.50 2) Each additional opening $ 1..50_ -- 2 - PLUf~ING PERMIT FEES (Continued) FEE --- B) COMMERCIAL (Continued) 18) Installation of gas piping (Continued) b) Exceeding-2 inches in diameter ~ 1) First 3 openings $10.00 2) Each. additional opening $ 2.00 C) GAS INSTALLATION 1) For the installation of any gas unit including but not limited to: Water heaters Enameling ovens Retorts Steam generators for process use Ranges' Deep fryers Dryers Process gas-burning devices Ar.y similar gas-burning devices t•he fee shall be determined per BTU gas input: a) Not exceeding 9g ,000 BTU $ 7.00 b) 100,000 but not exceeding 199,000 BTU $12.00 c) 200,000 but not exceeding 399,000 BTU $24.00 d) 400,000 but not exceeding 599,000 BTU $36.00 e) 600,000 but not exceeding 999,000 $48.00 f) 1,000,000 but not exceeding 2,499,000 BTU $80.00 g) 2,500,000 but not .exceeding g,99g,000 BTU $96.00 h} 10,000,000 but not exceeding 49,999,000 BTU $140.00 i) 50,000,000 but not exceeding 74,999,000 BTU $180.00 j) 75,000,000 and over $240.00 ., ;~ ~.. - PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Continued) D) Wells. 1) 2 - inch well 3 - inch well 4 - inch well 5 - inch well or larger _!~_ $ 7.00 $10.00 $15.00 $25.00 ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES. A) Res idential Buildings 1) Minimum fee $10.00 2) Complete wiring fee .(new construction) a) Single family residence $35.00 b) Two-family residence $65.00 3) New Service up to $ 7.50 ~ ~+) Temporary service for construction ~~ $10.00 5) Installation (or replacements) of $ 3.00 each major appliances after completion of building 6) Swimming pools $15.00 7) . Wiring of residential garage $ 7.50 8) Wiring of Addition • ~ a) First room $ 7.50 b) Each additional room $ 2.50 g) Rewiring a) First room $ 7.50 b) Each additional room $ 2.50 . B) Multiple Dwelling over i'wo-Family 1) Minimum fee $10.00 2) Complete wiring fee a) 1 to 5 units $70.00 b) 6 to 12 units $70.00 + $14.00/unit over 5 c) 13 to 22 units $168.00 + $12.00/unit over 12 d) Over 22 units $288.00 + $10.00/unit over 2z • ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES (Continued) FEE ' B) Multiple Dwel:ling over Two-Family (Cont'd.) 3) Wiring of Garages $15.00 first stall plus $1.0~/stall for each additional stall. 4) Temporary Service for construction $10.00 5) .Swimming Pools ~ $35.00 6) Rewiring a) First unit $10.00 b) Each additional unit $ 5.00 C) Commercial and Industrial 1) Schedule of fees based on the cost of electrical job to the customer:. a) First $100.00 or fraction thereof $10.00 b) $101.00 to $50,000.00 1% of cost c) Over $50,000.00 $500.00 + 3/~+~ of cost over $50,000 Upon completion of the job, the electrical contractor will furnish the city with a notarized statement of. the full cost of the job to the customer 2) Temporary services for construction: a) 0 - 100 amp $10.00 b) Over 100 amp $20.00 D) Signs 1) Schedule of fees based on the cost of electrical job to the customer: a) First $100.00 or fraction thereof $10.00 b) $101.00 to $50,000 1~ of cost - 2 - ~I,ECTRICAL PERMIT FEES (Continued) E) Fire Alarm Systems. 1) For the installation of fire al~.~m systems connected to the Municipal Fire Alarm System for; a) 1 to 5 stations b) For each additional group of '10 stations or fraction thereof (pro-vided that the total fee sha11 '.not exceed $40.00) F. Telephone Booths .• 1) Wiring of booth 2) For each sign installed on exterior of booth i• - 3 - FEE $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 TOTAL VALUATION $50 to $1,000 $1,001 to $2,000 $2,001 to $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $500,001 and up BUILDING PERMIT FEES FEE • $15 , $15 for first $1,000 plus $1 for each ~, additional $100 - or fraction thereof to $2,000 $25 for first $2,000 plus $3 for each. additional $1,000 - or fraction there- of $109 for first $x+0,000 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000 - or fraction thereof to $100,000 $23~+ for first $100,000 plus $2 for each additional $1,000 - or fraction thereof to $500,000 $1,03+ for first $500,000 plus $1-for each additional $1,000 - or fraction thereof PLAN CHECKING FEE • 50% of the building permit fee. Exceptions: 1) Existing single family dwelling alterations when habitable area is not increased. 2) Single and two family repair and maintenance work. ' 3) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000. SWIMMING POOLS Pools of 2~+" in depth or less and not exceeding 15' in diameter New above or below ground permanent pools: Erection of portable pools No permit Based on :building permit $10 I• MOVING OF BUILDINGS _,D~ NG FEE k're-inspection In Richfield $25 Outside Richfield $50 . Moving Permit Within Richfield $25 Outside Richfield $50 GARAGES r-.-~-.-~r--- ~'re~inspection $15 Moving $10`lst stall plus $5 fox HOUSING INSPECTION FEE • Housing Inspection Fee $~+0 for first .unit plus $S.OO each additional unit. This fee should apply to each inspection when: Seller calls for minimum housing inspection. Home owner calls for minimum housing inspection. House industry calls for minimum housing inspection. .Government agencies call for minimum. housing inspection. Private lending institution calls for minimum housing inspection. WRECKING OF STRUCTURES ~ - One and two-story single unit dwelling $10 Multiple dwelling $10 for first unit plus. $5 for each unit thereafter Residential garages and other lesser $5 structures . -2- HEATI1dG, VENTILATING, AIR CONDITIONING, REFRIGERATION FEES Fees Central Systems 13r,~ of estimated cost with a minimum of $20.00. Additions, alterations and repairs-. l~tq of estimated cost `with a minimum of $5.00. Furnace or boiler replacement Addition of air conditioning to existing heating system. Ventilation and Exhaust Systems .Ventilation & exhaust systems- - installed with central system Ventilation & exhaust systems with "small type" (up to 200 CFM) exhaust fans . Gas and Oil Permits Gas & oil permits (input up to - 504,000 B.T.U.) installation or replacement of conversion burner, unit heater, floor furnace, wall heater, spaceheater Gas & oil permits (exceeding input of 500,000) (same as abpve) Gas piping Maximum Gas or Oil permit 14~ of estimated cost with a minimum of $10.00. 13th of estimated cost with a minimum of $15.00. l4q of estimated cost with a minimum fee of $5.00. $5.00 per occupancy, rental unit or residence. $5.00 per unit installed. 4% of estimated cost with a minimum of $10.00. $1.50 per unit, 1 - 5 units, $.50 each additional unit $5.00 Conversion from L. P. to natural. gas $2.00 each space heating unit, $1.00 each minor appliance (Fees include piping). Minimum fee shall be $5.00. - 2 - Process Equipment Process Equipment (Installation of any steam, hot water, or warm air system fired with gas or oil used in connection with process application) Storage Tanks 1'~4~ of estimated cost with. a minimum of $10.00 Fuel storage tanks (underground or $S.OO per tank to 1000 gal. enclosed). Installation to be used $10.00 per tank exceeding with oil burner only 1000 gallons Fuel storage tanks (above ground/ $3.00 per tank not enclosed). Installation to be used with oil burner only Other tanks - (above and below $15.00 each above ground tank. ground. tanks). Installation,. $50.00 each below ground tank. modification, removal, abandonment. $7.50 for installation or alteration of piping. Stokers and powdered fuel burners Stoker ar_d/or powdered fuel burners. l~ of estimated job cost . Installation .Minimum fee of $10..00 Electrical Heating Electric Heating System (central type). Installation., Electric unit and infra-red (Radiant) heater Electrical cabinet, thr•u-wall heating or cooling unit. 1~~ of estimated cost with a $10:00 minimum $5.00 first unit. $3.00 each additional unit. Electrical baseboard:radiation unit $5.00 first KW. $2.00 each additional 3 KW ~ . portion thereof. Engineering/heat-loss calculations Refrigeration Equipment Installation of any refrigeration system (portable excluded). Up to 3 horsepower 3 HP and up to 15 HP 15 HP and up to 50 ~H.' Over 50 HP $5.00 filing f'ee $6.00 per system.. $10.00 per system. $25.00 $50.00 3 Refrigeration Equipment (Continued) Refrigeration systems, additions; 1'~f of estimated cost with alterations., repairs. a minimum of $5.00- Propane Storage Non-portable propane or L.P. or $15.00 each tank. L.P. storage facility. $7.50 each vaporizer Installation, alteration, $7.50 gas piping modification, relocation or replacement. ~~ . 13UTI,nING PI: itI~tTT FrI':S ~'OTL,I, 1'ALUATION 7'0'I'ItL V/~LUI~TIO,~i ~ 1.00 to $ 500.00 ~ 5.00 ,J- 5004, O1 to GUO.00 6.00 ~~.;~ 600, of to 700.00 7, 00 ~roo, of to 800,00 s. o0 800.01 to 900.00 9.00 900.01 to 1,000.00 10.00 1,000.01 to 1,100.00 11.00 ~-1,100,01 to 1,200.00 12.00 .1,200.01 to 1,300.00 13.00 1,300.01 to 1,400.00 14.00 1,400.01 to 1,500.00, 15.00 1,500.OI to 1,600.00 16.00 1,600.01 to 1,700,00 17.00 -.1,700.01 to 1,800.00 18.00 3.,800.01 to 1,900.00 19.00 1,900.61 to 2,000.CG 20.00 2,000.01 to 3,000.00 23.00 3, OUO.O1 to 4, 000. i~0 26.00 4,000.01 to S,000.UO 29.00 5,000,01 to 6,000.00 32.00 6,flao,ol to 7,000.00 3s.oo 7,000,01 to s,o0o.00 38.00 E,OOO.U]. to 9,000,00 41.00 9,000.01 to 10,000.00 44.00 10,000,01 to 11,000.CO 47.00 11,000.01 to 12,000.00 50.00 ,12---, 000, 01 to 13, 000.00 53.00 ~, ~?OG,U1 to 14,000.00 56.00 14,000,0]. to 15,000.00 59.00 15,aOO.al to ~ 16,000.00 62.00 16,000.07. to 17,000.00 65.00 17,000.01 to 18,000.00 68,00 15,000,01 to 19,000.00 71.00 19,000.01 to -20,000.00 74.00 X20,000,01 to 21,000.00 77.00 21,000.01 to 22,000.00 80,00 22,000.01 to 23,000..00 83.00 23,000.01 to 24,000.00 86.00 24,000.01 to 25,000.00 E9.00 25,000.01 to 26,000.00 91.50 26,000.01 to 27,000.00 94.00 -27,000.01 to 28,000.00 96.50 -28,000.01 to 29,000.00 99.00 29,000.01 to 30,000.00 101.50 30,000.01 to 31,000.00 104.00 31,000.01 to 3`1,000.00 106.50 3?.,000.01 Lo 33,000.00 109,00 33,000.01 to 34,000,00 111.50 34,000,01 to 35,000.00 114.00 35,000.01 to 36,000,00 116,50 36,000.0]. to 37,000.00 1].9.00 7~OO.U1 to 38,000.00 121.50 .~ ,, t)00. OI to 39, 000.00 1?.4.00 ~'`~:~, 000. ()I to 40,000. (10 126.50 40,000.01 to 41,000.00 1?_9.00 41,()00,01 to 42,000.00 131.so 4?.,OOO.OI to 43,000.00 134.00 43,000.01 to 44,000.00 136.50 ~ a4,ooo.al 4s,ooo,01 46,000.01 . 47,000.01 48,000.01 49,000.01 to to to to to to ~ 45,000.00 46,OOO.oo 47,000,06 48,000.00 49,000.00 50,000._00 ~ 139.o(i 141.sa 144.00 146,50 149.00 151.50 50,000.01 to 51,000,00 153.00 51,000.01 to 52,000.00 -~154.~0 • 52,000,01 to 53,000,CO - 156.00 53,000,01. to 54,000,00 157,50 54,000.01 to 55,000.00 159.00 55,000,01 to 56,000.00. 160.50 56,000.01 to 57,000.00 162.00 57,000,01 to 58,000.00 163.50 58,000.01 to 59,000,00 165.00 59;000.01 to 60,000.00 166.50 60,000.01 to 61,aoa.oo 16,.00 61,000.01 to 62,000,00 i6t~.50 62,000.01 to 63,000.00 171.00 63,000.01 to. 64,000.60 177..50 64,000.01 to 65,000.00 17=x.00 65,000,01 to 66,000,00 175.50 66,000.01 t.o 67,000.00 177,0.0 67,000.01 to 68,000.00 1.73.00 68,000.01 to` 69,000.00. 180.06 6n,000,C1 to 70,000.00 :81.50 70,000.01 to 71,000.00 183.OC~ 71,000.01 to 72,000.00 I:;I.50 72,000.01 to 73,000.00 ]_80.00 73,000.01 to 74,000.gO 18'/.50 74,000.01 to 75,000,00 189.C0 75,000.01 to 76,000.00 10.50 76,000.01 to 77,000.00 192,C0 77,000.01 to 78,000.00 193.:>0 78,000.01 to 79,000.00 1:)5.00 79,000.01 t.o 80,000.00 196.50 80,000.01 to 81,000.00 198.00 81,000,01 to 82,000.00 19~~.50 82,000,01 to 83,000.CU 201..00 83,000.01 to 8=i,00L'.GO 202.50 84,000.01 to 85,000,00 204.00 85,000.01 to 86,000.00 205.50 86,000.01 to 87,000,00 207.00 87,000.01 to 88,000.00 20c.50 88,000.01 to 89,000.00 ?.10.00 s9,ooo.01 to 90,000.00 211.50 90,000.01 to 91,000.00 213.00 91,000.01 Lo 9?_,000.00 211.50 92,000.01 to 93,000.00 2.16.00 93,000.01 to 94,000.00 21','.50 94,000.01 to 95,000.00 21.00 95,000.01 to ~G,000,00 7_?.0,50 96,000.01 to 9'1,000.00 2?..?_. 00 97,000.01 to 93,000.00 ?.23.50 98,000.01 to 99,000.00 7.?.5.00 9~),ooo.dl to ].oo,nGG.oo__ _____._2~c~.5o $ 100,000.01 ar~d ui~ $2?.6.50 for first. x].00,000 ~~lus $1..00 !'or caGh riciciit~cmll HEATING & VENTILATIfdG FEES New Furnace (120,000 BTU) .,~ $10.00 furnace 5.00 burner 2.00 gas line 17.00 TOTAL Replacemer $ 6.00 5.00 $ ice. 6~ ?_,00 $13.00 ~t Furnace (120,000 BTU) furnace burner llsua] fee gas dine (if needed) Over 120,00 BTU: Each additional 60,000 BTU is $3.00 Unit Heater: (Gas fireplace, space heater) $ 5.00 burner 2.00 gas line $ 7.00 TOTAL Air Conditioner Gas • 8.00 duct~~~ork etc. up to 2,000 cfm 10.00 air cond. 5.00 burner 2.00 gas line $25.00 Each add. 1,000 cfm = $3.00 Poti~rer P1 ant - Boi 1 er 200,000 Btu and under Or 6 HP $ 6.00 Each additional 100,000 3.00 Alterations or repairs: $500 or less = $ 6.00 Ea. add, $500 = 3.00 Electrical $18.0 (Installation of cooling coils etc.) 5 Ton and under = $10.00 Each additional 22 Ton or fraction thereof = $3.00 Ventilation 2,000 cfm = $8.00 Each additional 1,000 cfm or fraction thereof = $3.00 Alterations or Repairs: Not over $500.00 = $6.00 Each add, $500.00 ~ 3.00 10/1?_/72 . GAS 2" gas line = $2.00 . (3 or less openings) Gas appliance $3.00 (idot over 99,000 BTU) Gas burner $5.00 (ldot over 199,000 BTU) Neer appliance $5.00 Replacement 3.00 GAS ~ PLU(~1BI~IG PERMITS . Move gas meter = $2.00 PLUi~iI~I1~G Neti~r fixtures $2.00 each . ~,.``~ F.epl acements 1.50 each Electric water heater 2.00 Oi 1 ~~rater heater 3.00 Gas ~~rater heater 3.00 Gas appliance {replc) 3.00 New appliance 5,00 Mpls Gas Co. $3.00 light 2.00 gas line $5.00 Total PERMITS IVater Service Permit $10,00 Surtax 50 ~. ~ tJ Se~~ler permit ~ 7.50 Surtax ,5~ 8 0 Sewer Repair X3..00 Surtax .5~ ,~"3,~5p Sewer or {9ater Cut-off X3,00 no surtax REERIGERATIOFI SYSTEMS - 3 HP or less $ 6.00 Each additional 3 HP 3.~~ Over 3 HP but .less than l5 NP = $10.00 for each system Over 15 NP = $25.00 Over 50 HP = X50.00 Alterations & Repairs: (~~ $500.00 and under $6.00 ~+~ Each add. X500 3.00 S Location of 19ork: Contractor's Namc: CITY OF RICHFIELD Public Works Department - Protective Inspection Ili vision APPLICATION FOR ELECTRICAL PERMIT Date: Owner's Name: Contractor's Address: New Services Not Exceeding 200 AMP - (Amp Size ) .............5F~.00 S (For Larger Sizes See Fee Schedule) Outlets: Number Installation of: 1'? or less.. $3.00 11 to 20.... $6.00 each additional 10.... $1.50 ~ Lighting Sockets: Number 10 or less.. _ .2.00 11 to 20.... S~'1.00 each additional 10.... 51,25 S Sian Circuits: 1 st circuit...~~.00 - each additional Cr. cir..... g1.0~ 5 Electric Signs, Billboards, Outline, 1st 500 VA or 1',atts 55.00 Boarder, or Strip Libhting ea. add. 100 VA ';' .20 5 Motors: furnace #HP 1 HP or less........... $4.00 Air-Cond . #IIP each }}P in excess of 1 S .25 ~ Other #HP Aux. Elect. heat, Transformer, etc. 1 KVA or less......... $4.00 No. of KVA Each KVA in excess of 1...,.. 5 .25 .Appliances: ( Indicate number) Ranges Dishwashers l~;ater }leaters Cook fops Disposals Self-Contained 1Va11 Ovens Dryers Air Conditioners First and second appliance in each category.... 53.00 each Each additional appliance in the same category as the first and second appliance ............. 51.00 each 5 Alteration and Repairs and Control h~ork: Estimated Cost $ First $100 estimated cost...... $4.00 Each add. estimated $100...... 51.50 $ Installation of Additional ?teter, .................................51.25 each 5 Feeders Not Exceeding; 60 A~"iP .................................$4.00 $ (For larger sizes see fee schedule) Grounding; for Ahove Ground or Below Ground Swimming Pools......... $4,00 5 h1ISCELLANFOUS (Describe): $ STATE SURCHARGE FEE $ .50 TOTAL FEES $ ~1'he Undersigned agrees to do all work in conformance with City Ordinances and rulings of the Inspection Department and };erewith declares that all. facts and representations on this appli- cation arc true and correct. Iie agrees to notify the department when ready for inspection SIGNEC! Tele_hone Number _.~ H O MOQ1ctMOHN~pM~ [~ ~7' r-1 M e--I r-1 00 l~ M M N O~ d-Nd•e--{OMMd'OOri ri d' N ~ e-1 e•-i o00M `~NMr-ioOMC'~0~-1 ~ r-i ~-1 O ri N M O ri ~-+~ 07 N r--I O ~ d7 ri W 01 n z ~~ H ' U a O M r1 N W Cn O M ~z ~z ~-~H! N WVW a W a ~ __a ~. r L~L~NNMOC`Oe-~ rli-1 d' N N O r-I ri ri MOIr-iNOriC~OO r^i00 O ~ r-i [~ W OOd'r-iMMO~DM OON ~O d• M H O r-1 ri M M M ~O N ri O N O O O ~O 01 ri M ri r-~ CO ~Q M C\ O ~-i W M e-i r-~. ri N .Ol r-1 OMr1~tOrir-iOlr~Or~ W r-I rl N N M rl r--1 W N ri N O H d' M O O N M M rl N O M r-~ r-1 ~D CTf ~ ~ r` a' ~ GY +~ •~ •O ~~ ri N ~w~•~ri o~ uA o aoi HQCnaC~f"'~'~~-.HUMP-~ ~LL]] ~ ~' °~ ~ °~ ~ ~~ ~°s~ ~ ~•a ~~x a~ o 0 o a~ o.~+~ y•~+ v r~v~~H~'~~~`~v z ~ z a Q f~, T3 i~> N P~q ri ~ N ~ V 'Hd ~ ~ ~+ ~ v~ >rdv~•~+•~i w°~~~x`~ad~~aN~ CW ~ ~ it o7ttC~M rIM NcTC~u'7MN W Ol ri ri t1'I M r-1 r+'1 M to to r-~ M ~ M ~ ~ r~i V?r-iMMM01 ' MC71r~ ~ tnM . r-i W d•ctNNM l~N~ O ct' N r-i OMM~Md' W rl r-~ i.f) d' r~ d'W~DNrid' l~ [~. ri M O rl r-i O O~ ~o O M W [~ O e-~1 C\ ~O M [~ M rl W ~O N [~ r-{ r-I r-i N [~ ri H ~~~dIHM t~ N r--1 r-~ MNMM riM r-1 OlMrll~Wr1 M t1~ r-1 ri ~ CF-.J~ tY ~ ~ a ~ a +., •~ +~ FY., ri i~~ . • rNl U M '~a•U,~ ~•N ~ H~~. c°n a v ~ c`nn ~ O ~~~ a~ ~ o r-i ~~•~c~ ~ ~ x .~-' 7 ~ H a ow~a~ ¢ +~ w v~ x ~o~ ~ ~ ~ w h x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'. d- WM Mn ~U ri l71 r-i ~O ~' W M w w o0 d' w w ~ ~Q O 00 ~ ~~ d- r-i M ~O O Ot~ O)Ol ri Od'N O~ N NM MC` Ot~ OlW r-~ am M ~ - ~ d r--1 Ol ~D Cl~ t` ~~OMM ri ~O H ttI M M e-i ~ rl 00 M N ~ r-i C` H d' r~i C` C` ~ Mtn L~~OM N l.!) r-1 ~ r-1 d' N W r-i r` O M r-i t~ d' ~~ r-i M O tJ~ W ~O L~ M L~ r~ ri M N N N ~.+') ri W r` M ~' •~ U ~ W N ~~ H A ~ Hj Q ~~i ~~ ~ r-1 ,~ i-~ H'i, o co ~a c~ •~ o~ a~ U~ ~ w ~ o H r-i o ~ a; •~ N ri H W ~ r.~ <C ~I O d' M O N [~ H N d' r-~ r-1 ~ M O ~D M n i--i r-i M N 07 e-~ O ~ rl ~ ri N LY. F~+ A 0 0 .~ o ~ N _. W N [~ Ln r-1 t~ c~' l~ ~n d' ~}' N ~~ O ~ d' O r-1 O ~ L~ ri r-I O ~ O ~ O) ri 00 N i-1 n M ~O N ~ d' ir-1 M O 07 ~O d' M M ~n N 00 N N O d' n N s-i M w w n n n w M d' O O N N ~O r--I W O O n n 07 n n ~ M M [ G V ! V H H Q ~ A a ~w ~ ~ ° z z H C H N ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ Q a i a~ ~ d ~ ~ . a tiv~ ~ ~ ~a ~a r-1 r-~ O O r--1 r-i r-1 d' ~O [~ 07 d) ~ M ~ ~ 00 O M N ~ ~ ~ r -I D ~ n O) O) 01 O) l~ r-1 N ri ~ ~ N ~ N N e-i e--1 O) d' r-I rl n ~ l r-1 M r-I O r-1 e-i +~ E-~ +~ ~ C J ~ N H v1 H ~ ~ ~ o U H H '~ xx M ~. x ~ i ~ E O ~ ~ ~ W s-+ O U ~ ~ ~ W 000 O 00 N r-i r-1 N O n r N ~ w Q ~p h N e-~ N In O n M 00 ~ t.n ~ ~ ~ 'mot CG CO OaO p :J H 0 ~ ~ ~~ w ~v o ~ C7 In ri N N GO N . N [~ l~ N r-i O w n n w n w ~D 00 00 l.n O 01 M N O r! N O M ri M r-i ri d' ~p W 00 M O ~ N W 01 r-1 ~ 01 O ~-n ad 000 d' rn ~ ~ [~ d' ri <t ~n ri rl to 00 00 N ~O L~ t~ d' 00 00 C' d' 00 01 O N ~c a~ ao ~n ~ o t.f) p) N M O C3~ O N d' ri n ~ il) O ~O d' n '~ p ~p N M rl M d' ~ ~n N oo . d' ~n l~ [~ r-i M ~O O O) N r-1 O ~ r-{ r-i i d' O) ~0 ~ 07 M O ~ O) M ~ ~ I i t~ ~ NO ~O ri 'ci' W 00 r--1 ~.n N ~-i ri r-i r4 r-{ ~n ~n O O r-i N0 OM d' ~ ~O O Ol t1) O CA ri r-I i ~ M ~i ' H H Q A H ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ OU ~ ~ ~ ~ U H ~ H ~ H ~ H C.7 d' d' H ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ v ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a~ o 0 U C~3 H O ~ ~ N '~ cn 'd H ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ +.~ W~ ~ a •r~-I ~ .T. ~ r~ 1 Q U f~ r--~ b W O•~ri W W ~~7 ~ ? ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ M H ~ rn O r.,~ r--1 M ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O N O h O ~ ~ 1 N pp 1 ~ O h i h n ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ M O d , r-1 ~ i--i M O ~ N ~"'~ r1 ~ N N O N ~ ~ n ~ ri O Q H Q Q N H ti-~ H }' J H d' d. ~'t 1 ! 1 M ~ ~ ~ O ''~ p ~ p U ~ ( er U U ~ U H ~ H ~ H ~ ~ U Q ~ b •0 A ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~i N 00 U O r..{ h h O M W C.O O r-1 h O O r-i r-1 O N ri ri r-~ N M O r! N i; H U ,~ a~ n ~ ~ O N N et r1 ~ n .~ 0 I~I (7 h d' r-1 W Q1 Cn 07 N N M N 00 p O O ~ ~ ~ h o0 ~ M ~ O ~ O ~ r-1 n ~ ~ h ~ M ~ O ~ ~ ~ O Cb L1~ h ~ N (V O O ~-{ ri N ~p ~ ~ O ~ r-i 1--~ r--1 ~ h N p j O r~-1 N ~p I.n ,-1 ~ ~ O r-1 h M h L.f) O W h ~-i N M O e-~ N h d- O 01 d' O 01 N r-1 d' N r-I ri h q a .~ H U ~U ~ ~ ~ N 1"i NN U H ~ '~~ U H ~ Qj ~ ~ ~ H ~ + " 3 H ~." ~ ~"-, V H rt' } d' d' ~ H 7 1 1 1 H }.{ ~~ E-~ E--~ H H A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~.., N a: ~ cx ~ u w ~ p H `C) H H C d A ~~ (~ cd Q vv ~~ ~ri ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a r ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ O M ~O ~ A w ~ [~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Ol Cn ~ O M O M h ~ ~ ~ n W N CO h OO W O O O ri r-i r-i O O) i-i n ~ h d' M r-i d' h M Ol a0 ~ N N ~ N d' 00 r-i O O O h h ~ ~ ~ 0 te ri r -¢ r -{ to N ~ ~ ~ M ~~ O r1 r-I r-1 r-! M 0 d ' ~ O O~ 01 ~ U ~ a a H H OO ~ a z +~ U N U U H ~ OO, a w ft$ .~ Q ~ i H b '~ r-~ x r .a . ' Ia Z O z H CJ O ~ ~ n r-1 N ~' ~z~ M ~ N bD U H a. N v~.r~ .-7 W C,~ I 0 ~~I a H U H •~ OO z H W l~ lam. 00 O 00 ~D r{ CO d' ~ Ol M a0 ~ ~ In N ~ N ~.t M M M M Ln ~O ~O M n n M W n n 00 w lam. n d' n w Ol 01 ~ n dl l~ t.!) ~O l3~ N N 'd' O N l`~ M ' ct ~O Op M CO O O M d' a0 ~ tf~ N M M 07 d' ~ i.l ~ ~ 07 ~D M ~ p N N ~ 01 n ~ 00 ~-~1 ~n ~ ~ ~D d• try d• M ~D d' ~ ~ ` 00 00 00 ~ d. O CD d' r-f ~t : N N ~....{ L~ N ~' l~ M 01 l~ rl ~ N N COO M ~ d' N t~ ~ O O 00 CO ~ t!) t.f) OO N ~ N ~ d' N t1'~ 01 OO d' N ~O M ri ao e--1 r~ N l~ Lf~ 00 N N n ~ In M Ol O O W M ~ o ~ ~ ~--- N N CO ~O a0 [~ [~ M r-1 c0 '-I M M p~ r-{ ~-{ ri ~ r-1 • ~O d' • l~ Cn d' ~O ~D M ~p l~ l~ t~ u7 d d O r-, ~ ~O d' ~D t~ ~O O ~ O N t.f) ~O ~ CO Q1 O ~ 07 d' ~O r~ d' OO n a0 QD Q1 OO t~ d' ~D Ol N N N a ~ l~ N 01 O M t i) ct l~ ~p t 1~ O d' N ri M 01 O O O O n n ~~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ r-1 N N d' ~O CO ~O d' to ~ M l~ ~O M ri C7 r-~ N 01 d' CO rl ~O M d' ~ ~ CO cf O r-i ~O M M r -i e-1 r-i r -i r-1 N N M 07 l~ d' L~ ri M r-i ~ ~ O 07 M N ct N N M Ol O1 ~ ri te con n~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ r ..{ r•-{ r-i N M M O to ~D CO O ~O O to W d' rl N N H H E-+ d ? 4 ~ ~ W W O +~ +~ c n c n ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ z 0 a ~ ~.'' H H ~", ~-+ [~ t'+ ~y O U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ G!7' ~ ~ WQW H ~ H a o cst A ~ ~ h H W ~ a ~ u ~ o ~ `~' ~ ' v ~ H a i ~ a ~ ~ ~ w a ~ ~ ~ •~, a~ H H .~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ° W a ~ Q x ~ Q ~ w ° ~ z ~ o ~ ~ ~ r rl rl r1 N r-1 r-~ ~ r-I r1 r1 ri ~~ rl M M r-1 I00 r1 ~rl r-i r-~ r--1 rl ~ N r-~ N ~i • ~z o M. ~ z o H w H N~ w a w ', rl r-iIN r• ;. ; ri r-1 r-i e-1 M r-1 N M r-~ r-~ ~ ~ ~ o '_' H Q U H ~ U H ~++ H A ~ a ~ M O O ~ va~i °'~~ ~ .~ ~ w v ~ ~~~ ~ ° ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ i x wa ~3 o~'~~ x ~~b E-+ U ~~o •~oo cq ;~ ~ ~ ~ +~c'~3 ~ w Q ~ v ~ c~ ~ a ~ v . ; ~ ~ F~ U N ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ' ~ ,-i H a~ ' o A cn H r-1 N ~ N ~ U f+ C~ 7 cp t~ ~ ~ ~ ad ~Nrd ~~ • U t~ O c ~ N ~ O N O cd 3 ~ 3 Q x ~ ~~ i U ~ ~ ~~ f--i N,L ' ~ -+ ~+ N xxrxtirxs~tiwa ~ ri ct O • Qac~~ ~ tt3 ~, G~ w F-i ca O cii tiQ U •z Z7 O ~ wcx ~ a ~ o ~ a , o ~~ r`', CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA '~ `Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 359 . - Agenda November 8, 1976 ] The Honorable Mayor and - , Members of he City .Council City of :Richfield ' Gentlemen: Subject: Purchase of Personal. Health Services The :purpose of ...this: council letter is to provide the most recent information on the implementation of the 19,7 Community Health.Services Act and propose the purchase of personal health services ,from the City of Bloomington. Community Health Services Act The Community Health Services Act was,.adopted by the state legislature . during the 1976 session, It is a complicated piece of legislation and; :ft has _ taken some considerable time to determine exactly what the impact of this ~~~ act would be on th Ci f R e ty o ichfield. under the various ;alternatives provided by the legislation. In August, 1976 representatives of Hennepin County-:made . a presentation to the city. council..: on the .provisions of the Gornmuriity Health Services Act: .However,. you will recall that it had not yet been determined how much of'the state a ro r' pp cation would be p made available tot e h it C y of Richfield, .The officials from the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development' who made the presentation to the city council indicated that they were working. with the State Health Department on this matter and that they were hopeful of having. dollar figures available in September or October. -Last week we met again with the officials from the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. VIIe were advised that the City of Richfield could qualify to receive approximately $55, 000-from the Community Health.' Services Act in 1977.:. The. requirements which the City.'of Richfield must meet ~ '~ to receive these additional funds consist of the following: i I 1. The City of Richfield would be required to have- a local board of health, I Inasmuch.as the city council in Richfield is considered to be the local boardi of health, this requirement has really been met. j . ,: ~ .. _ ,¢. ::. Council Letter No. 359 -2- November 8, 1976 2. It would be necessary for the city to prepare a local health plan and: ~ submit it to Herne iri Counfi The P' y• purpose of this plan would be to describe the. specific environmental and personal health services which the czty would provide through our own funding resources as well as with the subsidy monies received under'the provisions of the. 'Community Health:Servic~s Act. 3. It would be necessary for the city council, acting as a local board of health, to appoint an advisory board of .health° The''advisory committee ahould include representation from consumers , providers , and city , , officials. It would be necessary to appoint this committee in the very near future. The time requirement to determine the funding available- under-this.. new act has created rather severe time constraints on the preparation of the plan and submission of the plan to Hennepin. County. The county. must hold hearings on the countywide:: plan on November 30 and December 1. The Richfield plan would be part of the countywide plan and, therefore, will have to be submitted to the county within the next two weeks. This- preliminary plan would simply describe the environmental health services which the city is currently. providing and also detail the personal health services which we are proposing. to purchase-frbm.t~he City of Bloomington. The net effect of this entire process would be to provide - the'City of Richfield with an estimated. additional $55 , OOa far the.. provision of _ health services in 1977. `' Purchase of .Pegs-oral Health Services From the City of Bloomington` Council members will recall that on several occasions we have discussed the'need to improve personal health services to Richfield`resdents, The ` 'adopted 3.977 budget includes $30, 000 for the purchase of personal health services from- the Suburban Public Health Nursing Service, Although it was only possible to include that: amount in the budget document, there was consensus that it would be desirable to further explore the .possibility of purchasing a higher level of personal health services from the Cit' of Bloomin Y gton if additional fund s could be. made available ;_ While we did not learn until last week that the city could expect to receive ~ - additional funding under the -Community Health Services Act, we have :been - continuing to meet with Bloomington officials to explore the possibility of purchasing personal health services beginning in 1977. The City of Bloom ng.ton currently provides. personal health services in seven basic categories, The services are provided by the Community Health Division of the Department of Community Services.- The basic services which are provided include the fallowing: _~ .Council, Letter No. 359 -3- November 8, 1976 1. Home Nursin To rovde r p p ofessxonal home health services to individuals and families by professional nurses and home help aids . 2. Adult Hea the To offer adult health clinics to provide direct .health treatment services, detection. services, and referral for treatment. 3. Childrens Health: To offer children's health clinics that will provide services in early detection of health problems ar diseases, 'immunizer- -. tions , and referral for treatment. 4. Public Information and Education:. To provide public health nurse educator to develop and implement health education programer through local schools, churches, and community organizations, 5. School Health: To directly provide school nursing services to all. ..private schools and a consulting service to all public schools fbr health`teaching.and counseling and through regular school visits. 6. Counseling To provide mental health, psychiatric,. individual group and 'family counseling support, evaluation and referral for mental illnesses, emotional problems and chemical dependency problems.. 7. Senior Center Health: To offer clinics and counselin th g at will provide health maintenance: activities, counseling, and clinics and therapeutic visits. to senior citizens: through -.the senior citizen's center. These seven categories of services are supported by a complete professional health staff oriented toward providing needed personal health services in the community.; The program within the seven areas of service is efficiently flexible so that it can be designed or revised to meet current community needs as they occur; -Amore detailed listing of the personal .health services offered by Bloomington is shown on the attachments taken from the Bloomington Community Health Plan. The City of Richfield currently .contracts with the Suburban Public Health .Nursing. Service for personal health services in the City of Richfield'._-This organization provides only home nursing visits and school health services on an advisory basis to private schools.in the community. The other services provided by the ..City of'Bloomington are not available from the Suburban Public Health Nursing Service . If the city were to continue to contract-with the Suburban Public Health .Nursing Service in 1977, there would bean annual cost to the- city of $29,799 ($.67.8 per capita), If the city were to terminate theseservices and purchase the ouncil etter No. 3S9 -~4-- - November 8, 197.6 L C substantially better change of personal health services from the City of Bloomington, there would be an annual 1977.-cost to'the City of Richfield of approximately $73,00.0 ($1.60 per capita). ~, The purchase of personal health seruice from the City of Bloomington could, be funded in the following manner: Adopted 19.77 appropriation for personal health services $30,.000 - 1977 Community Health Services Grant. 55.,000 Total $85, 000 Estimated.-cost to purchase personal health - services from Bloomington. -$73~, 000 .Balance ~ $12,000 The $12 , 00,0 balance of the Community Service Grant would have to be used for improved environmental health activities within the community. This-could. be done by using this grant money- to pay for the. services of the health erwiron~- mentalist who is presently funded by a CETA grant.. This would provide the advantage of being able to continue the environmental-health services and freeing CETA grant money to be used ire .maintenance areas . My, administrative assistant and the environmental health director have. .spent considerable time studying the Bloomington personal health services program,: I have- also met with Bloomington officiais to discuss. this program . We all agree that the Bloomington program is far superior to personal health services which are currently offered in the City of Richfield. and that -the grant from the Community Health Services Act provides the City of Richfield with a unique opportunity to improve our personal health program without adversely affecting any other services`- or programs offered by the city. As you know, the City of Edina has also been .exploring. the purchase of these .services from the City of Bloomington. Approximately two weeks ago ',the Edina City Council made a decision to purchase personal health services- from Bloomington. Recommendation It is recommended-that the city cour~cil approve-the purchase of personal health services! from the City of Bloomington; authorize. the city manager to negotiate an agjreement with the City of Bloomington covering this purchase of services and advise the .Suburban. Public I3ealth Nursing Service that the city will t PART II - HEALTH SERVICES ACTIVITY DESCFII'TTON* C~ Activity Title• NOME NURSING A. PROBLEM STATEMENT Inability to manage personal health concerns or activities of daily living.- .. B. GOAL To .enable individuals to live a more satisfying and. healthful life in their home environment when appropriate. C. OBJECTIVE To provide professional home health services to individuals and families as indicated in the projected service indexes 1975 1976 1977 Actual Estimated Projected Individuals 973 1,100 1,200 Home Visits 4,510 4,900 5,500 Illness (2,452) (2,200). (2,500) Health Promotion (2,058) (2,700) (3,000) D. METHODS 1. Home visits provided by professional nurses at all levels of pre- paredness and home health aides. 2. Encourage referrals through continual outreach with appropriate resources. 3. Provide visits for both illness and health promotion. 4. lAlhen indicated, the services of physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy or medical social services will be arranged. 5. All requirements for Title XVIII and XIX Home Health providers will be maintained. E. EVALUATION Output will be measured according to projected 1977 services indexes. The prosram described above has been aEgre~;atc~d as a (Check one) *Use additional sheets as necessary Environmental lieal.t:h lli.sease Prevention Community Ntir.sinl; Home Health AEc.ncy Activity Health Education PART TI - HEALTII SERVICES ACTIVITY DESCitIPTION~~ Activity. Ti.t].e: ADULT HEALTH A. PROBLEM STATEMENT Failure to seek, find,. or use appropriate preventive adult health services. B, GUAL To provide health supervision of well adults C. OBJECTIVE To offer adult health clinics that will provide services in health promotion, early detection, referral for treatment as indicated in projected service indexes. 1975 1976 1977 Actual Estimated Projected Individuals 2,074 2,250 2,500. Clinic Sessions 210 210 210 Family Planning Visits 7,437 7,500 7,500 . Venereal Disease Visits 621 700 750 Well Adult Visits 744 -700 750 . Immunizations 363 400 450 Tuberculin Skin Tests 1,080 1,100 1,200 D. METHODS 1. Family planning clinic - contraceptians and pregnancy diagnosis. 2. Venereal disease detection and treatment clinic. 3. Adult GYN clinic, including cancer screening. 4. Hypertension screening. 5. Adult immunization and tuberculin screening. E. EVALUATION Output will be measured according to projected 1977 service indexes. LJ The Program. descr.~ibed above. lta,. been aggregated as .~ l;nvi.rottn~c~ntal Hea].tit (Check one) X Disease Prevention Connnuni..ty Nursing Hotne Ilealth Anettcy Aciivity Use additional shcet:s as necessary Health Iducati.on • EnierQerecy rledfca_ 1 PART II - REALTH SERVICES ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION* .. .. . Activity Ti.t1e: CHILDREN'S HEALTH A. PROBLEM STATEMENT Diminished infant, child, and adolescent heal th. i B. GOAL To provide health supervision of well infants and children. C. OBJECTIVE ~ 'fo offer children's health clinics that will provide services in health. promotion, early detection and referral for treatment as indicated in the projected service indexes. ~ • ~ 1975 1976 1977 ~ Actual Estimated Projected Individuals 665 750 850 Clinic Sessions 78 80 85 Well Child Visits 1,395 1,000 800 • Early and Periodic Screenings Immunizations (Open Clinic) 450 1,785 600 1,900 800 2,000 .Tuberculin Tests (Open Clinic) 136 150 i75 D. METHODS 1. We11 Child Clinics for children .(birth - 6 months) to include physician physical assessment, health history, developmental assess- ment, dental observation, immunizations and family health counseling. 2. EPSDT for children 6 months - 21 years. 3. Home visits when indicated will be reflected in home nursing indexes. 4. Infant and child immunization and tuberculin screening. E. EVALUATIOt~ Output will be measured according to projected 1977 service indexes. The grogram described above has been aggregated as a .Environmental. }Icalrh (Check one) X Di.s~ase Prevention Conununi.ty Nursing Home liea.lth. Al;ency Activity *Use addit:iona]. sheets a:: necessary ~ Health Education Fmnrnnnn~ l.-ind I ral ' PART II - HEALTii SP1tVICE5 ACTIVITY D);SCRIPTION* Activity Title: PUBLIC INFORMATIO(~ AND EDUCAT.~.QN . A. PROBLEM STATEMENT Failure to practice positive health behavior. B. GOAL To encourage positive health practice through individual and group health education. C. OBJECTIVE To extend health education opportunities to Bloomington citizens through direct service and assisting organizations in program development as indicated in the projected service indexes. 1975 1976 1977 Actual Estimated .Projected Group Sessions ~ 206 300 350 Individuals in Class 2,532 2,750 3,000 Individuals in Industry-Community 803 600 600 • Individuals in Health Center 4,185 4,500 4.750 Individuals in Study Therapy 1,547 1,500 1,500 D. METHODS. 1. Public Health Nurse-Educator to develop and implement health education programs. 2. Utilize agency professionals as speakers within their specialty. 3. Outreach to local schools, churches and community organizations. 4. Literature. 5. Video cassette library. 6. Provide information on existing resources I• E. EVALUATION Output will be measured according to projected 1977 service indexes.. The program described above has been aggregated as a (Clieclc ones Use additional shEets ~~s necessary i;nv.ironmental lleaJ. th Disease Prc~vent:ion Conununity Nursing Home llealth Agency Activity ~-}lealth Ldtication i i' ,, PART II - HEALTH SERVICES ACTIVITX DESCRIPTION* Activity Title: SCHOOL_HEALTH R. PROBLEM STATEMENT Diminished health of the school age child. B. GOAL To pr®vide child health supervision for the school age child within-the school setting. . C. OBJECTIVE To provide direct school nursing service to all private schools and consultative. service to all public schools as indicated in the projected service indexes. 1975 197b 1977 Actual Estimated Projected Students Served 2,361 2,500 2,500. School Visits 346 175 200 Group Visits ~ 138 150 175. Individuals Screened 2,11.3 2,500 2,500 • Lndividuals Teach-ng/Counseling 207 250 275 D. METHODS 1. Vision, hearing, and scoliosis screening. 2. Individual health teaching and counseling. 3. Regular school visits. ~ . 4. Assessment of physical emotional status in cooperation with school staff and appropriate referral. E. EVALUATI011 Output will be measured according to projected 1977 service indexes. The program clo.,cr.i.bed above ha.s been aggi:egated a~; a Lnvi.ronrnental Health (check one) I)i.se~ase Prevention X Conimw~ity Nursing ~IIome,Ileal.th Agency *Use additional. spec is as necessary Ileal_t:h Education I.mer~;encY rledical Activity ,. ~ _ PART II - HEALTH SERVICES ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION* Activity Ti*le• COUNSELING - ~- A. PROBLEM STATEMENT. Diminished ability to cope with .stress and interpersonal relationships because of emotional problems., chemical dependencies or emotional illness.. B. GOAL Optimurn emotional health. C. OBJECTIVE To provide counseling, support, evaluation and referral for mental illness, emotional problems and chemical dependencies to individuals and families as indicated in 1977 projected service index. 1975 1976 1977 Actual Estimated Projected Individuals Served 354 350 400 Counseling Sessicns 1,148 1,200 ],500 Alcohol/Drug Related 401 450 500 Emotional Health 407 450 500 D. METHODS 1. Mental health course lor. 2. Psychiatric consultant. 3. Individual, group, couple, and family counseling. 4. Professional public health personnel. E. EVALUATION Output will be measured according to projected 1977 service indexes. The program described above has been aggregated as a (Check one) Use additional shE~ets as nCCeSSaPy Envi_ronmen to l Ilc~~ 1. t~ 11 Disease }'reventi.on X Community Nursing liome Health Agency Activity Health Education ~. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA • • . Uffice of Git;, Manager oun i! etter.No. 358 C c~L Agenda November 8,'1'976 • The Honorable :Mayor .` °; aid • ~ Members >of the' City Council City of Richfield ,. Gentlemen.: Subject: -Council Work Session Several weeks ago the city council asked that :additional. work be done on developing projections for service programs and revenue needs-for future years. Considerable material has -been developed on his subject and also ; on general community indicators which have some bearing on the kind of op- erating programs and capital improvement programs which the city should consider for future years: I,would~like to suggest that the .city council set a time for a special .meeting so that this information could be presented to the,councl.- The meet- ing,would provide an opportunity for council and staff members to discuss the information presented and to develop policy positions relating ta: future oper- • sting budgets and capital improvement: programs. Inasmuchas the content-of i thin-meeting will also have bearing on state legislation. as it relates to fin- . ancng municipal service programs, the city council may. wish to invitee.: our three legislators to attend. Respectfully: submi , Wayne 5. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja ,~ . .--_~ ~ /3 CITY'OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA . Office of .City Manager - 'Council Letter No, -357 Agenda November 8, 197.6- 'w The Honorable Mayor . and' t Members of the City Council Cify of Richfield i Gentlemen; .Subject: Traffic Control Requests The Traffic Control Committee-met on Monday, November l,' 1976 to review pending requests for ,traffic controls , Minutes ~of that 'committee meeting are attached to this council letter for council review.,,. Based on a review of these requests, the committee makes -the following recommendations: 1. Requests for removal of stop signs ~Q~~V"" A. 76th Street and Third Avenue -The request for removal of the ~~ o''~~ two-way stop. signs stopping ,76th Street traffic at Third Avenue ~;~r~ be approved. . B. 67th. Street and Bloomington Avenue.- The request for removal of ~`~~ ~„~,~„~ the two-way stop. igns stopping .Bloomington :Avenue traffic at ~~ 67th Street be approved. 2, Requesfs for stop sign installation A~~~ A. 77th Street and Chicago Avenue- A two-way stop sign be installed to stop traffic on .Chicago Avenue at 77th Street. ~S neeow-w- B: 69th. Street and Vincent Avenue - A two.-way stop sign be installed ~~ on'',69th Street stopping. traffic at Vincent Avenue. .. ~~[~~ C. 65th Streef and 20th Avenue -The request for installation of two- ~`-_ ay stop signs stopping-20th Avenue be denied, ~C"- D, 76th Street and Knox Avenue. -The. request for ;a two-way stop sign ' n~ic, • stopping 76th Stree traffic at Knox be denied ... • ' TRAFFIC CONTROL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 1976 The Traffic Control Committee convened at 3:d0 p.m., November 1, 1976. Members presenf were: Pete Eberz, Tom Morgan, Marsh Raaen, Ron Richardson, and';oyce Wilde The committee considered the following items of business: 1. Request for removal of stop signs A. 76th Street and 3rd Avenue - Ms . Wilde reviewed the history of .the stop sign at this intersection, and noted that this request was initiated by Mr. George Kenealey, on behalf of neighbors in the area of 76th and 3rd Avenue. The public safety director indicated that this sign was originally installed to provide save pedestrian access to Roosevelt Park. The recommendation of the. public. safety department at that time was for the installation of the stop sign at 4th Avenue and 76th Street, which would have provided direct pedestrian access to the park. However, because residents at the corner of 76th and 4th Avenue protested the proposed stop sign at that intersection, the sign was finally installed at 76th and 3rd Avenue. Lt. Richardson '~ reviewed the accident history of this intersection whic'n shows that four accidents have occurred at that intersection since the stop sign was installed, within the last fifteen months. In the three and one- . half years before the stop sign was installed, only one accident occurred. The committee voted to recommend to the city council the original recommendation, that. if a stop sign is desired to provide for safe pedestrian access to Roosevelt Park, that sign should be installed at 76th Street and Fourth Avenue . There is no apparent warrant for the four way stop signs at 76th Street and 3rd Avenue. B. 67th Street and Bloomington.- Mr. Morgan summarized the history of this stop sign, indicating that the sign was originally installed at the request of a resident on that corner. The resident has no~v indicated that the current four-way stop sign is no longer necessary, since a stop sign was recently installed at east 68th Street and Bloomington Avenue. Other members of the committee reported that the intersection is open with clear lines of visibility, and the committee concurred that there does appear to be no need for afour-way stop sign at this intersection. The committee voted to remove the two stop signs on Bloomington Avenue and retain the two stop signs on 67tYi Street,with the notation on the remaining stop signs at 67th Street that the intersection. is a "two-way stop" . -Z- 2. Request for stop sign. installation A. 77th Street and Chicago. Avenue - Lt. Richardson reviewed the accident history for this intersection, which reveals that six accidents have occurred within the last eighteen months. The accident history is such that the stop installation is warranted, particularly with considering the additional pedestrian traffic generated from the apartments on one corner and the church on the other corner at the intersection, The committee voted to install atwo-way stop sign stopping traffic on Chicago Avenue at 77th Street. B. -.69th and Vincent - Mr. Ebert indicated that this request had been initiated by members of his. staff because the completion of the permanent street program in this area had included the installation of retaining walls. on the corner lots, severely hampering visibility at the intersection. Other committee members who had visited the .intersection, concurred with the need for additional traffic control devices, and the committee voted to recommend .installation of two additional stop signs at this intersection stopping traffic on 69th Street. C. 65th Street and 20th Avenue -The city council requested the staff to study this intersection to see if there is a school bus stop located there and also to have the committee evaluate the visual obstructions at the intersection. Ms. Wilde checked with the -school district and was informed that there are three bus stops at this intersectionduring the school year, one stop for senior high school students , one stop for junior high school students, and one stop for parochial elementary students . However, the committee stiJ.l recommends denial of this request for stop sign installation because the warrants are not met. D. 76th Street and Knox Avenue - Ms . Wilde reviewed this request, which was received from residents of the vicinity. The request for stop sign at this intersection was made to provide additional pedestrian access across 76th Street from the apartments to the commercial establishment on the south side of 76th. Lt. Richardson reported that only two accidents-have occurred at this intersection within the last three years, and the public works department reported that the traffic volume on 76th Street is sufficient and that city policy has generally been to maintain 76th Street. as a through street. The committee voted to recommend denial of this request, based on the finding that there is insufficient justification for installation of a four-way stop sign at this intersection. -3- E. 67th- Street and 18th Avenue, and 68th Street and 18th Avenue - Ms. Wilde indicated that this request had been received by petition from residents in the area of 67th and 68th Streets on 18th Avenue and was based. on an accident that occurred earlier this year in which a child was hit by a car. Lt. Richardson summarized. -the accident history at these intersections which shows that one accident occurred at each intersection in .1975 and that no reported accidents have been received thus far in 1976.. The committee indicated that there are some trees on the corner lots which partially obstruct view, but the accident history and the pedestrian and vehicular traffic volumes are insufficient to warrant stop sign installation. The committee voted to recommend denial of the request. for stop sign installation at this intersection. 3 . Other A. Request for rEmoval of No Parking Signs on the west side of Emerson Avenue between 75th and 76th Streets . Ms . Wilde indicated that. the request had been received from the Lutheran Church in that vicinity that the committee examine. whether-.the No Parking Signs were necessary. The parking shortage which the churcl-1 experiences creates a condition that could be partially alleviated if on-street parking were permitted. Mr. Raaen reported that those. signs had initially been installed in 1962 at the request of the church, with tYie feeling that the traffic congestion in the vicinity was so bad that the on-street parking merely created an additional hazard to traffic movement. The. public safety and public works departments both expressed the position that the street as it has been completed under the permanent paving program is nova wide enough that on-street parking could be sufficiently dandled without presenting a particular traffic hazard. The committee voted to recommend that the No Parking Signs on the west side of Emerson between 75th and 76th Streets be removed V ~_ { ; CITY OF ~ICHFTELD, MINNESOTA . Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 356 Agenda :.November 8, ~~76 The Honorable: Mayor . and - Members of the -City Council ' - City` of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Review of Precinct Boundary Lines The purpose of this council letter is to provide council members. with an opportunity `to review precinct boundary lines and to determine whether consideration should be given to making 'any revisions in the ..current pre- ;, cinct boundaries. ~ The-attached memorandum from the state demographer explains the a fact that cities have an opportunity to make revisions in precinct lines prior to January 1, 1;977. Following. that date no changes maybe made except by annexation until January 1 , 1982. _ _ `. The most recent change in precinct boundaries in the City of-Richfield occurred in 1974, A copy of a map `is attached .showing. the current precinct lines. The purpose for making changes in the precinct boundaries would be to correct any problems which might exist or to aceoinrnodate any major pop- ulation changes which may be anticipated prior to 1y82.. A table is attached ~ indicating the number of registered voters by precinct.. This-number includes: -the 4,.:426. individuals who registered on November Z, 1976. ` It is the opinion of the city staff that there is substantial equalization among the prec~,inct$ and: that while there may be some slight population de- creases there are not any substantial changes. anticipated" during the next five years.. The city must file a map with the state demographer indicating precinct boundaries by January 1, 197.7. Therefore, the city council is requested to either approve !the .current precinct boundaries or direct the city staff to make any .revisions that council members consider necessary. Respectfully sub ed, , Wayne S. Burggraaff City .Manager cc: City Clerk a 'C ATE q yy4~u !!w~~ „q~ A 3'B" '~ ` " ~: STATF OF' ti~ I:1tiTNE50TA ~~~- ~'NES~ STATE PLANNING AGENCY 100 CAPITOL SQUARE BUILDING 550 CEDAR STREET ST. PAUL, 55101 August 31, 1976 MEMORANDUM RECEd~lE® ~~~ ~ 19T6 ~,y of ~ic6f6eld TO: Mayors of Minnesota Cities With Mare T an One Precinct FROMs Hazel Reinhardt, State Demographer Li SUBJECT: Submission of Municipal Maps by Precinct, To Comply With Chapter 132, Laws 1976. ~ L~ The 1976 Legislature, desiring to facilitate its required reapportion ment following the 1980 census,. enacted Chapter J32 of Laws, 1976. Chapter 132 provides for .implementation of a federa] law which will guar- antee that the first census data returned to Minnesota will be by precinct. Population data have never before been available by precinct and their availability at this level, by April 1, 1981, should be helpful both for legislative and other types of redistricting. changes in precinct boundaries may be made from January 1, 1977, to nuary 1, 1982, except by annexation. In effect, precinct lines are ozen fora per~o o ive years. The legislation also requires that the government body of the municipality. shall set boundaries between precincts so that each boundary follows visible, clearly recognizable physical features. A "clearly recognizable feature" is a street, road, boulevard, arkwa river, .stream, shoreline, draina e ditch, railway right-of-way, or any other line which is clearl visible from the round. A street or roadway which has been platted but not graded is not a clearly recognizable physical feature for this purpose. Where precinct boundaries coincide with cor orate boundaries, the need not be visible to the eye,. Changes in precinct boundaries can be made only after the general election in November and before January 1, 1977, There are two reasons for making changes in precinct boundaries: 1) To provide an adequate number of precincts to accommodate the o ulation anticipated by 1982. We encourage .those cities that are exper~enc~ng rapid growth to consider now the possibility of adding precincts which may be needed in the future so -that action can be taken between November 3, 1976, and January 1, 1977.. "AN EQUAL OPPOR7UN17Y EMPLOYER" f... . ~ .. _' ~.• :~ August 31, 1976. Page 2 Z) 'To change lines<between precincts that do not conform to .the •~ clearer recognizable feature" specification .above. Chapter 132 directs the state demographer to prepare the following maps: All counties in the state; all municipalities with a population -of 1.0,000 or more; and other municipalities as deemed necessary for census purposes (this includes all cities with more than one precinct). The maps of municipalities must show-precinct bound- aries. The demographer's office needs .your help if we are to provide the required maps to the Bureau of the.Census. Under separate cover, we are sending a copy of this memo as well. as a map of your municipality to your city mana- ger or clerk. Since there undoubtedly are a number of cities whose precincts now conform to the law and that do not plan to make any changes in ,precinct boundaries before January 1, 1977, we request that they complete their maps as follows: • 1) nraw in precinct lines and number precincts within these lines. 2) Indicate whether corporate boundaries are correct as shown and, if not, show corrections. 3) Add any new streets and cross off any streets that no longer exist. 4) Note either that all boundaries have been in effect since January 1, 1970, or indicate the effective date (day/month/ ' year) of any changes since Januar°y 1, 1970. Rapidly-growing communities that are considering adding precincts may hold their maps until November/December, 1976, when they are permitted to make changes effective January 1, 1977. The deadline for submission of all maps to the state demographer's office is January 17, 1977. Summa In past censuses, there have been many instances of undercounting or allocation of people to the wrong municipality.. Most of these mistakes have occurred because of improperly drawn boundaries which were used by census enumerators. Chapter 132, Laws, 1976 provides a real opportunity for rnunicipaTities to draw precise, physically visible boundaries showing August 31, 1976 Page 3 their precinct ]fines and corporate limits'. Certainly, accurate counting by census enumerators is vital in detea~mining various aids and allacatiorrs, The Legislature also hopes that the. guarantee by the Census Bureau of First Count 1980 census data by precinct will make the reapportionment process easier and prevent the necessity for "wholesale" precinct boundary changes in the redistricting process. We will appreciate your assistance. if you have questions or comments, please. write or call Eileen Barr of my staff. filer phone number is 612-.296-4886.. Enclosure cc: City Administrators or Clerks F E E E f' E F- F f f F f -£ F F F 2 s s m ~ _ ~ s o o ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ z ~ D f'r1 fTt ~I :I ~I ~1 ~I ~! ~1 ~ ~1 ~ 01 ~ ~ 0) ~ 0) ~ ~ O ~ O O N O O O O ~ c0 ~ O O O ~ N -i --I r ~ O p p S ~_~D O H O O H O O O O O O O O O %ERxF:S 4'JE ~ 4_.__... _.__.-__ ...-.-.-_ _-..-_ ' ___-__, __-- _ -- _---...- - -__ ___ _. __. yr.ES ,.. ~~ ~ i I ~ ~~ ` , ~_ DDD rv s a, R~ AvE I ~ ~ _ ~ j r ~ _ 300 , _. ~.. ~ ~ rn i m -D _ _ - f7-'~~ rte: $HE RIDAN AVE. ~ _. . : -.. .. ....- L .-. _. ._ O ® ~ -~-~ ~-__J ~. _ - v~r~d:.~ :.. I ~ ;~ -~ ~ ~ ~--o-~ ~ .~. 250 ~ ~ RUSSELL AVE _ I _. r _ ~--~~ ` ~ ~ ~ D _ r , ,. OuEEN AVE - -- __ - 1 rn Rr Nr. AVE - _ ___-_.- _...... L_-_JL -_. _---~ ` - ~, = W = ~ 2100 ,' ~ D O p _ ___ ~ ., ~ (n - - r D -~_~- - _ n _~ ,. ~ ~ Z _ 190 ,~, ,~E _ __. , ,~ D _ _ _ ~; ., _, o __ _ r ,~ 1 0 x --r JAMES 4VE - ~ .- f-~"" ~ ~ _ '~+"~, - __ - _. .~'~' . MCNROE ''E1.0 ~'~ ; r _ . '- __ _ l , _._ ..__ 160. :RVING AVE ~, '~ `- .. ,.. ~~..,a~J~ _.. _ _... _. ~--___.. ... _ - v --•. - - - - ---150. ,,~ HUMBO_G' AVE .._ -._.._ - .. .,.'. m . ~i }F J ; _ ~ ~ `. I ~ 1 1 _:.. ` « ~ ~ 10 (~ ~_ _ ~ m~ rn , 9 :•.~ ~. ~ Z~~ ~ ,r~ _ _ + L j - -- ° - ` ~ ~_. _ t~E ~ J~ - ~ D C7 ~ m 4 _ 1 cn m 5C~ R , y•F~.. n 2 ~_ O C~ _... ., , ~~.~ D _ - - D ~ _ r' ~,, ~_ _ ~ `, _ r ro ,~ 2 .. _ _ D ~' D 10 } -., ~. ~.. ,, {~~~., Z = 50 ~~ . . '~, D I r , r I ~.• .,.. - ti 100 _. :, a.- ~' 'r 124. ~: - ,...fi ~_ ~;1. 200;5 _ , . - ~ 30C ~,,~ a .. m _ 324 . dJ, ,,, -- ~ ,. .. - - ~ , A 4 '" 4. ~fI T ,MK>~ f; _ _ _ ~ V 500 :,_ _ i . L~ . O .. :. _ _.. O . _ - - ~ 6Q° , . _ ._ _ I v :- _ - _ _ ~ -~ - s2o ..,U 0 G I 1 ,,..IG AGG AvE , _.. .. _.._.. _.~__. _ D ' _ JJ` l~ ~ ~ u (.~r. ~J AV[- J 0 'G .r AvE ~-_-~;_~.:: .._.____ ..___. ____. __-_'_ ,... _. 100 ....,:: _ ~;E tp -~ - - ,~ ~ 1'100 m -, _ 1200 __ - c _ _ - _ _ _ c f300 =~- _~~ ~ D "-x~- , a ~ O ~ c~ ~" 3 1400'; IS In AVE ~ ~. ~.._ -- ._ -._.~ _._-O_'m- ~ '~CHRSTIAN _-_._. ..__...- ~ _~~_. ..-_ -.._ ', v 6 ~~ I ---- - - --- -_ ~~o ram Z :a MRK ~ 150© x.~ _. - _.. ~~ _ k ~ ` ~ r1 _ , O z 152_ I ,r ~vE z o .. AVE- _ ~.. -_ ~ _- ~_- --. - }-_. _ ~_ ..-_-. -.__ -~ - ~ ___ _ - ' L l _.. I// ~~ AVE ' IB,n AVE. x~ _. .__-_ ~ .. __ - ~ G ~~ _._ .. -. _- __ _ _ _-_--W .. .- _ n ,.. ~.+ _.~ 1800 - ~ -- ~,~ ~ CI ~~i~ 'c JAR At'L ,~ rn CEDAR 4VE I _. _. __._ _ ____ ~ l~~- -- ____ -_ LONGFELLOW AVE. I - m m -'NGF:... _.,.. .1'v: ~ ~ r . in ., c 19,n AVE. I ' n __ __~., 1~V ~~ • J r y H -~ -1 .:: - 2D,h AME ~ ~ ~ - 2000 ~ cn 2. s, AVE. m ~ _ ~ __ -- - z ;, ~ J: Z _~`~ji ~~ 2100: ~. Zz.a AVE. m ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ i' ~- _ _ 220Q , ~,_ D ,~_ z ® ° ~-- -- ND:SR AVE Tl STANDISN AVE. ~.~~ a3A: yZ ~ ~•~1 '~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~r?'-~~ _- ~ ___I \7~~2~I .. ~.~ I RFA' Ivi c-1 l ~ ^7~~~ w~yJ ~ y '~.-. _- _._l l_C]S\Q I __., 1v: 25th AVE. F,*A s. ry _ ~mi~ 7 Uj ~ M ~ A ~C ,~- ~ _~__ -_ _ L~7 ~/~)0 e~ YX~~ ~~It,1 ~ ~ 'm ~ ~ '., ,Y ---CCC /~ dv_ 24,n AVE. ..=~1 S ~8 ~m~Q ~ `~ + v D m ~ 's 2`TV F ',f;u, 3 m ~, (n it ~ Y~ (!~ ~ f~'1 ' .III _ _, _. _. __ _ _. __ __ __ - -__ /~ '~ f ~. r' ~. f • r 1B 2A 3A 4A SA 6A 7A SB 9B lOB SUMMARY OF VOTER REGISTRATION FOR NOVEMBER 2, 1976 GENERAL ELECTION 3,209 ` 3,506 3,010 3,512 3,024 .2,.266 2,777 2,413 2,908 2,670 29,295 1 .~ "''~~ Z CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA - Office of City Manager Coun'ci l Letter N o . 3 5`5 ~ Agenda November 8, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and: ~ Members of the City Council City. of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: .Hennepin County Report on County Highway 62 Improvements On July 26, -1976 the city council provided, a forum for fhe discussion of ` ` problems relating tQ County Highway 62 Crosstown'. Earlier in the year -Representative Shirley- Hokanson had conducted a mail Survey or residents - living .near. this. highway. The results of the survey indicated concern for noise abatement, safety improvements and a higher level of landscaping maintenance along. he highway. Several members of the state legislature, representatives of Hennepin County, representatives of the -state highway department and residents attended the July 26, 1y76 city council meeting to discuss this matter. The city council adopted a resolution requesting Hennepin County.. to '' initiate necessary studies to indicate how noise abatement, safety improve- ments and higher maintenance levels. could be achieved. The. resolution asked' that, the study be conducted within: a relatively short period of time so that there: would be sufficient time to prepare and present proposed- legislation to the 1977 state legislature to obtain financing for necessary improvements. A copy of the resolution adopted by the city council is attached. - Or October 22, 1y76-Mayor Law. received a status report on the county highway 62 study from Commissioner Ticen. A copy of that_report is attached to this :council letter. This 'itemis being included on he November 8, 1976 city council agenda to provide members of the city counc~i. with an :opportunity to discuss the status report al,nd to consider what might be the best way of proceeding. iri order to achieve desirable improvements along the. 62nd Crosstown Highway.:- '_` ~! PHONE ~` `` t 348-3081 ~... tf.•'~.~.~` ~ .~ ,~; BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 October 21, 1976. ~ ~n . ~C~~~ D T 2~ 1976 oc Loren L. Law Mayor ,~ City of Richfield ~i~`;;:. J':C~ ~,~Ly j4iU,;G~Bf 6700 Portland-Avenue South Richfield, r~innesota 55423 Dear Loren: Attached is the most recent status report on County Highway 62 covering the subjects referred to by the Richfield City Council. Please note .that amore comprehensive study is due some time in November. Sincerely, ~: Thomas E. Ticen Vice Chairman •TET it Copy/A. J. Lee Rep. Shirley Hokanson Wayne S. Burggraaff ~ ~,i ,, ~~ ~~~ ~ ~:- ~~~~ ~~ HE'i\!NP,P~N CCtJh~TY DP,TE: 4 October 1976 cc: p.L. Hansen p.S. Spielmann - ~sf'i:_ Kirtland To: A.J. Lee fr~oM: H.O. Kl oss suB~EC-r: Response to P.i chfi el d's Resol utfon Concerning CSAH 62 In regard to Richfieid's.July 26, 1976 Resolu ion ,5554 ("Resolution Concerning the heed for Improved Environmental and Safety Measures on the G2nd Crosstovrn Hightiray") the following information is offered: A preliminary report addressing the concerns raised in the Richfield resolution will. be completed by Pdovember 1976. This report was outlined in Don Spiel!nann's 9-14-76 memo to you. As•this outline indicated, the report will focus on tv:o subjects: traffic•safety consideration on CSAH 62 in the Penn Avenue area and a preliminary report of the findings from the ongoing CSAH 62~noise study (including preliminary height and cost estimates for noise barriers in the CSAH b2-Richfield area}. NOISE REPORTS Some iriitial noise. barrier estimates have been compi-led. The highway noise standards set by the State are more stringent than the Federal noise standards. Thus barriers designed to reduce noise levels to St~.e standards-would be larger (longer and higher) and more costly than barriers designed to reduce levels to ~ f=ederal standards.. Fur exalrple, from the estimate:! costs sfio.~.r~ below, the average cost per mile for barriers to meet Federal standards is $450,000/mi; for State standards the cost is about 5650,000/mi. The estimates belovr include barriers for both the north and south sides of CSAH 62. . State Standards Federal Standard s_ ' Length Cost Length. Cost Xerxes Ave. to Penn Ave. 5,120 L.F.$614,400 3,750 L.F.~375,000 Penn. Avenue to 35t~J 6,400 L.F.$716,800 5,400 L.F.$529,200 Portland Ave. to Cedar Ave. 5,830 L.F.$816,200 5,830 L.F.~a594,660 A more detailed noise study for CSAH 62 between CSAH 18 and T.H. 55 (except the State- owned portion betv:een Humboldt Avenue and Clinton Avenue) will be completed by Fall 1977. This study will determine the existing highway noise .levels (including noise readings data, computations, and noise contours). • 1;,1f1Tf.tTCttlAt<I(`C • According. to a report prepared by our Maintenance Section (9-10-75 memo from John Kirtland to Herb Klossner), it is estimated that reverting to pre-1974 maintenance levels for roadside maintenance along the Crosstown v:ill increase our 1977 expenditures $20,000 to $25,000. This cost could vary depending upon tfre weaiher conditions of a particular-year (i.e. the amount of rainfall and the period ire 4rhicf7 it falls). .. __ , , Page ~ ,, The portion of the Crosstown between Xerxes Avenue .and Cedar Ilvenue includes approxi- mately 12% of the total Crosstown roadside acreage. (This. 12% figure includes both the f~linneapolis & Richfield sides of the Crossto~~rn in this area..) Applying this per- tentage to the above mentioned maintenance costs, it is estimated that maintenance of .this portion of the Crosstown to pre - 1.974 standards (both sides)-would cost an additional $2,400 - $3,000. It should be noted, however, that if onl,~ this portion were maintajned at these standards, the additional maintenance cost for this portion would. increase over the estimated $2,400 - $3,000 (due to the cost of transporting maintenance equipment to the site).. SAFETY Traffic safety on CSAH 62 in the area of Penn Avenue has been a major concern expressed by Richfield. As mentioned above, the November 1976 report will address this subject.. The Traffic .Section will evaluate the existing accident situation in that area of CSAH G2 and will investigate possible mitigating measures (changeable message signs, speed reductions, etc.) ~. The portion of CSAH 62 between Penn Avenue and 35W has a design. speed of 42 mph, under present design standards. This portion of CSAH 62 was originally designed 41ith a 50 mph design speed in 1962, using the 1954 design standards then in effect (figuring 4.5 feet height of eye above the pavement to an object 1/2 .foot above the pavement). In 1965 (three-years after this portion was constructed) the .standard was changed to 3.75' height of eye above pavement.- I~ A preliminary cost estimate for lowering the profile of CSAH 62 at Penn Avenue was prepared in August 1976. It would cost an estimated x;216,000.00 to lower this portion of CSAH 62 22 feet (to a 55 mph design speed). SLD:jd Attachments :. .. ,~ ~y~. ~ RESOLUTION NO. 5564 RESOLLTION CONCERNING THE NEED FOR LMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL.AND SAFETY MEASURES ON THE 62ND CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY WHEREAS, State Representative .Shirley Hokanson conducted a mail. survey of residents near the 62nd Crosstown Highway during the. month of May 1y76, and received results indicating high levels of dissatisfaction with traffic noise and landscape maintenance along this highway, and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Council at the request of Representative Hokanson conducted a public discussion of this problem at the July 26, 1976 city council meeting where Hennepin County was represented by County Engineer Herbert O. Klossner, and WHEREAS, the meeting was. attended by a substantial number of Richfield citizens and some Minneapolis citizens living adjacent tothe 62nd Crosstown Highway right-of-way, and WHEREAS, in addition to Representative Hokanson, the meeting was attended by Senator William Kirchner, Representative James Swanson, Representative Willi:lm Dean, Representative Richard Lemke and representatives of the state highway department all of whom supported the need for these improvements and indicated a willingness to work toward making the necessary funds available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Coun;;il of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. That the Richfield City Council respectively. requests the Hennepin County Board to initiate a noise, safety and maintenance study of those portions of the 62nd Crosstown Highway falling under Hennepin County jurisdiction and adjacent to the City of Richfield. 2. That the study include consideration of implementing courses of action which can result in both short term and long term noise abatement, safety improvements, and higher levels of maintenance on the landscaped portions of the right-of-way. 3. That the results of such a study be available within 30 days so that, to the extent legislative action is required for regulatory or funding purposes, there will be sufficient time to prepare and present such proposed legi slation .to the 1977 State Legislature. ~-- ~. -2- Passed by the City. Council of the City of Richfield this 26th day of July, 1.976. Laren L. Law Mayor ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk i~ I~ ,~ ' CITY .OF RICH-FIELD,. 1VIINNESOTA Office of City Manager 1 Council I,e~ttei` No. 3S3 Agenda N®vember 8 1970 ...The Honoreb~8!Mayor , aid MalRbaes of '{he Gi ty Coun c l City of Richfie d `Gentlemen: Subject: Presentation by Representatives of the Association of ~i~~~eta ~(~~~R ~~~~ " At the.October 8, 1976 budget hearing the city council asked the city :manager to make arrangements for the Metropolitan Association of Munici- palites and the. League of Minnesota Citfes to make individual presentations to the,city council for the: purpose of explaining the. services provided by these organizations . The members of the city council indicated that at the time the a presentations were made, the city. council would make a decision as to whether to continue .its membership in these organizations for the 1977 budget year. Arrangements have been made for Mr. Vern Peterson,_Executive Director and for Mayor Duane. Miedtke (St. Anthony) , a member ofthe Board, to make a presentation on the Association of l~~~a~C,'ities at the -November. 8, 1976 city council meeting. I .have. advised Mr. Peterson. and. Mayor Miedtke ' that we will attempt to take up this item at about 8:30 p. m. so that it-will notbe necessary. for them to wait for an extended period of time. The city's embership dues for the Association of s is currently $3, 09~per year. In 1976 Mayor Law .serves as the- city`s .represent- ative to this organization with .Councilman Luettinger serving. as the alternate - representative; Mr. Peterson and Mayor Miedtke will be prepared to make a - brief presentation on this organization after which-they will be happy to answer'- any questions ;from the city council including ,the offer of uggestions as to ~ ' how individual! elected officials can participate in the LMM.- It is recommended that following discussions of this matter that the city" council make a decision on whether to continue its League of membership for the 1977 budget year.. 1Mg,~„o Uv,,w,;«.;,`d„Q,••;'~ Respectfully submitt " • Wayne S. Burggraaff i City Manager ;, "- ~ ~J CITY CF' RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office 'of City Manager Council Letter No. 352 Agenda November 8, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council. City. of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Off-Street Parking Contract -: 6501 Penn Avenue If the city council approves the special use permit. for a car sales lot . to be located at 6501 Penn Avenue, it.will be :necessary. to execute a new .off-.street parking contract. Mr. -Daniel Schmelz, Schmelz Bros. , Inc. is requesting approval of such an off-street parking contract. The attached sketch indicates the layout for the existing building and: • proposed aff-street parking. Forty-five parking spaces are provided which would be sufficient. to meet the anticipated demand.. This includes parking spaces for six employees and four customers with the rerriaining thirty-five - spaces to ~be used for car sales . ' If the-off-street parking is considered, it is recommended that approval be subject to the following stipulations: 1. The backside. of the proposed "billboard" type sign shall be' finished- in such a way that the .structural parts: of the sign . do not show. 2. -The existing fence abutting the adja,ce.nt residential properties to be repaired, restained and maintained in such. condition. 3. The applicant to comply with all standards relating to a car sales .lot. Respectfully submi t Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager ~ - WSB/eja cc: 'Public Works. Director Planning Director - PENS ~-VE. 50. _ ~ IN 0 T - - ~ Landscapl g ~ . <J1 -,~, QFF STR ET ~' ~ PAR NG Stair L -. Landscapi g tEmpl yee Par ng xisi: 6~ Redwaad Fence _ Barrier Curb OFF-STREET PARKING ~- ~ ~~ No. 76-6 Scaie~ i °= 30~ OWNER AND ADDRESS: Schmelz Bros. Inc. 6501 Penn Avenue South LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S. 189.2' of N. 876.8' of W lj8 of sW4 of Nw'-4 except road, Section ?_8, Township 28, Range 21+. Plat 44828, Parcel 6b25. 6501 Pena Avenue South . USE• Car Sales Lot DATE OF APPLICATION: llj2j76 CQUNCIL ACTION: llj8j76 N0. PARKING SPACES: 6 employees 4 customers E. S. _,3.~ car sales 1114/' 4g Total [ 4s. : y CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office- of City Manager • Council Letter No. 3,51 ~ Agenda November..8, 1976 The Honorable IViayor ~ and _.lviembers of the Ci y Council City°of Richfield j ~~ Gentlemen: Subject: State Grant Application far Bikeway Deve opment Funds 1 :-. ' ~ At the August'23, 1976. city council meeting, the city' council took:.:action. .authorizing city.-staff to submit a grant application o the Minnesota Depart- • meet of Natural Resources for the Minnesota. Bicycle Trail Assistance. Program. .Council members might recall that: his application would provide .funding to F begin development of bikepaths in: accordance with the`Richfield bikeway plan.. The development to becompleted through this phase will consist i a d sari in aion existin roadwa s to desi Hate bike rimaril of si n n n Y ., g P Y g g P g g g routes . The-staff was contacted late last week. by the state and informed that the application submitted by the City"of Richfield has been approved fora $10,000 grant. -'This $10,000 will provide for a maximum of 65% of the total cost of -the bikewaywork to be completed at this time. .The city will have to provide. he remaining 35% of the cost. We have been assured that our. share-can be :provided as a "soft" match and it is anticipated that the city's. contribution `. will be in the form of services, using .current personnel. . For-this grant money to be formally designated for expenditure by the ~ City of Richfiead, -it is necessary for the city council to approve the attached agreement form.. It is the recommendation of the planning director,: in which:I concur,` that the city council authorize the mayor and city manager to execute the. agreementproviding for receipt of the Bicycle Trail Assistance.Grant in ~ the amount of $10, 000 from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Respectfully sub tted,` ~. ~~ Wayne S. Burggraaff • City' Manager WSB/e } a . . cc: Planning Director ~ .. • •. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BICYCLE TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AGREEMENT '_ THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 19_, between the STATE, OF MINNESOTA, acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural ~iesources, hereinafter referred to as the State, and hereinafter referred to as the-local unit of government. WHEREAS, the local unit of government desires to establish, construct, and maintain a public bicycle trail; and, WHEREAS, by Laws of 1975, Chapter 204, Sections 57 •and 95 and by.the Laws of 1976, Chapter 319, Section 1, there was appropriated to the Commissioner of Natural .Resources, funds for non-motorized recreation trails. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED between the parties hereto: The State agrees to reimburse the local ,unit of government 65% of the cost of trail acquisition and development subject to the following terms and conditions: I. (APPROVAL) The local unit of government shall not expend any funds on the proposed trail until the trail proposal is approved as hereinafter provided, by the Trail Coordinator, Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A. The local unit of government shall submit to the Trail Coordinator, Department of Natural ' Resources, a trail work plan which shall include: • 1. A name, address and phone number listing of who will plan, acquire, develop and maintain the trail 2. An estimate of when acquisition and development will be completed. 3. A map • of a scale of no less than 3''/mile depicting: (a) the exact location of the proposed trail over all private and public lands; and (b) the exact location of all toilet, litter, parking, shelter and rental facilities. 4. A legal description and parcel number of landowners which correspond to parcel numbers depicted on the map. 5. A signed lease or easement for each parcel of land not under the jurisdiction of the local unit of government. , 6. A design specification chart indicated the length, width, grade, surface .and base material, drainage,. marking system and bridge development standards far the B. The local unit of government shall not amend, revise or change the approved trail work plan without the written consent of the Trail Coordinator. C. The Trail Coordinator shall give his written approval of the proposed work plan to the local unit of government official executing this agreement. I• I• - :~ IL (TECHNICAL AS5ISTAN.CE) The State will give technical assistance to the local unit of govemment in establishing the trail 111, (REIMBURSEMENT) The State agrees to reimburse the local unit of government 65% of all costs attributed to trail acquisition and maintenance. I 1. Reimbursement for costs incurred must be in accordance with the approved trail work plan and approved revision thereto. 1 2. The local .units of government may acquire land in fee, easement, or lease, but in no event shall the term of said interest be less than six (6) months between April 1st and September . 30th of any year. 3. Any instrument of conveyance or permit with a consideration exceeding $500.00 shall be accompanied by an attorney's certificate of title. IV. (PAYMENT) The local unit of govemment shall submit invoices .for actual' costs Incurred in acquiring and constructing the approved bicycle trail (a) First Payment: Upon receipt of invoices evidencing acceptable trail costs of $500:00 or more, and an approved trail work plan, the State agrees to pay thelocal unit of government 65% of the amount submitted and approved. (b) Subsequent Payments: Each thirty (30) successive. days after the first payment,. the local unit of government shall submit invoices evidencing acceptable trail costs. If the costs .are approved, the State agrees to pay the local unit of government 65% of the amount submitted and approved. Said payments shalt continue to be made until authorized reimbursement for the costs of said trail as provided herein issatisfied. V. (STATE LIABILITY) Notwithstanding the grants-in-aid as provided herein, the State of Minnesota shall not be liable for such costs as are incurred by the local unit of government because state grants-in-aid funds for the said bicycle trail are depleted. VI. (OBLIGATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT) After the trail has been approved, the local unit shall forthwith proceed to acquire necessary interests in lands and establish the trail and open the same to the public Should the local unit of government fail to comply with the " authorized trail work plan or to expedite completion of project and thereafter fail to provide for adequate maintenance which shall include keeping tt~e trail reasonably safe for public use, providing sanitation and sanitary facilities when needed and other maintenance as the State may require, the State may withhold payments to the loeai unit of government and terminate this agreement. ~. j A.'. APPROVED: LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (County) ICityl (Pillage) (Townl BY• C. B. Buckman $Y• ` ~ TITLE: Deputy Commissioner TITLE: GATE: BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION r. TITLE: BY: ~a ssistant ttornay enera DATE: DATE: STATE OF MINNESOTA. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION 4 Oonald D. Davison, Director Division of Parks and ReereaUOn BY: TITLE: DATE: DATE: Donald H. Ledin,Trail Coord. Division of Parks and Recreation • e % ! ~,~' `r CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 350 . :Agenda November S, 1976 The Honorable Mayor :, and Members bf the City Council Git of Richfield. Y _. Gentle men: Subject: Agreement for Auditing Services for 1976 Submitted herewith is a proposed agreement with the CPA firm-of Olson & Clough, 751`4 Oliver Avenue,' for auditing services for the City of Richfield for the year. ending December 3Z , 1976. It is presented now to allow the auditors to begin preliminary auditingbefore the end of the year. A copy,of the. proposed contract submitted by Olson ~ Clough is attached. The rates included i~n the proposed contractcompare with the 1975 audit rates as follows: _ 1976 Audit 1975 Audit Partner $120.00 -`$10.0.00 Audit Supervisor 110.00 100.00 Staff accountants $77-100 TO-90 Typing $6.:00/hr. $5.:.00/hr.. A listing of fees charged by other independent auditing firms for 1975 audits conducted in several suburban municipalities is attached for your information. . It is recommended that the city council approve the proposed .contract fore auditing services for 1976. . INPC;R_I~,,iAL 1975 A~ULT'I' COS`F SURVEY • Population Nunicz)~al.ity (Apri~~ 1, 197E Ests) Cost Comments Edina 48,325 $17,500 ~ Minnctonl:a 37, 84G 16;\500 1\~0 liquor stores Golden. Valley 24, 548 5, 600 No liquor stores Coan Rapids 3.5, 836 10, 000 Ste Louis Park 47,429 7,600 No liquor stores Hopkins 16, 492 9, 800 No liquor stores Robbi.nsdale 15, 610 6, 500 Columbia Heights 21,653 6,500 Bloomington 78, 648 17, 0.00 N© liquor stores Richfield 43,137 8,795 Includes $182 HRA // AGRE' MLt~'1' FGP. AUD i T [ NG SERV i CES THiS AGREEP~EPiT; dated this day of 1976, by and between the C i TY OF i?. { CI.F' I ELD, M i NNESGTA, irate i r~afler re- ferred to as the "City" and the accge..rzting firm of GLSGN & CLOUGM, Certified Fublic Accountants, a co-partnership consisting of RCGER L. _Gi_SGN and R f Cf-?~1(~,D G. CLGUGH, here i rafter referred to as the "Auditors",~ W1T~!ESSL"TH: In consideration of their mutual cove-.Hants and agreements as hereinafter set forth, the part~e.s hereto contract and agree as follows: The Auditors agree to make a limited general audit of the financial transactions and records of the City for the year ending December 31, 1976. Such examination shall be conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and procedures . and in accordance with the minirnum 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 resu'ltw The examination si~rall encom- pass the following items on a test basis: 1. System of internal control 2. Dei:ails of aTl the books of account, sr!bsidiary records and supporting documents as to: (a) Legality (b) Mathematical accuracy (c) Completeness of all transactions (d) Application of accepted municipal • . accountir;g principles • ~ d-~rstood ~::nd agreed ghat. the responsibility for' the estab- It rs un c. lishment and erlfOrcL'n;ent of an adequate system of internal control rests w i th the C i ty. Thr~ examination shall encompass the accounts and records of tl~e City of Richfield Police Relief Associ~3tior~ for the wine period. li. f F c i rcumstances d i sclosed by the and i t ca 1 1 for a rnor-e detailed investigation than v,rould be necessary r.inder ordinary cir- cumstancess such circumstances will be called to the attention of the City auti~orities before proceeding further with the investi- gation. If authorized to proceed further with the investigation in this area, compensation for the additional services witi be at the regular rates designated later in this agreement. lil. The Auditors shall provide the City with at least ten • (10) copies of tine report on their examination, and shall make specific cornments and recommendations with regard to the following: (a) 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 ma(<e financial reports required or needed for• administrative purposes. The report shall be addressed to the common council of the City, IV. Finai field work on the audit will be started by the Auditors after receipt of notice from the City that the accounts r J are completed fo;~ tFr:'a •;-ear a~;c! :°~:~ady fore th~~ Auditors ° examination. If mutua1iy convinienj_, the ~~,uditors may start field work prior to the close of the calendar year' 176. ' The City- i~eret~~i i:h cngag^s thre and i for°s for the work here- inbefore specific-d and agrees to pay to tl~e• Auditors for such wor!< on the basis cf the following per dic;m raises (calculat.ed on the basis of a seven har~r~ day) Pa rtrre:r $ 120.00 Audit super/isor 110,00 Staff accountants $77..00100.00 Typing ~ $6.00 p~°r hour Postage for mailing requests for and returns of direct.' confirmations of consumers',acco:ants, bank bala"nces and.ot:her confirmations to be a City expense; either directly or by re'si~i- bursement to the Auditors for such expenditures. . The Auditors sha.1 1 provide the City G~ i i.h a de"i:a i 1 end statement as to the names of accountants, classifications ar~.cl hours worked. Payment of tl-,e 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 (h0%) of the total l=ee billed for t!~~e time ex- pended to the date of billing; with final payment to be made within thirty day, after receipt of the Auditors' report and an itemized municipal claim form shovaing the balance due the Auditors. IN bdiTNESS hrHEREOF the parties hereto have here"unto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. CITY GF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA BY -`~~~ r~ BY _~'~ANin G~1=.~~ (Seal) - OLSON it CLOUGH Certified F'ubli.c Accountants / ^~_.~ > Richard G. Clough, Partner' i s 1~ - CITY OF :RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council. Letter No. 349 Agenda November 8, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject'i Purchase' in Excess of $1, 000 The: revised 1976 budget adopted for the Department of Public Safety, included ', $4, 500.:00 for the purchase of portable robbery attack a;larrns. This amount of money was made available to the police division for thi purchase as part 'o€ the second year federally funded Team :Policing Grant. These alarm devices are portable, miniature radio transmitters to be placed at business; residential., or other- target locations which crime analysis has determined are likely to become the victim of:~ burglary, robbery, or similar ?~ crime . When activated by any one of a number of ."tripping" devices , the portable radio, transmitter-sends out a recorded broadcast message to patrolling squad cars and;'the public safety communications center. Patrolling squad cars are then able to respond immediately to the scene of the crime and perhaps effect an on-scene' capture of the criminal. In researching this proposal, the police"'division used a demonstrator model of the- device for two months in early 1976.: _Thfs device is known as the Varda alarm, and: the police division staff .expressed complete satisfaction with the ~> device during the demonstration period. . In addition to !the Varda alarm, the Simdac system,. available from 3M Company, and;the Pro-com system, available from American Alarm Company, have also been examined.. The Simdac system, while t'has some fea ures not available on -the Varda system," costs. $3,285 for essentially,the same capabilities as the Varda 'system provides for $760. It is the: opinion 'of the public safety department that_-- - the additional features :did not justify the ;increased cost of this system. A disadvantage o he Pro-com system is that the. message broadcast by the portable transmitter'is n,ot avoice.-message, and is received only. by the patrol cars and not by; the communications center. Therefore, in the event that the patrol cars were out of service at another call or the offcerswere`on foot with their,.portable radios, the alarm message; would not be received. _ ~ v CITY<UF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA '~ Off ice of City ,Manager Council Letter No. 348 ,Agenda November 8, 1976 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council.- City of Richfield - .Gentlemen; Subject:'; Authorization to Advertise for Bids: .The -1977 budget appropriation for the-.:fire division, of the public safety department provides funds for the purcha a of a radio alerting system to be ' c tin afire division ersonnel back for emergency duty. utilized in al g _A This system will provide a personal radio receiver (paging device} for.'each member of the fire division. During fire.:emergencies when it becomes nece sary to recall off-duty .fire division personnel, this paging system will enable the. department to simultaniousiy-and instantly alert either elected members of the . division or all off-duty: personnel. The current recall system involves attempting to contact personnel by telephone, This is a time.-consuming process and during an``emergency situation becomes even more difficult to implement. The radio paging alert system will.tremendously improve the recall capability and assure a more efficient and 'time y response^ to fire emergencies . The: public safety department has developed the specifications for a system which will be" compatible with the existing `.public. safety radio communications system. Because the public safety department has been notified that the cost -of these paging systems is likely to increase. substantially :after January 1, 1977, the department wotald like to initiate the bidding process immediately so that a -bid award may be made some time in December at the` current pricing structure:.: The delivery time for the system .runs six to eight weeks. Therefore, even if the bid award were made in Decembers:;. the system would not be delivered before February of-1977, and would therefore.:properly fall within the- 1977 city budget program , It is' the- recommendation of the, public: safety director, in which. I concur, that the city council authorize the call .for -bids for a fire radio alerting `system . Respectfully submitted, ~~ _ ~. Wayne. S. Burggraaff City Manager ~~~ 'co: Public Safety Director CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 347 .. agenda November 8, T9.7`6 The Honorable. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen: Subject: Tabulation of Bid and Award of Contract-for the Removal of Lime Sludge at the Water Treatment Plant - Ori November` 2`, 1976 bids were opened by the Acting City Manager in accordance with previous' city council authorization for the removal of lime sludge from the water treatment plant. The Park'and Recreation Director, Environmental Health Director and the City Clerk represented the city at the bid opening. The bid minutes and tabulation are attached for city council • review. The only bid received for the removal of lime sludge atthe water treat- meet plant is from Phoenix Trucking and Contracting, Inc. at a cost of $5.25 per cubic' yard fora total estimated-cost of $36, 750. T~he~ staff has reviewed' this bid and has determined.-that the proposed price is such that the city would gain no advantage in readverfising'and seeking new bids for the removal of - lime sludge at the water treatment plant. Therefore, it is recommended that':' the city council take the. following -action: 1. Approve the bid .minutes. 2. Award the contract to Phoenix Trucking and ;Contracting, Inca • at'$5.25 per cubic yard. Re pectfully `submitte G~'~~ - -" j Wayne- S. • Burggraaff City Manager WSB.feja cc; Public Works Director Finance Direrter CITY OF-RICHFIELD. Bid Opening ~. November 2, 1976 Lime Sludge Removal and Disposal Water Treatment Plant. rul auaua. VV LCCiY it CRlC 41L3Vl1[CSV1LLl.1V11 LVV• 1V 1,7, cL ULCC CliI~' V1 CLLe aum1r115 LTaLl.Ve{ staff was called by Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager, who announced that the ', purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids on Lime, Sludge Removal and Disposal for the water treatment plant, as advertised in the official newspaper on October 20, 1976. Present:. Peter Eberz, Acting City Manager I. F. Roesler, Environmental Health Director Don-Fond rick, Park and Recreation Director Ken Conway, Water Department Director Thomas J. Moran, City Clerk The following bid was submitted and read aloud: BIDDER AND BID SECURITY PRICE PER CUBIC YARD TOTAL COST Phoenix Truck & Contracting, Inc. Cert. Check $1,890 $5.25 $36,750 The Acting City .Manager announced that the bid would be tabulated and considered at the regular council meeting of November 8, 1976. Thomas J. Moran City Clerk H a H H ~ N W rn ~ d 3 N ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~O t!~ ~ r-1 ti ~ ff° °O o z ~ A ~ ~ ~ ^ O ~ ~ A~ c n wa o ~ W ~ O 4i ~ ` E~ OH . p ~ ~ ~ a H O U O O H O ti w M A >-+ U H Pq am C ) L!~ N aa W ~ w ~ W H a a N H O H •ri A a 4-, o H~ •~xrn W W 00 ~ ~ w ~ U U~ aa W by U H A ~ w ~1 ~i ~.~{ .r.~ v 5C • ~ ~ ,s~ O t' ~Ms W `, F _ ~~ ~ , ~~ ~- ~~ - CITY Off' RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City IvTanager . Councia Letter No. 346: Agenda November 8 176 The Honorable Mayor and Members o~ the City Council- - Gity of Richfield Gentlemen: ' Subject: Non=Intoxicating_Malt Liquor Ordinance Amendment .Defining Political Party At'the October 25, 1976 :city council meeting the city council requested -'that an ordinance amendment be prepared for the purpose of more clearly L defining the term "political party" as it is used in anon-intoxicating malt- ...liquor ordinance. The ciay attorney has prepared such an ordinance amend- . merit which is attached and available for first reading con deration,by the city council at the November 8, 1976 city council meeting. 'i Respectfully subm' d, 'i ~ , ` Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSB/eja cc: City Attorney .. City Clerk .~ -r AMENDMENT 2'0 CHAPTER XI, SECTION 11.02 SUBDIVISION 2 OF THE. ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Subdivision 2 of Section 11.02 of the Orda.nance Code of .the City of Richfield relating to the sale and dispensing of non-intoxicating malt liquors, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subd. 2. Limitation of Application. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or restrict the serving i of non-intoxicatin malt li nor to nests in a rivate home. g q g P .The council may also permit any non-profit social organization, lodge, labor organization, political art ,<church ar corpora- tion not included in the definition. 'Political 'party'' as used in this subdivision includes cit -wide political party or aniza- g t~.,on but oes not include individua3 can~ic~ates or the campaign committees of individual candidates." I Passed by the City Council of the City of"Richfield, I Minnesota, this day of 1976. Loren Law, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas Moran, City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office. of City Manager Council Letter No. 345 Agenda November 8; 1976 . The Honorable Mayor and Members of the .City Council field it of Rich C y Gentlemen: Subject: Ordinance Amendments Relaxing to Open Ignitions On October 12., 19T6:the city' council-gave first reading consideration to .certain ordinance amendments relating to open ignitions. The purpose of the- amendments was to help prevent and deal with problems of vandalism or other mischief cren'ted by vehicles left with open ignitions. Second reading of this ordinance amendment was scheduled for November 8, 1976. `However, we have discovered some technical problems relating to these amendments and due to the need fore more time to research this matter we are requesting that the city council continue second reading of the amendments to the November 22, 1976 city council meeting. Respectfully subm' d; ~~j~ ! "~ Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager i VJSB/e j a cc: Public Safety Director City Clerk ~ __ y..... CITY OF RICHFIELD, ,MINNESOTA Office of .City Manager Council. Letter No. 344 Agenda November $ ; 19 7 6 The Honorable .Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Gentlemen• Subject: Hearing on Storm Drainage Project .for-the. 73rd Strew and Colfax`Avenue;Area At the August 23, 1976 city council meeting the city. council authorized the staff to .have a _preliminary engineering. report :prepared fora .storm- sewer pumping station and .force. main to alleviate a drainage problem on private prop erty in the area of 73rd Street and Colfax Avenue. The preliminary .engineering report was submitted to the city council on October 12; 1976 indicating con= stru:ction would cost an estimated $14, 400.. After reviewing the preliminary engineering report, the city council decided to pursue this ,!project by following alternative four in Council Letter No, 322' dated Octoberil2, 1976.. A public hearing was set for November 8, _1976. A copy of Counc'il<Letter No. 322 which includes the preliminary engineering re- `port ~s attached for your information. If following this hearing .the city council decides' to :proceed with this ' project it is recommended that the following actions be taken: 1.. Authorize City Project No. 7-00 2, Approval final plans and specifications 3: Authorize a call for bids for this project. ,, j Respectfully submitted, u~ F " ., . CJ• Wayne S: Burggraaff City Manager WSB/e)a cc: Public Works Director s. . CITY OF RICT3I'IELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No, 32?. . Agenda October 12 , 197 6 I The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield . Gentlemen; .Subject: Drainage Report for 73rd S~reet and Colfax Avenue At the August 23, 1976 city council meeting, the. city council authorized the staff to have a preliminary engineering report prepared for a storm sewer .pumping station and force main to alleviate the drainage problerr~ located in the area of 73rd Street and Colfax Avenue. History ' ~ In 1956, Colfax Avenue between 73rd Street and Oak Grove Boulevard .~~as vacated, thereby allowing this property to revert back to residential ownership. Since that time, additional hbuses have been constructed in this area with the exception of one lot located at 7231 Oak Grove Boulevard, Because of to«~ elevation of each of the lots , residents -have directed drains away from tha?.r property and onto the vacant lot. This vacant lot was recently purchased and' house construction started. The neighbors in this area have, therefore, contacted the city, indicating concern about the potential drainage problems. which might result from filling in this ].ot. Preliminary Engineering Report Attached .to this council letter is a copy of the preliminar}~ engineering re- . port for the construction of a storm sewer pumping station and force main.. This preliminary engineering report indicates that construction is technically. feasible and would cost an estimated $14,400. . 1. After reviewing the pre).iminar.}' engineering report, the city council could determine that the dr:.~inage problem is a private problem .and that the city should not underi:a}:e responsibility to construct and main+ain a .pumping station and force main. 7n that case,- the city. council could c~rani. the residents ),ei•m?ssion to connect to the ci.ty's Council Letter No. 322 -2- C)ctober'12, 1976 ' 1. (Continued) storm sewer system on 73rd Street i.f they were to decide to have this type of installation privately constructed. r should be ins olved 2. the city council could determine that the city fn alleviating the drainage problem. In that case, the city Council ' could authorize the project and direct a staff to prepare final plans and specifications with the full~.cost of the project to be paid from the sewer fund. ~ 3. The city council could determine .that the city- should be involved in alleviating. the drainage problem. The city council could set a . hearing date to authorize a special assessment project with the -cost of the project to be paid entirely by the. benefitted property . owners. If the council chose this alternative, and based the assessment on square footage, it would be necessary to assess ' $..134 per square foot. 4. The city council could determine that the city should be involved. " - in alleviating the drainage problem. The city council could: set a hearing date to authorize a special assessment project with the cost of the project to be paid in accordance with the former-policy for storm sewer assessment. That storm sewer policy was adopted in 1953 and revised on February 14, 1972 and called for maximum storm se~r~~er assessment of $.0355 per square foot. Residents affected by this proposed project have not paid the maximum storm sewer assessment and $2, 224.06 of the estimated cost of $14, 400 . could be assessed under this policy. It should be pointed out that - ~ REDsolution No. 4735 stipulated that aI1 storm sewer construction . . after 1974- would be assessed at the full cost of ccnstrtzction. For your review, we have attached a summary sheet of the cost of the four alternatives . Respectfully submitted, ~. ~. ~ f~~ _. ' Wayne S. Burggraaff City Manager WSS/eja .- cc: Public Works Director Finance Director ,S •• +, ~: ~'. 1 ~• ON ORR--SCI}ELEN-MAYP,R & 11S54CT11TLS, INC. _ CO:dSL'L`1:'<i.IJU i:NC:%I`'}~}::R;i MII•JPJr~7~hULI:i, I~II1'd~:L5O'1'11 P}ZII~II~IINARY Rr PORT 11I~TD .ES'1'Tr471Ti~ OI' COST S'i'i}ILr$ SL(•,'LR S~l'UL~1' 22TC}IFI}3LD, r~~irldllESOTtl Si;P`i'L;r4I3}:it 14 , 1 ~ 1 G I. • TYPL OF 1•r'ORP. • . • .Storm Sewer and Appurtenant S~~orh. . T~ , b1;SCRIPTIOII OF I•JOnI: • Storm Sewer pumping station and force maa_n. "III. LOCi?TION OF PROJECT The project is bounded on the north by Oa}c Grove T3louvard, on tl~.e west by 7upont Avenue on the south by 73rd Street, and on the east by Bryant Avenue. • ~ xV._ LF}.~TGTI:I OF PR OJJ~C _ One pumping staticn and a}~~~ro~imatly 1?0 feet of. force main. V. ~ 5PI;CIAL CO~dllITIOIQS ~ • Permanent and construction easement will be required for cons truction of the project. The pumping station will be constructed underground. The electrical. control panel will be above grouzzd at the el.~ctrical service point. VI. FEX~,SI}3ILITY - .., ---- _ ... -From an engineering standpoint•the project is feasible and can best be accomplished as proposed, • . vII. .~LSTZr•~TEV cosT '• • Construction Cost ~ 12,000 Inda_rect Cost (20%~ $ 2,400 Total Project Cost ~ 14,400 ~: - Ric111:iex.d, rfinnesot~a 02t3~-2706 T.~12 -- 1 O F _ ..y /r' ~ .,~ •° ° vzxz. coN~~R.r.~v~~rivc r~}:~~ . ~J~'h~ area contr.i.buting storm .water flow is shown an the attached map. ' I hereUy certify that this plan, ;: specification ar report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision • and t}Zat T axn a du1 Re istered Pro- Y g fessional Engineer under the laws of t}1e State of Minnesota. ~~ ~ ~ ~ •~I~ ~ ,p k ~~.A Leroy I:i.~ J. IZynizs .. - • Date: Se teriber ~~14, 1976 Reg. No. 10981 P . • ~ ~: ~~ ltic}if field r Minnesota 025-2706 ~L .. FJ PR w2 U G0~ a . a 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~. 1 A A. P ~` ~ ~ ~ ` qf` ~\ Y ~ i ••.~':'~:.•:.•:.:: ~ :J 1 '.'4 •.'. •. .... ....•. •••••••• 1 O i :•~•:•:•:• :::::::::::::. ... cJ; ~ r ~:::: •a:•:•:•:•.•.•.•.•.••• ~ 1'r'•'•~•: ` ~ o fi 1 ~ .~ ;•~.. tf.. '~ ~ A 1. :::.. _ ••_ ~ r.+.• 4 ::::...•.•.•.; ..• • • .. • • • • ..• •• .. ~ v °:~~•at....... r• ~ to 1.1 • ~; ./.~.•.•.•: {N~i~.r.. ~~•,•,•,•,•.•.-.•.•.•.':<' ~ ---AVE. so. ,f ~ '-y:~~}~> - .: ~~ i ~ ....... , . .. ... ti..~;• 11 ... l7 ~ -~ (- .... .. 1 CR' . l'.'.'.' M'.'. l'.'. _!.. 1 ( ...... ........ 1t ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 ~ 1 i Q ~ ,~ ; ~ ,, , v o ~~r ~~1;` .~` i 1 a' I ~ `,, , ~ ..~. a ,'~ E3RYAP1'P A`JF., S0. • ~ ~ to - A r ~n ••. ~---N-~° 11 t ~ C~ H --a :d -a 47 --~ x ~o n ' ~ ~ -a ~ -~ 4~ R)F-' -~ C N -~ ~ N -~ ~ N -J d N(D :d L=J . ~ :k ; N H O H NO N a' N1--' N lD NO ~O ~ NAT ~1-' tv NO O~ !-' N ~' F-' ' ~"' cD W ' t-' u~ W W ~ W N ~ U~ '.~. o fC. ~ ~ K ~ ~ ~ n ~ fi ~ 1K-' ~ N. c+ ~ O ~ .t= ~ H d •o~ '~ o `f ° o o °~'' m ~ `~° ~ ~~ ~~~~ td~' o~ o~ a~ ~~ p . ro p~~ p d 7~' b 'T.' ~ ' ~ W N W K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . H H K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t- c F -'• '~d O ~ ~ ~'~ W N C ~ 4~O Fi P~ 4~ K 47N -i ~ -JK W F.'. -~N W F-' ~ N ci. ~: ~ n c1' ~• ~ N ~ OW O ~ 4~~ ~ O m Om O O b (D y t~J O R~ ~ O ~ O SQ ~, O K m ~~ ~i O fzK .3 ~~ to 9O 9 - C N m ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ ~ cu m m ~ ~w ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b d ~+ ~+ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a a a a a a ~ ~+ ~ cn m aD ~ ~ -J w o\ a~ ~ ou ~+ ~ N ~ -~ V .~' V W V O\ O V ~' O V O\ O V ~JI O V ~ Vl O V ~' N •• ~O -R" V N r V N Yh N N O O N N O O O O U Vl ~' 00 ~ O FL [D 'K ~. ~ .} to ~ -i (D n ~. N P~ O 0't cF N K O (D -Efl- f O d- tti' p ~' ~ ~ pk pk ~k ~ ~ x 71: Y,: ~ i ~ . i ~ O O O lD K ~ ~- ~' H ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ O O O ' '~ ' ~ N N N N F-' N N F O ~ F-' N !-~ ~O f-' Oo 0o N N O ~ ~j O W Vl O \O Vl --~ - l O~ O ~' F-' t~J O O Vt O V7 Vl Vl Vl V7 O~ O O #. N .~ !-' N N N ~' N N N N W W ~ .~ W Vl ~O O ~O O\ O\ O ~It d\ ~ • . . . ~ ~O O N Du Co N Co -~ -J O\ Vt N N .~ O\ ~ ~ N ~' O ~ -'J N -.1 O F-' t~' N; ~i %/ H ~J ~~ C ~1 i~ i RESOLUTION NO. 4735 RESOLUTION ON POLICY FOR STORM SEV~,Tl;R ASSESSMENTS ,~ - . WHEREAS, the city has been constructing storm sewers throughout the city according to a master plan prepared in 1953, and • V1lTiERE.AS, the city council has had a policy of :assessing this storm sewer construction at amaximum-assessment of $.0355 per square foot, and • WHEREAS, the construction of these storm sewers throughout ~;he city has been sub- stantially,completed, and WHEREAS, the cost of constructing these storm sewers has increased considerably over the years , and WI3EREAS, it appears desirable to change the existing storm sewer assessments . policies to more- accurately charge the benefited properties with the-.cost of providing the improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the .city council of the City of Richfield that the City adopt the following general policies. for storm sewer assessments: l.. That all remaining storm sewers constructed in 1974 and future years, should thsre be any, be assessed at its full cost of construction. 2. That the assessment be spread .over a 20 year period at 8% i%terest with the privilege of. prepaying the storm sewer assessment at any time without additional interes~k. 3. Thai the above policies begin with the storm sewer hearings held in 1973. 4. That the policies contained in this resolution shall be subject to modification if necessary in individual cases if the council determines that the assessment or assessments resulting from the application of the policies will exceed the benefits received. .~ , Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 14th day of February, 1972.. M a~yor Attest: r- RESOLUTION NO.. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS .FOR .STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND APPURTENANCES THERETO. CITY PROJECT N0. 700 WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted on the 12th day of - October, 1976, fixed a date for a hearing on the proposed improvement of . TERMINI __ LOCATION From To Colfax Avenue 73rd Street - Approximately 120 feet north by storm sewer construction and appurtenances thereto, and WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the making of this improvement, were given ten days published notice of the council hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice, and mailed notice as required by law, a_nd the hearing was held and the property owners heard thereon, on the 8th day of November, 1976. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. 5621 adopted on the 12th day of October, 1976. 2. That Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inca are hereby designated as the Engineers for this improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. Adopted by the-City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of November, 1976. ATTEST: Thomas J. Moran City Clerk Loren L. Law Mayor Iw L _ CITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA ' Office>af City Manager ' Council Letter No. 343: Agenda November 8~ _1976 The Honorable Mayor ' and Members of the City Council '; City of Richfield Gentlemen: `. Subject: Special Use Permit far-A Car Sales Lot at 6501 Penn Avenue `Mr. Daniel Schmelz of SChmelz Bros:. Inc, is requesting the issuance of a s eca-1 .use. permit to establish: aused car sales lot in an industrial P zoning district. f • The following. -items are attached to this council letter and will be re- ferred to throughout. 1.' Exhibit A -shows current zoning 2.; Exhibit B -shows current Iand use • 3. Exhibit C - is the proposed site plan 4. Exhibit D -Section- 3.33, subdivision 3 of thezoning ordinance BACKGROUND This property presently contains the Landy Camper Sales business: ~~ The applicant is proposing to use the existing 32' x 60' building on the north end of the. site and the below-grade garage. No new building construction is , proposed . i ~' Land Data Building-.Bata Zoning Reg. Parcel 173.2': x 132' 32' x 60` (22,862 sq. ft.) Building Setbacks 40' front 40' front 142.2 south side 0' south s ide 0' north side 0' north side 32' rear 25' rear Site Zoned/Land Use: I-Industrial/Commercia-l`, .camper sales ' 1 Council Letter No. 343 -2- November 8, 1976. .Surrounding. Zoning/Land Us:e: Zoning Land Use - N Industrial Gas station E MR multi-family ~vo single family homes and a semi-developed lot W C-2 commercial Shopping Gen-ter S Industrial Niixed commercial t ZONING REQUIREMENTS For the council toissue this special use permit, all of the .conditions ~ ,must be substantially satisfied. "It,is the responsibility of the applicant to prove that the conditions and standards are satisfied. Tf the application is denied, it becomes the responsibility of the city to establish that.the conditions " were not satisfied. . Section 3.33, subdivision 2 of-the zoning ordinance requires a special use permit to`opera e a car sales lot iri the industrial zoning district. The conditions - which must be met fora special use permit are that the "establishment, operation and maintenance-will not be detrimental to the health,: safety,., mora s, comfort, conveniences or welfare of persons residing or working in the "neighborhood of such use, or detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or im- provements in the neighborhood . " ` ~ The zoning ordinance has also established standards which must be met . before issuance of a special use permit for a car sales lot.. The applicable ' standards are::.. i 1. The use will not abut a lot which is in an "R" zoning district 2. The use will not create undue traffic hazards or congestion 3. No driveway will be permitted within 40 feet of the intersection 4. No driveway wi1L be flared. to encroach> on the boulevard of adja- cent ,property 5. Only two pedestal signs may be erected. on the street frontage 6. All exterior lighting vaill not create a nuisance to adjacent properties 7. An-unobstructed area on the site to and within 50 feet of the inter- section will be maintained free of vehicles, signs (other -than. the " allowed signs) and displays " The comprehensive plan calls for mixed land use of medium to high .density in this ' area. This includes a combination of office, industrial, light and research oriented; retail commercial -and multi-family dwellings.. - STAFF REVIEW AND FINDINGS ~ Staff review of the request for a especial use permit includes the .following • .findings:. 1. Parking spaces for six employees and four`custamers will be provided; the remaining 35` parking spaces will be-used for car sales: (£xhibit C) > Council Letter-No. 343 -3= November 8, 1976 2. There is presently asix-foot high redwood fence along part of the: rear property line. The- fence provides appropriate screening to the, residential area to the west from the. lower: level:.. The. fence is in need of staining. and repair. (Exhibit C). 3. -The applicant has complied with all building setback requirements. 4. The use does conform: to the adopted comprehensive plan. 5. The site presently has three curb cuts. on Penn Avenue . The applicant proposes to. close the north curb':cut, and use the other two as an entrance only and exit only. These curb cuts;are 20 feet wide and -will remain unchanged. With these changes, the distance - from. the 65th and Penn Avenue intersection,will conform with the city ordinance regulating driveways.. Because the location of the building and the' required 40 feet driveway setback makes .it impossible ' to provide a curb cut on 65th Street; two curb cuts are naoessary on Penn Avenue. Penn Avenue has had a high accident record. In fact, Penn Avenue between the Crosstown and -66th Street has an accident rate which is double the average of other four lane county roads. in :Hennepin County . . Both. the city -staff and the county traffic engineers are of .the opinion that curb. cuts are the major contributing factor to this high -accident record. The Hennepin Gounty Publc.Works Department will review this applicant's proposal and issue any permits, if necessary, since' Penn Avenue is a county road. . 6. An unpbstructed area within 50"feet of the intersection of 65th Street: and Penn A~~~:nue is proposed to be landscaped. -One.- pedestrian -sign will be constructed on this corner.. This location is an inter- ' • section visibility area . 7. The applicant proposes to erect. a "billboard" type .sign along the rear of the property at a height to be visible from the street. This .sign .will conform'to the cty.sign ordinance, which allows a. height of 27'feet and a length of 65 feet. 8. ~ Landscaping will be provided in accordance with city policy. i STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the staff tliat the applicant's proposal fully complies with the 'stand'ards relating to ear sales lots and that the;iss'uance of a spe cial use permit forte car sales lot would not, under the circumstances of the particular: case, be detrimental to the health, safety, `morals,. comfort, conveniences or welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood 6f such use or to Council Letter No, 343 `-4- ~ November 8, i~76 the public welfare or injurious to property or .improvements.: For these reasons,. it is the planning director's recommendation that the city council approve the special use permit with the following stipulations: ' 1. The .backside of the. proposed `"billboard" ,type sign shall be finished in saach a way that the structural parts of the sign do not show 2. > The ex Ling fence abutting the adjacent residential properties shall be repaired, restarted, and maintained in, such condition. PLANNING COMMISSION: RECOMMENDATION The planning commission reviewed-this request for a special.use permit at its regular meeting of;October 26, 1976, The planning comm'ission's dis- cussion of this request included the condition of-the fence, the "billboard.:" type-sign,. the anticipated traffic generation of a car sales lof, and whether the applicant would be seeking a zoning change for' the adjacent lot to the rear fronting on Oliver Avenue. It is the finding of the, planning commission that -.the conditions for issuing a special use permit and all the standards relating to a car `sales of have been complied with and it is the recommendation of he planning commission that the special use permit be approved with the-following two stipulations. 1. The backside of the, proposed "billboard"aype sign 'shall be ~1 -, ~ o ~~ i _ J"~, 0 0 a ~o I` L.__._._ ._ -..: J BsZB 7.~y ~ ~ 1 ~ s 16 t 8_ ~~~ 31 LJ . 15 10 [J so ._~ ~ ~ I I _ ~' 1, 12 7 J~ ~~ a r~ 6 4 0 0 I ~. ~p . ,. ~~ ~-=-{` b,~~ 2s z ' ` 1 22 1 ~.-, 2 s ~ ~ .. { ... ~ 6x20 r- _~ . ' --_ 3c ~ ~ y I ~ ~4J ~` . ~~-, I--, a I..it~pu>r` stc~-' ~. 6441 z S~--T-op-~24-p - -- i-.. 3 1 K~2o ~~ ~~ ~ .; p 2401 ~ ~~ ' -3 ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ G `* , .'~ Z _ 1 rte. 33- 35 t.,, ~+ 0 `~~ 39 - >,. -~ , ~ ~ ~ ..__.; ` ~`a ~ .6 ~~ i_. J ---- , zr I ~F+~:E --+-- ---t•T ~JN ~~ ~ ~ __ ~ ._;., c~ l .-- -._ _ _ _ _.. _ _. 33~~ 5 .~ u445 ~ .} _._.._ g ~- Si t~gle. I 5'~A~ioh ~i4mi~~ ~`.xh~4~rt ~ z 20 1 ~~ . 19 '" ~ '_ ~~ 18 oi. _: 3 21 ~6 : ~ 5 ~,.~ . ~,. , ~.. ~ y/ 1 I. i ~ a ~~; ~~ 1 1 3 ~ 8 ~~ ° 39 ...1.2. 1 ~ ~- . ~ ~3H 4~ I . ~ ~~'' I I ~J f Q D 6"~ _ - 2t~ I I cs` 11 ---_-J- i f 9 -....._.._ 18 2 .._ _. _ 3 ~ i_i°a _.. r n ~ . ` ;i~; LuJ _.. - `~ ------ 17 f.... _ _ ~4 . _. 4 Li ._._ N ~ __._f..~.t ~ __ _{f. ~ an0 L .. --__.._ . _. ~ - - r I29 l ~ ~ . 4 ~ ~ ~26 ~ 1=5J i 13~F3 . ``I34 tJ 39n LJ r-- IZ ~ ~ { ~ - _ -_ r ~ 3H t_. ~ °~ 1 1 t ~i0 t~~a l.~ W Q ~` ~I ~~ ~~ 4 i - --- ._.._ -, 65 5 . ~ 6500 ! ~C `- 'r~l 18 ~ Iw r•v~ 6(~I IE 1 ~,c ~. r~: ti, ~ 3 6 532 - S~~ ~, ~ z Ce c P 2308 - I6 ADS St1BD. of fit! 1/2 of ~~e~c.~ ~,~~a~~~ .. - - - i __ __ _: ~~ ~, ~ 16 3 ~ ui ~ G ~i r~le , l.v i- ~ _.I ~ .. _i 5 j.~ ---- ~-- - ~ . _ . ~ ~j ~ ~ ,. 1•N 151._JI ~ - - ---~~a i5l 1__-__ (~ - I_~~~3 - --- - -- --~I __ ~ _~~--_---~~_ Y,. ~~ ~ z'~ ~3 6 ^.. _. I ~ 7 ~~r_ ~ - ~5 11~" f0.. 9 ~ I _._.___~:.J .. ~ .---a------_..-.-~ ~-----~-_=.--~ _ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ - . _ ~ . _ I TM t f0~ ~` St: [rSy l _ w: . , ~ ~ -- ~ ~ t } ~ ._ _, .~;^„~ 6. ~ r~ ill.` ~ ~ i„+ > ~~4^~ i6 <1 ~ r (~ ~ i ! , y _ 1 !1 _ i ~ , r , v r ~ .. ) .. t4 ~. ~ t1 i ~ 4920 : ~ 4, ~ ti^ .o 'nth '~~ ~ .! ~ ` - o~ a, ~ _._ ~ -~ _. +p _.--. .~, ~ yp~~ ~ , } x ~ ~ i ~ _ .,: ._ .... . ... r' ~. - .. ..; r _ ( 2ov F. ~4 ~ ~' I,r d` si ~, 3s .~y1 le~ "7~ f 3,. , C ~ E. S~M T C. ^i .,1'_ c > Z.:.I ..'f'it ~:t M c r j ~~ 7 Y' ` '• "F i y '~ t ~ ~ ti~ i 5 ••_ 1 4 a _ t t~ ~ e ~'y ~y t ~. E ' IWC.~P~ ~ I ,' P '~ 7 i~ a i t Y•s .d ~~ ~a t {~ . y'.."c .~,{<y, ap~`.(.. iP'.."RI t y; ' ~ 7''SS .~. 'r _ c ; ` ..... .._ ~ ' P r ~`,q_ ti ~ ~ a. ¢Z 21r t , rte _ N it tj~ ~. _tr~~l;~; 4~ '~^ -, 5'..~~, -r~w-~y K~.vti .y) l .. , i 3 .. , + .c, ! ; • ~ _~ .:z ~ i 6 .; , t is __„ .. - . . ., 5 sfi ~ ~ .~ ~, ~ ~, ~, a .. ~ _ _ _. .. ~. • . i. F,C _ ' .d r=G X' ~rf ' M' ~.~. ..... zp ~ ~.,,r~ . ' 4 ~ w yy,: w } ' ~ ~ w _ _ srG t '~ 4 r i ~ ~~ ~~ h~ .,~:~ ~ JI ' .... ~ r. . F ~ .. _.. e ``~ .L.. .n! Yi Y • ~~ 1 ~ ~ ' •.tl ..:~ `t ~ _. .. ... . . ' ... '.lkl .-fit .~. ~ « ._ r . ~., ~ ~ ~, _ _ _.. ,._ _ ... _ v ~ y ~4YV~.1v1' - GENER~-L COMMERCl~L GENERAL INC~USTR!/~L i .. i MULTI~'LE RESIDENCE ~.IMlTED QUStNESS ~' Wit; ~ -----._._ ,., , Z' S~ >3i-9L ~/ /~ ` f, _b M ~ , ~ ~% 6c ~ ~ n ~ . ~ _ ~ ~ r ~ ~ "~' ~ z ~ ~~,~ H ~ ~~ ~, A ~. d __ Z€ j~ ~ L fir' r + Q C~ L ~ ~~ ~ m n cll m £ ~ p ; n i __ t`- ~ - S L ~ ~~ N i "a - ; ~4 ~~~- - + ~~'~ s • ,: of - -fr ~~ ~ ~ - w_ ~+. ~ D4lVETO tdx%EQ L~,'F1 t0`DNr ._ / iY'' H Z i ~ -y- _- 24 ~L D ., ----- ._.:. __ h ~ ~ j Subd, 3. Regulations P,clating to fasoline Servicn.Stations, public Garages and. Car gales Lots, A special use permit for a gasoline service station,~s public garage or a car sales lot shall not be granted unless the council finds that the proposed use will be in substantial compliance with the fo1lo~•~ing standards: (a) The use site will not abut a lot which is in an "R" district. por the purposes of this paragraph, a lot ~~rhich merely adjoins-the use site at one corner ~•rill not be deemed to abut the site. (b) The use wi1L not create undue traffic hazards or traffic congestion by reason of the turning movements yahch vehicles trould make in entering or leaving the site. (c) PIo drive~•ray, at the point it crosses the property line of the site will be toithin 40 feet of an intersection. An "intersection" as used in this paragraph means the point of intersection of the extended ,curb lines if the curbs on the near side of the site,, and measurement shal be along such extended curb lines. (d) The station or garage wi21 not display any banners, noisy ribbons - or similar attention-distracting or visibility-obscuring devices.in the - area in front of building setback lines. (e) The minimum frontage on any street will be 1"20 feet and the minimum area of the site will be 12,0.00 square feet for a station with Lour pumps or less; and stations with more pumps will-have sufficient additional frontage area to provide equivalent and sufficient space for servicing " vehicles, for off-street. parking, for safe vehicular approaches into the' station, and far good visibility for pedestrians 'and drivers. (f) No driveway will be flared outward on the boulevard in such a • way as to encroach upon the boulevard of adjacent property. . (g) The station or garage will comply with the off-street parking, sign construction and other regulations of the city. (h )- Any required buffer or screening area will be so constructed as to obstruct headlight beams of automobiles on the station property from beaming onto adjacent residential property. • (i) Pump islands will not be so close to street or adjacent property lines as to create .the .likelihood of encroachment by vehicles upon street right-of-way, sidewalk areas or adjacent property. (j) Only one permanent detached ground display sign, pddestal type may be erected on the street frontage at or near the prcperty line adjacent to the street, except that if the frontage o~ Ghe.~sbJee~.:is in.e~cess-of 150 feet, two such signs may be allowed by the council on such frontage, subject to any other applicable sign regulation. (~~~ AlI exterior lighting will be so designed, placed and operated as not to be a nuisance :o adjacent properties. (1) If the station or garage is to be located in a shopping center or other integrated development, it will be in architectural harmony with the rest of the center or development. . (m) The station or garage will not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment, hydraulic lifts or service pits, or the outdoor display of merchandise; but the outside underground storage of gasoline and other petroleum products between pumps, or the temporary display of merchandise within 4 feet of the station building is permitted. • (n) If the station or garage is not to be located on a county road or state highway, it shall not be operated between the hours of 11;00 p,m. " and 6:00 a.m, of the following day. (o) If the site is at an intersection, provision will be made for an unobstructed area on the site, adjacent to and within 50 feet of the inter- section, free of vehicles, signs (other than a pedestal sign), displays or otherma,terials which end to obstruct intersection visibility. i ._ ~ 2 C1TY OF RICIIFIELD, MINNESOTA _., Office of .City Manager . `Council Letter No 342 Agenda November 8, 1976 .. -The Honorable Mayor ~: and '1Vlembers of the City Council ~ City of Richfield Gentlemen.. Subject: Hearing on, Special Use .Permit for jimmy's Lemon Tree Restauran ,Inc. At the. October..12, 1976 city council meeting;-the city council held a -hearing on a request for ;a special use permit for ~immy's Lemon Tree Restaur- ~ ` . ant, Inc. at 818 West 77 1/2 Street: Mr. Ben Katzman and Mr. Sam Swartz owners; and' Mr. James Assimes, lea see, requested the issuance of a specia k ~ use permii for a restaurant with "on-sale" liquor, ~, During the course of the hearing considerable testimony was presented relating to the potential impact om traffic in` the area which would .occur if the special use permit were granted. Specifically, the concerns-.were directed at insufficient off-street parking and- increased traffic on streets leading to the restaurant. Concern was also expressed over the potentially adverse impact on residential ipropertyvalues in the neighborhood which>some individuals ex=- pected to occur with the granting of a special use permit. 'The city council discussed. the need for additional studies; in these'. subject ?areas and directed the.,. city manager and city attorney to consider. this matter and ~ make a report at the November 8, 1.976 city council meeting..- .The .hearing wa fihen continued to the November 8, 1976 meeting with the understanding that if -the city council aufihorized thee-.preparation of additional studies the hearing, would have. to be continued again to a future council meeting to allow for prepay- ~ afiiori of studies. i The city attorney and I have: reviewed this matfier and it is our recommendation. that :'the, city council authorize the city manager to retain a traffic engineer to _ conduct firaffic studies relating; to additional traffic in the area: and to examine the need 'for o~f-street parking.. It is further recommended that the city Eouncil authorize the. ci y manager to retain an appraiser to develop information on whether the granting. of the `special use permit and the issuance of a subsequent Council Letter No. 342 =2- November 8, '1976 T ~~ liquor license could be'expected to adversely affect property values in, the area. Inasmuch as the results of these studies would be `submitted to tYie ~' city council as expert testimony obtained by the city, it'would be necessary for the cost to: be paid by' the-city. ; Tf the applicant chase to. also submit additional informa ion on behalf of his application, he should. do so at his `own expense, `. Therefore, it is recommended that the city council take the following actions 1. Authorize the city manager to retain a traffic engineer and an appraiser to conducfi the studies referred to in`tha.s council Vetter. 2. Appropriate a maximum of $:1500 from the general fund contingency to cover the cost of these studies. - 3. Continue the hearing on this special use permit application to December 13, .1.97.6 to provide for completion of the studies. Respectifully; subm` d, yj~{~ G~~~" "" Wayne S. Burggraaff • City Manager. WSB/eja cc: ' City Attorney ~ ~i Planning .Director City Clerk j• j ~- ~ ~'~