09-22-80 agendat
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 353
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Application for Raffle License (Fee Waived)
An application for a raffle license has been submitted by the
Parents Advisory Board, West Middle School Isabella Fund, for re-
view by the staff in conformance with ordinance requirements. The
applicants have requested that the license fee and fidelity bond be
waived since the activity for which licensure is requested is for
nonprofit purposes. The ordinance enables the city council to waive
the license fee and fidelity bond for such purposes.
City ordinance prohibits the sale of raffle tickets in resi-
dential areas except with prior approval of the city council. The
applicant has requested that the city council permit the sale of
raffle tickets for this fund raising activity in residential districts.
This item is placed on the city council agenda of September 22,
1980 as a special agenda item because the activity for which licen-
sure is sought is for the month of October, 1980, and is to commence
before the next regularly scheduled city council meeting.
It is recommended that the city council approve the request for
sale of raffle tickets in a residential area and also approve the
applicant's request for waiving of the license fee and fidelity
bond.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ 1~~
Karl Nollenberger ,
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: City Clerk
~;
~: ~,.
'_,..
-. .. . n. ! l .~
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE
TO CONDUCT GAMBLING
.. •.~-
A. GENERAL INFO/R,~MATION
1. Name of organization: ~CIiYG~'~ [~~'/-~`~?=, ~~~
2. Is the organization? (check appropriate boxes)
( ) Fraternal ( ) Veterans
(_) Religious (~ Other non-profit
3. Length of time that o ganization has existe ` C' `~ f
Richfield: ~~G!c:t~kL ~~a-~-~~~'~ ~/ ~~~ ~`~~
4. Number of active m~bers:~~~ ~.uL~~v~~~'~O ~ .~if )
~O
5. Location where reg, ar meetin~cs of organization occur:
6. Location where proposed gambling activities are to occur:
7. Is the location where the proposed gambling activities are to
occur leased by the organization?~y/~
If yes, what is the date on which the lease will expire?
8. Names, dates of birth and resident addresses of all organization
officers:
~fi%yyy~
9. Name, date of birth and resident address of designated gambling
manager:
,~ry~'
10. Length of time gambling manager has been a member in good
standing in organization:
~~~,~
11. Has any organization officer or the gambling manager been
convicted in any court of a crime? ~~~
If yes, give details:
~~
12. Type of gambling activity proposed (check appropriate box):
(_) Paddle wheel (~) Raffle
(_) Tip board (_) Bingo
13. Dates on which gambling activities will take place`s an~~e
y'~numbe r~~?o/f o~~c/./ca s~9io~ns odn each dater /~ -- ~~ _-J ,~i
14. Does the desig ~ted gambling manager serve as gambling m na J ~C'
for any other organization?
~~
-u~u~se- .Lt,~.~ li ~t~ .~iz ~ix~Cl`~
.ta'v Rlc~'.tL/•i ~ llfltt.td~ ..Qk'cl~,U
1
B. REPRESENTATIONS BY APPLICANT
The execution of this application by the applicant's agent is
intended to make the following representations:
1. That this application has been verified by a duly appointed
officer of the organization and by the designated gambling
manager.
2. That the person executing this application does so with the full
knowledge and authority of the organization for which the
license is sought, and that all information and representations
herein made are made on behalf of the organization and with its
knowledge and consent. ,
3. That if the requested license is issued, the applicant will save
the city and its agents and employees harmless against any
claims or actions and the cost of defending the same arising
out of or by reason of the granting of the license or the
conduct of any of the activities authorized by the license.
4. That the information contained in this application constitutes
a full, accurate and complete response to all questions.
5. That the applicant's representatives have been given a copy of
Richfield Ordinance Code Section 5.19, have read the same and
agree to fully comply with its provisions.
APPLICANT:
/ T- ~i tt
Its ~- /~- Acs
Sy
Its
The abov~ap~lic 'on was re19iv y the City of Richfield on
~~~
/~ 3/=sir
/~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 352
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Minutes, Tabulations and Contract, Golf
Course Fertilizer
On September 19, 1980, bids were opened for the Richfield
Rich Acres Golf Course fertilizer. The deputy city clerk, Admin-
istrative Services Director, Community Services Director and other
staff members were present. A copy of the bid minutes and tabulations
are attached for council review.
The specifications called for three different types of fertilizer,
to include greens fertilizer, fairway fertilizer and fertilizer plus
dicot. The specifications indicated that contract award may be
based on a single product, any combination, or all of the three prod-
ucts. Twnety-two sets of specifications were distributed. Two
vendors submitted proposals as noted on the minutes and tabulations.
The proposal of Howe Incorporated included "No Bid" for the greens
fertilizer and fertilizer plus dicot. Their bid on fairway fertilizer
calls for a unit price of $415.25 per ton for a total of $6,353.33.
Anticipated delivery date is February 17, 1981, and a discount would
apply if paid by June 1, 1981. With the discount, the total price for
fairway fertilizer from Howe, Inc., less any discount, would be
$6,099.20. The specifications for fairway fertilizer called for the
31% nitrogen to be .8% amoniacal nitrogen, 23.5% water soluble nitro-
gen, and 6.7% water insoluble nitrogen. Essentially, this means that
the fertilizer has slow release capabilities as well as fast release.
The slow release is especially important in that it provides a con-
tinuous growth stimulant. A fertilizer with basically fast release
will "shock" the plant into growth, creating a turf which is more
difficult to maintain and could cause problems for the golfer, and
could cause long range problems with the turf canopy. Because the
slow release specified is so important, the product proposed by
Howe, Inc., would not be considered by staff to be an equal to the
product specified. In addition, the Howe product is not of a uniform
granular nature, which could cause additional problems in that the
application would be uneven as the product leaves the machine making
the application. The Howe product also has a higher than specified
salt index, acidity or calcium carbonate factor. This means that more
water will be needed on the turf canopy to reduce or eliminate
the possibility of burning the leaf growth.
Council Letter No. 352 -2- September 22, 1980
The second proposal was submitted by O.M. Scotts, Inc. This
proposal included bids on all three products. This fairway fertilizer
product does meet specifications in that the product is capable of
slow release with some rapid release, the granules are uniform in
nature, and the acidity is within the acceptable range. The other
two products also meet specifications.
Fertilizers are typically patented by each manufacturer. The
specifications allowed for a firm to submit a proposal based on an
"equal" to the fertilizer specified. O.M. Scotts, Inc., has been
the :vendor in the past to receive the contract for fertilizer at
the golf course.
Although the regulation 18 hole course is now open for play, the
staff is diligently working to establish and maintain a playable turf
surface for golf. It is essential that the hybrid bluegrass used in
seeding and topseeding the course has the proper nutrients. A sound
program of fertilization also discourages fungal development, enables
the desired grass species to combat weeds, yields a consistent growth
pattern, and ultimately results in an aesthetically pleasing environ-
ment for golf. The fertilizer application will take place next
spring when weather and other conditions permit. O.M. Scotts, Inc.,
indicates the discount is available if the order is placed by
September 30, 1980 and a total of 500 units are ordered of one or
more of the three products included in the proposal. There is no
problem with ordering now and storing until the product(s) are used
as there is sufficient space available in the maintenance building.
It is recommended that the city council take the following
actions:
1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations
2. Authorize the mayor and city manager to execute a contract
with O.M. Scotts, Inc. for 124 units (2.8 ton) of greens
fertilizer for a discount price of $2,400.33; for 478 units
(15.3 ton) of fairway fertilizer for a discount price of
$10,103.73 and for 138 units (3.8 ton) fertilizer plus dicot
for a discount price of $5,004.42 and a total contract price
for the three products of $17,508.48.
Respectfully submitted,
j'~c ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~
~~ ~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Services Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
September 19, 1980
Fertilizer -
Rich Acres Golf Course
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Sylvia Bergh, Acting City Clerk, who announced that the
purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, sealed bids for
Fertilizer for use at Rich Acres Golf Course as advertised in the official news-
paper on September 10, and 17, 1980.
Present: Joyce L. Wilde, Administrative Services Directc
Don Fondrick, Community Services Director
Sandra Rosenow, Administrative Aide
Rod Lidenburg, Golf Course Director
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
~kl ~k2 ~k3
Greens Fertilizer Fairway Fertilizer Fertilizer Plus Dicot
Bidder Total Less Total Less Total Less
Bid Security Total Discount Total Discount- Total Discount
Howe, Inc.
B.B. 5%
$ 6,353.33 $ 6,099.20
0. M. Scotts, Inc.
B.B. 5% $2,697.00 $2,400.33 $11,352.50 $10,103.73 $5,623.50 $5,004.92
The Acting City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered
at the regular city council .meeting of September 22, 1980.
Sylvia K. Bergh Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 351
Agenda Septembe,~ 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and ~~
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield ;-~'~
~,
Council Members: ~ J
~-
Subject: Sidewalk Policy
The goal of any sidewalk policy is to provide a cohesive pedes-
trian system that interfaces with the existing bikeway system to
promote safer non-vehicular travel. The staff is recommending that
this primary goal be realized through three main objectives, listed
in order of priority:
1. completion of_ sidewalks on both sides of arterial streets
(see Exhibits A and B for a description of these streets);
2. sidewalk installations on both sides of collector streets
(see Exhibits C and D for a description of these streets);
3. installation of sidewalks on residential streets on a
selected need basis, by either local petition or council
action.
sees fit.
to align
munities.
Within these stages, a conscious
Richfield's pedestrian system with
proposed schedule as it
effort should be exerted
those of neighboring com-
The typical sidewalk proposed shall be constructed of concrete,
five feet wide, and four inches thick (six inches thick at driveway
approaches). An aggregate base would not be required, except where
unfavorable soil conditions prevail. Handicap ramps would be located
at the intersections with the streets, to provide a smooth transition
from sidewalk to street. The sidewalk would typically be located
within the boulevard, one foot from the property line.
Council Letter No. 351 -2- September 22, 1980
cations is $10.00 per linear foot. Thus, installation of sidewalks
on a typical avenue block (long block) will cost $6,000, and on a
typical street block (short block) $3,000. A number of alternatives
for financing sidewalk construction is available to the city council.
In the past, residential property has typically paid for 20% of the
cost of the sidewalk construction, while commercial property and
multiple-family has paid 50%. This policy could be retained. Alter-
argumen
which is ben
Y
Y
a 50o basis. An
t appear unfair to
streets with the costs
sons throughout the
from Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds. Special revenue
have to be used in some circumstances.
During the winter months,
the side
arterial
ght
the city currently maintains most of
increase in the amount of sidewalks to maintain. Instead of raising
property taxes to support this increased maintenance service, the best
alternative appears to be to maintain only the arterial sidewalks,
be less
tem, so
ase.
than
the
The
the
city
ks are immediately adjacent to the street and impos-
perty owner to maintain, and shift the responsibility
wal}c maintenance to the abutting property owners,
properties, since these sidewalks will have a typical
e between the streets and the sidewalks for snow
total length of the completed arterial systems will
total length of the current city-wide pedestrian sys-
will realize a reduction in maintenance costs.
Using these guidelines, a completed pedestrian system in Richfield
will provide, at a lower cost, safer increased pedestrian accesses to
commercial areas, bus routes, park areas, schools, and other attrac-
tions, within Richfield and its neighboring communities.
Re pectfully submitted,
1
,'
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
Community Services Director
s
EXHIBIT A
Arterial Streets
66th Street
76th Street
Penn Avenue
Lyndale Avenue
Nicollet Avenue
Portland Avenue
Total Length
900
17,250
7;600
14,250
1,200
300
41,500
41,500 Lin. Ft. @ $10.00/Lin.Ft. _ $415,000
Approximate Length of
Uncompleted Sidewalk
x
a
W
Q
H
a
H
W
E-~
a
w
z
O
W
H
~I ~~ / /,
/ ~l
I ~
.
n k, c
a
~Y
~ '` ~~ _
~
u.. ca
~~~~~
>.. as
w .m~~ '~i OC
~~~~, ~~ i~ ~
. a ~
,~..., ~a ~o
,,u~1~
'
lnY at1
.. ~
~ a -
~ [
S8 ~~~JL-
.
woo+a
a. w~ rr ~r~~
I
N ~~
~'~~
u. ~
,,. ~J - -
... .a„~ ~
~- • -
~,,. w.,.m.
' r
n.
.o .tea
-~,_J
~~~ ~ ~--C
~. ,~ ~,,. ~ Lii
• ~ ~ ~~ ~l
1v
.:.wi.y
r-,-~ --
~ J ~J ~ _
-,r=
~J Jj-'~
~n.•a~aa.n
.~ tea.., ~.~~.._ Y,,~~
1 ~ ~...~-':'~
~ =`~
i
3... i
.,,.
;
~]~ / ~ ~
o
M...
~....,~, ~ri_, ~ i:~~~
-
_
n~
~,~
~. a
,,, ,oro.,,M ~ ~ __
_~ ; ~ C_J C
v., ,.,. , ~~ 10~
~
~ ~~~~
,.. ~~ !C-CC
_ ~~J(~~C
~~~~.
Exhibit B
---------- - - ~ { ~';~
F
~
_
'
~ `~ ~ I/iF
:' ~
l T~
k k C k
-
U ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~'
i _
3u acs
.,
y a ~ W
~ z
l
~ _ k ~.. u
a
,~ ~----- -
I~~ a~ C~
kky k k k c ....,~
3N a'
.. wm.3s,.m
u~L- ,. -~~ __J _ ~ _ i.. ..av
n`~._. ~_ r_
~~~_I ~~~~ ~i ~~1
is v.. a.~
yy
~ JL-IL~i` ~~
~ _. 3~. ~uivr
.m
~
L_
C ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ -
~~
i
J~
J
1 ~ -
~ r_ ~ ~~
.
'
i I
I
_
-
~
~
~ ,...,.,
~
~- r ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~_i ~ L_ -- ~L5
z
~~~~ ~ s~~ C u~C= i 3..
,
1
`JL_~~! ~ ~!~ L -
~~ ice; ~~---i ; -~ - ~
~ _ ,,. sa.~ro~
~~~C10~~C-!~~C ~ ~~ ~~_ ~.....
-~r- ,
~ s ~., .
1
- i i
-,
L- J ~ ~ ~ ~
r
=~: ~
=~i- ice;' j~~i_:~.,'~__- _
~C]0,
i~~~
~~~? ,~ ~ :~, 3
JL~I ~j s gJfi,
J L~_J
W
a
J 1
O ~
ga
_ J
~ C__J i_. J C__!
,,~~,---
~_~
~~~
-,[ ~~~~
_:~n~Ju
,i ~ ~ ~'C]
-L- _
~,
y, _ ~ _ a. c..,, cn R.+
-,-,.- . ,
--~----tom- -~~ ~,. ,.a.,
~ ~ i
~ 7 ~-
. ~ i;-._ '
i ~L ~~ #a 3... s3,..
r-= , - , ~...~.,~
~,
~'C-~f--'~ - _- - ~....a.,~
~ ~~
lull ~i ~ -- ~~~~'C- ~~_
--I-~~--~_------- ~C- --~-
e
.'
r
EXHIBIT C
Collector Streets
Approximate Length of
Uncompleted Sidewalk
65th Street, Penn - Xerxes Avenue
65th Street, Nicollet - Rae Drive
67th Street, Portland - Nicollet Avenues
69th Street, Humboldt - Xerxes Avenues
70th Street, Diagonal Blvd. - Lyndale Avenue
73rd Street, 12th - Lyndale Avenues
Rae Drive, 65th - 66th Streets
Lake Shore Drive, 66th Street - Lyndale Avenue
Diagonal Blvd., 12th Avenue - Cedar Avenues
12th Avenue, 66th - 78th Streets
Bloomington Avenue, 62nd - 66th Streets
Cedar Avenue, 63rd - 77th Streets
Standish Avenue, 63rd - 66th Streets
Total Length
61,650 Lin. Ft. @ $10.00/Lin.Ft. _ $616,500
4,200
2,700
2,400
9,900
9,500
9,600
250
1,900
5,800
8,400
2,400
2,800
1,800
61,650
Exhibit D
x
a
w
q
H
O
H
U
W
a
a
O
U
0
H
W
c~
H
C!1
U ® ~ ~f
w ~ _ a, ~'
i ~\ S a S., ~ ~ `
a•, ow ~ ~- -7 E y~yO faX ; ,v oss
~~ JLL. ~ ~ O •~Y6 ~ iiii ~i
icr r.ci ~^ ~ Q p ~ Z .'~' g ay3 4 :::. ~'.~ aw .cz
,n...A..,: a~ iiilll~~~ li ~J.. ?i.g ~:`; = ii an..sa..is
~, n Q~, ' I~ F-
i-J JOB ~ ~, w x ~ ~ k
an. ,.a' I~ ~JL_JL, y _ f .r I 1i _ ~~~ ~ ~ 3., .,o~
~~C '~y4 IJ ,^u
( ~~ ~ ~ ~
t~ a r - ~, ~ ; ~ a., ..
gyn. „,~.,a ~_ ~~JCj ~ ~;~-~~-- ;; _ ,n..~,w~. ~
F J
~.a~ r=== ~ _ 1 C~
~. a,a~,.., ~ ~ !~' ~ ', \,l~ ; ~J~1 ~r~~ 1-~ _ L ~ / i.. 0,3,,.E W
1 ~ ~ k~py \ w \~ \~ ~- I II ~~ JL_
~- !L tr 7r- ~:
1v •wwr3 ~~~ i ~i j ~ J ] ~" ~ i ~ ,n.•.nautl
3 r- ~ ~-. ~ 3n..,o~.a.,
as --~ ~~_ ~ -
in. sa,v i ~JJ ~_~~ ~1 =Ii ,, -1i ~~_ J ., _ __ 1 ~/ ,... ar.,u~
an...m, -tl~~C ~~C;$~C;~JL-ACC ~ ;~ _.~ ,....,.
- ~l-.;LJ` i .
~an..a, x C_ -.~'-~ODC~C~~_~~~~ ~L- - i _-iL_- i ~ 3...3.,E
,....~,,. _ ~I~is ~~~~~, ~ 1~~ -,~i:~~ a.. ,_,..~.
~~~
--
, i~
N ~,~..
------------ ---- I ,
---------------'i---• ~ -
~ T E ~ L i : i w i i i i r
i H 1 . i R ±'. c 7 ~ - E
- € €
x
rl
3
.,~
0
O
a
i
1
R
_ ~
w __ _~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 350
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor 1 ~ 13 a ctcL ~u~~9
and
Members of the City Council ~.~ C,~.,~y.~ ~~ P2~U=~S
City of Richfield
~~ M\lLl \7e~ 1rnf1`..~~L rn\.'r~\1'~.
Council Members:
Subject: Hearing on Special Assessments for City Project 705
The public hearing on the special assessment for city project
705 has been scheduled for the September 22, 1980 city council meeting.
CP705 is the public improvement part of the L/H/N redevelopment
project. Although an absolute necessity to the L/H/N redevelopment,
the public improvements are supportive and not the primary economic
stimulus for revitalization of the L/H/N commercial area. Develop-
ment of private land in the L/H/N with projects such as K-Mart is the
most important stimulus for revitalization.
The five supportive elements of CP705 are:
1. Increase the traffic capacity and traffic safety of the
redevelopment area streets;
2. Develop a shopping theme which like theme shopping centers
creates customer identity and ties the shopping area
together;
3. Provide improved pedestrian access, circulation, and safety;
4. Increase the amount of usable land available for redevel-
opment purposes;
5. Protect the surrounding residential areas from traffic and
conflicting land use.
In other words, the traffic capacity of the streets has been in-
creased by widening and intersection improvements. Curb cuts are
being closed, and medians are being constructed to reduce congestion
and improve safety. The pedestrian system is being improved with
wide sidewalks and plazas. This pedestrian system separates vehicles
and pedestrians.
A shopping center theme is being created by landscaping, special
pavement at intersections and in crosswalks, constructing entrance
features and undergrounding utilities.
~ Council Letter No. 350 -2-
September 22, 1980
Adding productive redevelopment land is accomplished by vacating
unnecessary streets, relocating 65th Street to increase the effective
use of land and separating residential and commercial streets. Special
efforts have been made to limit thru traffic into the residential
areas including cul-de-sacing streets, and reducing easy access to
residential areas from the commercial area.
CP705 was divided into three phases:
Phase I (CP7050) - First Avenue from 65th Street to 66th Street,
Nicollet Avenue from 64th Street to just north of 67th Street, 66th
Street from First Avenue to Grand Avenue, and 65th Street from Rae
Drive to First Avenue. This phase was completed in 1979.
Phase II (CP 7052) - Lyndale Avenue from~64th Street to Lake Shore
Drive, 66th Street from Grand Avenue through the Lyndale Avenue in-
tersection. The Lyndale Avenue part of the Phase II is often re-
ferred to as the FAU Project or Federal Aid Urban Project.. This
project will be bid in 1980 and completed in 1981.
Phase III (P 7053) - 66th Street from just west of Lyndale Avenue
to Interstate 35W and a small portion of Lake Shore Drive just
south of 66th Street. This project will be bid and constructed in
1981.
The
of CP 705 is $9,280..818, which includes the $1.4 million cost of
capitalized interest on bonds sold to finance the project. Of this
total amount, Hennepin County will contribute approximately $1.5
mately another $1.5 million. A bond issue sol
on September 8, 1980 will provide the revenues
the remaining project cost. The debt service
bond issue are to be met by revenues received
meet other debt obligations. The entire CP
self-supporting, through these two revenue
is not necessary
705 project is to
sources.
because of delays
ecial assessments.
The $1.5 million
in project con-
This repre-
n
There are 105 parcels in the L/H/N project area which will be
affected by the CP 705 special assessments. Each property owner
~ Council Letter No. 350 -3- September 22, 1980
has been notified of the specific total of the proposed assess-
ment for their property, and of the public hearing scheduled be-
fore the city council on September 22, 1980.
The term of the proposed assessment is 20 years. The city
council preliminarily established an 8% interest rate on the unpaid
balance of the special assessments each year. In accordance with
council action on September 8, 1980, all affected property owners
have been notified that the interest rate on the assessment will
be 9%, rather than 8%. A previous city council commitment to prop-
erty owners in the area provided that the special assessments-would
be spread over the life of the assessment so that the principal and
interest payments each year would be approximately equal.. The
proposed assessment roll has been established on that basis.
A property owner has several financing .alternatives in meeting
the assessment obligation:
1. Prepayment in full, no financing costs:
Under state law, a property owner may prepay his/her
special assessment, without interest, if paid in full
within. 30 days after the city council adopts the assess-
ment roll.
2. Partial pre-payment, reduction of interest payable:
In the year of adoption, partial prepayment of an
assessment in any amount not less than $100 is allowed
if the original and principal amount of the assess-
ment is $300 or more and such partial prepayment is
made within 30 days after adoption of the assessment
roll. Such partial prepayment made will bear no inter-
est. The unpaid balance will be respread over the life
of the adopted roll.
3. Certification:
The adopted assessment will be certified to Hennepin
County and spread out in equal annual installments wit
interest calculated at 9% per year. The principal and
interest payment due each year will be shown on the
property tax statement. For this project, the annual
principal and interest payment over the 20 years is
about equal each year.
4. Prepayment in full of any unpaid balance, cancellation
of future interest:
Such payment will cancel future interest installments
from appearing on future tax statements.
~ Council Letter No. 350 -4-
September 22, 1980
The city engineer will
public hearing to describe
It is recommended that the
affected property owners su
tion, and respond to quest'
public hearing, it is reco
attached resolution, adopt'
KN/eja
be present at the September 22, 1980
the CP 705 public improvement project.
city council receive testimony from
bsequent to the city engineer's presenta-
ions at that time. At the close of the
mmended that the city council adopt the
ing the CP 705 special assessment roll.
Res ectfully submitted,
~ J `~ G LXR~~~a~l,~~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
Administrative Services Director
Finance Coordinator
City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON
CITY PROJECT NO. 705
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Hennepin County, Minnesota as follows:
1. That the city clerk has, with the assistance of the city
engineer, calculated the proper amounts to be assessed for the L/H/N
Public Improvement Project, City Project 705, against every assess-
abel lot, piece, or parcel of land specially benefited thereby in
accordance with the provisions of law, and the proposed assessment
so made up was filed with the city clerk for more than 15 days prior
to the assessment hearing and was open to public inspection during
said period.
2. That notice has been duly publishecY~and a public hearing
heretofore duly held as required by law so that this council could
meet and pass upon the proposed assessment.
3. That an opportunity has been given to all interested per-
sons to present their objections, if any, to such proposed assess-
ment or to any item thereof at said public public hearing.
4. That the city council has heretofore duly established City
Project No. 705 and after carefully considering all the facts, the
benefits to each lot, piece or parcel of land and fully advising it-
self in the premises, has found and determined and hereby declares
that each and every lot, piece, or parcel of land included in said
proposed assessment roll was improved by reason of the construction
of said City Project No. 705 and has been and is specially benefited
in the amount set out in said proposed assessment roll opposite each
such lot, piece or parcel of land.
5. The proposed total assessment in the amount of $1,900,142.32
is hereby affirmed, adopted and confirmed and the sums fixed and (~
named in said proposed assessment are affirmed, adopted and confirmed
as the proper special assessment for each of said lots, pieces, or +-
parcels of land respective lots, pieces, or parcels of land therein ~~;
described. ~ ry
6. Said assessment is hereby affirmed, adopted, confirmed and g~~ c~g~
shall be certified by the city clerk and filed in the office of the a °.~
city clerk, and shall thereupon be and constitute the special assess ~~~°
ment for said City Project No. 705, L/H/N Public Improvement Project. ,~
~~~
7. The assessment with accruing interest, shall be a lien upon
the property included therein, concurrent with general taxes, and
shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period
of 20 years. The first installment shall be payable on the first
Monday in January of 1981. All assessments shall bear interest at
the rate of nine (9) percent per annum.
All assessments and interest thereon shall be collected and
paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes.
Passed by the city council of the City of Richfield this
22nd day of September, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh Deputy City Clerk
y/~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 349
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
the sale of three properties adjacent to the Crosstown Highway.
The parcels are located at 6204 Morgan Avenue, 6209 12th Avenue
and 6204 Vincent Avenue (see attached maps). When bids for these
properties were requested, the county discovered that the City of
Richfield owned them. The city had purchased the lots in the
edL 1~/ 1 70 V 5 L.V ~JCL1Ll 1.L 1.11C 111.7 LC11.L Gi l-1 V11 VL wa~..cL uuu ocw c.i i.i++~-.~ .
To complete the sales process, the county offered to repurchase
the property from the city.. This request_grompted the city to
reevaluate the future of this land. Alternatives examined in-
cluded:
1. Rezoning the land for commercial development. This
was unlikely because it would be an incompatible use
in a residential area;
2. Using the parcels as open space for parks. The lots
are too small to be versatile enough for such a pur-
pose;
3. Allowing single family homes to be built. The lots
irregular shape and size do not meet requirements,
without variances, for construction.. Utility ease-
ments also prevented utilization of the lots for
housing;
4. Negotiating sale of the parcels to adjacent property
owners, and
5. Returning the parcels to the county.
On February 13, 1978, the city council considered the county's
request to repurchase this property, and referred the request to
the planning commission for review and recommendation. On Febru-
ary 21, 1978 and again on March 28, 1978, the planning commission
Subject: Recommendation Regarding Disposition of
City Owned Property, The "Crosstown Lots"
Council Letter No. 349 -2- September 22, 1980
maintained, as vacant land, to serve as a buffer between the
residential area and the Crosstown Highway. The commission felt
that the vacant parcels served a public purpose when considering
factors such as noise control, house spacing, public health, vis-
ual aesthetics, and some future undesignated public use. They
specifically mentioned that the lots on Morgan and Vincent Ave-
nues are attractively landscaped and should remain that way, and
that houses should not be squeezed in between the existing houses
and the road. Thus, it was recommended that the parcels not be
returned to the county.
On April 10, 1978 the city council authorized the staff to
explore the negotiated sale of these parcels to the adjacent prop-
erty owners. This city action was taken after the county stopped
maintaining the parcels as part of their routine crosstown highway
right-of-way maintenance program.
The bids received were as follows:
Area If Build- If consid. Bids
Sq.Ft' able Unbuildable Received
6209 12th 7,018 $9,500 $2,100 $ 100
6204 Morgan 6,761 9,100 2,000 1,005
6204 Vincent 7,088 9,600 2,100 None
The two bids received were from property owners adjacent to the
two parcels. Dennis A. Tharaldson, 6215 12th Avenue, bid $100 for
the parcel at 6209 12th Avenue.. Dean Willey, 6210 Morgan Avenue
bid $1,005 for the parcel at 6204 Morgan Avenue. No bid was re-.
ceived for the property on Vincent Avenue.
for housing uses. This evaluation was undertaken because of the
very limited availability of housing sites in Richfield. Lot
size, easement locations, neighborhood suitability and deed restrict-
ions have been reviewed for each of these parcels. The parcel at
6209 12th Avenue has a deed restriction that prevents construction
given the existing parcel dimensions. The opinion of our legal
counsel is that these restrictions would be very difficult to re-
move. The parcel could be sold subject to restrictions that
maintain the utility easements.
It would be necessary to relocate the watermains at an estimated
cost of $5,000 per parcel. This cost could be borne by the city
or a developer. Because the property is subject to high traffic
noise, techniques to reduce it on the home's interior would have
to be used. The new homes would be valued at approximately
$75,000. The homestead tax revenue to the city could approxi-
mate $1,500 yearly.
Prior to returning to the council for action, the HRA staff
Council Letter No. 349 -3-
September 22, 1980
ne more appropriate to provide that their suture use be for open
space. Because of the lot size and proximity to high noise levels,
the homes would probably not be similar to the existing adjoining
homes. The amount of yard space remaining after construction of
a house on the lot would be limited and not supportive of long-
term occupancy. By selling to the adjoining property owners, the
lots will remain essentially as open space. One bidder, for ex-
ample, would like to plant additional landscaping and locate a
fence on the lot. With sale of these properties, the city would
no longer have the burden of maintenance costs, and would receive
a small amount of additional tax revenue.
at 6209 12th Avenue and
that they be kept essent-
It is also recommended that the staff be directed to continue
seeking a buyer for the property at 6204 Vincent Avenue.
Respectfully submitted,
/j J~ D
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ej a
cc: Community Development Director
CO. RD. No. 62 (Crosstown H~r~y.)
N
Scale= ~"= 40' Roan .
~~. ~ E
~ N
' I a' N
I ~ ~ _
d
~j Lot 2 BI. ! I -
~ o~--• -- - 7018 sq. tt.- - -' - - ~
~ _
r~I 18 ~ wofer line easemenfi _
N I ~ 20' sanitary sever easement.
_ I
6215 ~ I 62'4
I
6221
(~:
Q
~_
rn
GAG? 1Lt~ ~V~. S.
N
$C012~ ~ n- GQ~
LU
Q
z
0
w
z
CO. RD. No. 62
(Crossto~;;n H~;~y.)
~pC~
~ar~;ICO
-i
~~ ~
t'
t
G
r~
Lot 2 B1.2
~
~~ 6761 Sq. ft.
_" ~
r -- ~ -
15' ~aaterrlain easement
s~~l
6~i5
Vi nit I~IL~~ ~Cr~i~ r~\~~L. ~.
s2~~
6~,4
U
Q
L
c_
c
F ,
C
CO. RD. No. 62
(Crosstc~~~n Hwy.)
c~rvice Read
~~
Ivy a ; r..........----~""` -
~:
~c,~ 2 iii. 3 ~
7c~s Sq ~t.
1~' watermain easement ,~
z
w
~..;
z
6~0~ V1~~= `JT A`/c. S.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MIi`7NESOTA ,
Office of City Manager .
Council Letter No. 348
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Street Lighting Policy
The city installed a uniform system .of street lighting on all
residential streets during the mid-1970's, in conjunction with the
permanent street improvement program. This system provides a light
at every interval of 220 feet, (two mid-block lights) and has produced
a standard of well lit, high visibility streets in the City of Rich-
- field. There are five streets which were not included in the lighting
program which need to be addressed at this time: Penn Avenue, Nicol-
. let Avenue, Portland Avenue, 76th Street and 66th Street. The three
north-south streets (Penn, Nicollet, Portland) have one light at each
intersection. Seventy-sixth Street has no lighting other than spill-
over from the lighting system on adjacent avenues. Sixty-sixth Street
has lighting at each intersection plus the spillover from adjacent
avenues. In addition, the portion of 66th Street in the LHN ~edevel-
opment area has been upgraded t'o a high standard of visibility. The
current lighting on 66th Street provides the same standard of lighting
established in other areas of~Richfield. However, the lighting on
Portland, Nicollet, and Penn Avenues, and on 76th Street does not meet
the standard of high visibility that has been established in the rest
of the city. These streets have a high volume of vehicular traffic,
high pedestrian use, and high density housing. The purpose of this
council letter is to propose a policy for improvement of the lighting
levels on these streets.
The details of the street lighting improvement policy are as
follows:
1. High Visibility Standard of Lighting
The city has established a standard of lighting in the past
when the permanent streets were installed. Penn Avenue,
-'~ Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue, and 76th Street do not
meet these standards. Midblock lighting should be provided
on 76th Street. This could be achieved by having NSP in-
stall 47 midblock lights on existing NSP poles, as was done
~on the other east-west streets. Since the poles are already
in place, three ,~~uuid be no installation charge for this
. ? 'ghting and therefore, the city would incur no capital cost _.
,; -- ---
The lighting for Penn, Portland & Nicollet Avenues would re=
quire 120 lights at a cost of $178,239, including installa-
tion. This cost represents the cost of installing light
' poles and standards on all of these roadways.
.. _>
tr1..,41='-~
~~.Y•.,.~e. .
.ii9~f~ ~
Council Letter No. 348 -2- September 22, 1980
~ 2. Initiation of Project
The city council can initiate a street lighting program
through one of two methods. Alighting improvement project
may be initiated by a petition signed by the owners of af-
fected property totaling 35 percent or more of the total
assessable footage. Upon receipt of such a petition, the
council may order an investigation of a project with sched-
uling of necessary procedures and hearings required by law.
A lighting improvement project may also be initiated by the
.~ council at its discretion. In the case of such council
initiation, the property owners shall be notified in ac-
cordance with normal procedures and legal requirements.
3. Assessment for Lighting Cost
It is proposed that the property owners on Penn Avenue,
.Nicollet Avenue and Portland .,Avenue be assessed for 100
percent of the cost of the street lighting. These property
owners were not assessed previously for any of the street
lighting that was installed with the permanent streets from
1972-1977. The previous lighting assessment for that project
was $2.00 per front foot (75 ft. lot assessed $150). The ,
'~~~•~ estimated assessment for the proposed project .would be $3.08
per foot, at current costs ($231 for 75 ft. lot). There
would be no assessments necessary for the 76th Street proj-
ect, since the city would incur no capital costs for light-
ing there. This method of installation of lighting for the
streets (as opposed to avenues) is as the norm from 1971 to
1978.
• 4. berating Cost Considerations
. If the city were~to light Portland Avenue, Nicollet Avenue,
Penn Avenue and 76th Street, 44 of the current NSP-owned
lights on those areas would be eliminated and replaced with
120 city owned lights, with an•additional 47 NSP-owned lights
to be installed as well. This net increase of 123 lights
would increase the operating budget of the city by $5,035.20
a year for increased maintenance and energy charges. How-
ever, updating of these major arterial streets to the estab-
lished lighting standard is necessary to provide the same
level of service to all Richfield residents. The city has
initiated a test of low pressure sodium lighting to evaluate
the energy savings and the public reaction to this type of
lighting. The results of this evaluation should govern any
decision regarding the choice of a bulb for new lighting in
- such a project, and any other lighting policy in the future.
The city staff will be present at the September 22, city council
meeting to discuss this matter in greater depth. If the council
• desires to proceed further, a resolution detailing the policy should
' f ._
~, ~
,~~..~~~~.2~ .,1 y , 7 ~ V i
S N .- '. .. --. S
~~ . ~:..~ :~.,.~~..~. '-"x,;.,~4ragtaR~~~.i.a.~-.. ',~, ~ cN.:Yt.?~n..~'a~fibc..u..:ier`vaiiss.~ ~..X.c~•~=.~.~.:s~s..~.z _~-w~.. ...a_...K.,r_....~,,, ._._.
Council Letter No. 348 -3- September 22, 1980
be drafted for future adoption by the council. Subsequent to that
time, a public hearing would be in order on this matter.
. Respectfully submitted,
. ~~4~
arl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
_ cc: Community Development Director
City Engineer
Community Services Director
;; ~ ,; ,,.
i
{..~: ~ ..
~ ~'
•i f Y a* Y
~~': j ate/ ~~~vy r . , ~y - p _ ~ ~ .
r~H~.~2'~^~•.+S~.t~Yi±v~$~aC+L~ fib`: _3~"1H-NY`+rrA~at-: •, ... c ~.,.... w
/(v /~'
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 347
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Proposed Industrial. Revenue Bond Issue
Canteen Company of Minnesota
At the September 8, 1980 city council meeting, the city
council approved an off-street parking contract for the Canteen
Company of Minnesota located at 6300 Penn Avenue. The Canteen
Company is desiring to expand their facility by approximately
20 percent.
Attorneys for the Canteen Company recently approached the
city regarding the possibility of issuing an Industrial Revenue
Bond for the expansion. They are anticipating the bond issue
being in the neighborhood of $275,000. This request establishes
a new area of utilization of Industrial Revenue bond capacity
by the City of Richfield. In the past we have utilized IDR
bonds to provide incentives for development in the L/H/N rede-
velopment area and additionally to encourage development of the
site immediately south of 76th Street adjacent to I35. We
justified the Corporate Travel project on the basis that the site
was a very difficult site to develop, due to the topography and
access. The Canteen Corporation property is industrial property
already zoned within the community with no particular difficulties
for development of it. At the same time, the size of the bond
issue is extremely small in terms of the Industrial Revenue Bond-
ing laws.
The resolution enclosed with this council letter would set
a public hearing on October 13, 1980 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rich-
field City Hall Council Chambers. At that time the developer
would present the justification for the project to the city
council and request approval of the resolution authorizing pre-
liminary approval. In the interim, the city staff will be pre-
paring a policy statement for the city council to consider on
the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. While it
is most likely impossible to consider all types of IDR issues
which might come before the council, it would appear desirable
to have a better handle on the process and policy implications of
this subject matter.
Council Letter No. 347 -2- September 22, 1980
It is recommended that the city council adopt a resolution
setting the date of hearing on October 13, 1980 at 7:00 p.m. at
which time more information will be presented for council action.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ej a
cc: Community Development Director
Administrative Services Director
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUAPICE OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, b4INNESOTA, TO
FIPIANCE A PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY
SIX FOLD REAL ESTATE COMPANY
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(the "City") is an incorporated municipality authorized and
empowered by the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal
Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes,
as amended (the "Act"), to issue its revenue bonds to finance
the cost of the acquisition, construction and improvement of
,:any properties, real o~personal, used or useful in connection
~~with a revenue-produci enterprise engaged in-assembling,
fabricating, manufacturing, mixing, processing, storing,
warehousing or distributing any products of agriculture,
forestry, mining or manufacture; and
WHEREAS, the City has been approached with a proposal
to issue its industrial development revenue bonds (which may
be in the form of a single debt instrument or may be in one
or more series or in part in the form of a note or notes and
in part in the form of bonds) pursuant to the provisions of
the Act as then in effect to assist in financing the cost of
the construction and equipping of a facility (the "Project")
to be located in the City, and to be owned by Six Fold Real
Estate Company, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Contracting
Party"), and to be leased by the Contracting Party to Canteen
Company of Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company"),
for use as a food processing facility; and
WHEREAS, the Act declares that the welfare of the State
of Minnesota requires the active promotion, attraction,
encouragement, and development of economically sound industry
and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as
possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and
areas of chronic unemployment, and the state has encouraged
local government units to prevent such economic deterioration;
and
4VI3EREAS, the Contracting Party has represented to the
City that the financing of the Project under the Act will
encourage the Contracting Party to construct .and equip the
Project; and
s
EXHIBIT "A"
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF RICHFIELD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
$275,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 1980
(CANTEEN COMPANY OF DINNESOTA PROJECT)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the City of Richfield, Hennepin
County, Minnesota (the "City"), that it will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue South,
Richfield, Minnesota 55423, on October 13, 1980, at 7:00
o'clock p.m. to consider a proposal of Six Fold Real Estate
Company, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Contracting
Party"), that the City assist in financing the hereinafter
described project pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial
Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended,
by the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds of the
City.
The proposed project will consist of the construction and
equipping of a 5,000 square foot addition to the existing
facility located at 6310 Penn Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota
55423, which will be owned by the Contracting Party and leased
to Canteen Company of Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation (the
"Company") for use as a food processing facility. The estimated
total amount of the proposed bond issue is $275,000.
Said bond or bonds, if and when issued, will be payable
solely from sums to be paid by the Contracting Party pursuant
to a revenue agreement, and shall not constitute a cha~'ge,
lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City, the State
of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, nor
constitute a debt of the City, the State of Minnesota or
any political subdivision thereof, nor be a charge against
the general credit or taxing powers of the City, the State
of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, within
the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation.
All parties desiring to appear at the public hearing will
be afforded an opportunity to express their views with respect
to the proposal to undertake and finance said project.
A draft copy of the proposed Application to the Commissioner
of Securities of the State of Minnesota for approval of the
project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto,
is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of
Richfield and will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours.
Dated this 22nd day of September, 1980.
/s/ Sylvia Bergh
City Clerk
r~
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and advisable for the
promotion and development of industry and commerce in the City
that the Project be undertaken at the earliest practicable date,
and the Contracting Party has requested satisfactory assurances
from the City that the proceeds of the sale of industrial
development revenue bonds of the City in an aggregate amount
sufficient to finance the Project, currently estimated not to
exceed $275,000, will be made available; and
WHEREAS, the Act provides that no project shall be
undertaken until the Commissioner of Securities has approved
the Project, on the basis of such preliminary information as
the Commissioner may require, as tending to further the
purposes and policies of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Act provides that prior to submitting an
application to the Commissioner of Securities requesting approval
of the Project, the City Council of the City shall conduct a
public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the
Project, notice of which hearing is to be published at least
once not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to the
date fixed for said hearing, in the official newspaper and a
newspaper of general circulation of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of
the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, P4innesota, as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council shall conduct a public
hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project
on October 13, 1980 at 7:00 o'-clock p.m., at the City Hall,
and the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of
said public. hearing to be published at least once not less
than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to the date hereby
fixed for said public hearing, in the Richfield Sun, the
official City newspaper, and the P4inneapolis Tribune, a
newspaper of general circulation in the City, such notice
to be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. That all resolutions and parts thereof in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
Passed and approved September 22, 1980.
Mayor
[SEAL]
Attest:
City Clerk
~ is
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of C ity Manager
Council Letter No. 34-6
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable D4ayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointment of Commissioner to Housing
and Redevelopment Authority
Earlier this year, three appointments were made to the Hous-
.-. ~ _ __ _ , ____~ i T„ ~L.,,r ; +~, +n ~F i 1 1 nY1PXT)l YPC3 terms One of
This term w111 be ~Or a Tull iivC-ycai ~_~~« ••--~-~-- -•-~-- ----
pire in October, 1985. An item to appoint an HRA Commissioner
has been scheduled for the September 22, 1980 city council agenda
for council action.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
~~ ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 345
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Extension of "No Parking" Signs
77th Street and Stevens Avenue
At the present
the north side of 7
to Stevens Avenue.
quested that the no
Street for one-half
alley.
time, there are no parking signs on
7th Street extending from Nicollet Avenue
Mrs. Frank Pieper, 7645 Stevens has re-
parking signs be extended east on 77th
block more, from Stevens Avenue to the
' It is recommended that the city council approve this
request.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
~~%
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 344
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: The Disposition of Property at 6445 21st Avenue
and 6500 Standish Avenue and the Relocation of
a Structure to 6500 Standish Avenue
and the Subur.
(VO-TECH). B~
The HRA has b~
the city acqu
walkout. The
four-bedroom,
ban HenneF
nth the he
yen respor
fired it.
finished,
1 z story,
sible for renting the house since 1978, when
Presently, the house is a two-bedroom rambler
rehabilitated, structure will be a three or
split entry home.
at 6500 Standish to the HRA. The HRA could then implement the project.
In addition, the council must decide whether the structure, once re-
located, will be similar in character to residences adjacent to 6500
Standish. A letter from the school, indicating the work to be done,
an elevation and site location of the finished home, photographs of
the site and adjacent house have been included to assist the city
council in its' evaluation of this matter. A petition with signatures
of adjacent residents will be available at the council meeting. Iri
addition, an advertisement was placed in the Richfield Sun Newspaper
indicating that public testimony would be received on this proposal
at the September 22, 1980 city council meeting. The adjoining prop-
erty owners have been notified by mail that they could appear at the
meeting to discuss the issue.
The city council approved the acquisition of the property at
6445 21st Avenue South on August 28, 1978. The purchase price was
$45,000. The intent of the acquisition was to permit expansion of
the New Ford Town Park. The~Planning Commission found the acquisition
to be in conformance with the comprehensive plan and designated the
property as public park and open space by resolution. At the time of
acquisition, the house was to be rented for about two years, and then
moved to a lot on Standish Avenue. Relocating the house was to be
done in connection with a New Ford Town Park improvement project. Be-
cause of a change in requirements for utilizing Community Development
Block Grant monies, there are not funds available for this park
improvement project at this time. However, the Vo-Tech would like
The Richfield HRA is proposing to relocate the house at 6445
' Council Letter No. 344 -2- September 22, 1980
to undertake a rehabilitation project with the HRA similar to those
cooperative projects done in the past, and this property appears
highly suitable for such rehabilitation.
During the summer of 1980, the Vo-Tech contacted the HRA, indi-
cating their interest in starting another rehabilitation project. The
cooperative effort of the HRA and Vo-Tech in the past has resulted in
two substantially rehabilitated single family homes. These are
located at 7238 Wentworth (a 1977 project) and 7444 Bryant (a 1979
project). The Vo-Tech has evaluated the house and proposed lot, and
believes that the house can be rehabilitated for approximately $44,000.
The rehabilitation will provide a new basement, one or two additional
bedrooms, a new roof, siding, windows, a modernized kitchen and bath-
room, new wiring, plumbing and heating systems, and new insulation.
The house, as with previous projects will be sold to a moderate income
family that qualifies under the FHA Section 235 program. With this
program, the maximum selling price for a three-bedroom home is $45,600.
A four-bedroom home would have a maximum selling price of $52,800.
After meeting HRA program expenses, any cash balance could be given to
the city to offset the original cost of purchasing the house and
vacant lot.
The HRA will be evaluating the contract to participate with Vo-
Tech during October. If the house and property transfer and the
house moving is approved, the contract with Vo-Tech can be executed.
The house would be relocated in late October, and the exposed founda-
tion at the park leveled. The house rehabilitation should be com-
pleted by the summer of 1981.
The house moving is suggested at this time because Vo-Tech is
ready to start another project. The lease for the tenants now living
at 6445 21st Avenue South expires October 1, 1980. If the house is
resold using the Section 235 program with Section 8 income limits, the
city will receive credit from the Metropolitan Council for providing
additional family housing, and for using local money to acquire the
structure. Because the city acquired the land for park purposes, the
house will have to be relocated at some time.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~ ~ ~ .
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
find the
authorize the
cc: Community Development Director
HRA Specialist
' RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY AT 6445 - 21st AVENUE SOUTH
AND 6500 STA'~tDISH AVENUE SOUTH AND THE
RELOCATION OF A STRUCTURE TO 6500 STANDISH
AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield owns certain property
located at 6445 - 21st Avenue South and 6500 Standish Avenue
South, said property being legally described as follows, respectively;
Lot 12, Block 12,-New Ford Town Addition
Lot 23, Block 6, New Ford Town Addition,
County of Hennepin
WHE REAS, the property at 6445 - 21st Avenue South has been
acquired for park purposes and existing structure must be removed; and,
WHEREAS, the vacant lot at 6500 Standish Avenue South is
available as a relocation site; and,
L~7HEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield
(HRA) does acquire, relocate, and rehabilitate structures with the
cooperation of the area vocational technical school; and,
ti~iEREAS, the HRA desires to acquire the structure at 6445 - 21st
Avenue South, to relocate it to 6500 Standish Avenue South, followed
by rehabilitation in cooperation with the Suburban Hennepin County
Vocational Technical Schools; and,
WHEREAS, to initiate this activity, the HRA will have to
acquire ownership of the structure and title to the lot at 6500
Standish; and,
WHEREAS, the cost of acquiring the structure and lot will be
equal to the amount of funds that remain after subtracting the HRA
program costs from the sale price of the rehabilitated house; and,
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the structure and lot is contingent
upon the HRA approving a contract for rehabilitation of the structure
with the vocational technical school; and,
WHEREAS, the structure, if relocated, must be compatible with
those structures adjacent to the lot at 6500 Standish.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Richfield:
1) That the City Manager is granted authority to execute
the sale of the structure at 6445 - 21st Avenue South to the IIRA.
2) That the City Manager is granted authority to execute
the sale of the lot at 6500 Standish to the HRA.
3) That this sale is for housing purposes and is contingent
on the approval of an HRA contract with the Vocational Technical
School.
4) That the structure can be relocated to the property
at 6500 Standish and rehabilitated in accordance with local
code requirements.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
PQinnesota, this 22nd day of September, 1980.
Donald J. Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
y rr~
y^:. ~Yn~f:
fl ~ ~ .
.;.k,t ;'
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS
SOUTH CAMPUS / 9200 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 / (612) 944-2222
August 28, 1980
Mr. Bruce ~~ordquist
Community Development
Ri ch f i e l d H RA
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Nordquist,
Specialist
South
55423
As per your letter in July and of subsequent conversations, the Building
Trades and Natural Resource Departments make the following proposal:
We will move the house presently located at 6445 21st
Avenue South to your site at 6500 Standish Avenue South.
At that site we will convert the house into a split-entry
and totally renovate as per blue-print and specifications.
The work to be completed will include the following:
New basement and knee wall
Basement will be water-proofed
New siding
All new Anderson Windows and doors
Totally Re-insulated
All new sheet rock and paint
All new wiring
New 2-zone heating system - Natural Gas
New plumbing system with 1 3/4 baths
Disposal and Dishwasher
All oak trim and cabinets
Floor coverings in all rooms except furnace room
Blacktop driveway or pad
Garage optional •
All new sod and landscaping
The house, for all practical purposes, will~be anew house
utilizing the original framing. Original framing will be
repaired if necessary.
JOINT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.2B7 ACCREDITED 8V THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION
r. ~ tV ,~
~ ~ l.~ ,`.
~ ^ L. J
lJi ,~ i~'
~ I
n
_ Y ~~
~7 h 7 _
_ ~ ~I
I ~ ~ i _ 7
1.__._ I~ '_. __ __. ~ ,
_. .
k-=. =,I I
-1~ ',-- - 7 b'
F-~ y
7'~
.r. ~ ~,
. ~1 I ~ 1 I I - __ - -` -
Z -i :.;G I i ~ i
i
U I L'i.''I' ~--~~- I ~~ I
. I I i i,~~i~ ~I~I`I' ,
I i I li , o ii,. I
i c.) ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~I~ I
II -I~_R~ it I ill` i
~~-
rz~ ~---,
I ZaW~ ~ ,
~ i n_Qw n
7 :~ Q ~ k W l,l ~ ~ '
~ a z Q V 0( ~ u
I W ~ ~ ; ~ I h
J ~ I ~'
~ J ~ li ~
41 ? d~ ` h/COI-') ~ ' I
.~ y v7 I ~ ~ ~~ ~_
,11 cli
~ ~ Q ~,r-~ --- - 'i i ~ - -- - ..
G e~ ~ r I ~--__~ .~ - II ~ I' ~ I
~ I ~
'~ ~<i ~ ~ ' -- ---L-
N -! j z
i I I ~_ Q I I
V ~~
i ~ ~n , l
,I
~ ~ ii ~rl~ ~ ~ _ ~
j ~ li
i ~~ ;j ~; I; ~--rQ; 1~- .~ Iii ,
`~ ~ ~ . I ~ ~I ~=- ~ III _~__: ~!'.
1 i !'ill a;,j, ,,
I I ~ i.l;
J I~~;ii~~ I ! i ~ ii ~~~:
~ ~ ~ ~~
I I i Nz~
I e_,I
~_
h~.'~ _
~~-1-'
L
G
^71.
V ,
~I
Jj
tic
I Ij'
^I~
(~~~i
~I,.
G
a
U.
s
L;
f ~ +r„Yr` ,Y,
anuand ysipuo ~S
r
i
6445 21st Avenue So.
Site at 6500 Standish Ave. So.
a
F;~
~,
These six houses are adjacent to the site at 6500 Standish
i - -.-
6501 22nd Ave. So.
:=s~~
~ r.~ .
~. ~_$..
,~~:.-.,
~,~ - ~S, Y
s ~. T ~. ~ .~t`il ~. 3 ]'~' ~ i
6504 Standish Ave. So. 6501 Standish Ave. So.
6445 22nd Ave. So.
4,
a
'"~ I
6445 Standish Ave. So.
6444 Standish Ave. So.
j _ _6 3rd
3 22 `~J
4'21 ,~' 1 Y
I r 5 2C
=_
~.~ - w
5
8,17
~2a---
1 ^_.}
'- - Q
9
6
j I~ 15 ^32
II 14 ^~
^'y 12 ,13 Cc4
6 4th
e,c 1,24
os 2123
D"'
^'`
os 3 22 ^cs
~~421 ^~
.~ I~5~` 20
~~ " I ^ l a
^zo
z5 7' 18 ~°
29 8 ~ 17 !,0
3 g`I~----
J 3 ~ 10-iJ"' - -- ;
ne I I j 14 ^4c
]ISOO 1213 ^44
- -- -- - -- ---- - - __ - - S T__ __ --
c~ 3 122
j 13 4'21
1' S 2'? ^~;
~~5--
o ~~ ---
^:
_=~>.e_
^ ~~ 8 17 _^zu
. J
_3.916- ~=~-
-
~_ 10 15 ^~
I I -~
a~ ..
~
_
_
^,s I~ 13`
t. _rr
--~~
lJ4`
3 ; 2 2 `~~
----r- ----. _... _.
4 `.21_^~z
--.~--' ._ 5 2 u
D s -~ :.;
~__ 1.,15--- -_
Q ~ 8'17 1--{ ~
~...__ 9 16 . -'~ .
L_J' II~14 ^40
~ Q ~~2-~ , 3 -r -
3122
--~,~~--
-- -
-
C
' ~:~ _ ~
-
2'
_ ~ ~' ~ _ie_ ^
8 17
~3 ~ 9 116- --[] -
~~D i0~'S -
4'^ II ;14 ^~o
,S D 12 .13 'J 48f
ST
^ '`e
^ Q5 1124
2.23 -
^~''
^c°
- 3;22
4'21 [nn]oo
LJ~
_~ . 5 5 2~
~~
awl 6~:1~ ^2J
^zs
^i~ 7.18
8'17 z
^`p
^ c3
^ ~' g :16
10 15 ^'=
^~c
^43 II i 14 D
^ .s 12113 __..
^ 1;24 _^
J ~ `~
C9,--~ 3 ~ 22
~ ^U,
--
i3^ a2i - -
^ .z
1-~ __ I J
S
.ID
.., 7; la
-
,
•r,~ s17
9 16
10! I~
- II ;14 -
^.~ 12113 ^„
F~
1~; 2'~
2 23
°' 322
-1--}---
4~2I ,
_ ,~ ~ 0__
~ 2~ ilk
w
~
Q Z~ ^
_
__ ~a_
~
8 7 .
33^ -
4:16 32^
D l0~15
---
'_[] -*
1 114
~`' D 12 ~ ! 3
r^ 2 I2. ^°°
°~^ 3,22 ^oe
n~~
4121 u
_
. 7-^^~ i 2~.J 1 6
L' D 2~
`~ `~ ~Ig_ ^2_9
.9^ 817 - 1
36
^
~-^ I~jiS
~,_._ II ~'~!!
(
Iii L~4~
12;13 ~`~
li
Q
65th ST. ~0
of I ' 23 ^='~
] ~ 222 D~`
]09 321
la 4 20 Iz
! ~ 519;. n18 c
6 j 18 ~ u ..
-+-
O
z3 7 I? ~4 N
les g~lg [12e
l33 9 1rJ LJ3?
1 ^ I ~23
`~ . 2 22
" 3 j 21 ^°~
- 4120 ^~
-- I.
J C.
5 119119_~~ _
~ ~ 6~1~I8 (]zo N
N '~ 7 117 ^ N
~\ 8 16 (~ 3
?~, 9 15 ^ 3c
.~..:.
^ O.i 2122 ^°4
^°y 3I2 i ^ce
^„ 4~0 .~.
,~ SjlB
~~ 16
`'1..15 ~'~
ol^ I23
es^ 222 I,c~ i
_ °s'~ 3'21 t
~
^ ~ 4~ 20
--, T
^
{
~
Q 6j18 ~c i-.
~:
~ C1,
~
~
1_,
L
N
-
a~9 +
--
316 --
-
~
_ _
%'ll I j1311 I I j i~ I~ 1011 12;13. 10;11 i12~13 14 10 11 12 'i3 14
I1.19j2 ~!. 9". `f~n~~. ~~.~ I'o2 r.~Ex I a :;•2,.., ~~N.,~ 20 z< 26 ._ ~ 's ~ as
6s0~ ^ I ~ Ca°C
_222 ~~
I' 3 2 1 ^ o s
1, 4!20 ^Iz
` 6'18 (_]zo
2, ^ 7 17
31 ^ 8 16 ^ z `
Q 9 15 ^ 3
D,~~24
csL- 2j23
09 ^ 322
D j3 a!2
^ 1_, 5 ~ 20
_-E2i1
'A C' 8J17 ;_] za
^ 3 10115 - '-
-I I j l 4 } 4 R
- I
,~e 4,12!13 O„
CITY OF RICHFIELD, IvIINNESOTA ~ /
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 343
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Lake Shore Drive Cooperative
A portion of the September 22
be held jointly with the HRA. Rep
Will
Yrellminary marxeL survey which was authorized by the HRA and city
council in August, for the cooperative housing facility proposed to be
constructed on the south side of 66th Street at Graham Avenue.
report, the City C
actions including:
1.
d
\~
2. Referral by the City Council to the Planning Commission
of
a) th
Pl
or
b) st
an
c) di
e
site area;
the City (a portion of the Pie Shop parcel and
the Mobil Oil Parcel).
State statutes have established maximum time limitations for
review of some of these items. Regarding the rezoning, 60 days from
the date of referral is the maximum time permitted. For a Planning
Commission finding regarding the sale of city-owned property to the
HRA, the council may establish its own deadline.
It is recommended that the HRA and City Council jointly authorize
Cooperative Living Centers to proceed with the second phase of their
marketing program. Secondly, it is recommended that the City Council
refer the rezoning, street anal alley vacations, and the disposition
of city owned property to the Planning Commission for review. The
request should indicate that the Council desires to have the review
completed to permit city council action on these items at the
November 10, 1980 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
h~~tn.k. ~~,~~~,~.~;;^ ;
Karl Nollenberger
= City Manager
cc: Community Development Director
Housing and Redevelopment Specialist
Thus, following the CLC
i ~. w .`r . .~. - _ e r °.: ._ _ _ _._~ OC .~ x .__._ T --1 - A C N O. O• _ ___ ~ _~. __- v m . __ D '_ _ _. ----- - O O .. ~ O - --_. ~__ D N -__~_ A -- ~ O O ^ ~ ~
- ___..- - -'"~'y-=_I emu- -n an O. O O N 7 O J d 7 (D O __ d X __ tD n _ TQ 00 a ~ r O~ O~ O~ A ~ N O ~ l ~ O` D\ O _ _ -. _.-_ _. ___-_. N N ~ Cl ` • ~w
~ I _. O O N ~ N -~ V+ <- J O X S 7< C Vi 3 J O JJ N fD V O~V V O~ O~ (D __..+ C~ - O~ --- ~ ~ ~ 1 O n fD -
-- _ ~_1 N -n .-.. l < -'J O. n - 1 fD !n _. - O ~ !D v!v ~ O.v .t d -O _. N N O ~ ~ ! ( _.. J ~.~ G fD r ~ 7: 1 ~< fD J - _S d
_: c -• ~ m Fm -• N m s ~ -. vJ < - „ioa m. .nv ~„m-o -~,- _ _ ado -•!^ - ~ J c+ ncx'
__. .._ -_ _ n n__ _. n ~ ' i J m J n _
-. ~ .,
- _ ~. fi _.. _: D n ~ ~ O ___ N N O 3 __-- .- ~ ~ -_. _, n _.. d .< ~ R d -! ~ ~ -! -_ G'1 ~ -_..~ a _. 10 -~ -_. ___._. _. < n ..- - .. - J N t0 n - \
. _. - _. ~ - ~ _O N S 3 J N _ ~ ~ - 7 ._ n '--- d d I' N n 9 fD n ~ - d ? - !O T G
- - -_-' a J „< J J~ N J N J _- - - n __ - ~ I (D I - 7 2_ - ~ Q ~ G D N J
..--- N n ~.. ~____ _.. _ n -_ ~. _ O -- ______-_ n O O rt -________ -. ___ _ __ ~ 0
- -. _'__ -
O
a
_ r _
- - -_. __ ~- _ _ n
_ _ ~ .r
~- ~ E C1 _~ - _ - - _._. _ .- -y _ - D z ~ - - lP d fJ _- ~-_-_ _ - _--- d N - __-
-- ~__ ~I- -.__.-_ 0 p -._-_-- - ~- I ~ 1 - ... _- .-.. -. - c O - - N~O~ ... - - 1 _ -\ ~~.< R A 000-0
--_- 3
Z
' I .._ -_ - 7 fD _ - ~ ._ - ~ O C __ _ - __ -- N O n
._-. ._ -
_ __
N .._-_.__. ,-.
~ n N an n -~._ I __I _._. -~N A _. <
- I - -- - - .- _ _ -
- ~ ~ - _~ - - p _ - - r-----
-- -~ ~ , - o - n ! _
n N _. ._ _ _-_-
I _• _• d _ L T _ _. --.-~-_ _ .- ____ ~ - _ _ -.. _ IA -_-_ _ .__ • r ~ __- _ - y -_... i .__ - - -
_--j' rt T nI ~O ~-'OmN -- .-" -- --_. _1 .._-_..__- ~_. _. I ~ ~d --_ ~ -._~ d -- O_. -0 n._ I.
_ ! fD T. ID; _ - "J I-. .. OC (J C __ ... I ~ I I~~i „' _. -- - ~ I --- _ - - 07J _ - - ~I~ - - - "- Nj V C-- ~ O
_-_
.. ~ { Ong ~ I N~W3 - .____ - _- -t.. 1 - -. - - - -_- _ <~ _ - _- .. J.. __ _ ~_. _.J -__ ? _._ u+ - ..001"1
.v ~ ~
__. _._. .. --_ I _ _...- -._-___ _~--DJ -s m .- _~ J m ~ -c Jm
d ~ -~w...- _---- ~...- - _._ I, ~_._ _~ --'---- '-- -- ------- nm nn~. vo.nn man
.____ .J.-.l.--._-_.__.. .. __ _..- ice. ~~ < i _~_ .}-___-~___- - - - -.C A/! A -AA _ AA _..
_ I y , N _' 2 - - I _ - I - - _. __ - - ~O' (0 fD [t - - - vi N (D n M O ~ n - --
i N I ~ S N ~ !~ d __ _ _.._ _ _,_ ~ d d O >• d d O_ J d O_.~ _- ~ ~ G~ O
f N O tD
- -
_ _ _ Oa
- ~ "~ C
-------_.. n J a
r
_ ~
J tz ~ n
n
--- ~ I - - _ ----
_: - _ - - -- -- --- -_ m -
1 i v o ~~ v m I - - ~ - ----- - - - - ~_ ~ -_ _ ..«- I I - - - - ._"!o r o ~ _,Ne- ° - ---- r o m - -.-~__ •---I
m _1.- ..__. '
v,m n __- ___ - ~ - -~
,__ .. _. __-.__ _.._ - rOr ~ - - - _. _- __- _._.- __-. --- I --_ -- -_- T_ - -_ - -- ~ - _ -. O ~
n _--. _ _ _ -. _ _ - -_ ~ __-_ _ _
f'f 2 _
_ _ _ - ._ _ d ~ _ r
,~ `'
_ .__ _- - - N __. _ -._ .K D .'
I-__
-_ - --- __-__- .~ - -- 1 -_ _
C J ' _ ._ Vf ~ C A I _ - _-a N -___ _- n
. _ ~ .. ~~
__ __-_.. -__-. :__ .___ D _ __- __-- -_- I -
f_
' -. p _~ _ - - - --- --
~- ~ ~----- _ _ _ C
1-
- - - - _ - N . - ~ _. n F - _ G I ~ -_-_ -T---_ COD I
_ !I :.
- -~ __. - ~ I. -_ - __ ~ ~ _. ..._ ___--. `G O __. __.___.__.1_. --.-_ - -O( d. .... _ -. - _ _..... - __._ ._ 1. _ _. __.-__ -.. -_ _-.__ _-___-_. Cn -
l
_ .. _- ~__ 'I -__. ___-- __-'.. _ ____ __. -_-____ - ___ - __-. _-- ___
--- --- - --- -- -- l -_ _.-' -- n ra ---- I-- J
N -_ ~_ _ _ N
r
t.
_ _ _
J 1
_ -
- -- ~' -- -'-- - - n• x
---- ~ I _ I ~- - ~ - - - ~ - - ... ' _ a
... m
-" - - f D ----~---- - - J r
.._ ~
- -- - -- - -
~. ~- - --- - - --- - _ .- .: n _ - n I -a
: .
_ ~ ~ m m _ _.. _ _ ~ ^ c7 II
_ o
--.
~_ ~ I - - ~ d n n - -- - -- ..- O o i ----- m - --- -~--- - "--- --- -. .. __ F -- - - _ m ~ fo
C n _. _ -i
. -- __
--_ n
-N ~ --~ --'- ---------I. n ti --- - - -- ' ~1--^ vZi - - - ~'~~---- ------ - i C
_- -- -- I 1 -- • -- -- - I- -- --- m
C
.-
-_ '= ` _ _
-__ 1
- _.._-.. _ _ ~ ~- __.- ._. .-I _____ _. I_-_. - _- - n d ~ j -_ __ _._...-_.- -. __- - .. 1 -_ ~ "-__ __~_ - _ ___ -_ ___- ___-_ ___ ..-__ -- i - N ~ -O
- _ _
~ _
i- - ,~ ~ r --- I - i _ -- -- -- - -- -- -- --- r ~
---
i I
_.__ _ -- _ 1 ...__ -.__ •
i_n 3vN+3 c n i__ __ - ____ ~ ~ ~~ i ~ r _d E= W D
t ' ~ ~~
- - - - x m n -• --- ~--- -Y- -- ~ .~.
_ _ - ~° ~ 4- -- - - -- • -- -- - -- _- - --- a i - --- --- _~ -~ N ~ ~ ~
n I
G
i___ N
----
!D
- - -~ -- -
- - -~
T - N ~____ __ ~ - ~
-- . - i ., ~ ---
n N
I ~ N n - __ _..- _~ _ __. -_-__.--_ -_ ... --
I n ~ --- I. a - i- _ . __ T - --~i -- _--
--
._ ~ I •i n
~- -
-- - --
_ _ .-
- - - - - - - - - - ~ c _ - - ~ c -------- _1._ _ .. - ~ - < ~
- _. _._ -'n -. - - N --. 3
_ _
__ ~ _- - --- ,- o'- - 4 - __ -O --- - - -
- - - - ----- - ----- - -- --_ - 1 - -
~. m- ~_. __ ~ .. ~. - --- ----- -- - - -- - ~-- -- -- t- J a v
~ _ 11
O
'n ~
-~ n ~ --- -- ~-- .-._ ~ O I m
- O N - __-._ _- __ -_._-._
---- _ _ _ _ _~_ _ -n d _ a m D - - ~ - -- - - ~ _------- - - i --- --- - - -- - 1~. i -
_._
_ _ _ T '- _ S7 .... ~.-n I ~ _. _ n ~ _ _.. -... i
-- - .. I _ m O -_ -4-- - - _. -- ____ _ _ _ _ I _..- - - _ -. ___ -- _. _ _-__
-_- - - 0. __ .--
- _ _ -- 1 n < ~ - - - ___ .__ _ __ 4
I N d
_ _ _ . d - _- - _ "-- __ - . _.
~- ~~v--- ~ .- o -~ i-= -- t f= i _
J `° -, n - - m I _
1 -_.- _-_i.. _. - ' ~ - _ - I _ I . -_-- - ~ _.__
-__. ~ _ - _ ..- !I t
_. __ ,
-- as ~-~- - - _. - - I .
I
--- - - - { - i n r--- -- ---- -~-- ~
i
i I ~ i_ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
__ ____-._.._--._ _.-- - ._ --__-__ -- K t"~ -_. __ _-__ -__--__ -__~__
~__
___ __- __- -. ~ 1.
I
' ,
I - - - ~ ~ - __ ~. ~~_ _ _ .. -.._. _ .._.._ _ - .. ._ _ _- - _ __ - ~I m
r :
I ~ __ _ _ __
:-.
_ . ~ 11 ~ Fr
____. -. ____ ~.___-_,O -._y. t".
1 ~ _
_ ---r-.~Y -}- - -
__ - --
.- .- ~ - --
RICHFIELD MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION
RELATING TO LAKE SHORE DRIVE COOPERATIVE
Moved, seconded and carried that the Richfield Ministerial
Association endorses Richfield United Methodist Church to be the
official sponsor of the Lake Shore Drive Cooperative and
Furthermore, that our Richfield Ministerial Association,
endorses this 160 unit project.
Passed this 11th day of September, 1980.
Pastor Jerry Larson, President
Woodlake Lutheran Church
Pastor Stephen Haschig, Secretary-Treasurer
House of Prayer Lutheran Church
-~f~ l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 342
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Request for Parking Restrictions,
76th Street from Xerxes to Sheridan
Althoucth this section of 76th Street is not made of concrete,
as is the rest of 76th Street, it is a permanent street of the same
44' width as the remainder of this roadway throua,h Richfield. There
has been a question raised as to the safety of allowing parking
only one day a week on 76th Street. Accident records for 1979 and
thus far in 1980 indicate that thirteen rear-end type accidents
have occurred on 76th Street. Four have occurred on Sunday, and
two of those involved parked cars. One of those two involved failure
of brakes. This accident history woulci indicate that the provision
for parking on 76th Street on Sundays does not appear to create a
significant safety problem, probably because of the decreased traf-
fic volumes on that day of the week.
signs be posted. The property owners abutting 76th Street have been
notified of this committee recommendation and advised that the city
council will be considering this recommendation at the September 22,
1980 city council meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: City Engineer
Community Services Director
Public Safety Director
Mrs. Gregory Kern, 7545 Upton Avenue has requested that
~ S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 341
Agenda September 22,198
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
17-~,,~.e,,,,, ~n r.., ~-~-cg ~ r,s-~' ~ k~ ,~
Council Members:
Subject: Alley Improvement Program
There is an item listed on the September 22, 1980 city council
agenda to discuss an alley improvement program in the City of
Richfield. Over the past one and one-half years, the city council
has periodically discussed the need to improve alleys within our
community. Beginning with the city council meeting of February
12, 1979, the council took under advisement a capital improvement
program providing for the resurfacing of the city's alleys. Sub-
sequent to that time, on May 14, 1979, the city council adopted a
preliminary engineering report and set a policy for the permanent
alley surfacing program. On July 23, 1979, the city council held
a public hearing to gain input from citizens living in the Jeffer-
son Park cluster of alleys located generally in the neighborhood
of the area bounded by 66th Street, Penn Avenue, 70th Street and
Xerxes Avenue. At the hearing, 28 persons gave testimony, ranging
from wanting deeper holes to control the alley "speedways", to a
firm "no" to making the alleys permanent because of the high cost
involved. The council rejected the permanent alley improvement
program by unanimous decision. They requested that additional in-
formation be put together concerning the conditions of the alleys
within our community. The council received the report concerning
the alley conditions in late 1979, and decided to hold future public
hearings on those alleys which were in the most deteriorated con-
dition. Further work on the alley improvement program was deferred
until the city engineering office could deal with the issue in more
detail, due to changeover in staffing.
There are approximately eleven miles of unpaved alleywavs in
the City of Richfield. The exi~ ski eys in the ty fall into
three basic categories: 1)-an oil stabilized surface 2) a_dirt
__
surface and 3) an alley w_hich~as been deeded or has an e~s_~ment,
--_ --- -
but is unimprovecr-andvTias not been used as a travelled alleyway.
We have 96.5 blocks of oiled alleys, 2 blocks_of dirt alleys, and
9.5 bloc.- ks_of ~n~mproued~a Z~.~.~s: Since approximate l--~-~y 1~9~1 , these
alleys have been graded and patched on an as need basis by street
divis~Qn_,personnel when manpower is not utilized for other~prior-
-- _
ities within the city. However, because of sub-soil conditions or
drainage, and the fact that this grading and filling process is
merely temporary, the surface condition of the alleys has continued
to deteriorate. and has become a constant maintenance problem. Prior
Council Letter No. 341 -2-
September 22, 1980
to the initiation of the permanent street program in 1971_ t__..~
city had an on-going policy for_sealcoatin_g alleyways and streets
rr-th~~-comm~~-y=:~~~n an annual ~basis~,~t e city would-levy an -
assessment against property owners within the community whe ~huttP~
upon streets or alleys for improvemen
or alley during that year. In the la
its procedure on the levying of asses
threatened, or actual court case cont
under the program. At that time the
special assessment taxes against all
comunity regardless of whether-they 1
sealcoated streets or alleyways.. The
charging only those property owners w
abutted on alleys receiving the sealc
city council approved a resolution wh
alleyways into two different assessme
assessed for sealcoating at 60~ per f
years, while alleys were assessed on
spread over three years. The entire_
~s to be made to that street
.e 1960's, the city altered
~ments as a result of a
'sting the benefit received
;ity council was levying
property owners within the
~ved on paved streets or on
city then began a policy of
rich fronted on streets or
>ating program, In 1970, the
Lch separated out streets and
it criteria. Streets were
-ont foot, spread over three
~ 20~_,per front foot basis
ocess for
se of the
ir~itiation of the_p_~rmanent street improvement program. That was
the last time that any sealcoating of alleyways was undertaken by
the city.
There are generally four areas where alleys__are_located in the
City of Richfield. Four clusters are indicated on the map attached
~_ with ~s__~~ouncil letter and are labeled as the Jefferson Park Clus-
~~ ter, Madison-Richfield Lake Cluster, Legion Lake Cluster, and the
Augsburg Park Cluster.. In the initial alley improvement program
considered by the city council, it was recommended and approved by
~~ the city council that the alley improvement program be initiated
in the Jefferson Park Cluster and proceed to the other three clusters
on a systematic basis. Subsequent to the July 23, 1979 public hear-
ing, that approach was rejected by the city council and information
concerning the condition of the various alleys in the community
was requested.
Also attached to this memorandum is a li~~ing ofall of the
cur_rent - a11e_~i~_i„iithin__the--~omm~znity. The alleys are rated on a
rating system as follows:
1. Fully deteriorated condition
2. Severe deterioration
3. Moderate deterioration
4. Slight deterioration
5. Good condition
This is the same numbering system adopted for the permanent street
program. As can be noted on the survey made of the alleys, there
are very few alleyways within our community that are ranked "4:"' or
~~5~~.
Council Letter No. 341 -3- September 22, 1980
Engineering Report
_ -The engineering consultants retained. by t~..P-~t~' invest.lq~ed
___ --
three paving-__mat~er.ia~ls, and selected concrete as the most usable
paving m~~.~r_i_al__fnr__a_~i.ty__._~hy__paving__program. Their recommenda-
tion provided that all alleys would be paved with six inches of
concrete to a 12' wide section with an alley gutter. Although the
city staff originally favored asphalt surfacing, due to the lower
cost- and-ava>_abl~ty, the engineering study recommended the use
of concrete for the following reasons:
1. Concrete can be placed with better accurac than
asphalt. In flat areas such as Richfield, it be-
comes important to place the paving material to
close grade tolerances to avoid puddling. Concrete
can meet these standards more readily than asphalt.
2. Concrete alleys can be shaped to provide a-dis-
tinct center alley gutter. This gutter is important
to provide adequate drainage between the public ave-
nues and streets.
3. Concrete. is_.~c~re l,.i`kely to contain., its_._st~~?r_tural
integrity throughout its entire width, which should
prevent the alley edges from breaking up and unravel-
ing.
4'. Concrete can withstand the higher weight loads assoc-
iated wth~_delivery, garbage trucks and other vehicles
that frequently use alleys and does not need to be
constantly compacted to remain structurally sound.
5. Concrete is less prone_to_ fail due to petroleum_sQills,
chemical spills, and other volatile substances that are
found in garbage and trash containers set in alleys.
While there is a cost differential between the concrete alley-
ways and asphalt, the increased advantages of using concrete as
well as decreased maintenance costs over the long-term justify the
construction of alleyways in the City of Richfield with concrete
as opposed to asphalt.
Recommendations
publ
The residents who
eared at the July
erson Park Cluster
23, 1979 city council
seemed to generally
be opposed to ma~or_,improvements in favor of continued use of 1<
~cost~ur~facing-that is maintain~_n__a _pa_ssable condition. T,Y~e.
rationale for._ their a~uments appeared to be strictlyeconomic.
Alley maintenance by the city in recent years has been direct-
ed on a spot basis to local alley problems. With constantly de-
teriorating conditions, this spot maintenance approach,__although
Council Letter No. 341 -4- September 22, 198.0
involving minimal cost, is becoming ineffective as evidenced by
citizen feedback. The costs of maintenance are currently included
in the general street maintenance operational costs on a minimal
level. Since alley improvements and maintenance benefits only those
residents that have alleys, it is recommended that future alley re-
surfacing programs be on a more systematic basis with improvement
costs assessed against benefited properties.
The mini_m_um level of alley improvements is an oil stabiliza-
tion process (sealcoating) similar to that performed on ci'~y s -eets
and alleys prior to the street improvement program. Oil stabiliza-
tion has an estimated cost of $5.OO~er lineal foot of alley, with
an estimated useful design life of. three to foLr_ ears. ~~Tv"er a
-. ~ ,_ _ ~ _i _ , ,.,-....~ r.~ ter, ;~mr~rnvamPnt by thlS method
An intermediate level of alley improvement is construction of
_ -- -- .
a bituminou-s aI-~ey resurfacing _similar_ to_that constructed on_ t e
di._y__ :tee s :~ ~ Bituminous surface alley improvements has an , estim-
ated initial cost of $20 per lineal foot of alley With new seal-
coa~ing at approximately seven-year intervals, it has a useful e-
sign life of nearly 30 years. Over a 30-year time period, the total
cost of improvements by this method is estimated to be $24 per lineal
foot of alley.
The best and recommended method of alley improvement is by con-
struction of a concrete surfaced alley. A concrete alley has an
estimated initial cost__of__~32_~er lineal foot, and a useful design
life in ex~~~_s__of 30__years. The total cost over a 30-year period
is estimated at $32_-~?~r_~_ineal foot. When these costs are reviewed
it is obvious that the method of improvement with the least initial
cost is the highest projected total cost over the improvement life.
initiated by one of two
----__
a_pp~ro~a~c_h~s . The alley improvement can be initiate-~gePar-
ation of petitions signed by owners of affected property totaling
35% or more of the total project assessable footage. After receiv-
ing the petition, the council can order an investigation of the pro-
ject with the scheduling of necessary procedures and hearings as
required by law. Alternatively, the city council may initiate an
alley improvement project at its own discretion. In this case, the
council notifies affected property owners in accordance with normal
procedures and legal requirements. After citizen input is received
at a scheduled public hearing, the council can order construction
based on its determination-of need or determination of public in-
terest.
A number of decisions are necessary by the city council con-
F' t the city council must make a
An all
nq alley improvements. irs , 1
u~~ ~~ y.,-- .. -_ --- - -----~_ __.. _----
wi~hin~the 11 miles of alleyways in our community.
council-needs to decide what method of initiating_
deter-
the
X
X
Council Letter No. 341 -5-
September 22, 1980
property owner and the general property taxpayer fox~_~he- improve-
men of a leyway.s in Ri~hf.ield. Upon completion of that discussion,
those matters can be drafted into a resolution which can be adopted
by the city council for future public hearings. The city staff will
be available at a meeting on September 22, 1980 at 5:30 p.m. to dis-
cuss these alternatives with the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Director Community Services
Director Community Development
City Engineer
City Attorney
~~-~
~~ a
~~
3~a~
r`7
a
~~
~ ~~
y4, ,
c~ ~ ~,
4~ ~- ~~
;~~
~~ ~
~~'
~~ ~ ~-~~.
~ ~-~~~
G~~ac~"
~~~
J 0
%~ 0
_ ~ ~
~ ~
~(~ ~ ~;
~ i
~_ ~ ~
. ~-, ~
~~
a
7 7 7 3 ! . ! 7 7 1 7 7 _
4.
4. ~...
_ _ ' _ ~ _ _
_; _ _-_ _
. ~ ..~ _ ... L__~~ __ - --- --- - ~ -- -
,~1N.. ..l -_. ~ --- _- ._-_ __ -_ - __
11 ~~! - ~ _ _ _ - ~. ~~ -- ___. _-____-..
' • ~ ~~
N.~ rl _. -_~. _~-
Yr ..~ _ ._. .... _-- .___..-_ _..__ _ l ~ _-.
.......~ ~~ --- ---- --_-__-- - - - _ _--_ ~rn _--_ = _
- _ _ -
.~....... - --- - =~c -. -__- ~___
_ _ _ _~~
_ _ __~~ _
-~--
= , .-
_~I r ~_
_ z
~ ~, `,
ti..,...re.. ti-.' - ---' -'L~ -~~ - -_ -- f7o -~
# - a~ - = C ~
~C^^ - --
.. ... ;: __ -,_;,__- ~ mil}=-~,=, =-
_ G.._
e..~r .a JC~C~L ,C~ N C ~JC-,,L_~L. -~L- _~I 1 ~6.
~ ~ Z
~OC~~.~m
,.. ., - -C~~~~~?' -- iris _ %~~~ ~C ' ^~~~
--_,r--,_ r--~- ,~ -
u w r. ~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~~ i~
`l
.. ~~o
" '" ~ ~ 1 1 1 ! ~ _
; i'; ...,...... n~~ illy E ;; ~ 88 '*7 ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
3 R7 ~ ~~ ~ Y~ ~ ~ j~ rr
~ ~.' .~ :T . - Ora .. . Q - ~`~ ~ ~•'~ ~~'+~ t ~. ~ . ~ . 7, ~ . // 11 ~ '~
_ - ,
~L.ya..~.,,,iY,:.~..w . _. _.. .....~•:~ ~xr.:e,-.+...a.~..... ..... .mot.'-<..'ss:....; .~..~.-~s,._...:. A - ~1 - . i a_.1.~-_..
.,..~ ...
a•
,qu. M
Mf~i M
,~ .~
zM....
..,, .,.
"~
:~.~"
..d..,
aV~. K
.nu,e YL
rdK+ ..t-
~_'
.~ K
K...,.. K : _p
...,.n....~ D
..~,. K r-
,K :..~ ~
,. " D
a,........ ~
....~ ~
~~ .~ ~
_~..~ ~
M~ ~
~_~._._D
ears
~...., ..
...~ • .
,,...
~. K ..-
a... .._.
.,a .. ~ ,
,...~
na w .
h..,.
•..a
ar ..a
...~~r w
w...i
a. pc
n...
}nom, K
++ ^~ n
oe. .a ~
__ f ~
Alleys rated "1"
Bctt+~ecn Pcnn ; Oliver from 03rd to h4th
" Oliver F, `;cc+'tor. G.;rd to 64th
'torJ;;tn Loran 03rd to 64th
" Loran F, Knox " hard to 64th
" llurr,holdt f, Girard " G.}rd~ to 64th
" llarrict F, Grand 67th to 1/2 hlk Wort?1
" Vincent F, 1lnton filth to h6th
Penn F, queen Goth to 1/2 blk south
" Blaisdell Fr liicellet - " 72nd to 73rd
" Blaisdell F, \i col let " 73rd to 74th
" Blaisdell $ l~icollet " 75th to 76th
" 1st ~ Stevens 72nd to 73rd
" Stevens .; 2nd " 72nd to 73rd
" 62nd F hard _
14t.h to 15th
" 62nd F, Gard " 15th to 131oomincton
" GSth $ hGth " 13th to 14th
Alleys rated "2"
Bett+~cen Penn F, Queen from fihth to 67th
" Penn Fr Queen Goth to 7nth
" Oueen $ Russell " Get?1 to 70th
" Russell i Sheridan 6hth to G7th
" Sheridan FT Thomas fiGth to 67th
Sheridan Ft Thomas " 67th to hsth
" Sheridan F; Thomas fiSth to Goth
t' Thomas F, 1!pton hhth to 67th
" ilpton F; Vincent " G?th to GBth
" i-pton F, Vincent " hSth to Goth
" Upton F Vincent " h}~th to 70th
" Vincent F, h'ashhurn 6Gth to h7th
" ~ii.ncent F, 11'ashhurn " 67th to f,Sth
" Vincent F, h'ashhurn " GSth to 6th
" h'ashburn ~ Xerxes 67th to fiSth
14ashhurn F, Xerxes " 6Rth to 69th
" Garfield F, L~•ndale 72nd to 7.ird
Harriet F{ Garfield " 71st to 72nd
" Harriet F, Garfield " 72nd to ? Ord
" Harriet $ Garfield " 73rd to 74th
" Grand F, Pleasant ~ " 72nd to 73rd
tiicollct F, P,laisdcll 7•ith to 7th
" Nicollct F, i'irst " 71st to 72nd
Nicollet F. rust " 7~nd tc, ;'3rd
" First F, >tevens 71st to 1"'nd
?>
s;: <:~
> .~,;
~i4'BPY.biR3 ~' w ~_,...i -
- 2 -
:111evs rated "~" (cont. )
Reto`een Stevens ; Second from 71st to 72nd
Second F, Third 71st to nd
7?
Second F, Third " 72nd to 73rd
" Lvndalc t !1ldrich 7f.th to 77th
" C1 inton ; Frnlrth 6F,th to 67th
" C1 intor. f, Fifth ~hth ; 07th
" 2~!tll 21st 65t?1 F, 66tH
" Ilumholdt ft Trvinc 63rd to 04th
" Aldrich f, P.rvant " 63rd ; 'li ldred nr.
" liarriet f,",L~•ndalc " 6~ }
~t 1
t0 65th
" L~•ndale f, Garfield " GRth to 6th
" Grand ~ Harriet 68th to 6th
" Pleasant ; Gr;tnd " (,Qth to 6th
" P;entt:~orth F, Blaisdell. " - G7th to 68th
" \icollet $ First " 68ti1 to 69th + 'T'
Alleys rated ".i"
Betl••een Au;shur~ F, Garfield frorl 7Hth to 71st + 'T'
" AuRshurn f, Garfield " 71st to 72nd
" Barfield I,vndale " 73rd to 73
" - Ilarriet s grand 72nd to 73rd
" }larriet F~ Grand °' 73rd to 74th
"~ Tltird F,. Clinton " 73rd to 74th
" (Tinton F, Fotn•th " 73rd to 74th
" Fourth F Itifth " 73rd to 74th
" Aldrich f, 1.~•ndalc 7Sth to 7F~th
" 14th F, 15th " 65th to 66th
" 15th i= Eloo>;ain}ton " FiSt.h to 66th
" ~ Bloot~tinc;tor, F, 1Gth " <,5th to 66th
" Third ~ C:linton 06th to 67th
" Cedar ~, T}1 77, (t3rd to 64th
" Cedar F, Tli 77 " Oath to 65th
" Cedar TI? 77 " 65th to Cedar (66th)
" 19tH F, 2'1t?1 " fiSt}1 t0 66tH
" 1'.15111)llrn ft Xerxes " 6~t11 t0 7nth
" 1':aS?ll>ilrll F, XCrxCS " (iEit}t to Ei7t11
" Vi nccnt F, 1'.AS!tl~tll'n " 6nt11 t0 7Qt11
" Thomas f, 1!pton " (~Pth to 7th
" Thorlas fJi~tnTl " C 8th to 6th
" ShCrl(1;1P ~, •rll0?'1,15 " 6~t?t t0 7!?tlt
" P.L1S5C`il f, ShCI'ld.ln- " ~ntlt t0 7n t!1
Russell F, S!tcriclan rsr!t t~ ~"t!1
tr 1;115 ;C1 1 f; ~?1 C`7-l d~lll " Ei 7th tC? ~ ~'tlt
" (?lleen ~ 1'.t1S5C11 " Ei~t;l t0 6~tll
" (hlcen r, Pn55c11 " C~"th tc~ GRt?t
" ~ucen f~ !'.u=sc`1 : (,f th ' to C~7tit
- .i
Y ~ .
Alleys rated "3" (cont.)
I?et~~:cen Penn f Quecn
" Girard >', .~51;'
" Girard ~ 35P;
" Glrard ci )r1!'
" 3S1.' I:mcrson
" Colfax F, Ihmont
" Graham ; Lake Shore P,r.
" Ilarrict F, Grant
Alleys rated "4"
Bet~ti•een C~hth F, G7th
Alle~~s rated "5"
Retcreen Ste~'ens F 2nd
`t ~ ..
froi^ r~th to ~~th
" F~3rcl to 4th
" f?4t}1 to (i5t}1
" 65Th t~ hit}1
" f~nth to 05th
" h~th to Goth
" E~3rd to ~ti ldred Dr.
" E~F,th toL~•ndale
" E~7th to E~Sth
" 13th to 14th
" FSt}1 t0 ant}1 SOl:t}1
- 4 -
/E /~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City NTanager
Council Letter No. 340
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council r~7embers:
Subject: Purchase in Excess of $1,000
Chapter Six, Section 6.05 of the city charter stipulates
that the city council must approve purchases of merchandise,
materials, equipment or construction when the amount exceeds
$1,000. There is one such item on the city council agenda of
September 22, 1980.
Sheridan Park Pathway
The adopted 1980 Capital Improvements Budget provides a
$25,000 appropriation for Sheridan Park, for minor park redevelop-
ment. As is typical of the park redevelopment process in the City
of Richfield, several meetings have been held with the neighbor-
hood, and the resultant plans were previously approved by the city
council. One of the items in that plan is an asphalt pathway
with a basically north/south direction. The six foot wide path-
way is to begin at approximately 65th Street and Thomas Avenue on
the north, and proceed south on the east side of the tennis courts
to connect on the south at the Thomas Avenue cul-du-sac.
Nine sets of plans, specifications and proposal forms were
issued for this pathway. Four vendors submitted quotations. Prior
Lake Blacktop, Inc. quoted $3,002.00; Bituminous Roadways, Inc.
quoted $4,073.20; Barber Construction Company, Inc. quoted $5,304.00;
and P•lunn Blacktop, Inc quoted $17,606.92. The quotations are based
on unit prices for an estimated 34 cubic yards of aggregate base,
one unit corrugated metal pipe and an estimated 2,760 square feet
of 2z" bituminous surface. Payment will be based on the actual
field measurements.
It is recommended that the city council approve the quotation
from Prior Lake Blacktop, Inc., at a unit price of $14.00 for the
aggregate base, $130.00 for the corrugated metal pipe, and $.85
for the bituminous, for construction of the Sheridan Park Pathway.
The total estimated purchase will be $3,002.00. It appears that
the work will qualify for a state trail grant with a 400, or $1,200.80
reimbursement of this cost.
Respectfully submitted,
~r,.~..1~.:t~ ~~~~
,~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
cc: Community Services Director
-t~ //
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 339
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Appointments to the Hennepin County Planning
Area Citizens Advisory Committee (rACAC)
An item is scheduled
meeting providing for cou
citi-
zens advisor
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
on the September 22, 1980 city council
// ~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 338
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Authorization to Purchase Lamps and Fixtures for
Low Pressure Sodium Lighting Test Project
At the city council meeting of August 25, 1980, the city council
approved designation of Lyndale Avenue, 74th - 78th Street and Cedar
Avenue, 66th to 76th Street as test areas for the installation of
energy-saving low pressure sodium lighting. The city was awarded a
grant of $8,000 from the Minnesota League of Cities to support this
test project. The amount of this grant was based on estimated prices
of lamps and fixtures to be supplied by the Norelco Company at a
reduced cost for test purposes. Use of low pressure sodium lighting
is a recent development in the United States, and I~'orelco has been
the leader in this area, having the majority of all current such
lighting installations nationwide. Norelco is the only company cur-
rently having installations in Minnesota, with test sites in Blooming-
ton, Minneapolis, and St. Paul. They have developed a solid track
record of experience in this field. For this reason, Norelco was the
only company from whom a bid was solicited to provide this lighting.
It is the opinion of the staff that the test objective of this light-
ing installation will best be met by using the most extensively proven
low-pressure sodium lamps and fixtures, which are those available from
the Norelco Company.
The special test price quoted by Norelco is $9,669 for the lamps
and fixtures. The $1,669 cost that is not covered by the $8,000 grant
would come from the building and energy improvement account in the
1981 capital budget. It is the recommendation of the staff that the
city council authorize the purchase of the low pressure sodium lamps
and fixtures from the Norelco Company, in the amount of $9,669.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
Community Services Director
City Engineer
/w o
CITY OF RICHFIELD, DIINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 337
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Authorization to Contract with State of Minnesota
for Food, Beverage and Lodging Inspections
For many years, the Minnesota Department of Health has conducted
inspection activities with regard to all food, beverage and lodging
businesses. In the past, all such businesses have been required to
have state licenses, as well as any appropriate local license. The
State of Minnesota is now in the process of turning over these in-
spection responsibilities to either counties or local units of govern-
ment, whichever is equipped to most effectively handle such inspection
responsibilities. The Hennepin County Department of Health is pre-
sently assuming these inspection responsibilities throughout the county,
with exception of municipalities within the county who have th.e re-
sources to conduct adequate inspections locally.
For some time, Richfield's environmental health activities have
included these inspections of local business establishements. Pre-
sently, these businesses are required to be licensed both by the state
and by the city. Additionally, these business establishments have
been subjected to inspections by both city staff, as well as staff of
the State Department of Health. The proposed consolidation of in-
spection activities will eliminate the existing duplication of effort,
and provide for a less complex inspection process for our local busi-
ness eatablishments. The inspection process seems to fit well into
our newly consolidated city inspection program. As council members
may recall, just recently the city entered into a contract with the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety to provide for all fire-related
inspections in hotel/motel establishments. The addition of formal
responsibility to conduct health inspections of these facilities
would compliment that inspection program.
The City of Richfield presently receives approximately $85,000
per year in subsidies from the State Community Health Services Act.
Of this amount, approximately $22,800 is allocated for health inspec-
tion activities. Since we are already conducting local inspections
of the establishments which have required previous state licenses,
we would anticipate no additional work load by~assuming full responsi-
bility for this inspection activity. However, if the city did not
assume this responsibility, the county would automatically take over
this area of activity and a continued duplication of effort would
exist.
Council Letter No. 337 -2- September 22, 1930
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Director of Public
Safety, in which I concur, that the city council authorize the Mayor
and City Manager to enter into a formal contract with the State of
Minnesota to locally provide food, beverage and lodging health
related inspection programs for_the City of Richfield. A copy of
the proposed contract is attached for council consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Public Safety Director
.~
A G R E E M E N T
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this 22nd day of September
1980, by and between the City of Richfield, hereinafter referred to as "City" and
the h1INNES0TA STATE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, hereinafter referred to as "State," is
entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, 1975 Supplement,
Section 145.031;
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has established a health department pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 145; and
WHEREAS, the State as set out in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 157, and rules
promulgated thereunder, has the responsibility for the inspection and licensing
of hotels, motels, boarding houses, lodging houses, restaurants, places of refresh-
ment and resorts ; and
WHEREAS, the City has an environmental health staff competent to inspect
hotels, motels, boarding and lodging houses, restaurants, places of refreshment,
.~,~;~W,~„~~Y:~;.,,_.,,.~,_ __,._ ,,,;,.~ and resorts, and to enforce ordinances and statutes pertaining thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE STATE AND TffE CITY JOINTLY AGREE AS FOLLO{VS:
1. The State hereby delegates to the City, and the City hereby accepts
responsibility, as designated agent, for performing the functions assigned to
the State by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 157, and rules promulgated thereunder,
of licensing and inspecting hotels, motels, boarding houses, lodging houses,
restaurants, places of refreshment, and resorts located in the City, as well as
enforcement of applicable City ordinances pertaining thereto. Inspections shall
be made by the City on the basis of the licensing requirements established in
applicable rules as defined in Section 8 of this Agreement. The City will also
make timely follow-up inspections to provide for compliance with applicable re-
gulations as defined in Section 8 of this Agreement.
2. The City will prepare inspection reports which contain a statement of
any violations, orders for corrections of violations, and set dates of compliance,
which reports shall be available for inspection by the State at reasonable times.
3. The City shall review and approve plans and specifications for proposed
new or remodeled licensed establishments to determine in advance compliance with
applicable regulations. The plans and specifications for lodging establishments
shall include site and layout of sleeping rooms, window locations, exits and fire
escapes, maximum occupancy, a description of ventilation and heating equipment, and
' floor and wall finishes. The plans and specifications for food and/or beverage
establishments, shall include a list of equipment including make, model number of
other identification; equipment layout; finishes of floors, walls and ceilings;
location of toilet and handwashing facilities; lighting; ventilation; and hot water
generating equipment. The City shall make any submitted plans and specifications
available to the State upon request.
4. The City will perform the inspection, licensing, enforcement, and other
services agreed to herein without cost to the State except for monies received
under the Community Health Services Act. The City will provide the State with a
current list of licensed establishments and will make inspection reports available
to the State upon request.
-Mr>...~:bs~<-. ;.. _ :-,.y..: .rya
5. On the effective date of this Agreement, the State will discontinue the
issuance of licenses, the revocation of licenses, the conduct of hearings or initia-
lion of Court actions, or other enforcement actions under 6linnesota Statutes,
Chapter 157. The State will discontinue all inspection activity except the in-
spection activity required in Section 6. The State will provide, without cost to
the City, orientation and consultation on problems or other supportive services for
the staff of the City. The State will provide, without cost to the City, consulta-
lion and advice on rules promulgated by the State which are to be enforced by the
City.
6. The State shall annually review the City's program to determine its con-
timed compliance with this Agreement. Annual review criteria shall include average
establishment demerit score, interpretation of requirements, administrative proce-
dures (completeness of records, frequency of inspections, and enforcement procedures),
staff training, industry training, program support, plan review, investigation and
reporting of food-borne outbreaks, and supportive facilities and measures (laboratory
facilities and services, field equipment, preparedness for food-borne disease out-
breaks). Any deficiencies in the City's program shall be reported to the City. Tlie
minimum acceptable standard of the City's performance will be the level of inspection
and service performed by the City during the preceding three years.
7. The City shall maintain at least the same ratio of sanitarians per estab-
lishment that existed during 1980. A Food Service Sanitation Survey Officer
2
i
J
certified by the U. S. Department of Health, Education and tYelfare shall certify
that the City's sanitarians are qualified pursuant to standardization procedures
established by the State and without cost to the City.
8. The City agrees to enforce ordinances that have an effective date of not
later than January 1, 1981, establishing standards for licensed establishments that
are at least equivalent to the minimum standards established by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 157 and rules promulgated thereunder, as such statutes and rules are amended
from time to time. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to prohibit the City
from enforcing ordinances with more stringent requirements than those contained in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 157, and rules promulgated thereunder.
9. The Agreement shall continue to be effective until terminated by either
party. Termination by the City may be accomplished by the City notifying the
State in writing that it intends to terminate the Agreement and that such termin-
ation shall occur 180 days after receipt of such notice by the State. Termination
by the State shall be in writing accompanied by documentation that the City's pro-
gram deficiencies require such termination. If the City's program is found by the
"~~~`~~~'~°'"" "'' "'`"'"~' State to be deficient by the criteria and standards set forth in Section 6 hereof,
but under such conditions as do not create a public health hazard, the State may
place the City's program and the Agreement on a provisional status for a period of
six months, and said provisional status may be extended by the State. In any event,
the State may terminate the Agreement immediately by written notice if a deficiency
in the City's program results in the creation of public health hazards.
10. This Agreement may be amended by the City and the State at any time.
11. This Agreement is effective on January 1, 1981.
IN WITNESS {YIiEREOF, The parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their duly authorized officers as of this 27nd day of ~~embe r 19~.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
By:
Commissioner
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Mayor
City Manager
- 3
~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 336
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
There is
item scheduled for the September 22, council agenda
Since the present non-intoxicating malt liquor
transferred under terms of city ordinance code
Applications
a retail "on-
ment macnine license to continue the operation or tnis business upon
the closing of the proposed purchase agreement. The applications
have been submitted by Ms. Debra Bigalk, who resides at 3700 15th Ave-
nue South in T~Iinneapolis. A2s. Bigalik will be the sole owner and
operator of the Sandy's Tavern business establishment.
all positive with regard to both her character and her ability to
successfully operate this business enterprise in an appropriate manner.
The Department of Public Safety has also examined the pending
purchase agreement between the Beck's and Ms. Bigalk. The agreement
appears to be in order and the stated source of funds for purchase
of this business has been verified.
operated at
Subject: Application for Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor
License Sandy's Tavern - 6612 Penn Avenue South
As required by city ordinance, the Department of Public Safety+
has conducted the necessary license application investigation with
• Council Letter No. 336 -2- September 22, 1980
There are no conditions as set-forth in city ordinance code
11.02, which have not been met by the applicant. Therefore, it is
the recommendation of the Public Safety Director, in which I concur,
that the city council give favorable action to the license applica-
tions requested.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenbercre(~r
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Public Safety Director
Deputy City Clerk
r
~9
THE CITY OR RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
J
J
The Honorable Mayor
and 3
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield c/
Council Members: ~"
Council Letter No. 335
Agenda September 22, 1980
Subject: Report and Recommendations Relating to Animal
Control
control and enforcement, and make a report to the city council at a
later date. This requested study was in response to residents who
have appeared at city council meetings expressing concern regarding
nuisances caused by loose dogs and cats. A committee comprised of
four city staff members representing residents, planning and zoning,
public safety and environmental health was selected to review this
problem.
Most of the complaints received through the feedback program or
by calls to the public safety community services officers concern
loose animals and; or excrement deposited by dogs and cats on lawns
and in city parks. At the present time, the city has issued licenses
for 2,900 dogs and 540 cats. It is estimated that fewer than 50
percent of dog and cat owners license their pets, so it can be as-
sumed that there are at least 6,000 dogs and over 1,000 cats in
Richfield, Dogs under the age of six months do not require a license.
In their discussions and review of the current animal control
ordinances, the city staff considered the following issues:
Vicious Dogs
Once
responds to a ca
animal is gone.
mals each month.,
community service officer
very often the offending
licensed.
Council Letter No. 335 -2-
September 22, 1980
$5.00 impoundment fee, payable to the city, plus boarding fees of
$4.00 per day. If the animal is not licensed, a license, in the
amount of $5.00 plus a $3.00 late fee, must be purchased before the
animal can be released. A citation is also issued, with a fine
ranging from $25 to $300. However, it has been our experience that,
when pet owners appear in court in response to the citations, the
fines are usually suspended.
First Offense: $ 5.D0 .
Second Offense: $25.00.
Third Offense: $45.00
pet. However
1
owners daily. The city receives numerous complaints from residents
regarding the fact that parks and playgrounds are full of dog feces.
This is particularly irritating to persons wishing to picnic at
Augsburg Park, and for those using the playgrounds.
Therefore,
ordinance amendment be enacted which would prohibit dogs in city parks
and playgrounds. This would be easier to enforce than a pooper
scooper ordinance, and would alleviate some of the problems with dog
feces in our parks and playgrounds. Proper signing of the parks and
playgrounds would be a necessity with this ordinance.
Barking Dogs
The nuisance of barking dogs is adequately covered by the present
city ordinance and no changes are recommended. .
Vicious Dogs
It would be the staff's recommendation that an ordinance be ap-
proved which would allow for disposal of an animal after it attacks
The committee discussed the possibility of a "pooper scooper"
ordinance to address this problem. An ordinance of this sort would
make it mandatory for persons walking their pets to have a "pooper
scooper" in their possession and to remove any messes left by their
• Council Letter No. 335 -3- September 22, 1980
Summary
In summary, the staff would recommend that the city council ~~N
approve the following: / ~
\// ~~
1. A progressively higher impoundment fee for repeat ~~
offenders of "animal at large." (~ ~~~
2. The prohibition of dogs in city parks and playgrounds. \?
3. The authority to dispose of an animal after it attacks
cnmAnnr~ fnr i-hP ~PCn71C~ t'lTT1P_
If the city council is in agreement-with these recommendations,
it would be appropriate for the city council to request the city
attorney to draft the appropriate ordinances to be placed on a future
city council agenda for first reading consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Public Safery Director
City Attorney
CHAPTER V
YK
PART III, HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE
5.27 LICENSING OF DOMESTIC ANIMALS.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings ascribed to
them in this section:
(1) "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, harboring or having custody
of a dog or cat.
(2) "Commercial kennel" means a place where more than two dogs or two cats
over six months of age are kept, and where the business of selling, boarding,
breeding; showing, treating or grooming dogs or cats is conducted.
. (3)., "Residential kennel"-means a place where more than two dogs or two cats
over six months of age are kept on premises which are zoned and occuped for
residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental
to the occupancy of 'the premises for residential purposes.
(4) A dogeis "at large" when he is off the•pr5pefty of his owner and'~tot
under restraint.
(5) A dog is "under restraint's if he is controlled by a leash not exceedin?
six feet in length, or at heel beside a competent person having custody of himJ
and obedient to that person`s commands, or with in ,a vehicle being driven or
parked bn a pubic street or within the.property limits of his owner's premises.
An unattended dog on the property of another, without the consent of such prop-
erty owner, is "at large" and not under restraint even though he is on a leash,
I
Subd. 2. License Required. No person shall own, harbor, keep or have custody
of a dog or cat over six months of age within the city, unless a current license
for such~aziimal has been obtained as provided in this section. Licenses shall
be issued on an annual basis and shall be made for the whole or unexpired portion
of the year ending on the 30th day of June next following the first effective day
of the license.
Subd. 3. License Fees. The license fee for each dog license, the license fee
for each cat license, and the charge for a duplicate license for either animal
is as provided in Appendix D of this Code. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77
Subd. 4. Late Penalty. If the license for a dog or cat is obtained while the
dog or cat is impounded by the city, or after the required license period has
commenced, there shall be added to the regular license fee a late-license pen-
alty as provided in Appendix D of this Code for each animal; provided that any
owner who acquires a dog or cat after the start of the license year, or any
owner who has a dog or cat at the time of becoming a resident of the city, shall
be allowed thirty days to secure a license, without incurring the late-license
penalty provided in this subdivision. (Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77
Subd. 5. Contents of Application, Application for a dog or cat license shall
be made to the city clerk or to the pound keeper. It shall include such des-
criptive information as is necessary to provide reasonable identification of the
animal and his owner.
Subd. 6.
license by
vided with
ORDINANCE CODE
Identification of Licensed Animal. Upon the issuance of a dog or cat
the city clerk~or the city pound keeper, the licensee shall be pro-
a metallic tag bering the license number, the word "Richfield"~ and
8/8/77
139 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESO TA
J
Subd. 15. Quarantine. Any dog or cat that has bitten a person shall immediately
be impounded for at least 10 days and kept apart from other animals, under. the
supervision of a veterinarian, until it is determined whether such animal had
or has a disease which might have been transmitted by such bite. Such impounding
may be done. by the owner, and need not be at the city pound or any pound desig-
nated by the city, but if it is not at the city pound or designated pound, the
owner shall notify the pound keeper or the police department immediately and shall
furnish proof in writing that such dog or cat is being so impounded. Upon the
expiration of 10 days, if it is determined that the dog or cat does not have a
disease which might have been transmitted by such bite, he may be released, a?id
the pound keeper or police department shall be notified immediately prior to such
release by the owner of the dog or cat.' If the dog or cat is impounded at the
city pound, it may be reclaimed as hereinafter provided. Any dog or cat which
h as been bitten by a rabid animal shall be euthanated or impounded and kept in
the same manner for a period of six months; provided that if the dog or cat which
has been bitten by a rabid animal has been vaccinated at least three weeks before
such bite and within one year of such bite and if it is again immediately vac-
cinated, then such animal shall be confined or impounded for a period of forte
days before it is released. The owner of a dog or cat which has been bitten by
a rabid animal shall notify the city pound keeper or police department immediately
prior to the release of any such dog or cat.
Subd. 16. Dangerous Animals. If a dog or cat is diseased, vicious, dangerous,
rabid or exposed to rabies and such dog or cat cannot be impounded after a rea-
sonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to the persons
attempting to impound it, such dog or cat may be immediately killed by or under
the direction of an officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this secticn.
Subd. 17. Treatment During Impounding. Any dog or cat which is impounded in
the city pound or designated pound shall be kept, with kind treatment and suf-
ficient food and water, and sanitary conditions, for the animal's comfort. If
the animal is not known or suspected of being diseased and has not bitten a person
or been bitten by a rabid animal, it shall be kept in the pound for at least five
days, unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If such animal is known to be
or is suspected of being diseased with a disease which might be transmitted to
persons, it shall be kept in the pound for at least 10 days.
Subd. 18. Redemption of Animals. Any dog or cat may be redeemed from the poundy
by the owner upon paying the following:
(1) The license fee for the animal, if the license has not previously
been obtained.
(2) The late-license penalty, where a license has not been obtained within
tie time provided in this section.
(3) The amount of the boarding fee which the city is required to pay to
the pound keeper.
(4) An impounding penalty as provided in Appendix D of this Code.
(Bill 1977-16) 8/8/77
Subd, 19. Disposal of Unredeemed Animals. The city pound keeper or designated
pound keeper shall make an effort to contact the owner of any dog or cat which
has been impounded and eihich has identification on it. If at the end of the
impounding period the dog or cat is not reclaimed by the owner, such animal shall
8/8/77
ORDINANCE CODE 141 CITY OF RICHFIELD, PJIINIVESO (A
n
Subd. 7." Sanitation, Kennels shall be maintained in a clean and healthful con-
dition at all times, and shall be open to inspection by any health officer,
sanitarian, animal control officer or other person charged with the enforcement
of this section, at all reasonable times,
Subd. 8. Reports to City. Each month that a kennel is operated, the owner of
such kennel shall report to the city manager, accurately stating in writing the
greatest number of animals kept on his kennel premises during the preceding
calendar month. Animals kept by a kennel in its capacity as the city pound need
not be so reported.
Subd. 9.' Reports by Pound Keeper. The city pound keeper or designated pound
keeper shall account for any pay over monthly to the city all monies received
by him on behalf of the city as license fees or other charges. The pound keeper
shall also give an accurate written report each month to the city, stating all
licenses issued by him, all fees or other charges collected, all sales made, all
dogs, cats and other animals impounded, the duration of any such impoundment,
all animals destroyed, and any other pertinent data relating to animal control
which may be requested by the city manager.
5.29 FIREARMS
Subdivision 1. Definitions, The following terms have the meanings ascribed to
them in this section:
(1) "Crime of violence" means murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnaping,
burglary, housebreaking; assault with intent to kill, commit rape or rob; assault ,
with a dangerous weapon or assault with intent to commit any offense punishable
by imprisonment for more than one year.
(2) "Firearm" means any weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to
expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of expanding gases.
(3) "Fugitive from justice" means any person who has fled or is fleeing from
any law enforcement officer to avoid prosecution or incarceration for a crime of
violence or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.
(4) "Manufacturer or dealer" means any person engaged in the business of
manufacturing, repairing or selling firearms at wholesale or retail, or of ac-
cepting or pledging firearms as security for loans within the city.
(5) "Pistol" means any firearm with a barrel less than 12 inches in length.
(6) "Subversive organization" means any group, committee, club, league,
society, association or combination of individuals the purpose of which, or one
of the purposes of which, is the establishment, control, conduct, seizure or
overthrow of the government of the United States or any state or political sub-
division thereof by theuse of force, violence, military measures or threats of
one or more of the foregoing.
Subd. 2. License Required. It is unlawful for any manufacturer or dealer to
sell at wholesale or retail, to lease or to pledge or accept as security for a
loan, any firearm caithout first having procured a license.
Subd. 3. Contents of Application. Application for a license shall be made to
the city cleric on forms furnished by him. The application shall indicate the
business name of the applicant, the business address, the name and home address
of the proprietor, proprietors (if a partnership) or of the president (and such
additional) information as may be required. The application may be filed in
person or by mail and shall be accompanied by the license fee.
4/8/68
ORDINANCE CODE 143 CITY OF RICHF{ELD, MINNESO fA
/~ A
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 334
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council Members:
Subject: Release of Off-Street Parking Bonds for Wendy's
Restaurant, 6500 Lyndale Avenue South, and
Kenny's P~7arket-Dairy Store, 6708 - 6722 Penn
Avenue South
On June 26, 1978 the city council authorized execution of an
off-street parking contract with C & C Investments, Inc. to con-
struct a new parking lot in conjunction with the construction of
Wendy's restaurant.
On October 11, 1977, the city council authorized execution
of an off-street parking contract with Kenneth Youngberg, operator
of Kenny's Market=Dairy Store to reconstruct the area from 6708
Penn to 6722 Penn.
Inspections of these two sites by the city staff indicates
that the owners have complied with the terms of their respective
off-street parking contracts. Therefore, it is recommended that
the city council adopt the attached resolutions, authorizing
release of the performance bonds for these two off-street parking
contracts.
Respectfully submitted,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/jf
cc: Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND
ON OFF-STREET PARKING
C&C Investments, Inc.
1301 Cambridge Street, Mpls, MN
Location: 6500 Lyndale Avenue S.
Use: Restaurant
WHEREAS, C&C Investments, Inc. 1301 Cambridge Street, had an
off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating
to 6500 Lyndale Avenue South, which contract bears the designation
of Contract No. 2268, and which contract was guaranteed by an off-
street parking operator's bond in the amount of Eleven Thousand
Dollars ($11,000) on which the Capital Indemnity Corp. appears as
surety, and
WHEREAS, said C&C Investments, Inc. has substantially complied
with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be releived
of any further obligation under said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring
said C&C Investments, Inc. to continue to provide a bond for
security on the performance of said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the City
of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to
release C&C Investments, Ines for any and all acts committed or
incurred in violation of said Contract No. 2268, on and after the
day of 1980.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
s
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO RELEASE OF BOND
ON OFF-STREET PARKING
Kenneth Youngberg
6700 Penn Avenue South
Location: 6708-6722 Penn Avenue S.
Use: Dairy Store
WHEREAS, Kenneth Youngberg, 6700 Penn Avenue South, had an
off-street parking agreement with the City of Richfield relating
to 6708-6722 Penn Avenue South, which contract bears the designa-
tion of Contract No. 2249, and which contract was guaranteed by an
off-street parking operator's bond in the amount of Ten Thousand
Five Hundred Dollars ($10,500) on which the Home Indemnity Company
appears as surety, and
WHEREAS, said Kenneth Youngberg has substantially complied
with the provisions of said agreement and now seeks to be relieved
of any further obligation under said bond, and
WHEREAS, there appears to be no justification for requiring
said Kenneth Youngberg to continue to provide a bond for security
on the performance of said agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the c~.ty council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
That the city manager is hereby authorized and directed to
release Kenneth Youngberg for any and all acts committed or incurred
in violation of said Contract No. 2249, on and after the
day of 1980.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Richfield this
day of 1980.
Donald J. Priebe Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City ~~of Richf field
Council Letter No. 333
Agenda September 22, 1980
Council Members:
Subject: Traffic Control Devices
At the council meeting on August 25, 1980, the city council
discussed the comprehensive stop sign policy report which had been
prepared by the city staff. As a result of that discussion, the
city council approved the comprehensive stop sign policy which de-
tailed the city's thinking on traffic .regulatory signs throughout
the city. At the same time the city council requested that an
The
on the Se
city attorney has put together an ordinance which appears
ptember 22, 1980 city council agenda. This ordinance
entially authorize the city manager to order the placemen
affic control devices where the placement is consistent
manual and specifications of the Commission of Transpor-
30 days of such decision.
t
IiiaLe items gaming zo the city council wnicn are or an aaministrative
nature. At the same time, it hopefully will allow a consistency of
implementation of traffic control devices over a period of years.
Finally, the citizen has ultimate appeal rights to the city council
which can be exercised on their initiation. I recommend that the
city council give the ordinance first reading approval, and set
a public hearing for October 27, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Director Community Development
Director Community Services
Director Public Safety
City Engineer
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER IX,
SECTION 9.01 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD
CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Chapter IX, Section 9.01 of the Ordinance Code of the City of
Richfield regulating motor vehicle traffic is amended by adding
thereto the following subdivision:
"Subd. 4. Traffic Control Devices. The city manager
is authorized to order the placement of official traffic
control devices, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
169.01, Subd. 41, upon the streets and highways of the
city when such placement is consistent with Manual and
Specifications of the Commissioner. Any person aggrieved
by the order of the city manager may appeal the decision
to the city council by filing a written notice of appeal
with the city manager within 30 days of the date of such
decision."
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota
this day of 1980.
Donald Priebe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia K. Bergh, Acting City Clerk
i~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Off ice of City Manager
Council Letter No. 332
Agenda September 22, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richf field
Council Members:
Subject: Police and Fire Relief Association Benefit
Changes
Legislation which was passed in the 1980 session of the State
Legislature provided for a benefit increase in the police and fire
relief associations for the City of Richfield. This benefit in-
crease was arrived at for all relief associations in the state as a
compromise to the phase out of the relief associations statewide,
and all new police and firefighters being put into a statewide
public safety PERA (Public Employees Retirement Association) Plan.
The benefit increase included in the legislation basically related
to the provision of additional retirement benefits for service
benefit amounted to one-hal
number of years over 25 yea
and fire relief association
provided for an alternative
cost of the alternative ben
salary when both normal and unfunde
As a result of the legislation, we underwent discussions with
the Richfield Police Relief Association and the Richfield Fire Re-
lief Association. In addition, we received actuarial information
from the firm of Gabriel-Roeder-Smith and Company, concerning the
cost of various benefit options which would serve as alternatives
to the benefit increase as established in the statute. Both assoc-
iations have requested us to consider alternative benefits other
than the one established by the state law. Both alternatives. cost
less than the 1.26 percent limit set by the legislature. The 1.26
percent limit was the cost of the legislatively enacted benefit in
the St. Paul pension plans. Copies of the correspondence from the
Police Relief Association and the Fire Relief Association are en-
closed with this letter. Basically, the Fire Relief Association
to the ~U-year vesting currently in tyre
pon 20-year retirement implemented for their
The cost of that benefit is 1.07 percent,
.26 percent authorized by state law.
Council Letter No. 332 -2- September 22, 1980
The police Relief Association has requested immediate vesting
provision as well as an increase of one unit of base pay after 20
years of service in lieu of the state statutes benefit increase.
That particular benefit combination will cost 1.26 percent of payroll,
also below the 1.26 percent authorized by the state law.
I have
resolution
agenda. Th
requested the city attorney's office to put together the
which appears on the September 22, 1980 city council
in the middle of June, 1980, with
date might preclude him-from this
benefit would have been available
to put this benefit increase into
allowing the retired firefighter
f
1 , 1980. One firefighter retired
the realization that his retirement
benefit. However, since the other
on June 1, 1980, it seems equitable
effect on June 1, 1980,
to gain advantage of the benefit.
and .73 for the fire relief association. With the realization that
the police officers and firefighters contributions will increase by
2 percent on January 1, 1981, unless phased in by the city council,
I would recommend that the city council adopt the resolution pro-
viding the alternative benefit plan for each fund. In addition, I
would recommend that the city council not consider phasing in the
payroll percentage increase that police officers and firefighters
will pay effective January 1, 1981, but rather allowing the increase
to go from 6 percent to 8 percent on that date. All of the above
items have been discussed thoroughly with the relief associations.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ ~1~CC,,~.~~, ~ .,
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/ej a
cc: Public Safety Director
Director Administration Services
Police Relief Association
Fire Relief Association
N
E~ ~
Ln
+
,~-
S
.~
v
a
~F-+
n
September 10, 1980
Mr. David Kennedy
Attorney at Law "
1100 First National Bank~Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear Dave:
I have enclosed the resolution and exhibit for the
police and fire relief association amendments. I
have made a couple of slight changes on the resolution
as follows:
a) filled in the resolution number
b) changed date in fourth line of paragraph
1 to April 1st
c) changed spelling of Roeder in line 4 of
paragraph 3.
The exhibit is my attempt at outlining the benefits.
I would appreciate your review so that I can place it
on our September 22, 1980 city council meeting agenda.
Needless to say, I didn't make the September 8, 1980
meeting date due to vacation conflicts. Thanks!
Sincerely yours,
i
-~-~~~
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Director Public Safety
Director Administrative Services
Police Relief Association Officers
Firc Relief Association Officers
Personnel Officer
City Attorney
telephone: 869-7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
0
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO
POLICE AND FIRE PERSONNEL:
IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF
MINNESOTA LAWS 1980, CHAPTER 607,
ARTICLE XV, SECTION 7.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY_COUNCIL OF THE City of
Richfield as follows:
1. This Council by Resolution No.~x~ duly adopted
and filed as required by law has determined to have all the
provisions of Section 4 of Laws 1980, Chapter 607, Article
XV, (the "Act") apply to the City, thus providing for membership
of all paid police and fire personnel hired after April,
1980 in the PERA Police and Fire Fund and the continued
existence of the Richfield Police Relief Association and the
Richf-field Firemen's Relief Association (the "Associations")
until termination as provided .in the Act.
2. Section 7 of the Act provides that notwithstanding
any provision thereof or of any other law to the contrary,
the City Council may, following an actuarial analysis, increase
the service pension or retirement benefits or modify and
provision of the benefit plans for the Associations provided
that the cost of any such increase or modification does not
exceed 1.26 percent of covered payroll.
3. The Associations have requested modifications in
their respective benefit plans as set forth herein. The
costs of such modifications as detailed in the reports of
Gabriel-Roeder-Smith & Company, Actuaries and Consultants,
dated June 4, 1980 and incorporated herein by reference,
do not exceed 1.26 percent of covered payroll. The City
Council has determined that it is in the best interests of
the City and the Associations that the authority contained
in Section 7 of the Act be utilized and that the requested
modification be made.
4. The modifications to the respective retirement
plan of each of the Associations and the costs thereof are
set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City Manager
is authorized and directed to cooperate with the officers of
7
v-
' a
~C
L
the Associations in preparing appropriate modifications to
the By-laws of the Associations to embody the modifications
herein approved. The revised By-laws, after approval by the•
Association, shall be presented to the Council for ratification
as provided by law.
5. The pension plan modifications authorized by this
Resolution apply to any member of the Associations on active
duty status on June 1, 1980.
EXHIBIT A
Benefit Increases Effective June 1, 1980
City of Richfield Police Relief Association
a) The retirement benefit is hereby increased
by 1/75 of base pay after 20 years of service,
"~ escalated with base pay.
Cost as a percent of payroll
b) The retirement plan is hereby amended to allow
1OC% immediate vesting for each police officer.
(NO survivor benefitj~:-, If a terminated employee
'has less than 20 years of service, he/she is
entitled to 1/20 times ,his/her years of service,
times the benefit at 20~'"'years . .
Cost as percent of payroll
Total Cost - Normal & Amortization Payment
City of Richfield Fire Relief Association
a) The retirement benefit is hereby increased
by 1% of base pay after 20 years of service,
escalated with base pay.
Cost as a percent of payroll
b) The retirement plan is hereby amended to allow
100% immediate vesting for each firefighter.
,(.N_o survivor benefit) _ If a terminated employee
'-has less than 20 years of service, he/she is
entitled to 1/20 times his/her years of service,
times the benefit at 20 year.
Cost as percent of payroll
Total Cost - Normal & Amortization Payment
.80%
.43%
1.23% ~~ ~,
/l~
~ ,
.775
.295
1.07 %
n
/S
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No.331
Agenda September 8, 1980
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Council riembers
Subject: Parking Restrictions on Private Property
Council Member Luettinger has requested. that an item be
listed on the September 8, 1980 city council agenda in refer-
ence to parking restrictions within the city. At the present
time the city has an ordinance prohibiting cars to be adver-
tised for sale while located on city streets. However, it is
not illegal for vehicles to be parked on private property
while exhibiting for sale signs. In addition, cars can be
parked on the grassy area of private residences, and not re-
stricted soley to hard surface areas.
Council Member Luettinger is concerned that this detracts
from the general appearance of the community. The city does
require that recreational vehicles, and boats stored on private
property are parked on hard surfaces. In addition, any long
term storage of vehicles is restricted by the code.
Subsequent to the discussion, the city council may desire
to request the city attorney to draft ordinances concerning
this area of interest.
Respectfully submitted,
_.
( ~~ 1
Karl Nollenberger
City Manager
KN/eja
cc: Public Safety Director