Loading...
12-12-06 Agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006 ********************************************************************************************************** SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION RICHFIELD CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 5:30 - 6:00 p.m. 1. Discussion related to maximum re-establishment costs on commercial properties as part of eminent domain law process 6:00 - 6:20 p.m. 2. Discussion related to York Place development in Edina (Council Memo No. 191) Adjournment ********************************************************************************************************** REGULAR CITY COUNCil MEETING COUNCil CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for oth rs. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Regular City Council Meeting of November 14,2006; (2) Special Concurrent City Council/Planning Commission/Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Meeting of November 16,2006; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of November 28, 2006; and (4) Special City Council Meeting of December 4,2006 PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognition of out-going Mayor Martin J. Kirsch 2. Richfield Foundation awarding of grants 3. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting to City of Richfield Finance Manager Chris Regis (Council Memo No. 192) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 4. Council discussion . Resolution recognizing out-going Fifth District Congressman Martin O. Sabo . Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 5. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual it ms and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is n cessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from th Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing conveyance of certain real property to Ryan Companies US, Inc. and scheduling public hearing and second reading for January 9, 2007 S.R. No. 258 B. Consideration of approval of authorizing Mayor and City Manager to execute termination of party wall agreement between City of Richfield and Kensington Park Retail, LLC at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 259 C. Consideration of approval of resolution reappointing Robyn Goolsbey and Rudy Hanuman to Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for three-year terms ending December 31, 2009 S.R. No. 260 D. Consideration of approval of authorizing City Manager to execute stipulation for settlement and settlement agreement and release for workers' compensation claim with lump sum payment not to exceed $67,500 S.R. No. 261 Notes: 7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public hearings regarding 2007 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license renewals: A. Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 262 B. University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 263 Notes: 9. Public hearings regarding 2007 club on-sale and Sunday liquor license renewals: A. Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food & Drink; 6715 Lake Shore Drive S.R. No. 264 B. Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435,6501 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 265 Notes: 10. Public hearings regarding 2007 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license renewals: A. The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street S.R. No. 266 B. Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 267 C. Don Pablo's Operating Corp., d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street S.R. No. 268 D. Champps Operating Corp., d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street S.R. No. 269 E. Paisan Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 270 F. HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant; 7717 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 271 G. Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street S.R. No. 272 Notes: 11. Public hearings regarding 2007 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license renewals: A. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 273 B. Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street S.R. No. 274 C. Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 275 D. Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street S.R. No. 276 E. The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 277 Notes: 12. Public hearing regarding resolution ordering Richfield Parkway and 66th Street intersection improvements Staff Report No. 278 Notes: 13. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amending Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37 and resolution approving summary publication of ordinance Staff Report No. 279 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 14. Consideration of selecting design option for new City Maintenance Facility and authorize purchase of architectural and engineering services from Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) for completion of design development, construction document and bidding phases for new maintenance facility at cost of $425,000 and reimbursable expenses from $50,000 to $80,000 Staff Report No. 280 Notes: 15. Consideration of purchase of architectural services from Wold Architects & Engineers for preliminary design work and cost estimates for new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing building for City of Richfield with costs not to exceed $73,000 Staff Report No. 281 Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 16. Public hearing regarding resolution adopting five-year Capital Improvement Budget and Plan for City and providing for preliminary approval of issuance of general obligation bonds to finance capital improvements of Plan Staff Report No. 282 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 17. Consideration of resolution authorizing condemnation of certain properties located at 6544 Portland Avenue, 6600 Oakland Avenue, 601 East 66th Street, 6600 Portland Avenue and 6601 Fifth Avenue needed for 66th Street and Portland Avenue intersection project Staff Report No. 283 Notes: 18. Consideration of resolutions approving 2006 Revised/2007 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions Staff Report No. 284 Notes: CITY MANAGERIS REPORT 19. City Manager's report Notes: 20. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient tim for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 21. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must b made at least 96 hours in advanc to th City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 6A 258 ~ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CORRINE H. THOMSON, CITY ATTORNEY NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: lfY' ri REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of a Transitory Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of real property to Ryan Companies US, Inc. and to set second readinQ and public hearinQ for January 9, 2007. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the first reading of a Transitory Ordinance authorizing and providing for the conveyance of certain real property to Ryan Companies US, Inc. I II. BACKGROUND I On July 11, 2006 the City Council approved Transitory Ordinance No. 18.40, which authorized the sale of certain real properties to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in connection with the Cedar Point development project. The Richfield HRA, in turn, authorized the conveyance of the land to Ryan Companies US, Inc. for that development project. An eight-foot strip of land was mistakenly omitted from Transitory Ordinance No. 18.40 but was included in the deed of conveyance. . The proposed ordinance authorizes the conveyance of the eight-foot strip of land. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY I . The City Charter requires approval of land sales by ordinance. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The eight-foot strip of land was mistakenly omitted from the Ordinance authorizing the sale of properties for the Cedar Point development. . The property in question has always been intended to be included in the Cedar Point development and is necessary to that development I C. FINANCIAL I . The sale of land will be made for nominal consideration, because the land was intended to be included in the prior sale of the Cedar Point development properties. I D. LEGAL I . The City Council has previously approved agreements that contemplated the conveyance of this property to the HRA and Ryan. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . N/A I V. ATTACHMENTS . Transitory Ordinance . Map I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A foll- f TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY lOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. The real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, and legally described as the North 8 feet of the South 25 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Iverson's Third Addition, is hereby authorized to be disposed of and conveyed by the City. Section 2 The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to take all action as is required to transfer or otherwise dispose of and convey the described real property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield or to Ryan Companies US, Inc., as may be appropriate, and any prior actions of city officers or employees in furtherance of said sale are hereby approved and ratified. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 9th day of January, 2007. Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Tl .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65th Street : . . . . . . . . . . .... ...... "ffi ~ m6th Stmet . t I I I I I I I . loA-- J- Taft Park Property to be Conveyed to Ryan Companies U.S., Inc. I I CI) ::s c CI) ~ .c - ...... - CI) ::s c CI) > <C ~ (U "C CI) (J ...... ...... J: ~ I N A Legend .... . Corridor Outline ... Created: December 6, 2006 Property to be Conveyed o . 115 230 460 690 920 Feet - AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 6B 259 ~ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CORRINEH. THOMSON, CITY ATTORNEY NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Termination of Party Wall AQreement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize and direct the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Termination of Party Wall Agreement. I II. BACKGROUND I The City is the owner of property that is located within 76th Street and adjacent to the Kensington Park development at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue. Both the City property and the Kensington Park property are encumbered by a Party Wall Agreement. Kensington Park Retail, LLC has requested that the City agree to terminate the Party Wall Agreement in order to clear title to both properties. The Party Wall Agreement dates back to the earlier use of the properties as part of attached retail buildings, and it no longer serves any purpose since the redevelopment of the properties. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY I . The City has no need for the Party Wall Agreement. . The execution of the termination instrument will facilitate clearing title to the Kensington Park property. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Termination of the easement will clear the title to the properties. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . The City Attorney has reviewed the form of termination. I IV. ALTERNATIVE REcOMMENDATION(S) . N/A I V. ATTACHMENTS . Termination of Party Wall Agreement. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A &8 -{ [ReseIVed for Recording Data] TERMINATION OF P ARTY WALL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, is made this _ day of , 2006 by and between Kensington Park Retail, LLC, a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("KPR"), and the City of Richfield, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, KPR is the owner of certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof; WHEREAS, the City is the owner of certain additional real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof; WHEREAS, there is recorded against said properties, or a portion thereof, a certain Party Wall Agreement, dated May 21, 1956, recorded August 5, 1956, in Book 2098 of Deeds, Page 102, as Document No. 3021427; and WHEREAS, said party wall no longer exists and is no longer needed or desired. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree to terminate the Party Wall Agreement in its entirety. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. KENSINGTON PARK RETAIL, LLC CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its: Chief Manager By: Its: Mayor And by: Its: City Manager (p fJ - :J- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006, by Colleen M. Carey, the Chief Manager of Kensington Park Retail, LLC, a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf ofthe company. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006, by , the of the City of Richfield, a municipality under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipality. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2006, by , the of the City of Richfield, a municipality under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf ofthe municipality. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. Suite 3500 225 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 604-6400 (p 8- 2> EXHIBIT A Tract E, G, H, I, and J, Registered Land Survey No. 1747, Hennepin County, Minnesota. & f)-~ . EXHIBIT B That part of Lot 7, "Glenn's Addition", lying between the South line of the North 28.30 feet of said Lot 7 and the North line of the South 30.90 feet of said Lot 7, except that part thereof lying North of the South 45.30 feet of said Lot 7 and Westerly of a curve concave to the East having a radius of 17.01 feet. Said curve passes through a point on the South line of said North 28.30 feet of Lot 7 distant 108.99 feet Easterly of the West line of said Lot 7, and passes through a point on the North line of said South 45.30 feet of Lot 7 distant 105.76 feet Easterly of said West line of Lot 7. AND The South 30.9 feet of Lot 7, Glenn's Addition to the Village of Richfield. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 6C 260 .... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: STEVEN L. DEVICH CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution reappointing Robyn Goolsbey and Rudy Hanuman to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for three.- . . year terms ending December 31, 2009. I II. BACKGROUND I On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% tax on gross receipts of lodging from Richfield Hotels and Motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The establishment of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. (RTPB) and the appointment of directors were also a part of the resolution. Currently there are five director positions on the RTPB. The term of each appointment is for three years and terms are staggered to maintain RTPB continuity. The current appointments to the RTPB and the ending dates of their terms are as follows: 1. Russ Susag, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ending December 31,2008. 2. Rudy Hanuman, General Manager of Candlewood Suites, term ending December 31,2006. 3. Ron Theis General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31,2008. 4. Robyn Goolsbey, Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2006. 1012RTPB 5. Vacant, General Manager of Motel 6, December 31, 2004. The terms of two members of the RTPB will expire on December 31,2006. Those members are Robyn Goolsbey and Rudy Hanuman. Each of them retains their position with their respective hotel/motel property and wishes to be reappointed to the RTPB. Both Ms. Goolsbey and Mr. Hanuman have been active and vital members of the RTPB in the past and deserve consideration for reappointment. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The City Council has the authority to make appointments to the RTPB. . The RTPB has typically included a representative from each property. . Mr. Hanuman and Ms. Goolsbey are the General Managers of their respective hotel/motel properties and are interested in reappointment to the RTPB. ~ I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Although each member serves until a successor is appointed, each of their terms expire on December 31, 2006 and reappointments should be made as soon as possible. I C. FINANCIAL . There is no cost to the City. I D. LEGAL I . The appointment conforms to City Ordinance and bylaws of the RTPB. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . I . The City Council could decide not to appoint these members to the RTPB. . The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. (pC -I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ~as levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center; and WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint five (5) directors to the Board representing the Richfield hotel-motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death, resignation, or removal; and WHEREAS, the term of Rudy Hanuman, the representative from the Candlewood Suites has expired and he seeks reappointment; and WHEREAS, the term of Robyn Goolsbey, the representative from the Hampton Inn has expired and she seeks reappointment, and WHEREAS, Ms. Goolsbeyand Mr. Hanuman have been active and vital members of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for the past three years. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified as follows: . Reappoint Rudy Hanuman, Candlewood Suites, to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for a three-year term ending December 31,2009. . Reappoint Robyn Goolsbey, Hampton Inn, to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for a three-year term ending December 31,2009. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT 6n 261 .... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of approval of Workers' Compensation claim settlement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the City Manager to execute a stipulation for settlement and settlement agreement and release for workers' compensation claim with a lump sum payment not to exceed $67,500. I II. BACKGROUND I On February 13, 2003 the claimant was hired by the City to work as a Police Officer for the Public Safety Department. On August 1 e, 2004 the employee filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury incurred during an arrest incident on August 13, 2004. The City's workers' compensation administrators accepted the claim. The employee underwent surgery on September 4, 2004 and returned to work on April 26, 2005. On that day, the employee aggravated his injury and has not been able to work as a Richfield Police Officer since April 26, 2005. A stipulation for settlement has been negotiated between representatives of the City and the employee. The settlement provides for a payment to the employee not to exceed $60,000 and $7,500 to the employee's attorney. The City will also pay $35.32 in incidental costs incurred by the employee's attorney. As part of the settlement, certain future medical treatment expenses related to the employee's 2004 work injury remain open. The agreement must be approved by the Workers' Compensation Court before it may become final. 12/12/06 we Settlement I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I. A. POLICY I . This settlement fairly represents the interests of both the former employee and the City. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . City staff and legal counsel consider this settlement to be reasonable and recommend its acceptance. . This item has been scheduled for December 12, 2006 so that this claim may be concluded as soon as practical. I C. FINANCIAL I . The payments agreed to in this settlement would be paid from the Self-Insurance Fund. . The settlement includes $60,000 lump sum payment to the employee and $7,500 to the employee's attorney. . The City will pay $35.32 in incidental costs incurred by the employee's attorney. I D. LEGAL I . The settlement avoids the additional time, expense and ill will of pursuing this matter in litigation or continuing negotiations on this claim. . The settlement is subject to employee's rescission period pursuant to the stipulation. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION( s)1 . The City Council could disapprove this settlement package, however, it is doubtful that either the former employee or the City's best interest would be served by protracting negotiations further or pursuing litigation. I V. ATTACHMENTS . None. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 8A 262 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lvndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2007 Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 15, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 121206 PH Metro Pawn Pawnbroker & Secondhand Goods Licenses Renewal Mark and Elizabeth Nichols are the owners of this establishment. John Alan Kunst serves as the store Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The $5000 bond has been submitted. Public Safety/Police had 14 contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 21 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 30,2006. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES . N/A I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of a Pawnbroker and Secondhand Goods Dealers license. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address anyone or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. . The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPALPARTIESEXPECTEDATMEETING I . Mark Nichols, Owner of the establishment . John Kunst, Manager <if 11- ( Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. Officers Mark Nichols Elizabeth Nichols John Alan Kunst Owner Owner Store Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. 2005 2006 TOTAL CONTACTS 21 14 , CRIMINAL CONTACTS 12 10 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (8) Alarm (6) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 9 4 Assists (8) (1 ) Traffic (1 ) (1 ) Inspections/Licensing (0) (2) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: two alarms, one theft, one property damage accident, one noise complaint and five suspicious persons. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 8B 263 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEw: ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. .' I II. BACKGROUND I On November 8, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. 121206 PH Avi's Pawnbroker & Secondhand Goods license Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Andy Jason Strauss is the sole owner of the establishment and also serves as the store manager. He has no known criminal record. A $5000 bond has been submitted. Public Safety had six contacts for this location in the past year. This compares to five contacts from the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff did not receive any complaints regarding this property in the past year. The owners of the business agree to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 30,2006. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES . N/A I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of officers · Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Andy Strauss, Owner/Manager gB-1 Capital Cash, LLC d/b/a Hy's Pawn Officers Andy Strauss Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 PLAZA PAWN 2005 2006 TOTAL CONTACTS 5 6 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (4) Alarm (0) (1 ) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (1 ) The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: one theft, one alarm, and three suspicious persons. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 9A 264 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~# ~'"~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 lake Shore Drive. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 1, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 121206 VFW Club On-Sale & Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal Leonard Gudmunson serves as Commander and John Ellis as Chair of the House Committee. The On-Premise General Manager is Gin Ng. None of these individuals has any known crimihal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Gramarcy Park Cooperative. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Westport Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2005 through September 2006 and indicates that food sales accounted for 41 % of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 56% of the total sales. Miscellaneous sales accounted for 3% of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had nine (9) contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post NO.5555 from October 20p5 through September 2006. This compares with 12 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding the V.F.W. in 2006. Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy has been given to the establishment. There are no distance requirements for notifying neighbors of the issuance or renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. In July 1999, Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They were also cited in August 2000. This was their second violation. They paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 received no violations in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003. In November of 2004, the VFW again failed the liquor compliance check, but because more than two years had elapsed since the previous failure, it served as a first failure. They paid a $1,000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None. I D. LEGAL . None. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of the Club On-Sale and Sunday liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may ..request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address anyone or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Gin Ng, Manager of establishment Of{1-i V.F.W. 2005 Post Officers Leonard Gudmunson John Ellis Commander Chair of the House Committee Gin Ng On-premise Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST 5555 2005 2006 TOTAL CONTACTS 12 9 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 7 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (6) Alarm (1 ) (1 ) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 7 2 Assists (2) (0) Traffic (3) (0) Inspections/Licensing (1 ) (0) Medical/Fire (1 ) (2) The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: two suspicious persons, one theft, two alarms, one disturbance, and one robbery. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC BEARINGS 9B 265 .....-. STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Leaion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of 2007 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 16, 2006, the City received the application and other required documents for the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Glen Rasmusson serves as President; Edward Mcinerney serves as Vice President; Mervyn Becker serves as Treasurer; and Roger Wysong continues to serve as the 121206 PH American Legion Liquor Licenses Renewals Club Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Insurance Corporation of Hanover affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2005 through September 2006, and indicates that food sales accounted for 19.9% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 80.1 % of the total sales. There were 29 Public Safety/Police contacts with the American Legion from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 37 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There were no Environmental Health complaints received for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 during this past year. . Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30,2006. In July 1999, the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. In April 2002, The Mpls- Richfield American Legion Post #435 was again cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was technically their second violation, but because more than two years had elapsed since the previous failure, it served as a first failure. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. Richfield American Legion has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY / · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . American Legion club officer. q6-1 ,Mpls - Richfield American Leq!Qn Glen Rasmusson Edward Mcinerney Mervyn, Becker President Vice-President Treasurer Roger Wysong Club Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 Mpls-Richfield American Legion TOTAL CONTACTS 2005 37 2006 29 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 31 24 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (26) (5) (20) (4) Alarm MISCELLANEOUS NON-CRIMINAL 6 5 Assists Inspections/Licensing (0) (1 ) (0) (2) (3) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Traffic Medical/Fire Animal The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: two suspicious persons, one drunkenness, two assaults, six thefts, one damage to property, one warrant, two fights, one domestic, two drug activities, two disturbances and four alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC BEARINGS lOA 266 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 2, 2006, the City received an application and other required documents for On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for The Frenchman's. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mary Christine Blake is the sole owner of the establishment. She also serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Ms. Blake has no known criminal record. Venture Bank in Bloomington is the Mortgage Company, with all payments current. 121206 PH Frenchman's On-Sale & Sunday Liquor License Renewal All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing State Fund Mutual as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2005 through September 2006, and indicates that food sales accounted for 52.2% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 47.8% of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had 40 contacts with The Frenchman's from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 27 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received two complaints in 2006. One complaint was regarding long grass and weeds and the other was regarding a food-related issue. The Bloomington Health Department inspected the business and the issue was resolved. No further complaints have been received. On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. In July 1999, The Frenchman's was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol was suspended for two days. They also failed in December 2003 and again in June 2004. In December of 2003, they paid a $1,000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. In June of 2004, they paid a $1,750 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for seven days. The Frenchman's has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . This agenda item is the first request out of seven for the renewal of the On- Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address anyone or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Mary Christine Blake, Owner of the establishment 10 [:1- f The Frenchmans Directors and Officers Mary Christine Blake Owner and General Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 through September 2006 The Frenchman's 2005 2006 TOTAL CONTACTS 27 40 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 22 26 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (13) (24) Alarm (9) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 5 14 Assists (0) (5) Traffic (3) (4) Inspections/Licensing (0) (4) Medical/Fire (2) (1 ) The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: Six suspicious people, three drunkenness, one theft, six assaults, one noise, five disturbances, one domestic, one fight and two alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS lOB 267 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: . ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lvndale Avenue South. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: · Approve the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 8, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 121206 Houlihans On-Sale & Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal Arnold Auro Angeloni serves as the President of the organization. The on-premises manager is Kim Zeigler. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The property being leased by Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar is owned by Wood lake- VEF IV, LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Travelers Property and Casualty Company of America affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. . A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2005 through August 2006 and indicates that food sales accounted for 66.3% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 33.7% of the total sales. The Environmental Health staff did not receive any complaints on this property in the past year. Public Safety/Police had 39 contacts with Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 40 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. In July 2001, Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. · Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. · Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers · Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Houlihans Staff 1\)6- t Houlihan' Restaurant & Bar Offic rs Arnold Auro Angeloni Kim Richard Zeigler CEO/President On-Premises Manager ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 through September 2006 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: twelve suspicious persons, two alarm, three thefts, one juvenile, one fraud, one property damage, one domestic, one trespass, one drunkenness, one personal injury, one mental health, and one weapons violation. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS IOC 268 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: u,/I:- g~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of the 2007 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Ooeratina Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: · Approve the renewal of On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 8, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor Licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Raymond Paul Burbrick serves as CEO/President; Kurt John Schnaubelt serves as the Secretary and Treasurer; and Philipos Getachew continues to serve as the On- 1213 PH Don Pablo's On-Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal Premise Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A " current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing American Home Assurance Company affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2005 through October 2006 and indicates that food sales accounted for 79% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 21% ofthe total sales. Public Safety/Police had 15 contacts with Don Pablos from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 20 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints regarding Don Pablos during the past year. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30,2006. In July 1999, Don Pablos was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They received a second violation in October 2000. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Don Pablo's failed a liquor compliance check in October 2006, but because they have successfully passed more than two consecutive compliance checks, this is considered a first offense. They received a $1000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Don Pablo's has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City . Codes and State Statutes pertaining to On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can. be conducted. · Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS · List of Officers. · Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Don Pablos staff. lo(!,-/ Don Pablo's Operating Corporation Don Pablos Officers and Directors Raymond Paul Burbrick Robert Lee Hogan Kurt John Schnaubelt CEO/President Vice-President Secretary ITreasurer/CFO Philipos Getachew On-Premise Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005- Septem ber 2006 Don Pablo's TOTAL CONTACTS CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2005 20 2006 15 15 14 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) Alarm (5) (10) (8) (6) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 5 1 Assists Inspections/Licensing (2) (2) (0) (1 ) (0) (0) (1 ) (0) Traffic Medical/Fire The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: one suspicious person, three thefts, one follow-up investigation, one warrant activity, one disturbance, one property damage and six alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 10D 269 ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME. TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1&1 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2007 for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: · Approve the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 16, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required fees. 121206 PH Champps On-Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Michael Patrick O'Donnell serves as President; Donna Depoian serves as Vice- President and Secretary; and David D. Womack serves as Vice-President and Treasurer. Jarrett Ritenour continues to serve as the General Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial, LTD., c/o G. & P. Properties, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich American Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coveragf3 has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2005 through October 2006 and indicates that food sales accounted for 68% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 32% of the total sales. There were 35 Public Safety/Police contacts with Champps restaurant from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 32 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff did not receive any complaints during the past year regarding Champps. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the e~tablishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbor~ of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. In July 1999 and November 1999, Champps Restaurant was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days for their first violation. For their second violation, they received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. They did not receive any violations in the years 2000 or 2001. In April of 2002, Champps received a third violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. The City Council considered this their second violation rather than a third violation due to the fact that the alcohol discipline Resolution 8808 was rescinded after their violation and Resolution 9204 was in place at the time they appeared before the City Council. The licensee did, however, receive a fine of $1750 and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for ten days, as is the penalty for third time violators. There have been no other violations since that time. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. · Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS · List of Officers · Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING · Champps staff loD-1 Champps Operating Corporation Champps Restaurant Officers and Directors Michael Patrick O'Donnell Donna Louise Depoian David D. Womack Jarrett Jon Ritenour President Vice-President & Secretary Vice-President & Treasurer General Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005- September 2006 Champps Operating Corporation Champps Restaurant TOTAL CONTACTS 2005 32 2006 35 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 20 28 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (19) (1) (26) (2) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 12 7 Assists Inspections/Licensing (3) (6) (0) (3) (1) (5) (0) (1 ) Traffic Medical/Fire The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: six thefts, four suspicious persons, three disturbances, two alarms, two follow-ups, one assault, four drunkenness, one property damage, three noise, and two fights. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS iOE 270 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc. d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: · Approve the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 8, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mitchell Law and Sherri (Paisan) Law are the owners of the establishment. Mitchell 121206 PH Khans On-Safe & Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal Law continues to serve as the General Manger of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Safeco Insurance Company affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2005 through September 2006, and indicates that food sales accounted for 94% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 6% of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had 11 contacts with Khan's from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 18 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. The Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque in the past year. On-Sale and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. In July 1999, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days for their first violation. In July 2001, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for their second violation. Since this second violation occurred just two days prior to the two-year time frame established in Resolution No. 8808, the owner of the establishment requested that the violation be considered a first violation with the agreement that the fees and suspension period remain that of a second violation. Council approved the request and Khan's Mongolian Barbeque received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Khan's Mongolian Barbeque failed a liquor compliance check on September 3, 2005. This is considered a first violation due to the time elapsed from the previous one. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Khan's Mongolian Barbeque has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . NIA I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Mitchell Law (0 {;-f KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE Officer and Directors Mitchel Law Sherri (Paisan) Law President & On-Premises Manager Vice PresidentfTreasurer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 Khan's Mongolian Barbeque 2005 2006 TOTAL CONTACTS 18 11 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 14 10 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (2) Alarm (11 ) (8) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 4 1 Assists (1 ) (0) Traffic (2) (1 ) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (1 ) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: two suspicious persons and eight alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 10F 271 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Il(J REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: · Approve the renewal of On-Sale Wine and Sunday Liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun 80 Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 8,2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 121206 PH Jun 80 On-Sale & Sunday Liquor Licenses The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Yik Lo serves as president and Yau Lo serves as vice.president. Yik Lo and Kee Lo both continue to serve as the on-premise managers. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The $10,000 bond issued by Western Surety Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing United Fire and Casualty affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from May 2006 through September 2006, and indicates that food sales accounted for 96.9% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 3.1 % of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had eight (8) contacts with Jun 80 from May 2006 through September 2006. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. As this establishment received their original liquor licenses in May 2006, there are no previous "calls for service" contact records to compare this with. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Jun 80 in 2006. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. Jun 80 has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers · Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI! PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Representative(s) of Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant. 10 F-{ HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun 80 Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Yik Chi Lo Yau Mai Lo Kee Lo and Yik Lo President Vice-President On-Premise Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS May 2006 through September 2006 HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun 80 Chinese Restaurant 2006 TOTAL CONTACTS 8 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) Alarm (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 Assists (1 ) Traffic (0) Inspections/Licensing (2) Medical/Fire (0) The criminal contacts from May 2006 through September 2006 were: two suspicious people, one property damage hit and run, one vandalism, and one drug activity. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS lOG 272 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER.12,2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., 2 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., 2 West 66th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On December 1, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Gaspar Rey Perez serves as the President and On-Premise Manager of the organization; and Lucila Sanchez Perez serves as the Vice-President and Secretary. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. 121206 PH Taco Morelos On-Sale and Sunday Liquor Licenses Renewal The property being leased by Taco Morelos II, Inc. is owned by Heritage Property I.T. Inc. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Farmers Insurance affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has not been submitted as of this date. The applicant expects to submit this statement prior to the public hearing. Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints for Taco Morelos in the past year. There were no Public Safety/Police Contacts with Taco Morelos in the past year. This compares to three contacts for the previous year. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for either the state or the City. The notice of public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. . In May 2003, Taco Morelos was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $1,000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Taco Morelos failed a liquor compliance check on May 24,2005. This is considered a first violation due to the time elapsed from the previous violation. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Taco Morelos has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing, with the exception of the submittal of the accountant's statement. . Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . That the requirements in Resolution No. 9511 are met. . That the accountant's statement is submitted. I C. FINANCIAL . \ N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Gaspar Perez, Owner lOG I TACO MORELOS Officers and Directors Gaspar Rey Perez Lucila Sanchez Perez President Secretary PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 Taco Morelos 2005 TOTAL CONTACTS (3) (2) (2) (0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) CRIMINAL CONTACTS Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL Assists Traffic Inspections/Licensing Medical/Fire 2006 (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) There were no criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 for Taco Morelos. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) . . AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS llA 273 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT-PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 181 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: · Approve the renewal of 2007 On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. . I II. BACKGROUND I On November 8, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. 121206 PH Chipotle On-Sale Wine & 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Licenses Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Montgomery Frederick Moran serves as the LLC Manager out of Boulder, Colorado and Matthew Steven Ells serves as the LLC Manager out of Denver, Colorado. Brandon Nelson continues to serve as the On-Premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. ~ All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich American Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2005 through September 2006, and indicates that food sales accounted for 91.5% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for .65% of the total sales, and miscellaneous sales accounted for 7.85% of the total sales. There were 12 Public Safety/Police contacts with Chipotle Mexican Grill from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with 21 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint for Chipotle Mexican Grill in 2006. The complaint was regarding a radio being left on over night. Management was notified and no further complaints have been received. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · This agenda item is the first request out of five for the renewal of the On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address anyone or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. · Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must al$o note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers · Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I · Brandon Nelson, On-premises Manager J / A-- ( Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC Directors and Officers Matthew Steven Ells Montgomery Frederick Moran Brandon Nelson LLC Manager - Denver, Co. LLC Manager - Boulder, Co. On-premise Manager --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC 2005 2006 TOTAL CO NT ACTS 21 12 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 13 4 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (2) Alarm (10) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 8 8 Assists (2) (0) Traffic (5) (3) Inspections/Licensing (0) (5) Medical/Fire (1 ) (0) The criminal contacts for 2006 were: one suspicious person and one theft. (Numbers in parenthesis are ir:lcluded in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS llB 274 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRA TNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Ig) rn REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt liquor Iicensesfor Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt liauor licenses for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 29, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt liquor licenses for Aribel's. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. The applicant and sole owner/manager of Aribel's is Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud. She has no known criminal record. 121206 PH Aribel's On-Sale Wine & 3.2 Percent Liquor Licenses Renewal All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the landlord continue to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Lexington Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of worker's compensation insurance has not been provided, due to the fact that they have no employees at this time. There were 14 Public Safety contacts with Aribel's from September 2005 through September 2006. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. As this business was just licensed in September 2005, there were no previous calls for service" or contact records to compare. Environmental Health Staff received two complaints for Aribel's in 2006. One complaint was regarding loud music and the other complaint was regarding a parked vehicle in the lot. Management was notified and no further complaints have been received. There were also seven complaints received through dispatch regarding late night music noise. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on~going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 20,2006. Aribel's has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL. . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVEREcOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an . opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safet Contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud 111)-( Aribel's Directors and Manaaers Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud Owner/Manager --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS September 2005 - September 2006 Aribel's Restaurant TOTAL CONTACTS 2006 14 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 13 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (12) Alarm (1 ) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 Assists (1 ) Traffic (0) . Inspections/Licensing (0) Medical/Fire (0) The criminal contacts for 2006 were: one domestic, one fight, one assault, two property darnage, one alarm, and seven noise complaints. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM # lIC REpORT # 275 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TInE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TInE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 1&1 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: · Approve the renewal of On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 1, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. 121206 PH Fireside Pizza On-Sale Wine & 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor Licenses Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Richard Bruce Thompson continues to serve as President, and Michelle Thompson serves as Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Richard Bruce Thompson and Michelle Thompson serve as General Managers of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance and worker's compensation has been received, showing Zurich Insurance Company and State Fund Mutual affording the coverage. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2005 through September 2006 and indicates that food sales accounted for 91.98% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 8.02% of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had three (3) contacts with Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with four (4) contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Thompson's Fireside Pizza in 2006. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511 which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. Thompson's Fireside Pizza has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. · Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. · Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers · Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPALPARTIESEXPECTEDATMEETING I . Bruce and Michelle Thompson, owners of the establishment 11 C-I Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. Fireside Pizza Directors and Officers Richard Thompson Michelle Thompson President/Owner - Manager Vice-President/Owner - Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 through September 2006 Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. 2005 2006 TOTAL CONTACTS 4 3 CRIMINALCONT ACTS 1 2 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (1 ) (2) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 1 Assists (3) (0) Traffic (0) (1 ) I nspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: one drunkenness and one noise complaint. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS lID 276 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2007 On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 15, 2006, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees. 121206 PH Red Pepper On-Sale Wine & 3.2 Percent Liquor Licenses Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is serving as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Sui Fun Kiang serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Principle Life Insurance Company, continues to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of Iiquorliability insurance has been received showing Farmers Insurance exchange affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accOlmtant'sstatement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2005 through October 2006 and indicates that food sales accounted for 98.9% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine sales accounted for 1.1 % of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had two (2) contacts with Red Pepper from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares with no Public Safety/Police contact for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint for Red Pepper in 2006. The complaint was regarding chipped dishes. The Bloomington Health inspector was notified and no further complaints have been received. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. Red Pepper has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2007, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Ricky Kiang, Owner of the establishment I /1:)-1 Kiang's Red Pepper Inc. Red Pepper Chinese Re tau rant Directors and Officers Ricky Kiang Sui Fun Kiang President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer General Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 through September 2006 Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant TOTAL CONTACTS 2005 o 2006 2 CRIMINAL CONTACTS o 2 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (0) (0) (2) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL o o Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Assists Traffic Medical/Fire The criminal contacts from October 2005 through September 2006 were: two alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS HE 277 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRA TNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2007 On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop - Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lvndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2007 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop - Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lvndale Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 7,2006, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop, d/b/a Noodles and Company. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 121206 PH Noodles On-Sale Wine &3.2 Percent Liquor Licenses Renewal The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Keith Joseph Kinsey is now the President/Director, Aaron Kennedy is now the Secretary, and Brandon Henderson continues to serves as the On-Premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Liberty Mutual affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Lyndale Gateway LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. An accountants statement has been prepared and submitted covering the period from October 2005 through September 2006, and indicates that food sales accounted for 90.4% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 9.6% of the total sales. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Public Safety had 10 contacts with Noodles restaurant from October 2005 through September 2006. This compares to 21 contacts from the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Noodles and Company in 2006. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. Noodles and Company has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. .. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 30, 2006. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1,2007, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 3A0.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 ofthe Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Representative(s) of Noodles and Company JI[-} The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc. Noodles and Company Directors and Officers Keith Joseph Kinsey Aaron Kennedy Brandon Henderson President/Director Secreta ry On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2005 - September 2006 The Noodle Shop - Colorado Inc., DBA Noodles and Company TOTAL CONTACTS 2005 2006 21 10 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 14 7 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (2) Alarm (8) (5) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 7 3 Assists (2) (0) Traffic (3) (1 ) Inspections/Licensing (1 ) (2) Medical/Fire (1 ) (0) The criminal contacts for 2006 were: one theft, one suspicious person and five alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) . AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 12 278 ....... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding the improvements at 66th Street and Richfield Parkway and order the improvements. .. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion approve the attached resolution ordering the Richfield Parkway and 66th Street Intersection Improvements. ' I II. BACKGROUND I On November 22, 2005 Council called for a feasibility report on proposed improvements at 66th Street and 17th Avenue (now known as Richfield Parkway.) Special assessment bonds are proposed to finance the improvements. A feasibility report was submitted to Council on November 14, 2006 showing that the proposed improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible. Council has called this public hearing as required by law. Following the hearing Council will consider ordering the. construction of the Improvement. Ryan Companies, the developer of the Cedar Point Redevelopment Project, has already agreed to be. assessed for twenty percent(20%) ofthe. cost of the project, at $850,000. The balance of the debt service, $3.4 million, for the bonds will be paid 1212Assessment Hearing from general tax revenues. The actual assessment for the project will be conducted at a later date when actual costs are known. The process needs to be completed soon so that funding is in place in a timely manner to meet the development schedule for the Cedar Point Project. Road construction is scheduled to begin in April 2007. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I , . A. POLICY I . The proposed improvements at 66th Street and Richfield Parkway are consistent with the Cedar Avenue Corridor.Redevelopment Master Plan. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The special assessment bonds need to be issued to finance the purchase of right of way needed for the new intersection and for the construction of the new roundabout. Ie. FINANCIAL I . The projectwill cost $4.74million and will require $4.25 million in special assessment bonds including 20% from the developer of Cedar Point Commons. Additional funding ofthe project will come from the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City's Municipal State Aid Street funds (gas tax revenues.) . I D. LEGAL I . The City Attorney has been consulted in preparing this report. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . None. I V. . ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution ordering the Richfield Parkway and 66th Street Intersection Improvements. . Map showing the area forthe assessment . Analysis of Tax and Assessment Impact for Proposed Special Assessment Bond I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None anticipated. . /2-/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RICHFIELD PARKWAY AND 66TH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution ofthe council adopted November 22, 2005, a report has been prepared by WSB & Associates with reference to the improvement of Richfield Parkway and 66th Street Improvements (Improvements) by constructing a new roundabout and this report was received by the Council on November 14,.2006; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota(City), as follows: 1. Resolution No. 9848 called a public hearing for Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. to consider the making of certain improvements known as the Richfield Parkway Improvements (Improvements). 2. Ten days' written notice and two weeks' published notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided by law. The public hearing was held on December 12, 2006, and all persons desiring to be heard were given that opportunity. 3. The Improvements are necessary, cost-effective and feasible, all as detailed in the Engineer's feasibility report on the Improvements. 4. The Improvements are ordered as proposed in Council Resolution No. 9848. 5. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for the Improvements. The Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare plans and specifications for the Improvements. 6. The City Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for all or a portion of the costs of the Improvements from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Id-J.. December 5, 2006 Richfield Parkway Improvement Project Area To Be Assessed D [I[J] ] [l~ TAFT PARK ~._.t--j l_._.. .__j _.._L_; .-, ~..-,--, rJ ;-.-1 ..i ~.~.+.--..I ~--l.. I i ..=1.-.-1 ~:~~....~~~~.~-ll~.-.~J..t.:...::~~.j1 =~ r.~-~~- -~=.:l r.-.t-. ] L~~-,:~~=j ~=I_~~-j i--".--1 Z....r-..l ~---+.--.1 Y:l ----I ~-...-i~~::'l ~-..l-.-l' r"-~'.-"{--.._..- ~ I ,--.--4 <1(.-+--1 f.-..-..f---c.., f..--J-i f----r-.:..j ;:J:. ; J [=}~j~J~) 62nd 63rd 64th 65th h Richfield Parkway Improvement 67th 68th .... RICHFIELD PUBLIC WORKS Id.- 3 City Of Richfield, MN Analysis of Tax Impact for Potential Borrowing December 5, 2006 Bond Issue Size Type of Debt Est. Tax Capacity Rates (debt only) Net Tax Capacity (Pay 2006) Annual Levy Increase Increase in Tax Rate Taxable Market Value . 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,000 275,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 Type of Property Residential Homestead Commerciall Industrial . EHLERS '" A$$OCIAn:$ UH: $4,250,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds 29,279,438 276,875.06 0.945630% Estimated Increase in Taxes for Debt Service Only $12 $14 $17 $19 $21 $24 $26 $87 $135 $182 $277 $371 12/5/2006 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 13 279 ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFI ELl) CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: PAT SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37; and consideration of a resolution regarding summary publication of the above-mentioned ordinance. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: . Conduct and close public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached ordinance amending Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37. . Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance amendment to Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37. I II. BACKGROUND I On June 27,2006, the City Council approved Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37, which vacated certain streets within the proposed Cedar Point Commons development. The transitory ordinance reserved easements for existing utilities until those utilities were relocated. The Hennepin County Examiner of Titles has 121206 PH and second reading amending required a separate vacation proceeding in order to terminate the reserved utility easements. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The utility lines have been relocated, and easements for the utilities are no longer needed. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Vacation of the easements will clear the title to the Cedar Point Commons development. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter allows the City Council to authorize by unanimous vote summary publication of an ordinance when the summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . N/A Iv. ATTACHMENTS . Transitory Ordinance. . Map showing easements to be vacated. . Resolution for summary publication of ordinance amendment. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A /3-{ BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING RESERVED UTILITY EASEMENTS (CEDAR POINT COMMONS) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Sec. 1: On June 27, 2006, the Richfield City Council adopted Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37, which vacated the public streets as described in the attached Exhibit A and as depicted in the attached Exhibit B (the "Vacated Area"). Sec. 2. Section 4 of Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37 reserved utility easements over the Vacated Area for existing utilities. Sec. 3. The vacation of the street easements and the reservation of the utility easements is evidenced by Notices of Completion of Vacation Proceedings filed in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder as Document Nos. 8879625, 8886147 and 8890374 and filed in the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles as Document No. 4317073, as corrected by Corrected Notice of Completion of Vacation Proceedings filed as Document No. in the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder'and Document No. in the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. Sec. 4. The utilities that were located within the Vacated Area have been relocated to other public or private easement areas, and there is no public need for the utility easements reserved in Transitory Ordinance No. 18.37 are no longer required. Sec. 5: Upon the effective date as provided in Section 7 below, the utility easements encumbering the Vacated Area are vacated. Sec. 6. The City of Richfield held the first reading on November 28, 2006, and held the second reading and public hearing on December 12, 2006. Sec. 7: This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after publication of the Ordinance. Sec. 8: The City Clerk is directed to prepare a Certificate of completion of Vacation Proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles and Hennepin County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December,2006. ' Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 121206 PH and second reading amending 13,- d. EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Vacated Area All that part of 17th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. All that part of 17th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, according to the recorded plat, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the easterly extension of the north line of Lot 1, Block 1, of said Iverson's Second Addition. All that part of 18th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of a line drawn perpendicular to the centerline of said 18th Avenue South to the northwest corner of Lot 9, Block 3 of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of 18th Avenue South as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of a line drawn perpendicular to the centerline of said 18th Avenue South to the northeast corner of Lot 14, Block 6, of said Iverson's Second Addition. All that part of Cedar Avenue South, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of a line drawn perpendicular to the centerline of said Cedar Avenue to the intersection of the north line of the south 25 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, of said Iverson's Third Addition and the westerly right-of-way line of said Cedar Avenue South. All that part of Cedar Avenue South, as dedicated in the plat of New Ford Town, according to the recorded plat, thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of a line drawn perpendicular to the centerline of said Cedar Avenue South to the northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 15, of said New Ford Town andwhich lies northerly of a line drawn perpendicular to the centerline of said Cedar Avenue South to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 1, of said New Ford Town. All that part of 65th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of New Ford Town, according to the recorded plat of New Ford Town, which lies west of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1, Block 1, of said New Ford Town. All that part of 64th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of New Ford Town, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies west of the northerly extension of the east line of Lot 1 , Block 8, of said New Ford Town. 1 3-- 3 All that part of 65th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, accruing to Lot 6 and 7, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 14, Block 2, of said Iverson's Third Addition. All that part of 64th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Third Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. All that part of 65th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, which lies east of the east right of way line of 17th Avenue South in said Iverson's Second Addition. All that part of 64th Street East, as dedicated in the plat of Iverson's Second Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies east of the east right of way line of 17th Avenue South in said Iverson's Second Addition. EXHIBIT B 13 Lf -1- - -IJ - I . r- I - 11 I . . 63rd Street I - I .... - I ><i I I S8 - I '> - I ~ )< I )< - >C I > - I )< - I ~ > - I )< --' I ~ ~ I 0 - xxYV m 2m I ~ - I I I )< - I - I )< I - I I I ~ I :::::I I C I - ~ ~ I I I I .c - - I I ..... 'If'''' I I . I . ~ ~ I "" I I I ~ I I~ xx I I ~ ~l x I ~ I I :>< ~ I I I <'x I I ~ I I I < I . I ><" . I ~ )< / I I T~ x 7 I I ~ ~ x, '" 7 : . --- I ~ - - I I l r::=r:::r.. . .~ . · 66th Street LLJ: I In Legend .... . . .1 Corridor Outline Vacated Area Created: November 202006 o 85 170 - - .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I 340 Map of Vacated Area ..... ..... :t: I- N A 510 680 Feet J 3-5' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. 2006- WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendments to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendments is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the following summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of Bill No. 2006- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Bill No. 2006- to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire Ordinance: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2006-_ THE ORDINANCE VACATES UTILITY EASEMENTS IN THE CEDAR POINT COMMONS DEVELOPMENT AREA. THE VACATED UTILITY EASEMENTS AFFECT PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING STREETS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY VACATED BY TRANSITORY ORDINANCE 18.37: 64TH STREET, 17TH AVENUE, 18TH AVENUE, AND CEDAR AVENUE. This summary of the Ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance vacated certain streets within the proposed Cedar Point Commons development. The Transitory Ordinance reserved easements for existing utilities until those utilities were relocated. The Hennepin County Examiner of Titles has required a separate vacation proceeding in order to terminate the reserved utility easements. The utility lines have been relocated, and easements for the utilities are no longer needed. Copies of the Ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. A map showing the vacated utility easement area can be obtained from the Department of Community Development. /s/ Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk / 3-& BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the Ordinance in their office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the Ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # OTHER BUSINESS 14 280 ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of selecting a design option (Option 2 or Option 3) for the new City Garage and authorizing Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) to proceed with preparation the design development, construction document and biddinQ phases of the proiect.. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Select Option 3 and approve the purchase of architectural and engineering services from SEH for the completion of the design development, construction document and bidding phases for the new maintenance facility at a cost of $425,000 and reimbursable expenses in the ranae of $50,000 to $80,000. I II. BACKGROUND I At the October 24, 2006 Council Meeting, four design options were presented to the Council. The Council directed SEH and staff to pursue Option 2 and Option 3 through the Schematic Design phase. The Schematic Design report from SEH is attached. 1212newGarage Option 2 was an 86,305 sq. ft. multi-level building which would house all of the City's equipment, use geothermal heat and provide space for outdoor storage bins. The estimated total cost of that option was $12.2 million dollars. Option 3 was a 95,655 sq. ft. multi-level building which would incorporate all of the features of Option 2 plus provide enough indoor storage space to eliminate the outdoor storage area at Taft Park. Estimated total cost for that option was $12.26 million dollars. After reviewing both options with their current engineers and construction consultants, current total estimates are identified on the attached Total Project Budget Worksheet. . Option 2 - $11.5 to $12.2 million . Option 3 - $12.26 to $12.94 million These estimates were prepared without soil borings or conductivity tests being done. Consequently, site development costs and geo thermal heat costs have been calculated on the high end at this time and positive results of the tests could result in reduced costs of up to $400,000 on the site development estimates. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . City Council approval is necessary to authorize preparation of bid specifications. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Staff is recommending the selection of Option 3. Option 3 frees up the Taft Park storage area for park use. . To meet a bid date of March 2007, one of the options must be selected at this time. . The City does not yet have title to the property. It is anticipated that by the time the Council authorizes staff to proceed with the bid process, title will be secured from Mn/DOT. I C. FINANCIAL I . Present cost estimates are higher than originally anticipated, however when bids come in, alternates can be reviewed on items such as a back up generator (est. $134,000) covered bins (est. $156,000), and pervious pavement (est. $63,000). Also, investigating additional funding sources may be necessary to make the project work. . Attached is a Sources and Uses spreadsheet with two funding scenarios. I D. LEGAL . None -.. ;to, .. I IV. ALTERNATIVEREcOMMENDATION(S) I . Council could direct staff to proceed with design Option 2. However, Option 2 does not include sufficient space to free up the Taft Park storage site. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Total Project Budget Worksheet . Schematic Phase reports for Options 2 and 3. . Fee proposal for preparing design development, construction document and bidding phases for selected Option. . Revised sources and uses I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Nancy Schultz and other representatives for SEH will be available to answer questions at the meeting ..... w W ::J: CJ) ~ a: o 3: ..... w ~ Q ::J m ..... o w ..., o a: a. ..J ~ o ..... (!) o o C\l C\i ~T'"" =~ ~ E I..L. <I) o (/) <I) ~Cl 0- eI) > 0 ... > gj - .Q '0 "" - <I) 'C .g .0' ~ a.. It .... I <I) ...J "'0 -5 ... ~ '5 eI) E u; C).Q 8 'C ~ ~ _ o-fil - :>-.0 m o~ LI) lll:t o (f) C")co act!. -- ...~.. a..... 0'0 ('I) co N N N...... -~ Q) ....0 Co'" o~ CI) .... as E '; U) w .... (,) CI) -- o .. a. - as .... o ..... 'lI:t N .. CI) .c o '0 o o o o o CIO C") ~ o o o o CIO C") ~ U) c o -- -- c .... Q) CoE o Q) ~ > (,) ca ca as a.. E .c ,^ >5'- as 0 Q) a. .- = 'tJ 2:: 0 c Q) Q) "i asa..CJ... Q .s w .c w ::J ..J en 14-l LI) lll:t o ... ('I) CD N ... N ,.. 0- ('I) co N ... N LI) ('I) ... ,.. ,.. ~ c ca .Q E -- '- co Q) >..c co..... en 0 g c x U) .- w CJ .... '- l:O "0 "0 U).9"CQ)Q) o ca Q) en en O '- '- coca Q) Q) Q) Q) - c >'-'- as Q) 000 aCJOEE E 'tJ 'tJ <C lll:t Q) . N ,.. 0- o ... CD N . N ,.. 0- LI) N . N ,.. o o ... LI) . ,.. ,.. 0- CI) .... as E '; U) w .... (,) CI) "- o .. a. - ! {:. N ,... .. CI) .c E CI) (,) Q , ,,' . "\ IL{-~ SEH _December 1, 2006 RE: City of Richfield Maintenance Facility Design Services Design Development, Construction Documents & Bidding Services SEH No. P-RICHF0304.00 Mr. Randy Hughes City of Richfield 7700 Pillsbury Ave Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Randy: Short Elliott Hendrickson. Inc. (SEH@). is pleased to submit this proposal f0r. professional services to complete the Design Development, Construction Document & Bidding Phases foryour new Maintenance Facility. With critical steps defining the projects building systems, materials, appearance, final arrangement of spaces along with a. detailed description of probable costs of construction (Schematic Design . Phase), complete it is time to assemble the final details of the project so that you can secure bids to build your new facility. This proposal identifies the scope of work and the associated fees for the Design Development (DD) Construction Document (CD) & Bidding phases of your project. We anticipate that once the DD, CD and Bidding Phases are complete we will provide you with a fee for the Construction Management/Owners Representation we recommend to assure that your building once built meets all your expectations. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 1. Project Description: Design a maintenance facility either 86,305 square feet for Option 2 or 96,900 square feet for Option 3, located on the Longfellow Loop site in Richfield, Minnesota. The estimated, cost of construction is 10.90 million and 11.48 millions respectively. The building is three levels and with the lowest level approximately one quarter the size of building footprint for Option 2 and one half of the building footprint for Option 3. 2. Assumptions. Following is a list of assumptions/services related to SEH's professional services: A. Ownership of the site is expected to be finalized by the time the public bid opening occurs. B. After approval of this proposal, SEH will prepare an AIA-BI51 Owner/Architect Agreement with this letter as an attached Exhibit, making it the legal agreement identifying all the responsibilities for projects of this type and size. SCOPE OF WORK Our professional services are described in Exhibit A, "Schedule of Designated Services," attached with this letter proposal. PROFESSIONAL DESIGN FEES AND REIMBURSABLES SEH will provide. the services outlined in the Schedule of Designated Services for the Design Development, Construction Document & Bidding phases for afee of $452,000, not including reimbursable Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., Butler Square Building, Suite 710C, 100 North 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55403-1515 SEH is an equal opportunity employer 1 www.sehinc.comI612.758.6700 I 866.830.3388 .1612.758.6701 fax #- 11 IY/3 Randy Hughes December 1,2006 Page 2 expenses such as mileage, meals, pnntmg costs, owner testing, drilling, etc. related to the project. Reimbursables are direct cost to the Owner, we estimated the reimbursable expenses for your project to be in the range of $50,000 to $80,000 depending on the type of bidding conditions occurring in March of 2007. This fee will be the same regardless if the Council selects Option 2 or 3. If an extensive use of alternates is made part of the Construction Documents additional fees for professional services will likely be needed to complete the project. If you direct us to perform any additional services on this. project or if the scope of the project changes substantially, additional charges would be based upon our hourly billing rates. No additional work will be performed without your specific written approval. We will contact you in writing.prior to performing any work if we receive a request from the City that constitutes a material change in the established scope of work. I SCHEDULE The professional services shall be performed as expeditiously as is consistent with the orderly progress of the work. Upon request by the Owner, SEE shall submit for your approval a schedule for the performance of our services, which may be adjusted as the project proceeds, and shall include allowances for periods of time required for Owner's review and approval of submissions by authorities having jurisdiction over the project. The anticipated schedule for the project is as follows: Design Development (75%): Council Approval of Construction Delivery Method Construction Documents: Bidding: Award: Construction: December - January 2006 February 2007 February - March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 to May 2008 Weare very excited with the opportunity to provide the professional services needed for the City of Richfield. to build a maintenance facility that will allow you to provide high quality services in the most efficient means possible for years to come. Should you have any questions; please do not hesitate to call me at 612.360.3889 or email meatnschultz@sehinc.com Sincerely, Nancy Schultz, AlA Principal ngsw/sl Exhibit A t:\scarch\misc.c_orrespondence\1-proposal.richfield rnf.doc Short Elliott Hendrickson In(;., Butler Square Building, Suite 710C, 100 North 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55403-1515 SEHis an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.comI612.758.6700 I 866.830.3388 I 612..758.6701 fax ,;I Schedule of DeSignai~d~erVices/Work Plan Architectural, Planning & Engineering Services for the City of Pueblo Municipal Complex Page lof 3 . Project Administration Lead Participate Meeting minutes, schedule updates & budget reviews Further develop Architectural Systems Lead Participate Plans & specifications Further develop Structural Systems Lead Participate Plans & specifications Further develop Plumbing Systems Lead Participate Plans & specifications Further develop HVAC Systems Lead Participate Plans & specifications Further develop Electrical Systems Lead Participate Plans & specifications Further develop Civil/Utilities/Traffic Lead Participate Plans & specifications S stems Develop Furniture - Fixture & Lead Participate Plans & specifications E ui ment S stems Further develop Interior Design Lead Participate Plans & specifications Revise Room Summary Schedule (includes itemized room summary of furniture, fixtures & equipment, owner supplied Lead Participate Room Summary Schedule equipment, salvaged equipment, detailed room finishes, mech & electrical systems & IT systems. Update Cost Estimates Detailed project & construction cost Lead Participate estimates with allocations of cost to Including development of GMP respective funding sources. Design Development Meetings Lead Participate Meeting Minutes & Coordination Review and Revise Documents Regulatory Review & Requirements Check list & Memo of Understanding Checklist Update (including identifying Lead Participate summarizing regulatory, geotechnical, easements & permits) permits or other pertinent requirements Review, Revise needed for the Project. Review! Submittal of 15 sets of plans, & Project 75 % Review & Approval 'Lead Approve Manual. Detailed project & construction cost estimates Incorporate Owners Design Review Lead Participate Comments Presentation to City Council - Selection Lead Participate Graphic Representation & Documentation of Construction Delivery Method to support preferred delivery system Project Administration Lead Participate Meeting minutes, schedule updates & budget reviews Assemble Front End Documents -- Project Manual Lead Participate Division 000000. specifications f , If-- 5' Schedule of Designated Services/Work Plan Architectural, Planning & Engineering Services for the City of Pueblo Municipal Complex Page 2 of 3 QAQCReview Lead Participate Plans & specifications Architectural Systems QAQC Review Plans & specifications Structural Systems Lead Participate QAQC Review Plans & specifications Plumbing Systems Lead Participate QAQC Review Plans & specifications HVAC Systems Lead Participate QAQC Review Plans & specifications Electrical Systems Lead Participate QAQC Review Plans & specifications Civil/Utilitiesrrraffic Systems Lead Participate QAQC Review Plans & specifications IT - Security Voice/Data/SC Lead Participate QAQC Review Plans & specifications Landscape Development Lead Participate QAQC Review Plans & specifications Interior Design Lead Participate QAQC Review Lead Participate Equipment specifications FF & E Selection Finalize Room Summary Schedule Includes itemized room summary of furniture, fixtures & equipment, owner supplied Lead Room Summary Schedule equipment, salvaged equipment, detailed room finishes mech & electrical & IT systems Detailed project & construction cost estimates with allocations of cost to Finalize Cost Estimates Lead Participate respective funding sources and coordinated with Bid Tabulation in Project Manual Submittal of 15 sets of plans, & Project 90 % Submittal of Bidding Lead Review Manual. Detailed project & construction Documents cost estimates and items indicated in Section 2.4.E of the O/P/E Agreement Final Design Meetings Review and Revise Lead Participate Meeting Minutes & Coordination Documents Finalize Regulatory Review & Check list & Memo of Understanding Requirements Checklist (including Lead Participate summarizing regulatory, geotechnical, identifying easements & permits) permits or other pertinent requirements Review, Revise needed for the Project. Submittal of 15 sets of plans, & Project Submittal of Bidding Documents Lead Approve Manual. Detailed project& construction cost estimates with allocations of cost to respective funding sources. . Reproductions Lead Participate Initiate Web-base Bidding Process -" I tf-(p Schedule of Designated Services/Work Plan Architectural, Planning & Engineering Services for the City of Pueblo Municipal Complex Page 3 of 3 , Advertise for Bids Pre Bid Meeting Addenda Bid Opening Bid evaluation/recommendation Approval to award construction contract 1 Meeting Prepare construction contract agreements Lead Assist Meeting minutes, schedule updates & budget reviews Lead Assist Invitation to Bid Lead Participate/Assist Meeting Minutes Lead Assist Addenda as required Lead Participate Bid tabulations Lead Participate Respe'?tive documentation Assist Lead Agency Approval Assist Lead Owner/Contractor Agreements Remarks/Assumptions 1. All reports, graphics, meeting meetings will be posted on the Project Collaborative Web site as the main source for distribution of project design development documents. Formal approval documents will submit in hard copy format with respective submittal forms. 2. Bidding will use an electronic document process, it is provided in addition to the traditional paper based bidding document format. Our project advertisements for bid havebeen updated to address both paper and. electronic format. Bidding documents. are easily downloadable from the SEH website.at a minimal fee and are available to contractors/suppliers 24 hours/day -7 days/week. Distributing in electronic formatis quickly becoming state-of-the-art in the design industry with the added benefits of improved speed of delivery as well as reduced consumption of paper and related printing supplies. . Under the electronic format, we are instructing our Project Managers to issue bidding documents to builder' s exchanges in a PDF format rather than a paper format. Byhaving SEH provide the exchanges with the bidding documents in PDF format, we can be assured that a complete set of documents is being issued to the exchange on behalf of our clients and errors that could occur by disassembly, scanning and reassembly ofthe documents are mitigated. Another added benefit of providing the exchanges with an electronic set of documents is that they are immediately sent notification of any project addenda and have immediate access to project plan holder listings. In turn, the exchange members also have quicker access to the project addenda. . := .0 cu 11. Q) o c: cu c: Q) - c: '(ij ~ CI). Q) CI) ::> -0 c: cu CI) Q) e :;j o (/) -0 Q) CI) "~ a:: - (3 o ";:: 0 ~ ~ BI- (/) o .;:: CUQ) c:--c: BO (/) 000000000 CO 0 0('1') -.;r 0 0 10 O. <000001'--001'--0 '-<:i 0 o~ MOO M 0 1'--00-.;rCOOOlO~ -.;r-.;rCOl'--oo(Y").....~CD M N' -<:iN ..... - c: Q) E - CI) :;j :c <( '0' 1.0 o M 00 ('I') '0' 10 0)_ CO 10 '00 00 00 00 O-.;r ('I') ...... 000000000 001.00('1')0)00100 CO 0> 0 00..... 0 01'--0 -<:i cD 0 l'---cDOOM 0 .......... O-.;r 00 010 0 ~. O. CO ..'" 00' ('I') r--r- '\f M N' -<:iN' ...... - c: Q) E 1;) :;j ~ '0 ' 1.0 C) cD' ..- ~ ..- '00 ..-CO o CD CON <000 NI'-- "iU .~ 000000000 00 00 (V') CD OO-.;r-.;r CO 0 000 1'--001'--0 -<:ioo~cDoci"':"': 1'--0 O-.;r 0 0000...... ~I.OCOl'--oo(V')......CO-.;r .: oj "~I 81 ..-. o o ~ o o 1.0 'C' ~ ~ ..... CI) 5 c: o e! E I- 0::( "'0:;:;- "iU 5C: c: Ii> 11.5 :g> ~ ~ ~ o C/) "'0 CI) Q) _ 'i::"....Ec:-o C:Q) JB ~ ....~5 ~ ~ ~ ~~ g~ ar'g> CI)' ca Q) ~>.o .....~ .r, c: -g cue-oeca CI) :;j C9 0.. c: :;j "~ 4>LL. mca:;jQ.1L e ~ ~':= IL "'0."'0 :;j = c: c..,." c: c: o:+:: 4> ca!::!:: caO (/)::> uuo......JCO Icf-'7 000 000 000 000 -.;ro~ co ...... 0) N N ...... ...... 0'0 o 0 o 0 o 0 -.;r -.;r I'-- I'-- 000 000 000 000 0_..0 0,_ ...........N N ,N ..... ..... ...... 0'0 CO CO q 0) N N 00 00 "': "': ...... ...... 000 -.;ro-.;r 000 ,..:0..... ......0...... ('I')..--.;r ~ ~I >- := .0 ca LL. - Cl -4> (J) CI) o ca O.r, -00 Q).... .....:;j (J)l.~' ~ Q).+:: . .C: CI) CI) ca ::>W....J o o ~ o o CO -.;r o o o o o ('I') o o o o ...0" '('I') -<:i o o o o o N o o o o o ...... -.;r "'0 Q) :;j CI) CI) Q) .J:l o - "'0 c: o co iii '0 I- 000 000 000 000 000 I.O....CO ..-M-<:i I 0.0 00 00 00 00 ('I') ('I') 000 000 000 000 0,-0. .0 1.0 co (V') "":N'-<:i '00 00 00 00 00 NN 000 000 000 000 000 ~y] (J) -0 c: o co - >- o > -CI)Q) C:-O....J (I) (I) x E(I)ca iO'gl- 0.....(1) (I) 0.. 0 0:: Q).~ -oca(l) JB(/)(/) ca-o'- EC:.Q "_ cu (I) 1;)....Iq W ~ AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # OTHER BUSINESS 15 281 ........ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of authorizing staff to hire Wold Architects & Engineersto provide preliminary design and cost estimates for a new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing Building for the City of Richfield. . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By M.otion:Approve the purchase of architectural services from Wold Architects & Engineers for preliminary design work and cost estimates.for a new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing Building for the City of Richfield. Costs not to exceed $73,000.00. I II. BACKGROUND I Richfield's Municipal Building at 6700 Portland Avenue South was constructed in 1963. It houses City Hall, the Police Department, Fire Station I and a Licensing Department, which services the public. The existing building is about 53,000 square feet. . Over the years, the building has been remodeled numerous times to accommodate increased staffing and programs. The various remodels have made it very difficult forthe HVAC equipment to provide adequate heating and cooling and the buildings are poorly laid outtor efficiencyand security. The building does not meet many of 1212newCityHall today's codes and moisture problems have damaged some areas and caused some employee concerns about health. On November 25,2003, a City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-I) was appointed by the City Council to investigate the feasibility of major remolding of the building versus construction of a new building to meet today's needs. Their recommendation on April 26, 2005 was to build a new building. On July 26,2005 a second City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-II) was formed to look at locations fora new facility. Their recommendation was to use the existing site. At the July 25, 2006 Council Meeting the City Council authorized staff to solicit Requests for Proposals (RFP'S) for architectural services for preliminary design and cost estimates for a new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing Building for the City of Richfield. The RFP was to obtain the services of a qualified architectural firm with extensive experience in the design of multiple use public facilities to provide conceptual designs of a new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing Building (or buildings) for the existing site at 6700 Portland Avenue South. This work will include two scenarios. One design on the existing site with no encroachment into the adjacent park and one design allowing encroachment into the park. Parking, landscaping, cost estimates and effects of the construction on the operation of the existing complex would also need to be addressed. Eleven proposals were received. City Hall Task Force II along with two Council members were delegated the task of selecting a firm to do the work, resulting in the recommendation of Wold Architects & Engineers. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . By City Charter (Section 8.04), the City may have expenditures for design or engineering up to $75,000 without a public hearing. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . In order to obtain costs estimates and design information that can be presented at an open house this preliminary design work is necessary. I C. FINANCIAL I . Funding is available in the City Hall Capital Fund to pay for this preliminary design work. I D. LEGAL I . Council approval is required for expenditures over $25,000.00 I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Council could choose not to follow the task force recommendation to hire Wold. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Copy of the RFP. . Copy of the Proposal from Wold. I VI. PRlNCIPALPARTIESExpECTEDATMEETING I . Rick Jabs, City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-II) Chair ..' is-I REQUEST FOR.PROPOSALS ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMA TES FOR A NEW CITY HALL, POLICE, FIRE .AND LICENSING BUILDING FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD REQUESTED SERVICE The City seeks to obtain the services of a qualified architectural firm with extensive experience in the design of multiple use public facilities to provide conceptual designs of a new City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing Building (or buildings) forthe existing site at 6700 Portland Avenue South. This work will include two scenarios. One design on the existing site with no encroachment into the adjacent park and one design allowing encroachment into the park. Parking, landscaping, cost estimates and effects ofthe construction on the operation of the existing complexwould also need to be addressed. BACKGROUND Richfield's Municipal Building at 6700 Portland Avenue South was constructed in 1963. It houses City Hall, the Police Department, Fire Station I and a Licensing Department, which services the public. The existing building is about 53,000 sq. ft. . Over the years, the building has'been remodeled numerous times to accommodate increased staffing and programs. The various remodels have made it very difficult for the HVAC equipment to provide adequate heating and cooling and the building is poorly laid out forefficiency and security. The building does not meet many of today's codes and moisture problems have damaged some areas and caused some employee concerns about health. On November 25,2003, a City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-I) was appointed by the City Council to investigate the feasibility of major remodeling of the building versus construction of a new building to, meet today's needs. Their recommendation on April 26,2005 was. to build a new building. On July 26, 2005 a second City Hall Advisory Task Force (CHAT-II) was formed to look at locations for a new facility. Their recommendation was to use the existing site. They will continue to work with the company chosen in this process on design of the facility. The City of Richfield is now considering how to integrate the future needs of City Hall, Police, Fire and Licensing into a new facility on the existing site. Appropriate considerations to the surrounding land uses, the adjacent park and neighbors and will need to be addressed for both the building and parking. . . BUDGET The City is limited by City Charter to a maximum expenditure of $75,000 for this phase of the project. The materials developed in this phase will be used at a public hearing required byCity Charter. After the hearing and dependent upon funding, the Council may select a design track and authorize expenditures to finalize specifications and design, bid and construct the building. 1 R:\PubWorks\GVTBLDGS\CityHall\RFP _CityHall.doc . '6"~ . PROCEDURES The following information is provided to assist you in preparing your proposal: 1. Submit 1 o copies of proposal. 2. Proposals must be submitted by September22, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. Proposed Schedule: 3. Proposals will be reviewed by October 13,2006. 4. Tour of facility for the firms selected to be interviewed will be scheduled during the week of October 16, 2006. 5. Interviews/presentations for the selected firms will be scheduled during the week of October 30,2006, 6. Consideration of award of contract by Council at the November 28, 2006-Council Meeting 7. Mail or deliver proposals to: City of Richfield Public Works Department Attn: Colleen Ramm 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 8. All contacts made with the City of Richfield regarding this proposal should be made solely through RandyHughes, Operations Superintendent at 612~861 ~9175 or rhughes@cityofrichfield.org. The City intends to select three to five firms for consideration. QUALIFICATIONS The City seeks to employ a firm that exhibits the following characteristics: 1. Strong design and construction experience with recent examples of similar new or renovation projects involving public safety and city hall facilities, in a setting similar to Richfield. 2. A demonstrated ability to achieve value, attractiveness and quality in design, and remain within project budget limitations. 3. A demonstrated abilityto integrate the concepts of sustainability into the project. This includes energy efficiency,. use of environmentally sound building materials and construction methods, construction waste management and prevention, and creating a healthy indoor and outdoor environment. 4. A willingness to participate as part of a project team that will include key City staff, other community representatives and possibly an owner's representative and/or 2 R:\PubWorks\GVTSLDGS\CityHall\RFP _CityHall.doc 15-3 construction manager. 5. The architectural firm must be willing to work with elected officials as a partner in the design and planning of the facility. CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL Interested firms shouldsubmita proposal that contains the following information, organized in this manner: 1. Firm Background a. Describe the qualifications of your firm. Include the size of firm, number of employees by job category, the areas of specialization for which your firm is recognized, and any key features that might set your firm apart. b. Please>describe your experience inworking with an independent owner's representative on a project. 2. Experience and References List at least three similar public safety/city hall facilities completed by your firm in the last 10 years. a. For each of these projects, list the date of completion, the total square footage, total project cost, the construction time frame, the project designer, and project manager. State whether or not the persons responsible for each project are still employed by your firm. b. For each of these projects, list a reference that we may contact. Include contact person, title, telephone number, and identify their role in the process. c. Were your projects on time and within budget? d. List any design awards won by your firm. Identify the project and date of award. 3. Approach to Project a. Describe what you think are the goals a_nd objectives of this project. b. Describe how your firm will approach the design of the facility in terms of involvement by the owner. c. Describe how your firm will approach internal facility design relative to functionality, economy, durability, sustainability and aesthetic/architectural appeal and how these values will support the delivery of high quality services to the public. d. Describe how your firm will approach external facility design project design on a campuswith limited space, and considering the adjacent uses, landscaping, and parking. 4. Project Team a. Specify the project team thatwill be committed for the duration of this project, and describe any other personnel who will be involved in the project. If the proposer is selected for an interview, the project team committed to the project must be available for the interview. b. Identify any consultants who will be a part of this team and identify their firm, experience and areas of expertise. c. Discuss how you will perform engineering services. Identify the key staff that will be committed to the project, their qualifications, experience and specific areas of expertise. 3 R:\PubWorks\GVTBLDGS\CityHall\RFP _CityHall.doc " . . JS..-Y d. Discuss your ffrm's role in site management and supervision; specify any personnel who would be committed and how you would propose to work with the owner's representative/construction manager or general contractor. 5. Additional Required Information a. Does your firm carry insurance to protect clients from errors and omissions? In What amount? Does your firm carry professional liability insurance? Provide evidence in your proposal. b. Has yourJirm been the subject of litigation; mediation, or arbitration during the last five years? If so, give details of the issues and its resolution. Provide names of clients involved and . contact names and telephone numbers. Involvement in litigation will not necessarily disqualify a proposer, however failure to provide accurate information will render the submittal as disqualified from further consideration. c. Has your firm ever been requested by a client to retire from a project? Ifso, explain details. d. Each proposal must be signed by an authorized representative of your firm who can be held accountable for all representations. 6. Fees a. Describe your method of fee calculation. What services are included? Identify which fees are based on cost percentage of the job, flat rate, or pass-through. b. Does your fee assume a certain number of meetings with staff and a certain number of public meetings with the City Council and/or Planning Commission? 4 R\PubWorks\GVTBLDGS\CityHall\RFP _CityHall.doc . WglD ST. PAUL, MN ELGIN, IL TROY, MI DENVER, CO 16-5 MINNESOTA OFFICE 305 ST. PETER STREET ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 651.227.7773 FAx 651.223.5646 WWW.WOLDAE.COM MAIL@WOLDAE.COM December 4, 2006 Randy Hughes City of Richfield Public Works Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Re: City of Richfield Commission No. 9999 Dear Randy: We are very pleased to have been selected to provide architectural services for the preliminary design of the New City Hall, License, Police and Fire Facilities. We look forward to commencing work with the City. We are providing our approach to the project and our professional service fee proposal in the following information. Approach to Preliminary Design Phase We have followed the City of Richfield's new City Hall, Police, Fire, and Licensing discussions and conclusions on locating the new facility at the current site. We understand that the City Council, Task Force, staff, and community need to be engaged in an inclusive process, which gains their input and creatively satisfies the guiding principles set forth. Wold has developed an approach for successful facility design that hinges on an intensive partnering process during design. We call it "Participatory Planning" and it is a process that engages building users, staff, City Council, and community in the design discussion. Facility planning is an interactive and community~wide process. Therefore, each group's specific needs and objectives must be Ul1derstood and every attempt must be made to meet those needs and objectives. Wold understands how to bring groups together and gain consensus in order to create a facility which best represents the culture of Richfield. The first step in turning a vision into reality is to achieve consensus on the needs, and then create a plan that accomplishes specific objectives. Wold practices total project management, beginning with the simple act of listening to your needs and goals; and then diligently committing ourselves to upholding those goals. From our research and experience and by listening to preliminary discussions with the City, we have formulated the attached list of goals and objectives, which would be used as a starting point for this discussion. WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS J6 -to Letter to Randy Hughes Page Two The following are the steps necessary to accomplish the preliminary design phase ofthe project. Step 1: Understanding Needs . Create a public planning team. . Document guiding principles. . Identify current and future needs. . Public forum input. Step 2: Option Analysis . Confirm findings. . Explore site opportunities. . Tour similar facilities. . Develop conceptual design options for both encroachment and non encroachment onto the park. Step 3: Option Development and Confirmation . Estimate cost scenarios. . Public forum input. . Option selection and approval. . Respond to feedback and finalize recommendation. At the conclusion of the preliminary design phase, a report will be provided documenting the process and setting forth an action p1~n, a budget and a schedule for completion of the design. Upon approval we will commence design services for detail design. Fee Proposal Wold proposes establishing a fixed fee at the project onset. We provide a comprehensive package of professional design and management services for each of our clients. All engineering and consultant services are included in our fees. We do not deliver our services a 1a carte, nor do we "nickel and dime" our clients for assistance calls, now and for many years beyond project completion. We look at each business relationship as long-term and therefore strive to earn our commissions through sustained performance and client satisfaction. Preliminary design fee: Miscellaneous reimbursab1es for mileage and printing: $70,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $73,000.00 We are proposing to bill the City in progress payments as work is completed. WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS I s- '7 Letter to Randy Hughes Page Three Design Services (After Preliminary Design is Complete) The teamwork and inclusive planning process established in the preliminary phase of the project will continue until the project is complete. Our overall objectives will be to create a facility that is effective, highly functional, and sustainable and which represents the City of Richfield. The design process will develop the site plan considering the needs of the individual municipal components and as a whole. Each of the individual municipal components, which include the City Hall and Council Chamber, License, Police, and Fire, will be analyzed and designed in detail considering the overall guiding principles and objectives set forth as well as the critical operational and functional needs established in the preliminary design phase for the following needs: . Public spaces and public service . Personnel and staff spaces, now and future . Functional objectives . Critical objectives for City Hall, License, Police and Fire operations . Security . Mechanical and electrical systems The design development and detail will be developed with input from all stakeholders, and various studies will create a final design, cost of construction and schedule for approval. Upon approval, we will create documents for bidding and construction. Bids will be taken for construction and we will assist the City in making recommendations for award of a construction contract. We will work diligently with the builders to make certain the City of Richfield receives the quality facility that they are paying for. ill conclusion, we will strive to guide the City in the design process, keeping all well informed with "no surprises." Design Services Fee (After Preliminary Design is Complete) We believe that the preliminary design work is applicable to later phases of the approved project and propose to credit the $70,000.00 preliminary design fee to the overall project. At the conclusion of the preliminary design an approved construction cost will be determined. We consistently propose 6% of the approved construction cost to be our fixed fee for design services for new facilities. The following calculation could be expected for design services after the preliminary design is complete. WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS 15-~ Letter to Randy Hughes Page Four Construction Cost x 6% less $70,000.00 = Fee forbasic design services. Includes: . Schematic Design - 15% . Design Development - 20% . Construction Documents - 40% . Bidding - 5% . Construction Administration - 20% . Post Occupancy follow-up In addition to the basic services, reimbursables are requested. Wold estimates reimbursables as follows: $4,500.00 per million construction. Pending the scope ofthe cost of construction, anticipated reimbursable expenses would be based on actual reimbursable costs. Reimbursables are for mileage, miscellaneous printing, telephone, fax, etc. These are billed as they are accru.ed with no additional markup. Plan Review Fees, Testing Services and Bid Set would be direct pass:'through costs as incurred and are not included in the above. All-Inclusive Fee Our proposal for preliminary design and design after preliminary design is complete is not limited to a number of meetings; rather we will provide all the services needed to completely fulfill approval of the project. We look forward to commencing this important project. Please let me know if! can provide additional information. Sincerely, WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS ~~ Michael Cox, AIA Partner Attachment cc: Michael Klass, Wold SM/9999/CI _Richfield/dec06 WOLD ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS City of Richfield Project Goals and Objectives - A Starting Point /S-O[ Wold Architects and EnQineers December 4, 2006 We will work closely with the City to establish goals and objectives which constitute the guiding principles. Here is our starting point for your review: Create new City facilities which: . Promote efficient and effective delivery of high-quality City services in an attractive, durable, andefficient campus that embraces sustainable techniques. . Leverage their park setting with designs that uniquely represent the culture of Richfield. . Are completed on time and on budget. Working Relationship: . Provide a process for involvement of City Council, community, administration, and staff that delivers a cohesive design embraced by all decision makers, with, input from all stakeholders. . Assist the City in communicating and engaging the community for input. . Keep the City informed without surprises. Interior Objectives: . Focus on City customer for user-friendly use. . Create facilities which enhance staff's ability to provide services. . Design durable, efficient, flexible, and long-term building components and mechanical, technological, and electrical systems. . Represent the "culture" of the City in all approaches. . Use daylight to enhance environments. Exterior Objectives: . Focus on City customer for user-friendly site access. . Leverage the park to create "City campus in the park". . Create a scale of campus buildings that are compatible with neighbors. . Plan for phased construction, utilizing existing buildings for occupancy until complete. Construction Objectives: . Plan for construction disruption avoidance. . Create a phased occupancy plan for site and building. . Plan for displacement and transition of employees during construction. . Do not upset neighbors. TB/9999/CI_ Richfield/RHAltachment_12-4-06 Commission No. 9999 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARING::.' 16 282 ........ STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Conduct and close a public hearing on the adoption of a five-year capital improvement budget and plan for the City, prepared in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521 (the "Plan") and the issuance of general obligation bonds (the "Bonds") to finance capital improvements under the Plan. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the resolution adopting the five-year Capital Improvement Budget and Plan for the City prepared in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521 and provide for the preliminary approval of the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance capital improvements of the Plan I II. BACKGROUND I The City of Richfield's Capital Improvement Budget and Capital Improvement Plan is a comprehensive list of major improvements identified as necessary to meet the needs of the community over a five-year period. The Plan is organized into a current year Capital Improvement Budget (2007) and a four-year Capital Improvement Plan (2008-2011 ). The Plan process provides a means for identifying annual project needs and priorities. Projects are identified through Key Financial Strategy planning, discussions of various city commissions, and City staff. From this process, the City 1212CIPlan Manager compiles a preliminary report of estimated costs, scope and funding sources for the projects. This report is then presented at a meeting of the Planning Commission which reviews the projects and scheduling based on the following considerations; the community's need for the project, priority and scheduling of the proposed projects, and the conformance of the projects to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission, is then returned to the City Manager who submits it in summary form to the City Council as part of the current year budget process. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the current Plan. . The Plan is included in summary form in the 2007 Proposed Budget and in the annual budget message. . The Plan includes "capital improvements" as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521 and Capital Improvement Bonds are a projected source of funding. . A public hearing on the Plan 'and the potential issuance of Capital Improvement Bonds must be held. . The Council has the option to add or delete projects from the Plan or change the scheduling and priority of allocation of funds. . If the Council should add a project, in accordance with State statutes, they would need to refer the new project to the Planning Commission for review. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The issuance of capital improvement bonds is a major source of funding for the construction of a new Central Maintenance Facility and the future possible construction of a new City Hall. I C. FINANCIAL I . The sum total of the 2007 Capital Improvement Budget is $31,264,690 . The sum total of the 2008-2011 Capital Improvement Plan is $78,567,710. . The estimated capital improvement bonds to be issued in 2007 are estimated to range from a minimum of $4,400,000 to a maximum of $4,800,000. The level of bond financing will depend on final estimated costs of the Central Maintenance Facility as approved by the City Council. . The estimated capital improvement bonds to be issued in 2009 are $12,000,000 for the future possible construction of a new City Hall. I D. LEGAL I . The Planning Commission has reviewed the Plan and the projects included for compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. . Minnesota Statute, Section 475.521 allows municipalities to issue bonds for certain capital improvements included in a capital improvement plan. Under the Statute, capital improvements are defined as the acquisition or betterment of public lands, buildings or other improvements for the purpose of a city hall, town hall, library, public safety facility and public works facility. In addition, an improvement must have an expected useful life of five years or more to qualify. The Statute also imposes requirements that must be met in order for a municipality to issue capital improvement bonds. These requirements are: o A public hearing must be held on the plan and approved by the governing body. o A public hearing must be held by the municipality on the issuance of bonds and approved by three-fifths of the members of a five member governing body. o Issuance of capital improvement bonds is subject to referendum approval if a petition signed by voters equal to five percent of votes cast in the municipality in the last general election is filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing. o The Plan must cover at least a five-year period beginning with the date of its adoption. The Plan must set forth the estimated schedule, timing, and details of specific improvements by year, together with the estimated cost, the need for the improvement, and sources of revenue to pay for the improvement. . City legal counsel has reviewed the Plan for compliance with State Statutes. . . . I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . None. IV. AITACHMENTS . Resolution. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. lCo~1 RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND PROVIDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS THEREUNDER WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521 (the "Act"), cities are authorized to adopt a capital improvement plan and carry out programs for the financing of capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield (the "City") has caused to be prepared the Capital Improvement Budget and Plan for years 2007 through 2011 (the "Capital Improvement Plan"); and WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City Council of the City of Richfield has conducted aduly noticed public hearing regarding adoption of the Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Act; and WHEREAS, in considering the Capital Improvement Plan, the City Council has considered for each project and for the overall Capital Improvement Plan: 1. The condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the projected need for repair and replacement; 2. The likely demand for the improvement; 3. The estimated cost of the improvement; 4. The available public resources; 5. The level of overlapping debt in the City; 6. The relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds; 7. Operating costs of the proposed improvements; and 8. Alternatives for providing services more efficiently through shared facilities with other local government units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA: 1. The Capital Improvement Plan is hereby approved. 2. City staff are hereby authorized to do all other things and take all other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Capital Improvement Plan in accordance with any applicable laws and regulations. 3. The City gives preliminary approval to issuance of the bonds in the maximum principal amount of $4,800;000, provided that if a petition requesting a vote on issuance of the bonds, signed by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the last general election, is filed with City Clerk by January 11, 2007, the City may issue the bonds only after obtaining approval of a majority of voters voting on the question at an election. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. . Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTIONS 17 283 ..... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: GY' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing condemnation of certain properties needed for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Proiect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing condemnation of the properties located at 6544 Portland Avenue, 6600 Oakland Avenue, 601 East 66th Street, 6600 Portland Avenue, and 6601 Fifth Avenue needed for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Project. I II. BACKGROUND I The 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Project requires additional right of way. At previous meetings, Council has authorized just compensation values as the basis for initial offers to the property owners for the right of way . needed. 1212Condemnation The City delivered the initial offers to all property owners on or before October 27,2006. Since then, most property owners have contacted City staff or representatives by phone or have arranged meetings to discuss the offers. In the event that the City Manager determines that properties can not be acquired voluntarily, the City will have to acquire the properties by use of eminent domain. This determination will only be made reluctantly after the owner has had reasonable time to consider the City's offer. The City Manager is requesting Council authorization to acquire the properties by use of eminent domain proceedings if necessary, negotiate early entry authorizations, and the use of the quick take procedure as provided in Minn. Stat. 117.042, pursuant to the City's approved appraisal of value for said real estate interests as determined in the City Council's resolutions establishing just compensation for said properties. Discussions are ongoing with Nilsen Funeral Home and Victoria Manor Apartments and staff will be meeting with residential property owners for which temporary eas~ments may be acquired. Based on the status of discussions with those property owners, and the need to satisfy certain regulatory requirements, the City staff is not ready to recommend condemnation at this time with respect to those properties. Staff is also in the early stages of working toward reasonable settlements with T & T Automotive and Zalesky Printing. The voluntary acquisition process will continu~ concurrently with the condemnation process in the hope that condemnation can be avoided in all cases. The City Council is scheduled to discuss the applicable cap for reestablishment expenses at a Worksession prior to the regular Council meeting. The Council has the authority to increase the cap from $10,000 to any amount up to $50,000 for this project. The Council needs to specify the amount of the cap. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The City has the legal authority to acquire private property by eminent domain for a public purpose. . The properties have been identified for purchase for the 66th Street and Portland Avenue Intersection Project. . Right of Way acquisition procedures set forth by Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) are being followed. . The City Council has the authority to increase the cap on reestablishment expenses for displaced businesses from $10,000 up to $50,000. For any properties acquired by condemnation commenced after January 15, 2007, the cap is automatically increased to $50,000. 2 . lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . If action is not taken before January 15, 2007 any eminent domain actions will fall under the "new law" (see attached). I C. FINANCIAL I . Funding forthe purchases will be primarily provided by Hennepin County CommunityWorks, if needed, the difference will be paid for using Municipal State Aid (gas tax) funds. . Increasing the cap on re-establishment expenses will potentially increase the acquisition costs by $40,000 for business that is required to move as a result of the taking. I D. LEGAL I . The City Attorney has drafted the resolution and will be available for questions. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Delay the approval of the resolution until February 2007. ATTACHMENTS ~ . Resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings to acquire certain property for street reconstruction and other public purposes . November 6, 2006 Kennedy & Graven Memorandum re: Changes in Eminent Domain Laws During 2006 Legislataive Session . Map of project area I IV. Iv. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None anticipated. 3 /~-, RESOLUTION NO. 06- AUTHORIZING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield ("City") is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, is authorized by law to acquire real estate which is needed for public use or purpose; and . WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a two-lane roundabout des.ign for intersection improvements at 66th Street and Portland Avenue ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has held numerous meetings and hearings concerning the need for the Project, alternative designs for the Project, and the public safety concerns to be addressed by the Project; and. . WHEREAS, implementation of the plans and designs for the Project requires. that . the real estate described in Exhibit A attached hereto ("Subject Properties") be acquired; and . WHEREAS, the City desires to facilitate completion of the street reconstruction and other activities which are contemplated by the plans and specifications for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2000, the Metropolitan Council selected the Project to receive federal funds in the amount of $2,226,336 as part of the state transportation improvement program; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is reasonably necessary, proper, and convenient, and in the interest of the public health, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City that title to and possession of the Subject Properties be acquired for the furtherance. of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the construction schedule for the Project makes it necessary to acquire title to and possession of the Subject Properties prior to the filing of the final report of the condemnation commissioners to be appointed by the district court. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, as follows: 4 11-~ 1. It is the considered judgment of the City Council that the Subject Properties be acquired for the stated public purposes and, if necessary, through the exercise ofthe power of eminent domain. 2. The City Manager and the City Attorney are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to acquire the. Subject Properties by filing an action in eminent domain, negotiation of early entry authorization, and the use of the quick-take procedure pursuant to . Minnesota Statutes, Section 117.042. 3. The City Manager is authorized to determine the amount of the City's approved appraisal of value for the Subject Properties pursuant to Minn. Stat 9117.042, the quick-take statute. 4. The maximum reimbursement for re-establishment expenses that will be made to any business displaced as a result of the Project shall be $ The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and . The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted against: Councilmember was absent. Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of December 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 5 11--3 EXHIBITA . Leoal Description of Real Estate to be Acquired Parcel Property Address Nature of Taking: Fee, Partial Fee, Easement No. and Tax ParcellD 2 27-028-24-14-0011 Fee taking in entirety of the South 150 feet of the 6544 Portland Ave. East 1,58 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the So. Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County 7 26-028-24-32-0033 Permanent right of way easement; permanent 6600 Oakland Ave. sidewalk and utility easement; temporary So. construction easement as further described below 8 26-028-24-32-0034 Permanent right of way easement; permanent 601 66th Street East sidewalk and utility easement; temporary \ construction easements as further described below 23 27-028-24-41-0006 Permanent right of way easement; permanent 6600 Portland Ave. sidewalk and uti Iity easement; temporary So. construction easements as further described below 24 27-028-24-41-0022 Permanent sidewalk and . uti Iity easement; 6601 Fifth Ave. So. temporary construction easement as further . described below Description of Partial Taking for Parcel 7 That part of the following described tract of land in the City of Richfield: Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 340, Hennepin County, Minn. Which lies with~n the following permanent easements for right-of-way purposes: The North KOO feet of Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 340, according to said plat on file and of record in the-office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Also which lies within the following permanent easement for utility and sidewalkpurposes: That part of Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 340, according to said plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of the northerly 8.00 feet thereof and which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 18; thence South 00 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds, assumed bearing along the east line of said Lot 18, 15.00 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be hereinafterdescribed; thence South 87 degrees 17 minutes 21 seconds West, 37 .33 feet; thence South 02 degrees 42 minutes 39 seconds East, 4.00 feet; thence SouthS7 degrees 17 minutes 21 seconds West, 20.00 feet; thence North 02 degrees 42 minutes 39 seconds West, 4.00 feet; thence South 87 degrees 17 minutes 21 seconds West, 11.69 feet, to the west line of said Lot 18 and said line there terminating. 1212Condemnation l'7-ct . Also. which lies within the fallawing temparary easementfar canstructian purpases: That part af the Sauth 15.00 feet af the Narth 23.00 feet afLat 18, Auditar's Subdivisian No.. 340, Hennepin Caunty, Minnesata, lying sautherly af the abave described permanent easement far utility and sidewalk purpases. Description of Partial Taking for Parcel 8 That part af the fallawing described tract af land in the City af Richfield: Lats 19 and 20 Auditar's Subdivisian Number 340, Hennepin Caunty, Minnesata. Which lies within the fallawing permanent easement far right-af-way purpases: That part af Lats 19. and 20, Auditar's Subdivisian Number 340, accarding to. said plat an file and of recard in the affice af the Caunty Recarder, Hennepin Caunty, Minnesata, which lies westerly, narthwesterly and nartherly af the fallawing described line: Cammencing at the sauthwest carner af said Lat 19; thence Sauth 89 degrees 55 minutes 19 secands East, assumed bearing alang thesauth line af said Lat 19, 16.00 feet to. the paint af beginning af said line to. be hereinafter described; thence Narth 1 o degrees 35 minutes 39 secands West, 53.32 feet; thence NarthOO degrees 19 minutes 41 secands East, 18.49 feet; thence nartherly and nartheasterly, 40.97 feet, alang a tangential curve, cancave to. the sautheast, having a radius af63.00 feet, and a central angleaf 37 degrees 15 minutes 27 secands, the chard af said curve bears. Narth 18 degrees 57 minutes 25 secands East; thence cantinuing nartheasterly 15.58 feet, alang a campaund curve, cancave to. the so.utheast, having a radius af 297.00 feet, and a central angle af 03 degrees 00 minutes 21,secands, the chard af said curvebears Narth 37 degrees 22 minutes 16 secands East; thence cantinuing nartheasterly, 35.45 feet, alang a campaund curve, cancave to. the sautheast, having a radius af 54.00 feet, and a central angle af 37degrees 36 minutes 41 secands, the chard afsaid curve bears Narth 57 degrees 36 minutes 30secandsEast; thence cantinuing nartheasterly, 30.15 feet, alang a campaund curve, Gancaveta t~e sautheast, having a radius af 285.00 feet and a central angle af 06 degrees 03 minutes 44 secands, the chard af said curve bears Narth 79 degrees 26 minutes 42 secands East; thence easterly, 23.29 feet, alang acampaund curve, cancave to. the sauth, having a radius af 97.00 feet, and a central angleaf 13 degrees 45 minutes 15 secands, the chard af said curve bears Narth 89 degrees 21 minutes 12 secands East; thence Sauth 83 degrees 46 minutes 11 secands East, tangent to. the last described curve, 21.18 feet; thence Sauth 88 degrees 46 minutes 43 secands East, 56.38 feet, to. the east line af said Lat 19, and said line there terminating. Also. which lies within the fallawing permanent easement far utility and sidewalk purpases: That partaf Lats 19 and 20, Auditar's Subdivisian Number 340, accarding to. said plat an file and af recard in theaffice of the Caunty Recarder, Hennepin Caunty, Minnesata, which lies westerly, narthwesterly and nartherly ofthe fallawing described line: Cammencing at the sauthwest corner af said Lat 19; thence Sauth 89 degrees 55 minutes 19 secands East, assumed bearing alang the sauth line af said Lat 19, 26.00 feet, to. the paint af beginning af said tine to. be hereinafter described; thence Narth 01 degrees 53 minutes 13 secands East, 12.86 feet; thence Sauth90 de.grees 00 minutes 00 secands West, 9.59 feet; thence Narth 7 .../ L1--- t> 00 degrees19 minutes 41 seconds East, 42.61 feet; thence northerly, 6.46 feet, along a tangential curve, concave to the east, having a radius of 19.00 feet, and.a central angle of 19 degrees 29 minutes 03 seconds; thence North 19 degrees 48 minutes 44 seconds East, tangent to the last described curve, 25.45 feet; thence North 28 degrees 31 minutes 39 seconds East, 13.50 feet; thence North 37 degrees 42 minutes 06 seconds East, 19.80 feet; thence North 58 degrees 18 minutes 48 seconds East, 21.66 feet; thence North 79 degrees 41 minutes 49 seconds East, 26.33 feet; thence North 82 degrees 30minutes 10 seconds East, 14.42feet; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, 69.03 feet; thence North 87 degrees 17 minutes 21 seconds East, 15.09 feet, to the east line of said Lot 19, and said line there terminating. Except that part which lies within the above described permanent easement for right of way purposes. Also which lies within the following temporary easements for construction purposes: The North 57.00 feet of the west 86.00 feet of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision Number 340, according to said plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Except that part which lies within the above described permanent easements. And also, the west31.00 feet oHot 19, in said plat, and also the west 31.00 feet of the south 33.00 feetof Lot20, in said plat. Except that part which lies within the above described permanent easements. And also, a strip of land 5.00 feet in width over that part of said Lot 19, the north line of which is contiguous with the south line of the above described permanent easement for utility and sidewalk purposes. Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from the east line of said Lot 19, to a line drawn parallel with and distant 47.50 feet west of said east line of Lof 19. Description of Partial Taking for Parcel 23 That part of the following described tract of land inthe City of Richfield: (THE TRACT) Lots 1, 2 and 3, including the east % of vacated alley adjacent thereto Block 1, Mccatchans Portland Avenue Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Which lies within the following permanent easement fonight of way purposes: That part of Lots 1, 2, and 3, including the east % of the vacated alley adjacent thereto Block 1, McCutchan's Portland Avenue Park, according to said plat on file and of record in the. office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at a point on the east line of said Lot 1, distant 24.43 feet south of the northeast corner thereof, as measured along said east line; thence northwesterly, 31.85 feet along a non-tangential curve Goncaveto the southwest, having a radius of 51.00 feet, and a central angel of 35 degrees 47 minutes 02 seconds, to a point on the north line of said. Lot 1, distant 19.76 feetwest of said Northeast corner as measured along said north line and said line there terminating. 8 li-(P Also which lies within the following permanent easement for utility and sidewalk purposes: That part of said Lots 1,2, and 3, Block 1, which lies northerly, easterly, northeasterly and northerly of the following described line and which lies southerly of the above described permanent easementfor right of way purposes: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 23 seconds East, assumed bearing along the east line of said Lot 3, 47.50 feet , to the point of beg inning of said line to be hereinafter described; thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 19 seconds West, 9.30 feet; thence 00 degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East, 60.34 feet; thence northwesterly, 11.84 feet along anon-tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 125.00 feet, and a central angle of 05 degrees 25 minutes 33 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 20 degrees 08 minutes 15 seconds West; thence continuing northwesterly, 22.49 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to thesouthwest, having a radius of 37.00 feet, and a central angle of 34 degrees 50 minutes 01 seconds the chord of said curve bears North 40 degrees 16 minutes 01 seconds West; thence continuing northwesterly, 10.46 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 282.00 feet, and a central angle of 02 degrees 07 minutes 32 seconds, the chord of said curve bears North 58 degrees 44 minutes 49 seconds West; thence continuing northwesterly, 9.41 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 48.00 feet, and a central angle of 11 degrees 13 minutes 36 seconds, the chordof said curve bears North 65 degrees 25 minutes 23 seconds West, to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant 2.00 fete south ofthe north line ofsaid Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 51 minutes 24 seconds West, along said parallel line, . 93.69 feet, to the west line of the east half of the vacated alley adjacent to said Lots 1,2 and 3. Also which lies within the following temporary easements for construction purposes: A strip of land 12.00 feet in width over that part of said Lot 3, the northeasterlyline of which is contiguous with the. southeasterly line of said Lot3. Said strip of land is to exteod by its full width from the south line of said Lot 3, to the south line of the above described permanent easement for utility and sidewalk purposes and its westerly extension thereof. And also a strip of land 3.00 feet in width over that part of said Lots 1 and 2, the easterly, northeasterly, and northerly line of which is contiguous with the westerly, southwesterly and southerly line of the above described permanent easement for utility and sidewalk purposes. Said strip of land is to extend by its full width from the south line of the above described permanent easement for utility and sidewalk purposes and its westerly extension thereof, to the centerline of said vacated alley. Description. of Partial Taking for Parcel 24 That part of the following described tract of land in the City of Richfield: (THE TRACT) 9 ll-1 . Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 1, McCutchan's Portland Avenue Park, according to" the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with the west half of vacated alley adjoining said lots lying between the extensions across it of the north line of said Lot 24 and the south line of said Lot 22. Which lies within the following permanent easement for utility and sidewalk purposes: That part of (THE TRACT) which lies northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of (THE TRACT) distant 3.33 feet south of the Northwest corner thereof, as measured along said west line; thence easterly to a point on the east line of (THE TRACT), distantxx feet, south of the Northeast corner of (THE TRACT) as measured along said east line, said east line being the centerline of the vacated alley, and said line there terminating. ' Also which lies within the following temporary easement for construction purposes: The North 6.00 feet of (THE TRACT). Exceptthat part of(THE TRACT), which lies within the above described permanent easement for utility and sidewalk purposes. 10 ~ 11" '6 ( Corrine H. Thomson 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 & (612) 337-9217 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com cthomson@kennedy-graven.com CHARTERED MEMORANDUM dTO: : Mayor and Council Members City of Richfield FROM: Corrine H. Thomson DATE: , November 6, 2006 'RE: Changes in Eminent Domain Laws During 2006 Legislative Session _.{-___ -During--th€-2QQ6-s€Ssi0n,-th@--M-innes0ta~ begislature-ad0pted--si-gni-fieant-ehangeS--:-t0-tbe-laws-~------ regarding the use of eminent domain powerS. The changes related both to the use of eminent domain for traditional public uses (streets, sewers, public buildings) and also to takings for redevelopment and economic development. The legislation had various effective dates. The general effective date was that any action commenced after May 20, 2006 would have to follow the new legislation. One of the exceptions, however, was that, tor properties acquired for a highway project that had been selected as of May 20, 2006 to Jeceive certain federal funding, the new eminent domain provisions would not apply unless the action was commenced after January 15, 2007. . The City staff anticipates that the City will need to exercise eminent domain to acquire 'needed right of ~ay for the .66th Street and Portland intersection project. This project falls within the exception forlcertain federally funded projects, so that the changes to the eminent domain law will not apply if the action is commenced before January 15, 2007 but will apply if the action is commenced after. . January 15, 2007. In other words, the date that the action is filed will determine whether the "new law" or the "old law" applies. this memo refers to the "old law" as the law that will apply if the action is ,commenced before January 15, 2007 and the "new law" as the law that will apply if the action is corl:unenced after January 15,2007. ( The City staff has asked me to provide a summary of the changes between the old and new laws. This summary is limited only to those matters that could affect the 66th Street project. Summaries of changes that relate to redevelopment or economic development takings are not relevant to the 66th Street project and are not discussed here. 11-9 Memo to Richfield City Council November 6, 2004 - Page 2 of6 ~ ( Acquisition Procedure Old law: . . Condemning authority must provide a copy of its appraisal report at least 20 days prior to the court hearing on the eminent domain petition. No specific requirement that the authority provide copies of "all" appraisals that has obtained, but the law would not prohibit the authoritY from providing all appraisals. . . Owners had to . submit claims for reimbursement of appraisal fees within 60 days (but condemning authorities could waive that deadline). . . Newlaw: . Condemning authority must provide copies of all reports it' has obtained at the. earlier of the date that an offer is made or 60 days before the hearing on petition. . Owner can wait until five days before commissioner hearing to submit claim for reimbursement. Summary: The City will have complied with the requirements of both the old and the new law, regardless of whether it files before or after January 15, 2007. .-. Exchange of Appraisals .. .u~_.__. ____ ___ ____..__. _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .___ ___.....__ __. _ _.. _.__ -. _ __ _____ -- .._ .- __u ..__ n ___..._.._.... .___. _ -. ._...._ _ _.__ ___~ ..__ __h______~__.-- Old law: . Owner is not required to provide copy of its apprais~ report until the hearing before commissioners. Owners sometimes voluntarily agree to exchange reports in advance of the hearing. Condemning authority must provide its appraisal report at least 20 days in advance of first hearing on petition, but does not need to provide all reports it has obtained. New law: . Parties must submit their appraisals at least five days in advance of the commissioners' hearings, or the appraiser cannot testify. Condemning authority must submit all reports it has obtained. Summary: Filing under.the new law would have'a small potential advantage to the City, because the property owner would be required to provide its report to the City in advance of the commissioners' hearing. Recovery of Attorney Fees, Appraisal Fees and Costs (" Old law: . . Generally, owner cannot recover attorney fees unless the petitioner dismisses the petition or the court dismisses it for certain reasons. . Appraisal fees are reimburseable up to $500 for residential properties and $1500 for commercial properties, for all acquisitions, even where condemnation is not used. 10-10 ..- MemO' to' Richfield City Cauncil Navember 6, 2004 Page 3 af6 . . If the commissianers' award is appealed to' a jury trial, the caurt may award appraisal fees and casts to' the awner, but nat fees incurred in connectian with the cammissianer hearings. New law: . If~e finaldeterminatian af damages exceeds the candemning autharity's last.written affer priar to' filing the petitian by less than 20%, OR if the final judgment is less than $25,000, the awner gets nO' attarney fees and costs. . If the final determinatian exceeds the last written affer by mare than 20% but less than 40%, the court may award attarneys fees and casts. . _ If the final determmatian exceeds the last written affer by mare than 40%, the caurt must award attarneys fees and casts. . The casts and expenses that are awarded with attarneys fees include appraisal fees, and there is nO' restrictian an submitting appraisal fees incurred in cannectian with the commissianer hearings. . Appraisal fees are reimburseable up to' $1500 far single and twa-family properties and $5000 far ather properties far all acquisitians. - -J \ Summary: Filing under the new law has the patentially to' substantially increase casts far attarney fee and appraisal reimbursement. If the City filed under the aId law, the City cauld still agree to' --------feimoiliseup Uf$50aO-forcariunercialpropeffies as p-an-ofnego1iatea--seftleji1erits.------------d-- ------ --- -- ---- ------- Loss of Going Concern Damages Old law: . Owner can claim lass af gaing cancern, but must shaw that the business is destrayed by the taking and that the business cannat relacate as a practiqal matter. . The court had to' determine whether the gaing can~ern had been taken, befare the _ cammissianers determined damages. . In- the past, gaing cancern was difficult to' prove. Mare recently, cammissianers and caurts have been mare liberal in awarding gaing cancern damages, if it wauld be difficult far the awner to' find an equally desirable replacement site. New law: . Owner must prave that the business is destrayed by 'the taking, but the condemning autharity must prove that: (a) the lass is natcaused by the taking; ar (b) the lass cauld be reasanably prevent by relacating to' a reasanably suitable lacatian ar taking ather prudent business steps; ar (c) campensatian far lassaf gaing cancern will be duplicated in the campensatian otherwise awarded to' the awner. . It is unclear whether the cammissianers will determine whether the taking has accurred ar whether that reinains a caurt decisian. /1-(1 (' Memo to Richfield City Council November 6, 2004 Page 4 of6 .. Summary: It is.likely that the new law will result in more going concern claims and awards, if for no other reason than the shift in the burden of proof. Driveway Access Claims Old law: Owners could make claims for damage to property value caused by loss of driveway access, in certain circumstances. New Law: . Owners can make a separate claim to recover business revenues. The owner must prove that (a) the government eliminates 51 percent or greater of the driveway access and (b) business revenues were reduced by 51 percent or greater as a result of the loss of driveway access. If those are proved, the owner has - tp prove reasonable compensation, not to exceed the revenues for the three years prior to commencement of the project minus the cost of goods sold for that same time period. _ . This business loss chum is probably in addition to a claim for loss in value of the property due to the elimination of access, not in substitution of that claim. Summary: For projects that affect driveway access, the new law provides -a new remedy and will - -(- ----,.. - -- ----increase-costs; - both-in--determining-whether-the--owner--is--entitled- to- -the--damages. -and -in-- what--- -- -. ---- amount. Minimum Compensation Old law: No_ minimum provision regardingjlist compensation in- eminent domain proceedings. . For residential properties, displ~ced owners can receive a relocation benefit for replacement housing, if the just compensation for their property is less than the value of a comparable dwelling. No similar provision for commercial relocation benefits. New law: . If an owner must relocate, the amount of damages payable must be sufficient to purchase comparable property in the community and not less than the quick-take payment, so long as compensation to the owner is not duplicated by any other compensation otherwise available to the owner. Summary: The new law will probably only be an-issue for commercial-owner-.occupied properties, although that is not clear. It is, likely to increase costs and awards, because of the potential for disputes over what is comparable and what is the community. - ( .(I-t~ (e Memo to Richfield City Council November 6, 2004 Page 5 of6 Substitute or Replacement Property Old law: . Condemning authorities could provide alternatives to owners that would have the effect of .reducing owner damages', such as offering substitute property in place of what was taken. If the alternative would reduce damages, the owner arguably was required to accept the alternative. New law: . Condemning authorities may not reqUIre owners to accept substitute. or replacement property. Summary: Mitigating measures can still be addressed through negotiation, but the City has no ability to require an owner to reduce its damages by accepting other property. Right of First Refusal Old law: . If an authority acquired property by condemnation in fee title, the authority was not restricted in selling the property once it determined it no longer needed the property. --( ____ -New-law:' -- --- - -- - -- .---- . _._______n___n_-__________________ -- -------- ---------..--- -.----.------ __n__ -- -- ..------- ------- ---- -- With certain exceptions, if condemning authority determines that property that - it acquired by condemnation is no longer needed for a public use, it must offer to resell the - property to the owner from whom it was acquired, if the former owner can be located. The offer to. sell. must be the price paid at condemnation or the current fair market value, whichever is lower. If the owner can't be located, then a certificate can be filed that terminates the right of first refusal. Summary: This should not arise very often, because typically property remains in public use: It will be a headache and will-increase some administrative and legal costs when disposing of property years after it has been acquired. The "lower of' sale price requirement is arguably unfair to taxpayers. , Reestablishment Costs for Relocation Old law: _ . Dispiaced business may receive reestablislnnent expenses up to a cap of $10,000, although the acquiring agency has the option of approving a cap of up to $50,000. New law: . The cap on reestablishment expense reimbursement is mcreased to $50,000. ~ Summary: The City has the ability to pay up to $50,000 under either law but can limit it to $10,000 only under the old law. t - . 1'7,-1 3 Memo to Richfield City Council November 6, 2004 Page 6 of6 Hearing Officer Old law: . Appeals of relocation benefit claims had to be heard by an impartial hearing officer, but it could be a city staff person or the city council, so long as the officer(s) had not taken part in any of the decisions made on the claim. . Richfield had been using non-city hearing officers in most instances, and for disputes that involved high dollar claims or significant legal issues, the city used an administrative law judge. New law: ./; . The acquiring -authority must use contested case proceedings and an administrative law judge on all relocation claim appeals. . The authOJ;ity must pay all of the costs of the proceedings, including the charges billed by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAR). Summary: This change will increase the cost of administering relocation benefits and may result in some delay in administering benefits, depending upon the schedule of the OAR. ------()verall-Sumnrary--------- ---- -------~-- ----~ -- --~---- ---------------:--------.----.----:- -..- _m_______. --.- - - --:-- --- .-- \ --- In general, ,the changes under the new law are likely to increase litigation costs and result in higher amounts paid for just compensation, loss of going concern and business loss claims, _ attorneys fees and costs, relocation benefits and appraisal fees. If the City. files before January 15, 2007, the City retains the flexibilitY to offer sonie of the "new law" benefits (e.g., using a reestablishment cost cap $50,000 and considering loss of going concern issues as part of negotiated settlements), but without .the significant downsides of some of the more objectionable and costly provisions under the new law (attorneys fees, driveway access claims, loss of going concern, minimum compensation, etc.). The City staff will bring a resolution to the City Council in December to authorize the use of eminent domain for the right of way needed for 1:h,e 66th and Portland intersection project. The staff will seek direction on the re-establishment expense cap that the City wishes to use for the project, assuming that the action will be filed before'January 15,2007. If the resolution is adopted, the action will be commenced prior to January 15, 2007, while. the "old law" is still in effect. ( II~ I 1110 n en ~ ;;p I ~ ~ ~ ~ en Q' ..... ... - :;!; ~ ~ ~ ::r ~ a 0 en ~ a ! ! a --h ::::c ... ~ b ~ g ~ CiJ ~ o. ~ ~ ~ ~ =r ~ (j)" ::;: ~ a ~ ~ .....! I go 0- ~ ~ ~ <Ii CD ::;, :::!; .a .P- ""'tJ g 3::0 -. ~ ~ - S>> ~ ~ CD a. en 0 )> or < CD ~ C CD - ~ Ii U1 CD C") ... -- 0 ~ . ::0 -- ca ::r '7' 0 ... ~ "< - 3 -a S>> C") fiT t;j 51 1Io1;e Ii ~~ i ""'I Il ~J i1i~ Ii ill: J~g> ~~ ~.!J.!i ~i' ! a:- g~ ~; r g~ ~ c: 8 - AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTIONS 18 284 ...... STAFF REpORT RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME,TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions approving the 2006 Revised/200? Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2006 Revised/2007 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. I II. BACKGROUND I In September 2006, the City Council approved and certified a preliminary tax levy of $11,993,259 to Hennepin County. The final tax levy must now be considered and approved by the City Council. The final levy may be less but cannot be greater than the preliminary levy amount. Taxpayers have received individual parcel specific tax notices in anticipation of the truth-in-taxation hearing. The City of Richfield has conducted and closed its 2006 truth-in-taxation hearing on December 4,2006. During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity for testimony from the general public. Information was also presented by staff regarding the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council action to act on the levy was permissible on the day of the public hearing. Since the initial publication of the 2007 City of Richfield proposed budget document, the City Council has directed staff to increase Community Service Officer hours and add a part-time position in the Public Safety Departments Support Services division. These two changes added approximately $52,000 to the General Fund budget. In 1212Budget addition, more up to date information with regards to the 2007 Capital Improvement Sudget (CIS) has become available. This new information relates directly to several projects in the CIS, with the largest being the new Central Maintenance Facility. The effect of this new information on the 2007 CIS is an increase of budgeted costs of $8,586,550. It should be noted that this increase in no way increases or affects the proposed General Fund tax levy. Any changes in cost estimates must also have concurrent increases in funding for the respective projects. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . A revised 2006 budget and final 2007 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 27,2006. . Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later than December 27 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue. . A proposed 2007 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. . Several related resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. These related resolutions are itemized in the attachment section of this staff report. I B. CRlTICAL ISSUES . N/A I C. FINANCIAL I . The gross tax levy for 2007 reflects a .48% increase from the previous year's gross levy. . The local tax capacity rate for 2007 reflects an 8.86% percent decrease from the previous year. I D. LEGAL I . A truth-in-taxation public hearing for the 2007 proposed budget and tax levy was conducted on December 4, 2006. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . The City Council could adopt a final 2007 budget and tax levy in any amount, which does not exceed the preliminary levy of $11 ,993,259. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution adopting a proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2007. . Resolution authorizing budget revisions. . Resolution authorizing revision of 2006 budget of various departments. Resolution authorizing adjustment to City's mileage reimbursement rate to conform to Internal Revenue Service statutory mileage reimbursement rate. . Resolution establishing wastewater service rates and charges, water rates and charges, special water service charges, storm sewer rates and charges, and 6.5% penalty on past due accounts. . Resolution adopting the 2007 Capital Improvement Budget. . Resolution adopting the 2008-2011 Capital Improvement Program. . Resolution relating to purchasing practices in the City of Richfield. . Resolution relating to the 2007 General Services Salary compensation plan. . Resolution relating to the 2007 General Services Mid-Year Salary compensation plan. . Resolution relating to the 2007 Specialized Pay Plan. . Resolution relating to the 2007 Specialized Pay Plan Mid-Year Adjustment. . Resolution relating to the 2007 Management Salary compensation plan. . Resolution establishing 2007 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to the provisions of appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None ~e 'v/~ecL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY I B - J s ~+ :# J. 6 ~ WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2006 and then recertified before December 28,2006. ~ FOR THE YEAR 2007 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2007 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 829,960 1,112,030 7,616,250 2,790,130 260,450 3,834,160 1,580,470 40,960 $18,064,410 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2007 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2007 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $18,064,410 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2006, payable in 2007 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE General Fund' Equipment AMOUNT $11,567,8592 425,400 , Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution amounts. 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2007 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2006, payable in 2007 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $409,500 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December 2006. . Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 18--3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the approval of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J~--~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2006 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 9699 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2006; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2006 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2007 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CityCbuncil of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2006 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Leg islative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND INCREASE. $ 821,720 1,082,450 7,054,460 2,724,840 262,890 3,556,910 1,532,770 52,690 $17,088,730 $ 95,470 2. Estimated 2006 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2007 budget, are hereby revised as follows: INCREASE $17,088,730 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 1<6---5 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT TO CITY'S MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service periodically adjusts the business mileage reimbursement rate; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's present mileage reimbursement is in conformance with the Internal Revenue Service business mileage reimbursement rate; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the City Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to adjust the City's mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines. 2. That the City's mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue Service guidelines. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 18,.(p RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATERRATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2007 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution which rescinds Resolution No. 9691 : 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 2007 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. A) Residential per unit 2007 $ 51.40 B) Commercial- For the equivalent of 10 or less persons More than 10, less than 16 More than 15, less than 21 More than 20, less than 26 $ 51.40 93.70 131.80 175.10 C) Institutional- For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof For each 100 junior high school students or high School students or fraction thereof 2007 $ 61.40 154.00 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on 1~-'7 The actual use, or less of water for the preceding winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1,2007, for each 2007 customer billing district and shall be as follows: $ 2.56 For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in Subdivision 3 of said section 7.05. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other premises, the rate per thousand gallons of water effective January 1, 2007, shall be as follows: $ 2.56 C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered effective January 1,2007 as follows: $ 3.00 If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. 5. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will be charged a sanitary sewer rate based on the Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) rate plus 15% for Inflow/Infiltration and $1,000.00 per quarter for administration costs. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2007 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be $2.09 per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 2007 shall be at this rate. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2007 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for special customer services are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account. I~-~ 3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $19.50 per installation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the City shall be $39.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts. 5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to the City plus thirty percent. 6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent. 7. The MN lab fee will is $6.36. STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2007 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined,through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of surface runoff coming from one acre of land and subjectedtoa particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one yearoraihfall event. The REF's for the following land uses within the City and the billing : t classifications for such land uses are as follows: LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION L, Cemeteries .25 1 Parks and railroads .75 2 Two-family residential 1.00 3 Single-family residential 1.00 4 Public and private schools and institutional uses 1.25 5 Multiple-family residential uses and churches 3.00 6 Commercial, industrial, and Warehouse uses 5.00 7 3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $49.50 per acre of land. $9.90 is the quarterly rate for a single-family residence, which is considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the basic system rate. 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS 1. Customers will have thirty (30) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent amount. , 8""g 2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for each fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk IB--/o RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2007 has been prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of. review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2007 Capital Improvement Budget in the sum total of $31 ,264,690 is hereby approved as amended and adopted with full recognition of the fact that the cost estimates are approximate and are subject to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to necessary hearJngs and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with established laws and practices governing such action, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk jg-IJ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2008-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2008-2011 has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2008-2011 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk { ~-/2.. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8298 WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Richfield has purchasing authority pursuant to the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code; and WHEREAS, the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code expressly state a purchasing authority limit for the City Manager, and WHEREAS, all non-budgeted purchases in excess of $25,000 will require approval by City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: ' That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby granted the authority to enter into contracts or approve purchases on behalf of the City of Richfield up to, but not to exceed $25,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 1~-/3 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2007 MANAGEMENT SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN. WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the. adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2007 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2007 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2007 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City. MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-1 YR 54,371.20 62,171.20 69;929.60 MO 4,530.93 5,180.93 5,827.47 BW 2,091.20 2,391.20 2,689.60 HR 26.14 29.89 33.62 M-2 YR 64,729.60 73,964.80 83,241.60 MO 5,394.13 6,163.73 .6,9'36.80 BW 2,489.60 2,844.80 3,201.60 HR 31.12 35.56 40.02 M-3 YR 70,574.40 80,620.80 90,688.00 MO 5,881.20 6,718.40 7,557.33 BW 2,714.40 3,100.80 3,488.00 .... HR 33.93 38.76 43.60 M-4 YR 73,028.80 83,449.60 93,891.20 MO 6,085.73 6,954.13 7,824.27 BW 2,808.80 3,209.60 3,611.20 HR 35.11 40.12 45.14 M-5 YR 86,902.40 99,299.20 111,716.80 MO 7,241.87 8,274.93 9;309.73 BW 3,342.40 3,819.20 4;2~6.80 HR 41.78 47.74 53.71 .... e co a:: e o :t:i CO fA e Q. E o (,) - e E Q) C) CO e CO ::E .c C) ~ o '- .c l- e .2 fA fA e C) o '- D- n; E '- o Z Q) }n ~ Q) O)Q)Q)Q) c: 0) >.~ .- c 0 :; CU a.~ "0 '- E .- c ~en Q) ;: .Q Co c ~ 16Q)cu= ::l>'cc CU g> 0 '0) >.- Q) 0) Q) ;:.~ c Q)Otscu 0- '- ffi.E~ ~ EQ)Q)cu ....~Q)-ro 0_"0 en 't:OCU(1) ~~ E ..c: .. Q)- ~ 0 ..0 .5 0- >.c tsQ)=o (13 - CU .- -:9E~ .!!l .2>.... 0 16Q)ga. Cl)Q)-c CU .....s: Q) (13 ;:> .... 1i5cUJ:; m.Q CO -16Q)"O -::lEC CU-_(13 "O~~O) ~ Q) ~.5 .~ ~ (13 16 ..c:c-.... o cu.t: Q) (13EQ)o Q)....:2:c >o_cu cu 't:: cu'E ..c:Q)::l.... o a.:2.g ..c: _.~ Q) ;: ~ -g. a. ~ E - _en Q)Q) 'CU >. > I'- ::l o eoo"O a. a.N 's> E E~:C Q) -....... c _ en ~.- c"OcuQ) Q)~::J~ EZ c c Q) CUo O)CU-, ~"OQ)g> '" Q) >.- "'>:.;::;"0 :2:,- 0 c 0~Q)Q) _ Q):::: a. "O....Q)Q) Q)en"O .~ >'- ~ a.(13c~ a...c: Q)'- cu 0 E en Q) ..c: 00 .5 ..o;:::J~ - en....... cuQ)"9~ ..c:Q)..... en >.Q)= 'EoO);: Q) a.c"O" EEcuc -wO:::(13 en Q)Q)' .2, ..; ..c: - .!2 "OcuJ-cu(j) <(Q) "0_ Q) >.... ~'C: O)O)C:cuo ccQ)enO) ~ :c .5 (j) .5 u..Q)en>;: Q) ~ .2,'c .Q J-..c: .... "0 C <5 a.cucu_ /3-/tf I- Z 5 D- C ::E LL o "0 C cu Q) o c cu E .... .g Q) a.. Q) en (13 ~ ';Ie 0 ~';Ie c: ~L() :t: 0::""= Q) wOo:2: >-()l::o otqtqz ~ o ts w ~ C) en Z :.;::;. ~ .cuen c:CI)..c: I- .Q 00 'E >-z 16cuO 0::- ::JQ)E :5~ -ro=('I) <ee ~~cuo~ CI)::E cu..c:-~ ZLL ~c~Q) -00 00>> Z ~~cEoa> O .....0 I!) 0 _ I .....- 0..... -: I!) .- C.D a. > - It) ,., ..... E Q) !:: Q 0 ....... Q) ~.- .... CI)~-o:2:oQ)~ o.n~;:z01Ogo D- 0)........ "0 (13 ro ffiE"O E .... c en.g~ Q)Q)0 .!:: a._ ::J_~ O"~ 13 Q)CQ) 0:::::l:5 en ::J Q)Q)en en en en cu cu ::J Q)Q)- o .... .... cu Cl' 00_ It) ?ft. 0 c.5 en 0)~1!)()l::-Q)Q) o::~C'?tq:C:;~ woo.......Q)-O c--o:2:.2o.. Ztq~-ooE :)('I)..........-;zzQ) cO o o N ... Q) ..0 E Q) o Q) o '0 >. cu "0 ..c: N ....... en :c - cu - o en (1) c c ~ -0 as ~ ..c: o 0:: '0 ~ <3 Q) ..c: - '0 '0 c: ::J o (J ~ <3 Q) ..c: - >. .0 "0 Q) en fA CU a.. I- Z 5 D- e ::E w (,) Z _ <e C) '>. C ::E Z L..' Q) o::t= .9 E ~~O)~>-~E ... c::;:: L." a. ~ w .- (13 0 E 0 D- -gCl)ts-~ (13Q)CUen~ 00 >1;;"0 cu - 0 .- Q) en ::l .0 16 Q) C O<(CI)Z~ .... g. cu :2: ..c: o ~ ~ -, c :e cu ::E ~ CI) W J- ~ ... ... ..lIl:: .... Q) (J ~ <3 ... en ..0 .0 a >. o c (13 Z MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE /8 - is RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS M-1 City Clerk Exempt Facility/Program Manager Exempt Supervisor Exempt Health Administrator . . Exempt Liquor Store Manager Exempt M-2 Assistant City Engineer Exempt Assistant to the City Manager Exempt Chief Building Official Exempt Community Development Manager Exempt Information Technologies Manager . Exempt Housing & Redevelopment Manager Exempt Transportation Engineer Exempt , M-3 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Exempt Finance Manager Exempt Operations Superintendent Exempt Utilities Superintendent Exempt M-4 None Exempt M-5 Department Director Exempt (Rev. 11-06) , RESOLUTION NO. , g-j (p RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2007 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the Cityof Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for .eneral Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2007 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby doe~ estabiish for the year 2007 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2007 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: 2007 GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN STEP 1 2 3 4 .' 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR 28,662.40 30,368.00 32,052.80 33,779.20 '.35,776.00 36,878.40 MO 2,388.53 2,530.67 2,671.07 2,814.93 2,981.33 3,073.20 BW 1,102.40 1,168.00 1,232.80 1,299.20 1,376.00 1,418.40 HR 13.78 14.60 15.41 16.24 17.20 17.73 GS2 YR 31,532.80 33,176.00 34,798.40 36,545.60 38,417.60 40,331.20 MO 2,627.73 2,764.67 2,899.87 3,045.47 3,201.47 3,360.93 BW 1,212.80 1,276.00 1,338.40 1,405.60 11477.60 1,551.20 HR 15.16 15.95 16.73 17.57 . 18.47 19.39 S3 YR 34,798.40 36,545.60 38,480.00 40,331.20 42,348.80 44,678.40 MO 2,899.87 3,045.47 3,206.67 3,360.93 3,529.07 3,723.20 ... BW 1,338.40 1,405.60 1,480.00 1,551.20 1 ;628.80 1,718.40 HR 16.73 17.57 18.50 19.39 20.36 21.48 GS4 YR 38,480.00 40,331.20 42,411.20 44,532.80 46,737.60 49,212.80 MO 3,206.67 3,360.93 3,534.27 3,711.07 3,894.80 4,101.07 BW 1,480.00 1,551.20 1,631.20 1,712.80 1,797.60 1,892.80 HR 18.50 19.39 20.39 21.41 22.47 23.66 GS4E YR 41,329.60 43,347.20 45,593.60 47,902.40 50,273.60 52,811.20 MO 3,444.13 3,612.27 3,799.47 3,991.87 4,189.47 4,400.93 BW 1,589.60 1 ,667.20 1,753.60 1,842.40 1,933.60 2,031.20 HR 19.87 20.84 21.92 23.03 24.17 25.39 GS5 YR 42,411.20 44,532.80 46,737.60 49,212.80 51,667.20 54,246.40 MO 3,534.27 3,711.07 3,894.80 4,101.07 4,305.60 4,520.53 BW 1,631.20 1,712.80 1,797.60 1,892.80 . 1,987.20 2,086.40 HR 20.39 21.41 22.47 23.66 24.84 26.08 GS5E YR 45,593.60 47,902.40 50,232.00 52,811.20 55,494.40 58,281.60 MO 3,799.47 3,991.87 4,186.00 4,400.93 4,624.S3 4,856.80 BW 1,753.60 1,842.40 1,932.00 2,031.20 2,134.40 2,241.60 HR 21.92 23.03 24.15 25.39 26.68 28.02 '" 18~ /1 eGS6 YR 46,737.60 49,212.80 51,667.20 54,246.40 57,012.80 62,899.20 MO 3,894.80 4,101.07 4,305.60 4,520.53 4,751.07 5,241.60 BW 1,797.60 1,892.80 1,987.20 2,086.40 2,192.80 2,419.20 HR 22.47 23.66 24.84 26.08 27.41 30.24 GS6E YR 50,232.00 52,811.20 55,515.20 58,281.60 61,193.60 67,579.20 MO 4,186.00 4,400.93 4,626.27 4,856.80 5,099.47 5,631.60 BW 1,932.00 2,031.20 2,135.20 2,241.60 2,353.60 2,599.20 HR 24.15 25.39 26.69 28.02 29.42 32.49 a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date. c. Step 3 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Step 5 - One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 5. f. Step 6 - One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 6. ... Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December 2006. Martin J. Kirsch ... Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk (Revised 11/06) GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE 18--[8 GRADE 1 POSITION TITLES CLASS 2 Office Aide Data Entry Operator Switchboard-Receptionist Community Development Technician Community Service Officer Custodian I nvestigative Clerk Lead Liquor Clerk Licensing Clerk Police Cadet Senior Office Aide Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Men-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt f\lon-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt E:'Xempt 3 Accounting Clerk Community Development Assistant Facility Operations Assistant Forestry Inspector/Operations Assistant Environmental Health Assistant Leased Housing Assistant Secretary Utility Billing Clerk Assessment Clerk Information Technologies Technician Administrative Aide Payroll Accountant Engineering Technician Facility Maintenance Supervisor Recreation Supervisor Part-time Assistant Liquor Store Manager Code Compliance Specialist Communications Coordinator Crime Prevention Program Coordinator Community Development Accountant Community Development Coordinator Executive Coordinator Housing Coordinator Human Resources Coordinator Human Services Planner/Coordinator Leased Housing Specialist Naturalist Records Supervisor Recreation Supervisor Redevelopment Specialist Zoning Administrator Civil Engineer Network Administrator Trade/Building Inspector Trade/Electrical Inspector Accountant 4 4SN 5 5E 6 6E RESOLUTION NO. t 8-1 g RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2007 GENERAL SERVICES . MID-YEAR SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services employees from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2007 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2007 the following pay plan, which is to be effective the first full pay period in July 2007 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: 2007 MID-YEAR GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE ... GS1 YR 28,808.00 30,513.60 32,219.20 33,945.60 35,963.20 37,065.60 MO 2,400.67 2,542.80 2,684.93 2,828.80 2,996.93 3,088.80 BW 1,108.00 1,173.60 1,239.20 1,305.60 1,383.20 1,425.60 HR 13.85 14.67 15.49 16.32 17.29 17.82 GS2 YR 31,699.20 33,342.40 34,964.80 36,732.80 :38,604.80 40,539.20 MO 2,641.60 2,778.53 2,913.73 3,061.07 3,217 .07 3,378.27 BW 1,219.20 1,282.40 1,344.80 1,412.80 .1,"484.80 1 ;'559.20 -GS3 HR 15.24 16.03 16.81 17.66 18.56 19.49 YR 34,964.80 36,732.80 38,667.20 40,539.20 42,556.80 44,907.20 MO 2,913.73 3,061.07 3,222.27 3,378.27 3,546.40 3,742.27 BW 1,344.80 1,412.80 1 ,487.20 1,559.20 1,636.80 1,727.20 HR 16.81 17.66 18.59 19.49. 20.46 21.59 GS4 YR 38,667.20 40,539.20 42,619.20 44,761.60 46,966.40 49,462.40 MO 3,222.27 3,378.27 3,551.60 3,730.13 .. 3,913.87 4,121.87 BW 1,487.20 1,559.20 1,639.20 1,721.60 1,806.40 1,902.40 HR 18.59 19.49 20.49 21.52 22.58 23.78 GS4E YR 41,537.60 43,555.20 45,822.40 48,152.00 50,523.20 53,081.60 MO 3,461.47 3,629.60 3,818.53 4,012.67 4,210.27 4,423.47 BW 1,597.60 1,675.20 1,762.40 1,852.00 1,943.20 2,041.60 HR 19.97 20.94 22.03 23.15 24.29 25.52 GS5 YR 42,619.20 44,761.60 46,966.40 49,462.40 51,916.80 54,516.80 MO 3,551.60 3,730.13 3,913.87 4,121.87 4,326.40 4,543.07 BW 1,639.20 1,721.60 1,806.40 1,902.40 1,996.80 2,096.80 HR 20.49 21.52 22.58 23.78 24.96 26.21 .S5E YR 45,822.40 48,152.00 50,481.60 53,081.60 55,764.80 58,572.80 MO 3,818.53 4,012.67 4,206.80 4,423.47 4,647.07 4,881.07 BW 1,762.40 1,852.00 1,941.60 2,041.60 2,144.80 2,252.80 HR 22.03 23.15 24.27 25.52 26.81 28.16 I g - caO .S6 YR 46,966.40 49,462.40 51,916.80 54,516.80 57,304.00 63,211.20 MO 3,913.87 4,121.87 4,326.40 4,543.07 4,775.33 5,267.60 BW 1,806.40 1,902.40 1,996.80 2,096.80 2,204.Q.O 2,431.20 HR 22.58 23.78 24.96 26.21 27.55 30.39 GS6E YR 50,481.60 53,081.60 55,785.60 58,572.80 61,505.60 67,912.00 MO 4,206.80 4,423.47 4,648.80 4,881.07 5,125.47 5,659.33 BW 1,941.60 2,041.60 2,145.60 2,252.80 2,365.60 2,612.00 HR 24.27 25.52 26.82 28.16 29.57 32.65 a. Step 1 - Start b. Step 2 - One year from anniversary date. c. Step 3 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 - One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Step 5 - One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 5. f. Step 6 - One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 6. ... Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December 2006. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk ... .evised 11/06) GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE J 8 '-~J GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS 1 Office Aide Non-Exempt Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt 2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian Non-Exempt Investigative Clerk Non-Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt Licensing Clerk . Non-Exempt Police Cadet Non-Exempt Senior Office Aide Non-Exempt 3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt Community Development Assistant Non-Exempt Facility Operations Assistant Non-Ex~pt Forestry Inspector/Operations Assistant Non-Exempt Environmental Health Assistant Non-Exempt Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt Utility Billing Clerk Non-Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Information Technologies Technician Non-Exempt 4SN Administrative Aide Non-Exempt Payroll Accountant Non-Exempt 5 Engineering Technician Non-Exempt Facility Maintenance Supervisor Non-Exempt Recreation Supervisor Part-time Non-Exempt 5E Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt Code Compliance Specialist Exempt Communications Coordinator Exempt Crime Prevention Program Coordinator Exempt Community Development Accountant Exempt Community Development Coordinator Exempt Executive Coordinator Exempt Housing Coordinator Exempt Human Resources Coordinator Exempt ... Human Services Planner/Coordinator Exempt Leased Housing Specialist Exempt Naturalist Exempt Records Supervisor Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt Redevelopment Specialist Exempt Zoning Administrator Exempt 6 Civil Engineer Non-Exempt Network Administrator Non-Exempt Trade/Building Inspector Non-Exempt Trade/Electrical Inspector Non-Exempt 6E Accountant Exempt ... RESOLUTION NO. f ~-d-~ RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2007 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2007 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classification in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2007 the following pay plan which is to be effective on Ja"tluary 1, 2007 and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: 2007 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade S~p1 S~p2 S~p3 St~p 4 SP1-E/NE HR 6.93 7.30 7.60 8.00 SP2-E/NE HR 7.67 8.03 8.42 8.84 SP3-E/NE HR 8.26 8.67 9.11 .9.57 SP4-E/NE HR 8.93 9.39 9.85 10.34 SP5-E/NE HR 9.62 10.14 10.62 .', 11.14 SP6-E/NE HR 10.44 10.95 11.47 12.06 ... SP7-E/NE HR 11.23 11.80 12.40 12.99 SP8-E/NE HR 12.13 12.76 13.38 14.05 SP9-E/NE HR 13.10 13.79 14.45 15.16 SP10-E/NE HR 14.20 14.88 15.65 16.44 SP11-E/NE HR 15.25 16.08 16.87 17.70 SP12-E/NE HR 16.54 17.32 18.19 19.13 SP13-E/NE HR 17.72 18.67 19.63 20.64 ... Normal Proaression Throuah the Specialized Pay Plan J 8-J3 Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher-grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: Step 1 - Start Step 2 - One year from anniversary date Step 3 - One year from last increase Step 4 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December 2006. ... Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk ... ... 1 E Pool Attendant {8 -/)t( NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute E Student Intern NE Construction Inspector NE Farmers Market Coordinator 2 NONE NE Publication Supervisor NE Teen Coordinator ~3 NE Bike Patrol Officer E Playground Coordinator NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, E Maintenance Technician Vet's & Taft) E Tennis Coordinator NE Scorer/Timer NE Recreation Attendant I 9 NE Community Development Tech. E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) E Special Facilities Coordinator E Facility Rental Attendant 10 NE Adult Sports Coordinator 4 NE Arena Attendant NE Engineering Aide NE Dance Coordinator & Skate E Pool Supervisor Coordinator NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator Gym & Sports Attendant) ... E Concession II 12 NE Pool Coordinator E Facility Cashier E Mini Golf Attendant 13 NE 911 Dispatcher 5 NE Adaptive Assistant Instructors NE Custodian NE Building Inspector NE Professional Intern NE Figure" Skating NE Survey Crew Person NE Hockey (Arena) NE Winter Sports Attendant NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech. E Warming House Attendant NE Sports Official NE Substitute Naturalist 6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist NE Dance NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) E Cross Country Ski NE Receptionist E Hockey (outside) NE Teen Leader E Tennis E Concession III E WSI E Lifeguard E Outdoor Skating/Warming House Supv OTHER E Playground Leader Instructor's Range: $5.75 - $50 Election J!Jdge $S.OO 7 NE Accounting Clerk Election Co-Chair $9.50 NE Adaptive Program Supervisor Election Chairperson $10.00 NE Building Attendent NE Concession Supervisor (all sites NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per EXCEPT Pool) week without overtime pay. NE Construction Specialist E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week NE Liquor Sales Associate without overtime pay. NE Maintenance Laborer All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt. NE Naturalist I All Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and NE Video Production Assistant Maintenance positions are non-exempt. NE Zamboni Operator (Revised 11-06) E Mini Golf Supervisor E Concession Supervisor NE Pool Night Watch 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator NE Administrative Services Clerk RESOLUTION NO. I Z - ~S' RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2007 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENT WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2007 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classification in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary; Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. " NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2007 the following pay plan which is to be effective on the first full pay period in July 2007, and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: JULY 2007 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN , INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade S~p1 S~p2 S~p3 SP1-E/NE HR 6.96 7.34 7.64 SP2-E/NE HR 7.71 8.07 8.46 SP3-E/NE HR 8.30 8.71 9.16 SP4-E/NE HR 8.97 9.44 9.90 SP5-E/NE HR 9.67 10.19 10.67 SP6-E/NE HR 10.49 11.00 11.53 SP7-E/NE HR 11.29 11.86 12.46 SP8-E/NE HR 12.19 12.82 13.45 SP9-E/NE HR 13.17 13.86 14.52 SP10-E/NE HR 14.27 14.95 15.73 SP11-E/NE HR 15.33 16.16 16.95 SP12-E/NE HR 16.62 17.41 18.28 SP13-E/NE HR 17.81 18.76 19.73 Step .4 '8.04 8.88 9.62 10.39 11.20 " : 12.12 13.05 14.12 15.24 16.52 17.79 19.23 20.74 " Normal Proaression Throuah the Specialized Pay Plan , 8 -~(p ... Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher-grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: Step 1 - Start Step 2 - One year from anniversary date Step 3 - One year from last increase Step 4 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of December, 2006. .. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk ... ... 1 E Pool Attendant l8-:;7NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute E Student Intern NE Construction Inspector NE Farmers Market Coordinator 2 NONE NE Publication Supervisor NE Teen Coordinator 3 NE Bike Patrol Officer E Playground Coordinator NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, E Maintenance Technician Vet's & Taft) E Tennis Coordinator NE ScorerlTimer NE Recreation Attendant I 9 NE Community Development Tech. E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) E Special Facilities Coordinator E Facility Rental Attendant 10 NE Adult Sports Cod'l'dinator 4 NE Arena Attendant NE Engineering Aide NE Dance Coordinator & Skate E Pool Supervisor Coordinator NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator Gym & Sports Attendant) E Concession II 12 NE Pool Coordinator E Facility Cashier E Mini Golf Attendant 13 NE 911 Dispatcher 5 NE Adaptive Assistant Instructors NE Custodian NE Building Inspector NE Professional Intern NE Figure Skating NE Survey Crew Person NE Hockey (Arena) NE Winter Sports Attendant NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech. E Warming House Attendant NE Sports Official NE Substitute Naturalist 6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist NE Dance NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) E Cross Country Ski NE Receptionist E Hockey (outside) NE Teen Leader E Tennis ... E Concession III E WSI E Lifeguard E Outdoor Skating/Warming House Supv OTHER E Playground Leader Instructor's Range: $5.75 - $50 Election Judge $9.00 7 NE Accounting Clerk Election Co-Chair $9.50 NE Adaptive Program Supervisor Election Chairperson $10.00 NE Building Attendent NE Concession Supervisor (all sites NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per EXCEPT Pool) week without overtime pay. NE Construction Specialist E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week NE Liquor Sales Associate without overtime pay. NE Maintenance Laborer All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt. NE Naturalist I All Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and NE Video Production Assistant Maintenance positions are non-exempt. NE Zamboni Operator (Revised 11-06) E Mini Golf Supervisor E Concession Supervisor NE Pool Night Watch 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator ... NE Administrative Services Clerk , 8-)~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2007 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9694 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as stated in the sections of this Resolution. B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees contained in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of this resolution. C. A 10% administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 6, 7,8 and 9 of the resolution if not received by the City on or before December 31 st of each year. The 10% surcharge will be based upon the cost of the license. D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee has not been paid in a timely manner. SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES (1) Heating and 400.07 1 Year $ 80.00 Ventilating Installer (2) Sign Installer 41 6.01-41 6.13 1 Year $ 80.00 (3) Electrical Installer 400.03-400.09 State License Required (4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 State License Required (5) Well Driller 620 State License Required SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Benches 805.01-805.27 First Year $ 80.00 Renewal $ 30.00 (2) Boulevard feature 811.07 a) Application to place a privately owned feature in $ 30.00 Permit the boulevard b) If applied for after installation of feature has begun $ 60.00 (3) Excavation in 800.01-800.15 a) For each transverse excavation and each 100 feet $ 125.00 Public Right of way or portion thereof longitudinal excavation and for each 100 feet of curb and gutter or portion thereof installed or driveway apron installed, except when survey and grade stakes are set by City b) If applied for after excavation has begun $ 250.00 D-l t 8 ~d--9 SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES (CONTINUED TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (4) Forestry Permit 810 Applies only to trees on City property and public ROW $ 25.00 (5) Seasonal Load a) Per load $ 25.00 Limit Exemption b) If applied for after delivery $ 50.00 (6) Obstruction Permit 802.17 (a) Short term, temporary lane closure of less than four No fee hours (b) Lane closures longer than four hours duration (or if between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) Arterial/Collector/Distributor Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 30.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 125.00 Local/Residential Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 15.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 50.00 Parking lane/sidewalk Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 7.50 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 31.25 If applied for after obstruction closure has begun (c) Short term, temporary lane closure of less than four No fee hours (d) Lane closures longer than four hours duration (or if between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) Arterial/Collector/Distributor $ 60,00 . Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 250,00 Week (per block or portion thereof) Local/Residential $ 30.00 Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 100.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) Parking lane/sidewalk $ 15.00 Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 62.50 Week (per block or portion thereof) . (7) Noise Ordinance 930.35 ~ (a) With conditions added as required $ 25.00 Exemption (b) If applied for after violation $ 50.00 (8) Certification 705.03-705.21 All delinquent accounts $ 50.00 Charge (9) NSF Check Charae $ 25.00 SECTION 4. FIRE SERVICES FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Fire Prevention 400.21-400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year $ 50.00 Code For each additional fee required under code Per year $ 10.00 Penalty If not renewed within 2 months of notification $ 25.00 (2) Daycare/ Adult Foster Care Facility Insoection $ 50.00 (3) Reimbursement Fee for Fire/Rescue Unit Per Hour $ 250.00 (4) Fire Report Percooy $ 5.00 (5) Sale of Consumer 1131 License per location to sell Per Year $ 100.00 Fireworks consumer fireworks D-2 { g' r 30 SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Arcade 1105 1 Year $ 394.00 (2) Amusement 1100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device (Pinball) 1 Year $ 15.00 Device (b) Mechanical Music Box 1 Year $ 15.00 (c) Video Games 1 Year $ 15.00 (3) Lawful Gambling 1100.13 Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs (a) Lawful Gambling Permit (those exempt from State Licensure) 1 Year $ 100.00 (State Statute 349.213) [b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee 1 Year $ 100.00 (State Statute 349.16) STATE LICENSE REQUIRED (4) Itinerant Place of 1100.05-1100.11 1 day $ 211.00 Amusement (5) Public Dance 1110.03 For each day dances are held - $3 1 month $ 35.00 No fee for locations holding tavern licenses. (6) General 1100.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 Year $ 15.00 Amusement 1. Coin operated 1 Year $ 15.00 lb) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 Year $ 35.00 Ic) Circus 1 Year $ 171.00 . ld) Dance Hall 1 Day $ 171.00 [e) Golf 1. Miniature 1 Year $ 40.00 2. Driving Tee 1 Year $ 40.00 (f) Mountback 1 Day $ 163.00 (g) Rides, mechanical/animal of any kind (ea) 1 Year $ 15.00 (h) Shows, any kind 1 Day $ 163.00 (i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 Year $ 16.00 (j) Other games 1 Day $ 15.00 (7) Musical Concert 1110.01 Per event $ 35.00 (8) Theatre Cinema 1120 1 Year $ 165.00 Plus a notice publication fee $ 6.50 (9) Roller Rink 1115 1 year or portion thereof $ 165.00 (10) Commercial Adult- 605 1 Year $ 1,970.00 Oriented Enterprises Investigation fee 1 Year $ 1,970.00 [11 ) Masseur/Masseuse 605 Certificate fee 1 Year $ 67.00 Investigation fee 1 Year $ 165.00 (12) Public Baths 610 1 Year $ 2,282.00 Investiqation fee tactual cost minimum) $ 2,282.00 (13) Fortune Teller and 1130.05-1130.07 1 Day $ 132.00 related trade 1 Week $ 393.00 1 Month $ 787.00 1 Year $ 1,313.00 (14) Adult 1196 Annual license 1 Year $ 1,970.00 Establishments Investigation fee (new license) $ 1,970.00 D-3 I 8-31 SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Animals (Spayed or Neutered) with 1 Year $ 15.00 option to purchase a multi-year license (b) Animals {Not Spayed or Neutered 1 Year $ 17.00 (c) Duplicate Animal License $ 7.00 (d) Late Penalty $ 6.00 905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel 1 Year $ 198.00 (f) Residential Kennel 1 Year $ 150.00 (g) Veterinary $ 198.00 905.37-905.39 (h) Pigeons 1 Year $ 39.00 905.41 (i) ,Non-domestic Animals (Temporary Permit) $ 23.00 905.01-905.29 (j) Impounding (each animal) 1 st time $ 58.00 2nd Time 3rd time [each impound after) $ 114.00 $ 171.00 SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Bicycle 1335 Minnesota State Registration (2) Aircraft 1340 1 Day $ 39.00 (3) Food Vehicle 615 (a) Bakery vehicle 1 Year $ 100.00 (b) Catering - for first food vehicle 1 Year $ 210.00 Second vehicle 1 Year $ 86.00 Each additional vehicle 1 Year $ 47.00 (c) Readily perishable (Same as (b) above) (4) Garbage and 601.01-601.33 Commercial and Residential Refuse Collection First vehicle 1 Year $ 198.00 Each additional vehicle 1 Year $ 42.00 (5) Motor Vehicle 1155 Per place of business 1 Year $ 296.00 Dealer Each additional place of business 1 Year $ 112.00 (6) Motor Bicycle 1160 Per place of business 1 Year $ 171.00 Business Per place of business to sell, rent or least 1 Year $ 78.00 (7) Sound Truck 1165 Per vehicle 1 Year $ 171.00 Per Vehicle 1 Day $ 26.00 (8) Taxicab 1170 First vehicle or auto livery 1 Year $ 426.00 Each additional vehicle or auto livery operated at any time within license period 1 Year $ 53.00 (9) Taxicab Driver 1175 1 Year $ 40.00 (10) Rental or utility 1185 Each place of business 1 Year $ 78.00 Trailers and Trucks D-4 18, ~~ SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 1 Year $1,313.00 (2) Itinerant Food 615 Per $ 106.00 Establishment Event (3) Retail Candy Shop 615 First facility 1 Year $ 106.00 Each additional on same premises 1 Year $ 26.00 (4) Food Establishment 615 ,(a) Retail or Wholesale Food Sales (Grocery) 1 Year $ 278.00 (b) Restaurant (Prepackaged food only sold for consumption) 1 Year $ 278.00 (cl Restaurant (Prepared food sold for consumption) 1 Year $ 520.00 (d) Plan Review Fees: See fee schedule at end of Section 1 0 (e) Additional Food Facilities (Baked goods, meat, produce, microwave ovens) Each $ 35.00 (5) Vending Machine 615 (a) Food vending machine requiring coin or token (excepting those machines dispensing bottled or canned soft drinks) 1 Year $ 15.00 (b) Other food vending machines (excepting those dispensing bottled or canned soft drinks) 1 Year $ 15.00 (c) Ice vending machine 1 Year $ 15.00 (6) Automobile 1125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $ 132.00 Washing Establishment (7) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 Year $ 39.00 Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping contents of each cesspool into City sewer $ 19.00 (8) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 Year $ 39.00 (9) Tobacco 1146.01 (MS Retail Sale and Distribution - License issued $ 329.00 461. 12) on calendar year (cigarette vending machines prohibited) (Bill No. 1998-19) (10) Soft drink 1145.01 (a) Cans, bottles from shelf or cooler, $ 28.00 fountain service (b) Vending machine dispensing bottles or -0- cans (c) Other vending machines Per year or fraction thereof $ 28.00 Per each additional machine $ 28.00 (11 ) Transient Merchant 1181.01-1181.09 1 Dav $ 84.00 (12) Waqon Peddler 1181 1 Year $ 198.00 (13) State hawker or 1181 6 month/per person covered $ 48.00 Peddler license D-5 1&-33 SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) (14) Canvasser or 1181 6 month/per person covered $ 48.00 Solicitor (15) Christmas Tree Sale 1130.03 1 Year $ 106.00 (16) Motel 1190 First Unit $ 184.00 Per year each additional unit $ 13.00 (17) Outdoor 1135 Permit $ 87.00 Merchandising (18) Storage Enclosure 1135 Per Enclosure $ 75.00 (19) Pawnbroker 1187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 Year $ 3,424.00 (b) Owner investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 1,969.00 (c) Manager investigation fee 1 Year $ 713.00 (nonrefundable) (d) Employee investigation fee 1 Year $ 69.00 (nonrefundable) Ie) Transaction fee - per transaction $ 2.00 (20) Secondhand 1186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 Year $ 376.00 Goods Dealer Ib) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) actual costs in excess of above with total not exceeding $ 1,576.00 Applicant shall deposit $1200.00 with Licensing Clerk along with application. Amount in excess of actual application costs shall be refunded. (21 ) Auto Detailing 1195.01 1 Year $ 294.00 Establishment (22) Tattoo, Body 630 (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting or Piercing, Body body branding 1 Year $ 656.00 Painting or Body (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 1,969.00 Branding (23) Temporary Tattoo, 630 Per booth $ 40.00 Body Piercing, Body Branding and Body painting events (24) Massage Therapy 1188 Annual license 1 Year $ 656.00 Enterprise License Investigation fee (new license) $ 656.00 (Business license) Massage Therapist Annual license 1 Year $ 67.00 License {Individual Investigation fee (new license) $ 67.00 license) Temporary Per temporary location $ 131.00 Massage Therapist License (25) Public Swimming 420.10 1 st Pool $ 112.00 Pool License Each Additional $ 60.00 D-6 18/3c..f SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) PLAN REVIEW FEE FOR FOOD, THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND LODGING PERCENTAGE OF FACILITY INVOLVED WILL BE DETERMINED BY STAFF Definitions:. Class A - Large restaurant or large grocery store that employs more than four people per shift, and/or has multiple supplemental licenses (Le., bar, bakery, delL rryeat department, etc.) Class A (Fast Food) - Counter service only and/or drive through window and warehouses. Class B - Daycare, pet shops, retail candy, prepackaged food only. Class C Small grocery/restaurants with four or less employees per shift and health clubs. Environmental plan review - includes the physical remodeling, updating, equipment replacement, equipment additions and the general overall review of all plans/work. This also includes all new development projects. New Construction Extensive Minor Remodel Non-remodel and/or Major Remodel (25- (0-24% of facility) approval Remodel (over 50% 50% of facility) consultation of facility involved) ($5,000 or less in costs) Class A (large $2095 $1091 $589 $101 restaurant or qrocervl Class A (fast food and $1444 $790 $438 $101 warehousesl Class C (food facilities $790 $438 $262 $101 with 4 or less employees per shift and health clubs Class B (daycares, $388 $151 $75 No fee grocery, pet shops, retail candv) Class B (prepackaged New project or Minor remodel- food only) change of owner - permit but no $101 plan check fee Therapeutic Massaqe $101 $101 $101 $101 Lodqinq $1745 $940 $489 $101 SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) 3.2 Malt Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $ 723.00 (b) Tavern (dance) 1 Year $ 591.00 (c) Wholesale 1 Year $ 36.00 (d) Off-Sale 1 Year $ 210.00 (e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 Year $ 479.00 (f) Temporary per event $ 53.00 (2) Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $11,936.00 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 Year $ 200.00 (c) Wine 1 Year $ 1053.00 (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex-Sunday) 1 Year $ 685.00 (e) Temporary per event $ 108.00 D-7 I g-3~ SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES (CONTINUED) . TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (3) Employee License 1200.01-1200.25 Effective 10/1/95 all licenses issued shall be $ 29.00 On-Sale Liquor 1200.29-1200.39 valid for a period of two years from the date Establishments of initial application (4) Investigation Fee 1200.01-1200.25 (a) On-Sale Iiauor including Veterans' $ 655.00 and 1200.29-1200.39 Organization each person shown on application actual costs in excess of above Each additional investigation for each . person not listed on original or renewal application $ 196.00 1225 (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee $ 363.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total fee not to exceed $ 2,767.00 Renewal Application Initial Fee $ 81.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total cost not to exceed $ 2,767.00 1200.09 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subd. 3 $ 162.00 and not to exceed $ 2,767.00 Investigation of substitute manager $ 82.00 SECTION 10. HOUSING INSPECTION AND RENTAL LICENSE FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) License for 405 (a) Apartment House 1 Year $ 80.00 Apartment Houses Each unit $ 12.00 and Rental Homes (b) Rental Home - single family dwelling 1 Year $ 80.00 (c) Duplexes/double bungalows First unit 1 Year $ 80.00 Each additional rental unit 1 Year $ 40.00 (d) Late Fee 10% penalty for each month or portion thereof during which said fee remains unpaid. (e) License Transfer Fee $ 40.00 (f) Reinstatement of suspended license 50% of license fee (minimum $80) (g) Reinstatement of Revoked license 100% of license fee (h) Re-Inspection Fee $ 80.00 ea. 1. multi-family 2. single family & duplex $ 25.00 ea. (Inspection over standard 2 inspections) Reinspection fees shall be payable at the time of license renewal and no renewal license shall be issued unless all inspection fees are paid (i) Provisional license for apartment house 1 Year $ 185.00 Includes first unit Each additional unit $ 20.00 D-8 /8--3(p SECTION 10. HOUSING INSPECTION AND RENTAL LICENSE FEES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (2) Certificate of 405.26 Single family home or owner/occupied $ 85.00 Housing portion of a 2-family home includes one maintenance reinspection Compliance Reinspection Fee $ 25.00 Fee to process cash escrow aqreement $ 50.00 (3) Permit Fee for 405.19 1 Year $ 11 0.00 Rooming House SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION I OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Permit to reside 1190 In motel for more than six months $ 17.00 (2) Permit to Carry a Permit Issued By County Gun (3) False Alarms (a) in excess of 2 for calendar year $ 100.00 (billable) (b) in excess of 10 for calendar year $ 200.00 (c) in excess of 20 for calendar year $ 300.00 (4) Copying SeNices Flat rate (per page) $ .25 Provided Special rate (a) Black & White Photocopy rate 8.5 x 11 (per side) $ .25 8.5 x 14 (per side) $ .25 MN Statute 13.03C 11 x 17 (each) $ .50 24 x 36 (each) $ 2.50 X-large $ 2.50 Color Photocopy rate 8.5 x 11 (per side) $ 1.00 8.5 x 14 (per side) $ 2.00 11 x 17 (each) $ 4.00 24 x 36 (each) $ 18.00 X-large $3.00/sq.ft. .(b) Labor hourly wage & 33% (c) Postage prevailing rate (d) Fax per page $ .50 (e) Audio tape of meeting (per tape) $ 5.00 (f) Video tape of meeting (per tape) $ 15.00 (g) Electronic copies (cd or disk) $ 5.00 (h) As builts (per image) $ .50 (5) Notary Fee Per Signature $ 1.00 (6) Candidate Filing City Charter $ 25.00 Fee 4.04 (7) Photo Fee Includes 2 photos $ 13.85 D-9 (8' 31 SECTION 11. MISCELLAN EOUS FEES (8) Special Assessments Assessment Search $15.00 per Property Identification Number (PID) Levied or Pending Special Assessment $30.00 for each report Report Plus $.05 for each PID Number Creation of New or Special $25.00 minimum fee. Report Fees to be based on time and materials to create report Listing Information Printout of PID Listing $3.00 per PID Number Review of Comparable Property Records Residential Field Card Report $ .25 per copy for up to five comparable properties Commercial/Industrial/ Apartment Field Card Report $2.00 per copy Certified Card Report $3.00 COpy of Certificate of Real Estate Value $ .25 D-1O {g-3g SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES FEE LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION FEE Richfield City Hall Council Chambers Non-Profit Weekend: $56.00IHr Weekday: $44.OO/Hr Resident Weekend: $66.00/Hr Private Weekday: $56.00/Hr Non-Resident Weekend: $76.00/Hr Private Weekday: $66.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Augsburg Room Non-Profit Weekend: $29.00/Hr Weekday: $24.00/Hr Resident Weekend: $34.00/Hr Private Weekday: $29.00/Hr Non-Resident Weekend: S39.00/Hr Private Weekday: $34.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Nicollet Room Non-Profit Weekend: $29.00/Hr Weekday: $24.00/Hr Resident Weekend: $34.00/Hr Private Weekday: $29.00/Hr Non-Resident Weekend: $39.00/Hr Private Weekday: $34.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Combined Non-Profit Weekend: $56.00/Hr Nicollet/ Augsburg Weekday: $44.OOlHr Resident Weekend: $66.00/Hr Private Weekday: $56.00/Hr Non-Resident Weekend: $76.00/Hr Private Weekday: $66.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Richfield Room Non-Profit Weekend: $56.00/Hr Weekday: $44.OO/Hr Resident Weekend: $66.00/Hr Private Weekday: $56.00/Hr Non-Resident Weekend: $76.00/Hr Private Weekday: $66.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Ruth Johnson Room Non-Profit $24.00/Hr Resident $29.00IHr Private Non-Resident $34.00/Hr Private D-ll I s- 3 q SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES (CONTINUEDl FEE LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION FEE Richfield Community Center Fireside Room Non-Profit $24.00/Hr Resident $29.00IHr Private Non-Resident $34.00/Hr Private Wood Lake Nature Center Auditorium Non-Profit $24.00/Hr Resident $34.00/Hr Private Non-Resident $39.00IHr Private Augsburg Park Park Buildings Resident $22.00/Hr Christian Park $18.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Donaldson Park-East Jefferson Park Non-Resident $27.00IHr Madison park $23.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Taft Park-North Washinaton Park Fairwood Park Open. Picnic Shelters Resident $17.00/Hr Monroe Park $14.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Augsburg Park Non-Resident $22.00IHr $19.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Sheridan Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident $20.00/Hr $17.00IHr (3+ Hrs) Non-Resident $24.00/Hr $21.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Veterans Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident 1 Section: $82.00 Day: 4 Hour Block 2 Sections: $148.00 3 Sections: $208.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $88.00 2 Sections: $160.00 3 Sections: $224.00 Veterans Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident 1 Section: $61.00 Evening: 3 Hour Block 2 Sections: $109.00 3 Sections: $153.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $66.00 2 Sections: $119.00 3 Sections: $170.00 D-12 , ~ - tfO SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS The following schedule of fines applies to offenses initiated by administrative citation. TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE (1) ANIMALS 905.03 Failure to license animal $54.00 905.05 Failure to restrain dog $54.00 905.06 Failure to dispose of animal feces $54.00 930.15 Animal annoyance by reason of noise $54.00 905.17 Failure to quarantine animal $108.00 905.19 Failure to comply with potentially or dangerous $270.00 dog requirements 905.31 Failure to obtain commercial kennel license, multi- $54.00 animal residential license or veterinary kennel license 905.29 Abandonment of an animal $108.00 Failure to provide shelter, food or water for a $270.00 domestic animal 2005.03 Cruelty to animals and birds $270.00 (2) BUILDING 400.19 Failure to number houses and buildings $54.00 CODE 405.09 Failure to provide minimum standards for basic $108.00 equipment and facilities 405.11 Failure to provide minimum standards for light, $108.00 ventilation and heating 405.13 Failure to provide minimum standards for safe and $108.00 sanitary maintenance of dwellings/ dwelling units 405.15 Failure to provide minimum space $108.00 406.01 Failure to license rooming house $108.00 407.00 Failure to license apartment houses and rental $108.00 homes .407.09 Failure to display license or provide tenant register $108.00 408.01 Failure to obtain certificate of housing $108.00 maintenance compliance (PaS) 420 Failure to comply with swimming pool ordinance $108.00 (3) BUSINESS 1100.01 Failure to obtain amusement devices license $54.00 LICENSES 1340.01 Failure to obtain aircraft license $54.00 1105.01 Failure to obtain arcade license $54.00 1125.01 Failure to obtain car washing license $54.00 D-13 18,.-41 SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE BUSINESS LICENSES 1130.03 Failure to obtain Christmas tree license $54.00 (CONT.) 605.05 Failure to obtain commercial adult-oriented $54.00 services license 1196.11 Failure to obtain an adult establishment license $54.00 1188.05 Failure to obtain a therapeutic massage license $54.00 1195.03 Failure to obtain an auto detailing establishment $54.00 license 1200.03 Failure to obtain intoxicating liquor license $54.00 850.09 Failure to obtain community celebration license $54.00 1110.01 Failure to obtain concerts or dance license $54.00 615.05 Failure to obtain food establishment license $54.00 920.03 Failure to obtain firearms license $54.00 1130.05 Failure to obtain fortune teller license $54.00 601. 1 5 Failure to obtain garbage and refuse collection $54.00 license 1100.13 Failure to obtain lawful gambling license $54.00 1100.03 Failure to obtain general amusement license $54.00 1200.33 Failure to obtain a liquor employee license $54.00 1190.05 Failure to obtain motel license $54.00 1160.03 Failure to obtain motor bicycle license $54.00 1155.05 Failure to obtain a State motor vehicle dealers $54.00 license 1155.07 Failure to obtain a City motor vehicle dealers $54.00 license 1120.03 Failure to obtain movie theatre license $54.00 1210.05 Failure to obtain 3.2 intoxicating malt liquor license $54.00 1181.03 Failure to obtain transient merchant, peddlers, $54.00 wagon peddlers and solicitors license 905.39 Failure to obtain pigeon license $54.00 1186.05 Failure to obtain a pawnbroker license $54.00 1187.05 Failure to obtain a secondhand goods dealer $54.00 license 1215.03 Failure to obtain a license for Sunday alcohol sales $54.00 610.03 Failure to obtain public bath license $54.00 D-14 1~-Y.2- SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE BUSINESS LICENSES 1115.03 Failure to obtain roller rink license $54.00 (CO NT.) 601.33 Failure to obtain scavenger license $54.00 1145.01 Failure to obtain soft drink license $54.00 1165.03 Failure to obtain sound truck license $54.00 1175.03 Failure to obtain taxi driver license $54.00 1170.03 Failure to obtain taxi license $54.00 1146.05 Failure to obtain tobacco license $54.00 1185.01 Failure to obtain rental trailer and truck license $54.00 1100.15 Failure to obtain video game license $54.00 1225.03 Failure to obtain wine license $54.00 (4) FENCES/W ALLS/ 511.23 Failure to maintain fences/walls/ hedges $108.00 HEDGES (5) FOOD 615 Violations of food establishment ordinance $108.00 ESTABLISHMENTS (6) GARBAGE 601.03 Failure to dispose of garbage/ refuse $54.00 601.09 Improper storage and maintenance of garbage $54.00 containers 601,.35 Failure to comply with composting ordinance $54.00 (7) LITTERING 830.03 Littering $54.00 830.07 Placing litter into gutters $54.00 830.31 Improper posting of notices $54.00 830.4 1 Improper placement of snow/ice $54.00 1135 Improper outdoor merchandising and storage $54.00 (8) NOISE 930 Violations of the noise ordinance $54.00 (9) PARKING 1305.19 Failure to comply with the "Vehicles for Sale" $54.00 ordinance 1305.27 Failure to comply with parking ordinance for certain $54.00 vehicles/trailers 1327.05 Failure to comply with parking of truck-tractors, semi- $54.00 trailers, truck-tractor and semi-trailer combinations or trucks ordinance D-15 /8-'-13 SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE (10) PARKING/OUTSIDE 1320 Improper parking or storage $108.00 STORAGE 925 Maintaining a public nuisance $54.00 (11) RECREATIONAL 1325 Improper parking or storage of recreational $54.00 VEHICLES vehicles (12) SIGNS 416 Sign regulations 108.00 (13) TRANSIENT 1181 Violation of transient merchant, peddler, wagon $54.00 MERCHANTS, peddler and solicitor license PEDDLERS, WAGON PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS (14) ZONING 511 General Zoning Provisions, including 108.00 encroachments; non-conforming uses and structures; traffic visibility triangles; central air conditioner units; home occupations; and fences, walls, and hedges. 521 Rules for the R, R-l, MR-l, MR-2, and MR-3 108.00 residential zoning districts, including permitted, accessory, and conditional uses; lot area, width, depth, and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations, outdoor open space; parking requirements; performance standards; conditional activity permits; and non-conforming use permits. 524 Rules for the SO-l Service-Office zoning district, 108.00 including permitted, accessory and conditional uses; lot area, width, depth, and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations; and rules for conduct of business operations. 526 Rules for the C-l , C-2, and C-3 commercial zoning 1 08.00 districts, including permitted, accessory, conditional and prohibited uses; lot area, width, depth, and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations; rules for conduct of business operations. Also C-3 specific rules including transitional activity permits; non-conforming uses and structures; site plan approval; landscaping values; minimum floor-area ratios; solar access requirements; and maintenance of landscaping. D-16 Ig-44 SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE ZONING (CaNT.) 531 Rules for the I industrial zoning district, including 108.00 permitted, accessory and conditional uses; lot area, width, depth and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations; and rules for the conduct of business operations. 536 Rules for PUD planned unit development zoning 108.00 districts including requirements for unified control; integrated design; coordination with subdivision regulations; lot area; allowable uses; proposal review and application; final development plans and conditional use permits; amendments; and fees. 538 Floodplain Management Regulations including 108.00 permitted uses in floodplain overlay districts; floodplain use permits; and construction standards near or in floodplain overlay districts. 541 Performance standards for all new developments 108.00 except single family, two family, and cluster home developments, including exterior lighting; traffic/parking studies; off-street parking and loading; landscaping and screening; underground utilities; exterior treatment of buildings; screening mechanical equipment; dumpster enclosures; and stormwater management. 546 Administration for the Board of Adjustments and 108.00 Appeals; Conditional Use Permits; Zoning Amendments; Variances; Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of December, 2006. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk D-17