121112completeagenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2012
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
BARTHOLOMEW ROOM
5:45 P.M.
AGENDA
Call to order
Roll call
1. Discussion regarding county road task force (Council Memo No. 129)
Notes:
2. Discussion regarding Lyndale Gardens redevelopment update (Council Memo No. 130)
Notes:
Adjournment
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 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 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:
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of minutes of (1) Regular City Council Meeting of November 27, 2012; and (2)
Special City Council Meeting of December 4, 2012
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
1. Council discussion
• Schedule Special City Council Meeting for advisory commission interviews
• Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
2. Council approval of agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. 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 items
and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these
items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed
from the 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 resolution reappointing Abisola Omiwade, General
Manager of Candlewood Suites; Raj Bhakta, General Manager of Americlnn; and
Adam Selby, Hampton Inn, to Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for three-year terms
ending December 31, 2015 S.R. No. 209
B. Consideration of approval of resolution granting conditional use permit for traditional
(Class II) restaurant at 811 66th Street East S.R. No. 210
C. Consideration of approval of resolution confirming City Manager's reappointment of
Connie Murray and Paul Wasko for two-year terms as Hearing Examiners S.R. No.
211
D. Consideration of approval of resolution decertifying Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Tax
Increment Financing District S.R. No. 212
E. Consideration of approval of transfer of assets to close out funds that are part of
Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Tax Increment District S.R. No. 213
F. Consideration of approval of hiring SEH, Inc. for development of utility reconstruction
analysis for future reconstruction of City's sanitary and water utilities along Hennepin
County roads at cost not to exceed $69,657 S.R. No. 214
G. Consideration of approval of resolution granting site plan approval for day care serving
up to five persons at 6630 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 215
H. Consideration of approval of resolution granting site plan approval for day care serving
up to 28 persons at 6341 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 216
I. Consideration of approval of authorizing City of Richfield to enter Contract No.
A121234 with Hennepin County for Sentencing to Service program services not to
exceed $52,462.80 in 2013 and not to exceed $54,038.40 in 2014 S.R. No. 217
J. Consideration of approval of contract with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for purchase
of 1,400 tons of quick lime for water treatment in amount of$200,200 ($143/ton) for
2013 S.R. No. 218
K. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City of Richfield to enter into
agreement with State of Minnesota Office of State Court Administration to access
Minnesota Court Data Services S.R. No. 219
L. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Richfield Public Safety's
acceptance of$3,000 grant from Target Corporation; $500 donation from Modern
Manufacturing & Engineering, INC, $200 donation from Broadway Pizza; and personal
donations of$250, $150 and $58.58 S.R. No. 220
M. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of$5,949.93 grant
from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, for purchase of
bulletproof vests for Richfield Police S.R. No. 221
N. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Public Safety Department/Police
acceptance of$100 donation from Alerus Mortgage S.R. No. 222
O. Consideration of approval of resolutions amending 2012-2013 labor agreements with
911 Dispatchers LELS Local 225, Police Officers & Detectives, LELS Local 123 and
Police Supervisors LELS Local 162 S.R. No. 223
P. Consideration of approval of 2013 renewal of named business licenses for on-sale and
off sale 3.2 percent malt liquor establishments, taxi companies and rental of trailers and
trucks doing business in Richfield. S.R. No. 224
License to Sell 3.2 Percent Malt License to Operate in Richfield
Liquor A New Star Taxi & Limousine Service — 5
Aldi Foods — Off-Sale vehicles
El Jalapeno— Off-Sale Airport Taxi — 11 vehicles
Portland Food Mart— Off-Sale American Travel— 5 vehicles
RBF Corporation of Wisconsin Continental Taxi, LLC — 5 vehicles
(Rainbow Foods)— Off-Sale Gold Star Taxi — 8 vehicles
Richfield U.S. (gas station Latino Americano Express — 8 vehicles
67th/Penn) - Off-Sale Latino Express — 10 vehicles
Sandy's Tavern — On-Sale Suburban Taxi — 5 vehicles
SuperAmerica #4186 — Off-Sale Twin Cities Airport Taxi - 5 vehicles
SuperAmerica #4188 — Off-Sale White Star Taxi — 3 vehicles
SuperAmerica #4191 — Off-Sale
SuperAmerica #4615—Off-Sale
Target Corporation —Off-Sale Paul's Rentals & Sales—Trailer and Truck
Vina Restaurant— On-Sale Rental
Notes:
4. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
5. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code
Appendix D (Fee Schedule) and resolution authorizing summary publication of
ordinance
Staff Report No. 225
Notes:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Public hearings regarding 2013 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license
renewals:
A. Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 226
B. University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue
S.R. No. 227
Notes:
7. Public hearings regarding 2013 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. 228
B. Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 229
Notes:
8. Public hearings regarding 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license
renewals:
A. Chipotle Mexican Grill/Colorado, LLC, d/b/a Chipolte Mexican Grill, 7644 Lyndale
Avenue S.R. No. 230
B. Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 231
C. Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2910 West 66th
Street S.R. No. 232
D. Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Café, 2928 West 66th Street
S.R. No. 233
E. The Noodles Shop Co.-Colorado, Inc., d/b/a Noodles & Company, 7630 Lyndale
Avenue S.R. No. 234
F. John E. Powers &Assoc., Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 235
G. Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC, d/b/a Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, 7545
Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 236
Notes:
9. Public hearings regarding 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license
renewals:
A. The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street (includes optional 2 a.m. closing) S.R. No.
237
B. Financial Guidance, Inc. d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue S.R.
No. 238
C. Paisan Incorporated, d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street S.R.
No. 239
D. Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue
(includes outside service) S.R. No. 240
E. Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street S.R. No. 241
F. Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Americana, 790 West 66th Street
(includes optional 2 a.m. closing) S.R. No. 242
G. El Tejaban Mexica Grill LLC d/b/a El Tejaban, 2 West 66th Street S.R. No. 243
H. Pizza Luce VII, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Luce, 800 West 66th Street (includes outside service)
S.R. No. 244
Notes:
RESOLUTIONS
10. Consideration of resolution establishing street light user fee charged to residential and
commercial property in City of Richfield for operation of street lighting system
Staff Report No. 245
Notes:
11. Consideration of resolutions approving 2012 Revised/2013 Proposed budget and tax
levy and related resolutions
Staff Report No. 246
Notes:
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
12. City Manager's Report
Notes:
13. 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 time 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:
14. Special City Council Closed Executive Session in Babcock Conference Room to
consider offers to purchase real properties at: 6314-17th Avenue; 6320-17th Avenue;
6326-17th Avenue; 6332-17th Avenue; 6338-17th Avenue; 6344-17th Avenue; 6408-
17th Avenue; 6414-17th Avenue; 6426-17th Avenue; 6432-17th Avenue; 6438-17th
Avenue; and 6444-17th Avenue
15. Reconvene Regular City Council Meeting in Council Chambers
16. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be
made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
December 6, 2012
Council Memorandum No. 129
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: County Road Task Force
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 1 )
Council Members:
At the December 11, 2012 City Council Worksession, staff and consultants will explain a
process for a County Road Task Force (lead by the Transportation Commission) to
develop guiding principles for the upcoming County Road reconstruction projects. The
Task Force is expected to meet no more than 3 times and proposed to be made up of
representatives from the following groups:
• Richfield Transportation Commission (full group)
• Richfield City Council liaisons (2)
• Richfield Planning Commission liaisons (2)
• Richfield Community Services Commission liaisons (2)
• Richfield HRA Commission liaisons (2)
• Richfield Arts Commission liaisons (2)
• Richfield Chamber of Commerce liaisons (1)
• Edina Transportation Commission liaisons (1)
• do.town/SHIP representative (1)
Contact Michael Eastling, Public Works Director, at 612-861-9792 with questions.
Re •-ctfully submittei
= . Ievic
City Manager
SLD:cak
Email: Department Directors
Assistant City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
December 6, 2012
Council Memorandum No. 130 HRA Memorandum No. 59
Housing & Redevelopment
The Honorable Mayor Authority Commissioners
And City of Richfield
Members of the City Council
Subject: Lyndale Gardens Redevelopment Update
(Worksession Agenda Item No. 2 )
Council Members and Commissioners:
Representatives of The Cornerstone Group will be presenting an update on the Lyndale
Gardens redevelopment project, 6400 Lyndale Avenue, at the December 11, 2012 City
Council Worksession starting at 5:45 p.m.
Rest Ily ubmitte•t
ev d evic
— �Ci Manager
SLD:cak
Email: Department Directors
Assistant City Manager
Copy: Planning Commission
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
ge4b:ced" Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
November 27, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Tom Fitzhenry; and Sue Sandahl.
Members Absent: Fred Wroge.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; John Stark, Community Development
Director; Todd Sandell, Public Safety Director; Corrine Heine, City
Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
OPEN FORUM
None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl to approve the minutes of(1) Special City Council Worksession of
November 13, 2012 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of November 13, 2012.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #1 SWEARING-IN OF CITY OF RICHFIELD POLICE OFFICERS: DAVID MAST,
KEVIN BLANCHARD, ERIN HOIUM, AND CASSIE SISSON
Council Meeting Minutes -2- November 27,2012
Public Safety Director Sandell administered the swearing-in of the Police Officers.
Item #2 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS
Council Member Elliott acknowledged the efforts of Council Member Fitzhenry as a member
of the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) representing Richfield.
Council Member Sandahl requested the City Council/City staff goalsetting session be
scheduled in January or February 2013.
Council Member Fitzhenry explained the proposed implementation of a safer and more
efficient navigation system (RNAV)for aircraft flight paths at the MSP Airport.
Council Member Fitzhenry announced the November 29 public meeting regarding the
proposed Community Bandshell.
Item #3 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #4 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Richfield City Code
Appendix D (Fee Schedule) and scheduling public hearing and second reading for
December 11, 2012 S.R. No. 202
B. Consideration of approval of amendment to site lease agreement at 6355 Penn Avenue
between City of Richfield and Sprint Spectrum Realty Company, LP (successor-in-interest to
Sprint Spectrum LP) regarding location of antenna system S.R. No. 203
C. Consideration of approval of continuing agreement with City of Bloomington for provision of
public health services for City of Richfield for 2013 S.R. No. 204
D. Consideration of approval of 2013 contract with City of Bloomington using federal grant
funds to provide services in area of public health emergency preparedness/bioterrorism and
development of response system S.R. No. 205
M/Goettel, S/Elliott to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #5 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Council Meeting Minutes -3- November 27,2012
Item #6 CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING
RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 507.07, SUBDIVISION 53 RELATED TO
DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHTS S.R. NO. 206
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 206.
M/Goettel, S/Sandahl that this constitutes the second reading of Bill No. 2012-16 amending
Richfield City Code Subsection 507.07, Subdivision 53 related to definition of building heights.
Motion carried 4-0.
Item #7 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None.
Item #8 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Sandahl, S/Fitzhenry that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
U.S. Bank 11/27/12
NP Checks: 217809-218110 $ 1,144,555.29
Payroll: 88486-88813 $ 563,130.46
TOTAL $ 1,707,685.75
Motion carried 4-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:25 p.m.
Date Approved: December 11; 2012
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
RICHFIELD Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Meeting
December 4, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; and Tom Fitzhenry.
Members Present: Fred Wroge.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director;
John Stark, Community Development Director; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation
Services Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire Services Director/Chief; Bill
Fillmore, Municipal Liquor Operations Director; Todd Sandell, Public Safety
Director/Chief; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager; Chris Regis,
Finance Manager; Robert Hintgen, Utilities Superintendent; Chris Link,
Operations Superintendent; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
Boy Scout Troop 3262 presented the colors and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Item#1 TRUTH IN TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING 2013 PROPERTY TAX
LEVY AND 2012 REVISED/2013 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PROPOSED 2013
WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORM SEWER UTILITY RATES (STAFF
REPORT NO. 207)
City Manager Devich explained the purpose of the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing.
Finance Manager Regis gave a PowerPoint presentation as a general overview of the
proposed budget and tax levy.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing.
Michele Kisor, 7245-11th Avenue, questioned the utilities rate increase and the billing cycle.
Public Works Director Eastling explained the quarterly billing process.
Motion carried 4-0.
Special Council Meeting Minutes -2- December 4,2012
Item #2 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REINITIATION OF STREET LIGHT USER
FEE (STAFF REPORT NO. 208)
Public Works Director Eastling explained the street light user fee purpose and the proposed
fee increase.
City Manager Devich stated that Xcel has a 10% increase pending and the City's proposed
increase is not adequate to cover it.
Council Member Sandahl stated the street light user fee should recover the total cost of the
City's electricity because street lights benefit the community.
Council Member Elliott suggested a sunset date on the street light user fee so it is revisited
and does not become an automatic renewal.
Council Member Sandahl disagreed with a sunset date because there is an opportunity to
review the fee annually.
Mayor Goettel expressed concern over Local Government Aid allocations and that this is
not the time to discontinue the street light user fee. She added the increase should cover the true
electricity cost.
Council Member Fitzhenry stated a sunset date may not be necessary but the fee should
be revisited annually.
City Manager Devich said if the street light user fee is discontinued, the tax levy will
increase to cover the costs.
M/Goettel, S/Sandahl to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 4-0.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:56 p.m.
Date Approved: December 11, 2012
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3A
REPORT# 209
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: ST VEX- -BEVICH, CITY MANAGER
N ITLF.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution making appointments to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt a resolution reappointing Abisola Omiwade, Raj
Bhakta and Adam Selby to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board to
three-year terms ending December 31, 2015.
II. BACKGROUND
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.
The current appointments to the RTPB and the ending dates of their terms are as
follows:
1. Pat Brekken, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ending
December 31, 2014.
2. Abisola Omiwade, General Manager of Candlewood Suites, term ending
December 31, 2012.
3. Raj Bhakta, General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2012.
4. Adam Selby, Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2012.
5. Vacant, General Manager of Motel 6.
1211RTPB
Raj Bhakta, Abisola Omiwade and Adam Selby have been representatives of their
respective hotel properties to the RTPB for the past few years. Each of their terms
will expire on December 31, 2012 and each has indicated that they wish to be
considered for reappointment.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council has the authority to make appointments to the RTPB.
• The RTPB has typically included a representative from each of the
hotel properties.
• Each of the current hotel representatives has indicated a desire to be
reappointed to the RTPB.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The terms of the three hotel representatives will expire on December
31, 2012 so their reappointments should be made at the December
11, 2012 City Council meeting.
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no cost to the City.
D. LEGAL
• The appointments conform to City ordinance and bylaws of the RTPB.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The City Council could decide not to make these reappointments to the
RTPB.
• The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
341 I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE RICHFIELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has 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 terms of the following hotel representatives have expired and each
representative has indicated a desire to be reappointed to the Richfield Tourism Promotion
Board:
• Abisola Omiwade, General Manager of Candlewood Suites;
• Raj Bhakta, General Manager of Americlnn;
• Adam Selby, Hampton Inn; and
WHEREAS, each of these representatives has been active in the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board and seeks appointment.
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:
Re-appoint each of the following hotel representatives to the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board for a three-year term:
• Abisola Omiwade, General Manager of Candlewood Suites; term ending
December 31, 2015.
• Raj Bhakta, General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2015.
• Adam Selby, Hampton Inn; term ending December 31, 2015.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3B
REPORT# 210
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
AME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR _
REVIEW:
fr SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
Er//
MANAGER: .° I
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Class II Traditional (non-intoxicating
beverages) Restaurant at 811 66th Street East.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Traditional (Class
II) Restaurant at 811 66th Street East.
IL BACKGROUND
The City has received an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a
Traditional (Class II) Restaurant at 811 66th Street East. A Class II Restaurant
allows seating and food and non-intoxicating beverage service. This location is
currently occupied by the Cinco de Mayo grocery store and associated take-out only
restaurant.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Class II restaurants with seating, but no alcohol service are
conditionally permitted in the General Commercial (C-2) District.
• Application for a Conditional Use Permit, or any land use permit,
requires compliance with current regulations (parking, landscaping,
etc.).
121112 - 811 66th St CUP
• The existing site is nonconforming in regard to a number of
requirements (building and parking setbacks, parking lot
design/dimensions, impervious surface, etc.). Most of these items
cannot be corrected without complete redevelopment of the site. In
these instances, the Code allows the Council to approve alternative
landscaping and screening plans that meet the intent of the
Ordinance.
o There is virtually no impervious surface or landscaping
on this site. Staff recommended a landscaping plan that
would include a minimum of six planters along the front
of the building and parking lot screening to be installed
along the back of the curb. The area in back of the curb
is public right-of-way and the Public Works Department
has agreed to allow installation of screening in this area.
Screening could be comprised of a variety of natural
plant materials, fencing or a combination of natural and
man-made materials.
o After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission
voted (6-2) to remove the requirement for parking lot
screening from proposed resolution.
o The Planning Commission cited the upcoming 66th
Street Study, concern for the existing trees and
continued seating for the 4th of July Parade as reasons
for their decision.
• The proposal includes the addition of a bicycle rack (required).
• In evaluating a request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Council shall
consider its compliance with the eight criteria outlined in Subsection
547.09 of the City Code and further articulated in the attached
document.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete
application was received on November 28, 2012. A decision is
required by January 27, 2013 OR the Council must notify the applicant
that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional
days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision.
• If approved, the applicants must record the Conditional Use Permit
with Hennepin County. Proof of recording is required prior to the
opening of the business.
• Conditional Use Permits expire one year from issuance if the use for
which they were granted has not commenced or building permits
issued and substantial work performed.
C. FINANCIAL
• The required application processing fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing to consider the proposed request was held before the
Planning Commission on November 26, 2012.
• Notice of the public hearing was sent to properties within 350 feet in
accordance with State and Local requirements.
• No members of the public spoke at the hearing.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of an amended
resolution that does not require screening of the parking lot (6-2; Jabs,
Root dissenting).
• Conditional Use Permits run with the land. If approved, the applicant
must record the approved resolution with Hennepin County and
provide proof of recording to the City prior to opening.
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits,
compliance with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative
Review Committee Report and compliance with all other City and
State regulations. Permits are required prior to the commencement of
any work.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Approve the attached resolution with the requirement for parking lot
screening or other additional conditions.
• Deny the proposal with findings that it does not meet City requirements.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Conditional Use Permit requirements
• Proposed plans
• Planning & zoning maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Fernando Mellado-Barboza, applicant
• Patricia Reiman & Nancy Griemann, property owners
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A TRADITIONAL (CLASS II) RESTAURANT
AT 811 66TH STREET EAST
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests a
conditional use permit to permit a 1,470 square foot traditional restaurant with seating and
non-intoxicating beverage at property commonly known as 811 66th Street West, property
legally described as:
The West one-half of Lot 2, except that part of the North 10 feet thereof lying
within the East 10 feet of said West '/, and all of Lot 1, Block 3, "Terrace
Gardens," Hennepin County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield recommended
approval of this requested conditional use permit at its November 26, 2012 meeting; and
WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements
necessary for issuing a conditional use permit as specified in Richfield's Zoning Code,
Section 547.09; and
WHEREAS, this requested conditional use permit meets the requirements
necessary for issuing a conditional use permit for a Traditional (Class II) Restaurant as
specified in Richfield's Zoning Code, Section 534.07, Subdivision 6; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval of the conditional
use permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. A conditional use permit is issued to allow a traditional restaurant with a gross
floor area of 1,470 square feet, as described in City Council Letter No. , on
the Subject Property legally described above.
2. Staff is authorized to make adjustments to the above legal address for recording
purposes.
3. This conditional use permit is subject to the following conditions in addition to
those specified in Section 547.09 of the City's Zoning Ordinance:
• A minimum of six large planters are required along the face of the
building.
• A bicycle rack providing parking for a minimum of two bicycles is required.
• All 26 parking stalls must be accessible year-round. No storage,
including snow storage, may occur in any parking stall.
• Sign permits must be applied for separately. This approval does not
constitute approval of any signs.
• All Code violations that have been brought to the applicant's attention
must be corrected prior to the installation of tables and chairs.
• All landscaping, including fences, must be continuously maintained and
not be unsightly in appearance or in a state of disrepair.
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance
with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review
Committee Report and compliance with all other City and State
regulations. Permits are required prior to the commencement of any
work;
• The recipient of this conditional use permit must record this Resolution
with the County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1
and the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 547.09, Subd. 8.
• Prior to the installation of tables and chairs the applicant shall submit a
copy of the recorded conditional use permit.
4. This conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions
regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal
operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required
by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Conditional Use Permit Requirements
Subsection 547.09
a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement is met. This property is
designated as "Neighborhood Commercial" in the Comprehensive Plan.
Neighborhood Commercial areas are intended to provide space for good and
services that neighborhood residents need on a frequent basis and should be
accessible by foot and bicycle. This proposal would allow seating at the existing
small restaurant that is attached to the small grocery store. A sidewalk along
66th Street and the front of the building allows for pedestrian access and a
bicycle rack will be added.
b) The proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the
purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the
proposed use. This requirement is met. The General Commercial (C-2) District
is intended to provide space for a wide variety of retail and service businesses;
The "City expects [these businesses] to have an attractive appearance from all
sides, to be compatible with nearby residential properties, to minimize adverse
effects on surface waters, and to not significantly degrade the level of service or
safety on nearby roads."
c) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment
plans or urban design guidelines. This requirement is met. While there are no
"officially adopted" plans or design guidelines, the 66th Street Corridor Plan
stresses reinvestment and the upgrading of existing properties.
d) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards
specified in Section 544 of this Code. The existing building and related
improvements are legally nonconforming in a number of ways (building setbacks,
parking setbacks, landscaping, impervious surface). Requests for a change in
the use of a property require compliance with current requirements whenever
possible. In instances of nonconforming site improvements, alternative
landscaping may be approved by the Community Development Director, where,
due to existing structure placement, lot dimensions, parking requirements, or
other improvements, it is not possible to provide the landscaping or screening
required.
e) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on government
facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements. This
requirement is met. The submitted plans have been reviewed by the Public
Works Department and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated.
t) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or
welfare. The applicant must comply with all requirements of the Administrative
Review Committee Report dated October 26, 2012.
g) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location. This
requirement is met. There is a need for successful community/neighborhood
business in this area.
5p,- Li
h) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this
Code for the granting of such conditional use permit. This requirement is met.
There are no specific conditions other than a-h that apply.
d
"mai*I'T171
11 th
O CID] 0 �_ M
C� 0 la] _.
@���� i
Cl 17 ._. -
cv- - —m -- 0 106'-5" _ 9'-11" fi `'-
o
TWO ONE HOOP 4'-0" i \ a� �y_ 1
CIRCA 2600 BIKE RA-CK ,1 '-0"1199
9'-0" , 0-0" ' 9'-0" 9'-0' ■ 9'-0° . 9'-0' , 9'-0' 9'-0" 9'-0 9'-" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
- --/-- /--- /-----/ - -> —f / / ---f-- - ----- f
0
PENNANTS AND FLAGS TO BE
REMOVED
26 PARKING STALLS o 1 .
2 OF WHICH ARE ACCESSIBLE ,
16'0 x 24° SCHIZACHYRIUM SCOPARIUM
PLANTER (LITTLE BLUESTEM PRAIRIE GRASS)
0
LN1 •EXISTING SIGN
L'
' 9'-0" ' 9'-0' ■ 9'-0' , 9"-0' , 9'-0" ■ 9'-0' j 9'-0' / 9'-0" ' 9'-0" ■ 9'-0' , 9'-0' 9'-0" ' 9'-0" ,
r� 1`
EXISTING MAPLE TREE EXISTING MAPLE TREE
--LANDSCAPING RESPONSIBIUTI'4 L/ �, ,,;'
\ OF BUILDING OWNER
I SITE PLAN (� CINCO DE MAYO
1,Q SCALE 116-PLAN
1'-0'
NORTH 813 EAST 66TH ST.
RICHFIELD, MN 55423
811 66th St E - CUP 11/12
Surrounding Zoning
VETERANS
MEMORIAL PARK
R
"S
o1
66th Street East
R
— C-2 C-2 MR-2
R
' 2
d
R > d
MR-2 Q >
al
MR-2 MR-2 lL
R V
R R R R
R R
R R R
R R
R R R
R R
N R
R
A .
0 40 80 160 240 320 R-Single-family Residential
s meg ••■■••■• Feet
MR-2 - Multi-family Residential
C-2 -General Commercial
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\811 66th St E -Zonin. 2012.mxd
811 66th St E - CUP 11/12
Surrounding Comprehensive Plan
VETERANS
MEMORIAL PARK
PRK
66th Street East
— t
MDR
NC NC MDR N'JR
MDR MDR Q
O Q as
MDR MDR W LDR R
_ MDR 'S
U
LDR LDR LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR LDR
LDR LDR
LDR LDR DR
LDR LDR
N L
LDR LDR
0 40 80 160 240 320
Feet LDR - Low Density Residential
MDR-Medium Density Residential
NC - Neighborhood Commercial
PRK- Park
I:\GIS\Community Development\StafflMelissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\811 66th St E -CP 2012.mxd
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3C
REPORT# 211
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: 47'
SIGNAR
REVIEWED BY CITY •
ut
MANAGER: e 1 /
•
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
City Council confirmation of City Manager's reappointment of Hearing Examiners Connie
Murray and Paul Wasko.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Confirm the City Manager's reappointment of Connie
Murray and Paul Wasko for two-year terms as Hearing Examiners.
II. BACKGROUND
The hearing officer procedure was established by the City Council in 1985 to hear
and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code
where unique circumstances and practical difficulties are present.
City ordinances provide for the appointment of Hearing Examiners by the City
Manager subject to confirmation by the Council (547.11 Subd. 2). The current
terms of Hearing Examiners Connie Murray and Paul Wasko expire December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Both Ms. Murray and Mr. Wasko have experience, training and
knowledge of land use issues and warrant reappointment.
121112 Hearing Examiners
• Ms. Murray has served as a Hearing Examiner since 1985.
• Mr. Wasko has served as a Hearing Examiner since 1997.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The current appointments expire December 31, 2012.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Deny confirmation of the appointment of either or both Hearing Examiners.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• N/A
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3D
REPORT# 212
=All STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: MYRT LINK, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTANT
NAME,TITLE
I
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR =, }
REVIEW: - 0 Al
SIGNINRE
REVIEWED BY CITY -
MANAGER:
,, - -- /t _ „,,,
`1i
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution to decertify the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Tax Increment
Financing District.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution to decertify the Interstate-
Lyndale-Nicollet Tax Increment Financing District.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 21, 1985, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
established the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing District.
The City Council took similar action on November 12, 1985. The first tax increment
payment was received from Hennepin County in December 1987 and due to the
Statutory maximum duration of the district, it must be decertified on December 31,
2012.
The ILN District has proven to be a successful redevelopment project area of the
City and at the time of decertification the developments within the District have
increased the City's tax capacity by $1,822,233. The following developments make
up the ILN District:
• Hampton Inn
• Shops of Lyndale
• Meridian Crossings
12112012 ILN Decertification.doc
• Candlewood Hotel
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• It is the City Council's policy to adopt a resolution when decertifying a
Tax Increment Financing District.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The Statutory maximum of the District has been reached and must be
decertified as of December 31, 2012.
C. FINANCIAL
• All bond debt service has been paid.
• Final Pay-Go-Note payments will be made on February 1, 2013.
• It is estimated that the taxing jurisdictions (County, City, and School
District) will share an increase of approximately $1.6 million in revenue
beginning in 2013.
• Currently Richfield receives $174,000 in tax revenue from the ILN
District. After decertification, the tax revenue from this area will
increase by approximately $709,000.
D. LEGAL
• The Statutory maximum duration of the ILN District has been reached
and it must be decertified as of December 31, 2012. If the Council
does not take action, the County will automatically decertify the District
as of December 31, 2012.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
3D-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DECERTIFICATION OF THE
INTERSTATE-LYNDALE-NICOLLET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
WHEREAS, on October 21, 1985, the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Tax Increment
Financing District (the "ILN District") was created within the Richfield Redevelopment
Project Area (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, as of the date hereof all bonds and obligations to which tax increment
from the ILN District have been pledged have been paid in full or defeased and all other
costs of the Project have been paid; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Richfield desires by this Resolution to
cause the decertification of the ILN District after which all property taxes generated by
property within the district will be distributed in the same manner as all other property
taxes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota that the ILN District should be deemed decertified as of December 31,
2012, and that the City's staff is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this
resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County with a request that the auditor
decertify the ILN District as a tax increment district and to remit no tax increment from the
ILN District to the City of Richfield after December 31, 2012.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3E
REPORT# 213
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW Skr
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of transfer of assets to close out funds that are part of the Interstate-Lyndale-
. Nicollet Tax Increment District.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the transfer of assets to close out funds that are
part of the Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet Tax Increment District.
II. BACKGROUND
The Interstate-Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District is a
commercial redevelopment project established in 1987 that comprises the Shops at
Lyndale and the Merdian Crossings redevelopments located at 1-494 and Lyndale
Avenue.
The ILN TIF District is required to be decertified by December 31, 2012 and all
properties within the district will be placed on the tax rolls at full value.
As part of the process to decertify the ILN TIF district it is necessary to close some
funds and to transfer assets of other funds. In both instances, these funds were
established as part of the ILN TIF District. The funds to be closed out as of
December 31, 2012 are two City debt service funds, G.O. Tax Increment Bonds,
Series 2000A and G.O. Refunding Bonds; Series 2002B. The HRA capital project
fund Bonds of 1996 will be involved in the transfer of assets as the result of the
closing of the two debt service funds.
12112012 ILN Fund Closeout
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City's financial policies do not directly address the closing out of
City funds.
• The City's auditors have recommended that non-budgeted transfers
between funds be approved by the City Council.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The ILN TIF District is required to be decertified by December 31,
2012.
C. FINANCIAL
• The following tables reflect the funds to close and the corresponding
transfers.
Fund Transfer Balance Funding Recipient Amount
ILN Tax Increment $ 343,160 G.O. Ref. Bonds 2002B $ 337,673
Bonds of 1996 173,975 G.O. Tax Incr. Bonds 2000A 179,462
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• None.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
• AGENDA ITEM# 3F
REPORT# 214
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: ELIZABETH FINNEGAN,
CIVIL ENGINEER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �(
REVIEW: �LJJ /
--` SIGNATURE Ale
REVIEWED BY CITY -
MANAGER: /
•
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a work proposal from SEH, Inc. for the development of a Utility
Reconstruction Analysis for the future reconstruction of city-owned water mains and sanitary
sewers along County Roads.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the hiring of SEH, Inc. to provide an analysis of
the City's Sanitary and Water Utilities along Hennepin County Roads
at a cost not to exceed $69,657.
II. BACKGROUND
Consistent with City Council direction and the City's Comprehensive Plan, staff is
working with Hennepin County towards a program to reconstruct the balance of
County Roads within the City of Richfield.
In particular, the County's program will begin reconstruction of Portland Avenue
(between 67th and 77th Streets) and 66th Street during 2015 and 2016, respectively.
Staff recommends updating the City's water main and sanitary sewers at the time
the roads are reconstructed.
SEH, Inc. has submitted a proposal to provide an overall study for the
reconstruction of City-owned water mains and sanitary sewers along County Roads.
The study would analyze the existing system capacity, opportunities to combine
12112012SEHCountyRoadStudy
sewers and reduce infrastructure, and cost estimates. SEH, Inc. is in the City's
Engineering Consultant Pool and is an experienced municipal engineering firm.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The reconstruction of the County Roads is identified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan (Transportation).
• Council approval is required for expenditures over $50,000.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The study will need to be completed in 2013 to help City staff assign
costs for the proposed 2014 budget for work on Portland Avenue.
C. FINANCIAL
• The total estimated cost for the proposed work is $69,657.
• • The study will be funded 50/50 through the Sanitary Sewer Utility
(52000) and the Water Utility funds (51000).
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• • N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council may choose not to approve the work proposal at this time and
direct staff on how to proceed.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• November 9, 2012 Work Plan provided by SEH, Inc.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
SEH
November 9,2012 RE: City of Richfield, MN
Overall Study: Reconstruction of City-
Owned Water Main and Sanitary Sewer
Along County Streets
SEH No. P-RICHF 121643
Kristin Asher, PE
City Engineer
City of Richfield
1901 East 66th Street
Richfield, MN 55423-2599
Dear Kristin:
Thank you for meeting with us on July 30.Based on that meeting, a follow up meeting on October 9, and
your review of our draft proposal in mid-October,we now understand the following items about the
referenced project:
1. In the near future,the County will initiate a program to reconstruct the balance of the County's streets
in the City(streets). Those streets divided into assumed reconstruction segments with an estimated
year of segment reconstruction are shown in Exhibit 1 enclosed with this letter proposal.
2. In particular,the County's program will begin reconstruction of Portland Avenue(between 67t''and
77th Streets) and 66th Street during 2015 and 2016 respectively.
3. The County has yet to establish the limits or timing of their 66th Street project. The limits shown in
Exhibit 1 are assumptions made by SEH of the County's limits and timing.
4. During September the City informally notified Xcel Energy that, during 2014,Xcel should bury their
overhead utilities along Portland Avenue between 67th and 77th Streets.
5. The City will take advantage of the opportunity created when the County removes and reconstructs
their street pavements to reconstruct the City's water main and sanitary sewer(utilities)along the
streets.
6. As part of their program,the County will reconstruct the County-owned storm sewer beneath the
streets.
7. Beginning in April 2013,the City will assign costs in its proposed 2014 budget for utility
reconstruction work along Portland Avenue between 67th and 77th Streets.
8. The City will continue to assign costs beyond its 2014 budget for the reconstruction of its utilities
along other streets in the County's program.
For your convenience, the balance of this letter is divided into sections titled Work Plan, Proposed Fee,
and Proposed Schedule.
Short 'Mott �Sendricksoi Inc,, i 0901 Fed Circle DL-Ne,Suite 300,Minnetonka MN 55343-9302
SEH is an equal opportunity employer 1 1 9952.912.2600 I 800.734.6757 952.912.2601 fax
Kristin Asher,PE
November 9,2012
Page 2 ,
�..z =:iar
Our detailed work plan is shown in our task hour budget enclosed with this proposal. We summarize our
work plan below.
1. Complete schematic level designs(design)to reconstruct the utilities in each street segment.
a) Collect enough data from the City and County to build a scalable schematic level model cast on
an aerial photo of the streets and the areas immediately adjacent to the streets. The model will
also show existing property and public and private utility line work. We will use the model as
base mapping while preparing designs.
b) Complete design for the utilities along each street segment. We will base our designs not just on
engineering judgment and data collected from the City and County, but also the following items.
i) existing water main and sanitary sewer models,
ii) preliminary County horizontal and vertical street alignments,
iii) County intentions to convert streets to complete streets,
iv) review of documents for future improvements to properties adjacent to the streets,
v) past geotechnical reports for nearby projects,
vi) consideration of future land use changes in the sewer shed served by utilities along the
streets,
vii) presence of redundant pipes along the streets, and
viii) pipe capacity issues.
c) Based on the design,prepare 1 schematic level plan(plan)per street segment. The plan will
include the following elements.
i) Drawn to scale on 1 1x17 paper,
ii) An aerial photo of the streets and areas immediately adjacent to the streets showing existing
property and public and private utility line work,
iii) Only enough of the design to prepare an opinion of probable cost, and
iv) Will not include completing multiple iterations of the plan for utilities along each street
segment. Instead,based on City review and only if necessary, only minor edits will be
made to each segments' plan.
d) Based on the plan for each street segment, calculate an opinion of the probable cost(OPC)for
each utility per street segment. The calculation will include an opinion of indirect costs and
inflation.
e) We will not include County-owned storm sewer in our design because the County itself will
reconstruct County-owned storm sewer beneath the streets.
i) If County reconstruction causes the reconstruction of City-owned storm sewer,the City
itself will complete a design and calculate an OPC for the reconstruction of City-owned
Kristin Asher, PE 2
November 9,2012 3�/s 3
Page 3
storm sewer. Furthermore,the City will assign its OPC for the reconstruction of any City-
owned storm sewer along any County street segments to future City's budgets.
ii) If, in our opinion,utility reconstruction will likely impact a City-owned storm sewer we
will notify the City of our opinion of impact. Conversely our work plan assumes the City
will share its opinion with us if, in the City's opinion, City-owned storm sewer
reconstruction will affect the utilities.
f) During design,we assume that we will not meet with the County. We understand the County has
just begun thinking about their street reconstruction program. Therefore,meetings with the
County may not yet be useful. Instead, if we need a clarification about the scope of a particular
street's reconstruction,the City will forward our request for clarification to the County and
collect the County's clarification. If the County is unable to clarify its scope on a timely basis,we
will make an assumption about the County's scope and move on.
g) As part of this study,we will not complete the following activities.
i) land and/or topographic surveying,
ii) geotechnical explorations or testing, and
iii) Testing existing pipe materials
2. Prepare reconstruction study
a) The study will include the following major sections: executive summary, introduction,
background, summary of schematic level designs and opinions of probable costs, and an
appendix.
i) Executive Summary
(1) Focused around a table containing columns for street segment,year of reconstruction
for each segment, and the opinion of probable cost associated with the reconstruction
for each utility in each street segment.
ii) Introduction
(1) Discusses the limits of the study and why the City ordered the preparation of the study.
iii) Background
(1) List in tabular format all of the data collected during study preparation.
(2) Of this collected data, identify which data we used during study preparation.
iv) Summary of Schematic Level Designs and Opinions of Probable Costs
(1) Focused around a table containing columns for street segment, reconstruction year,
brief written summaries of elements of the schematic level design of the sanitary sewer
and water main,amounts of opinions of total probable cost for sanitary sewer and water
main reconstruction, and general comments pertaining to each particular segment.
(a) The written summaries column will contain, but may not be limited to,the
following brief narratives.
(i) Key assumptions, if any, made during design.
Kristin Asher,PE /
November 9,2012 3r- `I
Page 4
(ii) Conditions that if changed, for example a change proposed land use, can affect
a major component of the schematic level design and subsequently its opinion
of probable cost.
(b) The general comments column will contain,but may not be limited to,the
following brief narratives.
(i) Impacts utility reconstruction will likely have on City-owned storm sewer.
(ii) Impacts reconstruction of City-owned storm sewer will likely have on the
utilities.
(iii)Page numbers in the appendix where the reader can find paper copies of each
schematic level plan and opinion of probable cost.
v) Appendix
(1) Will include paper copies of,but may not be limited to,the following items.
(a) Schematic level reconstruction plans on 11x17 paper.
(b) Opinions of total probable cost.
(c) Documents critical to the preparation of the schematic level design and the
calculation of opinions of probable cost such as,but not limited to,the following
items.
(i) Excerpts from collected data
(ii) Emails and/or other correspondence
(iii)Design standards
b) We will submit to the City for review a 75%complete study. We will meet with the City to
collect its comments and finalize the content of the study.
Proposed Fee
We will provide the services described by this letter and its enclosures for a cost plus fixed fee of$69,657
in accordance with our Agreement with the City dated February 22, 2012.
Proposed Schedule
We will provide the services described by this letter and its enclosures according to the production
schedule given below.
Row No. Key Milestone Date Work Item Description
May/June 2013 Based on the final study, City staff refines the
costs in the City's proposed 2014 budget for work
on Portland Avenue
2 May 2013 Final study complete
3 April 2012 City staff uses the incomplete study to help it
assign draft costs in the City's proposed 2014
budget for work on Portland Avenue
Kristin Asher, PE
November 9,2012
Page 5
Row No. Key Milestone Date Work Item Description
4 February 2013 75% complete study delivered to the City for
review
5 December 2012 Council authorizes SEH to begin the study and
approves City Budget for 2013
6 November 27,2012 Council considers approving SEH's proposal for
the study
7 November 9, 2012 SEH submits its proposal to the City for the study
Thank you for asking us to submit a proposal to assist the City with the preparation of this study. The
results of this study will guide the City's budget forecasting as it prepares to continue to add to the quality
of life in the City. Please contact me with questions and comments at 952.912.2611 or
ppasko @sehinc.com.
Sincerely,
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC.
/
Paul J. 'sko III,PE Miles Je sen,PE
Senior Project Manager Client Service Manager
Enclosures
c : Robert Hintgen, City of Richfield(with enclosures)
Miles Jensen, SEH(with enclosures)
Kirby Van Note, SEH(with enclosures)
Becky Blue, SEH(with enclosures)
_
- A
X _s
U-1 or ,'.11------ 3 r ----,,,-. ..-r,,e‘r,-J---—-•—--—••3.A.—--- -••-•-•....e,5••57.-",•—--—--7,1
...,
,.
I ,
-
- ,..,KIS' 4
5..t!419L -..,
WT.... .2 15'
S aAV 2151,-
I S,,V•1:, s 5.nY.nt. g 4., s any,I1L. 5.,`V,1:4'. ..
s
s
• 0 LI-
I ...,
.- 1671 Av,,,,
CO
...., 1
I os.,...1s.,00lburtuocig
+
.--, f:r+
./..,,o, 5,,:v uol6u:11.013 a
• S aAv w5I CID 5 mY 4151 "t, s any u151
7 ••—
I =- -
,
'72' C)
C*4
......., 5.,:'41',
3= s.^5 51.2 1 1
• ri
0 %
0 ,
:..7's
... SC) S..V 419.
7.
u, S..sV S115, 1 .
1 Ln
s.3,,V:.)12t S oAv wet
I s A,,i IIIE 3-, s...\.,411L S,,,V‘r.ti -E
cl) g- ..., .. 1 r..."
a : I
. . s.,,qa,,,, ,.... s mt,4101 5 a•V.431
1,-.
I _ CO
5 anV 10.113 5 an5 10.111
- ' I
5 ..,s;o50sm1j 5,t,c.f.e2tis
S any snqkonioD S any snquIrlio) 1
i
...■
I . g
.f. 5 ans./V•e _ S..--,:-1.,- ...
(an
(91'0Z)Z/118W 6eS . (91.oz) . luew6as !
•
1 • _
a)
s.‘„,4„,t• s„,4.r ... 5.^,..,,111- C
•
(
IS av,WW1) ,.,. 50.5 001011) 5 005,-,....1) - I .---
CD
I
••,-- 5.,,E,I,* ..„..
- . "?.
r..7'. s mY p,r : a)-7;
1 (f)
V 5..,5 4,...7 CD
CNI 74 .:- 5•,,,/20? SOON., 2:
. 5.21 Psq 6
,.. ..)
I 5041
::: ............
I.)
.3:. ,,.„ s 7,,,,...a,: s 05ano-,
7.
,...-, .
;,•Ylst .- = - . . •.1, _
•i 0
_ II
a., (aei)L luewses
.
cm 0
Q) .
1 --, co
• 5 0.15,00,,,..5, ,, s,^V 4us,a2.05., ZA S....V 4,000tua,y, fi.' l■
. -4 • ••:■
7 A
I - s any Arxisipy . s 3.-...v/,..<ripd ,..3.5 s.v!,..asipc
.?: 1.1 (J)
r. --,,,Picas:int Ave S C anv tY•seau,...S.V"'.'.10 3'.: . S.,,V I....le 3 -- - C
r ,-, - -.
5005 130",5 '•.1".' 5.V 500+9 F.: 5 any 01343 : 5.5.15 130109
?. U
I S 00544)5 5 009 4010)0 50.15 21001-1 s 00514)11410 ,,
1 as)
.2 s
,5,, ' ',,,, 001.
Ce
7
S 0050)0000 505 51.r9,,_
" ,.
.?. . --
.1 s y 1 ny a;epuki 3, .* ' any faxqsbny 3.. S any arpu.ii.?.. .6.)
S a.v7
I•
• '
I '''.D,. 5 zmro 4110015, ,... a
r:11 a)
P 0
3 ;
5.-^3,‘,/1.) : 4.../
.-1-
- ..:
...-... P; V)
,,,,...anc
CO I
.1/r N— 3 :: 5005 L05101:13
Iii—--,_---- - 1
•.r ';-
1 5 ow 5...,D
...-,
= V 12,,,D I V..,_ s o..,,P1P/I 5 J.VISIVII0 - .11
....------III
''Cr.c.7.1r7-------- —.j-------i----- - U
1 : s Nod 6.., E
I
: :
s.,s..,er
"7- ....- t.'
I
! 4-1 ''." ...:s 4,,,r xo,,) .-,,- s..,v x.ux :.
- s,,,, ,
-E. ;
I ■ 71";' E,
:07 =7 L7
..--i.'--,!, 3 s any tic5o1 5 aw teur
.'. s;5 JAV Isetro-
'r-
- .?-
5 am;2e61011 6 5,ve ueblatry
•I S...sV uobv,N
S.A1I 001.0.N
,
.. ., `2' '3 •
7".•s•,••'1
.
(asi) 01, PJel-U6eS (CIELL)6;uew6es il
, ...
,
1
; S 405 055u CD s.f 11,.Th _ ,:11.,71.!
I 9L—
C=.
e;
I
150015155 5 any UP...5
CNI
....-.
I5 eav selboyi 1 . C1) S..--7 w....11 5 S....7.•SMIIIMI/ ■.%
• 7:
I
....,
. S my uoldr = :VA/ucr.dr, c. s.ly L.oldl ?.•
I -
_ a)
, s E ..." ?.. r
5,..A Il
., laallar, ..,
• I
,
CS) € (7,
(D ..-'.
F-- ;Z ' ''%•• 1
.••■••■••••••■•••,■•••■•••■•'•••■•• ••■•••• ..•••■••••■••••■■■••••■••■•■•
- -
S E H Task Hour Budget
City of Richfield,MN
Overall Study:Reconstruction of City-Owned Water Main and Sanitary Sewer along County Streets(1) (34)
November 9,2012
ESTIMATED HOURS
ESTIMATED
CLIENT COST
/ COST
SERVICE PROJECT WATER SANITARY PROJECT PROJECT CIS AnMIN TECH
PROJECT TASKS MANAGER
ENGINEER
MANAGER ENGINEER SEWRENGINEER ENGINEER
1.0 Schematic Level Utility Design V
1.1 Data Collection(25) 1
1.1.1 Collect Data from the City J
1.1.1.1 Collect sanitary sewer,water main,and storm sewer as-
builts along the streets 3 2 6 4 6
1.1.1.2 GIS Data(12)(29) 8 5
1.1.1.3 Potential land use changes affecting the sanitary sewer
and water main along the streets (31) 2 2 6
1.1.1.4 Digital parcel mapping(20) 4
1.1.1.5 Aerial mapping 2
1.1.1.6 Sanitary sewer main and manhole concern/repair
types and locations(18) 1
1.1.1.7 Closed Circuit Television(CCTV)Tapes/Disks and
Logs(32)
1.1.1.8 Trunk water main pipe concern/repair types and
locations(18) 2
1.1.2 Collect Data from Hennepin County
1.1.2.1 Street plans(13)(14) 2 2 1 2 4
1.1.3 Gopher State One Call(15) 4
1.2 Schematic Level Utility Design 1 2
1.2.1 Sanitary Sewer(2)(7)(30)(36) 2 24
1.2.1.1 Capacity analysis(11) 2 4 8 2
1.2.1.2 Proposed pipe sizing analysis(3) 2 4 4 24 2
1.2.1.3 Proposed horizontal and vertical alignment analysis(4)
(5) 2 8 4
1.2.2 Storm Sewer(9)(10)
1.2.3 Water Main(7)(8)(30)(36)
1.2.3.1 Capacity analysis(11) 4 4 32 2
Page 1 of 3
ESTIMATED HOURS
HEAVY CIVIL/ ESTIMATED
CLIENT PROJECT WATER SANITARY PROJECT PROJECT COST
SERVICE MANAGER ENGINEER SEWER ENGINEER ENGINEER GIS ADMIN TECH
PROJECT TASKS MANAGER
ENGINEER
1.2.3.2 Proposed pipe sizing analysis 4 4 4 2
1.2.3.3 Proposed horizontal and vertical alignment analysis(4)
(6) 3 8 4 4
1.2.4 Review utility design with City staff(26)(33)(37) 6 6 2 3 2
1.3 Prepare Schematic Level Plans(Plans)(21)
1.3.1 Study area plans(large scale)
1.3.1.1 Aerial mapping 2 2
1.3.1.2 Digital parcel mapping 2 3
1.3.1.3 Existing Utilities 4 4
1.3.1.4 Proposed Improvements 1 1 8
1.3.1.4.1 Sanitary Sewer 1 1 8 10 3
1.3.1.4.2 Water Main 1 10 3
1.3.2 Prepare draft specific location schematic level plans by
future project area(small scale)(7)(17)(38) 2 1 4 20 10
1.3.3 Prepare final specific location schematic level plans by
future project area(small scale)(7)(38) 2 1 8 10 9
1.4 Calculate Quantities(7X16)(17)(35)(38)
1.4.1 Sanitary Sewer 2 1 24
1.4.2 Water Main 2 8
1.4.3 Miscellaneous(28) 2 8
1.5 Prepare Schematic Level Opinion of Probable Cost
1.5.1. Prepare Schematic Level Engineer's Opinion of
_Probable Cost(7)(16)(17)(22)(23)(35)(38)_ 2 4 1 24 10
Subtotal Hours 29 60 52 16 145 137 35 2
Subtotal Labor Cost $5,131 $7,793 $5,977 $3,225 $14,487 $15,506 $3,106 $182 $55,409
2.0 Prepare Reconstruction Study(19)
2.1 Write draft reconstruction study 5 12 16 20 16
2.2 Review draft study with City staff(26)(33)(37) 4 4 2
2.3 Prepare final study 4 8 10
2.4 Prepare and submit hard copies of the study(27) 2 2
2.5 Prepare and submit PDP file of the study 2 2
Subtotal Hours 13 24 2 16 34 20
Subtotal Labor Cost $2,3011 $3,117 $403 $1,599 $3,848 $1,825 $13,092
CLIENT HEAVY CIVIL/
SERVICE PROJECT WATER SANITARY PROJECT PROJECT GIS ADMIN TECII
MANAGER MANAGER ENGINEER SEWER ENGINEER ENGINEER ESTIMATED
ENGINEER COST
PROJECT COST SUMMARY
Subtotal Hours 42 84 52 18 161 171 35 22 585
Subtotal Labor Cost $7,432 $10,911 $5,977 $3,628 $16,086 $19,354 $3,106 $2,007 $68,501
Subtotal Expenses(24) $1,156
Subtotal $69,657
TOTAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL: $69,657
Page 2 of 3
P:\PT\R\Richf\121643\l-gent\10-contracts\Proposel\Revised\[Richfield Utility Study THB v2.xlsx1Hours-Costs
NOTES:
(1)Assumes all sanitary sewer main and water main will be reconstructed. Risk analysis of not reconstructing sanitary sewer main and water main is not included.
(2)The City's preferred method of reconstruction is dig and replace.
(3)Includes determining if parallel sanitary sewer mains can be consolidated into one sanitary sewer main.
(4)Includes establishing a profile that avoids conflicts
(5)Includes locations of proposed manholes and services.
(6)Includes locations of proposed services,gate valves and hydrants.
(7)Assumes 10 analysis-1 each for all of the sanitary sewer and water main in each of assumed 10 road reconstruction projects(segments)shown on Exhibit 1
(8)The City's preferred method of reconstruction is dig and replace.However,the City will consider trenchless reconstruction methods also.
(9)Assumes County reconstructs all of the County-owned storm sewer in each of its road reconstruction projects.No utility analysis needed for the storm sewer.However,we will consider the impacts of storm sewer reconstruction on
the sanitary sewer and water main.
(10)Assumes the City will design City-owned storm sewer,if necessary.
(11)Includes capacity analysis of existing mains based on flow data provided by the City within the project area.
(12)If as-built drawing information does not agree with line work in the GIS data,the City will resolve the disagreement and transmit updated data to SEFI
(13)We understand this data may be in a very preliminary form.We will need enough data to at least make assumptions about street alignment changes on the utilities.
(14)The City will assist our collection of this data via email,telephone calls,and maybe meetings.
(15)Collect private utility atlas information
(16)Assumes quantities and costs will be schematic level only.
(17)Assumes 1 update during 75%completion level.
(18)Data provided in a tabular format as either a XLSX or DOCX file.Repairs located by address and arranged on a per street basis.
(19)The report includes executive summary,introduction,background,and summary of schematic level designs and opinions of probable costs. The appendix will include project cost and schematic level plans for each segment
analyzed and other documents critical to the preparation of the study. -71
(20)GIS Information provided by city includes ROW,parcels,street names,house street address,existing public and private utilities in Geodatabase or shape format.
(21)Schematic drawings include ROW,street names,existing public and private utilities,proposed sewer and water improvements,project limits with aerial background.
(22)Schematic level costs will include a 15%construction contingency and 20%indirect Schematic level costs to arrive at estimated project Schematic level costs.
(23)Schematic level costs will be computed in 2013 dollars
(24)Reimbursable expenses includes mileage,printing and reproduction costs.
(25)Assumes that no topographic survey,utility condition assessment/testing or geotechnical exploration/testing will be required front SEH.
(26)Includes preparation and distribution of meeting agenda and minutes.
(27)Assumes three(3)copies.
(28)Miscellaneous Schematic level cost include,mobilization,removals,relocations, adjustments and turf restoration
(29)This estimate presumes all utility data is complete within the City's geodatabase(and does not include any time to add or update any utility features)during this project.If City would like us to update any part of their system,we
will provide an estimate for services.
(30)Review sanitary sewer and water main as-builts against GIS data
(31)Assumes city will provide comprehensive plans or similar document
(32)Provided by the City
(33)Assumes I meeting at 75%completion level.
(34)Assumes 1 progress report per month
(35)Assumes storm sewer quantities/engineer's opinion of probable cost will be completed by others
(36)Assumes the city will provide potential impact to sanitary sewer or watermain improvements based upon potential storm sewer improvements.SEH will provide potential impacts to storm sewer based upon potential sanitary sewer
and watermain improvements
(37)Assumes we will not meet with the County or any private utility companies.
(38)Assumes we will not prepare multiple schematic level plans and opinions of probable costs(alternatives).
(39)Based on existing water main and sanitary sewer models,preliminary County horizontal and vertical street alignments,County complete streets consideration,future improvements to properties adjacent to the streets,past
geotechnical reports for nearby projects,future land use change consideration,redundant pipes along the streets,and pipe capacity issues.
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3G
REPORT# 215
Madill STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: ® C. ®2L�
/ SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY / /
MANAGER: .� _1.c _ i , of
‘....._
— _
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider Site Plan Approval for an adult day care serving up to five persons at 6630 Penn
Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution granting Site Plan
Approval for a day care serving up to five persons at 6630 Penn
Avenue.
-
II. BACKGROUND
The owner of 6630 Penn Avenue has applied for a permit to operate an adult day
care. A change in the use of a building requires Site Plan Approval. This two-
tenant building is currently used as an art gallery/gift shop and an acupuncture
clinic. The proposed day care would replace the acupuncture clinic.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A change in the use of a building requires Site Plan Approval.
• Day care uses require one parking space per five enrolled persons.
The proposed center will serve a maximum of five persons. The
parking provided behind the building and on the street will be
121112 - 6630 Penn Ave SP
adequate to serve both the new business and the existing art
gallery/gift shop.
• Parking in the rear must be striped in accordance with the proposed
plan.
• The existing building includes an awning and the applicant has added
planters, which will include live plants during spring, summer and fall
and decor during the winter, to the space in front of the building.
These changes meet the intent of the Penn Avenue Design
Guidelines.
• The existing building is legally nonconforming and no external
changes are proposed. There is an opportunity to add a limited
amount of pervious surface behind the building; however, staff does
not believe that there would be any tangible benefit.
• In evaluating a site plan, the Council shall consider its compliance with
the 7 criteria outlined in Subsection 547.13 of the City Code and
further articulated in the attached document.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete
application was received on November 13, 2012. A decision is
required by January 12, 2013 OR the Council must notify the applicant
that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional
days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision.
• Site Plan Approvals expire one year from the date of approval unless
the use has commenced or necessary construction has begun.
C. FINANCIAL
• The required application processing fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing to consider the proposed request was held before the
Planning Commission on November 26, 2012. No members of the
public spoke.
• Notice of the public hearing was sent to properties within 350 feet in
accordance with State and Local requirements.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal (8-
0).
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits,
compliance with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative
Review Committee Report and compliance with all other City and
State regulations. Permits are required prior to the commencement of
any work.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Approve the proposal with revised/additional conditions.
• Deny the proposal with findings that it does not meet Code requirements.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Site Plan Approval Requirements
• Site Plan
• Planning/Zoning Maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Huan Gao, owner/applicant
3G- 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL
OF A SITE PLAN
TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DAY CARE FACILITY AT
6630 PENN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of site plan to allow a commercial day care facility serving up to five persons for
the parcel of land located at 6630 Penn Avenue, legally described as:
Lot 9, Block 1, Tingdale Brothers Lincoln Hills Addition, except Highway, Hennepin
County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the requested site plan has been reviewed by the City Council and
meets City requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed site plan will adequately serve the purpose for which
it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the site plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Required planters in front of the building must be continuously maintained
and include live plant materials during the spring, summer and fall and
decor over the winter;
2. All trash must be stored inside the building;
3. Parking must be striped in accordance with the approved plan;
•
4. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance
with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review
Committee Report and compliance with all other City and State
regulations. Permits are required prior to the commencement of any
work;
5. This approval shall expire one year following the date of approval unless
the use has commenced or a building permit has been obtained and
construction begun.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Site Plan Approval Requirements
Subsection 547.13
a) Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the City's long range
plans, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan; In the Penn Avenue
Corridor, the Mixed Use District is intended to be a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood center. The District can accommodate a variety of uses. The
proposal is in keeping with these intentions.
b) Consistency with the purposes of the Zoning Code; The proposal is in keeping
with the purpose of the Zoning Code and the Mixed Use - Community District.
This District is intended to provide locations for a variety of shops and services
that serve the surrounding community. The proposal is in keeping with these
intentions.
c) Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing
tree and soil removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping
with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas; N/A
d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the
terrain and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
proposed development; N/A
e) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features
including:
i. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and
buildings on the site and provision of a desirable environment for
occupants, visitors and the general community;
ii. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and
landscaping to the design and function of the development;
iii. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors and details of
construction as an expression of the design concept of the project and
the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring
structures and functions; and
iv. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including
walkways, interior drives and parking, in terms of location and number
of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and
access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian,
cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking so
as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with
the design of proposed buildings, structures and neighboring
properties.
The striping of parking spaces behind the building will improve circulation
along the alley and the addition of planters along Penn Avenue will improve
curb appeal of the building. There is limited opportunity to improve the site
further given the placement and size of the building.
3
f) Creation of an energy-conserving design through design location, orientation and
elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of
landscape materials and site grading; N/A
g) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions
for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation
of views, light and air, and those aspects of design, not adequately covered by
other regulations, which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses;
No changes to surface water drainage, sound and/or sight impacts, views, etc.
are anticipated.
3c,_ 4
Existing
Signag
Sidewalk
_.1rool Una— .1 1 L _ • _ .I 0 4,
bb
10'-0" 41/4 _ " I (V�J,J
•
(1)
70'0" t"I
/ .1-1 I m Existing Building—6630 • ,
I al r—
r--1 • ? °' m Existing business:Art and Gift Shop 1200 N 1-i 6 x 3v '°
sqft •
N V 1 g V I N N
7 g a
r
.1..)
rX I.! Planters 4 W
vI MI
!� Live plants and cold weather decor 1 N
U o
lail)/� I ;i Existing Building—6632 C
��\ 2'-9 1/2"
\\// ° �/'� Al
•C Proposed Adult Day Care Center—5 V�
/� Electric Meter
I W participants
Water 0
Meter I 0
.
_. .Proporfy Zino ' �. - - - - - __ - - _ •
/
11'-5/16" Existing Awning
/
11'
SITE PLAN
Al lin = l2 ft
',Cr yr
I � . 6630 / 6632 PENN AVE S
/11311 1 RICHFIELD , MN 55423
3&-
6630 Penn Avenue SP 11 /12
Surrounding Zoning
66TH STREET WEST
AIU-C/I'AC
C-2 /PAC
C-2
MU-C/PAC
MU-C/PAC
R
MR-2 MU-C/PAC
MU-C/PAC R
O
r� R
MU-C/PAC
R MR-2
R
R MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC
R I w
MU-C/PAC a R
MR-2 Z
W
R MU-C/PAC
Z
Z
MU-C/PAC LU
d MU-C/PAC R
MR-2 MU-C/PAC
R
67TH STREET WEST
R-1
MU-C/PAC
R R-1
R R-1
'AU-U/1-71U
MR-2
ZONING DISTRICT
MU-C/PAC -Mixed Use Community w/Penn Ave Overlay
C-2 -General Commercial
MR-2 - Multi-Family Residential L_
R -Single-Family Residential
R-1 -Low Density Single-Family Residential 0 40 80 160 240 320
Feet
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Pro'ects\Zonin• Cases\6630 Penn Ave -Z.mxd
3- C
____
6630 Penn Avenue - SP 11 /12
Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designations
I
/ \___ / \ -
66TH STREET WEST
I —
MIXED
COO ED
MIXED
MIXED
\ / MIXED LDR
MHD MIXED
MIXED LDR
0
rj LDR
-- MIXED
LDR MHD
LDR
LDR MIXED MIXED -
MIXED
W LDR
LDR MIXED
MHD _ Z
MIXED Q
LDR Z
Z
MIXED w
a" MIXED LDR
MHD MIXED
LDR
67TH STREET WEST
Li
LDR LDR
MIXED
LDR '11 MHD
LDR
LDR
IVIIAtU
MHD
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
N
Mixed -Mixed Use
CCO-Community Commercial/Office
LDR- Low Density Residential
MHD- Medium-High Density Residential
- -- 0 40 80 160 240 320
I ,Feet
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6630 Penn Ave- CR mxd
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3H
REPORT# 216
wirAl STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, CITY
PLANNER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR `j
REVIEW: AdA _
/ SIGNATURE 1 if
REVIEWED BY CITY Aiii . #
MANAGER: . `iti11.-._ --
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider Site Plan approval for a day care serving up to 28 persons at 6341 Penn Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution granting Site Plan
approval for a day care serving up to 28 persons at 6341 Penn
Avenue.
II. BACKGROUND
The owners of 6341 Penn Avenue previously operated Mother Duck Learning
Center ("Mother Duck") at this location. In 2008, Mother Duck moved to a new
location at 6301 Penn Avenue. The owner-operators are now proposing to re-open
a satellite operation at the old location. This building would serve infants and
toddlers.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A Conditional Use Permit was issued for day care use at this property
in 1993. .
• Conditional Use Permits expire if normal operation of the use has
been discontinued for 12 months or more.
121112 - 6341 Penn Ave SP
• This property is now zoned Mixed Use — Community and day care
requires Site Plan Approval, rather than a Conditional Use Permit.
• Day cares require one parking space per five enrolled persons. The
proposed center will serve a maximum of 28 persons. Thirteen
spaces are provided; six parking spaces are required.
• The applicant has already installed staff-recommended landscaping
that meets the intent of the Penn Avenue Design Guidelines.
• The existing building is legally nonconforming and no external
changes are proposed. There is an opportunity to add pervious
surface by removing excess parking; however, keeping in mind that
potential reuse of the building in the future it seems sort-sighted to
remove parking when most uses require significantly more than a day
care.
• In evaluating a site plan, the Council shall consider its compliance with
the 7 criteria outlined in Subsection 547.13 of the City Code and
further articulated in the attached document.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• 60-DAY RULE: The 60-day clock `started' when a complete
application was received on October 29, 2012. A decision is required
by December 28, 2012 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it
is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or
120 days total) for issuing a decision.
• Site Plan Approvals expire one year from the date of approval unless
the use has commenced or necessary construction has begun.
C. FINANCIAL
• The required application processing fee has been paid.
D. LEGAL
• A public hearing to consider the proposed request was held before the
Planning Commission on November 26, 2012. No members of the
public spoke.
• Notice of the public hearing was sent to properties within 350 feet in
accordance with State and Local requirements.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal (8-
0).
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits,
compliance with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative
Review Committee Report and compliance with all other City and
State regulations. Permits are required prior to the commencement of
any work.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Approve the proposal with revised/additional conditions.
• Deny the proposal with findings that it does not meet Code requirements.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Site Plan Approval Requirements
• Site Plan
• Planning/Zoning Maps
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Farhad & Michelle Moin, owners/operators
3H-
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL
OF A SITE PLAN
TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL DAY CARE FACILITY AT
6341 PENN AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of site plan to allow a commercial day care facility serving up to 28 persons for
the parcel of land located at 6341 Penn Avenue, legally described as:
The north 65 feet of the south 165 feet of the west quarter of the northwest quarter of
the northwester quarter of Section 28, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, except roads.
WHEREAS, the requested site plan has been reviewed by the City Council and
meets City requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed site plan will adequately serve the purpose for which
it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the site plan;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Required planters in front of the building must be continuously maintained
and include live plant materials during the spring, summer and fall and
decor over the winter;
2. All landscaping must be continually maintained;
3. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance
with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review
Committee Report and compliance with all other City and State
regulations. Permits are required prior to the commencement of any
work;
4. This approval shall expire one year following the date of approval unless
the use has commenced or a building permit has been obtained and
construction begun.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
3 -a
Site Plan Approval Requirements
Subsection 547.13
a) Consistency with the various elements and objectives of the City's long range
plans, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Plan; In the Penn Avenue
Corridor, the Mixed Use District is intended to be a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood center. The District can accommodate a variety of uses. The
proposal is in keeping with these intentions.
b) Consistency with the purposes of the Zoning Code; The proposal is in keeping
with the purpose of the Zoning Code and the Mixed Use - Community District.
This District is intended to provide locations for a variety of shops and services
that serve the surrounding community. The proposal is in keeping with these
intentions.
c) Preservation of the site in its natural state, insofar as practicable, by minimizing
tree and soil removal, and designing any grade changes so as to be in keeping
with the general appearance of neighboring developed or developing areas; N/A
d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with the
terrain and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
proposed development; Landscaping improvements are in keeping with the Penn
Avenue Design Guidelines and harmonious with the neighboring development.
e) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features
including:
i. Creation of an internal sense of order for the various functions and
buildings on the site and provision of a desirable environment for
occupants, visitors and the general community;
ii. Appropriateness of the amount and arrangement of open space and
landscaping to the design and function of the development;
iii. Appropriateness of the materials, textures, colors and details of
construction as an expression of the design concept of the project and
the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring
structures and functions; and
iv. Adequacy of vehicular, cycling and pedestrian circulation, including
walkways, interior drives and parking, in terms of location and number
of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and
access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian,
cycling and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking so
as to be safe, convenient and, insofar as practicable, compatible with
the design of proposed buildings, structures and neighboring
properties.
The rear parking lot provides space for employees, while the front allows for
safe pick-up/drop-off. Play areas are adequately separated from areas in
'51-1 --3
which vehicles will be present. Additional landscaping will provide parking lot
screening and improve the overall appearance of the property.
f) Creation of an energy-conserving design through design location, orientation and
elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures, and the use of
landscape materials and site grading; N/A
g) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions
for such matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation
of views, light and air, and those aspects of design, not adequately covered by
other regulations, which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses;
No changes to surface water drainage are anticipated. The play area is not
expected to adversely impact neighboring land uses.
5H Li
r :•
•
•
..... 7...•
I
.44;111111\
te;. ----- - .- ._.
: i I
1
• r.
I! 5tate Lnginecring S.5urveying Inc
11.— .- / a
: ---A .„...;
//7 /
coo % Eji
• E E55d3hel°,MakInGnersotol"R'8664d 39
•.n. rn o 052-854.8002
0 "j 0!'..
.54 ' '-----1 E >-- "•C'
;I:',. cn
cn
._
.0 ' ):._ 'S 5 ,,
I 1 j / rernestatoengtneedng.com
--- 0 .0.
,.-
01 ' cs 8° __jI
I I ./:-7,,,?:::;0-,%?:4:7'
,-,
.• - 8 .-.- .1 Vi 6ralluA I < r J
LI))
iii ! d )1414 i et( 41"
c. e-(11)71(., co
. .„..„..‘: ,, r ,'4i:.or..r.:1. -
-
. I m
• a
' ri' -----';=',' tg,
1 _c__ , deira,c.., tvt titt CA gief- - e•.,
I
)-,,, 'g 0
I .7 :,/ . 7 ..,
e ' .
-- -•• .... 64 • I i I
/4)(15111114 o .
- -- .) .6
jr I,! ; ..----VT- :-.-- --7- Gi.A ii*1 6.,0 04 VI brA •effl . i
/ ,9, >0..
tl i. , , _office ' / 062''
:!
)
S 891329"E -
rt:r),
0
% tcdce da 7,, ' ,,.'' 265.70 ! :
,
.77
LLI o
...
„„!
• ,, . ,o 8,L„ ,, ,,0,.. - ._........- I fly: .,„. _ , - ,.-. c.„ _..:(4,...: : 474 er•Virl 0;3 OR a •,,1.2
1
_
1 I
I : ,
..1.......
--->
.--''---
.
,_/7 v f _ •••
rg-A.
0
FLoolc __..........___. .. ,64, ..„,.... ,
, .....
•
V-.
. , 1
1
,
V .•
.
.
. _. .......
.. .
. . , _. (1
e
.
.. •p .,/ 4-.';','-3- ,.1.%....i..- /..- ''''''-/,,,,. .. cl -- — , "7r ' ' I Ma
I I \
> \ . CD
> ...1 .0
Cel)
1 i
I T-u.-::kit ',-,.. 1 2.X20-1, •r; -‘,1 r.vm-.?•/,/...••;m7- /...fr__ 57.8 '• •
V'' . .<< ra3
06
.*g:...., i_________. ... • :':"....,..,. .----- - "--•f, .=. . Hur, ft o,,, 1.:.,;j:-,.....
,-• shed 724 sq Feet Fic . l''. • Cq I
D
I ----.'
;g bs
"
CO
1.- .. /
_. ,..,awl:4'' II'.. ' . \elk,
. •7t. : __, ;
---.7 i hi? _ _______
. •-_•-1..j.•t- ,..t,..•,,y, . -.. rY
co •0
. ..c.•
I we ,..., ;-•
. ; 1 V \ • .
----- • - )'-01,..-:,,;.;' ''''''' , ....,i4tg, - u•-) .. .: ....; •. ,..: . , ; ,•,. -..- ,... : .. .' . 1 • A [ H 1 72.2 -— 4---'!"-- --I's .W-4-. ' -.,6]. : . .;.:..,•-.-:. ,. .: .:-- . ,.-.;'.. - . .:.-,. :.: : . ..-N 9 '... -- CO
--:- .01-1(--S---1-•AO---e-.0 1-- i, : ,-,-.., ', .:." . . ''.'"•'.'. ' '
>
i
% 1- ' ', '7' I , . .... ... .
I- 1 .
0 C
"r
. . i • _I =
. . _.... . , .
• • - I N
Z 0
i . • - 1,. .•
.. . ,. . ......._.
0
CO
113aft. ai, • .•. .. .
•
. . ••
. i - , • ,-
Il <
:-., . . .. . . .
tb,
. . . .
raji.P121/1 -7--
,I %Was; ,"••-■......
--____.
: cch,elc,vo:I•Pay ; . . . ' ' . . .• •
.
.. .. , .. ' .' '.. . ' ' ' ', •
, '
.1 Fil
/ ,..„„,:. • , . .. . .
_ .., .
. COCH 35511,8 BO 3 , ../.:. - . '. . , ...
.
7-1 4 • •
CI.--
• i -1- z , Davan.lrs Pizza ,
. •
. . :.,..,' ... .,.....',..: ::.. •... ''..- I : • ....-• :: :I.. •:I' 0
•"• •- . .•• . . ..
. .. .
!
-- 4'.., L...
0
- q 7 7 Ito•
IA .5
, ..,
I ..
g -
0
I I
I - • ____.....
1
I No. Revision/Issue
I 41■4 ..1
Survey map prepared for:
•
I FARHAD&MICHELE MOIN
I i
_.______._ . N SW I 938"W
265.75 • -6 9780 BROOKVIEW CIRCLE
EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55347
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
N
Site address
I
NOTES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TAS PLAN.SPEOFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER
I) P-ocerly cohtn'ns'7.515 srp.o,'re::Irv-, 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES (sg.ft) 6341 Penn Avenue South
.". Eletations ore amen,rg ti l':: d Pi:•••Iria cencnclori, top nut hyiront on west
Mde t'd Penn Avern.e st 6:th:::ree• 11 Eilmtcd• .t. 5.96 as a . AL.E.A. C.E.r.':''EN T !TEM The north 65 feet of the south 165 feet of the west NAME: JAMES MICHA L BR1DELL,RL.S. Richfield,MN
';'• Inns markers ro,md or sot o• :he sho..nu•.Lirg this sasey quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of
1 7,908 ttIC lot section 28.Townwhip 28.Ronge 24,Hennepin County. ...,..4„,.....eie.' .,E../ ,,,„__
. 0 pion features Minnesota. Except Roods. i.Fht
• 11•11 piae:(I1C MC, f,:..-c, n u...-,.....lez,note::n•he,e'se.) SIGNATURE_ DATE
Professional a Min
n Surveyor. nesoto license No.23266
0 Irpn rcdl ond mom sr:i 1 q•-c...hd -9 is c P svic-.op inscribed R:S 23266. existing features
14,604 85 impervioJs surface According to the Hennepin County tax deportment record. Finn Name: Fe Engineering&Surveying Inc.
13 pi,sur.ey.1.1 51.:, 11 p]vmr,1
2404 'Z. pervious surface
fi .1‹%'S ,rail ol,rd in ocm...rerl
All easements of record or unrecorded,if orty,are not This certificotion Is limited to retrocmg properly boundories and mapping current site
conditions.
JOB NO. 2012188 Sheet 1of1
shown herein.
,---
the signature and evtiddol'on are etweby remind us otherwise co%d For unoutherireo copies When Ibis
document a in Przeeeseien 01 porthe clue,Wen the so,Fume,or ogent Inc signature.and cerbricolion ore
hereby leVcited Do not rely or unauthorized cop..which may be hooduient.Incorrect,erroneous.misleading
or booing Imprutent and'Omni'nlorrrotion omitted This document Is copyrighted and Intended fur a speac I I Rs
•
311- 5
6341 Penn Ave SP 11 /12
Surrounding Zoning
63RD STREET
MU-C/PAC
R
MU-C/PAC
MU-C/PAC R
MU-C/PAC R R R
MU-C/PAC Z W R R
Q MU-C/PAC
Z R cc
Z R _
MU-C/PAC MU-C/PAC
O
MU-C/PAC R
MU-C/PAC R R
MU-C/PAC
MU-C/PAC R R
Ir 36°
MU-C/PAC
-C/PAC
MU-C/PAC R R
. .. RAI 1!,f R
MU-C/PAC v v
N
ZONING DISTRICT -
MU-C/PAC - Mixed Use - Community w/ Penn Avenue Overlay
R -Single-Family Residential
0 50 100 200 300 400
1.•■••• Feet
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6341 Penn Ave-Z.mxd
6341 Penn Ave - SP 1
Surrounding Comprehensive Plan Designations
63RD STREET
MIXED
MIXED DR
MIXED -
LDR LDR
MIXED
MIXED LDR
- - •R MIXED MIXED LDR
W w
MIXED MIXED MIXED LDR
11.1 MIXED
Q Q LDR
MIXED W
LDR
LLJ MIXED
(1.
MIXED LDR
MIXED 0
MIXED LDR LDR
MIXED LDR LDR
MIXED
MIXED LDR LDR
360
MIXED LDR
LDR
LDR
IXED -
MIXED LDR LDR
DR
MIXED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
- N
Mixed - Mixed Use
LDR - Low Density Residential
0 50 100 200 300 400
■ Feet
I:\GIS\Community Development\Staff\Melissa\Projects\Zoning Cases\6341 Penn Ave -CP.mxd
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
• AGENDA ITEM# 31
REPORT# 217
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS LINK, OPERATIONS
SUPERINTENDENT
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ,
REVIEW: i
/ -
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY ;
MANAGER:. /� 4!
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolution regarding approval of Sentencing to Service contract between the
City of Richfield and Hennepin County for 2013 and 2014.
•
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to
enter into Contract No. A121234 with Hennepin County for Sentencing
to Service (STS) program services not to exceed $52,462.80 in 2013
and not to exceed $54,038.40 in 2014.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield takes great pride in the curb appeal of its public areas and its
borders that are shared with neighboring cities. Most of this maintenance is
performed by STS crews. The tasks performed by the STS crews are more labor
intensive and allow Public Works staff to be utilized more effectively.
Labor Intensive Tasks
STS brews are given tasks that require manual labor that may utilize hand tools.
Typical labor intensive tasks performed by STS are:
• Hand shoveling snow from bus stops on a regular basis
12112012STS
• Picking up trash along freeways and at parks and ponds
• Setting up and cleaning up for the 4th of July celebration
Please see attached list for a complete list of STS tasks.
Other Cities/Agencies use STS
Many other cities/agencies participate successfully in this program including
Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mn/DOT and Three Rivers Park
District. Richfield has utilized STS services for the past eight years.
-
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City policy encourages mutually beneficial joint agreements with other
agencies. Offering meaningful work for fulfilling the court ordered
community service requirement for low level offenses meets a societal
need.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The existing contract will lapse at the end of this year.
C. FINANCIAL
• Funding for STS is 1/3 from each of the Street Maintenance, Park
Maintenance, and Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer Budgets (line
item 6315).
• The work crew varies in size from week to week, but averages about
eight people plus a crew leader. The net cost to the City is less than
$4.67 per hour for each worker.
D. LEGAL
• Contracts or purchases greater than $50,000 must be submitted to the
City Council for approval.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may choose to not approve the contract; however, STS crews
provide an excellent service at a very inexpensive cost that could not be
obtained elsewhere.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Listing of examples of Sentencing to Service work projects.
• Contract No. A121234
•
VI. PRINCWAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO HENNEPIN
COUNTY CONTRACT NO. A121234 WITH THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF
MINNESOTA FOR SENTENCING TO SERVICE (STS) PROGRAM SERVICES
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2014.
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Community Corrections operates the Sentencing to
Service (STS) general work program, which uses offenders who are working off court-
ordered obligations for low level offenses; and
WHEREAS, many other cities participate successfully in this program including
Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mn/DOT and Three Rivers Park
District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has used these forces for many years to help clean
up after the Fourth of July celebration and to help with occasional labor intensive projects
that helps reduce the number of full-time staff needed to accomplish these tasks; and
WHEREAS, STS crews provide an excellent service at a very inexpensive cost that
could not be obtained elsewhere.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Richfield Mayor and City
Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City of Richfield to
execute and enter into Contract No. A121234 between the City of Richfield and the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota for Sentencing to Service Program Services through
December 31, 2014.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
31 - a--
TASKS FOR SENTENCING TO SERVICE
• Mowing an picking up trash at City-owned vacant lots on 18th Ave.
• Shoveling snow at bus stops and fire hydrants
• Weed control along curb lines
• Picking up trash along freeway fences and on minor arterial roads
• Washing and cleaning City equipment
• Clean garage stalls
• Trimming along freeway fences
• Weed control around ball field fences
• Clean tennis courts
• Clean tot lots and park trash pickup
• Weed whip parks and freeway fences
• Sweep slabs under bleachers
• Clean and wash park buildings
• 4th of July setup and cleanup
• Half-Marathon setup and cleanup
• Clean Ice Arena
• Shovel gate boards
• Restore and paint picnic tables
• Paint park buildings
• Shovel debris out of catch basins
• Clean under bridge decks
• Paint Garage building
• Cleanup trash around storm water ponds
• H U B garbage
• Wood chipping along 77th street wall
• Rebuild retaining walls
3 _3 Contract No: A121234
SERVICES AGREEMENT
SENTENCING TO SERVICE PROGRAM
WITH GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA
("COUNTY") A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin
County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation, C-2300 Government Center, 300
South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ("DEPARTMENT"), and the CITY OF RICHFIELD,
6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423("CITY").
WHEREAS, the COUNTY operates the Sentencing to Service Program (STS Program) which
offers offenders an opportunity to learn landscape maintenance and other marketable skills; and
WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to purchase the services of the STS Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter
set forth, the COUNTY, on behalf of the DEPARTMENT, and the CITY agree as follows:
1. TERM AND COST OF THIS AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be in effect from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014, unless terminated
earlier in accordance with the Default and Cancellation provisions of this Agreement.
The total cost of this Agreement, including all reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Six
Thousand Five Hundred One Dollars and Twenty Cents ($106,501.20).
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
The CITY wishes to utilize the services of the STS Program participants to perform labor intensive forestry,
park maintenance, and utility maintenance related projects (the"Work").
The DEPARTMENT agrees to the following with respect to the Work requested:
A. Provide one (1) work crew, two (2) days per week, for the period January 1, 2013 through December 31,
2013. Provide one (1) work crew, two (2) days per week, for the period May 1, 2013 through October
31, 2013. Provide one (1) work crew, two (2) days per week for the period January 1, 2014 through
December 31, 2014. Provide one (1) work crew, two (2) days per week, for the period May 1, 2014
through October 31, 2014. Provide work crews for a minimum of six (6) hours per day, excluding paid
breaks. A work crew will consist of an average of six(6)participants per day.
B. Provide COUNTY employed crew leader who will be responsible for the transportation, instruction, and
supervision of the STS Program work crew.
C. Provide required personal safety equipment and clothing needed for specific work.
D. Provide basic landscaping tools and equipment needed for specific work.
E. Train each STS Program work crew in necessary safety principles and techniques.
F. Provide quarterly reports to the CITY that show the number of days worked and total hours of service
received.
G. Assume all medical liability for the STS Program participants.
H. STS Program participants are not employees of the CITY.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
The CITY agrees to the following:
A. Obtain all necessary permits or licenses or special authority for all Work.
B. Assign all work and coordinate material purchases and delivery for projects to be performed.
4. COST AND PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
A. The CITY shall pay the COUNTY:
1. Fifty-Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and Eighty Cents ($52,462.80) in 2013 for
the services described in this Agreement, and
2. Fifty-Four Thousand Thirty-Eight Dollars and Forty Cents ($54,038.40) in 2014 for the services
described in this Agreement.
3. The above-mentioned annual amounts comprise a weekly price per crew of Three Hundred Thirty-
Six Dollars and Thirty Cents ($336.30) per crew in 2013, and Three Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and
Forty Cents ($346.40)per crew in 2014.
B. Payment for services performed by the COUNTY shall be paid by the CITY within thirty(30) days from
the date of invoice. The COUNTY will invoice for services on a quarterly basis reflecting the cost for
the crews provided for the preceding quarter. If this Agreement is terminated early under the Default
and Cancellation provisions of this Agreement, the COUNTY shall be entitled to payment for the
services actually provided up to the time of termination.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Nothing is intended or should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners
between the parties or as constituting either party as the agent, representative, or employee of the other party
for any purpose. Each party is and shall remain an independent contractor for all services performed under
this Agreement. Each party shall secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services
under this Agreement. Any personnel or other persons engaged in the performance of any work or services
required by a party will have no contractual relationship with the other party and will not be considered
employees of the other party.
6. INDEMNIFICATION
Each party agrees that it will be responsible and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other
party, its officials, officers, agents, and employees for its own errors, acts, and omissions and the results
thereof to the extent authorized by the law and shall not be responsible for the errors, acts, and omissions of
the other party and the results thereof. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 6, the
3T--5-
COUNTY shall have no liability to the CITY for any cause under or related to this Agreement for any
consequential, special, incidental, punitive, or indirect damages (including without limitation loss of profit,
revenue, business opportunity, or business advantage), whether based upon a claim or action of tort,
contract, warranty, negligence, strict liability, contribution, or any other legal theory or cause of action.
Each party's liability shall be governed by and limited in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466.
7. DATA PRACTICES
Both parties shall abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 13 (MGDPA), and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders
relating to data privacy and confidentiality.
8. SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS
Neither party shall assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the
prior written consent of the other party.
9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
A. It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this
Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject
matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this
Agreement.
B. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid
when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties.
10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
A. If either party fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work
as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, it shall be in default. Unless the default is excused
by the nondefaulting party, the nondefaulting party may upon written notice immediately cancel this
Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure of the CITY to comply with the terms of this Agreement
shall be just cause for the COUNTY to immediately cease providing services under this Agreement until
the CITY's compliance.
B. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to the parties under this
Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity.
C. Either party's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under
this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in
writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term
of this Agreement.
D. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days written
notice.
11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of the CITY with the activities of the DEPARTMENT, so as to
accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, John Ekholm, Corrections Program Manager, Hennepin County
Department of Community Corrections &Rehabilitation, Community Offender Management Division, 3000
North Second Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411, or his successor (Contract Administrator), shall
manage this Agreement on behalf of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and the
CITY.
CITY PROJECT CONTACT:
Name: Chris Link
Title: Operations Superintendent
Address: 1901 East 66th Street
City, State, Zip: Richfield, MN 55423
Office: 612-861-9174 Mobile: 612-221-6178 Fax: 612-861-9181
Email: clink @cityofrichfield.org
CITY BILL TO INFORMATION:
Name Chris Link
Title: Operations Superintendent
Address: 1901 East 66th Street
City, State, Zip: Richfield, MN 55423
Office: 612-861-9174 Mobile: 612-221-6178 Fax: 612-861-9181
Email: clink @cityofrichfield.org
12. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or any statute or
ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall
be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the originating DEPARTMENT at the address given in
the opening paragraph of this Agreement. Notice to the CITY shall be sent to the address stated in the
opening paragraph of this Agreement.
13. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the
validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the parties and their
performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation will be those courts located
within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts
involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any
provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will
not be affected.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
•
31-7
COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
Reviewed by the County COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Attorney's Office STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chair of Its County Board
Date: Date:
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Date:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
The CITY warrants that the person who executed
this Agreement is authorized to do so as required
by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or
ordinances.*
By:
Deborah Goettel
Its: Mayor
Date:
And:
Steven L. Devich
Its: City Manager
Date:
*The CITY shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances) that
confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. This documentation shall be submitted at the same
time this Agreement is returned to the COUNTY.
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3J
REPORT# 218
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN,UTILITY
SUPERINTENDENT
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: )1.7)')
dir,,- ' SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY '4
MANAGER: d �/ IF
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a contract with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for 1,400 tons of quick lime for
water treatment.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve contract with Graymont (WI), LLC Company for
the purchase of quick lime in the amount of $200,200.00 ($143.00/ton)
for 2013.
II. BACKGROUND
The chemical quick lime is used in the water treatment process to lower hardness
thus producing softened water. Approximately 1,400 tons of quick lime is required
each year.
Graymont (WI), LLC. Company was the only bidder and met all bid specifications.
They are an established contractor that meets all requirements.
History of Quick Lime Contracts
• December 8, 2009 Council approved a one-year contract with Graymont
(WI), LLC Company for 2010 in the amount of$168,000.00.
• The Quick Lime Bid Specifications include language stating the contract may
be extended for additional one-year periods to a maximum contract period of
three years upon mutual consent of both parties. Graymont agreed to supply
12112012quicklime
quick lime in 2011 at no increase in price. They did not agree to extensions
in 2012 or 2013.
• On November 22, 2011 Council approved a one-year contract with Graymont
(WI), LLC Company in the amount of$174,230.00 ($124.45/ton) for 2012.
On November 15, 2012, the ad for bid was published in the Sun Current with a bid
opening on November 29, 2012. Graymont submitted the only proposal with a
$143/ton, or 14.90%, price increase for 2013 with an optional one-year extension.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Contracts estimated to have a value over $100,000 must be made by
sealed bids, solicited by public notice and awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Quick lime is a necessary chemical required in the water softening
process and the 2012 contract expires December 31, 2012.
C. FINANCIAL
• A recent history of prices for this product is:
Years Base Price Est. Annual Cost Vendor
2007 $95.20/Ton $133,280.00 Cutler Magner
2008 $99.65/Ton $139,510.00 Cutler Magner
2009 $112.00/Ton $156,800.00 Graymont
2010 $120.00/Ton $168,000.00 Graymont
2011 $120.00/Ton $168,000.00 Graymont
2012 $124.45/Ton $174,230.00 Graymont
2013 $143.00/Ton $200,200.00 Graymont
• Funding for the purchase of quick lime is in the 2013 Water
Department Budget, line item 51000-6413 (Chemicals).
D. LEGAL
• When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or
construction exceeds $50,000.00, authority to purchase shall be
submitted to the City Council for consideration.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council may reject the bid and direct staff to re-advertise; however, staff
does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Bid Tab
• Contract
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
33= I
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Bid Opening
November 29, 2012
2:00 p.m.
Water Treatment Chemicals— Quick Lime
Bid No. 12-08
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff
was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting
was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for Water Treatment Chemicals — Quick
Lime, as advertised in the official newspaper on November 15, 2012.
Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Robert Hintgen, Utilities Superintendent
Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
Quick Lime - Base freight Total bid
Bidder's Name Bid Bond bulk delivery rate (per ton)
(per ton) (per ton)
Graymont, LLC Provided $118.71 $24.29 $143.00
Duluth, MN
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
December 11, 2012 City Council Meeting.
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CONTRACT
Purchase of Quick Lime
Bid No. 12-08
Contract No. 2781
THIS AGREEMENT made this 11th day of December 2012 between the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, acting by and through its Mayor and City Manager, herein called
"The City," and Graymont (WI), LLC, 800 Hill Avenue, Superior, WI 54880, the
"Contractor," witnesseth; that the Contractor, in consideration of the payment of the
contract price therefore, amounting substantially to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND,
TWO HUNDRED AND NO/100 ($200,200.00) Dollars agrees to furnish all materials
(except such as are specified to be furnished by the City, if any), all necessary tools and
equipment, and to do and perform all the necessary work and labor for the full
completion of City projects as follows:
Purchase of 1,400 Tons of Quick Lime for the Water Treatment Plant
At 6221 Portland Avenue
as per specifications, for the price and compensation set forth and specified in the
proposal signed by the Contractor, which is hereto attached and hereby made a part of
this Agreement, all in accordance with the specifications and special provisions
therefore on file in the office of the Utility Superintendent, City of Richfield, and hereby
made a part of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto and there respective successors and assigns.
"The contract price is a unit price of$143.00 per ton in calendar year 2013."
The Contractor agrees that the work shall be done and performed in the best and most
workmanlike manner; that all materials and labor shall be in strict conformity in every
respect with the plans, specifications and special provisions for the improvement, shall
be subject to inspection and approval of the City or a duly authorized engineer of the
City, and in case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the City or engineer
as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material shall be removed, and replaced
with approved material and the rejected labor shall be done anew to the satisfaction and
Approval of the City or Utility Superintendent and at the cost and expense of the
Contractor.
Purchase of Quick Lime 3 3
Bid No. 12-08
Contract No. 2781
The Contractor further agrees that he will commence work immediately upon receipt of
contract, and will have all work done and the improvement fully completed to the
satisfaction and approval of the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as
provided in the specifications.
Time is the essence of this contract for prompt completion and if the Contractor shall fail
to complete the work within the time herein specified, the City shall have the right to
deduct from the unpaid part of the contract price, the amount, or amounts specified in
the specifications, or, if no moneys shall be due the Contractor, to recover damages in
accordance with said specifications, for each and every working day thereafter during
which the contract shall remain unfinished and incomplete, such damages being hereby
agreed upon as liquidated damages in lieu of actual damages occasioned by such
delay, but special provisions, if any, contained in the proposal are also continued in
effect and shall be read and construed as part of this provision as to the completion and
liquidated damages for delay.
It is agreed, however, that upon receipt of written notice from the Contractor of the
existence of causes over which the Contractor has no control and which will delay the
completion of the work, the City Council in its discretion, and in accordance with the
specifications, may extend the date hereinbefore specified for completion, and in such
case the Contractor shall become liable for said liquidated damages only for failure to
perform within the time so extended.
It is agreed, also, that delays caused by the elements or by strikes or other combined
action of workmen employed in the construction or in the transportation of materials, but
in no part caused or resulting from default or collusion on the part of the Contractor,
shall be excused to the extent which the City Council may find and determine such
conditions to have delayed completion within the time limit, but the judgment of the City
Council in fixing such amount shall be final and conclusive upon the parties hereto.
It is distinctly understood and agreed that no claims for extra work done or materials
furnished by the Contractor will be allowed by the City Council except as provided
herein, nor shall the Contractor do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the
plans, specifications, special provisions, and this contract, unless such work is first
ordered in writing, as provided in the specifications.
Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the Contractor without
such written order first being given shall be at his own risk, cost and expense, and he
hereby agrees that without such written order he will make no claim for compensation
for work or materials so done or furnished.
Purchase of Quick Lime 3 J_ L{
Bid No. 12-08
Contract No. 2781
It is further agreed, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, that the City of Richfield,
City Council, and its agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in
any manner to the Contractor, Subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or to any person
or persons whomsoever, for any claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action
of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or
the performance and completion of the work and improvement provided herein.
Dated at Richfield, Minnesota, this 11th day of December 2012.
Signatures for Graymont (WI), LLC. Signatures for City of Richfield, MN
By By
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
Its
Date Date
By By
Steven L. Devich, City Manager
Its
Date Date
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3K
REPORT# 219
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: TODD SANDELL,DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR I ` I
�)
REVIEW:
SIGNAT
REVIEWED BY CITY /
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to enter into an agreement with
State of Minnesota, Office of State Court Administration to access court data services.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City of
Richfield to enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota,
Office of State Court Administration to access Minnesota Court Data
Services.
II. BACKGROUND
Currently the City of Richfield has an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Office
of State Court Administration that allows the City of Richfield prosecutor access to
Minnesota Court Data Services. This current agreement is called Pro Odyssey and
has been in place since 2007.
The Minnesota Court Data Services has started a pilot project to replace the current
Pro Odyssey program with Minnesota Trial Court Public Access My Case (MPA My
Case).
Minnesota Court Data Services is requiring a new agreement to allow the City
prosecutor access to MPA My Case.
121112 My Case Agreement
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The data access agreement is the replacement of an agreement that
has been in place between the City of Richfield and Minnesota Court
Data Services since 2007.
• It is essential that City prosecutor have access MPA My Case to
execute the duties of his office.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The City prosecutor will not have access to the Court Services data
until this agreement has been signed.
C. FINANCIAL
• None
D. LEGAL
• The agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could disapprove of the resolution; however this would mean that the
City prosecutor would not have access to court data essential in the
performance of his duties.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Service for
Governmental Services
• Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for MPA My Case
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
121112 My Case Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH STATE OF MINNESOTA, OFFICE OF STATE COURT
ADMINISTRATION TO ACCESS COURT DATA SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Richfield City Prosecutor is responsible for the prosecution of all
misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor criminal cases for the City of Richfield; and
WHEREAS, in the performance of his duties, the Richfield City Prosecutor needs
access to Minnesota Court Data Services; and
WHEREAS, access to Minnesota Court Data Services is provided through a
program called Minnesota Trial Court Public Access My Case (MPA My Case); and
WHEREAS, for the Richfield Prosecutor to obtain access to MPA My Case, the
City of Richfield needs to sign a Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court
Data Services with The State of Minnesota Office of State Court Administration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into a
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental
Agencies with the State of Minnesota Office of State Court Administration.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT
FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES
FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between
•
Ar .1
(Government Subscriber Name/Name of Entity)
of 67PP Jaa11T1,/ L 4's EL hrt-)
(Govemnlnt Subscriber Address)
(hereinafter "Government Subscriber") and THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office of State Court Administration
(Judicial District OR Office of State Court Administration)
of 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
(Address)
(hereinafter "the Court").
Recitals
The Court offers Court Data Services, as defined herein, to Minnesota Government
Subscribers as authorized by the Rules of Public Access. The Court Data Services are offered to
Government Subscribers as governmental units and are offered solely for certain governmental
use as permitted herein. Government Subscriber desires to use Court Data Services, and the
Court desires to provide the same, to assist Government Subscriber in the efficient performance
of its governmental duties as required or authorized by law or court rule in connection with any
civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State or local court or
agency or before any self-regulatory body.
Court Data Services are defined in the Definitions section of this Agreement and may
involve a one-way or two-way transmission of information between the parties, some of which
may include court information that is not accessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public
Access and which may not be disclosed by Government Subscriber without the prior approval of
the appropriate court or record custodian. Government Subscriber agrees herein to limit its
access to and use of Court Records and Court Documents through Court Data Services to the
Government Subscriber's "Legitimate Governmental Business Need" as defined herein.
The access to statewide public Court Documents is a pilot program. During the initial
phase of the pilot program, the State will not charge Government Subscriber for access to Court
Documents. The State may charge Government Subscriber for access to Court Documents at a
later date or after the initial phase of the pilot program concludes.
Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and
agreements contained herein, the Court and Government Subscriber agree as follows:
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies--Revised October 12, 2012
Page 1 of 15
1. TERM; TERMINATION; ONGOING OBLIGATIONS.
1.1 Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the date executed by the Court and
shall remain in effect according to its terms.
1.2 Termination.
1.2.1 Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by giving
written notice to the other party. The effective date of the termination shall be
thirty (30) days after the other party's receipt of the notice of termination, unless a
later date is specified in the notice. Termination of this Agreement pursuant to
Clause 4.5 shall be effective immediately and may occur without prior notice to
Government Subscriber.
1.2.2 The provisions of Clauses 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12.2, 12.3 and 15 through 24 shall
survive any termination of this Agreement, as shall any other provisions that by
their nature are intended or expected to survive such termination. Upon
termination, the Government Subscriber shall perform the responsibilities set
forth in paragraph 8.6 hereof.
1.3 Subsequent Agreement. This Agreement may be superseded by a subsequent
agreement between the parties.
2. DEFINITIONS.
2.1 "Court Data Services" means one or more of the following services and includes
any additional or modified services identified as such on the Justice Agency
Resource webpage of the Minnesota Judicial Branch website, which is currently
www.courts.state.mn.us, or other location designated by the Court and/or its
affiliates, as the same may be amended from time to time by the Court and/or its
affiliates:
2.1.1 "Bulk Data Delivery" means the electronic transmission of Court Records
in bulk form from the Court to the Government Subscriber, from one or
more of the Court's databases and through any means of transmission, as
described in applicable Policies & Notices and materials referenced
therein.
2.1.2 "Court Integration Services" means pre-defined automated transmissions
of i) Court Records from the Court's computer systems to Government
Subscriber's computer systems; and/or ii) Government Subscriber Records
from the Government Subscriber's computer systems to the Court's
computer systems; on a periodic basis or as triggered by pre-determined
events, as described in applicable Policies & Notices and materials
referenced therein.
2.1.3 "MNCIS Login Accounts" means a digital login account created for and
provided to the Government Subscriber for online access to and use of
Court Records and Court Documents through the Minnesota Court
Information System ("MNCIS"), as described in applicable Policies &
Notices and materials referenced therein.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12, 2012
Page 2 of 15
2.1.4 "ViBES Login Accounts" means a digital login account created for and
provided to the Government Subscriber for online access to and use of
Court Records through the Violations Bureau Electronic System
("ViBES"), as described in applicable Policies & Notices and materials
referenced therein.
2.2 "Court Data Services Databases" means any databases and the data therein,
used as a source for Court Data Services, together with any documentation related
thereto, including without limitation descriptions of the format or contents of data,
data schemas, and all related components.
2.3 "Court Data Services Programs" means any computer application programs,
routines, transport mechanisms, and display screens used in connection with
Court Data Services,together with any documentation related thereto.
2.4 "Court Documents" means electronic images of documents that are part of or
included in a court file when the electronic images become available. Court
Documents have a document security classification as follows:
2.4.1 "Public!" means the classification used for documents that are accessible
to the general public in electronic form from any location.
2.4.2 "Public2" means the classification used for documents that are accessible
to the general public in electronic fowl at the courthouse,but not from any
other location.
2.4.3 "Public2 Citation" means the classification used for Court Payment
Center documents that are accessible to the general public in electronic
form at the courthouse,but not from any other location.
2.4.4 "Confidential!" means the classification used for documents that are not
accessible to the general public in electronic form, but are available to
Government Subscribers with legal authorization to access the case under
Minn. R. Pub. Access 8, subd. 4(b).
2.4.5 "Confidential2" means the classification used for documents that are not
accessible to the public in electronic form and is not accessible to
Government Subscribers except as authorized by specific court rules or
orders that identify the specific document to be accessed.
2.4.6 "Sealed!" means the classification used for documents that are not
accessible to anyone except by court order or specific authorization.
2.5 "Court Records" means all information in any form made available by the Court
and/or its affiliates to Government Subscriber for the purposes of carrying out this
• Agreement, including:
2.5.0 "Court Case Information" means any information in the Court Records
that conveys information about a particular case or controversy, including
without limitation Court Confidential Case Information and Court
Documents, when available, as defined herein.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services
3 15
for Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page
2.5.1 "Court Confidential Case Information" means any information in the
Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of
Public Access and that conveys information about a particular case or
controversy.
2.5.2 "Court Confidential Security and Activation Information" means any
information in the Court Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant
to the Rules of Public Access and that explains how to use or gain access
to Court Data Services, including but not limited to login account names,
passwords, TCP/IP addresses, Court Data Services user manuals, Court
Data Services Programs, Court Data Services Databases, and other
technical information.
2.5.3 "Court Confidential Information" means any information in the Court
Records that is inaccessible to the public pursuant to the Rules of Public
Access, including without limitation both i) Court Confidential Case
Information; and ii) Court Confidential Security and Activation
Information.
2.6 "DCA" means the District Court Administrator pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
section 485.01.
2.7 "Government Subscriber Records" means any information in any form made
available by the Government Subscriber to the Court and/or its affiliates for the
purposes of carrying out this Agreement.
2.8 "Government Subscriber's Individual Users" means Government Subscriber's
employees or independent contractors whose use or access of Court Data
Services, as well as the access, use and dissemination of Court Records and Court
Documents, is necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement.
2.9 "Legitimate Governmental Business Need" means a requirement, duty or
obligation for the efficient performance of governmental tasks or governmental
responsibilities and as required or authorized by law or court rule in connection
with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal,
State or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body.
2.10 "Policies & Notices" means the policies and notices published by the Court
and/or its affiliates in connection with each of its Court Data Services, on a
website or other location designated by the Court and/or its affiliates, as the same
may be amended from time to time by the Court and/or its affiliates. Policies &
Notices for each Court Data Service, hereby made part of this Agreement by
reference, provide additional terms and conditions that govern Government
Subscriber's use of such services, including but not limited to provisions on fees,
access and use limitations, and identification of various third party applications,
such as transport mechanisms, that Government Subscriber may need to procure
separately to use Court Data Services.
2.11 "Rules of Public Access" means the Rules of Public Access to Records of the
Judicial Branch promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, as the same may
be amended from time to time, including without limitation lists or tables
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page 4of15
published from time to time by the Court and/or the SCAO entitled "Limits on
Public Access to Case Records" or "Limits on Public Access to Administrative
Records," all of which by this reference are made a part of this Agreement. It is
the obligation of Government Subscriber to check from time to time for updated
rules, lists, and tables and be familiar with the contents thereof. It is contemplated
that such rules, lists, and tables will be posted on the main website for the Court,
for which the current address is www.courts.state.mn.us.
2.12 "SCAO" means the State of Minnesota, State Court Administrator's Office.
2.13 "This Agreement" means this Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota
Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies, including all Exhibits, Policies
& Notices, and other documents referenced, attached to, or submitted or issued
hereunder.
2.14 "Trade Secret Information of SCAO and its licensors" is defined in sections
8.1, 8.2 and 8.4 of this Agreement.
2.15 "User Acknowledgement Form" means the form attached to this document as
Exhibit B, signed by Government Subscriber's Individual Users to confirm in
writing that the Individual User has read and understands the requirements and
restrictions in this Agreement.
3. DATA ACCESS SERVICES PROVIDED TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
Following execution of this Agreement by both parties, Government Subscriber will be
offered access to the Court Data Services described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
4. AUTHORIZED ACCESS, USE, AND DISSEMINATION OF COURT RECORDS
AND COURT DOCUMENTS LIMITED; TRAINING; VIOLATIONS;
SANCTIONS.
4.1 Authorized Access to Court Data Services, Court Records and Court
Documents.
4.1.1 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber's Individual Users
shall access only the Court Data Services, Court Records and Court
Documents, when available, necessary for a Legitimate Governmental
Business Need.
4.1.2 The access of Court Data Services, Court Records or Court Documents,
when available, by Government Subscriber or Government Subscriber's
Individual Users for personal or non-official use, or any use that is not a
"Legitimate Governmental Business Need" as defined herein, is
prohibited.
4.1.3 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber's Individual Users
shall not access or attempt to access Court Data Services, Court Records
or Court Documents, when available, in any manner not set forth in this
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12, 2012
Page 5 of 15
Agreement, Policies & Notices, or other Court Data Services
documentation.
4.2 Authorized Usc of Court Data Services, Court Records and Court
Documents.
4.2.1 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber's Individual Users
shall use the Court Data Services, Court Records and Court Documents,
when available, accessed only for a Legitimate Governmental Business
Need and according to the instructions provided in corresponding Policies
&Notices or other materials.
4.2.2 The use of Court Data Services, Court Records or Court Documents, when
available, by Government Subscriber or Government Subscriber's
Individual Users for personal or non-official use, or any use that is not a
"Legitimate Governmental Business Need" as defined herein, is
prohibited.
4.2.3 Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber's Individual Users
shall not use or attempt to use Court Data Services, Court Records or
Court Documents, when available, in any manner not set forth in this
Agreement, Policies & Notices, or other Court Data Services
documentation.
4.3 Dissemination of Court Records and Court Documents. Government
Subscriber and Government Subscriber's Individual Users shall not share the
Court Records or Court Documents, when available, accessed and data therefrom
with third parties and other individuals other than as needed to further a
Legitimate Governmental Business Need.
4.4 Training. Government Subscriber shall provide Government Subscriber's
Individual Users training in the access, use, and dissemination of Court Records
and Court Documents.
4.5 Violations.
4.5.1 The access or use of Court Data Services, Court Records or Court
Documents, when available, beyond what is necessary for a Legitimate
Governmental Business Need by Government Subscriber or Government
Subscriber's Individual Users is a violation of this Agreement. The
dissemination of Court Records or Court Documents, when available, by
Government Subscriber or Government Subscriber's Individual Users
with third parties or other individuals beyond what is necessary for a
Legitimate Governmental Business Need is a violation of this Agreement.
The access, use and dissemination of Court Data Services, Court Records
or Court Documents, when available, by Government Subscriber or
Government Subscriber's Individual Users for personal use is a violation
of this Agreement.
4.5.2 Any violation pursuant to Clause 4.5.1, or any unauthorized or attempted
access, use or dissemination of Court Data Services, Court Records or
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page 6 of
Court Documents, when available, by Government Subscriber or
Government Subscriber's Individual Users shall be grounds for the Court
to impose sanctions as described in Clause 4.6 and to terminate this
Agreement without prior notice to Government Subscriber and/or
Government Subscriber's Individual Users.
4.6 Sanctions.
4.6.1 Sanctions for a violation pursuant to Clause 4.5.1 may be imposed upon a
Government Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber's Individual Users
and may include the suspension of access or termination of access for
Government Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber's Individual Users.
4.6.2 If the Court decides to terminate the access for Government Subscriber
and/or Government Subscriber's Individual Users, the Court shall notify
the affected party in writing. The termination shall be effective
immediately. Prior notice to Government Subscriber and/or Government
Subscriber's Individual Users is not required. Reinstatement of the access
shall only be upon the written direction of the Court.
5. GUARANTEES OF CONFIDENTIALITY. Government Subscriber agrees:
5.1 To not disclose Court Confidential Information, or Court Documents, when
available, to any third party except where necessary to carry out the Government
Subscriber's Legitimate Governmental Business Need as defined in this
Agreement.
5.2 To take all appropriate action, whether by instruction, agreement, or otherwise,to
insure the protection, confidentiality and security of Court Confidential
Information and Court Documents, when available, and to satisfy Government
Subscriber's obligations under this Agreement.
5.3 To limit the use of and access to Court Confidential Infoiniation to Government
Subscriber's Individual Users. Government Subscriber shall advise Government
Subscriber's Individual Users of the restrictions upon access, use and disclosure
contained in this Agreement, requiring each Government Subscriber's Individual
User to acknowledge in writing that the individual has read and understands such
restrictions. Government Subscriber's Individual Users shall sign the
Acknowledgment Form attached in Exhibit B before accessing Court Data
Services.
5.4 That,without limiting Clause 1 of this Agreement, the obligations of Government
Subscriber and Government Subscriber's Individual Users with respect to the
confidentiality and security of Court Confidential Information and Court
Documents, when available, shall survive the termination of this Agreement and
the termination of their relationship with Government Subscriber.
5.5 That, notwithstanding any federal or state law applicable to the nondisclosure
obligations of Government Subscriber and Government Subscriber's Individual
Users under this Agreement, such obligations of Government Subscriber and
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services fo Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12. 2012
Page 7 of
Government Subscriber's Individual Users are founded independently on the
provisions of this Agreement.
5.6 That, a violation of Government Subscriber's agreements contained in this Clause
5, or a violation of those same agreements by Government Subscriber's Individual
Users, shall be grounds for the Court to terminate this agreement and Government
Subscriber and/or Government Subscriber's Individual Users access to Court Data
Services, Court Records and Court Documents, when available.
6. APPLICABILITY TO COURT CASE INFORMATION PROVIDED UNDER
LEGAL MANDATE AND PREVIOUSLY DISCLOSED COURT RECORDS AND
COURT DOCUMENTS. Subscriber acknowledges and agrees:
6.1 Court Case Information Provided Under Legal Mandate. When the Court is
required to provide Government Subscriber with Court Case Information under a
legal mandate and the provision of such data by the Court is not optional or
otherwise left to the discretion of the Court, for example in the case of a state
statutory reporting requirement, the provisions of this Agreement that govern or
restrict Government Subscriber's access to and use of Court Case Information do
not apply to the specific data elements identified in the legal mandate, but remain
in effect with respect to all other Court Case Information provided by the Court to
Government Subscriber. All other provisions of this Agreement remain in full
effect, including, without limitation, provisions that govern or restrict
Government Subscriber's access to and use of Court Confidential Security and
Activation Information.
6.2 Previously Disclosed Court Records and Court Documents. Without limiting
section 6.1, all Court Records and Court Documents disclosed to Government
Subscriber prior to the effective date of this Agreement shall be subject to the
provisions of this Agreement.
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY INDIVIDUALS WITH ACCESS TO COURT
RECORDS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
7.1 Requirement to Advise Government Subscriber's Individual Users. To effect
the purposes of this Agreement, Government Subscriber shall advise each of
Government Subscriber's Individual Users who are permitted to use and/or access
Court Data Services, Court Records and Court Documents, when available, under
this Agreement of the requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
7.2 Required Acknowledgement by Government Subscriber's Individual Users.
7.2.1 Government Subscriber shall require each of Government Subscriber's
Individual Users to sign the User Acknowledgement Form(Exhibit B).
7.2.2 The User Acknowledgement Forms of current Government Subscriber's
Individual Users must be obtained prior to submitting this Agreement to
the Court for approval and shall accompany the submission of this
Agreement for approval.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page 8 of 15
_9K- ID
7.2.3 Until the User Acknowledgement Form required in Clause 7.2.1 is
obtained, a Government Subscriber's Individual User is prohibited from
accessing, using or disseminating Court Data Services, Court Records or
Court. Documents, when available. The access, use or dissemination of
Court Data Services, Court Records or Court Documents by a Government
Subscriber's Individual User that has not completed a User
Acknowledgement Form as required in Clause 7.2.1 is a violation of this
Agreement.
7.2.4 Government Subscriber shall keep all such written acknowledgements on
file while this Agreement is in effect and for one (1) year following the
termination of this Agreement. Government Subscriber shall promptly
provide the Court with access to, and copies of, such acknowledgements
upon request.
7.2.5 The User Acknowledgment Forms are incorporated herein by reference.
8. LICENSE AND PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. During the term of
this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Court, with the permission
of the SCAO, hereby grants to Government Subscriber a nonexclusive, nontransferable,
limited license to use Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases
to access or receive the Court Records and Court Documents, when available. SCAO and
the Court reserve the right to make modifications to the Court Data Services, Court Data
Services Programs, and Court Data Services Databases, and related materials without
notice to Government Subscriber. These modifications shall be treated in all respects as
their previous counterparts.
8.1 Court Data Services Programs. SCAO is the copyright owner and licensor of
the Court Data Services Programs. The combination of ideas, procedures,
processes, systems, logic, coherence and methods of operation embodied within
the Court Data Services Programs, and all information contained in
documentation pertaining to the Court Data Services Programs, including but not
limited to manuals, user documentation, and passwords, are trade secret
information of SCAO and its licensors.
8.2 Court Data Services Databases. SCAO is the copyright owner and licensor of
the Court Data Services Databases and of all copyrightable aspects and
components thereof. All specifications and information pertaining to the Court
Data Services Databases and their structure, sequence and organization, including
without limitation data schemas such as the Court XML Schema, are trade secret
information of SCAO and its licensors.
8.3 Marks. Government Subscriber shall neither have nor claim any right, title, or
interest in or use of any trademark used in connection with Court Data Services,
including but not limited to the marks"MNCIS" and "Odyssey."
8.4 Restrictions on Duplication,Disclosure, and Use.
8.4.1 Trade secret information of SCAO and its licensors will be treated by
Government Subscriber in the same manner as Court Confidential
Information. In addition, Government Subscriber will not copy any part
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies--Revised October 12.2012
Page 9of15
3K- H
of the Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or
reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to discern the source code of the
Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or use
any trademark of SCAO or its licensors, in any way or for any purpose not
specifically and expressly authorized by this Agreement. As used herein,
"trade secret information of SCAO and its licensors" means any
information possessed by SCAO which derives independent economic
value from not being generally known to, and not being readily
ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic
value from its disclosure or use. "Trade secret information of SCAO and
its licensors" does not, however, include information which was known to
Government Subscriber prior to Government Subscriber's receipt thereof,
either directly or indirectly, from SCAO or its licensors, information
which is independently developed by Government Subscriber without
reference to or use of information received from SCAO or its licensors, or
information which would not qualify as a trade secret under Minnesota
law.
8.4.2 It will not be a violation of Clause 8.4 for Government Subscriber to make
up to one (1) copy of training materials and configuration documentation
for each individual authorized to access, use, or configure Court Data
Services, solely for its own use in connection with this Agreement.
8.4.3 Government Subscriber will take all steps reasonably necessary to protect
the copyright, trade secret, and trademark rights of SCAO and its licensors
and Government Subscriber will advise Government Subscriber's
Individual Users who are permitted access to any of the Court Data
Services Programs and Court Data Services Databases, and trade secret
information of SCAO and its licensors, of the restrictions upon
duplication, disclosure and use contained in this Agreement.
8.5 Proprietary Notices. Government in and/or on the Court Data Service
Services notices included s Programs or
Court Data Services Databases, related documentation, or trade secret information
of SCAO and its licensors, or any part thereof, made available by SCAO or the
Court, and Government Subscriber will include in and/or on any copy of the
Court Data Services Programs or Court Data Services Databases, or trade secret
information of SCAO and its licensors and any documents pertaining thereto, the
same copyright and other proprietary notices as appear on the copies made
available to Government Subscriber by SCAO or the Court, except that copyright
notices shall be updated and other proprietary notices added as may be
appropriate.
8.6 Title; Return. The Court Data Services Programs and Court Data Services
Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to training and
configuration material, if any, and logon account information and passwords,
made available by the Court and SCAO to Government Subscriber hereunder, and
all copies, including partial copies, thereof are and remain the property of the
respective licensor. Within ten days of the effective date of termination of this
Agreement, Government Subscriber shall either: (i) uninstall and return any and
all copies of the applicable Court Data Services Programs and Court Data
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page 10 of G
Services Databases, and related documentation, including but not limited to
training and configuration materials, if any, and logon account information; or (2)
destroy the same and certify in writing to the Court that the same have been
destroyed.
8.7 Reasonable Security Measures. The Court may add reasonable security
measures including, but not limited to, a time-out feature, to Court Data Services
Programs.
9. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; LIABILITY. Government Subscriber acknowledges that the
Court, SCAO, SCAO's licensors, and DCA will be irreparably harmed if Government
Subscriber's obligations under this Agreement are not specifically enforced and that the
Court, SCAO, SCAO's licensors, and DCA would not have an adequate remedy at law in
the event of an actual or threatened violation by Government Subscriber of its
obligations. Therefore, Government Subscriber agrees that the Court, SCAO, SCAO's
licensors, and DCA shall be entitled to an injunction or any appropriate decree of specific
performance for any actual or threatened violations or breaches by Government
Subscriber or Government Subscriber's Individual Users without the necessity of the
Court, SCAO, SCAO's licensors, or DCA showing actual damages or that monetary
damages would not afford an adequate remedy. Unless Government Subscriber is an
office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota,
Government Subscriber shall be liable to the Court, SCAO, SCAO's licensors, and DCA
for reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the Court, SCAO, SCAO's licensors, and DCA
in obtaining any relief pursuant to this Agreement.
10. COMPROMISE LIABILITY. Government Subscriber and the Court agree that, except
as otherwise expressly provided herein, each party will be responsible for its own acts
and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the
acts of any others and the results thereof. Liability shall be governed by applicable law.
Without limiting the foregoing, liability of the Court and any Government Subscriber that
is an office, officer, agency, department, division, or bureau of the state of Minnesota
shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota
Statutes, section 3.376, and other applicable law. Without limiting the foregoing, if
Government Subscriber is a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota, liability of the
Subscriber shall be governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Ch. 466 (Tort Liability,
Political Subdivisions) or other applicable law.
11. AVAILABILITY. Specific terms of availability shall be established by the Court and
set forth in the Polices & Notices. The Court reserves the right to terminate this
Agreement immediately and/or temporarily suspend Government Subscriber's approved
Court Data Services in the event the capacity of any host computer system or legislative
appropriation of funds is determined solely by the Court to be insufficient to meet the
computer needs of the courts served by the host computer.system. Monthly fees, if any,
shall be prorated only for periods of suspension or upon termination of this Agreement.
12. ADDITIONAL USER OBLIGATIONS. The obligations of the Government
Subscriber set forth in this section are in addition to the other obligations of the
Government Subscriber set forth elsewhere in this Agreement.
12.1 Judicial Policy Statement. Government Subscriber agrees to comply with all
policies identified in applicable Policies & Notices. Upon failure of the
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data P vi of G
for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Government Subscriber to comply with such policies, the Court shall have the
option of immediately suspending or terminating the Government Subscriber's
Court Data Services on a temporary basis and/or immediately terminating this
Agreement.
12.2 Access and Use; Log.
12.2.1 Government Subscriber shall be responsible for all access to and use of
Court Data Services, Court Records, and Court Documents by
Government Subscriber's Individual Users or by means of Government
Subscriber's equipment or passwords, whether or not Government
Subscriber has knowledge of or authorizes such access and use.
12.2.2 Government Subscriber shall also maintain a log identifying all persons to
whom Government Subscriber has disclosed its Court Confidential
Security and Activation Information, such as user ID(s) and password(s),
including the date of such disclosure. Government Subscriber shall
maintain such logs while this Agreement is in effect and for a period of
one (1) year following termination of this Agreement. Government
Subscriber shall promptly provide the Court with access to, and copies of,
such logs upon request.
12.2.3 The Court may conduct audits of Government Subscriber's logs and use of
Court Data Services, Court Records, and Court Documents from time to
time. Upon Government Subscriber's failure to maintain such logs, to
maintain accurate logs, or to promptly provide access by the Court to such
logs, the Court may terminate this Agreement without prior notice to
Government Subscriber.
12.3 Personnel. Government Subscriber agrees to investigate, at the request of the
Court, allegations of misconduct pertaining to Government Subscriber's
Individual Users having access to or use of Court Data Services, Court
Confidential Information, or trade secret information of the SCAO and its
licensors where such persons violate the provisions of this Agreement, Policies &
Notices, Judicial Branch policies, or other security requirements or laws
regulating access to the Court Records. Government Subscriber agrees to notify
the Court of the results of such investigation.
13. FEES; INVOICES; FEES DURING PILOT PROGRAM.
13.1 Fees and Invoices. Applicable monthly fees commence ten(10) days after notice
of the Court's approval of this Agreement or upon the initial Government
Subscriber transaction as defined in the Policies & Notices, whichever occurs
earlier. When fees apply, the State shall invoice Government Subscriber on a
monthly basis for charges incurred in the preceding month and applicable taxes,if
any, and payment of all amounts shall be due upon receipt of invoice. If all
amounts are not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice, the Court
may immediately cancel this Agreement without notice to Government Subscriber
and pursue available el remedies, charges Subscriber
funds h ave been p p p iatdfor the payment of undethis Agreement
for the current fiscal year, if applicable.
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services
12 for
G
r Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page
13.2 Fees During Pilot Program. During the initial phase of the access to Court
Documents pilot program, the State will not charge Government Subscriber for
access to Court Documents. The State may charge Government Subscriber for
access to Court Documents at a later date.
14. MODIFICATION OF FEES. SCAO may modify the fees by amending the Policies &
Notices as provided herein, and the modified fees shall be effective on the date specified
in the Policies & Notices, which shall not be less than thirty (30) days from the
publication of the Policies & Notices. Government Subscriber shall have the option of
accepting such changes or terminating this Agreement as provided in section 1 hereof.
15. WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS.
15.1 WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AND
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED HEREIN, COURT, SCAO, SCAO'S LICENSORS,
AND DCA MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, NOR
ARE ANY WARRANTIES TO BE IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE
INFORMATION, SERVICES OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS MADE
AVAILABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
15.2 ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS AND AVAILABILITY OF
INFORMATION. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, COURT, SCAO, SCAO'S LICENSORS, AND
DCA MAKE NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COURT
RECORDS. THE COURT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY COURT RECORDS OR
COURT DOCUMENTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH COURT DATA
SERVICES DUE TO COMPUTER OR NETWORK MALFUNCTION,
MISTAKE OR USER ERROR.
16. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. Government Subscriber is an independent
contractor and shall not be deemed for any purpose to be an employee, partner, agent or
franchisee of the Court, SCAO, SCAO'S licensors, or DCA. Neither Government
Subscriber nor the Court, SCAO, SCAO'S licensors, or DCA shall have the right nor the
authority to assume, create or incur any liability or obligation of any kind, express or
implied, against or in the name of or on behalf of the other.
17. NOTICE. Except as provided in Clause 2 regarding notices of or modifications to Court
Data Services and Policies & Notices, and in Clauses 13 and 14 regarding notices of or
modification of fees, any notice to Court or Government Subscriber hereunder shall be
deemed to have been received when personally delivered in writing or seventy-two (72)
hours after it has been deposited in the United States mail, first class, proper postage
prepaid, addressed to the party to whom it is intended at the address set forth on page one
of this Agreement or at such other address of which notice has been given in accordance
herewith.
18. NON-WAIVER. The failure by either Party at any time to enforce any of the provisions
of this Agreement or any right or remedy available hereunder or at law or in equity, or to
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data P vi 3 o G
for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12, 2012
exercise any option herein provided, shall not constitute a waiver of such provision,
remedy or option or in any way affect the validity of this Agreement. The waiver of any
default by either Party shall not be deemed a continuing waiver, but shall apply solely to
the instance to which such waiver is directed.
19. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party shall be responsible for failure or delay in the
performance of their respective obligations hereunder caused by acts beyond their
reasonable control.
20. SEVERABILITY. Every provision of this Agreement shall be construed, to the extent
possible, so as to be valid and enforceable. If any provision of this Agreement so
construed is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise
unenforceable, such provision shall be deemed severed from this Agreement, and all
other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
21. ASSIGNMENT AND BINDING EFFECT. Except as otherwise expressly permitted
herein, neither Party may assign, delegate and/or otherwise transfer this Agreement or
any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and
their respective successors and assigns, including any corporation or other legal entity
into, by or with which Government Subscriber may be merged, acquired or consolidated
or which may purchase the entire assets of Government Subscriber.
22. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall in all respects be governed by and
interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States and
of the State of Minnesota.
23. VENUE AND JURISDICTION. Any action arising out of or relating to this
Agreement, its performance, enforcement or breach will be venued in a state or federal
court situated within the State of Minnesota. Government Subscriber hereby irrevocably
consents and submits itself to the personal jurisdiction of said courts for that purpose.
24. INTEGRATION. This Agreement sets forth the entire Agreement and understanding
between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior
representations, statements, proposals, negotiations, discussions, understandings, or
agreements regarding the same subject matter. Except as otherwise expressly provided in
Clause 2 regarding Court Data Services and Policies &Notices, and in Clauses 13 and 14
regarding fees, any amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing
signed by both Parties.
25. MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES ACT APPLICABILITY. If Government
Subscriber is a Minnesota Government entity that is subject to the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, Government Subscriber
acknowledges and agrees that: (1) the Court is not subject to Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 (see
section 13.90)but is subject to the Rules of Public Access and other rules promulgated by
the Minnesota Supreme Court; (2) Minn. Stat. section 13.03, subdivision 4(e) requires
that Government Subscriber comply with the Rules of Public Access and other rules
promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court for access to Court Records provided
under this Agreement; (3) the use of and access to Court Records may be restricted by
rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, applicable state statute or federal
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page 14 of 15
314-- lip
law; and (4) these applicable restrictions must be followed in the appropriate
circumstances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have, by their duly authorized officers, executed
this Agreement in duplicate, intending to be bound thereby.
1. GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIBER 2. THE COURT
Government Subscriber must attach
documented verification of authority
to sign on behalf of and bind the
entity, such a council resolution,
board authority or legally binding
decision maker and attach same as
Exhibit C.
By By
(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)
Date Date
Name (typed) Name (typed) Mark Moore
Title Title CIO/Director
Information Technology
Division of State Court
Office Office Administration
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services fo 15
for Governmental Agencies—Revised October 12,2012
Page 15
MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT FOR MPA MY CASE
THIS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT is entered into by and between
6 i V
(Government Subscriber Name/Name of Entity)
of 70t, PO 2rX4 AV O: s AeP1 1 , fl" -
(Government Subscriber• ddress)
(hereinafter "Government Subscriber") and THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Office of State Court Administration
(Judicial District OR Office.of State Court Administration)
of 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
(Address)
(hereinafter "the Court").
Recitals
This Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for MPA My Case ("Amendment") modifies
and supplements the Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for
Governmental Agencies between Government Subscriber and the Court ("Agreement"). This
Amendment provides the framework for Government Subscriber's Individual Users access to
MPA My Case. MPA My Case provides certain, qualified individual users with web-based
access to Court Records and Court Documents in cases where they qualify for access.
Amendment
The Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental
Agencies is modified and supplemented by the addition of the following provisions:
1. DEFINITIONS. The definitions of the Agreement are incorporated herein.
1.1 "MNCIS MPA" means the web-based software that provides remote Internet
access to electronic records in MNCIS.
1.2 "MPA My Case" means a MNCIS MPA login account that provides
Government Subscriber's Individual Users with access to Court Records and
Court Documents in cases where they qualify for access. [Individual Users that
qualify for MPA My Case access are currently limited as described in Clause 1.3
of this Amendment.] Government Subscriber's Individual Users will be provided
with logins to access their MPA My Case accounts.
Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for MPA My Case—Pevi�doOctober 12, 2012
1.3 "MPA My Case Hennepin County Pilot" means the pilot MPA My Case
program being tested in Hennepin County Adult Criminal Courts. Under the
MPA My Case Hennepin County Pilot, qualified Government Subscriber's
Individual Users will be limited to government attorneys and contract attorneys
who practice in Hennepin County Criminal Court proceedings on behalf of
Government Subscriber, and other office staff. During the initial phase of the
Hennepin County Pilot, the State will not charge Government Subscriber or
Government Subscriber's Individual Users for access to MPA My Case. The
State may charge for access to MPA My Case at a later date.
2. DATA ACCESS SERVICES PROVIDED TO GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIBER'S
INDIVIDUAL USERS. This clause modifies Clause 3 of the Agreement. Following
execution of the Agreement and this Amendment by both parties, Government
Subscriber's Individual Users who qualify for access must sign the"MPA My Case"
User Acknowledgement form to be granted the access through the MNCIS MPA
application to the extent described in this clause.
2.1 MPA My Case Hennepin County Pilot Access.
2.1.1 Hennepin County Access. In the MPA My Case Hennepin County Pilot,
Government Subscriber's Individual Users who are listed in MNCIS as
counsel of record or an active attorney for a party and other office staff,
who have signed the"MPA My Case"User Acknowledgement form, may
access and use certain Court Records and Court Documents in Hennepin
County adult criminal cases only for a"Legitimate Governmental
Business Need"as defined in the Agreement. Such access and use of
Court Documents in their cases will be limited to Court documents that
have been assigned the following security classifications: Publicl,
Public2, Public2 Citation, Confidentiall, and Confidential2. Such access
and use will not include Court Documents that have the security
classification Sealedl.
2.1.2 Statewide Access. In the MPA My Case Hennepin County Pilot,
Government Subscriber's Individual Users who have signed the"MPA
My Case"User Acknowledgement form may also access and use Court
Records and, as they become available, certain Court Documents, in all
public cases, statewide, only for a"Legitimate Governmental Business
Need" as defined in the Agreement. Such access and use will be limited
to Court Documents in public cases as they become available with the
Publicl security classification.
2.2 MPA My Case Access. [Access provided to MPA My Case users outside of the
Hennepin County Pilot is reserved.]
3. AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO MPA MY CASE.
3.1 Access for Government Subscriber's Individual User Alone. Individual Users
Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for MPA My Case—PagRevised 2012
2 of 4 12, 201
9 - I
who are granted access to cases through MPA My Case will be provided with a
login account and password if they are attorneys. Individual Users, in the
attorney's office,who work with the attorney shall have access through that
attorney's login and password.
3.2 Notice When a Government Subscriber's Individual User should no Longer
Receive MPA My Case Access. Individual Users that no longer work for
Government Subscriber, or who no longer need MPA My Case to fulfill a
"Legitimate Governmental Business Need" as defined in the Agreement, should
not have MPA My Case access. Government Subscriber shall immediately notify
the Court whenever an Individual User no longer works for Government
Subscriber or no longer needs MPA My Case access to fulfill a"Legitimate
Governmental Business Need" as defined in the Agreement.
4. WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS. The warranty disclaimers listed in Clause 15 of the
Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental
Agencies is modified to include the following. THE COURT IS NOT LIABLE FOR
ANY COURT RECORDS OR COURT DOCUMENTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH
MPA MY CASE DUE TO COMPUTER OR NETWORK MALFUNCTION, MISTAKE
OR USER ERROR. THE COURT MAKES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE
COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE COURT RECORDS AND COURT
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED THROUGH MPA MY CASE.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY INDIVIDUALS WITH ACCESS TO COURT
RECORDS AND COURT DOCUMENTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. Pursuant
to Clause 7 of the Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for
Governmental Agencies, Government Subscriber's Individual Users are required to sign
an Authorization Form before being provided access to Court Data. For MPA My Case,
Government Subscriber's Individual Users are required to sign an MPA My Case specific
Acknowledgment Form before being provided access to a MPA My Case account.
Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for MPA My Case—Revised October 12,2012
Page 3 of 4
op
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have, by their duly authorized officers, executed
this Agreement in duplicate, intending to be bound thereby.
1. GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIBER 2. THE COURT
Government Subscriber must attach
documented verification of authority
to sign on behalf of and bind the
entity, such as a council resolution,
board authority or legally binding
decision maker and attach same as
Exhibit C.
By By
(SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE)
Date Date
Name(typed) Name(typed) Mark Moore
Title Title CIO/Director
Information Technology
Division of State Court
Office Office Administration
Master Subscriber Agreement Amendment for MPA My Case—PagRevised
4 of 4tober 12,2012
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3L
REPORT# 220
warAll STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: AMY DUSEK,POLICE COMMUNITY
LIAISON
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: EjV �� 1 /
�.1.'
fr SIGNATURE 1
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Council approval of resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department's acceptance of a
$3000 grant from the Target Corporation, $500 donation from Modern Manufacturing &
Engineering, INC, $200 donation from Broadway Pizza and personal donations in the amounts
of$250, $150 and $58.58.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the Public Safety Department's acceptance of a
$3000 grant from the Target Corporation, $500 donation from Modern
Manufacturing & Engineering, INC, $200 donation from Broadway
Pizza and personal donations in the amounts of $250, $150 and
$58.58.
II. BACKGROUND
The Public Safety Department was invited by Target to apply for their 2012
Community Giving Grant due to "outstanding work in the community." Since 1946,
Target has given 5% of their income to the communities in which they do business.
Notification was received that the City of Richfield/Department of Public Safety was
approved to receive $3000 from the Target Corporation. In addition, notification was
received from Modern Manufacturing & Engineering, Broadway Pizza and other
private donors of their intent to make monetary donations to the City of
Richfield/Department of Public Safety in an amount that totals $1158.58 for a total
of$4158.58.
121112 Resolution Accepting Grant from Target Corporation, MME, Lisalan Thai and Mary Lien-
Wimpling
These donations are being used to fund the Heroes & Helpers event (formerly Shop
with a Cop). The program began in 2009 and so far has assisted 14 families in
Richfield. Funded by local businesses and the public, the program is an invaluable
tool in helping police officers build a positive bond with people throughout the
Richfield community.
Community Organizations, Police/Multicultural Advisory Committee and the Police
Department choose families in need in the Richfield area. The children of those
families are brought to the police department where they meet the officer who will
be their shopping partner. They then go to the Richfield Super Target store where,
with guidance from the officer, they buy gifts for parents, siblings, family members
and one gift for themselves. After shopping, the kids are brought back to the police
station and fed a pizza dinner. Then the officers and community volunteers help the
kids wrap their presents.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated
for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole.
• The grant money will be used by Public Safety towards Shop with A
Cop.
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor
be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City
Council.
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to
departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds
majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute
465.03.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The grant money will be used to purchase Target gift cards and
supplies for the Heroes & Helpers (formerly Shop with A Cop) event.
C. FINANCIAL
• The amount that Richfield Public Safety will receive from is $4158.58.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• Council could disapprove of the acceptance of grant monies and the funds
would have to be returned to all the donors; Target Corporation, Modern
Manufacturing & Engineering, INC, Broadway Pizza and private donors.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
3L- I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO
ACCEPT THE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP GRANT OF $3000 FROM TARGET
CORPORATION, $500 FROM MME, $150 FROM LISALAN THAI AND $250 FROM
MARY LIEN-WIMPLING, $200 FROM BROADWAY PIZZA, $58.58 FROM DONATION
JAR LOCATED AT BROADWAY PIZZA TO BE USED FOR THE POLICE "HEROES &
HELPERS (FORMERLY SHOP WITH A COP)" EVENT
WHEREAS, Richfield Public Safety Department/Police was invited to apply for a
Target Grant and has been awarded $3,000 to be used as approved by the grant
agreement which has designated the funds to be used for community engagement
programs; and,
WHEREAS, Richfield Police Department has received $500 from Modern
Manufacturing & Engineering, Inc.; and,
WHEREAS, Richfield Police Department has received $250 from Kevin Wimpling
and Mary Lien-Wimpling; and,
WHEREAS, Richfield Police Department has received $150 from Lisalan Thai;
and,
WHEREAS, Richfield Police Department has received $200 from Broadway Pizza
and $58.58 from private donations at that location
WHEREAS, the Richfield Police has designated the $4158.58 to be used to fund
the Department's "Heroes & Helpers (formerly Shop with a Cop)" program:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield, Public Safety
Department will accept funds designated for police programs in accordance to and as
listed above.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3M
REPORT# 221
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: TODD SANDELL, DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC SAFETY/CHIEF OF POLICE
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
12(
REVIEW: �� 1
SIGNATU de,REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: AAIralifil ( ,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Council approval of a resolution for a grant from the Office of Justice Programs for bulletproof
vests in the amount of$5,949.93.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution accepting the following
grant:
1. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs has
awarded $5,949.93 grant for the purchase of bulletproof vests to
Richfield Police.
II. BACKGROUND
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs through their Bulletproof
Vest Partnership/Body Armor Safety Initiative (BVP), created by the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 1998, is designed to provide a critical resource to state and
local law enforcement.
The U.S. Dept. of Justice is committed to improving officer safety and has
undertaken research to review and analyze violent encounters and law enforcement
officer deaths and injuries. Richfield Police has been chosen to receive a grant of
$5,949.93 for the purpose of providing compliant armored vests to their officers.
102511 Resolution for Vest Grant from the U.S. Department of Justice.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or
devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor
be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City
Council.
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to
departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two-
thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota
Statute 465.03.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• The Bulletproof Vest Partnership requires that the vests are ordered
on or after April 1, 2012, and a deadline to request payments from the
FY 2012 award funds is August 31, 2013 or until all available FY 2012
funds have been exhausted.
C. FINANCIAL
• The grant total is $5,949.93 for the Bulletproof Vests.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could deny acceptance of the grant; however, the contributions
would be beneficial to the Richfield Police Department.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution to accept the Office of Justice grant bulletproof vests.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
3M - I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND RICHFIELD POLICE FOR BULLETPROOF
VESTS
WHEREAS, officer line-of-duty deaths increased by 37% in 2010 and 59 of the 160
officers killed that year were shot during violent encounters; and,
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice is committed to improving officer safety
and has undertaken research to review and analyze violent encounters and law
enforcement officer deaths and injuries; and
WHEREAS, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) was created by the Bulletproof
Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 and is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative
designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement; and,
WHEREAS, Richfield Police has been informed that a grant has been awarded to
the department by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs under their
Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program, for $5,949.93 for the purchase of ballistic
vests; and,
WHEREAS, the BVP grant is under the Fiscal Year 2012 BVP awards, allowing
purchases beginning on or after April 1, 2012 until August 31, 2014, or until all available
2012 award funds have been requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that the Public Safety Department and the Director of Public Safety/Chief of
Police will enter into an agreement to receive grant money for Richfield's bulletproof vest
expenditures as outlined in the agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3N
REPORT# 222
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TODD SANDELL ,PUBLIC
REPORT PREPARED BY: SAFETY DIRECTOR/POLICE
CHIEF
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR /
REVIEW: t`
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY /
r / w i
MANAGER: ,, J,Irc L' .4/ Y 1
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Council approval of attached resolution authorizing the Public Safety Department/Police
Division to accept donation from Alerus Mortgage.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve attached resolution allowing the Public Safety
Department/Police to accept $100 donation from Alerus Mortgage,
given in the name of a City resident.
II. BACKGROUND
Public Safety/Police received a letter from Jody Grieger, a Mortgage Banker with
Alerus Mortgage. She indicated that Alerus was making a donation to the Police
Department through their "Refer a friend: Build your community" program that
makes a donation to the group designated by their client at the time of loan closing.
Ryan Ricard, Richfield resident, who is a client of Alerus asked that a donation be
made to the Richfield Police Department. A copy of the letter received form Alerus
is attached.
In 2007 and 2010, previous residents asked that Alerus (formerly Residential
Mortgage Group) make their donation to Richfield Public Safety/Police and there
were no problems involved with the acceptance of the funds.
121112 Resolution accepting donation from Alerus Mortgage
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Businesses, organizations and occasionally residents are proud of the
law enforcement programs and accomplishments in Richfield because
the programs and quality of service add to their sense of safety and
security as they live and work in Richfield. To ensure that programs
continue, they will offer to contribute to specified areas, such as
protective vests for officers or a K-9 unit.
• Public Safety does not accept financial support unless it is designated
for a specific program that will affect the department as a whole.
• Minnesota statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or a
devise of real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor
be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City
Council.
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on
November 9, 2004, requiring that all grants and restricted donation to
departments be received by resolution and more than two-thirds
majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute
465.03.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The $100 donation will be placed in the Compliance fund to be used
towards the purchase of bullet proof vests for police officers.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Council could deny the resolution and the funds would be returned to Alerus
Mortgage. However, donations were given in 2007 and 2010 under this
program and it was acceptable.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution no.
• Letter from Alerus Mortgage to Richfield Police.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RICHFIELD PUBLIC
SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT A DONATION OF $100 FROM ALERUS MORTGAGE
IN THE NAME OF RICHFIELD RESIDENT RYAN RICARD.
WHEREAS, the Public Safety Department/Police Division, through its Director,
received a check form the company Alerus Mortgage, in the amount of$100 designated
to Richfield Police; and,
WHEREAS, Alerus Mortgage has a charitable donation program in which they
donate funds to Second Harvest Heartland, a school, police or fire department in the
community of and in the name of their clients at their loan closing; and,
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of
real or personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of
more than two-thirds majority of the City Council;
WHEREAS, the donated funds will be used towards the purchase of equipment
for Richfield police officers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Director of Public Safety will
accept the donation of$100 from Alerus Mortgage in the name of Richfield resident
Ryan Ricard to be placed in the Compliance fund account and used to purchase
equipment for the police officers.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
S
MORTGAGE E
August 2012
Richfield Police Department
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Richfield Police Department,
Alerus Mortgage has a charitable donation initiative program called "Refer a friend. Build your
community."TM We are extremely excited about this exclusive initiative.
Enclosed you will find a check payable to your organization. Our client or referral source has
selected your group to be a beneficiary in conjunction with their loan closing with us.
Congratulations! We hope there will be more to come. Listed below is the name of the donor
that has selected you.
Ryan Ricard
7127 Logan Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55423
As our letter indicates, every loan that Alerus Mortgage closes can result in up to $100 donated
to Second Harvest Heartland, the school, police or fire department in their local community. To
date, we have donated more than $915,000 dollars for this program. We believe everyone in our
communities will benefit. Call us if you have any additional questions about how this program
works.
Sincerely,
air
Jody Grieger
Mortgage Banker
952.417.8483
jody@jodyloans.com
www.jodyloans.com
Enclosures
cc: Ryan Ricard
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 30
REPORT# 223
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
PAM DMYTRENKO
REPORT PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/HR
MANAGER
NAME,AGE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
mow!' ! SIGNATU✓ , I
REVIEWED BY CITY Efi/z - '
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolutions amending the 2012-2013 labor agreements with the 911
Dispatchers LELS Local 225, Police Officers & Detectives, LELS Local 123 and Police
Supervisors LELS Local 162.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolutions designating an increase in the
City's contribution toward health and dental insurance premiums,
effective January 1, 2013, for the 911 Dispatchers LELS Local 225,
Police Officers & Detectives, Local 123 and the Police Supervisors
LELS Local 162.
II. BACKGROUND
City staff has successfully completed labor negotiations with all three labor unions
which currently have 2-year agreements (2012-2013). The unions with 2012-2013
contracts are: 911 Dispatchers LELS Local 225, Police Officers & Detectives LELS
Local 123 and Police Supervisors LELS Local 162. Under the terms and conditions
of all three contracts, insurance was to be reopened for 2013.
Subject to Council approval, the tentatively approved settlement with each of the
three unions provides identical health insurance benefits resulting in a $35 increase
to the Employer health insurance contribution for contract year 2013. Specifically,
the provisions provide a maximum up to $691.50 per month for Employee only
12112012Health insurance reopener 2013
coverage, $950 per month for Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren)
coverage, and $1,000 per month for Employee plus family coverage.
Additionally, the proposal increases the Employer contribution towards dental
insurance to a maximum of$45 per month for Employee single dental coverage.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the three unions
and its representatives and is bound under the terms of the Public
Employer's Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms
and conditions of employment.
• The proposed settlement for the re-opener provision is identical in
health and dental insurance provisions provided to non-union City
employees. The City has a long history of providing the same level of
health and dental insurance benefits to all eligible City employees.
• The health insurance increase is well within the range for other
comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities. The City has a
long history of trying to remain as close to the middle as possible of
the Stanton 5 cities in terms of wages and benefits.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• In order to allow the City's accounting personnel the ability to modify
payroll records in a timely manner for 2013 benefits, it is
recommended that the City Council act on December 11, 2012 to
adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes. The
health and dental insurance benefits are effective January 1, 2013.
C. FINANCIAL
• Up to a maximum $35 per month increase in the City's contribution
towards the employee's health insurance coverage.
• Up to a maximum $5 per month increase in the City's contribution
towards single dental insurance coverage.
D. LEGAL
• If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation
and/or mediation will be necessary.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• NA
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further
negotiation and/or mediation.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolutions
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS
FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES LOCAL 225
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 225
signed a bargaining agreement covering a two year period from January 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment
including the City contribution for health insurance benefits; and
WHEREAS, Article 25 of the labor agreement provides for either party to amend the
provisions in Article 17, Insurance; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same level of health insurance
contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine, by resolution, the City's
contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute up to a
maximum of$691.50 per month for employee only health insurance coverage, $950 per
month for employee plus spouse or employee plus child(ren) health insurance coverage, and
$1,000 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall not
exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. Such contributions
shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2013; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of$45 per
month for employee single dental insurance. Such contribution shall be for coverage
effective January 1, 2013.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
3O - a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS
FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES LOCAL 162
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 162
signed a bargaining agreement covering a two year period from January 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment
including the City contribution for health insurance benefits; and
WHEREAS, Article 26 of the labor agreement provides for either party to amend the
provisions in Article 17, Insurance; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same level of health insurance
contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine, by resolution, the City's
contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute up to a
maximum of$691.50 per month for employee only health insurance coverage, $950 per
month for employee plus spouse or employee plus child(ren) health insurance coverage, and
$1,000 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall not
exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. Such contributions
shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2013; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of$45 per
month for employee single dental insurance. Such contribution shall be for coverage
effective January 1, 2013.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
3 D - �
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
TOWARDS HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS
FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES LOCAL 123
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 123
signed a bargaining agreement covering a two year period from January 1, 2012 through
December 31, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment
including the City contribution for health insurance benefits; and
WHEREAS, Article 28 of the labor agreement provides for either party to amend the
provisions in Article 16, Insurance; and
WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same level of health insurance
contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine, by resolution, the City's
contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute up to a
maximum of$691.50 per month for employee only health insurance coverage, $950 per
month for employee plus spouse or employee plus children) health insurance coverage, and
$1,000 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall not
exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. Such contributions
shall be for coverage effective January 1, 2013; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of$45 per
month for employee single dental insurance. Such contribution shall be for coverage
effective January 1, 2013.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM# 3P
REPORT# 224
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR , I
REVIEW: I
s
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the renewal of 2013 licenses for on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor, off-sale 3.2
percent malt liquor, taxi companies, and rental of trailer and trucks doing business in Richfield.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
• Approve the 2013 renewal of named business licenses for on-
sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
establishments doing business in Richfield.
• Approve the 2013 renewal of named business licenses for taxi
companies doing business in Richfield.
• Approve the 2013 renewal of named business license for rental
of trailers and trucks doing business in Richfield.
II. BACKGROUND
The below listed businesses have not been required to have a staff report prepared
in the past, nor is there a requirement for a public hearing to be held for renewal of
these type of licenses.
Staff presented a report for each business at the time that they originally applied for
and received Council approval to operate their business or to sell on-sale 3.2
percent malt liquor and off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor at their businesses in the
City of Richfield.
121112 Consent
The listed businesses will expire on December 31, 2012.
The businesses named below with the corresponding licenses are presented for
Council approval on this date.
Licenses to Operate in Richfield
• Airport Taxi — 11 vehicles
• A New.Star Taxi and Limousine Service — 5 vehicles
• Suburban Taxi — 5 vehicles
• Gold Star Taxi — 8 vehicles
• Latino Express — 10 vehicles
• Continental Taxi, LLC — 5 vehicles
• American Travel — 5 vehicles
• Twin Cities Airport Taxi — 5 vehicles
• Latino Americano Express — 8 vehicles
• White Star Taxi — 3 vehicles
Licenses to operate Trailer and Truck Rental
• Paul's Rentals & Sales: Trailer and truck rental.
Licenses to sell 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor
• Aldi Foods — Off-Sale
• El Jalapeno — Off-Sale
• Portland Food Mart— Off-Sale
• RBF Corporation of Wisconsin (Rainbow Foods) — Off-Sale
• Richfield U.S. (Gas station 67th & Penn) — Off-Sale
• SuperAmerica #4186 — Off-Sale
• SuperAmerica #4188 — Off-Sale
• SuperAmerica #4191 — Off-Sale
• SuperAmerica #4615 — Off-Sale
• Target Corporation — Off-Sale
• Sandy's Tavern — On-Sale
• Vina Restaurant— On-Sale
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• All businesses must annually request renewal of their 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses to the City Council.
• Businesses must meet the set requirements for renewal of their
licenses.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• All license fees must be paid and application forms submitted in order
to be considered for license renewal.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Deny the request for the renewal of 2013 licenses for on-sale 3.2 percent
malt liquor, off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor, taxi companies, and rental of
trailers and trucks doing business in Richfield. This would result in the
applicants not being able to conduct business within the City in 2013.
However, there have been no issues with any of these establishments and
the Public Safety Department has found no reason to deny any of the
requested licenses.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None; however, businesses have been notified of the date of presentation to
the City Council.
AGENDA SECTION: ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM# 5
REPORT# 225
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: JOHN STARK, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
01, / SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
M
A -
ANAGER.
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Second reading and summary publication of an amendment to Richfield City Code Appendix D
(Fee Schedule).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion:
1) Approve the attached ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code
Appendix D (Fee Schedule).
2) Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication
of an ordinance amending Richfield City Code Appendix D (Fee
Schedule).
II. BACKGROUND
City staff conducts an annual review of Richfield's City Code Appendix D, which
establishes certain fees related to Building Permits and Fees, Land Use Application
Fees and Fire Services Fees. The intent is to ensure that fees charged for City
services reflect actual staff costs incurred in providing those services without being
onerous or excessive.
Staff is recommending that fees be added for:
• Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, and;
• Extension of Land Use Approvals.
12112012 Ordinance Fees
A fair amount of staff time is incurred in granting the issuance of a Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy. This time is spent ensuring that essential life-safety items
are addressed before allowing a building to be temporarily occupied and in
developing a punch list of outstanding items and monitoring completion of those
items. The proposed fee is $200 plus a letter of credit or cash escrow equal to
125% of the remaining City Code requirements.
In the event that a property or business owner obtains a land use approval but does
not actually begin work on their project before that approval expires (typically 1 year
following City Council or similar action), staff must bring the approval back to policy
makers for an extension. There is staff time involved in researching any changes in
law, policy or proposal that have occurred since the original approval and in writing
staff reports and attending meetings related to the extension. The proposed Land
Use Extension Fee is $125. Staff is suggesting that the existing Variance Extension
Fee ($75) be eliminated and that the newly proposed fee apply to Variances as well
as other Land Use Approval Extensions.
The only other proposed fee revisions being proposed for Appendix D are to rescind
a 10% Plan Review Fee for a Plumbing Permit or a HVAC Permit for jobs in excess
of$50,000. These fees were specifically required by a contract for services with the
City of Bloomington for work that Richfield City staff now conducts in-house.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City staff works hard to provide excellent customer service to
residents and potential developers.
• Fees should be sufficient to cover the costs of providing permit-based
services without being onerous or excessive.
• Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be
established by ordinance.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• A first reading of this proposed Amendment was conducted by the
Richfield City Council on November 27, 2012.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City attempts to establish fees that appropriately reflect the City's
costs of administering the permit or application for which the fee is
charged.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• Approve the ordinance with changes.
• Reject the approved ordinance.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance
• Resolution Authorizing Summary Publication
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
- 1
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D
TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE
FOR CERTAIN PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background
1.01 Appendix D to the Richfield City Code consists of the schedule of fees adopted by
the City Council, including those adopted by resolution and those adopted by
Ordinance.
1.02 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.353 requires that certain fees be adopted by
Ordinance. The City Council has previously established certain fees by Transitory
Ordinance No. . The City Council has established other fees by resolution,
which resolution is also part of Appendix D.
1.03 The City Council has determined the need to update the schedule of fees under
Transitory Ordinance No. _
Section 2. Fee Schedule Adopted
2.01 The fees set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby adopted by Ordinance.
2.02 The fees adopted at Section 2.01 of this Ordinance shall be amended only by
Ordinance. Any fees established by resolution, other than those adopted at Section
2.01 of this Ordinance, may be amended from time to time by resolution of the City
Council.
Section 3. Effective date; codification.
3.01 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the City Charter.
3.02 A copy of this Ordinance shall be included in Appendix D to the Richfield City Code,
immediately prior to the resolution establishing fees.
3.03 This Ordinance supersedes Transitory Ordinance No.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES
A. Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit:
Investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without
first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such
work.
Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or
subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of the permit fee required by this
code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the minimum fee set forth in Section 2. The
payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of
this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.
B. Permit fee refunds:
The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no
work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when
an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any
plan reviewing is done.
The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the
original permitted not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $60.00
(minimum charge-two hours) per hour
(b) Reinspection fees $60.00
(minimum charge $35.00) per hour
(c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically $60.00
indicated (minimum charge-one-half hour) per hour
(d) Additional plan review required by changes, $60.00
additions or revision to plans(minimum charge- per hour
two hours)
(e) Fee to reissue building inspection record card $35.00
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision,
overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employee involved.
(1) Building Permits 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $35.00
(includes one inspection)
Each additional inspection $35.00
$501 to $2,000 $25.00 for the first $500 plus $3.25 each
additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and
including $2,000 with a minimum fee of
$35.00.
$2,001 to $25,000 $73.50 for the first$2,000 plus $14.75 for
each additional$1,000, or fraction thereof,
to and including$25,000.
$25,001 to $50,000 $415.75 for the first$25,000 plus$10.75
for each additional$1,000, or fraction
thereof,to and including$50,000.
BOLD represents added/amended fees
A-1
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
$50,001 to $100,000 $682.50 for the first$50,000 plus$7.50 for
each additional$1,000,or fraction thereof,
to and including$100,000.
$100,001 to$500,000 $1,053.50 for the first$100,000 plus$6.00
for each additional $1,000, or fraction
thereof,to and including$500,000.
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,427.75 for the first$500,000 plus$5.00
for each additional $1,000, or fraction
thereof,to and including$1,000,000.
1,000,001 and up $5,945.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus
$4.00 for each additional $1,000, or
fraction thereof.
(2) Driveway, Parking 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 35.00
Area Permits
(3) Swimming 420.00 Permanent or portable pools are based on building
permit fees with a minimum of $ 35.00
(4) Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09 35% of building permit fee for one and two family dwelling detached
garages and basement remodels
65%of building permit fee for all other building permits, except no fee for the
following:
(a) Existing single family dwelling minor nonstructural alterations.
(b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work.
(c) Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding
$1,000 or where plans are not required.
Plan review fee for Maximum 25% of permit fee based on Minnesota State Building Code
similar buildings 1300.0160
(5) Contractors License Charged once each time a contractor applies for $ 5.00
Verification Fee , permit(s)
(6) Moving- 845 Moving Permit Fee $ 50.00
Buildings
(7) Structure Demolition 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial
Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule
with a minimum of $ 50.00
(b) Dwelling
One or two story $ 50.00
Residential-Garage and lesser structure $ 35.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees
A-2
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(8) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Residential
Minimum Fee 2%of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 35.00
(includes one inspection)
Each additional inspection $ 35.00
(9) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 CommerciaUlndustrial/Multi-family Based on Total
Job cost
2%of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00
(includes one inspection)
Each additional inspection $ 35.00
$OA
(10) Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 Residential
(a) Minimum Fee which includes one inspection $ 35.00
(b) Each additional Inspection $ 35.00
(c) Complete Wiring Fee: $ 150.00
Single Family Dwelling and each dwelling unit of a two
family dwelling and includes not more than three
inspections.
(d) New Service-up to 200 amps $ 55.00
(e) Temporary Service-(for construction) $ 45.00
(0 installation, addition alteration, or repair of each
circuit or feeder $ 8.00
(g) Swimming pool or exterior hot tub $ 55.00
(11) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings
Commercial (more than two units)and Technology systems:Minimum Fee
which includes one inspection $ 45.00
Each additional inspection $ 35.00
(a) Based on total job cost
- 2%of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 45.00
- Over$50,000 - Fee/$1,000.00
plus 1 1/2% of cost over $50,000.00
(b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $ 185.00
(c) Fire Alarm: Based on 3/4% of cost of electrical job to
customer with a minimum of $ 45.00
(d) Carnivals,festivals and similar events
plus$35.00 for each service on generator $ 110.00
(12)Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer with a
Signs minimum of $ 45.00
(separate electrical permit required for signs)
(13)Residential 400.03-400.09 Central Systems and Additions,Alterations and Repairs
Heating, 1 1/2%estimated cost with a minimum of $ 35.00
Ventilating,Air (Includes one inspection)
Conditioning and Each additional inspection $ 35.00
Refrigeration
Commercial $ 45.00
Heating, Central Systems and Additions,Alterations and Repairs
Ventilating,Air 1 1/2%estimated cost with a minimum of
Conditioning and
Refrigeration
$69;A89:
(14)Sign Installation 415.01-415.11 (a) Temporary sign permit $ 35.00
(b) Permanent sign (any size) $ 100.00
Building permit is required for sign support structures Fees
based on building permit fee schedule
BOLD represents added/amended fees
A-3
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(15)Temporary 400 A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued $200.00 plus a
Certificate of before completion of the entire work covered by the letter of credit or
Occupancy permit, provided the Chief Building Official deems that cash escrow
the building is safe to occupy. equal to 125%of
the remaining
City Code
requirements
ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Planned Unit 542 (a) $500 plus$5/$1,000 of project value up to a
Development maximum fee of $ 3,500.00
(b) PUD Plan Amendment fee-major $ 550.00
(c) PUD Plan Amendment fee-minor $ 350.00
(2) Site Plan Review 547 (a) $500 plus$.50/$1,000 of project value to a
maximum fee of $ 3,500.00
(b) Major amendment $ 500.00
(c) Minor amendment $ 350.00
(3) Variance 547 Residential $ 250.00
Non Residential $ 450.00
Extension $ 00
Variance Appeal Residential and Non Residential $ 150.00
(4) Conditional Use 547 (a) $500 + $.50/$1,000 of project value to a maximum
Permit fee of $ 3,500.00
(b) Major amendment $ 500.00
(c) Minor amendment $ 350.00
(5) Interim Use Permit 547 $ 500.00
(6) *Zoning District 547 $ 500.00
Change
(7) *Subdivision Approval 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00
Subdivision Waiver
500.05-Subd.2 $ 350.00
(8) Street Vacation 820 $ 350.00
(9) Appeal to Board of 547 $ 350.00
Adj.&Appeals
(10)Special Request to $ 350.00
City Council
(11)Zoning Compliance $ 50.00
Letter
(12)Comprehensive Plan $ 600.00
Amend.
(13) Plat: preliminary& $ 500.00
final
(14)Sketch Plan Review $ 250.00
(15)Extension Extension of a Land Use Approval (rezoning, site $ 125.00
plan approval, conditional use permit, variance, etc.)
beyond its original approval period.
*Any additional expense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to the applicant.
BOLD represents added/amended fees
A-4
FIRE SERVICES FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(6) Fire Extinguishing Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a
System Permit minimum of: $ 50.00
Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee, except
no fee for the following:
(a)no charge for valuation of$1,000 or less
(7) Fire Alarm Systems Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a
minimum of: $ 50.00
Plan review fee: 65% of building permit fee, except no
fee for the following:
(a)no charge for valuation of$1,000 or less
(8) Flammable or Tanks (installation or modification $ 150.00
Combustible
Liquid or Gas Storage Installation or alteration of piping
Tanks Each unit or dispenser $ 50.00
and Piping
Underground Tank Removal $ 100.00/Tank
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(3) Antenna 426 (a)CWTS antenna permit application fee $ 100.00
Commercial Wireless (b)Antenna permit fee for additional antennas added to $ 35.00
Telecommunication an existing antenna location
Service(CWTS)
BOLD represents added/amended fees
A-5
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING APPENDIX D OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE (FEE SCHEDULE)
WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment of the Richfield
City Code; and
WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense
of publication of the complete text is not justified.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield
that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication:
SUMMARY PUBLICATION
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D OF THE RICHFIELD
CITY CODE (FEE SCHEDULE)
This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the
Richfield City Charter.
This ordinance makes the following changes to the City Code: Adds a Fee for the
Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, and; Adds a Fee for an Application for
an Extension of Land Use Approvals.
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.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 6A
REPORT# 226
=SAM STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: / , I '
Al 4'.. r���.►
SIGNAT(RE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:. , 4111•C:�_
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 pawnbroker and secondhand
goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 pawnbroker and secondhand
goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale
Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn
& Gun, Inc.
This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealers' 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/individual public hearing is called
for, 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 any one or all of the proposed
resolutions by a separate motion.
121112 Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• The $5,000 bond has been submitted.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Metro
Pawn & Gun in the previous year.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The Pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses will expire on December
31, 2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Sections 1186 and 1187 require owners of
pawnbroker and secondhand good dealer establishments to comply
with all of the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Metro Pawn & Gun staff
LOP
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR METRO PAWN & GUN, INC.
Officers:
Mark Nichols, Owner
Elizabeth Nichols, Owner
John Kunst, Store Manager
Criminal History:
Mark and Elizabeth Nichols are the owners of the establishment. John Kunst
continues to serve as the store manager. None of these individuals has any known
criminal record.
Premises:
The property is owned by Mark and Elizabeth Nichols.
Record of Service Calls:
There were ten Public Safety/Police contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc: from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with eight contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Routine Information:
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 Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
Directors and Officers
Mark William Nichols Owner
Elizabeth Marie Nichols Owner
John Alan Kunst Store Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc.
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 8 10
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 3 4
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (4)
Alarm (0) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 5 6
Assists (3) (6)
Traffic (1) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: One suspicious
person/activity, one received property, and two thefts.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 6B
REPORT# 227
raga STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR f ' '
REVIEW: k�t! I
�!Lu
if SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: __■ALA
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 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 2013 pawnbroker and secondhand
goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a
Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University
Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• The $5,000 bond has been submitted.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Avi's Pawn
& Jewelry in the previous year.
121112 Avi's Pawn & Jewelry
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The Pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses will expire on December
31, 2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Sections 1186 and 1187 require owners of
pawnbroker and secondhand good dealer establishments to comply
with all of the provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• N/A
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Avi's Pawn & Jewelry staff
O � I
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR UNIVERSITY CASH COMPANY LLC D/B/A AVI'S PAWN & JEWELRY
Officers:
Andy Strauss, Owner
Charles Hayes, Store Manager
Criminal History:
Andy Strauss is the owner of the establishment. Charles Hayes continues to serve
as the store manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record.
Premises:
The property is owned by L.N.S. Real Estate Partnership. The lease between the
applicant and the property owner is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were eight Public Safety/Police contacts with Avi's Pawn & Jewelry from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with four contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Routine Information:
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 Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
1013 -9-
Avi's Pawn & Jewelry
Directors and Officers
Andy Jason Strauss Owner
Charles John Hayes Store Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Avi's Pawn & Jewelry
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 4 8
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 3 4
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (3)
Alarm (0) (1)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 4
Assists (1) (3)
Traffic (0) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: One property
damage, one received property, one trespassing, and one alarm.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 7A
REPORT# 228
=IAA STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: - ''! P
S/GNA RE piff
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 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 Lakeshore Drive.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 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 Lakeshore Drive.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W.
Post No. 5555.
This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of club on-sale and
Sunday liquor sales. Of the remaining one, if no Council member objects, the
Council may conduct a single public hearing for the license approvals and may pass
both of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single/individual 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 any one or all of the proposed
resolutions by a separate motion.
121112 Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are paid and current.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. affording coverage. Workers' compensation
insurance has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 47.2% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 49.45% of the total sales. Miscellaneous sales
accounted for 3.35% of the total sales. The VFW is exempt from meeting the
code requirement that states that more than 50% of the business activities
must be related to the service of food due to the fact that they are a
club/veterans organization.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Fred
Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31, 2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of club on-sale and
Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the provisions of
both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain club on-sale and
Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• V.F.W. staff
7114- 1
U
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST NO. 5555
Officers:
Don Emond, House Committee Chair
Valerie Olson, General Manager
Criminal History:
Don Emond is the House Committee Chair of the organization and Valerie Olson
serves as the General Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known
criminal history.
Premises:
Gramarcy Park Cooperative is the owner of the property. The lease between the
applicant and the property owner is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 12 Public Safety/Police contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.
5555 from October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with 13 contacts
for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Fred
Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 was April 3, 2008.
Routine Information:
Club 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of club on-sale and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST NO. 5555
Directors and Officers
Don Emond House Committee Chair
Valerie Olson General Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 13 12
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 10 8
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (9) (4)
Alarm (1) (4)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 4
Assists (0) (2)
Traffic (2) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (2)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: two
drunkenness, two thefts, and four alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 7B
REPORT# 229
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD' CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: ,' �- '44 SIGNATU a�
'
REVIEWED BY CITY �,' ,
MANAGER: w1i
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 club on-sale and Sunday liquor
licenses for Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 club on-sale and Sunday liquor
licenses for Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501
Portland Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Mpls-Richfield American
Legion Post 435.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are paid and current.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Integrity Mutual Insurance Co. affording coverage. Workers' compensation
insurance has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 22.9% of the total sales, while
121112 American Legion
liquor accounted for 77.1% of the total sales. The Mpls-Richfield American
Legion is exempt from meeting the code requirement that states more than
50% of the business activities must be related to the service of food due to
the fact that they are a club/veterans organization.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding the Mpls-
Richfield American Legion for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31, 2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of club on-sale and
Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the provisions of
both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain club on-sale and
Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• American Legion staff
70-
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR MPLS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST 435
Officers:
Mervyn Becker, President
Dennis DeLong, Treasurer
Roger Wysong, On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
Mervyn Becker is the President of the organization and Dennis DeLong is the
Treasurer. Roger Wysong continues to serve as the On-Premise Manager. None of
these individuals has any known criminal history.
Premises:
The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 15 Public Safety/Police contacts with Mpls-Richfield American Legion
Post 435 from October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with 19
contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this
report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Mpls-
Richfield American Legion was March 19, 2010.
Routine Information:
Club 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of club on-sale and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
MPLS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION
Directors and Officers
Mervyn Becker President
Dennis DeLong Treasurer
Roger Wysong On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post 435
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 19 15
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 11 8
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (7) (5)
Alarm (4) (3)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 8 7
Assists (3) (3)
Traffic (4) (3)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (1)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: two thefts, one
fraud, one threat, one suspicious person/activity, and three alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 8A
REPORT# 230
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR I ' f /
REVIEW: u A &
SIGNATUR
REVIEWED BY CITY A
MANAGER: i�f�a 4hAl
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill/Colorado LLC, d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill, 7644
Lyndale Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor
licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill/Colorado LLC, d/b/a/ Chipotle
Mexican Grill, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 20, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle
Mexican Grill.
This agenda item is the first request out of seven for the renewal of on-sale wine
and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. Of the remaining six, 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/individual 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
any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion.
121112 Chipotle
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Safety
National Casualty Corporation 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 October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 92.56% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for .24% of the total sales. Miscellaneous sales accounted
for 7.2% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Chipotle
Mexican Grill for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicant would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Chipotle Staff
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL
Officers:
Montgomery Frederick Moran, LLC Manager- Boulder, Colorado
Matthew Steven Ellis, LLC Manager- Denver, Colorado
Brenda Rivera, On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
Montgomery Moran serves as the LLC Manager out of Boulder Colorado and
Matthew Ellis Serves as the LLC Manager out of Denver, Colorado. Brenda Rivera
continues to serve as the on-premise manager. None of these individuals has any
known criminal record.
Premises:
Lyndale Gateway, LLC is the owner of the property. The lease between the
applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 21 Public Safety/Police contacts with Chipotle Mexican Grill from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with 11 contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with
Chipotle Mexican Grill.
Routine Information:
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt 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 owners 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 22, 2012.
c6Pt"'2-
Chipotle Mexican Grill, LLC
Directors and Officers
Montgomery Moran LLC Manager— Boulder, Colorado
Matthew Ellis LLC Manager— Denver, Colorado
Brenda Riveria On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Chipotle Mexican Grill
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 11 21
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 9 13
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (7)
Alarm (4) (6)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 8
Assists (1) (3)
Traffic (0) (2)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (2)
Medical/Fire (1) (1)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: One crisis, two
property damage accidents, two noise complaints, one property damage hit & run, one
theft, and six alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 8B
REPORT# 231
riga STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR r'77-4.11 ( I '
REVIEW:
Lai:.J. •,..�..�
REVIEWED BY CITY ®
MANAGER: t .r
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 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 2013 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.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2012, the City received the 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.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing West
Bend Mutual Company affording the coverage. Workers' compensation
insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Fireside Pizza
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 90.89% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 9.11% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding
Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. for the previous year.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicant would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Richard Bruce Thompson, Owner
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR THOMPSON'S FIRESIDE PIZZA, INC.
Officers:
Richard Thompson, Owner
Criminal History:
Richard Bruce Thompson is the sole owner of the establishment and continues to
serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. He has no known criminal
record.
Premises:
Richard Bruce Thompson is the owner of the property.
Record of Service Calls:
There were four Public Safety/Police contacts with Fireside Pizza from October
2011 through September 2012. This compares with nine contacts for the previous
year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
Thompson's Fireside Pizza has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to
underage youth.
Routine Information:
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distantance 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 22, 2012.
S[3 — ass
Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc.
Directors and Officers
Richard Bruce Thompson Owner & On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc.
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 9 4
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 3 3
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (3)
Alarm (0) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 6 1
Assists (3) (1)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (3) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: one suspicious
persons/activity, one disturbance, and one theft.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 8C
REPORT# 232
=Ad STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 1,
REVIEW: lel ! I '
SIGNATURE I
REVIEWED BY CITY 27 %
MANAGER: <_
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2910 W.
66th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor
licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese
Restaurant, 2910 W. 66th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Red Pepper
Chinese Restaurant.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Truck
Insurance Exchange affording the coverage. Workers' compensation
insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Red Pepper
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 98.54% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 1.46% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Red
Pepper Chinese Restaurant for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicant would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Ricky Kiang, Owner
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR RED PEPPER CHINESE RESTAURANT
Officers:
Ricky Kiang, Owner
Criminal History:
Ricky Kiang serves as the President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer of
the establishment. Sui Fun Kiang continues to serve as the General Manager.
Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record.
Premises:
Principal Life Insurance Company is the owner of the property. The lease between
the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There was one Public Safety/Police contact with Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant
from October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with no contacts for
the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Red
Pepper Chinese Restaurant.
Routine Information:
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distantance 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 22, 2012.
Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant
Directors and Officers
Ricky Kiang President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer
Sui Fun Kiang General Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 0 1
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 0 1
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (1)
Alarm (0) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 0
Assists (0) (0)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contact from October 2011 through September 2012 was: One domestic.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 8D
REPORT# 233
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Isilf';REVIEW:
I SIC,, Ua-jr. ,
REVIEWED BY CITY �
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Cafe, 2928 W. 66th
Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Patrick's
Bakery & Cafe, 2928 W. 66th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Patrick's French
Bakery, Inc., d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Cafe.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Continental Casualty Company affording the coverage. Workers'
compensation insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Patrick's Bakery & Cafe
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 84.3% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 15.7% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Patrick's
Bakery & Cafe for the previous year.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicant would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Patrick Bernet, President
• Rafieh Bernet, Vice-President and On-Premise Manager
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR PATRICK'S BAKERY & CAFE
Officers:
Patrick Bernet, President
Rafieh Bernet, Vice-President and On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
Patrick and Rafieh Bernet are the owners of the establishment. Rafieh serves as
the General Manager of the restaurant. Neither Patrick nor Rafieh have any known
criminal record.
Premises:
Patrick Bernet is the owner of the property. Venture Bank and Wells Fargo are the
Mortgage Companies. All payments are current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were nine Public Safety/Police contacts with Patrick's Bakery & Cafe from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with 17 contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Patrick's
Bakery & Cafe was in June 2012.
Routine Information:
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distantance 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 22, 2012.
C6D_ d.
Patrick's Bakery & Cafe
Directors and Officers
Patrick Bernet President
Rafieh Bernet Vice-President and On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Patrick's Bakery & Cafe
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 17 9
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2 3
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (3)
Alarm (0) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 15 6
Assists (15) (3)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (3)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: three suspicious
persons/activity.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 8E
REPORT# 234
INMAN STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
REPORT PREPARED BY: MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
' /
/644,4 21111Lbri6.
��
SIGNATU"
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: � .
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for The Noodles Shop Co. -Colorado, Inc., d/b/a Noodles & Company, 7630
Lyndale Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for The Noodles Shop Co. -Colorado, Inc. d/b/a
Noodles & Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodles
Shop Co. -Colorado, d/b/a Noodles & Company.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America affording the coverage.
Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Noodles
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 99.56%of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for .44% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Noodles &
Company for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicant would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• David Carter, On-Premise Manager
� F- 1
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR NOODLES AND COMPANY
Officers:
Keith Joseph Kinsey, President and Secretary
Paul A. Strasen, Vice President
David Jamal Carter, On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
Keith Joseph Kinsey, President and Secretary, has no known criminal
history. Paul Strasen, Vice President, has no known criminal history. David
Jamal Carter, On-Premise Manager, has no known criminal history.
Premises:
Lyndale Gateway, LLC is the owner of the property. The lease between the
applicant and the landlord is in effect. All payments are current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 13 Public Safety/Police contacts with Noodles & Company from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with one contact for
the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with
Noodles & Company was April 13, 2007.
Routine Information:
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distant 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 22, 2012.
Noodles & Company
Directors and Officers
Keith Joseph Kinsey President and Secretary
Paul Strasen Vice President
David Jamal Carter On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Noodles & Company
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 1 13
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 1 6
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (1)
Alarm (1) (5)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL (0) (7)
Assists (0) (1)
Traffic (0) (2)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (4)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: one suspicious
persons/activity and five alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 8F
REPORT# 235
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 12/- f
REVIEW: ♦� <> I '
SIG 'v
REVIEWED BY CITY .� 1
MANAGER: _ ..144 ..y
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for John E. Powers &Assoc., Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue
South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor
licenses for John E. Powers & Assoc., Inc. d/b/a Lariat Lanes, 6320
Penn Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 9, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Lariat Lanes.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Illinois
Casualty affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also
been supplied.
121112 Lariat Lanes
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 20.2% of the total sales; alcohol
accounted for 15.8% of the total sales; and other miscellaneous accounted
for 64% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Lariat
Lanes for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicant would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Lariat Lanes staff.
SF- I
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR LARIAT LANES
Officers:
John Edwin Powers, President
John Edwin Powers, Jr., Vice President
David Matthew Powers, Secretary
Jeff Earl Powers, Treasurer
Brandi Lea James, On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
John Powers Sr., John Powers Jr., and David Powers have no criminal
records. Jeff Powers has a misdemeanor DWI from 1999. His criminal
history indicated a DWI; however, it is listed on his driving record as careless
driving. Jeff has no other criminal record. Brandi James has a misdemeanor
DWI conviction from 2007.
Premises:
First National Bank of the Lakes is the owner of the property. All payments
are current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were seven Public Safety/Police contacts with Lariat Lanes from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with seven contacts
for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this
report.
Violations:
There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with
Lariat Lanes.
Routine Information:
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distantance 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 22, 2012.
Lariat Lanes
Directors and Officers
John Powers, Sr. President
John Powers, Jr. Vice President
David Powers Secretary
Jeff Powers Treasurer
Brandi James On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Lariat Lanes
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 7 7
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 6
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (3) (6)
Alarm (1) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL (3) (1)
Assists (0) (1)
Traffic (1) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (2) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: two suspicious
persons/activity, three thefts, and one crisis.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 8G
REPORT# 236
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 12/ /
REVIEW:.
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY f
MANAGER: .. ._ - IC
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant,
7545 Lyndale Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor
licenses for Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Joy's Pattaya
Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Joy's Pattaya
Thai Restaurant.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America affording the coverage.
Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Joy's Pattaya Thai
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 95.7% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 4.3% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Joy's
Pattaya Thai Restaurant for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale wine and
3.2 percent malt liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicant would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Dale Mueller, Owner
el-
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR JOY'S PATTAYA THAI RESTAURANT
Officers:
Dale Lynn Mueller, Owner
Buathan Mueller, Owner
Criminal History:
Dale Lynn Mueller and Buathan Mueller are the joint owners of the establishment.
Buathan continues to serve as the on-premise manager. Neither Dale nor Buathan
have any known criminal record.
Premises:
Kenneth Johnson of Bloomington, Minnesota, is the owner of the property. The
current lease with the applicants is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There was one Public Safety/Police contacts with Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant
from October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with nine contacts for
the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Joy's
Pattaya Thai Restaurant.
Routine Information:
On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt 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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distantance 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 22, 2012.
Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant
Directors and Officers
Dale Lynn Mueller Owner
Buathan Mueller Owner and On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 4 1
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 1
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (1)
Alarm (0) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 0
Assists (0) (0)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contact from October 2011 through September 2012 was: one theft.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9A
REPORT# 237
=rid! STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: `� `�) I I
SIG URE '
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for The
Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's.
This agenda item is the first request out of eight for the renewal of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. Of the remaining seven, 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/individual 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
any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion.
121112 The Frenchman's
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Corporate 4 Insurance Agency, Inc. affording coverage. Workers'
compensation insurance has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 54.3% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 45.7% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding The
Frenchman's for the previous year.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mary Christine Blake, Owner
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR THE FRENCHMAN'S
Officers:
Mary Christine Blake, Owner
Criminal History:
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.
Premises:
Mary Blake is the owner of the property and Venture Bank in Bloomington is the
Mortgage Company. All payments are current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 39 Public Safety/Police contacts with The Frenchman's from October
2011 through September 2012. This compares with 38 contacts for the previous
year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with The
Frenchman's was June 8, 2004.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licences.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
9 - a
The Frenchman's
Directors and Officers
Mary Christine Blake Owner and General Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
The Frenchman's
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 38 39
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 21 19
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (20) (18)
Alarm (1) (1)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 17 20
Assists (12) (16)
Traffic (3) (3)
Inspections/Licensing (1) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (1)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: three
drunkenness, one theft, five disturbances, two property damage hit & run accidents, one
assault, two property damage accidents, three suspicious persons/activity, one drug, and
one alarm.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9B
REPORT# 238
magi' STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,Tn'',r:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR 1 9
REVIEW:
.4.14i. £ ... ..J. ith
SIGNAMI
REVIEWED BY CITY R �-/
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for Financial Guidance, Inc., d/b/a Four Points by Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale
Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for Financial Guidance, Inc., d/b/a Four Points by
Sheraton, 7745 Lyndale Avenue South.
IL BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Four Points by
Sheraton.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Nationwide Mutual affording coverage. Workers' compensation insurance
has also been supplied.
121112 Four Points by Sheraton
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from March 2012 through September 2012, and
indicates that food sales accounted for 80.7% of the total sales, while liquor
accounted for 19.3% of the total sales. The accountant's statement only
covers the period of six months due to the fact that this is an establishment
under new ownership.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Four Points
by Sheraton since the time of their new ownership in March 2012.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Four Points by Sheraton staff
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR FOUR POINTS by SHERATON
Officers:
James Dean Flannery, President
Taylor James Flannery, Vice-President
Adam Selby, On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
James Flannery is the President of the establishment; Taylor Flannery serves as
the Vice-President and Treasurer. The criminal checks conducted indicated that
Taylor Flannery has a prior misdemeanor DWI conviction from 2001; however
neither of the applicant's has had any convictions that would make them ineligible to
hold a liquor license in the City of Richfield. In addition, no criminal records were
found for Adam Selby who continues to serve as the on-premise manager.
Premises:
The property is owned by First International Bank. The lease between the property
owner and the applicant is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 12 Public Safety/Police contacts with Four Points by Sheraton from
March 2012 through September 2012. There are no numbers to compare this with
as this is under a new ownership. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this
report.
Violations:
There are no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for Four Points by
Sheraton.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
Four Points by Sheraton
Directors and Officers
James Dean Flannery President
Taylor James Flannery Vice-President and Treasurer
Adam Selby On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
March 2012 through September 2012
Four Points by Sheraton
2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 11
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 9
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (9)
Alarm (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2
Assists (2)
Traffic (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0)
Medical/Fire (0)
The criminal contacts from March 2012 through September 2012 were: One suspicious
person/activity, three disturbances, two domestics, one noise, one crisis, and one theft.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9C
REPORT# 239
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ■ '
REVIEW:
♦ [A.J A..-�■
SIGNAT 2E
REVIEWED BY CITY /
MANAGER:
At 1404)
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for Paisan Incorporated, d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 E. 78th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for Paisan Incorporated, d/b/a Khan's Mongolian
Barbeque, 500 E. 78th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Khan's Mongolian
Barbeque.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Unitrin
affording coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been
supplied.
121112 Khan's
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 94% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 6% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Khan's
Mongolian Barbeque for the previous year.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mitchell Law, Owner
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE
Officers:
Mitchell Wellington Law, President, Secretary and On-Premise Manager
Paisan Shieh Law, Vice-President and Treasurer
Criminal History:
Mitchell Law is the President and Secretary of the establishment; and Paisan Law
serves as the Vice-President and Treasurer. Mitchell also continues to serve as the
on-premise manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record.
Premises:
The property is owned by Roy A Bogen. The lease between the property owner
and the applicant is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were ten Public Safety/Police contacts with Khan's Mongolian Barbeque from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with six contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for Khan's
Mongolian Barbeque was on September 30, 2005.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
Khan's Mongolian Barbeque
Directors and Officers
Mitchell Wellington Law President, Secretary and On-Premise Mgr.
Paisan Shieh Law Vice-President and Treasurer
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Khan's Mongolian Barbeque
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 6 10
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 9
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (6)
Alarm (0) (3)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 1
Assists (2) (0)
Traffic (0) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: One property
damage hit and run accident, five theft attempts, and three alarms
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9D
REPORT# 240
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
SIGN, LIRE of
REVIEWED BY CITY
13,/,
MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's
Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue South.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants,
LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue
South.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service,
for Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are paid and current.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company affording coverage. Workers'
compensation insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 67.6% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 32.4% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Houlihan's
Restaurant & Bar for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Houlihan's staff
q 1
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT & BAR
Officers:
Paul Smith Kirwin, President
Robin Louise O'Neill, On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
Paul Smith Kirwin is the President of the establishment and Robin O'Neill serves as
the On-Premise Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal
history.
Premises:
Woodlake VEF IV, LLC is the owner of the property. The lease between the
applicant and the property owner is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 35 Public Safety/Police contacts with Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with 46 contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Houlihan's
was July 16, 2001.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT & BAR
Directors and Officers
Paul Smith Kirwin President
Robin Louise O'Neill On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 46 35
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 34 27
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (32) (22)
Alarm (2) (5)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 12 8
Assists (7) (7)
Traffic (2) (1)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (3) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: two
drunkenness, four thefts, one disturbance, two property damage hit & run accidents, one
juvenile, nine suspicious persons/activity, two threats, one death, and five alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9E
REPORT# 241
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR '
REVIEW: ' t
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: f
� _ IV/
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating, LLC d/b/a Don
Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing The
Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company affording coverage. Workers'
compensation insurance has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 81.7% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 18.3% of the total sales.
121112 Don Pablo's
• Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Don
Pablo's for the previous year.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Don Pablo's staff
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR DON PABLO'S
Officers:
Paul Joseph Seidman, President
Don Lee Sobiech, General Manager
C_ riminal History:
Paul Joseph Seidman is the COO/President of the establishment and Don Lee
Sobiech continues to serve as the on-premise manager. There are currently no
acting Secretary or Treasurer. Neither of these individuals has any know criminal
record.
Premises:
The property is owned by CSM Investors, Inc. The lease between the property
owner and the applicant is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 15 Public Safety/Police contacts with Don Pablo's from October 2011
through September 2012. This compares with 25 contacts for the previous year. A
breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for Don Pablo's
was on October 5, 2006.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licences.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
gE"
Don Pablo's
Directors and Officers
Paul Joseph Seidman COO/President
Don Lee Sobiech On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
• Don Pablo's
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 25 15
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 20 10
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (3)
Alarm (14) (7)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 5 5
Assists (3) (1)
Traffic (1) (4)
Inspections/Licensing (1) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: Two suspicious
person/activity, one drunkenness and seven alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB. HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9F
REPORT# 242
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR I ` + ' ' 1
REVIEW: r�� '
SIGNA TIRE
REVIEWED BY CITY F
MANAGER: " /4. 4kf t ,
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with the optional 2 a.m. closing, for Champps Operating Corporation, d/b/a
Champps Americana, 790 West 66th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, for Champps
Americana, 790 West 66th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 18, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps
Americana.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are paid and current.
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich
American Insurance Company affording coverage. Workers' compensation
insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Champps
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 65.12% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 34.88% of the total sales.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Champps
Americana for the previous year.
The Public Safety background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested licenses.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Champps staff
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR CHAMPPS AMERICANA
Officers:
James Keith Zielke, President
Kimberly Kay Fowles, Secretary
Scott Richard Larson, On-Premise Manager
Criminal History:
Background checks were conducted on James Keith Zielke and Kimberly Kay
Fowles. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. In addition,
there was no criminal record for Scott Richard Larson who serves as the On-
Premise Manager.
Premises:
Market Plaza Commercial LTD., do G & P Properties, Inc. is the owner of the
property. The lease between the applicant and the property owner is in effect with
all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were 42 Public Safety/Police contacts with Champps Americana from
October 2011 through September 2012. This compares with 32 contacts for the
previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
The most recent violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth with Champps
was April 3, 2008.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
q.- 2-
CHAMPPS AMERICANA
Directors and Officers
James Keith Zielke President
Kimberly Kay Fowles Secretary
Scott Richard Larson On-Premise Manager
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
CHAMPPS AMERICANA
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 32 42
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 29 27
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (25) (25)
Alarm (4) (2)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 15
Assists (0) (9)
Traffic (1) (6)
Inspections/Licensing (1) (0)
Medical/Fire (1) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: ten drunkenness,
one theft, one theft—no pay, four disturbances, two property damage hit & run accidents,
one assault, two property damage accidents, two suspicious persons/activity, two DWI's,
and two alarms.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9G
REPORT# 243
EMMA! STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR I , /
REVIEW: f AI Le1L / ' A
SIGNATUR
REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: Al % 14 1 44
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for El Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a El Tejaban, 2 West 66th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for El Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a El Tejaban,
2 West 66th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 30, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for El Tejaban.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing
Farmers Insurance Exchange affording coverage. Workers' compensation
insurance has also been supplied.
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from October 2011 through September 2012,
and indicates that food sales accounted for 85% of the total sales, while
liquor accounted for 15% of the total sales.
121112 El Tejaban
• Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding El
Tejaban for the previous year.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Miguel Hernandez, Owner
• Rosa Zambrano, Owner
qcj
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR EL TEJABAN
Officers:
Miguel Hernandez, Owner
Rosa Zambrano, Owner
Criminal History:
Miguel Hernandez and Rosa Zambrano are joint owners of the establishment.
Miguel also serves as the on-premise manager of the restaurant. Neither of these
individuals has any known criminal record.
Premises:
Centro Bradley SPE, LLC is the owner of the property. The lease between the
property owner and the applicant is in effect with all payments current.
Record of Service Calls:
There were three Public Safety/Police contacts with El Tejaban from October 2011
through September 2012. This compares with three contacts for the previous year.
A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
There have been no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for El
Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
9 -
El Tejaban
Directors and Officers
Miguel Hernandez Owner and General Manager
Rosa Zambrano Owner
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
October 2011 through September 2012
El Tejaban
2011 2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 3 3
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2 3
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (3)
Alarm (0) (0)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 0
Assists (1) (0)
Traffic (0) (0)
Inspections/Licensing (0) (0)
Medical/Fire (0) (0)
The criminal contacts from October 2011 through September 2012 were: One suspicious
person/activity, one crisis, and one order for protection.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: PUB.HEARING
AGENDA ITEM# 9H
REPORT# 244
=11All STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES
MANAGER
NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW:
Alit/Aka. I. .a' �. I
GI/REVIEWED BY CITY
MANAGER: _ i'Ai4iIii
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Public Hearing for the consideration of the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with outside service, for Pizza Luce VII, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Luce, 800 W. 66th
Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion:
• Approve the renewal of 2013 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses, with outside service, for Pizza Luce VII, Inc.,
d/b/a Pizza Luce, 800 W. 66th Street.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2012, the City received the application and other required
documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service,
for Pizza Luce.
The applicant has satisfied the following requirements for issuance of a license:
• The required license fees have been paid.
• Real estate taxes are not delinquent
• Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Mid-
Century Insurance Co. affording coverage. Workers' compensation
insurance has also been supplied.
121112 Pizza Luce
• An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This
statement covers the period from July 2012 through September 2012, and
indicates that food sales accounted for 80.3% of the total sales, while liquor
accounted for 19.7% of the total sales. The accountant's statement only
covers the period of three months due to the fact that this is a new
establishment.
• Environmental Health staff has received no complaints regarding Pizza Luce
since the time of their opening in July 2012.
The Public Safety Background investigation has been completed. The results of the
investigation are summarized in an attachment to this report. None of the
information in the report shows any cause for recommending denial of the
requested license.
The on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses will expire on December 31,
2012.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Richfield City Code Section 1202 requires owners of on-sale
intoxicating and Sunday liquor establishments to comply with all of the
provisions of both City Code and State Statutes.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The required licensing fees have been received.
D. LEGAL
• The requirements of Resolution 9511 must be met, which outlines the
discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of
the Resolution has been given to the owners of the establishment.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council could decide to deny the requested licenses, which would mean
that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale intoxicating
and Sunday liquor licenses.
• Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this may delay the
licensing process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Summary of background investigation.
• Breakdown of Public Safety contacts.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Pizza Luce Staff
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION REPORT
FOR PIZZA LUCE VII, INC.
Officers:
Joseph Bernard Baier, President/Chief Manager
Scott Herbert Nelson, Vice-President
Laura Jayne Hansen, Vice-President
Julie Jon Haywood, Secretary/Treasurer
Criminal History:
Joseph Baier is the President/Chief Manager of the establishment; Scott Nelson
and Laura Hansen are the establishment's Vice-Presidents; and Julie Haywood is
the establishment's Secretary and Treasurer. Julie Jon (J.J.) Haywood continues to
serve as the on-premise manager. The criminal checks conducted indicated that
Ms. Hansen shows a DWI conviction from 2002; however, none of the applicants
has had any convictions that would make them ineligible to hold a liquor license in
the City of Richfield.
Premises:
The property is owned by JBB Properties, LLC, associated with Joseph Bernard
Baier. This site was purchased outright and there is no mortgager.
Record of Service Calls:
There were five Public Safety/Police contacts with Pizza Luce VII, Inc. from July
2012 through September 2012. There are no numbers to compare this with as this
is a new establishment. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report.
Violations:
There are no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth for Pizza Luce VII,
Inc.
Routine Information:
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 owners of the establishment.
There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal
of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor sales licenses.
The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on
November 22, 2012.
H
Pizza Luce VII, Inc.
Directors and Officers
Joseph Bernard Baier President/Chief Manager
Laura Jayne Hansen Vice-President
Scott Herbert Nelson Vice-President
Julie Jon Haywood Secretary, Treasurer, On-Premise Mgr.
PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS
July 2012 through September 2012
Pizza Luce VII, Inc.
2012
TOTAL CONTACTS 5
CRIMINAL CONTACTS 3
Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2)
Alarm (1)
MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2
Assists (0)
Traffic (2)
Inspections/Licensing (0)
Medical/Fire (0)
The criminal contacts from July 2012 through September 2012 were: One drunkenness,
one theft, and one alarm.
(Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures)
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM# 10
REPORT# 245
mall STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS LINK,
OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT
• NAME,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ,
REVIEW:
,- /f Il SIGNATURE I �i
REVIEWED BY CITY •Lil MANAGER: / /__ I� ,1,
•
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a resolution for the collection of a Street Light User Fee.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution allowing the City of Richfield to
reinitiate and collect a Street Light User Fee.
II. BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2009, the City Council established a Street Light User Fee to pay
for the electric costs of operating the City's street lights. The resolution(Resolution
No. 1.0292) establishing the fee included the following provisions:
1. The rates for the Street Light User Fee will be reviewed and established
annually as part of the City's budget preparation process.
2. The collection of the Street Light User Fee will "sunset" in three years,
December 31, 2012, unless council action is taken to reinitiate the fee.
The use of a Street Light User Fee is part of a strategy to remove the funding of
essential services like street lights from dependence on the State's Local
Government Aid. Local Government Aid has proven to be undependable revenue.
The Street Light User Fee was also discussed at the November 13th, 2012
Worksession and at the December 4th, 2012 Special City Council Meeting.
12112012ApprovalSLUF
Yearly Revenue
Currently the Street Light User Fee generates $269,154 a year in revenue. This
amount is used to pay for Xcel Energy charges for the street lighting system which
is shown in Budget Line Item 10610-6207. Below is a history of charges:
Year Xcel Charges
2009 $276,595
2010 $265,947
2011 $298,414
2012 $299,320
(Revised)
2013 $299,320
(Proposed)
*Please note the amount proposed for 2013 may be inaccurate. Recently Xcel
Energy has been proposing a 10% increase in charges for 2013.
Proposed Rates
The current residential rate is $5.19/quarter which has remained unchanged since
2009. Below are proposed rates and how much they revenue they would generate.
Proposed Revenue(s) Percent
Rate Generated Increase
$5.19 $269,154 0%
$5.30 $274,858 2.1%
$5.77 $299,320 11.2%
Attached is a resolution reinitiating the Street Light User Fee. Staff is recommending
a rate of$5.77. This amount does not account for the rate increases being
proposed by Xcel Energy. Staff is not confident of the timing of the increase and
what the impact would be to the street light system. This change will also be part of
the Proposed 2013 Budget.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• Minnesota State Statutes, Section 429.101: the governing body of a
municipality may charge for certain current services provided by the
municipality including the operation of a street lighting system. City
Ordinance Section 825 is consistent with state statute.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• Cuts in State Aid have forced cities to pursue alternative funding
sources to maintain current services.
• The rate must be set at this meeting to ensure accurate billing.
C. FINANCIAL
• The present revenue generated from the existing user fee of
$5.19/quarter is approximately $269,154.
• The fee is being collected on the Utility bill as a separate line item.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney has reviewed this process.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• None
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The Council may choose not to proceed with reinitiating the Street Light User
Fee, but revenue reduction will leave a hole in the 2013 budget.
• The Council could delay the decision on reestablishing the Street Light User
Fee until some time in 2013. However, the Street Light User Fee would need
to be removed from the Utility Bill starting January 2013.
• The Council may choose an alternative rate to be collected.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Slide from Nov 13, 2012 Worksession
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None Expected
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A STREET LIGHT USER FEE TO BE CHARGED TO
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE
OPERATION OF A STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield community values the operation of a street lighting
system; and
WHEREAS, every property in the City, residential and commercial, benefits from
good streets which are well lighted and maintained through a city street light system; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota State Statues, Section 429.101 and Richfield
City Code, Section 825, the governing body of a municipality may charge for certain
current services provided by the municipality including the operation of a street lighting
system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota as follows:
1. Every property in the City of Richfield, residential and commercial, benefits
from streets which are well lighted and maintained.
2. The initial Street Light User Fee for residential single family property is $5.77
per quarter for residential property. Rates for other land uses will be
determined by the attached Street Light User Fee Rate Factors Sheet.
3. The rates for the Street Light User Fee will be reviewed and established
annually as part of the City's budget preparation process.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
)1) -- ;,
Street Light User Fee
RATE FACTORS SHEET
Fees are based on Land Use
Land Use Titles:
COM -All commercial properties, to include multifamily residents (apartments) and
industrial parcels.
RES -All residentially coded parcels.
PUB -Public buildings, i.e. City Hall, City Garage, and Fire Stations
CHURCH - All Churches also to include cemeteries and activity buildings associated
with a Church
SCH -All schools, to include private and public schools.
PRK -All parks owned by the City of Richfield, also to include Nature Centers and all
"properties" located within city park parcels
DPLX -Addresses that split a residential lot, to include townhomes, 3-plexs, and 4-plexs.
LAND USE CODE MULTIPLIER To Bill FACTOR
COM (acres>0.2) 5* (5 x ACREAGE)
if acres50.2 ---- 1
RES ---- 1
PUB (acres>0.2) 5 (5 x ACREAGE)
if acres 550.2 ---- 1
CHURCH (acres>0.2) 1.25** (1.25 x ACREAGE)
if acres 50.8 ---- 1
if acres 50.2 ---- 1
SCH (acres>0.2) 1.25 (1.25 x ACREAGE)
if acres 50.8 ---- 1
if acres 50.2 ---- 1
PRK 1.25 (1.25 x ACREAGE)
DPLX ---- 0.5
* The multiplier of"5" is based on the definition that a residential lot is 1/5 of an acre;
hence multiplying acreage by 5 produces the equivalent number of residential lots.
** The multiplier of"1.25" " is based on the definition that a residential lot is 1/5 of an acre
and multiplying acreage by 5 produces the equivalent number of residential lots. However,
the total area of each parcel is not proportional to the number of street lights in an
equivalent residential area so the factor of 5 is reduced by 75%, producing 1.25.
Street Light Fee
• Street Light Fee of $5 . 19/quarter initiated
September 22 , 2009 ; unchanged since
• Generates $269 , 154 annually
• 2013 Budget for electricity cost: $299 , 320
• Resolution establishing the fee will sunset
December 31 , 2012 , unless renewed
• Fee is part of the strategy to eliminate
dependency on LGA
• Public Hearing 12/4/2012 w/ TNT Hearing
2013 City Budget �
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM# 11
REPORT# 246
STAFF REPORT
RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2012
REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS,FINANCE MANAGER
NAM,TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
REVIEW: -
V NATURE V
REVIEWED BY CITY 2:1)(7,/
MANAGER:
i�
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of resolutions approving the 2012 Revised/2013 Proposed budget and tax levy
and the adoption of the 2013 Management, General Services and Specialized salary
compensation plans.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2012 Revised/2013
Proposed budget and tax levy and the resolutions designating a 2%
salary increase, effective the first full pay period of January 2013, for
the Management and General Services compensation plans and a 1%
salary increase for the Specialized compensation plan.
II. BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2012, the City Council approved and certified a preliminary tax
levy of$17,744,951 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 2012 truth-in-taxation hearing on
December 4, 2012. 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.
12112012budget
Since the initial publication of the 2013 City of Richfield proposed budget document,
there have been no significant changes. The original 2013 General Fund budget,
approved by the City Council in September, has increased by $27,360 to offset the
planned increase in the property maintenance program.
Also included for consideration are salary increases for non-represented employee
pay plans. The proposed two percent increase for the Management and General
Services pay plans, effective the first full pay period of January 2013, reflects the
same increase already negotiated with three of the City's five bargaining units. It is
also comparable to other bargaining groups in similar metro cities. A survey of
Stanton 5 cities indicates that those cities are providing anywhere from a 1 to 3
percent increase. The City has a long history of trying to remain as close to the
mid-range as possible for Stanton 5 cities, in terms of wages and benefits.
A one percent salary increase for the Specialized pay plan, effective the first full pay
period of January 2013, is based on a review of wages paid in the metro area for
similar positions included in this plan, such as Recreation Attendants, Lifeguards,
Licensing Clerks and Liquor Sales Associates.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A revised 2012 budget and final 2013 budget and tax levy must be
adopted on or before December 28, 2012.
• Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later than
December 28 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final
levy to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue.
• A proposed 2013 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.
• The City of Richfield has historically given employees that are
represented by labor unions and those not represented by unions, such
as General Services and Management, the same salary adjustments
each year.
• As of the writing of this staff report, three labor unions (Local 123, 225,
and 169) have agreed to a two percent wage increase, effective January
2013. The City is beginning negotiations with the other two bargaining
units.
• The positions within the Specialized pay plan were compared with
similarly sized metro cities. This review indicates that only a one percent
adjustment is warranted.
• In response to comparable worth concerns, the City made adjustments to
the female-dominated M-1 pay grade within the Management
compensation plan to ensure pay equity.
B. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• The proposed gross tax levy for 2013 is now $17,744,951.
• The gross tax levy for 2013 reflects a 4.50% increase from the previous
year's gross levy.
• The levy increase comprises three components as follows:
• General Fund Levy 3.32%
•
• Equipment Levy 0.01%
• Debt Service Levy 0.89%
• Tax Abatement Levy .28%
4.50%
• Two percent wage increase for Management and General Services
employees effective January 2013 and a one percent for employees in
the Specialized pay plan.
• One pay grade differential in the Management pay plan is also being
adjusted due to the results of the City's 2011 Pay Equity Report. The Pay
Equity Report tracks pay relationships between female and male
employees to ensure equity. Of the three tests that the State requires a
passing score, the City only marginally passed the salary range test. To
address this, the pay grade differential between the heavily female-
dominated M-1 pay grade and the Male dominated M-2 grade was
reduced. This adjustment to the pay plan will help in future pay equity
reporting for gender based pay relationships.
D. LEGAL
• A truth-in-taxation public hearing for the 2013 proposed budget and tax
levy was conducted on December 4, 2012.
• Salary adjustments for any City employee group must be done by an act
of the City Council in the form of a resolution.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS)
• The City Council could adopt a final 2013 budget and tax levy in any amount,
which does not exceed the preliminary levy of$17,744,951.
• The City Council could decide not to adopt the pay plan resolutions.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution adopting a proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2013.
• Resolution authorizing budget revisions.
• Resolution authorizing revision of 2012 budget of various departments.
• Resolution authorizing adjustment to City's mileage reimbursement rate to
conform to Internal Revenue Service statutory mileage reimbursement rate.
• Resolution adopting the 2013 Capital Improvement Budget.
• Resolution adopting the 2014-2017 Capital Improvement Program.
• Resolution relating to purchasing practices in the City of Richfield.
• 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 establishing a Public Works On-Call compensation policy.
• Resolution establishing 2013 license, permit and miscellaneous fees
pursuant to the provisions of appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of
Richfield.
• Resolution relating to the 2013 General Services Salary Compensation Plan
• Resolution relating to the 2013 Management Salary Compensation Plan
• Resolution relating to the 2013 Specialized Pay Plan
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
II - I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
FOR THE YEAR 2013
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to
be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2012 and then recertified before
December 28, 2012.
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 2013 is hereby approved and
adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows:
General Fund
Legislative/Executive $ 738,050
Administrative Services 1,168,270
Public Safety 8,122,830
Fire Services 3,568,360
Community Development 1,194,600
Public Works 4,175,300
Recreation Services 1,636,970
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,604,380
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 2013 which are
more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2013 budget, are
hereby found and determined to be as follows:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,604,380
3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad
valorem tax in the year 2011, payable in 2012 for the following purposes and in
the following amounts:
PURPOSE AMOUNT
General Fund $15,415,6752
Debt Service 2,019,637
Cedar Point Tax Abatement 309,639
1 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
2013 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 2012, payable
in 2013 for the following purposes:
ION
PURPOSE AMOUNT
Housing and Redevelopment Authority $456,617
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 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
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:
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.
The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing
the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget.
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 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 11 "LI
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2012 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 10587 appropriated funds for personal services, other
expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2011; 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 2012 budget
appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2013
budget document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota as follows:
1. That the 2012 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended
to establish the following totals:
General Fund
Legislative/Executive $ 748,550
Administrative Services 1,131,250
Public Safety 7,873,870
Fire Services 3,481,410
Community Development 1,159,000
Public Works 4,085,920
Recreation Services 1,593,860
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,073,86Q
INCREASE $ 121,330
2. Estimated 2012 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 2013
budget, are hereby revised as follows:
INCREASE $121,330
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 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
IJ �
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 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
1i -b
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2013 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 2013 Capital Improvement
Budget in the sum total of$6,510,750 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 hearings 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 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
11 -1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2014-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2014-2017 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 2014-2017 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 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
iI -g
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 10593
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$50,000 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 $50,000.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
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
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2013
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. 10594:
2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat
charges are established effective January 1, 2013 for each billing district as defined in
paragraph 3 of this resolution.
2013
A) Residential per unit $ 73.20
B) Commercial -
For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 73.20
More than 10, less than 16 133.30
More than 15, less than 21 186.70
More than 20, less than 26 249.20
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:
2013
For each 100 grade school students or fraction $ 76.70
in excess thereof
For each 100 junior high school students or high 112.60
School students or fraction thereof
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
II-ID
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, 2013, for each 2013
customer billing district and shall be as follows:
$ 3.65
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, 2013, shall be as follows: $ 3.65
C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice
rendered effective January 1, 2013 as follows: $ 5.00
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 2013
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 charges due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any
quarter shall be based upon the Conservation Rate Structure.
Water-Tier 1: The first tier rate is ($2.99 per thousand) charged for
consumption of the first 25,000 gallons.
Water-Tier 2: The second tier rate is ($3.28 per thousand) charged for
consumption of 26,000 gallons but less or equal to 50,000
gallons.
Water-Tier 3: The third tier rate is ($3.58 per thousand) charged for
consumption in excess of 51,000 gallons.
Irrigation accounts: All consumption will be charged at the ($3.58 per thousand)
water-tier 3 rate.
ii41
The Conservation Rate Structure applies to multi-unit and residential premises.
Commercial, institutional or industrial will only be subject to the Water-tier 1 rates for
domestic use, irrigation accounts will be subject to the Water-tier 3 rate.
Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 2013 shall be
at this rate.
SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2013
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.
3. The charge for installation of meters shall be $50.00 per installation.
4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property
within the City shall be $50.00 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 2013
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 subjected to a
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 year rainfall
event. The REF's for the following land uses within the City and the billing
classifications for such land uses are as follows:
LAND USES REF CLASSIFICATION
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 I I�I
Warehouse uses 5.00 7
3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $58.35 per acre of land.
$11.67 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 twenty eight (28) 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.
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 11th day of
December, 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
it-r'5
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC WORKS ON-CALL COMPENSATION
POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to provide Public Works
Superintendent/Managers/City Engineer compensation for being on-call for possible
Public Works emergencies; and
WHEREAS, the good judgment of a Public Works Superintendent/Manager/City
Engineer is needed to provide quality response to Public Works emergencies such as
water main breaks, street light knock downs, and sewer main back ups; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary to establish a policy to provide
such employees with on-call compensation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Richfield hereby adopts the following On-call Compensation Policy:
Public Works Superintendent/Managers/City Engineer who remain on-call by
carrying the emergency cell phone (or similar device) for a period of one week will be
compensated at a rate established annually as part of the budget preparation process,
beginning with $150 a week in 2013.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
11'14
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2013 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS
FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 10607
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 31st 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
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1)Heating and 400.07 1 Year $ 80.00
Ventilating Installer
(2)Sign Installer 416.01-416.13 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 DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(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 the $ 30.00
Permit boulevard
b) If applied for after installation of feature has begun $ 60.00
(3) Excavation in Public 800.01-800.15 a) For each transverse excavation and each 100 feet or $ 125.00
Right of way 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
BOLD represents added/amended fees 1
ti'15
SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES (CONTINUED)
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(4) Forestry Permit 810 Applies only to trees on City property and public ROW $ 50.00
(5) Seasonal Load Limit a) Per load $ 25.00
Exemption b) If applied for after delivery $ 50.00
(6) Obstruction Permit 802.17 (a) Short term, temporary single lane closure of less No fee
than four 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
Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 60.00
Full Closure(per block or portion thereof) $ 150.00
Collector
Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 30.00
Full Closure(per block or portion thereof) $ 75.00
Local/Residential
Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 15.00
Full Closure(per block or portion thereof) $ 45.00
Sidewalk
Day $ 30.00
If applied for after obstruction closure has begun
(c) Short term, temporary single lane closure less than No fee
four 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
Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 120.00
Full Closure(per block or portion thereof) $ 300.00
Collector
Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 60.00
Full Closure(per block or portion thereof) $ 150.00
Local/Residential
Day(per block or portion thereof) $ 30.00
Full Closure(per block or portion thereof) $ 90.00
Sidewalk
Day $ 60.00
If the closures are not removed by the permitted
completion date,then additional days will be charged at
double the rate
(7) Noise Ordinance 930.35 (a) With conditions added as required $ 50.00
Exemption (b) If applied for after violation $ 100.00
(8) Certification Charge 705.03-705.21 All delinquent accounts $ 50.00
(9) NSF Check Charge $ 50.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees 2
Il—b
SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES (CONTINUED)
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(10)Utility Services
Sanitary Sewer 700.05 All land uses
New Service $ 125.00
Repair $ 125.00
Disconnect $ 125.00
Replacement $ 125.00
Water Service 715.01 All land uses $ 125.00
New Service $ 125.00
Repair $ 125.00
Disconnect $ 125.00
Replacement
Turn on/off $ 50.00
Meter Installation $ 50.00
Private Hydrant $ 50.00
Storm Sewer 720 All land uses
New Service $ 125.00
Repair $ 125.00
Disconnect $ 125.00
Replacement $ 125.00
SECTION 4. FIRE SERVICES FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Fire Prevention 400.21-400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year $ 60.00
Code
For each additional fee required under code $ 15.00
Penalty If not renewed within 2 months of Per year $ 30.00
notification
(2) Daycare/Adult Foster Care Facility $ 50.00
Inspection
(3) Reimbursement Fee for Fire/Rescue Unit Per Hour $ 275.00
(4) Sale of Consumer 1131 (a) License per location selling only consumer Per Year $ 350.00
Fireworks fireworks
(b) License per location of each other retail Per Year $ 100.00
seller
BOLD represents added/amended fees 3
i141
SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Arcade 1105 1 Year $ 483.00
(2) Amusement Device 1100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device(Pinball) 1 Year $ 15.00
(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 1 Year $ 100.00
(those exempt from State Licensure)
(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 $ 259.00
Amusement
(5) Public Dance 1110.03 For each day dances are held-$3 1 month $ 43.00
No fee for locations holding tavern licenses.
(6) General Amusement 1100.03 (a) Billiard,Pool or Pigeonhole table(each) 1 Year $ 15.00
1. Coin operated 1 Year $ 15.00
(b) Bowling Alley(per lane) 1 Year $ 42.00
(c) Circus 1 Year $ 202.00
(d) Dance Hall 1 Day $ 202.00
(e) Golf
1. Miniature 1 Year $ 47.00
2. Driving Tee 1 Year $ 47.00
(f) Mountback 1 Day $ 193.00
(g) Rides,mechanical/animal of any kind(ea) 1 Year $ 15.00
(h) Shows, any kind 1 Day $ 193.00
(i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 Year $ 16.00
(j) Other games 1 Day $ 15.00
(7) Musical Concert 1110.01 Per event $ 43.00
(8) Theatre Cinema 1120 1 Year $ 203.00
Plus a notice publication fee $ 7.00
(9) Roller Rink 1115 1 year or portion thereof $ 203.00
(10)Commercial Adult- 605 1 Year $ 2,409.00
Oriented Enterprises Investigation fee 1 Year $ 2,409.00
(1 1)Masseur/Masseuse 605 Certificate fee 1 Year $ 81.00
Investigation fee 1 Year $ 203.00
(12)Public Baths 610 1 Year $ 2,790.00
Investigation fee(actual cost minimum) $ 2,790.00
(13)Fortune Teller and 1130.05-1130.07 1 Day $ 162.00
related trade 1 Week $ 482.00
1 Month $ 961.00
1 Year $ 1,606.00
(14)Adult 1196 Annual license 1 Year $ 2,409.00
Establishments Investigation fee(new license) $ 2,409.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees 4
Ikl
SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Animals 905.01-905.29 Animals (Spayed or Neutered)with option to 1 Year $ 15.00
purchase a multi-year license
(a) Animals(Not Spayed or Neutered 1 Year $ 25.00
(b) Duplicate Animal License $ 7.00
(c) Late Penalty $ 10.00
905.31-905.33 (d) Commercial Kennel 1 Year $ 217.00
(e) Residential Kennel 1 Year $ 164.00
(f) Veterinary $ 217.00
905.37-905.39 (g) Pigeons 1 Year $ 43.00
905.41 (h) Non-domestic Animals(Temporary Permit) $ 30.00
905.01-905.29 (i) Impounding(each animal) 1st time $ 64.00
2nd Time $ 127.00
3d time (each impound after) $ 191.00
(j) Dangerous dog registration fee $ 500.00
State Statute 347.51)
SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Aircraft 1340 1 Day $ 47.00
(2) Garbage and 601.01-601.33 Commercial and Residential
Refuse Collection First vehicle 1 Year $ 241.00
Each additional vehicle 1 Year $ 50.00
(3) Motor Vehicle 1155 Per place of business 1 Year $ 360.00
Dealer Each additional place of business 1 Year $ 137.00
(4) Motor Bicycle 1160 Per place of business 1 Year $ 209.00
Business Per place of business to sell, rent or lease 1 Year $ 96.00
(5) Sound Truck 1165 Per vehicle 1 Year $ 209.00
Per vehicle 1 Day $ 32.00
(6) Taxicab 1170 First vehicle or auto livery 1 Year $ 520.00
Each additional vehicle or auto livery 1 Year $ 65.00
operated at any time within license period
(7) Taxicab Driver 1175 1 Year $ 48.00
(8) Rental or Utility 1185 Each place of business 1 Year $ 96.00
Trailers and Trucks
BOLD represents added/amended fees 5
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 1 Year $ 1,606.00
(2) Food 617 (A)Type I Establishment,a large high-risk food 1 Year
Establishments establishment serving on average 500 or more
meals per day; having 175 or more seats;or
having 500 or more customers per day
(1)Food service or retail food $ 721.00
establishment
(2)School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 637.00
(3)Daycare Center or Preschool $ 530.00
(B)Type li Establishment,a small high-risk food
establishment serving on average fewer than
500 meals per day; having fewer than 175 seats;
or having fewer than 500 customers per day
(1)Food service or retail food $ 663.00
establishment
(2)School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 663.00
(3)Daycare Center or Preschool $ 424.00
(C)Type III Establishment,a medium risk food
establishment serving mainly non-potentially
hazardous foods and potentially hazardous
foods prepared elsewhere and only heated or
held cold onsite;or serving or retailing foods
such as pizza carryout or delivery, requiring
handling followed by heat treatment.
(1) Food service or retail food $ 530.00
establishment
(2)School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 266.00
(3) Daycare Center or Preschool $ 266.00
(D)Type IV Establishment,a food establishment
with minimal food handling such as preparing
coffee, hot dogs, blended or mixed drinks,
packaged foods customers heat onsite,
continental breakfasts, unpackaged baked
goods made elsewhere
(1) Food service or retail food $ 345.00
establishment
(2)School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 160.00
(3) Daycare Center or Preschool $ 160.00
(E)Type V Establishment,a food establishment
with non-potentially hazardous food or food
products sold in the original packaging
(1) Food service or retail food $ 212.00
establishment
(2)School, kindergarten through grade 12 $ 133.00
(3) Daycare Center or Preschool $ 133.00
(F)Supplemental Facility
(1)High Supplemental Facility(like Type I $ 133.00
and II)
(2)Medium Supplemental Facility(like $ 106.00
Type III and IV)
(3)Catering Supplemental Facility(for $ 160.00
Food Catering Vehicle(s)and equipment)
(4) Low Supplemental Facility(like Type V) $ 79.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees 6
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED)
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(2)continued 617 (G)Temporary Food Establishment
Food Establishments (1)Complex Temporary 1 to 3 days(like $ 133.00
Type I and II)
(2)Complex Temporary 4 to 21 days(like $ 239.00
Type I and II)
(3)Simple Temporary 1 to 3 days(like Type $ 54.00
III, IV and V)
(4)Simple Temporary 4 to 21 days(like $ 128.00
Type III, IV and V)
(H) Farmer's Market Stand(stands not exempted $ 160.00
from licensing in Minnesota Statue Chapter 28A)
(I)Vending Machines
(1) Food and beverage(except items in 2) $ 20.00
(2) Nuts,gum balls, hard candy and $ 15.00
unsorted confections
(3) Automobile Washing 1125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $ 162.00
Establishment
(4) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 Year $ 47.00
Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping $ 23.00
contents of each cesspool into City sewer
(5) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 Year $ 47.00
(6) Tobacco 1146.01(MS Retail Sale and Distribution-License issued on $ 403.00
461.12) calendar year(cigarette vending machines
prohibited)(Bill No. 1998-19)
(7) Transient Merchant 1181.01-1181.09 1 Day $ 103.00
(8) Wagon Peddler 1181 1 Year $ 242.00
(9) State hawker or 1181 6 month/per person covered $ 60.00
Peddler license
(10)Canvasser or 1181 6 month/per person covered $ 60.00
Solicitor
(11)Christmas Tree Sale 1130.03 1 Year $ 131.00
(12)Lodging 618 (A)Hotel/Motel $ 222.00
Establishments (1) Each Guestroom $ 15.00
(B) Lodging House, lodging accommodation for
5 or more regular roomers,no food provided
(1)Five to 25 beds $ 212.00
(2)26 or more beds,each bed $ 9.00
(C)Small Boarding House,food and lodging
accommodations for 5 to 10 regular boarders.
Food license included.
(1)Five to 10 beds $ 212.00
(D)Large Boarding House,food and lodging
accommodations for 11 or more.A separate
food license is required.
(1) 11 to 25 beds $ 212.00
(2)26 or more beds,each bed $ 9.00
(E)Bed and Breakfast,food license is included $ 212.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees 7
it-)1
SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED)
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(13)Outdoor 1135 Permit $ 102.00
Merchandising
(14)Storage Enclosure 1135 Per Enclosure $ 87.00
(15)Pawnbroker 1187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 Year $4,187.00
(b) Owner investigation fee(nonrefundable) 1 Year $2,407.00
(c) Manager investigation fee(nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 871.00
(d) Employee investigation fee(nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 83.00
(e) Transaction fee-per transaction $ 2.00
(16)Secondhand Goods 1186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 Year $ 459.00
Dealer (b) Initial investigation fee(nonrefundable) $ 1,925.00
actual costs in excess of above with total not
exceeding
Applicant shall deposit$1200.00 with Licensing
Clerk along with application. Amount in excess
of actual application costs shall be refunded.
(17)Auto Detailing 1195.01 1 Year $ 358.00
Establishment
(18)Tattoo, Body 630 (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting or body 1 Year $ 802.00
Piercing, Body branding
Painting or Body (b) Initial investigation fee(nonrefundable) 1 Year $2,407.00
Branding
(19)Temporary Tattoo, 630 Per booth $ 47.00
Body Piercing, Body
Branding and Body
painting events
(20)Massage Therapy 1188 Annual license 1 Year $ 801.00
(Business keens) Investigation fee(new license) $ 801.00
(Business license)
Massage Therapist Annual license 1 Year $ 81.00
(Individual License)
Investigation fee(new license) $ 81.00
Temporary Massage Per temporary location $ 161.00
Therapist License
(21)Public Swimming 619 (A) Indoor
Pools (1) First pool $ 212.00
(2) Each additional pool $ 106.00
(B)Outdoor
(1) First pool $ 212.00
(2) Each additional pool $ 106.00
(C)School, K through grade 12, pools
(1)First pool $ 138.00
(2) Each additional pool $ 79.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees 8
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
Descriptions:Type I Establishment, a large high-risk food establishment serving on average 500 or more
meals per day; having 175 or more seats;or having 500 or more customers per day.
Type II Establishment, a small high-risk food establishment serving on average fewer
than 500 meals per day; having fewer than 175 seats; or having fewer than 500
customers per day.
Type III Establishment, a medium risk food establishment serving mainly non-
potentially hazardous foods and potentially hazardous foods prepared elsewhere and
only heated or held cold onsite; or serving or retailing foods such as pizza carryout or
delivery, requiring handling followed by heat treatment.
Type IV Establishment, a food establishment with minimal food handling such as
preparing coffee, hot dogs, blended mixed drinks, packaged foods customers heat
onsite, continental breakfasts,unpackaged baked goods made elsewhere.
Type V Establishment, a food establishment with non-potentially hazardous food or
food products sold in the original packaging.
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(0- Non-remodel
and/or Major Remodel Remodel (25- 24%of facility) approval
(over 50%of facility 50%of facility) consultation
involved) ($5,000 or less in
costs)
Type I $ 2,560.00 $ 1,335.00 $ 720.00 $ 122.00
Type I I $ 1,763.00 $ 964.00 $ 536.00 $ 122.00
Type III $ 964.00 $ 537.00 $ 320.00 $ 122.00
Type IV $ 473.00 $ 184.00 $ 93.00 No fee
Type V New project or change Minor remodel—
of owner-$115 permit but no plan
check fee
Therapeutic Massage $ 122.00 $ 122.00 $ 122.00 $ 122.00
Lodging $ 2,133.00 $ 1,148.00 $ 598.00 $ 122.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees 9
SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(1) 3.2 Malt Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $ 885.00
(b) Tavern (dance) 1 Year $ 723.00
(c) Wholesale 1 Year $ 43.00
(d) Off-Sale 1 Year $ 256.00
(e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 Year $ 585.00
(f) Temporary per event $ 65.00
(2) Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $14,598.00
(b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 Year $ 200.00
(c) Wine 1 Year $ 1,286.00
(d) Veterans'Organization (Ex-Sunday) 1 Year $ 838.00
(e) Temporary per event $ 133.00
(3) Employee License 1208.01 Effective 10/1/95 all licenses issued shall be $ 36.00
On-Sale Liquor valid for a period of two years from the date of
Establishments initial application
(4) Investigation Fee 1202.01-1202.21 (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' $ 800.00 and
Organization
each person shown on application $ 240.00
or actual costs in excess of above
Each additional investigation for each $ 444.00
person not listed on original or renewal
application
1202.11 (b) Wine- Original Application Initial Fee $3,385.00
or actual costs in excess of above
Renewal Application Fee $ 100.00
Additional Investigation under 1202.11 Subd.3a $ 197.00
1202.11 Investigation of substitute manager $ 100.00
BOLD represents added/amended fees 10
I 011
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 $ 140.00
Apartment Houses Each unit $ 14.00
and Rental Homes
(b) Rental Home-single family dwelling 1 Year $ 140.00
(c) Duplexes/double bungalows/townhouses
First unit 1 Year $ 140.00
Each additional rental unit 1 Year $ 85.00
(d) Late Fee $ 50.00
(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
1. multi-family $ 80.00 ea.
2. single family&duplex $ 50.00 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 $ 280.00
Includes first unit
Each additional unit $ 30.00
Provisional license for Rental Home-single 1 Year $ 280.00
family dwelling
Provisional license for duplex $ 280.00
First unit
Each additional unit $ 170.00
(j) Investigation fee for operating a rental $ 200.00
property without a license
(2) Certificate of 405.26 Single family home(includes one reinspection) $ 150.00
Housing 2-family home(includes one reinspection) $ 230.00
maintenance Condominium(includes one reinspection) $ 100.00
Compliance Reinspection Fee $ 50.00
Fee to process cash escrow agreement $ 50.00
Fee to process Agreement to Comply $ 50.00
(3) Permit Fee for 405.19 1 Year $ 170.00
Rooming House
BOLD represents added/amended fees 11
SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(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) Nuisance Conduct 925 Third call to a property for nuisance conduct $ 250.00
Fee within a 365-day period
(5) Copying Services 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 $ 3.00sq./ft.
(b) Labor hourly wage&
33%
(c) Postage prevailing rate
(d) Fax per page $ .50
(e) CD of meeting (per CD) $ 5.00
(f) DVD of meeting (per DVD) $ 15.00
(g) Electronic copies(cd or disk) $ 5.00
(h) As builts (per image) $ .50
(6) Notary Fee Fee Set By State
(7) Candidate Filing Fee City Charter $ 25.00
4.04
(8) Photo Fee Includes 2 photos $ 16.00
including tax
BOLD represents added/amended fees 12
I 41
SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES (CONTINUED)
TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION DESCRIPTION FEE
OR LICENSE REQUIRING
(9) Assessing Fees Special Abatement for Filing Homestead $ 25.00
Special Assessment Searches
-One free property identification number
(PID)search per day
-if more than one search per day(per search) $ 3.00
Special Assessment Search Report
-per PID $ 15.00
Creation of New or Special Report
-Fees to be based on time and materials to
create report
-Minimum Fee $ 25.00
Review of Comparable Property Records
Residential Field Card Report $ .25
-for up to five comparable properties(per copy)
Commercial/Industrial/Apartment Field
Card Report(per copy) $ 2.00
Certified Card Report $ 3.00
(10)Domestic Partnership 120 Registration $ 30.00
(11)Certified copy of To certify documents i.e. resolutions,ordinances, $ 5.00
various documents minutes, registration forms,etc.on file(per copy)
(12)Vacant Building 925 Single Family Home or Duplex—Vacant less than $ 100.00
Registration Fee one year
Single Family Home or Duplex—Vacant one year or $ 200.00
longer
Any other type of property of less than 20,000 $ 500.00
square feet in building size AND less than 1 acres
of lot size—Vacant less than one year
Any other type of property of less than 20,000 $1,000.00
square feet in building size AND less than 1 acres
of lot size—Vacant one year or longer
Any other type of property larger than 20,000 $1,250.00
square feet in building size OR more than 1 acres of
lot size—Vacant less than one year
Any other type of property larger than 20,000 $2,500.00
square feet in building size OR more than 1 acres of
lot size—Vacant one3 year or longer
BOLD represents added/amended fees 13
I 0
SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES
FEE
LOCATION DESCRIPTION FEE
CLASSIFICATION
Richfield Municipal Center Bartholomew Room Civic and non-profit groups and $ 50.00/Hr
governmental agencies
Resident $ 60.00/Hr
Non-Resident and Commercial $ 300.00/up to 4 Hrs
groups $ 575.00/up to 8 Hrs
Richfield Municipal Center Heredia Room Civic and non-profit groups and $ 40.00/Hr
governmental agencies
Resident $ 50.00/Hr
Non-Resident and Commercial $ 250.00/up to 4 Hrs
groups $ 475.00/up to 8 Hrs
Richfield Municipal Center Fred Babcock Room Civic and non-profit groups and $ 30.00/Hr
governmental agencies
Resident $ 40.00/Hr
Non-Resident and Commercial $ 200.00/up to 4Hrs
groups $ 375.00/up to 8 Hrs
Richfield Community Center Augsburg Room Non-Profit $ 29.00/Hr
Fireside Room
Nicollet Room Resident: Private $ 34.00/Hr
Ruth Johnson Room
Non-Resident: Private $ 39.00/Hr
Richfield Community Center Combined Non-Profit $ 52.00/Hr
Nicollet/Augsburg or
Richfield Room Resident: Private $ 65.00/Hr
Non-Resident: Private $ 76.00/Hr
Wood Lake Nature Center Auditorium Non-Profit $ 32.00/Hr
Resident: Private $ 42.00/Hr
Non-Resident: Private $ 47.00/Hr
Augsburg Park Park Buildings Resident $ 25.00/Hr
Christian Park (depending on
Donaldson Park-East availability)
Jefferson Park Non-Resident $ 30.00/Hr
Madison Park
Taft Park-North
Washington Park
Fairwood Park Open Picnic Shelters Resident $ 25.00/6 hour block
Monroe Park
Augsburg Park Non-Resident $ 30.00/6 hour block
Sheridan Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident $ 100.00/6 hour block
Non-Resident $ 120.00/6 hour block
BOLD represents added/amended fees 14
SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES (CONTINUED)
FEE
LOCATION DESCRIPTION FEE
CLASSIFICATION
Veterans Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident Day:4-Hour Block
1 Section: $ 98.00
2 Sections: $173.00
3 Sections: $243.00
Resident Evening:3-Hour Block
1 Section: $ 73.00
2 Sections: $128.00
3 Sections: $ 183.00
Non-Resident Day:4-Hour Block
1 Section: $ 103.00
2 Sections: $ 180.00
3 Sections: $250.00
Non-Resident Evening:3-Hour Block
1 Section: $ 78.00
2 Sections: $ 135.00
3 Sections: $ 190.00
Athletic Fields Premium Baseball Donaldson, Roosevelt
Fields
Youth&Resident Adult $ 35.00/hr
$ 150.00/day(first 8 hrs)
$ 30.00/hr(after 8 hrs)
Non-Resident Adult $ 55.00/hr
$250.00/day(first 8 hrs)
$ 60.00/hr(after 8 hrs)
Premium Softball Lincoln,Taft
Fields
Resident $ 20.00/hr
$ 100.00/day(first 8 hrs)
$ 30.00/hr(after 8 hrs)
Non-Resident $ 30.00/hr
$ 150.00/day(first 8 hrs)
$ 40.00/hr(after 8 hrs)
General All other baseball/softball fields
Baseball/Softball
Fields
Resident $ 15.00/hr
$ 100.00/day(first 8 hrs)
$ 25.00/hr(after 8 hrs)
Non-Resident $ 30.00/hr
$ 150.00/day(first 8 hrs)
$ 40.00/hr(after 8 hrs)
Soccer/Football Christian,Donaldson,Taft,
Fields Washington
Resident $ 45.00/hr
$250.00/day(6 hrs max)
Non-Resident $ 65.00/hr
$ 350.00/day(6 hrs max)
Broomball/Hockey Rink All broomball/hockey All renters $ 15.00/hr
rinks
Tennis Courts All parks All renters $ 5.00/court/hr
Open Space All parks All renters $ 11.00/hr
Athletic Facility Light Use Softball field, All renters $ 25.00/hr
baseball field,
soccer field,football
field, hockey rink,
tennis complex
BOLD represents added/amended fees 15
011
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of December,2012.
Debbie Goettel Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
16
RESOLUTION NO. 'I'' b
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2013 GENERAL SERVICES
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the compensation personnel policy 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 2013 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 2013 the following pay plan, which is to be effective the first full pay period of January
2013, and subject to all applicable provisions of the personnel policy and City Code:
Effective the first full pay period of January 1, 2013
STEP I 1 1 2 3 4 ' 5 6
RANGE _ )
CGS 1 _,1 YR 1 34,548.80 36,441 60 38,417 60 1 40 705.60 41 932.80
1 MO 2,879.07 ; 3,036 80 3,201 47 1 3,392.13 x 3,494.40 i
1BW ( 1,328.80 1,401.60 1,477.601 1,565.60 1612.80
i HR 16.61 17.52 ; 18.47 , 19.57 20.16
GS2 YR f 37,731 20 39,540.80 1
41,558.40 , 43 700.80 f 45 864.00
IMO 3,144.27 3 295 07 3,463 20 , 3,641.73 3,822.00
1 B W 1,451 20] 1,520.80 1,598.40 ' 1,680.80 1,764.00
HR -j- 18.14 L 19.01 19.98 1 21.01 22.05
GS3 YR 39 540.80 1 41 43,763 20 45,864 00 1-,558.40 1 48 152.00 50 814.40
MO I 3,295 07-1 3,463.20 3,646 93 3,822.00 4,012.67 4,234.53
1
BW 1,520 80 I 1,598.40 1,683 20 i 1,764.00 ; 1,852.00 ; 1,954.40
I HR ; 19.01 19.98 21 04 j 22.05 I 23.15 1 24.43
GS3E 1YR 42,536.00 44,678.40 i 47,049 60 49,337.60 ; 51,750.40 54,662.40
I HMO 3,544.67E 3,723.20 3,920.80 I 4,111.47 ; 4,312.53 , 4,555.20
IBW 1,636.00 ! 1,718.40 1,809.60 ! 1,897.60 I 1,990.40 2,102.40
1 HR j 20.45 21.48 j 22 62 23.72 ; 24.88 26.28
GS4 1YR 43,763.20 ' 45,864.00 48,235.20 50,668.80 i 53,164.80 [ 55 972.80
1 MO a 3,646.93E 3,822 00 ! 4,019.60 ; 4,222.40 4,430.40 L 4,664.40
-- BW L- 1,683 20 1,764 00 ' 1,855.20 1,948.80 i_ 2,044.80 i 2,152.80 '!
1 HR 21.04 22.05 23.19 24.36 25.56 26.91
3
GS4E 1YR 47,008 00 49,296.00 51,833.60 54,454.40 1 57,179.20 ! 60 070.40
IMO 3,917.33 j 4,108 00 L 4,319.47 { 4,537.87 4,764.93 5,005.87
BW 1,808.00 1,896 00 1,993.60 1 2,094.40 2,199.20 1 2,310.40
HR i 22.60 23.70 24.92 26.18 1 27.49 1 28.88
GS5 YR 48,235 20 j 50,668 80 1 53,164 80 ; 55,972.80 58 739.20 61,713.60
MO 4,019 60 i 4,222 40 4,430 40 4,664 40 1 4,894.93 5,142.80
1-13W 1,855.20 1,948 80 2,044 80 2,152 80 2,259.20 2,373.60
HR 23.19 24.36 I 25.56 ; 26.91 1 28.24 ! 29.67
i ,
iGS5E 1YR 51,833.60 ; 54,454.40 1 57,137.60 60,070.40 1 6.3,065.60 66,601.60
MO 4,319.47 4,537.87 4,761.47 5,005.87 i 5,255.47 t 5,550.13
�BW 1,993.60 2,094.40 2,197.60E 2,310.40 ! 2425.60 2,561.60
HR 24.92 26.18 27.47 28.88 1 30.32 ; 32.02
1GS6 1YR 1 53,164.80 ; 55,972 80 58,739.20 1 61,713 60 1 64,854.40 f 71,510.40
IMO 4,430.40 ' 4,664.40 ! 4,894.93 ] 5,142' 1
.80 3 5404.53 5,959.20
BW ? 2,044.80 2,152.80] 2,259.204 i
2 373.60 1 2,494.40 2,750.40
HR I 25.56 1 26.91 J 28.24 _ 29.67 ( 31-18 34.38
1 .
IGS6E IYR 57,137.60 ; 60,070.40 63,086 40 I_ 66 268.80 69 596.80 76,856.00 I
1 IMO 4,761 47 ! 5,005 87 ] 5,257.20 5,522.40 1 5,799.73 6,404.67 j
I
BW 2,197.60 i 2,3.10.40 2,426.40 2548.80 1 2,676.80 . 2,956.00
HR . 27.47 , 28.88 1 30.33 . 31,861 33.46 1 36.95
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 11th day of December 2012.
Debbie Goettel Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
(Revised 12-2012)
Iij
GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
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
Planning Technician Non-Exempt
Police Cadet Non-Exempt
Senior Office Aide Non-Exempt
3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt
Community Development Assistant Non-Exempt
Deputy City Clerk Non-Exempt
Facility Operations Assistant Non-Exempt
Environmental Health Assistant Non-Exempt
Lead Licensing Clerk Non-Exempt
Leased Housing Assistant Non-Exempt
Secretary Non-Exempt
Utility Billing Clerk Non-Exempt
3E Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt
4 • Administrative Aide Non-Exempt
Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt
Information Technologies Help Desk Non-Exempt
Technician
4SNE Administrative Aide (Closed as of 1-1-12) Non-Exempt
5 Engineering Technician Non-Exempt
Facility Maintenance Supervisor Non-Exempt
GIS Analyst/IT Technician Non-Exempt
Recreation Supervisor Part-time Non-Exempt
Information Technologies Technician Non-Exempt
5E Code Compliance Specialist Exempt
Crime Prevention Program Coordinator Exempt
Community Development Coordinator Exempt
Executive Coordinator Exempt
Housing Specialist Exempt
Media Coordinator Exempt
Multifamily Housing Program Coordinator Exempt
Natural Resources Coordinator Exempt
Naturalist Exempt
Payroll Accountant Exempt
Records Supervisor Exempt
Recreation Supervisor Exempt
Redevelopment Specialist Exempt
6 Civil Engineer Non-Exempt
Network Administrator Non-Exempt
Project Civil Engineer Non-Exempt
Trade/Building Inspector Non-Exempt
Trade/Electrical Inspector Non-Exempt
6E Accountant Exempt
Community Development Accountant Exempt
/11 .33
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2013 MANAGEMENT
SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the compensation personnel policy 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 2013 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 2013 the following pay plan, which is to be effective the first full pay period of January 2013,
and subject to all applicable provisions of the personnel policy and City Code:
MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN
PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM
M-L YR 56,264.00 64,251.20 72,176.00
MO 4,688.67 5,354.27 6,014.67
BW 2,164.00 2,471.20 2,776.00
HR 27.05 30.89 34.70
M-1 YR 63,356.80 72,467.20 81,473.60
MO 5,279.73 6,038.93 6,789.47
BW 2,436.80 2,787.20 3,133.60
HR 30.46 34.84 39.17
M-2 YR 73,236.80 83,678.40 94,182.40
MO 6,103.07 6,973.20 7,848.53
BW 2,816.80 3,218.40 3,622.40
HR 35.21 40.23 45.28
M-3 YR 79,830.40 91,228.80 102,606.40
MO 6,652.53 7,602.40 8,550.53
BW 3,070.40 3,508.80 3,946.40
HR 38.38 43.86 49.33
M-4 YR 87,588.80 100,027.20 112,528.00
MO 7,299.07 8,335.60 9,377.33
BW 3,368.80 3,847.20 4,328.00
HR 42.11 48.09 54.10
M-5 YR 98,321.60 112,340.80 126,401.60
MO 8,193.47 9,361.73 10,533.47
BW 3,781.60 4,320.80 4,861.60
HR 47.27 54.01 60.77
Normal Progression Through Management Compensation Plan
The Range Adjustment shall be applied to Management employees who have achieved at least a Satisfactory performance evaluation
during the preceding year. Employees who have received a Needs Improvement performance evaluation are eligible for 1/2 of the
following year's range adjustment. The Range Adjustment is effective January 1, 2013. Individual Merit adjustments will normally be
made effective on an employee's anniversary date and will vary in size, depending on the individual's performance rating and current
position in the salary range in line with the following criteria.
PERFORMANCE POSITION IN SALARY RANGE
RATING UNDER 95% MIDPOINT 95-105% OF MIDPOINT OVER 105% OF MIDPOINT
Outstanding 3.5 to 5% 1.6 to 4% 1 to 2%
Above Satisfactory 1.6 to 3.5% .5 to 1.5% .5 to 1%
Satisfactory .5 to 1.5% No Merit Increase No Merit Increase
Needs Improvement No Merit Increase. Requires mandatory 6-month evaluation.
Unsatisfactory No future increases until performance improves to at least Satisfactory. Performance and
employee status subject to mandatory review every 3 months.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2012.
Debbie Goettel Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
1) -56
MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE
RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS
M-L Liquor Store Manager Exempt
M-1 City Clerk Exempt
Facility/Program Manager Exempt
Human Resources Coordinator Exempt
Planner Exempt
Supervisor Exempt
Health Administrator Exempt
M-2 Assistant Utility Superintendent Exempt
Chief Building Official Exempt
Community Development Manager Exempt
Information Technologies Manager Exempt
Operations Manager Exempt
(Streets/Forestry, Parks/Fleet, Gov't
Buildings)
Transportation Engineer Exempt
M-3 Assistant Fire Chief Exempt
City Engineer Exempt
Housing & Redevelopment Manager/ Exempt
Assistant Community Development Director
Utilities Superintendent Exempt
M-4 Assistant City Manager/HR Manager Exempt
Deputy Public Safety Director Exempt
Finance Manager Exempt
Liquor Operations Director Exempt
M-5 Department Director Exempt
(Rev. 12-12)
/1-3/a
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2013 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, the compensation personnel policy 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 2013 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 2013 the following pay plan which is to be effective the first
full pay period of January 2013 and subject to the provisions of the personnel policy and
City Code:
EFFECTIVE THE FIRST FULL PAY PERIOD OF
JAN 2013 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND
Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
SP1-E/NE HR 7.42 7.84 8.15 8.56
SP2-E/NE HR 8.22 8.60 9.02 9.47
SP3-E/NE HR 8.86 9.28 9.77 10.26
S P4-E/N E HR 9.56 10.07 10.55 11.08
SP5-E/NE HR 10.31 10.88 11.37 11.96
S P6-E/N E HR 11.18 11.74 12.30 12.93
SP7-E/NE HR 12.05 12.65 13.28 13.93
•
S P8-E/N E HR 13.01 13.67 14.34 15.06
S P9-E/N E HR 14.06 14.78 15.48 16.26
SP10-E/NE HR 15.22 15.95 16.77 17.62
SP11-E/NE HR 16.35 17.23 18.09 18.97
SP12-E/NE HR 17.73 18.56 19.49 20.51
SP13-E/NE HR 18.99 20.01 21.04 22.12
Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan
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 — Minimum 500 hours worked per year from anniversary start date or two
years from anniversary date
Step 3 — Minimum 500 hours worked per year from anniversary date or two years
from last increase.
Step 4 — Minimum 500 hours worked per year from anniversary date or two years
from last increase
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of
December 2012.
Debbie Goettel Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
1 E Cross Walk Attendant NE Administrative Services Clerk
E Student Intern E Pool Supervisor
2 10 NE Engineering Aide
3 NE Bike Patrol Officer 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator
E Facility Rental Attendant
NE Winter Sports Attendant 12 E Pool Coordinator
E Cashier/Concession
13 NE 911 Dispatcher
4
NE Dance Coordinator & Skate Instructors
Coordinator NE Building Inspector
NE Recreation Attendant NE Figure Skating
NE Hockey (Arena)
5 NE Custodian NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech.
NE Professional Intern NE Sports Official
NE Survey Crew Person NE Substitute Naturalist.
NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist NE Dance
NE Lead Concession E Cross Country Ski
NE Teen Leader E Hockey (outside)
E Lifeguard E Tennis
E Outdoor Skating/Warming House E WSI
Supv
E Playground Leader OTHER
Instructor's Range: $5.75 - $50
6 NE Receptionist Election Judge $9.00
NE Liquor Sales Associate Election Co-Chair $9.50
NE Building Attendant Election Chairperson $10.00
7 NE Accounting Clerk NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40
NE Construction Specialist hours per week without overtime pay.
NE Housing Intern E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per
NE Ice Resurfacer week without overtime pay.
All Pool positions are exempt from overtime,even
NE Maintenance Laborer Concessions.
NE Naturalist I All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt.
All Community Center,Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena
NE Video Production Assistant and Maintenance positions are non-exempt.
(Revised 12-12)
8 NE Adaptive Coordinator
NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute
NE Construction Inspector
NE Farmers Market Coordinator
NE Publication Supervisor
NE Teen Coordinator
E Maintenance Technician
E Playground Coordinator
E Tennis Coordinator
E Summer Food Program Coord.
9 NE Community Development Tech.