Loading...
12-11-07 agenda CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2007 ******************************************************************************************************* SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHA~BERS 6700 PORTLAND ~ VENUE 5:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 5:30 - 6:50 p.m. 1. Annual meeting with State Representative Paul Thissen, State Representative Linda Slocum, State Senator Dan Larson, Metropolitan Council Representative District 5 . Russ Susag and Hennepin County Commissioner District 5 Randy Johnson Notes: Adjournment ******************************************************************************************************* REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their cpmment 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 13, 2007; (2) Special City Council Worksession of November 27,2007; (3) Regular City Council Meeting of November 27,2007; and (4) Special City Council Meeting of December 3,2007 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of proclamation designating December 13, 2007 as Arc's Value Village Thrift Store & Donation Center Day in Richfield 2. Introduction of recently appointed District C Metropolitan Airports Commission representative, Lisa Peilen (Council Memo No. 222) 3. Update from Metropolitan Airports Commission Manager of Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs, Chad Leqve, regarding Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airports aircraft noise concerns caused by ramp operations (Council Memo No. 222) 4. Annual meeting with Charter Commission 5. Richfield Foundation awarding of grants 6. Update from City Hall Task Force II regarding proposed new Richfield Police, Fire and City Hall facility 7. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Financial Reporting to Richfield Finance Manager Chris Regis (Council Memo No. 223) COUNCIL DISCUSSION 8. Council discussion . Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 9. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 10. 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 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 authorizing City to enter into master partnership contract with Minnesota Department of Transportation S.R. No. 315 B. Consideration of approval of removing stop sign on 67th Street at Cedar Avenue and relocating stop sign to control traffic on north leg of Cedar Avenue at 67th Street S.R. No. 316 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing City to enter into cooperative construction agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation allowing City to administer Mn/DOT's portion of Richfield Lake Improvement Project S.R. No. 317 Notes: 11. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Public hearings regarding 2008 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license renewals: A. Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 318 B. University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue S. R. No. 319 Notes: 13. Public hearings regarding 2008 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. 320 B. Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 321 Notes: 14. Public hearings regarding 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license renewals: A. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 322 B. Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 323 C. Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street S.R. No. 324 D. The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 325 E. Naviya's Thai Kitchen, 6345 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 326 F. Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. d/b/a Patrick's Bakery & Cafe, 2928 West 66th Street S.R. No. 327 Notes: 15. Public hearings regarding 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license renewals: A. Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 328 B. Don Pablo's Operating Corp., d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street S.R. No. 329 C. Paisan Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 330 D. Taco Morelos II, Inc., Two West 66th Street S.R. No. 331 Notes: 16. Public hearing regarding renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street Staff Report No. 332 Notes: 17. Public hearing regarding renewal of 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street Staff Report No. 333 Notes: 18. Public hearing regarding renewal of 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue Staff Report No. 334 Notes: 19. Public hearing and consideration of second reading of adopting new Section 549 of Richfield City Code related to signage regulations in residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use districts; repealing Section 416; and amending Section 400 of City Code in regard to sign installer licensing and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinances Staff Report No. 335 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 20. Consideration of second reading of ordinance repealing Section 426 of Richfield City Code related to public commercial wireless telecommunication services antennas and towers (revised and moved to Section 544 of Zoning Code) Staff Report No. 336 Notes: 21. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendments to Subsections 405.07, 405.09 and 405.15 of the City of Richfield Housing Code related to appeals of housing code violations, sanitation requirements and minimum space and occupancy requirements Staff Report No. 337 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 22. Consideration of resolution approving amendment to 2007-2008 labor agreement with International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 Staff Report No. 338 Notes: 23. Consideration of resolutions approving 2007 -Revised/2008 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions Staff Report No. 339 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 24. City Manager's report Notes: 25. 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: 26. 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. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT lOA 315 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 i REpORT PREPARED By: KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE ! COUNCIL PRESENTER: I I t I i DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR I REVIEW: I REVIEWED BY CITY I MANAGER: I ~ rt;... .~p~'~-"- ,,.v':/ :;./ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Master Partnership Contract between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield to allow each agency to perform seNices for the other efficientlv throuQh the use of work orders. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution allowing the City to enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. I II. BACKGROUND I Occasionally the City and Mn/DOT perform minor transportation-related seNices for each other when constructing, maintaining and improving the transportation system. The proposed contract allows for those seNices to occur efficiently through the use of work orders, rather than formal agreements. Minnesota Statutes authorize the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation- related seNices; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental seNices for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 1211 MnDOT I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The City wishes to cooperate closely with other governmental agencies to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The City regularly uses Mn/DOT for construction materials testing and other minor transportation-related services. I C. FINANCIAL . No costs are associated with the approval of the resolution. I D. LEGAL I . The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and will be available to answer questions. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) . Do not approve the resolution. I V. ATTACHMENTS I . Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation . Proposed Master Partnership Contract I VI. PRlNCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. /' Keul'SeoL /u 11- / RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) wishes to cooperate closely with local units of government to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT and local governments are authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write "work orders" against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the City of Richfield enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2. That the proper Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute such contract and any amendments thereto. 3. That the City Engineer is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from Mn/DOT, and that the City Engineer may execute such work orders on behalf of the City without further approval by this Council, to the extent permitted by state law or charter. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk I D f)-d.- Mn/DOT Contract Number CFMS Contract No. STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF RICHFIELD MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the.City of RICHFIELD acting through it's City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "Local Government" . Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes SS 15.061,471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this Contract is a "road authority" as defined by Minnesota Statutes S160.02 (subd. 25). 4. Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39, subdivision 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minnesota Statues S174.02 (subd. 6) authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally procure services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This Master Partnership Contract contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties hereto. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified herein) enter into a "Work Order" contracts. 7. Subsequent to the execution of this Master Partnership Contract, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into "Work Order" contracts. These will Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this Master Partnership Contract to establish terms that will govern all ofthe Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Master Contract 1 Term of Master Contract 1.1 Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government, and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. S 16C.05, subd. 2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed. 1.2 Expiration Date. This Contract will expire five years after its effective date. 12/4/2007 1.3 CFMS Contract No. T-Number Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Local Government) for each particular engagement. The work order contract will specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that engagement. A party must not begin work under a work order until such work order is fully executed. The terms of this Master Partnership Contract will apply to all work orders issued hereunder, unless specifically varied in the work order. The Local Government understand that this Master Contract is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully-executed work orders. IOfj"3 1.4 Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 11. Liability; 12. State Audits; 13. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 16. Publicity and Endorsement; 17. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 21. Data Disclosure. 1.5 Exhibits. A sample work order contracts is attached and incorporated into this contract as Exhibit A. 2 Scope of W ork/Deliverables 2.1 A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. 2.1.1 Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party. As defmed by Minnesota Statutes S 16C.08 (subd. 1) professional/technical services "means services that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task". Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services. Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, fmal construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel, however, a party's professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work. 2.1.2 Routine Roadwav Maintenance. A party may provide routine roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Routine roadway maintenance services may include, but are not limited to; lane or edge striping, pavement message painting, sign repair, guardrail repair, carcass removal, or equipment repair. Routine maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 2.1.3 Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the providing party's own forces, or the providing party may administer outside contracts for such work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work. 2.2 When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific project/engagement, although "on call" work orders may be prepared for certain 12/4/2007 2 iO/~-Y Mn/DOT Contract Number CFMS Contract No. types of services, especially for "routine roadway maintenance" items as identified section 2.1.2. The work order will also identify specific deliverab1es required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. The Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to authorization by the State. 3 Responsibilities of the Providing Party The party requesting the work will be referred to as the "Requesting Party" and the party performing the work will be referred to as the "Providing Party". Each work order will set forth particular requirements for that proj ectl engagement. 3.1 Terms Applicable to ALL Work Orders. The terms in this section 3.1 will apply to ALL work orders. 3.1.1 Each work order will identifY an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party's authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this Master Contract or the work order. 3.1.2 The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order. For services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order may not be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party's authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 3.1.3 If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering andlortechnica1 services from the State, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39. Such services may be covered by other technical service agreements. Ifthe State furnishes the services requested, the Local Government will promptly pay the State to reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such services. The costs and expenses will include the current State labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 3.1.4 Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed is considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment. 3.1.5 In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued hereunder, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 3.2 Additional Termsfor Routine Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 3.1 and this section 3.2 will apply to all work orders for routine roadway maintenance. 3.2.1 Unless otherwise provided for by agreement or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. 12/4/2007 3 lOA - 5' CFMS Contract No. T-Number 3.2.2 The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and operations. 3.2.3 The Providing Party must use State-approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals. 3.3 Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 3.1 and this section 3.3 will apply to all work orders for construction administration. 3.3.1 Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder in accordance with state law. 3.3.2 Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 3.3.3 Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 3.3.4 For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 3.3.5 Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to state law. 3.3.6 Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally-assisted contracts. 3.3.7 The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party's portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party's cost obligation under the applicable work order. 3.3.8 The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Party's written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order when necessary. The Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State's request. 3.3.9 The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State's Utilities Office. 3.3.10 The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party 4.1 After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 4.2 All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party's request or upon the expiration or termination ofthis contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 12/4/2007 4 IDA-'-, Mn/DOT Contract Number CFMS Contract No. 4.3 The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 4.4 The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 4.5 The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and/or inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s). 4.6 The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 5 Time In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 6 Consideration and Payment 6.1 Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order. 6.2 State's Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under allwork order contracts issued pursuant to this Master Contract will not exceed $1 million. 6.3 Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost ofthe Providing Party's services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "MnlDOT Travel Regulations" a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnlDOT District Office. The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State's prior written approval for such travel. 6.4 Payment. 6.4.1 Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 6.4.2 Payment by the Local Government. The Local Government will make payment to the order ofthe Commissioner of Transportation. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE "MN/DOT CONTRACT NUMBER" SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT. Remit payment to the address below: Mn/DOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnlDOT Contract Number (see note above) Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 12/4/2007 5 I DA-1 CFMS Contract No. T-Number 6.4.3 Payment by the State. 6.4.3.1 Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more frequently than monthly. 6.4.3.2 Retainagefor Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. S 16C.08, subd. 5(b), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State's authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State's authorized representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 7 Conditions of Payment All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party's satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party's Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. 8 Local Government's Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts 8.1 The Local Government's Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government's Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government's performance. The Local Government's Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf ofthe Local Government without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body, to the extent permitted by state law, city charter and city purchasing policies. 8.2 The Local Government's Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 9 State's Authorized Representative and Project Manager 9.1 The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility to monitor the State's performance. 9.2 The State's Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10 Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 10.1 Assignment. Neither party may assign ortransfer any rights or obligations under this Master Contract or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Master Contract, or their successors in office. 10.2 Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office. 10.3 Waiver. Ifa party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party's right to subsequently enforce it. 12/4/2007 6 loA-~ Mn/DOT Contract Number CFMS Contract No. lOA Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 11 Liability Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local Government's liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State's liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party's failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a "Contractor" to the Requesting Party, as the term "Contractor" is defined in Minnesota Statutes S 115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a "Contractor" by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. 12 State Audits Under Minn. Stat. S 16C.05, subd. 5, the party's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Master Contract. 13 Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property 13.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this Master Contract and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local Government under this Master Contract and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. S 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State. 13.2. Intellectual Property Rights 13.2.1 Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paidfor under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes "Documents." Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be "works made for hire." The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party's ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants 12/4/2007 7 IDA - q CFMS Contract No. T -Number the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such intellectual for its own non- commercial purposes, including dissemination to political subdivisions of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 13.2.2 Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. 13.2.2.1 Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the. Providing Party, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party's Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 13.2.2.2 Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 14 Affirmative Action The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes S363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a -:ontract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this Master Contract, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 12/4/2007 14.1 Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. S 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. S 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. 14.2 Minn. Stat. S 363.073. Minn. Stat. S 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights ("Commissioner") as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 14.3 Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. 14.3.1 General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. S 363A.36. These rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor's compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559. 14.3.1.2 Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: (l) The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for 8 10 /i- /0 CFMS Contract No. T-Number employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of payor other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. (2) The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. (3) In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. (4) The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affIrmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. (5) The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minnesota Statutes Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 14.3.2 Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor's failure to implement its affIrmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 14.3.3 Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. S 363.073 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware ofthe consequences for noncompliance. 15 Workers' Compensation Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This Master Contract, and any work orders issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minnesota Statutes S15.53. To the extent that this Master Contract, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be subject to Minnesota Statutes S 15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the Contract and the statute. 16 Publicity 16.1 Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State's Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 16.2 Data Practices Act. Section 16.1 is not intended to override the Local Government's responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 12/4/2007 9 I OA - II CFMS Contract No. T-Number 17 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 18 Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. S l6A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 19 Minn. Stat. ~ 181.59 The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. S 181.59 which reqmres: Every contract for or on behalf ofthe state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 20 Termination 20.1 Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 20.2 Termination by the Local Governmentfor Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 20.3 Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate this Master Contract and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed 12/4/2007 10 ( oA-/:J- CFMS Contract No. T-Number to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State's receiving that notice. 21 Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. S 270.66, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 22 Defense of Claims and Lawsuits If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government's contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this Master Contract, the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims. The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 23 Additional Provisions 23.1 Foreign Outsourcing. If the Local Government lets a contract for professional/technical or other services pursuant to any work order, the Local Government will require proposing vendorslbidders to disclose where work will be performed, and will use the extent to which services will be performed in the United States as a factor in determining the "best value" in awarding any such contract. It is the State's policy that state funds spent on contracts remain in the United States to the maximum extent possible. [the balance of this page has intentionally been left blank] 12/4/2007 9 LOCAL GOVERNMENT The Local Government certifies that the appropriate person( s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Local Government as required by applicable articles or bylaws. By: Debbie Goettel Title: Mayor Date: By: Steven Devich Title: City Manager Date: 12/4/2007 1oA-/3 CFMS Contract No. T -Number COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION By: (with delegated authority) Title: Date: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By: Date: Mn/DOT Contract Management As to form & execution By: Date: 12 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # RE;PORT# CONSENT lOB 316 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11 2007 I r i REpORT PREPARED By: I I COUNCIL PRESENTER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of removal of a stop sign on 67th Street at Cedar Avenue and relocate it to stop traffic on the north leQ of Cedar Avenue at 6ih Street. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve removal of a stop sign on 67th Street at Cedar Avenue and relocate the stop sign to control traffic on the north leg of Cedar Avenue at 67th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I A stop sign was installed on 6ih Street at Cedar Avenue as part of construction of the new 66th Street interchange at Highway 77. Since then, residents have complained that the north leg of Cedar Avenue at 6ih Street has become a minor road, while 6ih Street has become part of the major road in combination with the south leg of Cedar Avenue. The north leg no longer provides access to 66th Street and only provides access to the Decision One Building and the Cedar Avenue Liquor Store. The Richfield Traffic Control Committee reviewed this request and agreed that the existing stop sign on 67th Street should be removed and relocated to control traffic on the north leg of Cedar Avenue at this intersection. (See attached map.) 1211 Stop Sign Cedar-67th I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY · Major streets should not have stop signs on them when intersecting with minor streets. · Removal of stop signs requires Council approval. I B. eRlTICAL ISSUES · Some residents have expressed concern about the increased traffic and vehicular speeds on 17th Avenue. · The long-term solution is to redevelop the area south of 66th Street by replacing Cedar Avenue the new Richfield Parkway. I c. FINANCIAL I · The approximate cost involved in the relocation of a stop sign is $50.00, which is absorbed by the City's Street Maintenance budget. I D. LEGAL I · The City has a liability for stop signs that are improperly placed. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Install stop signs on all three legs of the intersection. The intersection does not warrant all-way stop control. I V. ATTACHMENTS I · Map of the intersection of 6ih Street and Cedar Avenue. I VI. PRlNCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING · None anticipated. !8B-~1 PROPOSED RELOCATION OF STOP SIGN AT 67TH STREET AND CEDAR AVENUE N A 66TH STREET I'-- I'-- , ~ :s=: I CJ I ~ Z :::> a: I- ill :::> z ill ~ a: <( o ill () AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # CONSENT lOC 317 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 I ! REpORT PREPARED By: i I I COUNCIL PRESENTER: ! i I DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR I I REVIEW: I REVIEWED BY CITY I MANAGER: I i KRISTIN ASHER, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Cooperative Construction Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the City of Richfield allowing the City to administer Mn/DOT's portion of the Richfield Lake Improvement Project. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution allowing the City to enter into a Cooperative Construction Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. I II. BACKGROUND I The City has been working and coordinating with Mn/DOT regarding the Richfield Lake Improvement project for many years. The project is currently scheduled to begin in January 2008 with the City administering the project on behalf of Mn/DOT. The attached agreement authorizes the City to receive funds from the State to cover the State's portion of the project, including the construction inspection. 1211 MnDOTCooperative I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The City wishes to administer the project in order to control the project details and schedule. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · The proposed agreement must be signed by the City before the project can be let. In order to move ahead with construction this winter the project must be bid as soon as possible. I C. FINANCIAL I · This agreement allows the City to obtain State funds to pay for the Mn/DOT portion of the project. The actual amount received will be based on the lowest responsible bid, but is estimated to be $910,687.36. I D. LEGAL I · The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and will be available to answer questions. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Do not authorize the execution of the agreement and postpone the construction until Fall 2008, however, the City Stormwater Bond proceeds must be spent down prior to October 2008 and it may be difficult for the City to fund the completion of the southern portion of the project if the project is delayed. Iv. ATTACHMENTS . Resolution · Proposed Cooperative Construction Agreement I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None. 1211 MnDOTCooperative I DC - { ~ Kevl'secL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ENTER INTO MN/DOT AGREEMENT NO. 91920 ALLOWING FOR A LUMP SUM PAYMENT FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR THE RICHFIELD LAKE TRAIL CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the City is about to perform grading, surfacing and storm sewer construction and other associated construction adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 35W on the Richfield Lake Trail; and WHEREAS, the City has requested participation by the State in the costs of the Richfield Lake Trail construction; and WHEREAS, the State is willing to participate in the costs of the Richfield Lake Trail construction and associated construction engineering in a lump sum amount as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, there is a possibility of deleterious materials being encountered within the project and if encountered, the City and the State shall determine responsibility for cost, based on the location of the material found, for the sorting, trucking and disposal of the deleterious materials as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 91920 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for payment by the State to the City of the State's share of the costs of the Richfield Lake Trail construction and other associated construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway 35W within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2782-292 (T.H. 35W=394). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City of Richfield to execute and enter into an Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 th day of December 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk jIJC-- ~ Rev:~ PRE-LETTING SERVICES SECTION STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT Mn/DOT AGREEMENT NO. 91920 S.P. 2782-292 (T.H. 35W=394) State Funds The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and The City of Richfield Re: State lump sum payment for Richfield Lake Trail construction by the City adjacent to T.H. 35W ORIGINAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED $990,687.36 AMOUNT RECEIVABLE (None) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Richfield, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City". 1 jDC/3 91920 WHEREAS, the City is about to perform grading, surfacing and storm sewer construction and other associated construction adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 35W on the Richfield Lake Trail within the corporate City limits in accordance with City-prepared plans, specifications and special provisions designated by the City as City Project No. 5300-1 and by the State as State Project No. 2782-292 (T.H. 35W=394); and WHEREAS, the City has requested participation by the State in the costs of the Richfield Lake Trail construction; and WHEREAS, the State is willing to participate in the costs of the Richfield Lake Trail construction and associated construction engineering in a lump sum amount as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, there is a possibility of deleterious materials being encountered within the project and if encountered, the City and the State shall determine responsibility for cost, based on the location of the material found, for the sorting, trucking and disposal of the deleterious materials as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE CITY Section A. Contract Award and Construction The City shall receive bids and award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, subject to concurrence by the State in 2 JOC-~ 91920 that award, ln accordance with State-approved City plans, specifications and special provisions designated by the City as City Project No. 5300-1 and by the State as State Project No. 2782-292 (T.H. 35W=394). The contract construction shall be performed in accordance with State-approved City plans, specifications and special provisions that are on file in the office of the City's Engineer, and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section B. Documents to be Furnished to the State The City shall, within 7 days of opening bids for the construction contract, submit to the State's District Engineer at Roseville a copy of the low bid and an abstract of all bids together with the City's request for concurrence by the State in the award of the construction contract. The City shall not award the construction contract until the State advises the City in writing of its concurrence therein. Section C. Rejection of Bids The City may reject and the State may require the City to reject any or all bids for the construction contract. The party rejecting or requiring the rejection of bids must provide the other party written notice of that rejection or requirement for rejection no later than 30 days after opening bids. Upon the rejection of all bids pursuant to this section, a party may request, in writing, that the bidding process be repeated. Upon the other party's written approval of such request, the City will repeat the bidding process in a reasonable period of time, without cost or expense to the State. Section D. Direction, Supervision and Inspection of Construction The contract construction shall be under the direction of the City and under the supervision of a registered professional engineer; however, the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement shall be open to inspection by the State District 3 jit --6 91920 Engineer's authorized representatives. The City shall glve the District Engineer at Roseville five days notice of its intention to start the contract construction. Responsibility for the control of materials for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement shall be on the City and its contractor and shall be carried out in accordance with Specifications No. 1601 through and including No. 1609 as set forth in the State's current "Standard Specifications for. Construction" . Section E. Completion of Construction The City shall cause the contract construction to be started and completed in accordance with the time schedule ln the construction contract special provisions. The completion date for the contract c~nstruction may be extended, by an exchange of letters between the appropriate City official and the State District Engineer's authorized representative, for unavoidable delays encountered ln the performance thereof. Section F. Additional Construction, Plan Changes, Etc. All changes in the plans, specifications and special provisions for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement and all addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements entered into by the City and its contractor for State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement must be approved in writing by the State District Engineer's authorized representative. Section G. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations The City shall, in connection with the award and administration of the cons.truction contract and the performance of the contract 4 Jot /fp 91920 construction, comply and cause its contractor to comply with all Federal, State and Local laws, and all applicable ordinances and regulations. Section H. Right-oi-Way, Easements and Permits The City shall, without cost or expense to the State, obtain all rights-of-way, easements, construction permits and any other permits and sanctions that may be required in connection with the contract construction. Prior to advance payment by the State, the City shall furnish the State with certified coples of the documents for those rights-of-way and easements, and certified copies of those construction permits and other permits and sanctions required for State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. The City is responsible for complying with and following Minnesota Statues 216D.04, Subdivision la, for identification, notification, design meetings and depiction of utilities affected by the contract construction. ARTICLE II - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE STATE Section A. SCHEDULE "I" A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement. The Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" includes all anticipated State cost participation construction items and the construction engineering cost share covered under this Agreement. Section B. State Cost Participation Construction The State shall, at the percentage indicated, participate ln the following construction to be performed adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 3SW on the Richfield Lake Trail within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2782-292 (T.H. 3SW=394). The construction 5 Joe.,! 91920 includes the State's proportionate share of item costs for mobilization and traffic control. 1; 100 Percent shall be the State's rate of cost participation of the State's share of the Richfield Lake Trail construction. The construction includes, but is not limited to, those construction items as tabulated on Sheet No's. 2, 3, and 4 of the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I". Such cost participation shall be a lump sum based on bid prices. 2. $40,000.00 shall be held in contingency for the State's cost participation (if necessary) in the sorting, trucking and disposal of the deleterious materials. The State and the City shall determine the responsibility of cost based on. the location of the deleterious material with respect to the construction limits for each parties cost share of the stormwater ponds except for Pond 6. For Pond 6, the City will be responsible for deleterious materials encountered on the City owned property and the State will be responsible for materials encountered on the Garden Center easement property. Section C. Construction Engineering Costs The State shall pay a construction engineering charge in an amount equal to 8 percent of the total cost of the State participation construction tabulated in the Revised SCHEDULE " I" . ARTICLE III - PAYMENT BY THE STATE It is estimated that the State's share of the costs of the contract construction plus the 8 percent construction engineering cost share and a $120,000.00 contingency amount is the sum of $990,687.36 as shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I". The attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" was prepared using estimated unit prices. 6 J DC / ? 91920 Upon receipt and review of the construction contract bid documents described in Article I, Section B. of this Agreement, the State shall then decide whether to concur in the City's award of the construction contract and, if so, prepare a Revised SCHEDULE "I" based on construction contract unit prices. The 80,000.00 contingency amount is provided to cover the increased State cost when changing the SCHEDULE "I" from estimated unit prices to contract unit prices for the lOO% lump sum in Section B. l. of this Article. The $40,000.00 contingency amount is provided to cover the potential State costs in the event deleterious materials are encountered. After the following conditions have been met, the State shall advance to the City the State's lump sum cost share as of the 100~ items of work shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I": A. Encumbrance by the State of the State's full and complete lump sum cost share as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I". B. Receipt by the State from the City of certified documentation for all of the right-of-way and easement acquisition required for State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement, and the approval of that documentation by the State's Land Management Director at St. Paul. C. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's transmittal of it to the City along with a copy of the Revised SCHEDULE "I" and a letter advising the City of the State's concurrence in the award of the construction contract. 7 } oC -/q 91920 D. Receipt by the State of a written request from the City for the advancement of funds. The request shall include certification by the City that all necessary parties have executed the construction contract. In the event deleterious materials are encountered within the project, payment by the State shall be made to the City upon project completion by the use of a Final SCHEDULE "I" which will include Pay Item number 2105.601 Sorting/Disposal of Deleterious Material and associated 8% construction engineering. Whenever it appears the cost of the State participation construction covered under this Agreement is about to exceed the current amount of encumbered State funds, the City shall notify the State District , Engineer's authorized representative in writing prior to performance of the additional State cost participation construction. Notification shall include an estimate in the amount of additional funds necessary to complete the State cost participation construction including construction engineering costs and the reason(s) why the current amount encumbered will be exceeded. The State shall, upon its approval of the additional State cost participation construction, encumber the necessary additional funds. That action will have the effect of amending this Agreement so as to include the State's share of the costs of the additional construction. Should the City cause the performance of additional contract construction which would otherwise qualify for State cost participation covered under this Agreement, but for which the State has not previously encumbered funds, that additional contract construction is done at the City'S own risk. The City shall notify the State District Engineer's authorized representative in writing of the additional State cost participation construction. Notification 8 J oC /(D 91920 shall include an estimate in the amount of additional funds necessary to cover the additional State cost participation construction including construction engineering costs and the reason(s) why the current amount encumbered was exceeded. If the State District Engineer's authorized representative approves the additional State cost participation construction, the City's claim for compensation along with a request for encumbrance of the necessary additional funds shall be submitted to the State's Budget Section for review of compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 16A.15, subdivision 3, but no guarantee is made that the claim will be approved by the State's Budget Section. If the claim for compensation and the request for encumbrance of the necessary additional funds are approved by the State's Budget Section, that action will have the effect of amending this Agreement so as to include t~e State's share of the costs of the additional construction. ARTICLE IV - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE CITY The City shall keep records and accounts that enable it to provide the State, when requested, with the following: A. Copies of the City contractor's invoice(s) covering all contract construction. B. A copy of the endorsed and canceled City warrant or check paYlng for final contract construction, or computer documentation of the warrant issued certified by an appropriate City official that final construction contract payment has been made. C. Copies of all construction contract change orders and supplemental agreements. 9 jot /1 J 91920 D. A certification form, provided by the State, signed by the City's Engineer in charge of the contract construction attesting to the following: 1. Satisfactory performance and completion of all contract construction in accordance with State-approved City plans, specifications and special provisions. 2. Acceptance and approval of all materials furnished for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement relative to compliance of those materials to the State1s current "Standard Specifications for Construction". 3. Full payment by the City to its contractor for all contract construction. E. City Engineer certified copies of material sampling reports and of material testing results for the materials furnished for the State cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. F. A copy of the "as built" plan sent to the State's District Engineer. G. Complete documentation for any force account work necessary if deleterious materials are encountered. 10 Joe /1 ~ 91920 ARTICLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. Replacement of Castings The City shall furnish its contractor with new castings and parts for all inplace City-owned facilities constructed hereunder when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State. Section B. Storm Sewer Maintenance Upon completion of the storm sewer facilities construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of those facilities, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, removal of sediment, debris, vegetation and ice from structures, grates and pipes, repair of erosion problems, and structure and pipe repair, and any other maintenance activities necessary to preserve the facilities and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of the facilities. Section C. Pedestrian Bridge Maintenance Upon satisfactory completion of pedestrian bridge numbers 27B55, 27B56 and 27B57 construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper minor maintenance of the pedestrian bridges and all of the facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the State. Minor maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, graffiti removal and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the pedestrian bridges in safe, usable and aesthetically acceptable condition. The State shall participate ln any future maJor maintenance of the pedestrian bridges based on the ratios of contributing water flow passing under the bridges at the time the major maintenance is 11 JcC /)3 91920 required. Upon completion of the walkway/trail construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the walkway/trail, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, patching, crack repair and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the walkway/trail in a safe and usable condition. Section D. Pond Maintenance Upon completion of the storm water treatment pond numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for proper maintenance of the ponds without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance shall include, but not limited to, litter, debris and silt removal, mowing, erosion repairs and any other maintenance activities necessary to preserve the facilities and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of the facilities. The City shall be responsible, to the extent provided by law, for its own acts and omissions in connection with maintaining the storm water treatment ponds. The City and the State shall share in the cost of future major maintenance of pond numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 at a rate based on the ratios of contributing water volume entering into the pond numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 at the time that the major maintenance is required. Major maintenance includes, but is not limited to, removal of sediment, repair of major erosion problems, major structure and entrance plpe repair and any other major maintenance activities necessary to preserve the facilities and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of the 12 jOC/(1 91920 facilities. The State and the City may enter into a separate agreement to define additional responsibilities for maintenance of the ponds. Section E. Additional Drainage Neither party to this Agreement shall drain any additional drainage into the storm sewer facilities to be constructed under the construction contract I that was not included in the drainage for which the storm sewer facilities were designedl without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. The drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities constructed under the construction contract are shown ln a drainage area map I EXHIBIT "Drainage Area"l which is on file in the office of the State's District Hydraulics Engineer at Roseville and is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section F. Future Responsibilities Upon completion of the Richfield Lake Trail construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract I the City shall thereafter accept full and total responsibility and all obligations and liabilities arising out of or by reason of the usel operationl maintenance I repair and reconstruction of the Richfield Lake Trail except as identified in Section C. of this Article and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed hereunder I without cost or expense to the State. The State has accepted the City/s plansl but has also advised the City that the State believes a 1:10 pond slope is preferable for reasons including risk of liability for injury to persons or property. The City acknowledges that the State/s acquiescence in accepting a pond slope of approximately 1:3 will not be deemed an approval or endorsement by the State of such design. The City will indemnify I 13 )lX;,-1 S 91920 defend (to the extent permitted by the Minnesota Attorney General) and hold the State harmless from any claim, cause of action, or liability arising from or in connection with such pond slope design, even though the State may have accepted, approved or acquiesced in such design. Section G. Termination of Agreement Each party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by providing the other party with written or fax notice of effective date of termination. The State is not obligated to pay for services performed after notice and effective date of termination. Upon such termination, the City is entitled to payment for services satisfactorily performed under this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. The State may immediately terminate this Agreement if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota Legislature, or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered under this Agreement. Termination must be by written or fax notice to the City. The State is not obligated to pay for services performed after notice and effective date of termination. Upon such termination, the City is entitled to payment for services satisfactorily performed under this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination, to the extent the funds are available. Section H. Examination of Books, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by each party, and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from final payment. 14 }O {/ Iff} 91920 Section I. Claims Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City. Section J. Nondiscrimination The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and of any applicable law relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section K. Agreement Approval Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and executed by such State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or their authorized representative. ARTICLE VI - AUTHORIZED AGENTS The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly-Sonnek, Municipal Agreements Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 366-4634. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Kristin Asher, Assistant City Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423-2599, (612) 861-9795. 15 jt) C/ll 91920 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Stat. ~~ l6A.15 and 16C.05. By Date MAPS Encumbrance No. CITY OF RICHFIELD By Mayor Date By Title Date DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By District Engineer Approved: By State Design Engineer Date Approved as to form and execution: By Contract Management Date COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By Date 16 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PTIRT.TC HEARINGS 12A 318 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: IX) REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 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 the 2008 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 29,2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1211 PH Metro Pawn Licenses Renewal Mark and Elizabeth Nichols are the owners of this establishment. John Alan Kunst serves as the store Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The $5,000 bond has been submitted. Public Safety/Police had 42 contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 14 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 29,2007. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES . N/A I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of a pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealers' license. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address anyone or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. . The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. I V. ATTACHMENTS I- . List of officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Mark Nichols, Owner of the establishment . John Kunst, Manager J d. A-{ Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. Officers Mark Nichols Elizabeth Nichols John Alan Kunst Owner Owner Store Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 14 42 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 10 19 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (8) (16) Alarm (2) (3) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 4 23 Assists (1 ) (20) Traffic (1 ) (1 ) I nspections/Licensi ng (2) (2) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: three alarms, two thefts, one property damage accident, seven suspicious persons, one miscellaneous ordinance violation, one follow-up investigation, three property recoveries, and one burglary. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 12B 319 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 9,2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn & Jewelry, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1211 PH Avi's Pawn License Renewal Andy Jason Strauss is the sole owner of the establishment and also serves as the store manager. He has no known criminal record. The lease between the applicant and the property owner is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. A $5,000 bond has been submitted. Public Safety/Police had 20 contacts with this location in the past year. This compares to six (6) contacts from the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff did not receive any complaints regarding this property in the past year. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 29,2007. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES . N/A I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Andy Strauss, Owner i ~ 8-- I Capital Cash, LLC d/b/a Hy's Pawn Officers Andy Strauss Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 PLAZA PAWN 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 6 20 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 12 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (10) Alarm (1 ) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 8 Assists (0) (6) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (2) Medical/Fire (1 ) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: three thefts, two alarms, four suspicious persons, one threat, one recovered property, and one domestic. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 13A 320 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of 2008 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 26, 2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post NO.5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1211 PH VFW liquor licenses Renewal Michael Brand serves as Commander and John Ellis as Chair of the House Committee. The on-premise General Manager is Gin Ng. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Gramarcy Park Cooperative. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Westport Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2006 through September 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 39.2% of the . total sales, while alcohol accounted for 56.4% of the total sales. Miscellaneous sales accounted for 4.4% of the total sales. The VFW is exempt from meeting the 50% or more food sales requirement due to the fact that they are a club/veterans organization and have received exempt status through the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. There were 17 Public Safety/Police contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 9 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding the V.F.W. in the past year. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy has been given to the establishment. There are no distance requirements for notifying neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. In July 1999, Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They were also cited in August 2000. This was their second violation. They paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 received no violations in the years 2001,2002 or 2003. In November of 2004, the VFW again failed the liquor compliance check, but because more than two years had elapsed since the previous failure, it served as a first failure. They paid a $1,000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. In April of 2007, the VFW failed the liquor compliance check. Because more than two years had elapsed since the previous failure, it served as a first violation. They paid a $1,000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. There have been no further violations since that time. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None. I D. LEGAL . None. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . This agenda item is the first request out of two for the renewal of the club on- sale and Sunday liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. If a single public hearing is called, the Mayor should require each speaker to identify the particular license to which the person is speaking. Any Council Member may request that the question be divided, if the Council Member wishes to address any one or all of the proposed resolutions by a separate motion. . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Gin Ng, Manager of establishment { 3H~ I V.F.W. Post Officers Michael Brand John Ellis Gin Ng Commander Chair of the House Committee On-premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 FRED BABCOCK V.F.W. POST 5555 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 9 17 CRIMINAL CO NT ACTS 7 9 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (6) (8) Alarm (1 ) (1 ) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 8 Assists (0) (2) Traffic (0) (2) I nspections/Licensing (0) (3) Medical/Fire (2) (1 ) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: three suspicious persons, one theft, one alarm, one domestic, two drunkenness, and one warrant activity. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # RErORT# PUBLIC HEARINGS 13B 321 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: J REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Leqion Post 435,6501 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of 2008 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 26, 2007, the City received the application and other required documents for the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year: Edward Mcinerney serves as President; Glen Rasmussen serves as Vice President; Mervyn Becker serves as Treasurer; and Roger Wysong continues to serve as the Club 1211 PH American Legion Liquor Licenses Renewals Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Westport Insurance Corporation affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2006 through September 2007, and indicates that food sales accounted for 17.6% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 82.4% of the total sales. The Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion is exempt from meeting the 50% or more food sales requirement due to the fact that they are a club/veterans organization and have received exempt status through the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. There were 43 Public Safety/Police contacts with the American Legion from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 29 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There were no Environmental Health complaints received for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 during this past year. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29, 2007. In July 1999, the Richfield American Legion was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. In April 2002, The Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 was again cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was technically their second violation, but because more than two years had elapsed since the previous failure, it served as a first failure. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. Richfield American Legion has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. [ C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I v. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . American Legion club officer. } 36-1 MPls - Richfield American LeglQ,n Edward Mcinerney Glen Rasmusson Mervyn, Becker President Vice-President Treasurer Roger Wysong Club Manager ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 Mpls-Richfield American Legion TOTAL CONTACTS 2006 29 2007 43 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 24 37 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (20) (4) (31 ) (6) Alarm MISCELLANEOUS NON-CRIMINAL 5 6 Inspections/Licensing (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) (2) (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) Assists Traffic Medical/Fire Animal The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: six suspicious persons, five drunkenness, one assault, six thefts, one damage to property, three disturbances, two fights, two hit & run accidents, one OWl, three follow-up investigations, one missing person, and six alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HF.ARTNG~ 14A 322 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: gJ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South, Richfield, MN. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 16, 2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC., 7644 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1211 PH Chipotle Liquor Licenses Renewal The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Montgomery Frederick Moran serves as the LLC Manager out of Boulder, Colorado and Matthew Steven Ells serves as the LLC Manager out of Denver, Colorado. Jamie Kilpela serves as the On-premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Zurich American Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2006 through September 2007, and indicates that food sales accounted for 91.8% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for .50% of the total sales, and miscellaneous sales accounted for 7.7% of the total sales. There were 22 Public Safety/Police contacts with Chipotle Mexican Grill from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 12 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint for Chipotle Mexican Grill in 2007. The complaint was regarding a food-related matter. The Bloomington Health Department was notified and no further complaints have been received. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . This agenda item is the first request out of seven for the renewal of the on- sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. However, staff is recommending that one of the seven renewal requests, Aribel's Restaurant, be reviewed separately as a single public hearing due to ongoing issues and concerns with this establishment. If the Council chooses, the remaining six renewal requests may be conducted as a single hearing and may pass the remaining resolutions with a single motion. . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to , allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing, can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Jamie Kilpela, On-premises Manager 1 Lj A-I Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC Directors and Officers Matthew Steven Ells Montgomery Frederick Moran Jamie Kilpela LLC Manager - Denver, Co. LLC Manager - Boulder, Co. On-premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC 2006 2007 TOTAL CO NT ACTS 12 22 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 20 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (13) Alarm (2) (7) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 8 2 Assists (0) (1 ) Traffic (3) (1 ) Inspections/Licensing (5) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 2007 were: two suspicious persons, three hit and run property damage accidents, five thefts, one fraud, one property damage, one warrant activity, and seven alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 14B 323 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: J. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 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. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 15, 2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. 1211 PH Thompsons Fireside Pizza Liquor Licenses Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Richard Bruce Thompson continues to serve as President, and Michelle Thompson serves as Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Richard Bruce Thompson and Michelle Thompson serve as General Managers of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Zurich Insurance Company affording the coverage. Workers' Compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period of October 2006 through September 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 91.98% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 8.02% of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had 69 contacts with Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with three (3) contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Thompson's Fireside Pizza in the previous year. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511 which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. Thompson's Fireside Pizza has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008 the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. · Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I v. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers · Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I · Bruce and Michelle Thompson, owners of the establishment /48- } Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. Fireside Pizza Directors and Officers Richard Thompson Michelle Thompson President/Owner - Manager Vice-President/Owner - Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 through September 2007 Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 3 69 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2 52 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (49) Alarm (0) (3) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 17 Assists (0) (3) Traffic (1 ) (6) Inspections/Licensing (0) (7) Medical/Fire (0) (1 ) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: three drunkenness, five property damage, one found property, five thefts, two trespass, ten suspicious activity, four disturbances, one domestic, three warrant activities, nine fights, one mental health crisis, four assaults, one 911 hang-up, and three alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 14C 324 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REPORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TInE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TInE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: 121 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 19, 2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required license fees. 1211 PH Red Pepper Liquor Licenses Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is serving as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Sui Fun Kiang serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Principle Life Insurance Company, continues to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Farmers Insurance exchange affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2006 through October 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 98.92% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine sales accounted for 1.08% of the total sales. There were no Public Safety/Police contacts with Red Pepper from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with two Public Safety/Police contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Red Pepper in 2007. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. Red Pepper has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. . ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. A TT ACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Ricky Kiang, Owner of the establishment /4C- ~} Kiang's Red Pepper Inc. Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Ricky Kiang Sui Fun Kiang President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer General Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 through September 2007 Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant TOTAL CONTACTS 2006 2 2007 o CRIMINAL CONTACTS 2 o Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (2) o (0) 0) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL o Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) Assists Traffic Medical/Fire There were no criminal contacts for Red Pepper from October 2006 through September 2007. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 14n 325 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TInE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: JgI :J, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop - Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue South. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop - Colorado Inc., d/b/a Noodles and Company, 7630 Lyndale Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 19, 2007, the City received the renewal applications and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for The Noodle Shop, d/b/a Noodles and Company. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Keith Joseph Kinsey is now the President/Director and the Secretary of the organization. 1211 PH Noodles Liquor Licenses Renewal Brenton Henderson continues to serves as the On-premises Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Federal Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Lyndale Gateway LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted covering the period from October 2006 through September 2007, and indicates that food sales accounted for 91.2% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 8.8% of the total sales. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There were 15 Public Safety/Police contacts with Noodles restaurant from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares to 10 contacts from the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint regarding Noodles and Company in 2007. The complaint was regarding loud noise between the hours of 9:15 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., which they believe was due to some cleaning they were having done. Noodles and Company was notified and no further complaints have been received. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. In April 2007, Noodles and Company was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first offense. They paid a $1000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Noodles and Company has received no violations since that date. 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 29,2007. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A [D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Representative(s) of Noodles and Company (L/[J-I The Noodle Shop-Colorado, Inc. Noodles and Company Directors and Officers Keith Joseph Kinsey Brenton Henderson Pres identlO i rector/Secretary On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 The Noodle Shop - Colorado Inc., DBA Noodles and Company TOTAL CaNT ACTS 2006 2007 10 15 CRIMINAL CaNT ACTS 7 14 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (6) Alarm (5) (8) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 1 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (1 ) (1 ) Inspections/Licensing (2) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 2007 were: one property damage, one 911 hang-up, one ordinance violation, one disturbance, two suspicious persons and eight alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 14E 326 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Naviya's Thai Kitchen, 6345 Penn Avenue South, Richfield. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Naviya's Thai Kitchen, 6345 Penn Avenue South, Richfield. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 9,2007, the City received the application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Naviya's Thai Kitchen. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization has remained unchanged since their original approval in April 2007. Naviya LaBarge is the sole owner of the establishment. Kim 1211 PH Naviya's Thai Restaurant Liquor License Renewals LaBarge continues to serve as the On-premises Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Travelers Property Casualty affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. There were five Public Safety/Police contacts with Naviya's Thai Kitchen from May 2007 through September 2007. As this is a fairly new business, there are no previous "calls for service" or contact records to compare. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Naviya's Thai Kitchen. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance 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 29, 2007. Naviya's Thai Kitchen has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the hearing can be conducted. · Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS · List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Naviya La6arge, Owner . Kim LaBarge, On-Premise Manager JLj~- J Naviya's Thai Kitchen Directors and Officers Naviya LaBarge Kim LaBarge Owner On-premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS May 2007 - September 2007 Naviya's Thai Kitchen TOTAL CONTACTS CRIMINAL CONTACTS Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL Assists Traffic Inspections/Licensing Medical/Fire 2007 5 5 (5) (0) o (0) (0) (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 2007 were: one suspicious person, one weapon, one burglary and two thefts. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 14F 327 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAMb', TnLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 181 ri J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public Hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 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, Richfield, MN. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2008 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, Richfield, MN. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 24, 2007, 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 paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1211 PH Patrick's Bakery Liquor Licenses The corporate structure of the organization has remained unchanged. Patrick Bernet serves as the President of the organization and Rafieh Bernet serves as the Vice-President. Rafieh Bernet also serves as manager of the establishment. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A list of officers is attached. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing American Fire & Casualty Company affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. The property is owned by Principal Life Insurance Company c/o Madison Marquette. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments cu rre nt. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted covering the period from September 2007 through October 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 99.03% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 0.97% of the total sales. Since the original on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses were just approved in September 2007, there are no earlier figures to report. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. There were no Public Safety/Police contacts with Patrick's Bakery & Cafe from September 2007 through October 2007. There are no contacts from the previous year to compare this to as the original licenses were just issued in September 2007. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Patrick's Bakery & Cafe. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance 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 29,2007. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . That the requirements in Resolution 9511are met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Public Safety Contacts I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Patrick Bernet, Owner . Rafieh Bernet, Owner/Manager Patrick Bernet Rafieh Bernet IY'r~1 Patrick's French Bakery, Inc. Patrick's Bakery & Cafe Directors and Officers President Vice-President and On-Premise Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL CONTACTS CRIMINAL CONTACTS PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS September 2007 Patrick's Bakery & Cafe Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL Assists Traffic Inspections/Licensing Medical/Fire There were no criminal contacts for Patrick's Bakery & Cafe. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) 2007 o o (0) 0) o (0) (0) (0) (0) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 15A 328 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REpORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: :J DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 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. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2008 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 II. BACKGROUND I On October 26,2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, with outside service, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1211 Houlihans Liquor Licenses Renewal The structure of the organization remains unchanged. Arnold Auro Angeloni serves as President and Kim Zeigler continues to serve as the on-premises manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. The property being leased by Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar is owned by Wood lake- VEF IV, LLC. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing General Casualty Companies affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2006 through August 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 69.9% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 30.1 % of the total sales. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar in the past year. Public Safety/Police had 56 contacts with Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 39 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. In July 2001, Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. . Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . This agenda item is the first request out of six for the renewal of the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. If no Council Member objects, the Council may conduct a single public hearing for all of the license approvals and may pass all of the resolutions with a single motion. However, staff is recommending that two of the six renewal request~ (The Frenchman's and Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant) be reviewed separately as individual public hearings due to ongoing issues and concerns with these two establishments. If the Council chooses, the remaining four renewal requests may be conducted as a single hearing and may pass the remaining resolutions with a single motion. . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1 , 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Houlihan's Staff J5!l-1 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar Officers Arnold Auro Angeloni Kim Richard Zeigler CEO/President On-Premises Manager ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 through September 2007 Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar 2006 2007 TOTAL CO NT ACTS 39 56 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 26 31 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (24) (29) Alarm (2) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 13 25 Assists (8) (17) Traffic (4) (3) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1 ) Medical/Fire (1 ) (4) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: seven suspicious persons, two alarms, five thefts, two juvenile complaints, six property damage accidents, one domestic, three drunkenness, one follow-up investigation, one warrant activity, one noise complaint, one robbery, and one restraining order. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # PITRT.TC HF.ARTNG~ 1 'iR 11q STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TInE REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of the 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operatinq Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On October 30,2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Raymond Paul Barbrick serves as CEO/President; Kurt John Schnaubelt serves as the Secretary and Treasurer. Rick Linton now serves as the On-premise manager. 1211 PH Don Pablo's Liquor Licenses Renewal None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing American Home Assurance Company affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2006 through October 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 77% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 23% of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had 18 contacts with Don Pablos from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 15 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Don Pablos during the past year. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, whi9h outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. In July 1999, Don Pablos was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They received a second violation in October 2000. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Don Pablo's failed a liquor compliance check in October 2006, but because they have successfully passed more than two consecutive compliance checks, this is considered a first offense. They received a $1000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Don Pablo's has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Don Pablos staff 150~ ) Don Pablo's Operating Corporation Don Pablos Officers and Directors Raymond Paul Burbrick Robert Lee Hogan Kurt John Schnaubelt CEO/President Vice-President Secretary ITreasurer/CFO Rick Linton On-Premise Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 Don Pablo's TOTAL CONTACTS 2006 15 2007 18 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 14 14 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) Alarm (8) (6) (9) (5) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 4 Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) (1 ) (0) (0) (2) (1 ) (1 ) Assists Traffic Medical/Fire The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: two suspicious persons, two thefts, one drug activity, two disturbances, one ordinance violation, one drunkenness and five alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 15C 330 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REPORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAMH, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, T17Vi REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc. d/b/a Khan's MonQolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 1, 2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan, Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: . The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mitchell Law and Sherri (Paisan) Law are the owners of the establishment. Mitchell 1211 PH Khans Liquor Licenses Renewal Law continues to serve as the General Manger of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Safeco Insurance Company affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2006 through September 2007, and indicates that food sales accounted for 94% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 6% of the total sales. Public Safety/Police had 10 contacts with Khan's from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 11 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. The Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Khan's Mongolian Barbeque in the past year. On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy ofthis resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29, 2007. In July 1999, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days for their first violation. In July 2001, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for their second violation. Since this second violation occurred just two days prior to the two-year time frame established in resolution no. 8808, the owner of the establishment requested that the violation be considered a first violation with the agreement that the fees and suspension period remain that of a second violation. Council approved the request and Khan's Mongolian Barbeque received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Khan's Mongolian Barbeque failed a liquor compliance check on September 3, 2005. This is considered a first violation due to the time elapsed from the previous one. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Khan's Mongolian Barbeque has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Mitchell Law 15r2~J KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE Officer and Directors Mitchel Law Sherri (Paisan) Law President & On-Premises Manager Vice PresidentlTreasurer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 Khan's Mongolian Barbeque 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 11 10 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 10 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (2) (2) Alarm (8) (3) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 5 Assists (0) (2) Traffic (1 ) (3) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: one suspicious person, one theft from auto, and three alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 15D 331 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r3 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of the 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., 2 West 66th Street. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the renewal of the 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc., 2 West 66th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On December 4,2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Taco Morelos II, Inc. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. Renewal application materials were sent to all liquor establishments on September 25,2007 with a return deadline of October 26,2007. This period of time allows ample time for the establishment to complete the required renewal forms. This deadline date is also necessary for staff to complete the licensing process. Staff made several calls to Taco Morelos regarding the need to get their application submitted. The renewal application materials were finally submitted, five weeks beyond the deadline. The late submittal of this renewal paperwork has been a continual problem for this establishment and is very concerning to staff. 121107 PH Taco Morelos Liquor Licenses Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Gaspar Rey Perez serves as the President and On-premise manager of the organization; and Lucila Sanchez Perez serves as the Vice-President and Secretary. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal history. The property being leased by Taco Morelos II, Inc. is owned by Heritage Property 1.1. Inc. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Farmers Insurance Group affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from November 2006 through September 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 84% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 16% of the total sales. Environmental Health staff received no complaints for Taco Morelos in the past year. There were three Public Safety/Police contacts with Taco Morelos in the past year. This compares to no contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for either the state or the City. The notice of public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. In May 2003, Taco Morelos was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $1,000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Taco Morelos failed a liquor compliance check on May 24, 2005. This is considered a first violation due to the time elapsed from the previous violation. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Taco Morelos has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing, with the exception of the submittal of the accountant's statement. . Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. lB. CRITICAL ISSUES I . That the requirements in Resolution No. 9511 are met. . Future license renewals must be submitted in a timely manner. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL . N/A I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the license. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Gaspar Perez, Owner 15 D.- J TACO MORELOS Officers and Directors Gaspar Rey Perez Lucila Sanchez Perez President Secretary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 - September 2007 Taco Morelos 2006 2007 Medical/Fire (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (3) (3) (3) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) TOTAL CONTACTS CRIMINAL CONTACTS Incidents (see bottom of page for specifies) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL Assists Traffic Inspections/Licensing The criminal contacts for Taco Morelos from October 2006 through September 2007 were: one Domestic, one theft, and one harassing communication. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 16 332 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REPORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAM!" TiTU' COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEP ARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale wine and 3,2 percent malt liquor licenses for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield, 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve or deny the renewal of the 2008 on sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Aribel's, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 6,2007, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Aribel's. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. The applicant and sole owner/manager of Aribel's is Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud. She has no known criminal record. 1211 PH Aribel's Liquor Licenses Renewal All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. However, the applicant is currently in arrears with the Minnesota Department of Revenue for delinquent liquor taxes in the amount of $18,000. The lease between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing The Burlington Insurance Company affording the coverage. Proof of worker's compensation insurance has not been provided due to the fact that they have no employees at this time. An accountant's statement has not yet been submitted. The applicant is aware of the need to submit this information and has agreed to do so before the scheduled meeting. There were 14 Public Safety/Police contacts with Aribel's from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares to 14 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health Staff received two complaints for Aribel's in 2007. The first complaint was regarding loud music and noise during the evening and early morning hours. The owner was notified and reminded of the City ordinance regarding loud noise. In addition, staff requested extra patrol to monitor for further noise violations. The second complaint was regarding a clothing donation bin that was not being attended. The applicant was also notified of this complaint and was instructed to maintain the clothing bin and parking lot area of the establishment. Because of continual problems with the clothing bin, the owner was eventually instructed to have the bin removed from the property. In addition to the noise complaint received through Environmental Health, there were an additional eight complaints received through dispatch regarding late night music noise. The noise/loud music complaints appear to be a continual problem as this issue has also been problematic in previous years. The most recent complaint received for the loud noise was September 25,2007. On October 15,2007, City staff received notification from the Minnesota State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement indicating that while Aribel's was on the Minnesota Department of Revenue Liquor Posting tax delinquent list they bought liquor at retail for the purpose of resale in Violation of Minn. Stat. ~340.415. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement, has the authority to take civil action in the form of a fine, license suspension or license revocation. They chose to impose a $200 fine for this violation. The amount of delinquent liquor tax owed by Aribel's is $18,000. On Wednesday, December 5, 2007, staff verified that the applicant is still on the liquor posting tax delinquent list. Richfield City Code 1202.19, Revocation, states that "The City Council may suspend or revoke a liquor license for the violation of any provision or condition of this section or of any state law or federal law regulating alcoholic beverages and will revoke a license for any willful violation which, under state laws, is grounds for mandatory revocation." While revocation may be harsh for this single offense, the Council should consider a consequence if the applicant does not remain in compliance (this would mean thatthe applicant cannot purchase any liquor for resale until the back taxes have been satisfied). Possible consequences that the City could impose could be a monetary penalty, suspension or revocation of the license. However, suspension or revocation would require the opportunity for a hearing. The Council should also consider that the delinquent liquor taxes be paid and remain current as a condition of renewal. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can.expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance 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 19,2007. Aribel's has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has violated a provision of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, City staff is not recommending approval or denial of the issuance of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . That the requirements in Resolution 9511 are met. . That the applicant does not violate any City Codes or State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. . That the delinquent State liquor taxes are paid and remain current. . That the Public Safety contacts and complaints regarding loud noise/music are reduced and/or eliminated completely. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . In October 2007, staff received notification from the Minnesota State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division that the applicant was currently on the Minnesota Department of Revenue's Liquor Posting delinquent tax list. The applicant is currently in arrears in the amount of $18, 000. While on this list, the applicant violated Minnesota Statute 9340.415 by purchasing liquor at retail for the purpose of resale. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Alcohol.and Gambling Enforcement imposed a civil penalty in the form of a fine in the amount of $200 for this violation. . As a result of this violation, the applicant may be subject to discipline by the City. While revocation may be harsh for this single offense, the City could impose a suspension of the applicant's liquor license as a penalty for the violation of this State Statute. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute S340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts . Copies of violation paperwork from the Minnesota Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud / b~ ( Aribel's Directors and Manaaers Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud Owner/Manager --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS September 2006 - October 2007 Aribel's Restaurant 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 14 14 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 13 13 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (12) (13) Alarm (1 ) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 1 Assists (1 ) (1 ) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts for 2007 were: one disturbance, two suspicious activities, two assaults, and eight noise complaints. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures.) . MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement ARMER/911 Program Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Driver and Vehicle Services Homeland Security and Emergency Management Minnesota '5tate Patrol Office of Communications' Office of Justice Programs Office of Traffic Safety State Fire Marshal and Pipeline Safety 1(0-- J- Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement 444 Cedar Street · Suite 133 · Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-5133 Phone: 651.201.7500 · Fax: 651.297.5259 · TTY: 651.282.6555 www.dps.state.mn.us - Leon & Chetranee See persaud Aribel's Restaurant 1120 E 66th Street Richfield MN 55423 October 11, 2007 , 6103c.f f't\.~ t:> t--l~lS NOTICE OF AGENCY ACTION The Department of Public Safety, Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement has evidence that while on the Minnesota Department of Revenue Liquor Posting tax delinquent list you bought liquor at retail fpr the purpose of resaleiri violation of Minn. Stat. ~ 340.415. This was noted by an agent of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division when he visited your establishment on September .18, 2007. Under the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7515.0520 all retail dealers shall purchase their stock of alcoholic beverages only from duly licensed Minnesota manufacturers~ brewers, arid wholesale distributors. The Department of Public Safety, Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement is given the authority to take civil action in the form of a fine, license suspension or license revocation for any violation of Statute, Rule or Ordinance related to alcoholic beverages. Pursuant to this authority, you are hereby notified that this agency is imposing a civil fine in the amount of $200.00, for violation of the law as provided for ~n Minn. Stat. ~ 340A.415. This fine is due 20 days from the date of this notice unless you contact us within this timf) period contesting this matter. . You are also advised that you have the right to a hearing before an administrative law judge. The request for such a hearing must be in writing and must be sent to the undersigned within twenty days of the date of this Notice. If you request a hearing, this agency will initiate a contested case proceeding pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act. If you do not wish to contest this agency action, send a check payable to the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Director in the amount of $200.00. If we have not received payment or a request for a hearing by October 30, 2007, additional and more serious agency action may be taken against your license for failure to comply with the directive of the Commissioner. ce' Sincerel~ MardMe~ tK.~ Director Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER =F\V\.e '> \3-..\v .~\~ . \:l..~l\e... <7~ ~~~~ e:,~~Q\d I 'Ilo~ .3 Violation 10: 12211 . . . FNAME:ILEON& CHETRANE MI: r DOS: I. AltDOB: I LNAME: LT NAME: ISEEP~RSp'Ug ... . L . ..... -. ... . -,. . . STREET ADDRESS . . - . . ,... IARIBEL'S RESTAURANT 11120E 66THSTREET r . IRICHFIELD ,.. STATE: IMN ", ZIP; 155423 TRADE NAME ORDBA! .. . . . . , ... - . . CIl'YOFBUSINES80RDBA: DEFENPI\NT1YPE: .11.... : (1"UCENSEE.2 = EMPLOYEE) .' ... ,.,'. ,. '...... "..... '. (1 = UQ-ONSALE. 2 = UO"OFFSALE. 3 = UO-CLUB. 4 = WINE) L1CEN8ETYPE: . MWNONSB (5= CD. 6=3.20NSAlE. 7 = 3.2 OFFSALE. 8= WHOLESALE) . VIOLATION: .J~.q~~I-iT.~19lJ()R 8 TBP8ILfOR..BE?~LE.WHILEP()~TEp ONT~ LIST. 1... L .,.--....., , -.'... ... .. .., -... . ". .. .-,.. , . . ..., ..... . .. , ,.- .. . .. -..., ".. SENTENCE: ". . CONVICTIOND,ATE: . . CEDi: 1 COURT: I I JUDGE: DATE: 11Ql11/200! Ideo; 119034 DUE DATE: /10/30/2007.' ,. BECENED DATE: CV'yUAL . W~s> 5~ - lACW/Sf-t 0{-(( fYl4(b~~ I I"'" /lr~!o7 j0--Y Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division Department of Public Safety Civil Penalty Memo To: Enforcement File From: Marlene Kjelsberg, Supervisor Date: 10/10/2007 Re: Leon & Chetranee Seepersaud DBA Aribel's Restaurant, 1120 E. 66th Street, Richfield, MN 55423, MWNONSB license expires 12/31/2007, ID 19034, No prior violations. Above tax delinquent licensee posted to the Minnesota Department of Revenue Tax List purchased alcoholic beverages from another retailer for resale. Effective date of the posting was: December 20, 2006. AGED agent visited the above licensee to conduct an investigation on: September 18, 2007 Above licensee admitted to husband purchasing alcoholic beverages at retail for resale during the investigation. AGED agent obtained evidence of a resale sale for resale during the ilwestigation and that evidence is: Miller Light Beer with a production date of July 12, 2007. Wholesaler visited and records indicate that the last sales date was: JJ Taylor Distributing, December 14,2006. This is the first violation of this type within the past five years. Director Mark Shields has been briefed on this case and concurs with the penalty. . Page 1 1(o~5" PS-GE 11 0-0 Alcohol & Gambling Enfortcment -"- .--X_ TYPE OF REPORT INITI AL REPORT MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT CRIMINAL INFORMATION CASE CLOSURE ALCOHOL & GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION LICENSE REPORT OTHER___~____ REPORT OF INVESTIGATION CASE NUMBER OFFENSE CODE DA TE/TIME OF ACTIVITY 07-496 M4102 September 18, 2007 I I :00 Hrs. - COUNTY OF OCCURRENCE SUBMITTED BY Hennepin Sf} Mueller OFFENSE CA TEGOR Y PERSONNEL ASSIGNED Violation of MS 340A.4 15 Retail Purchase for Resale Sf} Mueller COMPLAINANT: MN Department of Revenue Liquor Posting PARTIES INVOLVED: ID# 19034 Leon & Chetranee Seepersaud DBA: Aribel's Restaurant 1120 East 66th Street Richfield, MN 55423 MWNONSB License SYNOPSIS: Leon and Chetranee Seepersaud doing business Aribel's Restaurant in Richfield MN has been posted on the Minnesota Department of Revenue tax delinquent liquor-posting since December 15, 2006. Once posted on the tax list, Minnesota Statute 270.73 prohibits alcoholic beverage wholesale distributors from selling or delivering any alcoholic beverage product to the retailer. Also, under the provisions of Minnesota Statute 340A.415, it is illegal for a retailer of alcoholic beverages to purchase liquor from another retailer of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of re-sale. According to the Liquor ~S:h!'f.)F~\~~~~~mheF:2~2t1~ was the last day Aribel's could receive alcoholic beverage shipments/sales from their wholesale distributors. DETAILS: S/I Mueller had inspected the business on two previous occasions, but failed to locate any alcohol product produced after the December No Ship Date.~heJtlflJ~~~QeqwSihMmdlerta~ain traveled to Richfield to check the alcoholic beverage inventory of Aribel's Restaurant to determine if alcohol product was delivered to or brought into the business in violation of the law. I ~-'0 Upon arrival Mueller entered the restaurant through the only known public entrance and approached a female known to him as owner, Chetranee Seepersaud. Mueller identified himself to Ms. Seepersaud and informed her that he would be conducting an inspection of the premise to due the business' posted status. Seepersaud was asked if any alcohol wholesalers had delivered to the restaurant since December 2006 and she stated none had. Mueller noted the malt beverage product in the floor cooler behind the checkout counter included Miller Chill, a product that was introduced to the Minnesota market on June 1, 2007. S-eepeF:Sftu~a-s-mskert:wl1ereitneIMi'n€p'-preQUe:fIna'(f:'Bom'e2ffeJn=and::shec.statedIher2husbarrdLl:)uughUhe1k &eei"atrtht7ILq.\:lor~store;.aI1d-broJJ.ghhit,inill:.ihe;:resla:ur~Muel1er checked the remaining product in the cooler and located a moderate quantity of Miller Lite with a pull date of 11-12-07, ~ning;t1're;trottles~ ~I~tiJ,l~Hh&bIe~Yi~~Qn;J;,!tl)t:l.zvl220(i),7. Mueller removed a single bottle of Miller Lite and asked Seepersaud where the beer had come from. ~gaini',lil1~;~lil}$~!h~!sh~,1hushaITdrpfffCliasegllfie~lf"C€Fat=aii'li' ~sij~~l!~\~1t~Est<i~9.v<kQF'9H~~2~~Mauralrf1P Mueller advised Seepersaud that purchasing alcohol product from other retailers and bringing it to her licensed restaurant to resell it was a violation and a single bottle of Miller Lite was going to be removed as evidence. A form 72 Seizure Report was completed and both Mueller and Ms. Seepersaud signed it with a carbon copy left at the restaurant as receipt for the removed beer. (See Attached) Mueller further advised Ms. Seepersaud to contact the MN Department of Revenue and work at clearing the Liquor Posting. Seepersaud stated that the business owes $18,000 in back taxes and was trying to pay them off because they hope to apply fot a full intoxicating liquor license. She was again advised to discontinue purchasing alcohol at retail if the intent was to resell it. Seepersaud was told that she could expect future visits to check the inventory as long as the business remains posted. &fjl1~re~ntra~f~'alo1flajI6r:'Bmrmunng7HP~roemH.i:lt..s.L~ J.J. Taylor is the franchised Miller Brewing wholesaler for the Richfield area, including Aribel's Restaurant. Mueller requested and received a sales history from the wholesale distributor which shows the last date of delivery was ~~esee Attached) A check of the Aleohol and Gambling Enforcement database shows no previous violations for Aribel's Restaurant or Leon and Chetranee Seepersaud. The removed product will be destroyed via the sanitary sewer system upon case closure. Case continued pending administrative action by the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division. I:B;~a:~ ~Iear. l' . I (p - .7-""-_._-""....~.__.._,-'-c-~_.__._~.. . Name of LIcensee: iSeeperse.ud. Leon & Chetmnee First Name Format: [L~~-;;-& Chet;~~-;Se~p;;;8.ud - .~. Iden No: 119034 Tax 10: f7ii50i9~-- Agent District: fl- Federal Tax 10:]13-4299813 License No.:j DBA: IAribel;s Reste.urant Previous Name: fR&J Brothers Inc./141. 28 Change Date: 110/14/2005 Change Desc: I License Type: lMWNONSB Issuing Authority: IRichfield Status: . 'Approved . License Start Date: 19/13/2005 License Exp Date: h 2/31/2007 ._-~ ---~ Received Date: ]10/14/2005 110/14/2005 Approved Date: Transfer Date: I Sent Daoo: lr Violations 11053 -'- . r Complaints 1200 r Fines r-- P" Tax Delinquent Fee A (Offsale): Fee B (Onsale): Fee C (Sunday): Fee D (Other): Fee E (Surety bond): r-. -'~I...<p;C\'cJus.1 Addresses Licensee DBA Address E 66th Street "..1 ~.J , City rRichfield County . fHennepin I ""1 ......J View Phone Numbers Licensee: [612/243-8993 Corporate Officers Leon Inc Date r---~- i State IMN (0..->) Alcllftol & Gamhfing Elllo,eetnen, INITIAL COMPLAINT RECORD CASE NUMBER: 07-496 Incident Scene: City: Richfield Department: Received By: Mueller Received: Date: 12/15/06 Zip: 55423 County: Hennepin Assigned To: Mueller How Received: Liquor Posting Time: N/A Uniform Offense Code (UOC) (1): ~4102 Retail Purchase for Resale Status Codes: P-Pending Reported By: ame: MN Department of Revenue Liquor Posting Address: Phone: City: State: MN Zip: Danger: No ID # . Persons Associated With The Case: Name: Leon and Chetranee Seepersaud DBA: Aribels Restaurant. Role: Offender Address: 1120 East 66th Street Phone: 612-243-8993 City: Richfield State: MN Zip: 55423 Danger: No ID # 19034 Persons Associated With The Case: Name: Address: City: DBA: Role: Phone: . State: MN Zip: Danger: No ID # Persons Associated With The Case: me: Address: City: DBA: Role: Phone: State: MN Zip: Danger: No ID# 1(0,-9 NARRATIVE The narrative/synopsis can be used in place of a report whenever a regular report would not be necessary, such as: 1. A miscellaneous assist and advise situation. 2. Something that may not require any further action. (The narrative can be as lengthy as necessary to include all information) Leon and Chetranee Seepersaud doing business ,!-S, Aribel's Restaurant, a properly licensed wine/strong beer on- sale restaurant in Richfield MN has been posted on the MN Department of Revenue Liquor Posting since December 15,2006. Once posted a retailer is prohibited from receiving alcohol product from wholesale distributors. This agent will check the alcoholic beverage inventory of the licensee in an effort to determine if the product was delivered to or brought into the business in violation of the law. 1,,~.jO ENFORCEMENT COpy FORM 72 (REV~ 2-02) STATE OF MIN~~LCOHOL & GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT LC 703'22 SEIZURE REPORT INDICATE ONE From whom sei zed, / \ /l Sei zure v- or purchased L-e'\?'-> ~ .C\k e" ()A--,",~ ~.c:~re(L.<7~'O Purchase Street & No. l \ "2-c:> e ~-'l)I- S.- City yL~~ \ . - . .' - . "., Date of seizure '\\ L~( 01 Place of seizure ~ County ~ Timelh~5 Type of 1 i tense (if any) W ~<; ~ '. Trade name ~ea s ~~- \ CASES OZ. SEALED OR CONT, UNSEALED '1..--0"1..- DESCRIPTION I hereby certify that the above is a complete and correct statement of the merchandise r records seized from C. I hereby certify that the above is a complete and correct stat ent of the merchandise or records seized or ur ase by me AGENT Name Witness Address .~ .. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 17 333 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TiTLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TinE REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve or deny the renewal of the 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 15, 2007, the City received the application and other required documents for On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's. The applicant has paid the required license fees. Renewal application materials were sent to all liquor establishments on September 25,2007 with a return deadline of October 26,2007. This period of time allows ample time for the establishment to complete the required renewal forms. This deadline date is also necessary for staff to complete the licensing process. Staff had to make several "reminder" calls to The Frenchman's regarding the need to get their application submitted. The renewal application materials were eventually submitted, 3 weeks beyond the deadline. This is very concerning to staff. 1211 PH Frenchman's Liquor License Renewal The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mary Christine Blake is the sole owner of the establishment. She also serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Ms. Blake has no known criminal record. Mary Blake is the owner of the property and Venture Bank in Bloomington is the Mortgage Company. All payments are current. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. Proof of liquor liability insurance has been received showing Founders Insurance as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2006 through September 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 54.4% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 45.6% of the total sales. There were 53 Public Safety/Police contacts with The Frenchman's from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares with 40 contacts for the previous year. Staff is concerned with the growing number of contacts and their severity. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. In addition to the Police contacts, the Richfield Public Safety Department has completed a number of incident reports for this establishment. These reports include incidents of assaults, disturbances, drunkenness, and disorderly conduct. One report included an incident where officers responded to an anonymous call of intoxicated persons. As officers entered the establishment, they recognized Christine Blake, the owner of the establishment, and a former employee, Michael Ciambella as the ones who were intoxicated. As officers questioned Christine about the call received, another gentleman standing next to the bar reached for the officer's handgun. As officers controlled the situation, this individual continued to tell officers that Christine and Michael had done nothing wrong and to just leave them alone. As officers continued to question the owner, bartender, and other patrons, the male, later identified as Michael Hanson, again tried grabbing the officer's pistol. It was very clear that Hanson was intoxicated and intentionally trying to cause a disturbance. Officers escorted Hanson out of the establishment. He was later charged with obstructing legal process. In a later interview with Ms. Blake, she apologized for appearing evasive the previous day. She stated that she was intoxicated at the time of the incident and did not recall anything from the incident. She stated that the reason the police were initially called was because the bartender believed that there were individuals in the bar getting unruly. She also stated that the bartender did not have "permission" to call the police and he was terminated from employment. In another incident report, police were dispatched to the establishment on a call of a disturbance/child welfare. The suspect appeared to be very intoxicated. He had a baby with him who appeared to be three months old. The baby was wearing only pajamas with nothing covering the feet or head. The temperature at the time was approximately 33 degrees. The report states that after the suspect entered the bar, he began to yell and try to start fights with several other patrons in the bar. When the bartender asked him to leave, he continued to yell at her stating that she was going to be fired. It was also noted that the bartender has had problems with this suspect in the past. She stated that he had contacted her by phone a few weeks previous and left several threatening phone messages. She also stated that she had an altercation with him at the bar a few weeks ago and that he threw her down the steps and injured her elbow. She stated she did not report these incidents because the owner of the bar told her if there were any more police calls to the bar, she would lose her liquor license. The suspect was identified as Michael Ciambella, who apparently works closely with the establishment owner. Public Safety staff personally contacted Ms. Blake after this incident and explained that having a liquor license was a privilege and not a right. Staff also explained that it is imperative that she personally set high standards as a model to others as to what is and what isn't acceptable behavior. Failure to do so could result in a loss of life if someone can't determine (owner/bartender) when a patron has had enough to drink because they themselves are intoxicated. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints in 2007 for The Frenchman's. On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. In July 1999, The Frenchman's was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They also failed in December 2003 and again in June 2004. In December of 2003, they paid a $1,000 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. In June of 2004, they paid a $1,750 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for seven days. The Frenchman's has received no violations since that date. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, staff is not recommending approval or denial of the licenses requested. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements in Resolution No. 9511 must be met. . Reduction in the number of Public Safety calls concerning drunkenness, assaults, disturbances and fights must occur. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts [Vi. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Mary Christine Blake, Owner of the establishment 11- ) The Frenchmans Directors and Officers Mary Christine Blake Owner and General Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 through September 2007 The Frenchman's 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 40 53 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 26 42 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (24) (40) Alarm (2) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 14 11 Assists (5) (1 ) Traffic (4) (4) Inspections/Licensing (4) (5) Medical/Fire (1 ) (1 ) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: ten suspicious people, one 911 call, three drunkenness, four thefts, three warrants, six fights, one domestic, three assaults, two trespass, two disturbances, three property damage accidents, one crisis, one civil commitment, and two alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PURT.TC HF.ARTNG~ 18 314 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Lf~... ~/T/ ~;../y'" L /1 f'~. C .,,,./~' ....~."~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2008 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun 80 Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve or deny the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc., d/b/a Jun 80 Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 8,2007, the City received the renewal application and other .required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun 80 Chinese Restaurant, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Yik Lo serves as president and Yau Lo serves as Secretary. Danny Lo continues to serve as the on- 1211 PH Jun Bo Liquor License Renewals premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing United Fire and Casualty affording the coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from August 2006 through September 2007 and indicates that food sales accounted for 96% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 3% of the total sales. There were 82 Public Safety/Police contacts with Jun Bo from October 2006 through September 2007. This compares to 8 calls from the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. This is a very concerning increase for staff. On June 26, 2007, staff received notification about questionable gambling activity being conducted on the premises. Officers also received a number of complaints regarding individuals leaving the establishment intoxicated, service of alcohol continuing beyond 2:00 a.m., patrons not off of the premises until well after 2:00 a.m., and trash/debris in the parking lot. Also on June 26, 2007, Kee Lo of Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant came to City Hall offices to inquire about permitted hours of operation. He more specifically wanted to know if the establishment could remain open after 2:00 a.m. as long as no alcohol was being consumed. Staff reviewed Richfield City Code 1202.21, Subd2 with Mr. Lo. This code states that any establishment that keeps or sells alcoholic beverages must be closed to the public by 2:00 a.m. It also states that no person may remain on the premises, except the owner, licensee or employees, and only for the purpose of cleaning, preparing meals or performing other work-related duties. None of these individuals may drink alcohol at the site after 2:00 a.m. Staff provided a copy of this ordinance to Mr. Lo. Staff notified an investigator from the State of Minnesota Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement. The investigator conducted an undercover investigation on Friday, June 29, 2007 and Saturday, June 30, 2007 and observed the following: Fridav Niqht . Alcohol service stopped at 1:45 a.m. . The band played right up until 2:00 a.m. . Security was not aggressive at getting patrons to leave. . The bar area was cleared around 2:30 a.m. . There were no issues with the crowd Saturday Niqht . The security group was different than on Friday night. . The investigator was patted down and carded at the door. This did not occur on Friday evening. . There was a $20 cover charge at the door. . There were 5 to 6 occasions where security had to remove individuals who were causing problems. . The band played until 2:06 a.m. . Alcohol service stopped at 1 :50 a.m. . Security was a little more aggressive at getting people to leave for the night. . The investigator was not told until 2: 1 0 a.m. to put his alcoholic beverage down and to leave. . All patrons were out of the building at 2:30 a.m. The investigator stated that there were no gambling issues associated with the business. In addition to the loud noise/music, late night closing and the garbage/debris in the parking lot, the Richfield Public Safety Department/Police has completed a number of incident reports for this establishment. These reports include incidents of disorderly conduct, assaults (including second degree assault with a dangerous weapon), drug induced first degree criminal sexual conduct and fighting in the parking lot. Public Safety/Police has also had some issues with the security for this establishment. On June 28,2007, an individual, assuming to be part of management at Jun Bo, contacted the Richfield Police to contract overtime officers to patrol the parking lot on Saturday nights from 10:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m., June 30, 2007 through September 1, 2007. In September 2007, the City sent Jun Bo an invoice for the cost of officer's overtime. Payment was not made by the due date indicated on the invoice. Richfield Police staff contacted the management of Jun Bo regarding this invoice and was informed that they were not responsible for the payment. It was then discovered that Jun Bo had contracted or sub-leased a private individual/business to come in on Friday and Saturday nights to manage the entertainment in their liquor selling area of the restaurant. This individual was later located and the payment was eventually made. Police officials denied future police officer overtime unless Jun Bo assumed responsibility for future payments on invoices accumulating from the overtime of the police officers. Jun Bo has since assumed responsibility and contracted police officer overtime from October 12, 2007 through January 27,2008. Environmental Health staff received three complaints regarding Jun Bo in 2007. One complaint was regarding loud noise/music and service of alcohol after 2:00 a.m. Another complaint was regarding trash in the parking lot and again loud noise. The third complaint was from the Bloomington Health Inspector stating that they did poorly on their routine food inspection. On May 30, 2007 the Bloomington Environmental Health Inspector, Laima Dingley, conducted a routine inspection of the establishment. During this inspection she noted a few areas of concern including the lack of the use of hand sinks, improper storage of food/cross contamination, and no record keeping or "tagging" of food items. A risk control plan was written to ensure specific critical violations would be brought into and remain in compliance. The inspector reviewed this risk control plan with the manager of the establishment, Danny Lo. On June 4, 2007, Bloomington Environmental Health conducted a re-inspection of the establishment. While significant improvement had been made, there were still some outstanding orders for structural items that needed to be addressed with the Richfield Building Inspections Division. A signed risk control plan was again reviewed with Danny Lo. In addition, a food worker training session was conducted with a Cantonese translator. Training in Spanish was also provided. On October 22,2007, Bloomington Environmental Health conducted an unannounced routine inspection. Twelve (12) critical food safety violations and 23 other violations were noted. Not washing hands and not providing required separation of foods were chosen as the violations with the greatest potential to cause food borne illness. The establishment was issued a criminal citation for these violations. It is clear that this establishment is not demonstrating understanding of proper food safety/handling practices. The complaints regarding garbage and debris in the parking lot began in June 2007 and appear to be most severe on the weekends. There have been 18 inspections since June 29,2007. On 7 occasions the lot was found to be in violation. The most recent inspection was conducted on November 25, 2007. There were no violations found at this time; however, the garbage/debris issue appears to be a continual problem. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if anyon-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 29,2007. Jun Bo has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. Staff is very concerned with the establishment's ability to control and protect patrons visiting the location for entertainment purposes, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDA nON I I A. POLICY I . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. . Based on the information supplied, staff is not making a recommendation for approval or denial the requested license. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . The requirements of Resolution No. 9511 must be met. . Property must be maintained and kept clean of garbage/debris. . All patrons must be off premises no later than 2:00 a.m. . Significant improvement regarding food operations must be made. . Reduction in the number of Public Safety calls concerning drunkenness, assaults, disturbances, fights and weapon related offenses must occur. Staff is recommending that the total number of Public Safety calls be reduced to a maximum of 24, which is the average number of total calls received for all on-sale intoxicating liquor license establishments. I C. FINANCIAL . None I D. LEGAL . None I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2008, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. . Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. I V. ATTACHMENTS . List of Officers . Breakdown of Public Safety contacts I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I . Representative(s) of Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant. i S--I HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Yik Chi Lo Yau Mai Lo Kee Lo and Yik Lo President Vice-President On-Premise Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2006 through September 2007 HKD Lo, Inc. d/b/a Jun Bo Chinese Restaurant 2006 2007 TOTAL CONTACTS 8 82 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 5 47 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (44) Alarm (0) (3) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 3 35 Assists (1 ) (23) Traffic (0) (5) I nspections/Licensing (2) (4) Medical/Fire (0) (3) The criminal contacts from October 2006 through September 2007 were: six drunkenness, three thefts, twelve suspicious activities, five property damage, one domestic, one burglary, one vehicle theft, three alarms, two disturbances, four criminal sexual conduct, two weapons violations, two assaults, and five fights. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # PUBLIC HEARINGS 19 335 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of new ordinances related to signage throughout the City and consideration of a resolution approvinQ summary publication of new ordinances. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: . Approve the attached ordinance adopting new Section 549 of the Richfield City Code related to signage regulations in residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use districts; repealing Section 416; and amending Section 400 of the City Code in regard to sign installer licensing. . Approve the attached resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance adopting new Section 549 of the Richfield City Code related to signage regulations in residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use districts; repealing Section 416; and amending Section 400 of the City Code in regard to sign installer licensing. 121107 - 2nd Reading Sign Ord I II. BACKGROUND I On January 23, 2007 the City Council approved a one-year moratorium on the installation of electronic, digital, video display signs or billboards and flashing, motion, animated and changeable copy signs in all zoning districts. This moratorium was put in place to allow staff time to study new emerging electronic technology and determine appropriate regulations. In addition to the study of electronic signs, staff has worked with the City Attorney's office to update all regulations related to signage. Many of the existing regulations are content-based and therefore vulnerable to legal challenges under the U.S. Constitution. Content-based regulation means that a person must read the message on the sign to know which type of regulation would apply (i.e. "real estate signs," "home occupation signs," "grand opening signs," etc.). It is not the purpose or the place of a City to regulate the message displayed on any sign. The purpose of the proposed sign criteria is to regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of signs in order to promote public health, safety and welfare. Additionally, the purpose is to maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the City by preventing visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community, while still providing for effective communication. The proposed regulations have been compiled from a number of sources including the City's current sign code, the cities of Hopkins, Bloomington, Edina, St. Louis Park and Minnetonka and under the guidance of the City Attorney's office. Staff met with members of the City's Chamber of Commerce and understand that the Chamber supports most of the proposed changes. The Chamber has suggested and the Planning Commission has recommended that the proposed changes be reviewed again in one year to assess their impact. Staff is in support of this suggestion. The following is a summary of the proposed revisions. Additionally, organizational changes have been made for ease of use (including moving the sign regulations to the zoning chapter of the City Code). Any legally existing signs that do not meet the proposed regulations regarding physical/dimensional requirements would be allowed to continue subject to the rules regulating legal nonconforming uses. General Re~ulations . Setback requirement added: 5 ft. . Regulations specific to the 77th Street Corridor have been removed to simplify code and make the same rules applicable across the entire City. . Added relocation option for legally non-conforming signs. Council may approve relocation if it will lessen the adverse impacts upon traffic and aesthetics. Sin~le- and Two-Family Residential (R, R-1, MR-1) Current: . Home occupation signs (home business) or identification signs >- Maximum area: 2 sq. ft. . Area identification signs (identifying a distinct neighborhood) ~ Maximum area: 24 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 6 ft. Proposed: . Freestanding signs for all messages (includes pylon and monument) ~ Maximum area: 6 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 6 ft. ~ Maximum total area of all freestanding signs: 12 sq. ft. . Wall signs ~ Maximum area: 2 sq. ft. Multi-Family Residential (MR-2, MR-3) Current: . Identification signs (identifying tenant(s) or owner) ~ Allowed on wall only ~ Maximum area: 12 sq. ft. . Home occupation signs ~ Maximum area: 2 sq. ft. . On-site directional signs ~ Maximum area: 3 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 4 sq. ft. . Area identification signs ~ Maximum area: 24 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 4 ft. Proposed: . Freestanding signs (currently only area identification signs are allowed to be freestanding signs) ~ Maximum area: 24 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 8 ft. ~ Maximum total area of all freestanding signs: 36 sq. ft. . Wall signs - ~ Maximum area: 10 percent of wall area Service Office, Nei~hborhood Commercial (SO, C-1, MU-N) Current: . Identification signs ~ Allowed on wall only ~ Maximum area: 6 sq. ft. . On-site directional signs ~ Maximum area: 3 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 4 sq. ft. . Grounds signs (includes monument & pylon signs) ~ One sign allowed ~ Maximum area: 50 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 27 ft. ~ Minimum vertical clearance requirements make a variance necessary for monument signs in front of a building. . Wall signs ~ Maximum area: 15 percent of wall area . Window signs ~ Maximum area: 30 percent of window area . Projecting signs ~ Maximum area: 6 sq. ft. Proposed: . Freestanding signs . ~ Maximum area: 60 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 15 ft. ~ Maximum total area of all freestanding signs: 2 square feet per foot of lot frontage. (The minimum lot width in SO and C-1 Districts is 60 feet. There is no minimum lot width requirement in the MU-N District.) . Wall signs (refers to any sign attached to the wall, including projecting signs) ~ Maximum area: 15 percent of wall area . Window signs ~ Maximum area: 30 percent of window area General Commercial & Mixed-Use Community (C-2. MU-C) Current: . Identification signs ~ Allowed on wall only ~ Maximum area: 6 sq. ft. . On-site directional signs ~ Maximum area: 3 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 4 ft. . Ground signs ~ Maximum total area of all ground signs: 200 sq. ft. ~ Maximum vertical clearance requirements make a variance necessary for monument signs in front of a building. . Wall signs ~ Maximum area: 15 percent of wall area . Window signs ~ Maximum area: 30 percent of window area . Projecting signs ~ Maximum area: 6 sq. ft. Proposed: . Freestanding signs ~ Maximum area: 200 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 27 ft. ~ Maximum total area of all freestanding signs: 4 square feet per foot of lot frontage. (The minimum lot width in the C-2 District is 75 feet. There is no minimum lot width in the MU-C District.) . Wall signs ~ Maximum area: 15 percent of wall area . Window signs ~ Maximum area: 30 percent of window area Mixed-Use Regional & Industrial (MU-R, I) Current: . Regulations in the MU-R and I Districts are currently the same as those listed above for the C-2 and MU-N Districts. Proposed: . Freestanding signs ~ Maximum area: 250 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 27 ft. ~ Maximum total area of all freestanding signs: 4 square feet per foot of lot frontage. (The minimum lot width in the District is 75 feet. There is no minimum lot width in the MU-R District.) . Wall signs ~ Maximum area: 15 percent of wall area . Window signs ~ Maximum area: 30 percent of window area Institutional & Recreational Signs Current: . Ground signs ~ Maximum area: 50 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 25 ft. . Wall signs ~ Maximum area of all wall signs: 24 sq. ft. . Scoreboards/scoreboard panels (advertising panels) ~ Maximum area: 100 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 18 ft. ~ Advertising panels allowed on electronic scoreboards at outdoor arenas. ~ Advertising panels allowed to be displayed from May 1 through September 1 only. ~ Advertising panel width may not exceed 2 feet and panels must frame scoreboard. Proposed: . Regulations shall apply to non-residential uses in residential districts (as opposed to "institutional and recreational" uses). . Freestanding signs ~ Maximum area: 50 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 25 ft. ~ Maximum total area of freestanding signs: 100 sq. ft. . Wall signs ~ 15 percent of wall area . Scoreboards ~ Allowed in public parks and public or private schools as follows: ~ Maximum area: 100 sq. ft. ~ Maximum height: 18 ft. ~ Maximum advertising area: 25 percent of scoreboard area ~ One scoreboard allowed per field ~ Advertising may not be illuminated Prohibited Signs Current: . The following currently prohibited signs will remain prohibited: ~ Roof signs ~ Signs that interfere with visibility, safety, etc. ~ Signs located on or over public property (except traffic signs, etc) ~ Temporary ground signs/portable signs (including sandwich board signs) ~ Searchlights . Flashing, traveling message or changing message signs are currently prohibited with the exception of signs providing time, date, temperature, weather and public event information. Proposed: . The following signs will now also be prohibited: ~ Outdoor advertising signs (billboards & other off-premise signs) ~ Prohibiting off-premise signs will prohibit homeowners from displaying contractor signs once work has been completed. ~ Staff does not recommend prohibiting commercial speech in residential neighborhoods because it is reasonable to allow real estate signs on properties that are for sale. ~ Stringers ~ Balloon signs (balloons over 24-inches in diameter) . Flashing, traveling or changing message signs are proposed to be allowed in certain districts regardless of the message displayed. The regulations for these "dynamic displays" are discussed in greater detail below. Dynamic Displays Backqround information: . The term "dynamic display" is intended to cover any characteristics of a sign with movement or that appear to have movement or appear to change. The intent is to describe the technology in broad enough terms so as to include future technologies. . There is merit to allowing dynamic displays that allow owners to easily update messages. Sign owners should be allowed to take advantage of new technologies, but with controls to minimize their potential threats to public safety. . The proposed regulations have been drafted based on review of ordinances in the cities of Minnetonka, Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis and St. Paul, as well as recommendations drawn from a study by SRF Consulting Group and Gerald Wachtel (a national expert on changeable message signs), the League of Minnesota Cities and the City Attorney's office. . The following conclusions were reported by SRF Consulting Group and Gerald Wachtel in a report prepared for the City of Minnetonka: ~ There is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. ~ An eye movement study showed that dynamic displays may distract drivers by as much as two seconds. The Federal Highway Administration has determined that being distracted for two seconds or more can result in traffic accidents. ~ Drivers can be distracted by just knowing that a sign has a changing message and may watch a sign waiting for the next change. ~ Drivers are distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look (i.e. scrolling messages). ~ Drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message. ~ Drivers are more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen. . The League of Minnesota Cities states the following: ~ "The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content- neutral limits or even bans on dynamic signs for safety reasons." ~ "Studies have described the Zeigarnik effect, a psychological need to see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver's desire to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to negatively impact drivers' tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a lane." Proposed requlations: . The dynamic display portion of any sign is limited to 35 percent of the total sign area. ~ A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last second lane changes, stops or turns. . Displays may change once every five minutes (exceptions: time, date or temperature messages may update not more than once every three seconds). . ~ Local spacing requirements could prevent some businesses in the community from being able to use this technology; therefore, staff has proposed minimum display times. ~ If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. ~ If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload. ~ The following timing regulations in place in other metropolitan communities: ~ Minnetonka: ~ Bloomington: ~ Edina: ~ Minneapolis: ~ St. Paul: 20 minutes Text-only in non-residential- 8 seconds Text-only in residential (churches/schools) - 1 hour Graphics in non-residential - 20 minutes 1 hour Allowed in downtown district and on billboards. City Council to consider 12 seconds for billboards. Allowed in the Business and Industrial Districts and must be 50-75 feet from residential district. ~ The proposed ordinance limits changes to once every five minutes and will allow for 288 messages per day. ~ City staff has explored the option of spacing requirements as requested by the Council. The two examples found are as follows: ~ Bloomington: 35 feet ~ St. Paul: 660 feet ~ The City Attorney's office believes that a spacing requirement is defensible in terms of aesthetics and safety. ~ The Richfield Chamber of Commerce is not in support of spacing requirements. ~ If the Council wishes to include spacing requirements, staff recommends that the distance between signs be no less than 200 feet as measured from property line to property line. A 200-foot spacing requirement would limit dynamic signs to approximately every third or fourth property. . Displays must be static and changes instantaneous without special effects. . Messages must be complete and not continue to the next display. ~ The following regulations regarding messages are in place in other metropolitan communities: ~ Minnetonka: Message must be complete in one display ~ Bloomington: Message cannot exceed 10 words (and complete) 1 hr. limit in residential limits to complete messages ~ Edina: 1 hour limit limits to complete messages . Signs must be equipped with a mechanism that will freeze the display in one position if a malfunction occurs. . Dynamic displays are allowed only on monument and pylon signs for non- residential uses in residential districts. . Brightness standards to prevent vision impairment of drivers have been included. . Font size requirements are dependent on speed of travel on adjacent road. ~ The following regulations address readability in other communities: ~ Minnetonka: Font size requirements are same as proposed ~ Bloomington: Messages limited to 10 words . Existing displays must comply with the operational standards of the ordinance if adopted. . "Enhanced" dynamic displays may be allowed on existing outdoor advertising signs (billboards) if additional billboards are removed. City Code Section 400.19 Information currently within the sign code regarding requirements for licensing are proposed to be kept with the Building Code section. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . The rules and regulations of a City's zoning ordinance are meant to protect and promote the public health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability and general welfare. . A zoning code must do this without infringing upon constitutional guarantees, and many of the proposed revisions are necessary to ensure that the City is doing so. . While uncontrolled and unlimited signs can adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the community, signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of messages and they help citizens to find their way to intended destinations. . The proposed regulations are intended to improve the visual appearance of the City while providing for effective means of communication. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character and quality of the environment. . The proposed revisions provide clear, easy-to-understand regulations. . It is difficult to assess the full impact of any ordinance changes until they are in effect. A one-year review of the code is proposed. . The moratorium on electronic signs expires January 23, 2008. If the second reading is approved tonight, the ordinance will be effective January 21, 2008. . State Statutes make it virtually impossible for the Council to extend the moratorium beyond the expiration date. . Code changes are often presented in a format in which deletions are struck-through and additions underlined. The extensive nature of these changes makes that format impractical. Instead, staff and the City Attorney have agreed that it will be best to repeal the existing code section and adopt the new section in its entirety. . For those interested in directly comparing the current and proposed codes, a copy of the current code is available at City Hall or online at: www.citvofrichfield.orq/cd/planninq&zoninq/Zoninq/zoninqhandouts.htm . I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I . The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed regulations. . The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance (9-0). I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I . Approve the attached ordinance with modifications. I V. ATTACHMENTS . Ordinance . Resolution . Exhibit A (Proposed sign regulations) . The current regulations are available for review at City Hall or online at: www.citvofrichfield.orq/cd/planninq&zoninq/Zoninq/zoninqhandouts.htm. . Dynamic display calculation examples . Zoning map I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A iCf-1 BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE ADOPTION OF NEW SECTIONS 549; REPEAL OF SECTION 416; AND AMENDMENT TO SECTION 400 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO SIGN INSTALLER LICENSES THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 The Richfield City Code is amended by adding new Section 549 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. Richfield City Code Section 416 is hereby repealed upon the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 400 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new subsection 400.19 as follows, and by now renumbering all following subdivisions accordingly. 400.19. Siqn installer license. Subdivision 1. License required. No person shall enqaqe in the business of erectinq siqns until licensed by the Inspections Division to do so. No such license shall be required for the erection of siqns exempt from siqn construction permits. Subd. 2. Application. Application for a sian installer's license shall be made to the Inspections Division upon such forms as required by the city. The license fee in the amount hereafter provided shall accompany the application. Subd. 3. License fee. The fee for a sian installer's license shall be in the amount provided for in Appendix D of this code. Subd. 4. License period. The licenses issued under this subdivision shall be valid for an annual period runnina from January 1 throuah December 31. Sec. 2 Sec. 3 Subd. 6. Revocation of non-renewal of license. The si~n installer's license may be revoked or not renewed for any violation 0 the re~uirements of this code. The decision to revoke or not renew a license may e made by the city after notice to the licensee and a reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard. Sec. 4 This Ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 th day of December, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 121107 - 2nd Reading Sign Ord {Ol - d- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. 2007- WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendments to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendments is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the following summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of Bill No. 2007- . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Bill No. 2007- to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. 2007-_ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING; ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL, COMMERICAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS; AMENDING THE RICHFIELD ZONING CODE BY CREATING NEW SECTION 549; AMENDING SECTION 400 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE RELATED TO SIGN INSTALLER LICENSING This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance updates antiquated language and confusing terminology used throughout the sign code and addresses changes in State law. It also establishes new regulations that apply to signage erected in residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use districts. Changes include, but are not limited to: setback requirements, size and height limitations, the types of permitted/prohibited signs, and regulations regarding changing message ("dynamic display") signs. Legally existing signs that do not meet adopted regulations regarding physical/dimensional requirements will be allowed to continue subject to rules regulating legal nonconforming uses. Existing "dynamic displays" must comply with adopted operational standards. . 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. /s/ Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at city hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 th day of December, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 549.01 549.03 549.05 549.07 549.09 549.11 549.13 549.15 549.17 549.19 549.21 549.23 549.25 549.27 SECTION 549 - ZONING: SIGN REGULATIONS Findings, purpose and effect ......................................................................549-1 Severability ....... ......................................................................................... .549-3 Definitions ................................................................................................ ..549-3 Permit required........................................................................................... .549-7 Exemptions ................................................................................................ .549-8 Fees ........................................................................................................... ..549-8 Variances................................................................................................... ..549-9 V io lations ................................................................................................... .549-9 Enforcement................................................................................................ .549-9 Retroactive effect ....................................................................................... .549-9 General regulations..................................................................................... .549-9 Permitted signs by district .........................................................................549-11 Dynamic displays..................................................................................... ..549-13 Non-conforming signs ............................................................................ ..549-15 549.01. Findin!!s. purpose and effect. Subdivision 1. Findings. The City hereby finds as follows: a) Signs have a direct impact on and relationship to the image of the community; b) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the community and thereby undermine economic value and growth; c) The manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs has a substantial impact on the character and quality of the environment; d) Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of messages; e) Signs help citizens find their way to intended destinations; f) The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly divert the attention of drivers; g) Signs can create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and detriments to property values, thereby threatening the public health, safety and welfare; h) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly portable signs which are commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of Page 549-1 Richfield City Code Signs Section 549.01 views of oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians; and i) The City's zoning regulations have, since as early as 1944, included the regulation of signs in an effort to provide adequate means of expression and to promote the economic viability of the business community, while protecting the City and its citizens from a proliferation of signs of a type, size, location and character that would have an adverse impact upon the aesthetics of the community and threaten its health, safety and welfare. The regulation of the physical characteristics of signs within the City has had a positive impact on traffic safety and the appearance of the community. Subd. 2. Purpose and intent. It is not the purpose or intent of this sign ordinance to regulate the message displayed on any sign; nor is it the purpose or intent of this ordinance to regulate any building design or any display not defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed from outside a building. The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to: a) Regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of signs within the City in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare; b) Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the City by preventing visual clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community; c) Improve the visual appearance of the City while providing for effective means of communication, consistent with constitutional guarantees and the City's goals of public safety and aesthetics; and d) Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set forth herein under the zoning authority of the City. Subd. 3. Effect. A sign may be erected, mounted, displayed or maintained in the City if it is in conformance with the provisions of this ordinance. The effect of this ordinance, as more specifically set forth herein, is to: a) Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial zones, and a more limited variety of signs in other zones, subject to the standards set forth in this sign ordinance; b) Allow signs which are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists; c) Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site in all zones when in compliance with the requirements of this sign ordinance; Richfield City Code Page 549-2 Signs Section 549.01 d) Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination or other physical characteristics negatively affect the environment and where the communication can be accomplished by means having a lesser impact on the environment and the public health, safety and welfare; and e) Provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this sign ordinance 549.03. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this sign ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portion of this sign ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the sign ordinance in each section, subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. 549.05. Definitions. Subdivision 1. The following words and phrases, when used in this Section 549 shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. The definitions set forth in this Section 549.05 are in addition to the definitions set forth in Section 507.07, which shall apply to this Section 549, except that in the event of a conflict between the Sections, the definition in Section 549 shall apply. Subd. 2. "Abandoned sign" - Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one (1) year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of one (1) year or more. Any sign remaining after demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be abandoned. Signs that are present because of being legally established nonconforming signs or signs that have required a conditional use permit or a variance shall also be subject to the definition of abandoned sign. Subd.3. "Awning" - A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal or glass designed and intended for protection from the weather or as a decorative embellishment, and which projects from a wall or roof of a structure primarily over a window, walk, or the like. Any part of an awning that also projects over a door shall be counted as an awning. Subd. 4. "Awning sign" - A sign or graphic printed on or in some fashion attached directly to the awning material. Subd. 5. "Balloon sign" - A sign consisting of a bag made of lightweight material supported by helium, hot, or pressurized air which is greater than 24 inches in diameter. Subd. 6. "Banner" - A sign made of fabric or any non-rigid material with no enclosing framework. Richfield City Code Page 549-3 Signs Section 549.05 Subd.7. "Canopy" - A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal, or glass on a support, which provides shelter over a doorway. Subd.8. "Canopy sign" - Any sign that is part of or attached to a canopy, made of fabric, plastic, or structural protective cover over a door or entrance. A canopy sign is not a marquee and is different from service station canopy signs that are governed by Section 534.07, Subd. 11 of this code. Subd. 9. "Changeable message" - A message that is not permanently attached to the sign face but that is not a dynamic display. Subd.10. "Commercial speech" - Speech advertising a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment. Subd. 11. "Dynamic display" - Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display or structural element and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. Subd. 12. "Erect" - Activity of constructing, building, raising, assembling, placing, affixing, attaching, creating, painting, drawing or any other way of bringing into being or establishing. Subd. 13. "Freestanding sign" - Any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on, or anchored in, the ground and which is independent from any building or other structure. Subd.14. "Grade" - The average elevation or level of the centerline of the closest street which the sign abuts. Subd. 15. "Height of sign" - The height of the sign shall be computed as the vertical distance measured from the base of the sign at grade to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. Subd. 16. "Illuminated sign" - Any sign that contains an element designed to emanate artificial light internally or externally. Subd. 17. "Legally established nonconforming sign" - Any sign and its support structure lawfully erected prior to the effective date of this ordinance which fails to conform to the requirements of this ordinance. A sign which was erected in accordance with a variance granted prior to the adoption of this section and which Richfield City Code Page 549-4 Signs Section 549.05 does not comply with this section shall be deemed to be a legal nonconforming sign. A sign that was unlawfully erected shall be deemed to be an illegal sign. . Subd. 18. "Marquee" - Any permanent roof-like structure projecting beyond a theater building or extending along and projecting beyond the wall of that building, generally designed and constructed to provide protection from the weather. Subd. 19. "Marquee sign" - Any sign painted, mounted, constructed or attached in any manner, on a marquee. Subd. 20. "Monument sign" - Any freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign. Subd.21. "Non-commercial speech" - Dissemination of messages not classified as Commercial Speech which include, but are not limited to, messages concerning political, religious, social, ideological, public service and information topics. Subd. 22. "On-premise messages" - IdentifY or advertise an establishment, person, activity, goods, products or services located on the premises where the sign is installed. Subd. 23. "Outdoor advertising sign" - Any sign that is located outdoors and that advertises a product, business, service, event, or any other matter that is not available, or does not take place, on the same premises as the sign (off-premise sign). F or the purposes of this sign ordinance, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such premises and any sign located or proposed to be located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered an outdoor advertising sign. Subd.24. "Owner" - In the case of a lot, the legal owner of the lot as officially recorded by Hennepin County, and including fee owners, contract for deed purchasers and ground lessees. In the case of a sign, the owner of the sign including any lessees. Subd. 25. "Portable sign" - A sign with or without copy and graphic that is designed or intended to be moved or transported. By way of example and not by limitation, portable signs include: a) A- or T- frame signs; b) Sandwich board signs; c) Signs designed to be transported by trailer or on wheels; d) Signs mounted on a vehicle for advertising purposes, when the vehicle is parked and visible from public right-of-way, except signs identifYing a business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of that business; Richfield City Code Page 549-5 Signs Section 549.05 A sign may be a portable sign even if it has wheels removed, was designed without wheels, or is attached temporarily or permanently to the ground, a structure, or other Sign. Subd. 26. "Projecting sign" - Any sign which is affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface or such building or wall face. Subd. 27. "Public right-of-way" - Public right-of-way has the meaning given it by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, Subdivision 3. Subd.28. "Pylon sign" - Any freestanding sign which has its supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and which has a sign face elevated above ground level by pole(s) or beam(s) and with the area below the sign face open. Subd. 29. "Roof sign" - A sign located above the eave or parapet wall of a building and/or located within the projected roof area. Subd.30. "Scoreboard Panel" - A non-illuminated sign which is affixed to an electric scoreboard at an outdoor sports arena or complex. Subd.31. "Sign" - Any letter, word or symbol, poster picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes. Subd.32. "Sign area" - The area shall be the area of the smallest rectangle enclosing the extreme limits of the actual sign surface excluding structural elements outside the limits of such sign which do not form an integral part of the display; or in the case of wall signs, figures, symbols, canopy or awning signs, the sign area shall be the area ofthe smallest rectangle that encloses the sign message or logo. For multi-face signs, the area shall include the maximum number of single display surfaces visible from any ground position at one time. Subd. 33. "Sign face" - The surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the message of the sign is exhibited. Subd. 34. "Sign structure" - Any structure including the supports, uprights, bracing and framework which supports or is capable of supporting any sign. Subd. 35. "Site" - A lot or combination of contiguous lots that are intended, designated, and/or approved to function as an integrated unit. Subd. 36. "Stringer" - A line of string, rope, cording or an equivalent to which is attached a number of pennants, balloons, propellers, banners or similar devices. Richfield City Code Page 549-6 Signs Section 549.05 Subd.37. "Visible" - Capable of being seen by a person of normal visual acuity (whether legible or not) without visual aid. Subd.38. "Wall" - Any structure which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building or structure and which has a slope of 60 degrees or greater with the horizontal plane. Subd.39. "Wall sign" - Any sign attached parallel to, but within two (2) feet of a wall, painted on the wall surface of, or erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any building or structure, which is supported by such wall or building, and which displays only one (1) sign surface. Subd. 40. "Window sign" - Any building sign, picture, symbol, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale or service, that is placed inside a window or upon the window panes or glass and is visible from the exterior of the window. 549.07. Permit required. Subdivision 1. No sign shall be installed, constructed, erected, altered, revised, reconstructed or relocated in the City without first obtaining a permit and license from the City. The content of the message or speech displayed on the sign shall not be reviewed or considered in determining whether to approve or deny a sign permit. Subd. 2. Application. Application shall be made on forms provided by the City. The form shall include the following information: a) The name, address and telephone number of the applicant; b) The name, address and telephone number of the person, firm, corporation or other organization erecting the sign; c) The name, address, telephone number and written consent of the property owner on which the sign is to be erected; d) Site plans indicating the exact location of the sign on the site including its position relative to buildings, structures, streets and property lines; e) Two copies of sign plans and specifications with the following information: 1. Number of sign faces; 11. Sign colors and construction materials; Ill. Sign dimensions; IV. Type, direction, location and intensity of illumination and name of electrical contractor; v. Method of attachment to building or ground; and VI. Stress sheets and calculations showing that the structure is designed to meet the dead load and wind pressure requirements of the Building Code. Richfield City Code Page 549-7 Signs Section 549.07 f) lfthe proposed sign is along interstate highway, the application shall be accompanied by proof that the applicant has obtained a permit from the State for the sign. Subd.3. Review. The City shall approve or deny the sign permit application within the time period required by State law. If the permit is denied, the issuing authority shall prepare a written notice of denial within 15 days of its decision, describing the applicant's appeal right under Section 547.05, and send it by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the applicant. Subd. 4. Additional permits. a) Electrical signs must be installed in accordance with the current electrical code and a separate permit from the building official must be obtained prior to placement; and b) Building permits (as required) must be obtained from the building official prior to placement. 549.09. Exemotions. The following signs shall not require a permit. These exemptions, however, shall not be construed as relieving the owner ofthe sign from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this ordinance or any other law or ordinance regulating the same: a) The changing of a changeable message as defined in Section 549.05 or a dynamic display message. b) The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. This exemption, however, shall apply only to poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on a building; c) Signs six (6) square feet or less in size; d) Window signs; e) Street identification numbers / address signs; f) Bench signs complying with Section 805.19, Subd. 4 of the City Code; g) Signs on vehicles when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of that business as described in Section 549.05, Subd. 30; and h) Traffic signs. 549.11. Fees. The application for a sign permit shall be accompanied by the fee provided in Appendix D of the City Code. The fee required in this paragraph is separate from and in addition to any other fees required by this code. Richfield City Code Page 549-8 Signs Section 549.13 549.13. Variances. Requests for a variance from the requirements of this section shall be processed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals in accordance with Section 547.05. 549.15. Violations. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. Each day that the violation continues is a separate offense. 549.17. Enforcement. Employees of the Inspections Division of the Department of Public Safety and additional persons designated by the Director are hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this section in the manner provided in Subsection 115.11 of the City Code. 549.19. Retroactive effect. This sign ordinance shall apply to all sign applications applied for and/or pending prior to its enactment. 549.21. General reeulations. Subd. 1. The following regulations shall apply to all SIgnS permitted in all districts. Subd. 2. Signs prohibited. a) Any sign located, designed or maintained in a manner which is likely to cause confusion or interfere with the visibility of traffic signs, traffic control devices, crossroads, driveways or crosswalks; b) Roof signs; c) Portable signs; d) Searchlights, beacons, strobe lights or other illuminated signs emitting a beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays of light; e) Outdoor advertising signs; f) Stringers; g) Balloon signs; and h) Abandoned signs. Subd. 3. Required wall signs. One wall sign containing the street address of the building is required on each building or portion of a building with a separate address. The sign must be of sufficient size and located to be clearly visible from the street on which the address is assigned. These signs do not reduce permitted sign area. Subd. 4. Banners. Banners, where permitted, are subject to the following standards: a) Banners shall be attached to a structure, shall be strongly constructed, and shall be securely attached to their supports; Richfield City Code Page 549-9 Signs Section 549.21 b) Banners shall be removed (inlcuding all framework and supports) as soon as damaged or torn; c) There shall be no more than one banner on any building frontage; and d) Due to the construction methods of banners and their tendency toward damage, no banner may be displayed for more than 28 days. Subd. 5. Setbacks. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all signs shall maintain a 5 - foot setback from all lot lines. The City may require a greater or lesser setback because of public safety reasons that may include the following conditions: vehicle sight distance, distance from intersection, designation of adjacent right-of-way. Subd. 6. Changeable messages. A message that is not permanently attached to the sign face but that is not a dynamic display may occupy no more than 35 percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to change messages even if not used. Subd. 7. Illumination. External illumination for signs shall be so constructed and maintained that the source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or residential property. Subd. 8. Non-commercial speech. Any non-commercial message may be substituted for any commercial message on any sign allowed under this Code, subject to the same regulations applicable to such signs. Notwithstanding any provisions of this section to the contrary, all noncommercial signs of any size may be posted from August I in a general election year until 10 days following the state election. Subd. 9. Maintenance. All signs shall be maintained in a safe, presentable and good state of repair at all times, including the replacement of defective parts, cleaning and other items required for maintenance of the sign. Vegetation around, in front of, behind, and underneath the base of monument signs for a distance of 10 feet shall be neatly trimmed and free of weeds, and no rubbish or debris that would constitute a fire or health hazard shall be permitted under or near the sign. Richfield City Code Page 549-10 Signs Section 549.23 549.23. Permitted sie:ns bv district. Subd. 1. Residential Districts. a) Within residential zoning districts, freestanding signs are permitted as follows: District Maximum sign Maximum height Total area of all area of single sign freestanding signs R, R-l, MR-l 6 square feet 6 feet 12 square feet MR-2, MR-3 24 square feet 8 feet 36 square feet Non-residential 50 square feet 25 feet 100 square feet b) Within residential zoning districts, wall signs are permitted as follows: District Maximum sign area of single sign R, R-1, MR-1 Not permitted except as required by Section 549.21, Subd. 3. MR-2, MR-3 10 percent of total wall area of the wall to which sign is attached Non-residential 15 percent of the total wall area of the wall to which sign is attached c) Within residential zoning districts, the following types of signs are prohibited: 1. Dynamic displays, except for non-residential uses; and 11. Marquee signs; and 111. Any sign not expressly permitted by this subdivision is prohibited III residential districts. d) Scoreboards for public parks and public or private schools are permitted as follows: 1. One scoreboard not exceeding 18 feet in height or 100 square feet is surface area is allowed per playing field, not including fields used only for practice; and 11. Commercial or non-commercial speech shall be permitted on the scoreboard as follows: 1. Commercial and non-commercial messages shall not comprise more than 25 percent of the area of the scoreboard; and 2. Commercial and non-commercial messages shall not be illuminated. Richfield City Code Page 549-11 Signs Section 549.23 Subd.2. Commercial, Mixed-Use Neighborhood, Mixed-Use Community, Mixed- Use RegionaL and Industrial Districts. a) Within commercial, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use regional, and industrial zoning districts, freestanding signs are permitted as follows: District Maximum sign Maximum height Total area of all area of single sign freestanding signs 60 square feet per 15 feet 2 square feet per surface foot of lot frontage 200 square feet per 27 feet 4 square feet per surface foot of lot frontage 250 square feet per 27 feet 4 square feet per surface foot of lot frontage SO, C-l, MU-N C-2, MU-C I, MU-R b) Within commercial, mixed-use neighborhood, mixed-use community, mixed-use regional, and industrial zoning districts, wall signs may not exceed 15 percent of the total wall area of the wall to which sign is attached. c) Window signs that do not exceed 30 percent of the window area; d) Canopies, marquees, projecting signs and fixed awnings that are an integral part of the structure to which they are attached are allowed in the Commercial, Mixed-Use and Industrial districts if they meet the following requirements: 1. An awning, canopy, marquee or projecting sign may not project into the public right-of-way; n. Awnings, canopies, marquees and projecting signs may have no part of the structure other than supports nearer the ground surface than seven feet; lll. The architectural style on the awning, canopy or marquee must be consistent with the building being served; IV. For the purposes of size limitation calculations, awning, canopy, marquee and projecting signs shall be counted as wall signs; and v. Awnings, canopies or marquees projecting into required yards may not be enclosed. e) Any sign not expressly permitted by this subdivision IS prohibited III commercial, mixed-use and industrial districts. Subd. 3. Planned unit developments. Only the signs shown on the approved PUD plan shall be permitted. Richfield City Code Page 549-12 Signs Section 549.25 549.25. Dvnamic Displavs. Subdivision 1. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are also distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end. Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without frequent change. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character. Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity to use such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This impact would obviously be compounded in a corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, a longer display time is appropriate. A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last second lane changes, stops, or turns, which could result in traffic accidents. Accordingly, dynamic displays generally should not be allowed to occupy the entire copy and graphic area of a sign. In conclusion, the City finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety . Subd. 2. Regulations. Dynamic displays on SIgnS are allowed subject to the following conditions: a) Dynamic displays are allowed only on monument and pylon signs for non- residential uses in the residential districts and for all uses in other districts. Dynamic. displays may occupy no more than 35 percent of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to Richfield City Code Page 549-13 Signs Section 549.25 have dynamic displays even if not used. Only one (1) contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. b) A dynamic display may not change or move more often than once every 5 minutes, except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and- minute, date, or temperature information. Time, date or temperature information is considered one (1) dynamic display and may not be included as a component of any other dynamic display. A display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least 5 minutes before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself may change no more often than once every 3 seconds; c) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects; d) The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other SIgn; e) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must meet be at least 7 inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, 9 inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. If there is insufficient room for copy and graphics meeting these requirements in the area allowed under clause a above, then no dynamic display is allowed. f) Dynamic displays must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards of this ordinance; g) Dynamic displays must comply with the brightness standards contained in subdivision 3 below; and h) Dynamic displays existing on the effective date of this ordinance must comply with the operational standards listed above. An existing dynamic display that does not meet the structural requirements in clause a) may continue as a non-conforming structure subject to Section 509.25. An existing dynamic display that cannot meet the minimum size requirements of clause e) must use the largest size possible for one line of copy to fit in the available space. Subd. 3. Brightness standards. a) All dynamic displays must meet the following brightness standards III addition to any other requirements of this code. Richfield City Code Page 549-14 Signs Section 549.25 1. No sign may be brighter than IS necessary for clear and adequate visibility; ll. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle; 1Il. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. b) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the City's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the City. The person owning or controlling the sign may appeal the City's determination through the appeal procedure set forth in Section 547.05 of this code. c) All signs installed after [the effective date of this ordinance] that will have illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards in this section. 549.27. Non-conformin2: si2:ns. Subdivision 1. In addition to the standards established by Section 509.23, the following shall apply to non-conforming signs: Subd. 2. Relocation. Any legally non-conforming sign may be relocated, subject to compliance with the other provisions of this Code and subject to the limitations hereinafter contained, to another location provided that such alternate location is first approved by the Council. The Council may approve relocation if it finds that the relocation will lessen any adverse impact of the sign upon traffic safety and aesthetics. If a conforming location is available, the Council shall not approve relocation to a non-conforming lcoation. Subd. 3. Incentives re2:ardin2: outdoor advertisin2: displays. Outdoor advertising signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as do on-premise signs. Further, outdoor advertising signs are no longer allowed in the City, and there is no potential that they will proliferate. Finally, outdoor advertising signs are in themselves distracting and their removal serves public safety. The City is extremely limited in its ability to cause the removal of those signs. This clause is intended to provided incentives for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of outdoor advertising signs in certain settings. This removal results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentives. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentives create an opportunity to consolidate outdoor Richfield City Code Page 549-15 Signs Section 549.27 advertising servIces that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the community. a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display on one face of an outdoor advertising sign if the following requirements are met: 1. The applicant agrees in writing to permanently remove, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, at least 2 other faces of an outdoor advertising sign in the City that are owned or leased by the applicant, each of which must satisfy the criteria of parts ii through iv of this subsection. This removal must include the complete removal of the structure and the foundation supporting each sign face. The applicant must agree that the City may remove the sign if the applicant does not do so within the time frame agreed upon by the applicant and the City, and the application must be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the City Attorney sufficient to pay the City's costs for that removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the removed sign under any law; 11. The City has not previously issued an enhanced dynamic display permit based on the removal of the particular faces relied upon in this permit application; 111. Each removed sign has a copy and graphic area of at least 288 square feet and satisfies two or more of the following additional criteria: 1) The removed sign is located adjacent to a highway with more than two regular lanes and with a general speed limit of 45 miles per hour or greater, but that does not have restrictions on access equivalent to that of an interstate highway; 2) All or a substantial portion of the structure for the removed sign was constructed before 1975 and has not been substantially improved; 3) The removed sign is located in a noncommercial zoning district; 4) The removed sign is located in a special planning area designated in the comprehensive plan; or 5) The removed copy and graphic area is equal to or greater than the area of the copy and graphic area for which the enhanced dynamic display permit is sought. IV. If the removed sign face is one for which a state permit is required by state law, the applicant must surrender its permit to the state upon removal of the sign. The sign that is the subject of the enhanced dynamic display permit cannot begin to operate until proof is provided to the city that the state permit has been surrendered. Richfield City Code Page 549-16 Signs Section 549.27 b) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue an enhanced dynamic display permit for the designated outdoor advertising sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. Richfield City Code Page 549-17 ." C." <7 ';> en ~-.: ~ o _ (5 j Q'~ ;:: J.' C >:; .8 ,:; ~& ~~;~: ~2 ,y': .g ~ (\I leI -.3 rj: ~ ~ >- c./. L! ~ VJ ~ ~ ~~ II -a ~ (J ~ N If) ~ J II \\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s: ~ ~ ~/' \I)'S q~ .. .", ,':"~ ,~.' :.:- ( ~~~i :::.~:1. ;~:~,: -~ .:,-: .~' :-::. ,< ~ ~~:.~":~ ~ - ;~',' "?- .:,~ .~, ;"., :~ ~ M ; ..... ..: ~7;.: ,::i 1- 3 :c: C) l!) ,w - t...- z:-=. . . -1 ~ ~a;- ~ 0: LL. Ei -JoCJES 101- :C"UJO OJru!- I- J..L z= . BE5~~ LL 'C.-i 0 Z::uoa 0:-0 .. I-~CTcn OL 0 g:U1 t..n t'.j ~ N :-? 10 ~ \J~~ ~~-.d s: :S -l-~S> ~ ~ $:-:>-.) - ~ ~ ~ "'> VI ~ ~ ~ ~t::LCL ~ A- ~ i ~ ~ o N .~ +- { q ~Lf -= ot::;;;~ I cr d--: I UJ UHO, . (0..... ,.... '" lD eo.2 I C:(jE .Q>'E ~ ; (l)co>.j - c: 0 I ~ O>"~ I J- 0 , j I ~ -=<t:~ , . &<0. Q) l 0"'(1)",,_, fJj ('-l ~u I oll?,E !"-wu- .- )( i:7:E2', 0).:::: ro 0. . .- E c: a. . en co >.. tt! ro c: 0 1';..., ....::;:0.,0 ~O Q' , 0 if.) <0 "'~ CD +-' if.) "0 l..... .- CD ID :> U C e C 5; c..~O if) Q) .- - >. -C<Dt: ...........(1) a.lQ,a. if.)...- 0 ::l .. lI- (tl ("oJ Q.. o ro W ~O)S: E CO. ._= (f.) ::J.;::: ro c EO)...... 0 00._ 'x .5!:? ..c ro co'-...... c E ~ ~:~ ....0 >. ro . a.l 0..... O:l en '0 LOow M .- Q) "0 OE<D mc "0 J:.c......c +-'ocm m(),)w_ "'0 ...... c .S ..2$;00"0 olDEc .!: c ~ l;::: o (),) a. 0 ........c: +-' 00""" co w (j)s...O)c ::JScQ) C @ :a .~ +:: 0 'S; :!: crooo o 0.. .... "C oWc..c <D__ro 00000 c...... Q) c co c :> 0 C ::1._._ .- 0 u...... "EE(J)~ 0(0:5'0 "Om 0 b., ~:o i:"(i5 oooco.c c..cE..... P 0._ .?:> - en ....._ a. ro a. 'E (j) ~ Q) (l) ..c ..c-o i- ro +-' ._ W (j) "0 'S; o ..... 00.. ..-. 0 Ew ro~ c ro >..=; 'U. (j) (l) :> 0 ro C .c .52 en cE C 0 ro 0 o Q) C !:i .2' 00 We @ @ " ..coc ...... ......, rn - "C,j'oo o m .'tJ b.,~ tD . "'0 "- .) .5 c >. ro ((l Eoo~ .- 0.. ~.~.~ .c'U IDi-u .c "_ ::"OE co CD ro .ewe ......::::1>. 0001:1 Q) C @ :2.cc :> Ol 0 e::l>. 0..0'2 o.c 0 ..... ..!!2cw co(D.Q w:>c oWro c w u ~.~ ~ .-.:!:::: Q) 'E=.c o~..... (J;j 0.. 00 .coo.c 1-0...... tzf w. 8 3 0- <l> XERXES 3100 :%. 8 WASHBURN 3000 Cil 0- V[NCENT 2900 III ![ UPTON 2800 "0 -2. THOMAS 2700 <l> 0 ur SHER[DAN 2600 N- O RUSSELL 2500 ::l S. (Q QUEEN 2400 I iil PENN 2300 ::l 0- c OLIVER 2200 '" I~ NEwrON 2100 "0 3 MORGAN 2000 X 0- LOGAN 1900 KNOX 1800 JAMES 1700 IRV[NG 1600 HUMBOLDT 1500 GIRARD 1400 FREMONT 1300 EMERSON 1200 DUPONT 1100 COLFAX 1000 BRYANT 900 ALDR[CH 800 LYNDALE 700 GARF[ELD 600 HARRIET 500 GRAND 400 PLEASANT 300 PILLSBURY 200 WENTWORTH 100 BLAISDELL 50 NICOLLET 000 1s1 100 STEVENS 124 2nd 200 3rd 300 CLINTON 324 41h 400 5th 500 PORTLAND 600 OAKLAN D 620 PARK 700 COLUMBUS 720 CHICAGO 800 ELLIOT 900 10th 1000 11th 1100 12th 1200 13th 1300 14th 1400 151h 1500 BLOOM[NGTON 1524 16th 1600 171h 1700 181h 1800 CEDAR 1900 "g )> C G) " C ~ < (J) 't-- -l '" 0 0 w m " ,,~ Ito (q~b '" ~ ~ .. '" '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" to;' :;; '" Co " 5' ~ '" '" '" " ~ ~ Co Co '" '" "" '" ~ '" en "" '" ~ '" '" 5' '" co "" g '" ~ ~ ~ mffitl3ffi3~I"- B:!lJf!HIffiII!lJ ffiH!lH!ffitffillllHlB_ FF'. tIHHHE iFfHtiMh\1 ~ m ~ EEl I ~ etrffiJlffi fHHEHH!] tlrlBJwiHllfffliTIB L.J BiffiHB 1111111: III: 1111 \ ~ffi!J:ffiJ mffiHEE mm !ffil1Hllf!l]_flllltHllllHiffiEm~, _111111111111111111 ~mmmmm[@B:!lJflllHllffiIHIlIHIH!lBc:=Jflllllillll'"' ~IIIII:IIIIIIIIIII'[ BffiHBtIHEElmmm ~_~fll!IllIHlB~ D'UIU:i::::::::U::: DJlIillIIIJm lDIIllIIllD[[]]]]]ll]])illIITIIlIDmrl'tfgj 1""'"I""'I["'j WlWlJ m UIIIIIIIlJD (]]]]]ll]ID UIIIIIIIlJDITIlIIIIIl:::J ~l!l I1II [[ [[[I [[ I[ [II [ . mtIHffiB _fll!IllIHlB_~ rd ~ ~ armm UJ:IJIIlffi~~r'm~~i lIE! ~ .IL. . . .ffiIHIllIjtITiIlltJmffHJj~IHrrtrlffiiIJ~~tl'ffiE r~~~I!llYilii. i ~ ====~ffi~====.~ _ mmm_~~~_ffi1HltiBffiM_ r--' l!IIJiffii!H!llJlIIiIIIiIIIBIIII'IIIIIII!IIIII~Sl:l'llllll!llllllllll!llllll!llf'ID'illl i:::---i .fEffiIlHlEIEmHJffi!iffil!EffiffiHI!E ~nntEbm:J LJ Bn!EB tt\5nIlJ ffiHJIHE ffiffi\iffiJ:J ~ nn tImmIIl tEffiJ EtB CIIIJIIJ [[[]]J]]] _ ffiHlIIIilJ ffiHHE _ ffiffiHE_ l!IittIiffi!J 8ffilj ~ aEiHtJEEEmJ~8lIlH ~mtaJ 8ffiEB ffiEHBJ~ffitE9 ffillIlJ\E[fImI m ~ 0ICIIlIJJ i=rrrD rnmm IIIIlIIJ[]]J ITIID .... Lili <BIJffi~ ~ P <iJ:ffil[J ffi!IHffiIIl6ltit1ffilE ffiJ.ltIJm ====~ ,,'/~f\ I! Ll -=~!IrJliD. ~~'" ~..,( ..~J4;j.~JI! ~td lIE '==I~~II!IIIllll==b'lIar?ffiHg:m1 . i ~ ffiEtIEJJ !llffiHIIIB m ftllHffiI%1\ffillEJ d. 17' :"D1J1E EffiffiB ffiE ~ eE.liE Ei.milff IL.i. ii..I.liiiiiii ; ffiHBtlHffiBffiHHBffiHHBHHHE3 fPIHEm[lJ offiIimtm ~====III1=[~IIIIIII=~!I;=I""'iil S . lffiHEmmm_mmtEm... ffiHHBEffiRBEmHEffilffiBllllllllllll[[II[ ^' ITTTTTTlmmrTTTTlTTl[[[[]]]]]]]]llIIIIIIIIllJITIIIIID mlJJ]]JJJ]]JRTTlTTlmllllllllllll\11 " DIITIIJ m m OIIJJI[[] [[[[]]]]]]]] [[]JJ]]]ll) m m [[]]]JJJ]J I::fIIIIIJ m [ [[ [[ [[ Il [I ~X.'~ nmRt:IHlfllllBffiillIB 1!IIIllll1!lllllll1!lllllll1!llllllJ1IIIIIHI_1. . :,I':',I"I:J.IIIIIIIIIIIIIII[: /, ffiffi8J _ mmtE IHHl!fIE ffiHHB m tIHffiB ffiHHB tIHffiB 1EffillIlTIj!:Ii?). 11111111111111111 'Ci@ ffiHHBffilHjffiJ~~ IRffiHHBtlHffiBb:d!ffilll!ffllJ' ~ IIIIIIII:IIIIII! LTI om:rrn DTTT1IJ 0IIlJIIIJ. lTIll /JIIlIITI]J m r:mTIIIlJ 8IIIIIlli::! b."' II'. U I " I111I1 [ [ [ [ I [ " [ [ [ [ I" CD llll.llillI DJIIIII[] [[[[]]]]]]]].. --. _ _ WWlJ ITOJJID u.mmw LlJJJ..L]J'..UJ...Ll I....,. I I I . I I I I I I .!'" t]~!EEEE!====i ~_mmmm~t\BHE88HffiBffiffiHEnntffiJ3IO I iEE=iiBfI!lllllll:=5Eiiiiiil DIIIIIJ IIIITITTl m rnmm DJJJJID ITmTI 0 IIIIIIIIIII ITITIJIJII rnmm I1JJTl1:J 1'-' 11111111111111111 DJJJJID IIIIIIl . rnrrm m m m m IJI[[O ITIIJII]] [[]]JJ]]]] m [lIIJIEl:J L' [[ [[ [I [I [[ I [[ [ DJIlJJIJ DIIIIJ ~ lffiHE m m ffilffi!B tillffiBl m m llHlffilll [!ffij]ffi m tJmIjj fLlffi1tj tPElmj m~ ~ffiEjjjm~mmllHlffilllnnBmlJlffi1rl!lBEffiHEmmtIHffiB ; ==mllllllllllll:II~.=rmm~..~:::::~[~::=== i bJ~=E.I=IIEII~~iillli\'~~"""j ~CY""" ")",rJlLrrrm::mlIIlIlJIfli1:lfW,rn:.L!~1 flTlTTllTnrTTTlllllrrrrrTTfJ. ......E..' ...... ......LL.. ..r.J.t.... · .,.! ~ t.::Jlf{~:lc.:IJ]J [J:fVif~yjf t. -, - --1 p~~~, ITCI"JIIJ IIillIIIJ ITII:IJ' ,,:~ IJ!lllIJJI c::;:7" ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '" ~ '" ~ '" ~ '" '" "" '" ~ ~ '" ~ ::t '" '" ~ '" ~ '" '" a. []g.(/ ... A, , '( ~~~~~~~~~~::o::ooooro- CCC~~O::o::o::o::o~ (,,~~O I I I ::0 "'T'1 ~... I I I I ::::0 (') Z ~ ~ 1'-' W f\.) -.1. -.1. XERXES WASHBURN VINCENT UPTON THOMAS SHER[DAN RUSSELL QUEEN PENN OLIVER NEWTON MORGAN LOGAN KNOX JAMES [RVING HUMBOLDT G[RARD FREMONT EMERSON DUPONT COLFAX BRYANT ALDRICH LYNDALE GARF[ELD HARRIET GRAND PLEASANT PILLSBURY WENTWORTH BLAISDELL NICOLLET 1s1 STEVENS 2nd 3rd CLINTON 4th 5th PORTLAND OAKLAND PARK COLUMBUS CHICAGO ELLIOT 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th BLOOMINGTON 161h 17th 18th CEDAR '" ~ :::a N -. (") 0 n _. :r ...... Z """,,< -. - ~aZ G) r- (I) (Q (I) S:S::S:313131S:S:::?S:~0.~G)Z~5" i5. cccmmmCC<:C :JCOCDCD....,a. ~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~.S.C ~~~ffiffiffi::O::O~::03CDO~~@~ CDCDCDa.a.a.CDCD3CD=~CD~OO~ CCC~~ ~~_~~m:JO~ - ~ ~ ~ ::E "'" G), ',< ~ ' 3 ~. 0 0 3l CD CD CD 0 ~~ ~S:::o9:or.z':<3 o@ , " -'. CO CD CD en 0 3 a. ::0 0 z ;;r ::0 0 :::r !=2- !!l, 8 :a: ~ 0 CD 0 CD 0 ~. 3 ffi 0 0 0 a. 3. 0 ~ 3 0 0 CQ. 3 CO =. 3 CD CD ~ :i" ~ 0.: 3 OJ. 3 g 3 ~~ 3 iil :J <:!: C ~ CD -= - 3 ~SQ?r? -=~m:~~~a: ~ ;::;.: ::::T en '< --- ~ Q. '< 0 . m o - a. AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCES AGENDA ITEM # 20 REpORT # 336 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEP AR TMENT DIRECTOR REVIEw: rn0,. . j/'> _..</,..../ L_",0 "d REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of an ordinance repealing Section 426 of the City Code related to public commercial wireless telecommunication services antennas and towers. Regulations related to telecommunication towers and antennas has been revised and moved to Section 544 of the Zoninq Code. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance repealing Section 426 of the City Code related to public commercial wireless telecommunication services antennas and towers. I II. BACKGROUND I On November 13, 2007 the City Council approved a second reading of new ordinances related to zoning throughout the City. As part of the revisions to the Zoning Code, updated language related to telecommunication antennas and towers were added to the General Building and Performance Standards Section. To avoid potential confusion and contradictory regulations, Section 426 of the City Code should be repealed. 121107 - 2nd Read repeal Section 426 I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . Section 426 of the City Code and Section 544 of the Zoning Code requires different regulations for telecommunication towers and antennas. The antiquated section should be removed to avoid conflict and confusion. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I . There currently exist two contradictory sets of regulations for telecommunication towers and antennas. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I · Section 426 of the City Code and Section 544 of the Zoning Code requires different regulations for telecommunication towers and antennas. The antiquated section should be removed to avoid conflict and confusion. · The first reading of this ordinance was held on November 27, 2007. I IV. ALTERNATIVEREcOMMENDATION(S) . N/A I V. ATTACHMENTS . Ordinance I VI. PRINCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . N/A ~O-~I BILL NO. 2007- AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 426 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED PUBLIC COMMERCIAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES ANTENNAS AND TOWERS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 426 of the City Code, which regulates public commercial wireless telecommunication services antennas and towers, is hereby repealed, due to the inclusion of new wireless telecommunication services antenna and tower regulations in Section 544 of the City Code. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 121107 - 2nd Read repeal Section 426 /(~ evi secL AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # PROP. ORDINANCE 21 337 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2007 REpORT PREPARED By: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: [gJ ~// ~<, l) REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of ordinance amendments to the housing code, subsections 405.07,405.09 and 405.15 of the Richfield City Code. Amendments relate to appeals of housing code violations, sanitation requirements, and minimum space and occupancy requirements. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: . Approve second reading of ordinance amendments in Subsections 405.07,405.09 and 405.15 of the City of Richfield Housing code that relate to appeals of housing code violations, sanitation requirements and minimum space and occupancy requirements. · Approve the resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. I II. BACKGROUND I Staff has been working on revisions to the City's housing code, with a focus on occupancy provisions. City Council reviewed a draft ordinance in July 2007, then a revised draft of the ordinance was presented to the Council for discussion at its September 25,2007 work session. A first reading was held on November 27,2007. 1211 Second Reading of Occupancy Ordinance Amendments As background, it is noted that the original purpose of the amendment to the housing code was not to reduce the number of persons who could live in a dwelling. The purpose instead was to change the method for calculating maximum occupancy in order to reduce administrative difficulties. The existing code determines the maximum occupancy based on the floor area in the dwelling. Under the proposed revision, maximum occupancy would be based primarily on the number of sleeping rooms in the dwelling unit, although some level of taking internal measurements may still be necessary on occasion. These changes should also help in allowing residents and landlords to determine whether occupancy limits are satisfied or not. The revised ordinance retained the concept of calculating occupancy based on the number of sleeping rooms, but added some refinements after the study session. Rather than allowing two persons per sleeping room, the ordinance establishes a sliding scale of 1 to 3 persons per sleeping room, depending upon room size. The ordinance also includes a table that is intended to be easy to use and understand. As with the original draft, the revised draft allows up to 2 additional persons if the dwelling unit contains a multiple purpose room. The draft has been revised to require that the multiple purpose room have an area of at least 120 square feet, which is consistent with the requirement for sleeping rooms. Neither the building code nor federal ho'using regulations prevent the use of multiple purpose rooms for sleeping. Limited use of a multiple purpose room for sleeping is not inconsistent with safe and sanitary housing, which is the purpose served by the occupancy ordinance. For those reasons, staff recommends that multiple purpose rooms be included in the calculation of maximum occupancy, with the limitations in the revised ordinance. Staff also reviewed the possibility of requiring that sleeping rooms have specified numbers of electrical outlets or closets in order to qualify as sleeping rooms. Subsection 405.11 already contains an electrical outlet requirement, which is consistent with both the building code and federal housing regulations. Closets are not required under either the building code or housing regulations. Staff recommends that rather than require a closet in the ordinance, the staff be allowed to consider the lack of a closet in determining whether "by design and layout" a room is "intended as a bedroom" or instead is a multiple purpose room. The revised ordinance includes a new amendment to the minimum standards for basic equipment and facilities in subsection 405.09 of the code. The revised ordinance proposes a requirement that one half-bath be provided for every four sleeping rooms in a dwelling unit. A five-bedroom house, therefore, would require one full bath and one half-bath. Staff made a comparison of the new standards to the previous standards, using four different houses deemed to be typical of the City's housing stock. That comparison showed that the occupancy requirements were roughly equivalent overall, although depending upon the particular house, the revised ordinance could result in minor differences from the existing ordinance, sometimes permitting fewer and sometimes permitting more occupants than the existing ordinance. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I . As noted earlier in this staff report, there have been numerous and on- going discussions with the City Council regarding these changes. It was at their September 25,2007 work session, that staff was directed to schedule a first reading of the ordinance draft and set the date for a second reading. [ B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · Staff believes that this ordinance draft will assist them in making over- occupancy determinations more easily yet also acknowledges that in some instances, measurements may still need to be taken. I C. FINANCIAL . N/A I D. LEGAL I · The City Attorney has worked very closely with staff on the drafting of this ordinance and supports the ordinance draft in its current state. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · The City Council could decide not to approve this ordinance amendment which would mean that staff would continue to operate under current occupancy related codes. I v. ATTACHMENTS I · City ordinance subsections 405.07, 405.09 and 405.15 of the Richfield City Code. · Resolution. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None dJ- i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE HOUS!NG CODE; RELATING TO APPEALS OF HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS, SANITATION REQUIREMENTS, AND MINIMUM SPACE AND OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 405.07, 405.09 AND 405.15 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 405.07, subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Violations. (a) Notice. If a violation of this section has occurred, or the enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, notice will be given to the licensee, or if there is no license, to the owner, operator, or resident of the premises. Notice of the violation must be in writing and sent by United States mail to the last known address of such person. The mailed notice will give the licensee, owner, or operator a specified number of days, up to 30 days to correct the violation. The enforcement officer has the authority to extend the time period to correct a violation if, in the discretion of the enforcement officer, good cause has been shown. (b) Appeal. A licensee of a rental property or an owner or resident of a non-rental property may appeal. a determination that a violation of this section exists. The licensee, owner, or resident must submit a written request for an appeal to the director of public safety within ten days after receiving a notice of violation under paragraph (a). A request for an appeal must be based on a claim that the true intent of this section or rule adopted hereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; that the provisions of this section do not apply, that the requirements of this section are adequately satisfied by other means, or that stri9t application of a requirement under this section would cause undue hardship. A hearing will be held within 20 days after the director of public safety receives the written request for an appeal. The director of public safety will act as the hearing official and will consider all relevant evidence, documents, and verbal presentations submitted during the hearing by both the licensee, owner, or resident and the building official. The director of public safety will issue a written decision to the licensee appealinq party and the building official within ten days of the hearing. (c) Penalty. If a notice of violation has been given to the licensee under paragraph (a) and the violation has not been corrected within the number of days specified in the notice, the licensee may not let dwelling units then vacant, or which become vacant, untilUall\fiolations within the same dwelling have been corrected. Sec. 2. Subsection 405.09, subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: J-I- ~ Subd. 3. Flush toilet. Every dwelling unit except as otherwise permitted under subdivision 5 must contain a room which affords privacy to a person within said room and which is equipped with a flush water closet and a lavatory basin in good working condition and properly connected to a water and sewer system approved by the enforcement officer. A dwellinq unit must contain one room meetinq the requirements of. this subdivision for each four sleepinq rooms (as defined in subsection 405.15 of this code). Sec. 3. Subsection 405.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 405.15 Minimum space, use and location requirements. Subdivision. 1. Purpose. This requlation aims to set occupancy limits for all housinq in the City, both rental and owner occupied. This is necessary to prohibit and deter residence situations that stress the limits of a home, its neiqhbors and all its buildinq systems by havinq too many individuals Iivinq in a structure that was not intended to handle larqe numbers of occupants and by preventinq neqative health impacts on individuals livinq in overcrowded residences. The City Council finds that over occupancy of residences neqatively impacts the health, safety and welfare of the community. Subd. 2. General Rule. No person may occupy or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein, which does, not comply with the following requirements:- of this subsection. The total number of persons occupvinq the dwellina or dwellina unit must not exceed the maximum requirements established by this subdivision. The maximum number of occupants for any dwellinq or dwellinq unit shall be determined accordinq to Table 1 below. For purposes of this subsection, a "sleepinq room" includes rooms that by desiqn and layout are intended as bedrooms. A "sleepinq room" does not include kitchens, ba+h..o"'t'Y'ls ha'lu/a"s ,,1"'S8+S' "'.. t'Y'l1.lf.il'"\le 1'"\' '....."'sa ""'0""5 A ",,"/+i""a 1'"\, '....."'sa ""0t'Y'l LIII VIII , J I I YV Y , "'IV L VI IIIUILlJJI tJUI tJu I V III. IIIU I..IJJI IJUI tJu I V III includes a Iivinq room, dininq room, den Of other room that by desiqn or layout is not intended as a bedroom, but that is otherwise habitable. For purposes of this subsection, "occupant" is defined as an individual residinq therein. Table 1: RoomArea in 5 . ft. 70 or more but less than 120 120 or more but less than 180 180 or more At least one room 120 or more unit Subd. 3. Minimum Requirements (a) Minimum Area. Every dwelling unit must cont3in have at least ..tW one habitable room that must have not less than 120 squarefeef of qross floor sp3ce for the first resident thereof 3nd 3t le3st 100 addition31 squ3re feet of floor Sp3CO to be calcul3ted on the b3sis of tot31 habitable room area.;..:. dl~~ (b) Other Rooms. Other habitable rooms must have a qross floor area of not less than 70 square feet. Kitchens must have not less than 50 square feet of qross floor area. in every dwelling unit of two or more rooms, every room intended ::1S ::1 bedroom or one resident must cont::1in at least 70 square feet of floor cpace, ~md overy room intended ae a bedroom for more than one recident must cont3in at Icast 50 square feet of floor epace for each recident thereof; (c) Minimum Dimensions. Habitable rooms must not be less than seven feet in any horizontal dimension. @ Minimum Heiqht. Habitable rooms, hallways, bathrooms, and basements must have a ceilinq heiqht of not less than seven feet. Beams may project not more than six inches below the required ceilinq heiqht. Not more than 50 percent of the required floor area is permitted to have a sloped ceilinq less than seven feet in heiqht with no portion of the required floor area less than five feet in heiqht. The buildinq official may approve a reduced ceilinq heiqht for existinq buildinqs. ~ Minimum Arranqements. No dwelling or dwelling unit containing two or more sleeping rooms may have Sl::l-Gfl. room arrangements such that access to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by residents of more than one sleeping room can be had only by going through another sleeping room; nor wiU may room arrangements be such that access to a sleeping room can be had only by going through another sleeping room or a bathroom or water closet compartment; (d) at-Least one half of the floor are3 of every h3bitable room must have a ceiling hCI'-h,," 0+ a"" l--s"" ~e\fen &ee.l.. -n"" .l.he &100- -r-- 0& th_,," ~_..... ~+ -~" ~~01'Y\ H ~Ht T l t::'-l l ti. I l, '-l tI lH I I '-l t;;l..t T H..tt fJ..tll UI ..tll} I U rn wRere the ceiling height is lees than five feet ';.'ill not bo considered as part of the floor area in computing the total floor 3rea of the room for the purposo of Eletermining the maximum permissible occupancy thereof; and ill Basement Space. . Ne No basement space may be used as considered a Rabit3blo sleepinq room or d'J'Ielling unit unless: (1) the floor and walle 'are impervious to leakage of underground ::md surface runoff water and are insulated againct dampnecs. The room has an emerqency escape openinq which is maintained in accordance with the code in effect at the time the sleepinq room was created. Basement sleepinq rooms in existence prior to April 8, 1968 shall have at least one exterior door, or window that complies with the followinq: @2 provides a minimum net clear openinq of not less than 5 square feet with no dimension less than 22 inches; and f.Ql the sillheiqhtis not over 48 inches above the floor. (2) The total window area in each room is equal to at least the minimum window area sizes as required in subsection 405.11; and ~/- L/ (3) The total of openable window area in each room is equal to at least the minimum as required under subsection 405.11, except where there is supplied some other device affording adequate ventilation and approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 4. Exception. A child aqed two years or younqer is not considered a person or occupant for the purposes of calculatinq maximum occupancy under this subsection. . Section 3. This ordinance is effective In accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk j/-j~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced ordinance; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the ordinance is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified; and WHEREAS, the following summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. 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 RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE HOUSING CODE; RELATING TO APPEALS OF HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS, SANITATION REQUIREMENTS, AND MINIMUM SPACE AND OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 405.07, 405.09 AND 405.15 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE On December 11, 2007, the Richfield City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill No. , the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance establishes maximum occupancy limits for residential dwellings based in general upon the size and number of sleeping rooms in the dwelling. The ordinance establishes minimum dimensions in area and height for habitable rooms. It requires egress windows for basement sleeping rooms and a half bath for every four sleeping rooms in a dwelling. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861-9800 of the Public Safety Department. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in her office at City Hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2007. ATTEST: Debbie Goettel, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOLUTIONS 22 338 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving an amendment to the 2007-2008 labor agreement with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating an increase in the City's contribution toward health insurance premiums and a3% salary increase for January 1, 2008 with an additional increase of .5% effective the first full pay period of July 2008 for the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215. I II. BACKGROUND I City staff has completed labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 (Union) for the contract re-openers (Article 20 Health Insurance and Article 32 Salary) of its 2007-2008 contract, subject to Council approval. There are 24 employees represented in this unit. The tentatively approved settlement includes the following changes: 1. Waqes A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective January 1, 2008 and an additional .5% across-the-board wage increase effective the first full pay period in July 2008. 1211 Fire 2. Health Insurance A maximum $30 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution for contract year 2008 which provides full coverage to single Employees, $730 per month for Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren) coverage, and $780 per month for Employee plus family. The Employer contribution for employee single dental insurance will remain at $32 per month for 2008. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its representatives and is bound under 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 provisions is the first union settlement for 2008 and is identical in wages and health insurance provisions to non-union City employees. The City has a long history of providing the same level of health insurance contribution and salary increase to all eligible City employees and strives to maintain that equity. Also, the proposed wage settlement is well within the range for other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities I B. CRITICAL ISSUES I · In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2008 benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on December 11, 2007 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2008. I C. FINANCIAL I · Up to a maximum $30 per employee increase in the City's contribution towards health insurance coverage. · A 3% increase to wages, effective January 1, 2008, and an additional .5% increase the first full pay period in July 2008. I D. LEGAL I · If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation. · Defer discussion to another date. I V. ATTACHMENTS · Resolution I VI. PRlNCIP AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING · None. dc~- / RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND SALARY INCREASE FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE INTERNATIONALASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 signed a bargaining agreement covering a two year period from January 1,2007 through December 31,2008; and WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment including the City contribution for health insurance benefits and salary schedule; and WHEREAS, Article 34 of the labor agreement provides for either party to amend the provisions in Article 20, Section 1 - Health Insurance and Article 32 - Salary Schedule; and WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same salary increase and 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 towards the premium for employee group insurance coverage and salary increases. NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a maximum of $730 per month for employee plus spouse or employee plus child(ren) health insurance coverage, and $780 per month for family health insurance coverage, 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, 2008. The City shall also contribute a maximum of $32 per month for employee single dental insurance coverage for 2008. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall implement a salary schedule, effective January 1, 2008, which provides a 3% increase' in wages, and an additional .5% increase effective the first full pay period of July 2008. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REpORT # RESOI~UTIONS 23 339 STAFF REpORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11,2007 REpORT PREPARED By: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions approving the 2007 Revised/2008 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2007 Revised/2008 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions. I II. BACKGROUND I In September 2007, the City Council approved and certified a preliminary tax levy of $13,000,168 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 2007 truth-in-taxation hearing on December 3,2007. During the course of the public hearing, there was an opportunity for testimony from the general public. Information was also presented by staff regarding the proposed levy and budget. No official City Council action to act on the levy was permissible on the day of the public hearing. Since the initial publication of the 2008 City of Richfield proposed budget document, the original 2008 General Fund budget has been adjusted upwards by $9,690 to account for a portion of a part-time position inadvertently omitted. In addition, more up to date information with regards to the 2008 Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) 1211 Budget has become available. This new information relates the Fire Station II project and a Water Plant project. The effect of this new information on the 2008 CIS is an increase of budgeted costs of $175,000. It should be noted that these increases in no way increase or affects the proposed General Fund tax levy. Any changes in cost estimates must also have concurrent increases in funding. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I I A. POLICY I · A revised 2007 budget and final 2008 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 27, 2007. · 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 2008 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. · Several related resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. These related resolutions are itemized in the attachment section of this staff report. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES . N/A I C. FINANCIAL I · The gross tax levy for 2008 reflects an 8.40% increase from the previous year's gross levy. · The levy increase comprises two components as follows: · General Fund and Equipment Levy 3.08% · Debt Service Levy 5.32% · The local tax capacity rate for 2008 reflects a 5.78% percent increase from the previous year. I D. LEGAL I · A truth-in-taxation public hearing for the 2008 proposed budget and tax levy was conducted on December 3,2007. I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I · The City Council could adopt a final 2008 budget and tax levy in any amount, which does not exceed the preliminary levy of $13,000,168. I V. ATTACHMENTS I · Resolution adopting a proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2008. · Resolution authorizing budget revisions. · Resolution authorizing revision of 2007 budget of various departments. · Resolution authorizing adjustment to City's mileage reimbursement rate to conform to Internal Revenue Service statutory mileage reimbursement rate. · Resolution establishing wastewater service rates and charges, water rates and charges, special water service charges, storm sewer rates and charges, and 6.5% penalty on past due accounts. · Resolution adopting the 2008 Capital Improvement Budget. · Resolution adopting the 2009-2012 Capital Improvement Program. · Resolution relating to purchasing practices in the City of Richfield. · Resolution relating to the 2008 General Services Salary compensation plan. · Resolution relating to the 2008 General Services Mid-Year Salary compensation plan. · Resolution relating to the 2008 Specialized Pay Plan. · Resolution relating to the 2008 Specialized Pay Plan Mid-Year Adjustment. · Resolution relating to the 2008 Management Salary compensation plan. · Resolution establishing 2008 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to the provisions of appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield. I VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING . None d:3 - j RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2008 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2007 and then recertified before December 28, 2007. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2008 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 843,990 1,154,600 8,077,080 2,979,160 281,530 3,997,020 1,640,860 46,240 $19,020,480 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 2008 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2008 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $19,020,480 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2007, payable in 2008 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE General Fund1 Equipment G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2007 A G.O. Improvement Bonds, Series 2007B AMOUNT $11,813,7282 548,340 373,400 264,700 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 2008 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable Q3#~a. property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2007, payable in 2008 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $474,675 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 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~3-3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the approval of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J.3-L)- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2007 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 9866 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2007; 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 2007 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2008 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2007 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND INCREASE $ 838,930 1 ,117,250 7,667,810 2,800,260 269,620 3,863,610 1 ,573,790 758,230 $18,889,500 $ 825,090 2. Estimated 2007 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2007 budget, are hereby revised as follows: INCREASE $18,889,500 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 2007. ATTEST: Debbie Goettel, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk d3~5 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT TO CITY'S MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service periodically adjusts the business mileage reimbursement rate; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's present mileage reimbursement is in conformance with the Internal Revenue Service business mileage reimbursement rate; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the City Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to adjust the City's mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines. 2. That the City's mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue Service guidelines. Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Q 3,~ (p 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% PENAL TV 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 2008 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. 9859: 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 2008 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. A) Residential per unit 2008 $ 52.40 B) Commercial - For the equivalent of 10 or less persons More than 10, less than 16 More than 15, less than 21 More than 20, less than 26 $ 52.40 95.50 133.60 178.50 C) Institutional- For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: For each 100 grade school students or fraction in excess thereof For each 100 junior high school students or high School students or fraction thereof 2008 $ 62.60 157.00 D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code. 3. Where the rate for sanitary sewer service is based upon the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on ~3-, 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, 2008, for each 2008 customer billing district and shall be as follows: $ 2.61 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, 2008, shall be as follows: $ 2.61 C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice rendered effective January 1, 2008 as follows: $ 3.00 If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for by each fund. D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05. 4. The foregoing rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. 5. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) will be charged a sanitary sewer rate based on the Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) rate plus 15% for Inflow/Infiltration and $1,000.00 per quarter for administration costs. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2008 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be $2.23 per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly, and all bills issued after January 1, 2008 shall be at this rate. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2008 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.-8 3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $19.50 per installation. 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the City shall be $39.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts. 5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual cost to the City plus thirty percent. 6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based on actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent. 7. The MN lab fee will is $6.36. STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2008 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 Warehouse uses 5.00 7 3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $51.00 per acre of land. $10.20 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% PENAL TYON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS 1. Customers will have thirty (30) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent amount. d3-C1 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, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk a3-~ I 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2008 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 2008 Capital Improvement Budget in the sum total of $37,666,440 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, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~B.- I I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2009-2012 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 2009-2012 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, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J).3-/a RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURCHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 8298 WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Richfield has purchasing authority pursuant to the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code; and WHEREAS, the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code expressly state a purchasing authority limit for the City Manager, and WHEREAS, all non-budgeted purchases in excess of $25,000 will require approval by City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby granted the authority to enter into contracts or approve purchases on behalf of the City of Richfield up to, but not to exceed $25,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of December, 2007. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. d 3--/3 RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2008 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for 3eneral Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2008 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 RESOL VEO that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2008 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2008 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: 2008 GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN STEP 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR 29,681.60 31,428.80 33,176.00 34,964.80 37,044.80 38,168.00 MO 2,473.47 2,619.07 2,764.67 2,913.73 3,087.07 3,180.67 BW 1,141.60 1,208.80 1,276.00 1,344.80 1,424.80 1,468.00 HR 14.27 15.11 15.95 16.81 17.81 18.35 GS2 YR 32,656.00 34,340.80 36,004.80 37,835.20 39,769.60 41,745.60 MO 2,721.33 2,861.73 3,000.40 3,152.93 3,314.13 3,478.80 BW 1,256.00 1,320.80 1,384.80 1,455.20 1,529.60 1,605.60 HR 15.70 16.51 17.31 18.19 19.12 20.07 ..:iS3 YR 36,004.80 37,835.20 39,832.00 41,745.60 43,825.60 46,259.20 MO 3,000.40 3,152.93 3,319.33 3,478.80 3,652.13 3,854.93 BW 1,384.80 1 ,455.20 1,532.00 1,605.60 1,685.60 1,779.20 HR 17.31 18.19 19.15 20.07 21.07 22.24 GS4 YR 39,832.00 41,745.60 43,888.00 46,113.60 48,380.80 50,939.20 MO 3,319.33 3,478.80 3,657.33 3,842.80 4,031.73 4,244.93 BW 1,532.00 1,605.60 1,688.00 1,773.60 1,860.80 1,959.20 HR 19.15 20.07 21.10 22.17 23.26 24.49 GS4E YR 42,785.60 44,865.60 47,195.20 49,587.20 52,041.60 54,683.20 MO 3,565.47 3,738.80 3,932.93 4,132.27 4,336.80 4,556.93 BW 1,645.60 1,725.60 1,815.20 1,907.20 2,001.60 2,103.20 HR 20.57 21.57 22.69 23.84 25.02 26.29 GS5 YR 43,888.00 46,113.60 48,380.80 50,939.20 53,476.80 56,160.00 MO 3,657.33 3,842.80 4,031.73 4,244.93 4,456.40 4,680.00 BW 1,688.00 1,773.60 1,860.80 1,959.20 2,056.80 2,160.00 HR 21.10 22.17 23.26 24.49 25.71 27.00 GS5E YR 47,195.20 49,587.20 52,000.00 54,683.20 57,428.80 60,611.20 MO 3,932.93 4,132.27 4,333.33 4,556.93 4,785.73 5,050.93 BW 1,815.20 1,907.20 2,000.00 2,103.20 2,208.80 2,331.20 HR 22.69 23.84 25.00 26.29 27.61 29.14 GS6 YR 48,380.80 50,939.20 53,476.80 ,,56,160.00 59,030.40 65,104.00 MO 4,031.73 4,244.93 4,456.40 ~~...\ 4,680.00 4,919.20 5,425.33 BW 1,860.80 1,959.20 2,056.80 2,160.00 2,270.40 2,504.00 HR 23.26 24.49 25.71 27.00 28.38 31.30 3S6E YR 52,000.00 54,683.20 57,449.60 60,320.00 63,356.80 69,950.40 MO 4,333.33 4,556.93 4,787.47 5,026.67 5,279.73 5,829.20 BW 2,000.00 2,103.20 2,209.60 2,320.00 2,436.80 2,690.40 HR 25.00 26.29 27.62 29.00 30.46 33.63 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 2007. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk (Revised 12/07) ~3- I 5" GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE 1 2 3 4 4SN 5 5E 6 6E POSITION TITLES Office Aide Data Entry Operator Switchboard-Receptionist Community Development Technician Community Service Officer Custodian Investigative Clerk Lead Liquor Clerk Licensing Clerk Police Cadet Senior Office Aide Accounting Clerk Community Development Assistant Facility Operations Assistant Forestry Inspector/Operations Assistant Environmental Health Assistant Lead Licensing Clerk Leased Housing Assistant Secretary Utility Billing Clerk Assessment Clerk Information Technologies Help Desk Technician Administrative Aide Payroll Accountant Engineering Technician Facility Maintenance Supervisor Recreation Supervisor Part-time Information Technologies Technician Assistant Liquor Store Manager Code Compliance Specialist Communications Coordinator Crime Prevention Program Coordinator Community Development Accountant Community Development Coordinator Executive Coordinator Housing Specialist Human Resources Coordinator Human Services Planner/Coordinator Leased Housing Specialist Naturalist Records Supervisor Recreation Supervisor Redevelopment Specialist Zoning Administrator Civil Engineer Network Administrator Trade/Building Inspector Trade/Electrical Inspector Accountant CLASS Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt RESOLUTION NO. d. 3-- Itp RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE JULY 2008 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for 3eneral Services employees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2008 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 2008 the following pay plan, which is to be effective the first full pay period in July 2008 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: JULY 2008 GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN STEP 1 2 3 4 5 6 RANGE GS1 YR 29,827.20 31,595.20 33,342.40 35,131.20 37,232.00 38,355.20 MO 2,485.60 2,632.93 2,778.53 2,927.60 3,102.67 3,196.27 BW 1,147.20 1,215.20 1,282.40 1,351.20 1,432.00 1,475.20 HR 14.34 15.19 16.03 16.89 17.90 18.44 GS2 YR 32,822.40 34,507.20 36,192.00 38,022.40 39,977.60 41,953.60 MO 2,735.20 2,875.60 3,016.00 3,168.53 3,331.47 3,496.13 BW 1 ,262.40 1,327.20 1,392.00 1,462.40 1,537.60 1,613.60 HR 15.78 16.59 17.40 18.28 19.22 20.17 ..:iS3 YR 36,192.00 38,022.40 40,040.00 41,953.60 44,054.40 46,488.00 MO 3,016.00 3,168.53 3,336.67 3,496.13 3,671.20 3,874.00 BW 1,392.00 1,462.40 1,540.00 1,613.60 1,694.40 1,788.00 HR 17.40 18.28 19.25 20.17 21.18 22.35 GS4 YR 40,040.00 41,953.60 44,116.80 46,342.40 48,630.40 51,188.80 MO 3,336.67 3,496.13 3,676.40 3,861.87 4,052.53 4,265.73 BW 1,540.00 1,613.60 1,696.80 1,782.40 1,870.40 1,968.80 HR 19.25 20.17 21.21 22.28 23.38 24.61 GS4E YR 42,993.60 45,094.40 47,424.00 49,836.80 52,312.00 54,953.60 MO 3,582.80 3,757.87 3,952.00 4,153.07 4,359.33 4,579.47 BW 1,653.60 1,734.40 1,824.00 1,916.80 2,012.00 2,113.60 HR 20.67 21.68 22.80 23.96 25.15 26.42 GS5 YR 44,116.80 46,342.40 48,630.40 51,188.80 53,747.20 56,451.20 MO 3,676.40 3,861.87 4,052.53 4,265.73 4,478.93 4,704.27 BW 1,696.80 1 ,782.40 1,870.40 1,968.80 2,067.20 2,171.20 HR 21.21 22.28 23.38 24.61 25.84 27.14 GS5E YR 47,424.00 49,836.80 52,270.40 54,953.60 57,720.00 60,923.20 MO 3,952.00 4,153.07 4,355.87 4,579.47 4,810.00 5,076.93 BW 1,824.00 1,916.80 2,010.40 2,113.60 2,220.00 2,343.20 HR 22.80 23.96 25.13 26.42 27.75 29.29 GS6 YR 48,630.40 51,188.80 53,747.20 56,451.20 59,321.60 65,436.80 MO 4,052.53 4,265.73 4,478.93 ,,\1 4,704.27 4,943.4 7 5,453.07 BW 1 ,870.40 1,968.80 2,067.20:jJ 2,171.20 2,281.60 2,516.80 HR 23.38 24.61 25.84 27.14 28.52 31.46 3S6E YR 52,270.40 54,953.60 57,740.80 60,632.00 63,668.80 70,304.00 MO 4,355.87 4,579.47 4,811.73 5,052.67 5,305.73 5,858.67 BW 2,010.40 2,113.60 2,220.80 2,332.00 2,448.80 2,704.00 HR 25.13 26.42 27.76 29.15 30.61 33.80 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 2007. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk (Revised 11/07) d~-I ~ GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE 1 2 3 4 4SN 5 5E 6 6E POSITION TITLES Office Aide Data Entry Operator Switchboard-Reception ist Community Development Technician Community Service Officer Custodian Investigative Clerk Lead Liquor Clerk Licensing Clerk Police Cadet Senior Office Aide Accounting Clerk Community Development Assistant Facility Operations Assistant Forestry Inspector/Operations Assistant Environmental Health Assistant Lead Licensing Clerk Leased Housing Assistant Secretary Utility Billing Clerk Assessment Clerk Information Technologies Help Desk Technician Administrative Aide Payroll Accountant Engineering Technician Facility Maintenance Supervisor Information Technologies Technician Recreation Supervisor Part-time Assistant Liquor Store Manager Code Compliance Specialist Communications Coordinator Crime Prevention Program Coordinator Community Development Accountant Community Development Coordinator Executive Coordinator Housing Specialist Human Resources Coordinator Human Services Planner/Coordinator Leased Housing Specialist Naturalist Records Supervisor Recreation Supervisor Redevelopment Specialist Zoning Administrator Civil Engineer Network Administrator Trade/Building Inspector Trade/Electrical Inspector Accountant CLASS Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Non-Exempt Exempt 0l3--1 (} RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2008 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2008 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 2008 the following pay plan which is to be effective on January 1, 2008 and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: 2008 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade SP1-E/NE HR Step 1 6.93 SP2-E/NE HR 7.67 SP3-E/NE HR 8.26 SP4-E/NE HR 8.93 SP5-E/NE HR 9.62 SP6-E/NE HR 1 0.44 SP7-E/NE HR 11.23 SP8-E/NE HR 12.13 SP9-E/NE HR 13.10 SP10-E/NE HR 14.20 SP11-E/NE HR 15.25 SP12-E/NE HR 16.54 SP13-E/NE HR 17.72 Step 2 7.30 8.03 8.67 9.39 10.14 10.95 11.80 12.76 13.79 14.88 16.08 17.32 18.67 Step 3 7.60 Step 4 8.00 8.42 8.84 9.11 9.57 9.85 10.34 10.62 11.14 11.47 12.06 12.40 12.99 13.38 14.05 14.45 15.16 15.65 16.44 16.87 17.70 18.19 19.13 19.63 20.64 Normal Proqression Throuqh the Specialized Pay Plan ~ '0 'd-D Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher-grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: Step 1 - Start Step 2 - One year from anniversary date Step 3 - One year from last increase Step 4 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 th day of December 2007. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk 1 E Pool Attendant ~ 3'~ ~\ NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute E Student Intern NE Construction Inspector NE Farmers Market Coordinator ~ NONE NE Publication Supervisor NE Teen Coordinator 3 NE Bike Patrol Officer E Playground Coordinator NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, E Maintenance Technician Vet's & Taft) E Tennis Coordinator NE ScorerlTimer NE Recreation Attendant I 9 NE Community Development Tech. E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) E Special Facilities Coordinator E Facility Rental Attendant 10 NE Adult Sports Coordinator 4 NE Arena Attendant NE Engineering Aide NE Dance Coordinator & Skate E Pool Supervisor Coordinator NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator Gym & Sports Attendant) E Concession II 12 NE Pool Coordinator E Facility Cashier E Mini Golf Attendant 13 NE 911 Dispatcher 5 NE Adaptive Assistant Instructors NE Custodian NE Building Inspector NE Professional Intern NE Figure Skating NE Survey Crew Person NE Hockey (Arena) NE Winter Sports Attendant NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech. E Warming House Attendant NE Sports Official NE Substitute Naturalist 6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist NE Dance NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) E Cross Country Ski NE Receptionist E Hockey (outside) NE Teen Leader E Tennis E Concession III E WSI E Lifeguard E Outdoor Skating/Warming House Supv OTHER E Playground Leader Instructor's Range: $5.75 - $50 Election Judge $9.00 7 NE Accounting Clerk Election Co-Chair $9.50 NE Adaptive Program Supervisor Election Chairperson $10.00 NE Building Attendent NE Concession Supervisor (all sites NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per EXCEPT Pool) week without overtime pay. NE Construction Specialist E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week NE Liquor Sales Associate without overtime pay. NE Maintenance Laborer All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt. NE Naturalist I All Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and NE Video Production Assistant Maintenance positions are non-exempt. NE Zamboni Operator (Revised 11-07) E Mini Golf Supervisor E Concession Supervisor NE Pool Night Watch 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator NE Administrative Services Clerk RESOLUTION NO. ~?>>~ C}-'d- RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE JULY 2008 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2008 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 2008 the following pay plan which is to be effective on the first full pay period of July 2008 and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: JULY 2008 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 SP1-E/NE HR 6.96 7.34 7.64 8.04 SP2-E/NE HR 7.71 8.07 8.46 8.88 SP3-E/NE HR 8.30 8.71 9.16 9.62 SP4-E/NE HR 8.97 9.44 9.90 10.39 SP5-E/NE HR 9.67 10.19 10.67 11.20 SP6-E/NE HR 10.49 11.00 11.53 12.12 SP7 -E/NE HR 11.29 11.86 12.46 13.05 SP8-E/NE HR 12.19 12.82 13.45 14.12 SP9-E/NE HR 13.17 13.86 14.52 15.24 SP10-E/NE HR 14.27 14.95 15.73 16.52 SP11-E/NE HR 15.33 16.16 16.95 17.79 SP12-E/NE HR 16.62 17.41 18.28 19.23 SP13-E/NE HR 17.81 18.76 19.73 20.74 Normal Proqression Throuqh the Specialized Pay Plan /)3 ,- (). ?> Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher-grade step based on individual performance and the following progression: Step 1 - Start Step 2 - One year from anniversary date Step 3 - One year from last increase Step 4 - One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 th day of December 2007. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk 1 E Pool Attendant ~ 8r~4 NE Clerk Typist - Int. & Substitute E Student Intern NE Construction Inspector NE Farmers Market Coordinator ~ NONE NE Publication Supervisor NE Teen Coordinator 3 NE Bike Patrol Officer E Playground Coordinator NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, E Maintenance Technician Vet's & Taft) E Tennis Coordinator NE Scorer/Timer NE Recreation Attendant I 9 NE Community Development Tech. E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) E Special Facilities Coordinator E Facility Rental Attendant 10 NE Adult Sports Coordinator 4 NE Arena Attendant NE Engineering Aide NE Dance Coordinator & Skate E Pool Supervisor Coordinator NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator Gym & Sports Attendant) E Concession II 12 NE Pool Coordinator E Facility Cashier E Mini Golf Attendant 13 NE 911 Dispatcher 5 NE Adaptive Assistant Instructors NE Custodian NE Building Inspector NE Professional Intern NE Figure Skating NE Survey Crew Person NE Hockey (Arena) NE Winter Sports Attendant NE Housing & Redevelopment Tech. E Warming House Attendant NE Sports Official NE Substitute Naturalist 6 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist NE Dance NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) E Cross Country Ski NE Receptionist E Hockey (outside) NE Teen Leader E Tennis E Concession III E WSI E Lifeguard E Outdoor Skating/Warming House Supv OTHER E Playground Leader Instructor's Range: $5.75 - $50 Election Judge $9.00 7 NE Accounting Clerk Election Co-Chair $9.50 NE Adaptive Program Supervisor Election Chairperson $10.00 NE Building Attendent NE Concession Supervisor (all sites NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per EXCEPT Pool) week without overtime pay. NE Construction Specialist E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week NE Liquor Sales Associate without overtime pay. NE Maintenance Laborer All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt. NE Naturalist I All Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and NE Video Production Assistant Maintenance positions are non-exempt. NE Zamboni Operator (Revised 11-07) E Mini Golf Supervisor E Concession Supervisor NE Pool Night Watch 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator NE Administrative Services Clerk a 3 --d-5 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2008 MANAGEMENT SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2008 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 2008 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2008 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City. 2008 MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-1 YR 56,264.00 64,355.20 72,384.00 MO 4,688.67 5,362.93 6,032.00 BW 2,164.00 2,475.20 2,784.00 HR 27.05 30.94 34.80 M-2 YR 66,996.80 76,544.00 86,153.60 MO 5,583.07 6,378.67 7,179.47 BW 2,576.80 2,944.00 3,313.60 HR 32.21 36.80 41.42 M-3 YR 73,049.60 83,449.60 93,870.40 MO 6,087.47 6,954.13 7,822.53 BW 2,809.60 3,209.60 3,610.40 HR 35.12 40.12 45.13 M-4 YR 75,587.20 86,361.60 97,177.60 MO 6,298.93 7,196.80 8,098.13 BW 2,907.20 3,321.60 3,737.60 HR 36.34 41.52 46.72 M-5 YR 89,939.20 102,772.80 115,627.20 MO 7,494.93 8,564.40 9,635.60 BW 3,459.20 3,952.80 4,447.20 HR 43.24 49.41 55.59 - I: Q) E Q) tn CIS I: CIS ~ .s::. tn ::s o "- .s::. l- I: o 11I 11I Q) "- tn o "- D. Cii E "- o z I: ~ D. I: o :;:: CIS 11I I: Q) c. E o (J a> _CI) ~ a> 0> a> a> a> c 0> >.~ .- c 0 5co"'6..~ "'C ..... E 03 c _CI) a> a> o ..... .- co c c 1Oa>co= ::J>'cc co g> 0 .0:; > .- a> 0> a> ~.;:: c a> 0""" co 0=0..... c.E2~ co a> 'CD co E~a>co o '+- "'C CI) 't:ocoa> ~~ E~ ':>,......a>c ~. 0 .0 .- O'+->.c oa>=o co-co:;::::; '+- :9 E Om ~ .2' 0 0 co a>c 0. OOa>_c co ......- a> ......co~t: CI) c CI) ::J ~ .Q C 0 -1Oa>"'C ......::JEc CO-......co "'C~~O> ~ a> .~ c a>a>-g:;::::; :.co......~ o co- co co Q; ~ a>E~c >o_co co 't: co E .!::a>.go o c.. 0- 't: .!:: ...... . ;:: a> ~ ffi -g c.. ~ E - _CI) a> a> . co >. > ex:> ::J oeg:-Q c.. c.. "I > E E -'6 a> - ..-- c C ~ ~.O:; a> a> co.!:: Ea>::J...... zCC a> co 0 0> co -, 0> co "'C a> C C a> > .- CO>:;::::;"'C ~ 'w ~ ffi OO~c.. ......a>a>a> "'C..... "'C o~ ~.~ - c.. co C ~ c...!:: a> 0_ co E CI) a> ~.......~ .o~~~ co~'6'~ .!::a><( CI) >. a> = coO>~ a> c.. c "'C EEcoc ......wD::co CI) a> a> . ::J .,.........co 0--, ..... ...... co .- "'C<( co I- "'C Q; a> ...... a> >. -' ~ 05 o>o>Cco CC a>CI) 0> 2 '6 E Q; o~ LL..a>CI)>~ a> ~ o~ Oc 0 .!::....."'Cco I- c.. co co '+- /) ''0 ,- d-. {p I- Z o a. c ~ LL. o ~ It) o o:!::: ~~;:,:::::..... o:::o..--a> w"Io~ >.8......0 o..--~z "'C C co a> o c co E ..... .g a> a.. a> CI) co a> ..... o c ~ o ...... u W ~ C) (J) z :;::::;. ~ . co CI) coo.!:: O ...... I- .- en c >-z 1ocoO 0:::- ::Ja>E <(~ CO::('I) ;ig ~~~~ tJ)0:::::. co.!::...... a> 0::::: a>......CI)> ZLL .....ca>a> -0 go>~ Z o~-Eoa> o ~ ;:,::::: lh :!::: cD 6..'S; i= ~ "6 ~ Q; ~.~ ~ c;;~"""o~oa>~ o · {O......01oOo D.~~~z"'Cc1O cco"'C co E c E 0 co CI) 't: E a> a> 0 ..... c........ I- &:;::::; 0 Z a>Ca> o D::::J:o D. CI)::J C a>a>CI) CI) CI) CI) 0:::::. coCO::J 0::::: a> ~ ...... ....0 ..... 0 co 0..... 0 c ...... It) ~ c ._ CI) cn~lh~-a>a> ",0 .lC):!:::..... a> ..... lC) ('I) . Q; ::J >. Woo"-- "50 c............O~'+-c.. ZlC){O......ooE ::>cv:i~~zza> l"- e e N ..... a> .0 E a> o a> o '+- o >. co "'C .!:: ...... ..-- ..-- CI) :.c ...... co ...... o CI) a> c c ~ "'C a> t;::: .!:: o 0::: '+- o >. ...... <3 a> .!:: ...... '+- o .0 C ::J o () >. ...... <3 a> .!:: ...... W (J Z <(C) ~z 0:::- ~~ 0::: W D. ...... ~ ffi .8 E o a>.".. co > ~o 0>'t5 ."..e.8 c :;::::; ~. c.. 0 '6CO.9Eco cOOo-'t5 co a> co CI):;::::; ......>'t5"'Cco 20:;::::;a>CI) ::J.o co a> c O<(OOZ::J >. .0 "'C a> CI) CI) co a.. ..... o >. co ~ a> ...... ...... a> o (9 o~ .0 .0 a> o ~ 00 W l- I- <( .:.::. ..... a> () >. ...... <3 CI) .0 -0 (9 >. u c co Z d-.2> '"'d'7 MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS M-1 City Clerk Exempt Facility/Program Manager Exempt Supervisor Exempt Health Administrator Exempt Liquor Store Manager Exempt M-2 Assistant City Engineer Exempt Assistant to the City Manager Exempt Assistant Utility Superintendent Exempt Chief Building Official Exempt Community Development Manager Exempt Information Technologies Manager Exempt Transportation Engineer Exempt M-3 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Exempt Finance Manager Exempt Housing & Redevelopment Manager/ Exempt Assistant Community Development Director Operations Superintendent Exempt Utilities Superintendent Exempt M-4 None Exempt M-5 Department Director Exempt (Rev. 11/07) d ~ ,-~8' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2008 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX 0 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9872 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 (1) Heating and 400.07 1 Year $ 80.00 Ventilating Installer (2) Sign Installer 416.01-416.13 1 Year $ 80.00 (3) Electricallnstalier 400.03-400.09 State License Required I (4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 state License Required (5) Well Driller 620 state License Required SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Benches 805.01-805.27 First Year $ 80.00 Renewal $ 30.00 (2) Boulevard feature 811.07 aJ Application to place a privately owned feature $ 30.00 Permit in the boulevard b) If applied for after installation of feature has $ 60.00 begun (3) Excavation in 800.01-800.15 aJ For each transverse excavation and each 100 $ 125.00 Public Right of feet or portion thereof longitudinal excavation way 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 I ~ :3 --d-9 SECTION 3. PUBLIC WORKS FEES (CONTINUED TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION I OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE , I (4) Forestry Permit 810 Applies only to trees on City property and public $ 25.00 ROW (5) Seasonal Load a) Per load $ 25.00 Limit Exemption b) If applied for after delivery $ 50.00 (6) Obstruction Permit 802.1 7 (a) Short term, temporary lane closure of less than No fee 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/Collector/Distributor Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 30.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 125.00 , Local/Residential Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 15.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 50.00 Parking lane/sidewalk Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 7.50 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 31.25 I If applied for. after obstruction closure has begun (c) Short term, temporary lane closure of 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/Collector/Distributor $ 60.00 I Day (per block or portion thereof) I Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 250.00 I Local/Residential $ 30.00 Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 100.00 I Week (per block or portion thereof) I Parking lane/sidewalk I Day (per block or portion thereof) $ 15.00 Week (per block or portion thereof) $ 62.50 (7) Noise Ordinance 930.35 (a) With conditions added as required $ 25.00 Exemption (b) If applied for after violation $ 50.00 (8) Certification 705.03-705.21 All delinquent accounts $ 50.00 Charge (9) NSF Check Charge $ 35.00 SECTION 4. FIRE SERVICES fEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Fire Prevention 400.21 -400.29 For initial fee required under code Per $ 50.00 Code for each additional fee required under year code $ 10.00 Penalty If not renewed within 2 months of Per notification year $ 25.00 (2) Daycare/Adult Foster Care Facility Inspection $ 50.00 (3) Reimbursement Fee for Fire/Rescue Unit Per Hour $ 250.00 (4) Sale of Consumer 1131 License per location to sell Per Year $ 100.00 Fireworks consumer fireworks d3.--30 SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATiON LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION i OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE I (1) Arcade 1105 1 Year $ 412.00 (2) Amusement 1100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device 1 Year $ 15.00 Device (Pinball) 1 Year $ 15.00 (b) Mechanical Music Box 1 Year $ 15.00 (c) Video Games (3) Lawful Gambling 1100.13 Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel. Raffle, Pull I Tabs (oj Lawful Gambling Permit (those exempt from state Licensure) 1 Year $ 100.00 (state statute 349.213) (b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee 1 Year $ 100.00 I I (state statute 349.16) I STATE LICENSE REQUIRED I (4) Itinerant Place of 1100.05-1100.11 1 day $ 221.00 Amusement I (5) Public Dance 1110.03 For each day dances are held - $3 1 $ 37.00 No fee for locations holding tavern licenses. month (6) General 1100.03 (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 Year $ 15.00 I Amusement 1. Coin operated 1 Year $ 15.00 (b) Bowling Alley (per lane) 1 Year $ 37.00 (c) Circus 1 Year $ 178.00 (d) Dance Hall 1 Day $ 178.00 I I (e) Golf I 1. Miniature 1 Year $ 42.00 i 2. Driving Tee 1 Year $ 42.00 (f) Mountback 1 Day $ 170.00 (g) Rides, mechanical/animal of any kind ] Year $ ]5.00 (eo) 1 Day $ 170.00 I I (h) Shows, any kind 1 Year , $ 16.00 I (i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 Day $ 15.00 (iJ Other games (7) Musical Concert 111 0.01 Per event $ 37.00 (8) Theatre Cinema 1120 1 Year $ 172.00 Plus a notice publication fee $ 6.50 (9) Roller Rink ]j 15 1 year or portion thereof $ 172.00 (10) Commercial 605 1 Year $ 2,059.00 Adult-Oriented Investigation fee ] Year $ 2,059.00 Enterprises (11) Masseur/Masseuse 605 Certificate fee 1 Year $ 70.00 Investigation fee 1 Year $ 172.00 (12) Public Baths 610 1 Year $ 2,384.00 Investigation fee (actual cost minimum) $ 2,384.00 (13) Fortune Teller and 1130.05-1130.07 1 Day $ 138.00 related trade 1 Week $ 411.00 1 $ 822.00 I Month $ 1,372.00 I 1 Year (14)Adult 1]96 Annual license 1 Year $ 2,058.00 Establishments InvestiQation fee (new license) $ 2,058.00 ~ ?>,-0 i SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION I OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE I (1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Animals (Spayed or Neutered) with 1 Year $ 15.00 option to purchase a multi-year license (b) Animals (Not Spayed or Neutered 1 Year $ 18.00 (c) Duplicate Animal License $ 7.00 (d) Late Penalty $ 6.00 905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel 1 Year $ 207.00 (f) Residential Kennel 1 Year $ 156.00 , (g) Veterinary $ 207.00 I 905.37-905.39 (h) Pigeons 1 Year $ 41.00 905.41 (iJ Non-domestic Animals (Temporary $ 23.00 905.01-905.29 Permit) (jJ Impounding (each animal) 1 st time $ 60.00 I 2nd Time $ 119.00 3rd time (each impound after) $ 178.00 SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Aircraft 1340 1 Day $ 41.00 (2) Food Vehicle 615 (a) Bakery vehicle 1 Year $ 104.00 (b) Catering - for first food vehicle 1 Year $ 219.00 Second vehicle 1 Year $ 90.00 Each additional vehicle 1 Year $ 49.00 (c) Readily perishable (Same as (b) above) i (3) Garbage and 601.01-601.33 Commercial and Residential Refuse Collection First vehicle 1 Year $ 206.00 Each additional vehicle 1 Year $ 44.00 (4) Motor Vehicle 1155 Per place of business 1 Year I; 309.00 Dealer Each additional place of business 1 Year 117.00 (5) Motor Bicycle 1160 Per place of business 1 Year $ 178.00 Business Per place of business to sell, rent or least 1 Year $ 81.00 (6) Sound Truck 1165 Per vehicle 1 Year $ 178.00 , 1 Per Vehicle 1 Day $ 27.00 ; (7) Taxicab 1170 First vehicle or auto livery 1 Year $ 445.00 Each additional vehicle or auto livery operated at any time within license 1 Year $ 55.00 period (8) Taxicab Driver 1175 1 Year $ 42.00 I (9) Rental or utility 1185 Each place of business 1 Year $ 81.00 Trailers and Trucks ~ ~,-3'a. SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 1 Year $ 1,372.00 (2) Itinerant Food 615 Per $ 110.00 Establishment Event I I I (3) Retail Candy Shop 615 First facility 1 Year .$ 110.00 Each additional on same premises 1 Year $ 27.00 (4) Food 615 (a) Retail or Wholesale Food Sales 1 Year $ 290.00 Establishment (Grocery) (b) Restaurant [prepackaged food only 1 Year $ 290.00 sold for consumption) (c) Restaurant (Prepared food sold for 1 Year $ 543.00 consumption) See fee (d) Plan Review Fees: schedule at end of Section 8 I (e) Additional Food Facilities (Baked goods, meat produce, Each $ 37.00 microwave ovens) (5) Vending Machine 615 (a) Food vending machine requiring coin or token (excepting those machines dispensing bottled or canned soft 1 Year $ 15.00 drinks) (b) other food vending machines (excepting those dispensing bottled or 1 Year $ 15.00 canned soft drinks) 1 Year $ 15.00 (c) Ice vending machine (6) Automobile ,1125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof 1$ 138.00 Washing Establishment (7) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 Year $ 41.00 Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping contents of each cesspool into City sewer $ 20.00 (8) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 Year $ 41.00 (9) Tobacco 1146.01 (MS Retail Sale and Distribution - License issued $ 344.00 461.12) on calendar year (cigarette vending machines prohibited) (Bill No. 1998-19) , i (10) Soft drink 1145.01 (a) Cans, bottles from shelf or cooler, $ 29.00 fountain service (b) Vending machine dispensing bottles or --0- cans (c) Other vending machines Per year or fraction thereof $ 29.00 Per each additional machine $ 29.00 (ll)Transient 1181.01-1181.09 1 Day $ 8S.00 Merchant (l21 Waqon Peddler 1181 1 Year $ 207.00 ....,..1 rot ............. , . , , .. ".- -- ( I j) ;) TaTe naWKer or Peddler license 111~1 I b montnj per person cove rea I I ~ :)u.uu I ~ ~~ 3'~ SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) I (14) Canvasser or 1181 6 month/per person covered $ 50.00 Solicitor , . (15) Christmas Tree 1130.03 1 Year $ 111.00 Sale (16) Motel 1190 First Unit $ 192.00 Per year each additional unit $ 13.00 (1 7) Outdoor 1135 Permit $ 87.00 I Merchandising (18) Storage Enclosure 1135 Per Enclosure $ 75.00 (19) Pawnbroker 1187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 Year $ 3,578.00 I (b) Owner investigation fee 1 Year I $ 2,057.00 I I (nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 745.00 (c) Manager investigation fee (nonrefundable J 1 Year $ 72.00 (d) Employee investigation fee (nonrefundable) $ 2.00 (e) Transaction fee - per transaction (20) Secondhand 1186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 Year $ 392.00 Goods Dealer (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) I actual costs in excess of above with I total not exceeding $ 1,646.00 Applicant shall deposit $1200.00 with , Licensing Clerk along with application. I Amount in excess of actual application costs shall be refunded. (21) Auto Detailing 1195.01 1 Year $ 307.00 Establishment (22) Tattoo, Body 630 I (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting or I Piercing, Body I body branding 1 Year $ 686.00 Painting or Body I (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 Year $ 2,057.00 Branding (23) Temporary Tattoo, 630 Per booth $ 41.00 Body Piercing, Body Branding and Body painting I I events (24) Massage Therapy 1188 Annual license 1 Year $ 685.00 Enterprise License Investigation fee (new license) $ 685.00 (Business license) Massage Therapist Annual license 1 Year $ 70.00 License (Individual Investigation fee (new license) $ 70.00 license) Temporary Per temporary location $ 137.00 Massage Therapist License I (25) Public Swimming 420.10 1 st Pool $ 117.00 I Pool License Each Additional $ 63.00 d.'6~3L} SECTION 8 COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) PLAN REVIEW FEE FOR FOOD, THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND LODGING PERCENTAGE OF FACILiTY INVOLVED WILL BE DETERMINED BY STAFF Definitions: Class A - Large restaurant or large grocery store that employs more than four people per shift, and/or has multiple supplemental licenses (i.e., bar, bakery, deli. meat department, etc.) Class A (Fast Food) - Counter service only and/or drive through window and warehouses. Class B - Daycare, pet shops, retail candy, prepackaged food only. Class C Small grocery/restaurants with four or less employees per shift and health clubs. Environmental plan review - includes the physical remodeling, updating, equipment replacement equipment additions and the general overall review of all plans/work. This also includes all new development projects. New Construction Extensive Minor Remodel Non-remodel and/or Major Remodel (25- (0-24% of approval Remodel (over 50% 50% of facility) facility) consultation of facility involved) ($5,000 or less in costs) Class A (large $2189 $1140 $615 $105 restaurant or grocery) Class A (fast food and $1508 $825 $457 $105 warehouses) Class C (food facilities $825 $458 $273 $105 with 4 or less I employees per shift and health clubs Class B (daycares, $405 $158 $78 No fee grocery, pet shops, retail candv) Class B (prepackaged New project or Minor remodel- food only) change of owner - permit but no $105 plan check fee Therapeutic Massage $105 $105 $105 $105 Lodging $1823 $982 $511 $105 SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMiT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) 3.2 Malt Liquor 1202.05 (dl On-Sale 1 Year $ 756.00 (e) Tavern (dance) 1 Year $ 618.00 (f) Wholesale 1 Year $ 37.00 (g) Off-Sale 1 Year $ 219.00 I (h) Club (Bottle Club) 1 Year $ 500.00 (i) Temporary per event $ 55.00 (2) Liquor 1202.05 (a) On-Sale 1 Year $12,473.00 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 Year $ 200.00 i ! (c) Wine 1 Year $ 11 00.00 I I (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex-Sunday) 1 Year $ 715.00 I (e) Temporary per event $ 113.00 /). 3..' ?J S SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES (CONTiNUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTiON OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (3) Employee License 1208.01 Effective 10/1/95 all licenses issued shall be S 30.00 On-Sale Liquor valid for a period of two years from the Establishments date of initial application (4) Investigation Fee 1202.01-1202.21 (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' 1$ 684.00 and Organization each person shown on application actual costs in excess of above Each additional investigation for each I person not listed on original or renewal application $ 205.00 I 1202.11 I (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee S 379.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total fee not to exceed S 2,891.00 Renewal Application Initial Fee S 85.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total cost not to exceed S 2,891.00 1202.11 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 S 169.00 and Subd. 3 S 2,891.00 not to exceed S 85.00 I Investigation of substitute manager I 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 S 83.00 Apartment Houses Each unit S 13.00 and Rental Homes (bj Rental Home - single family dwelling 1 Year S 83.00 (c) Duplexes/double bungalows First unit 1 Year S 83.00 Each additional rental unit 1 Year S 42.00 (d) Late Fee I 10% penalty for each month or portion i thereof during which said fee remains unpaid. . (e) License Transfer Fee $ 40.00 (f) Reinstatement of suspended license 50% of license fee (minimum $80) I (g) Reinstatement of Revoked license I 100% of license fee (h) Re-Inspection Fee 1. multi-family $ 80.00 ea. 2. single family & duplex $ 35.00 ea. (Inspection over standard 2 inspections) Reinspection fees shall be payable at I the time of license renewal and no renewal license shall be issued unless all inspection fees are paid (i) Provisional license for apartment house 1 Year S 190.00 Includes first unit Each additional unit $ 20.00 ~3,-3" SECTION 10. HOUSING INSPECTION AND RENTAL LICENSE FEES (CONTINUED) TYPE Of PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE ! (2) Certificate of 405.26 Single family home (includes one reinspectionj $ 100.00 I Housing 2-family home (includes one reinspection) $ 175.00 I maintenance Compliance Reinspection Fee $ 35.00 Fee to process cash escrow aareement $ 50.00 (3) Permit Fee for 405.19 1 Year $ 130.00 Rooming House I SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION fEE (1) Permit to reside i 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 1$ 2.50 Color Photocopy rate I ! 8.5 x 11 (per side) Ii 1.00 8.5 x 14 (per side) 2.00 11 x 17 (each) $ 4.00 24 x 36 (each) $ 18.00 X-large $3.00/sq.ft. i (b) labor hourly wage & I 33% (c) Postage prevailing rate (d) Fax per page $ .50 (e) Audio tape of meeting (per tape) $ 5.00 (f) Video tape of meeting (per tape) $ 15.00 (g) Electronic copies (cd or disk) $ 5.00 (h) As builts (per image) $ .50 (6) Notary fee Fee Set By State (7) Candidate Filing City Charter $ 25.00 Fee 4.04 , I (8) Photo Fee I Includes 2 photos $ 14.00 I plus tax :;)3- 3 'J SECTION 11. MISCEllANEOUS FEES (9) Special Assessments Assessment Search $15.00 per Property I Identification Number , (PID) I Levied or Pending Special Assessment $30.00 for each report Report Plus $.05 for each PID Number Creation of New or Special $25.00 minimum fee. I Report Fees to be based on time and materials to create report Listing Information Printout of PID Listing $3.00 per PID Number , Review of Comparable Property Records Residential field Card Report $ .25 per copy for up to five comparable I properties Commercial/Industrial/Apartment Field I I I , Card Report $2.00 per copy I Certified Card Report $3.00 Copy of Certificate of Real Estate Value $ .25 SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL fEES ~3 -- 3 ~ FEE LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION FEE I Richfield City Hall Council Chambers Non-Profit Weekend: $58.00/Hr Weekday: $46.00/Hr Resident Weekend: $68.00/Hr Private Weekday: $58.00/Hr I Non-Resident Weekend: $78.00/Hr I I Private Weekday: $68.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Augsburg Room Non-Profit Weekend: $30.00/Hr Weekday: $25.00/Hr Resident Weekend: $50.00/Hr I Private Weekday: $30.00/Hr ! Non-Resident Weekend: $55.00/Hr Private Weekday: $35.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Nicolfet Room Non-Profit Weekend: $30.00/Hr Weekday: $25.00/Hr Resident Weekend: $50.00/Hr Private Weekday: $30.00/Hr Non-Resident Weekend: $55.00/Hr Private Weekday: $35.00/Hr I Richfield Community Center Combined Non-Profit Weekend: $58.00/Hr Nicolfetl Augsburg Weekday: $46.00/Hr Resident Weekend: $90.00/Hr Private Weekday: $58.00/Hr I I I Non-Resident Weekend: $100.00/Hr Private Weekday: $68.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Richfield Room Non-Profit Weekend: $58.00/Hr Weekday: $46.00/Hr I Resident Weekend: $68.00/Hr Private Weekday: $58.00/Hr Non-Resident Weekend: $78.00/Hr Private Weekday: $68.00/Hr Richfield Community Center Ruth Johnson Room Non-Profit $25.00/Hr Resident $30.00/Hr Private Non-Residpnt . 35_0 /Hr I Private I $____0,... I ';)..3 r' 3 cJ SECTION 12. ROOM AND PARK SHELTER RENTAL FEES (CONTINUED) FEE I lOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION FEE Richfield Community Center Fireside Room Non-Profit $25.00/Hr ! Resident $30.00/Hr Private Non-Resident $35.00/Hr Private I Wood Lake Nature Center Auditorium Non-Profit $25.00/Hr Resident $35.00/Hr Private Non-Resident $40.00/Hr Private Augsburg Park Park Buildings Resident $23.00/Hr Christian Park $19.00/Hr (3+ HrsJ Donaldson Park-East Jefferson Park Non-Resident $28.00/Hr Madison Park $24.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Taft Park-North Washington Park Fairwood Park Open Picnic Shelters Resident $18.00/Hr Monroe Park $15.00/Hr (3+ HrsJ Augsburg Park Non-Resident $23.00/Hr $20.00/Hr (3+ HrsJ Sheridan Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident $21.00/Hr $18.00/Hr (3+ Hrs) Non-Resident $25.00/Hr $22.00/Hr (3+ HrsJ Veterans Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident 1 Section: $84.00 Day: 4 Hour Block 2 Sections: $152.00 3 Sections: $214.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $91.00 2 Sections: $165.00 3 Sections: $231.00 Veterans Park Open Picnic Shelter Resident 1 Section: $63.00 Evening: 3 Hour Block 2 Sections: $112.00 3 Sections: $158.00 Non-Resident 1 Section: $68.00 2 Sections: $123.00 3 Sections: $175.00 ~~,~~o SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS The following schedule of fines applies to offenses initiated by administrative citation. TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE (1) ANIMALS 905.03 Failure to license animal $54.00 905.05 Failure to restrain dog $54.00 905.06 Failure to dispose of animal feces $54.00 I 930.15 Animal annoyance by reason of noise $54.00 I 905.17 Failure to quarantine animal $108.00 905.19 Failure to comply with potentially or dangerous $270.00 dog requirements 905.31 Failure to obtain commercial kennel license, $54.00 I multi-animal residential license or veterinary I kennel license 905.29 Abandonment of an animal $108.00 Failure to provide shelter, food or water for a $270.00 domestic animal 2005.03 Cruelty to animals and birds $270.00 (2) BUILDING 400.19 Failure to number houses and buildings $54.00 CODE Failure to provide minimum standards for basic $108.00 I 405.09 equipment and facilities 405.11 Failure to provide minimum standards for light, $108.00 ventilation and heating 405.13 Failure to provide minimum standards for safe $108.00 ! and sanitary maintenance of dwellingsl dwelling i units 405.15 Failure to provide minimum space $108.00 406.01 Failure to license rooming house $108.00 407.00 Failure to license apartment houses and rental $108.00 ! homes 407.09 Failure to display license or provide tenant $108.00 register 408.01 Failure to obtain certificate of housing $108.00 maintenance compliance (PaS) 420 Failure to comply with swimming pool ordinance $108.00 (3) BUSINESS 1100.01 Failure to obtain amusement devices license $54.00 LICENSES 1340.01 I Failure to obtain aircraft license $54.00 1105.01 Failure to obtain arcade license $54.00 1125.01 Failure to obtain car washing license $54.00 ~3-Y I SECTION 13. fiNE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE BUSINESS LICENSES 1130.03 Failure to obtain Christmas tree license $54.00 (CONT.) 605.05 Fdilure to obtain commercial adult-oriented $54.00 services license 1196.11 I Failure to obtain an adult establishment license I $54.00 1188.05 Failure to obtain a therapeutic massage license $54.00 1195.03 Failure to obtain an auto detailing establishment $54.00 license 1200.03 Failure to obtain intoxicating liquor license $54.00 850.09 Failure to obtain community celebration license $54.00 III 0.01 Failure to obtain concerts or dance license $54.00 615.05 Failure to obtain food establishment license $54.00 920.03 Failure to obtain firearms license $54.00 1130.05 Failure to obtain fortune teller license $54.00 601.15 Failure to obtain garbage and refuse collection $54.00 license j 100.13 I Failure to obtain lawful gambling license . $54.00 1100.03 Failure to obtain general amusement license I $54.00 1200.33 Failure to obtain a liquor employee license $54.00 1190.05 Failure to obtain motel license $54.00 1160.03 Failure to obtain motor bicycle license $54.00 1155.05 I Failure to obtain a State motor vehicle dealers $54.00 license 1155.07 failure to obtain a City motor vehicle dealers $54.00 I license ]]20.03 I Failure to obtain movie theatre license $54.00 1210.05 Failure to obtain 3.2 intoxicating malt liquor $54.00 license 1181.03 I Failure to obtain transient merchant, peddlers, $54.00 I wagon peddlers and solicitors license ! 905.39 Failure to obtain pigeon license $54.00 1186.05 Failure to obtain a pawnbroker license $54.00 1187.05 Failure to obtain a secondhand goods dealer $54.00 , license 1215.03 Failure to obtain a license for Sunday alcohol $54.00 sales 610.03 Failure to obtain public bath license $54.00 ;)3 --q d.-. SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE , BUSINESS LICENSES 1115.03 failure to obtain roller rink license $54.00 (CONT.) 601.33 Failure to obtain scavenger license $54.00 1145.01 failure to obtain soft drink license $54.00 1165.03 I failure to obtain sound truck license $54.00 I 1] 75.03 Failure to obtain taxi driver license $54.00 1170.03 Failure to obtain taxi license $54.00 1146.05 failure to obtain tobacco license $54.00 1185.01 Failure to obtain rental trailer and truck license $54.00 1100.15 failure to obtain video game license $54.00 1225.03 Failure to obtain wine license $54.00 I (4) fENCES/W ALLS/ 511.23 failure to maintain fences/walls/ hedges $108.00 HEDGES (5) fOOD 615 Violations of food establishment ordinance $108.00 ESTABLISHMENTS , (6) GARBAGE 601.03 Failure to dispose of garbage/ refuse $54.00 601.09 Improper storage and maintenance of garbage $54.00 containers 601.35 I failure to comply with composting ordinance I $54.00 I (7) LlTIERING 830.03 Littering $54.00 830.07 Placing litter into gutters $54.00 1830.31 Improper posting of notices $54.00 830.41 Improper placement of snow/ice $54.00 1135 Improper outdoor merchandising and storage $54.00 (8) NOISE 930 Violations of the noise ordinance $54.00 I I I I (9) PARKiNG 1305.19 Failure to comply with the "Vehicles for Sale" $54.00 ordinance 1305.27 I failure to comply with parking ordinance for certain $54.00 , I vehicles/trailers I 1327.05 Failure to comply with parking of truck-tractors, semi- $54.00 trailers, truck-tractor and semi-trailer combinations or trucks ordinance d.3-Y:? SECTION 13. FINE SCHEDULE FOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE I VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE (10) PARKING/OUTSIDE 1320 Improper parking or storage $108.00 STORAGE I $54.00 925 Maintaining a public nuisance (11 ) RECREATIONAL 1325 Improper parking or storage of recreational $54.00 VEHICLES vehicles (12) SIGNS 416 Sign regulations 108.00 (13) TRANSIENT 1181 Violation of transient merchant peddler. wagon $54.00 MERCHANTS, peddler and solicitor license I PEDDLERS, I WAGON PEDDLERS AND I SOLICITORS (14) ZONING 511 General Zoning Provisions, including 108.00 encroachments; non-conforming uses and structures; traffic visibility triangles; central air conditioner units; home occupations; and fences, walls, and hedges. 521 Rules for the R, R-l, MR-1, MR-2, and MR-3 108.00 residential zoning districts, including permitted, accessory, and conditional uses; lot area, width, depth, and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations, outdoor open space; parking I requirements; performance standards; conditional activity permits; and non-conforming use permits. 524 Rules for the SO-l Service-Office zoning district, 108.00 including permitted, accessory and conditional uses; lot area, width, depth, and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations; and rules for conduct of business operations. 526 Rules for the C-1, C-2, and C-3 commercial 108.00 zoning districts, including permitted, accessory, conditional and prohibited uses; lot area, width, depth, and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations; rules for conduct of business operations. Also C-3 specific rules including , transitional activity permits; non-conforming uses and structures; site plan approval; landscaping I values; minimum floor-area ratios; solar access requirements; and maintenance of landscaping. d- ?>-Lt ~ SECTION 13. fiNE SCHEDULE fOR VIOLATIONS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF ORDINANCE VIOLATION VIOLATED DESCRIPTION FINE ZONING (CO NT.) 531 Rules for the I industrial zoning district including 108.00 permitted, accessory and conditional uses; lot area, width, depth and coverage requirements; set-back and height requirements; accessory building and use regulations; and rules for the conduct of business operations. 536 Rules for PUD planned unit development zoning 108.00 districts including requirements for unified control; integrated design; coordination with subdivision regulations; lot area; allowable uses; proposal review and application; final development plans and conditional use permits; amendments; and fees. 538 Floodplain Management Regulations including 108.00 permitted uses in floodplain overlay districts; floodplain use permits; and construction standards near or in floodplain overlay districts. 541 Performance standards for all new developments 108.00 except single family, two family, and cluster home developments, including exterior lighting; traffic/parking studies; off-street parking and loading; landscaping and screening; underground utilities; exterior treatment of buildings; screening mechanical equipment; dumpster enclosures; and stormwater . management. 546 Administration for the Board of Adjustments and 108.00 Appeals; Conditional Use Permits; Zoning Amendments; Variances; Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11 th day of December, 2007. Debbie Goettel Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk