111014CompleteAgenda-xxxxxxxREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOVEMBER 10, 2014
7:00 PM
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
Call to order
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are
to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the
Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of the minutes of the (1) Special Concurrent City Council and HRA Worksession of October 20, 2014, (2) Special
City Council Meeting of October 28, 2014, (3) Special City Council Worksession of October 28, 2014 and (4) Regular City
Council Meeting of October 28, 2014.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of the Public Health Community Assessment and Prioritization of Community Health Needs in
Richfield (Council Memo No. 111)
2. Annual meeting with the Planning Commission
3. Oath of office to recently appointed Public Safety Director Jay Henthorne.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
4. . Cancel or reschedule the December 23, 2014 Regular City Council Meeting
Hats off to hometown hits
AGENDA APPROVAL
5. Approval of the agenda.
6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one
motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions
have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council
Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda
for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval.
A. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance increasing the number of on -sale Wine
licenses in the City from twelve (12) to seventeen (17).
Staff Report No. 195
B. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance increasing the number of on -sale 3.2
percent Malt Liquor licenses in the City from fifteen (15) to twenty (20).
Staff Report No. 196
C. Consideration of the approval of the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014 for the
consideration of the renewal of on -sale wine and on -sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for 2015 for Last
Call Operating Co. II, Inc. d/b/a/ Champps Americana (Richfield Ice Arena location), Chipotle Mexican Grill of
Colorado, LLC d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Pizza, Joy's
Pattaya Thai Restaurant, Lariat Lanes, The Noodle Shop Co. Colorado, Inc. d/b/a Noodles and Company
(two locations), Patrick's Bakery & Cafe, Henry Thou d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant.
Staff Report No. 197
D. Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014 for the
consideration of the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2015 for Last Call
Operating Co. II, Inc. d/b/a Champps Americana, Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablo's,
Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mexican Restaurant, Financial Guidance, Inc. d/b/a Four Points
by Sheraton, Frenchman's Pub, Inc. d/b/a Frenchman's, Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's
Restaurant & Bar, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, Lyn 65, LLC d/b/a Lyn 65, Pizza Luce VII, Inc. d/b/a Pizza
Luce, Minneapolis -Richfield American Legion Post 435 and Fred Babcock VFW Post 555 d/b/a Four Nickels
Food & Drink.
Staff Report No. 198
E. Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014 for the
consideration of the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for 2015 for University
Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry and Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc.
Staff Report No. 199
F. Consideration of the approval of a resolution for a grant from the Office of Justice Programs for bulletproof
vests in the amount of $4,586.10.
Staff Report No. 200
G. Consideration of the approval of the resolution for approval of a Mutual Aid Pact with Hennepin County for
the use of law enforcement personnel and equipment.
Staff Report No. 201
H. Consideration of the approval of the Continuing Agreement for 2015 with Hennepin County and City of
Richfield/Public Safety Department/Police for Police Cadet Funds and Joint Community Police Partnership
(JCPP) program Training Funds.
Staff Report No. 202
I. Consideration of the approval and acceptance of the Master Grant Contract (MGC) from the State of
Minnesota, Department of Health for the 2015-2019 grant cycle that is designed to administratively simplify
the review of grant agreements of local public health agencies.
Staff Report No. 203
J. Consideration of the approval of authorizing the purchase of pedestrian -scale street lights for the Penn
Avenue Corridor between T.H. 62 and 67th Street, utilizing Community Development Block Grants, in an
amount not to exceed $61,000.
Staff Report No. 204
K. Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed amendment will add "municipal parking lots" to the list of permitted uses in the Penn Avenue
Corridor Overlay District.
Staff Report No. 205
L. Consideration of the approval of a resolution determining the results of the City General Election on Tuesday,
November 4, 2014
Staff Report No. 206
7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Public hearing and consideration of a resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow
expansion of an existing sober -housing facility (Progress Valley) at 308 - 78th Street East.
Staff Report No. 207
PROPOSED ORDINANCES
9. Consideration of the second reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 -month moratorium on new establishments
allowing indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products and a resolution authorizing summary
publication of the ordinance.
Staff Report No. 208
RESOLUTIONS
10. Consideration of a resolution authorizing condemnation of property for the reconstruction of Portland Avenue.
Staff Report No. 209
OTHER BUSINESS
11. Consideration of authorizing the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and its staff to negotiate a
Preliminary Development Agreement and/or Purchase Agreement with the Donald James Group for the former
City Garage Site pending later City Council ratification.
12. City Manager's Report
Staff Report No. 210
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
13. Claims and payrolls
Open forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are
to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the
Council must have registered prior to the meeting.
14. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96
hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special Concurrent City Council
and
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Worksession
Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING 7600 PILLSBURY/PLEASANT DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 96/HRA MEMO 41)
Community Development Director Stark stated that Developer/Broker Donald James (working
in conjunction with several investors) will be discussing a conceptual proposal for the 7600 block
between Pillsbury and Pleasant Avenues (the former City Garage and Gleason's Mortuary site) of
approximately 40 - 48 townhomes on the site which would be owner occupied.
Mr. Stark also discussed the process for moving forward, including zoning approval, the
consideration of public subsidy and the options for streamlining the process since both the City and
HRA own the property.
Developer/Broker James presented the proposed development, including the financing.
The HRA and City Council consensus was to proceed with the preliminary concept of the
development proposal with the HRA negotiating on the purchase of the property subject to City
Council ratification.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m.
Date Approved: November 17, 2014.
October 20, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by HRA Chair Sandahl at 6:02 p.m. in the Bartholomew
Room.
Council Members
Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Pat Elliott; Sue Sandahl; Edwina Garcia; and Tom
Present:
Fitzhenry (arrived 6:10 p,m.).
HRA Members
Sue Sandahl, HRA Chair, Mary Supple; Debbie Goettel; Doris Rubenstein;
Present:
David Gepner (arrived 6:35 p.m.).
Staff Present:
Steven L. Devich, City Manager/HRA Executive Director; John Stark,
Community Development Director; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City
Manager/HR Manager; Karen Barton, Assistant Community Development
Director; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
Item #1 DISCUSSION REGARDING 7600 PILLSBURY/PLEASANT DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL (COUNCIL MEMO NO. 96/HRA MEMO 41)
Community Development Director Stark stated that Developer/Broker Donald James (working
in conjunction with several investors) will be discussing a conceptual proposal for the 7600 block
between Pillsbury and Pleasant Avenues (the former City Garage and Gleason's Mortuary site) of
approximately 40 - 48 townhomes on the site which would be owner occupied.
Mr. Stark also discussed the process for moving forward, including zoning approval, the
consideration of public subsidy and the options for streamlining the process since both the City and
HRA own the property.
Developer/Broker James presented the proposed development, including the financing.
The HRA and City Council consensus was to proceed with the preliminary concept of the
development proposal with the HRA negotiating on the purchase of the property subject to City
Council ratification.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:55 p.m.
Date Approved: November 17, 2014.
Special Worksession Minutes -2- October 20, 2014
Suzanne M. Sandahl
Chair
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator Executive Director
CALL TO ORDER
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Meeting
Advisory Board/Commission
Applicant Interviews
October 28, 2014
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 5:45 p.m. in the Babcock Room.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Suzanne Sandahl; Edwina Garcia; Pat Elliott;
and Tom Fitzhenry.
INTERVIEW OF APPLICANTS
The City Council conducted an interview of the following applicants for appointment to a City
Advisory Board and Commission:
Sarah Nelson
Quoc Tran
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:00 p.m.
Date Approved: November 10, 2014.
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Special City Council Worksession
October 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 6:02 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room.
Council Members Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Tom
Present: Fitzhenry.
Staff Present: Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director; Jim
Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Kristin Asher, Assistant Public
Works Director; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
Item # 1 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 66TH STREET STORMWATER ISSUES
(COUNCIL MEMO NO. 100)
Public Works Director Eastling and Pete Willenbring, WSB Engineering; discussed the
stormwater issues related to the 66th Street projects, including specific drainage problem areas and
possible stormwater system improvements to enhance flood protection in a wide area.
The City Council direction was to proceed with the flood protection.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 6:48 p.m.
Date Approved: November 10, 2014
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Richfield, Minnesota
Regular Meeting
October 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Goettel at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Members Present:
Debbie Goettel, Mayor; Sue Sandahl; Pat Elliott; Edwina Garcia; and Tom
Fitzhenry.
Staff Present:
Steven L. Devich, City Manager; Mike Eastling, Public Works Director;
John Stark, Community Development Director; Wayne Kewitsch, Fire
Chief; Jim Topitzhofer, Recreation Services Director; Chris Regis, Finance
Manager; Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant City Manager/HR Manager; Jeff
Pearson, Transportation Engineer; Theresa Schyma, Deputy City Clerk;
Mary Tietjen City Attorney; and Cheryl Krumholz, Executive Coordinator.
OPEN FORUM
Elizabeth Arnold,
148 East 66`h Street; spoke about the Hennepin County 2040 Bike
Transportation Plan.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Goettel led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/Sandahl, S/Elliott to approve the minutes of the (1) Special City Council Worksession of
October 14, 2014 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of October 14, 2014.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #1 UPDATE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF RICHFIELD BLOOMINGTON HONDA
Tim Carter and project construction and architect representatives provided an update.
Item #2 ANNUAL MEETING WITH THE ARTS COMMISSION
Council Meeting Minutes -2-
Kevin Klos, Chair, provided an update.
Item #3 ANNUAL MEETING WITH THE FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION
Roger Swanson, Chair, provided an update.
October 28, 2014
Item #4 PRESENTATION OF THE UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL FIRE
ACADEMY TITLE OF EXECUTIVE FIRE OFFICER UPON RICHFIELD FIRE
CHIEF WAYNE KEWITSCH
Mayor Goettel presented the award to Fire Chief Kewitsch.
Item #5 PRESENTATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR FINANCIAL
REPORTING AWARD TO FINANCE MANAGER CHRIS REGIS (COUNCIL
MEMO NO. 98)
Council Member Sandahl presented the award to Finance Manager Chris Regis.
Item #6 COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Hats Off to Hometown Hits
Deputy City Clerk Schyma presented the innovative feature on the City's website of on-line
estimated wait times for voting at the precincts on Election Day, November 4, 2014.
Council Member Sandahl acknowledged the success of the recent Wood Lake Nature
Center's Half -Haunted Halloween event.
and 8.
Council Member Sandahl announced the St. Richard's Novemberfest event on November 7
Council Member Garcia announced the November 4 Optimist Club Spaghetti Dinner.
Council Member Elliott discussed the Tip -a -Cop event at Houlihan's to benefit Special
Olympics.
Mayor Goettel announced the November 9 Optimist Club No Kids Left Indoors event.
Item #7 COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/Sandahl, S/Elliott, S/Garcia to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #8 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Consideration of the approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan S.R. No. 183
B. Consideration of the approval of the transfer of funds to close out certain capital project
funds S.R. No. 184
Council Meeting Minutes -3- October 28, 2014
C. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions to call the Gross Revenue Ice Arena Bonds,
Series 1999, and to authorize a $563,213 internal loan to fund the call of the Gross Revenue
Ice Arena Bonds, Series 1999 S.R. No. 185
RESOLUTION NO. 10987
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PREPAYMENT AND REDEMPTION OF THE
CITY'S GROSS REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS, SERIES 1999
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10987.
RESOLUTION NO. 10988
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING $563,213 INTERNAL LOAN TO RETIRE THE GROSS
REVENUE ICE ARENA BONDS, SERIES 1999
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10988.
D. Consideration of the approval of the resolutions approving subdivision of the remnant
parcels at 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Avenue and approving first reading of transitory
ordinances authorizing the sale of land located at 6245 and 6301 Bloomington Avenue
South by the City of Richfield S.R. No. 186
RESOLUTION NO. 10989
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 6245 BLOOMINGTON
AVENUE SOUTH AND WAIVING COMPLIANCE WITH MINN. STAT., SECTION 462.358,
SUBD. 4b(a) AND SECTION 500 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT
THERETO
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10989.
RESOLUTION NO. 10990
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF LAND LOCATED AT 6301
BLOOMINGTON AVENUE SOUTH AND WAIVING COMPLIANCE WITH MINN. STAT.
SECTION 462.358, SUBD. 4b(a)AND SECTION 500 OF THE CITY CODE OF
ORDINANCES WITH RESPECT THERETO
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10990.
E. Consideration of the approval of the lease agreement between the City of Richfield and the
Minnesota Magicians for use of the space formerly occupied by Hat Trick Hockey to conduct
physical training programs S.R. No. 187
M/Goettel, S/Garcia to approve the Consent Calendar.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #9 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
None.
Council Meeting Minutes -4- October 28, 2014
Item #10 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE RESOLUTIONS
PERTAINING TO THE ANNUAL 77TH STREET MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
ASSESSMENT PROCESS S.R. NO. 188
Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 188.
M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
M/Sandahl, S/Goettel that the following resolutions be adopted and that they be made part
of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10991
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ON
77TH STREET MAINTENANCE FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 1, 2013 - DECEMBER 31, 2013
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10991.
RESOLUTION NO. 10992
RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT
77TH STREET PROJECT AREA JANUARY 1, 2015 - DECEMBER 31, 2015
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10992.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #11 PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CP -
41007 (NORTH RICHFIELD PARKWAY) AND CONSIDERATION OF A
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL S.R. NO. 189
Council Member Fitzhenry presented Staff Report No. 189.
M/Sandahl, S/Elliott to close the public heari
Motion carried 5-0.
M/Fitzhenry, S/Goettel that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of
thPRP minutPs-
RESOLUTION NO. 10993
RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR
IMPROVEMENT NO. CP -41007 (NORTH RICHFIELD PARKWAY)
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10993.
Council Meeting Minutes -5- October 28, 2014
Item #12 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AND FIRST READING OF AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 12 MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF NEW ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING INDOOR
SMOKING OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS S.R. NO.
190
Council Member Elliott presented Staff Report No. 190.
M/Elliott, S/Garcia that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of these
minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10994
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING
INDOOR SMOKING OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND
DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED
The City Council requested that staff monitor State law regarding e -cigarette legislation.
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10994.
Item #13 CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS SUPPORTING THE
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT #413 DESIGN FOR 66TH STREET BETWEEN 1-35W
AND 16TH AVENUE AND SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF A DESIGN
VARIANCE TO REDUCE RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACT S.R. NO. 191
Council Member Garcia presented Staff Report No. 191.
Transportation Engineer Pearson provided an overview of the project.
Council Member Garcia stated that public access to information was good.
Council Member Sandahl expressed support for the resolution because it improves
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety.
Council Member Fitzhenry questioned intersection safety for bicyclists with a bike lane or
cycle track.
Mr. Pearson explained the majority of those surveyed supported a separate cycle track.
M/Garcia, S/Sandahl that the following resolutions be adopted and that they be made part
of these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10995
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF
COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (CSAH) 53
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT 4B (EAST OF GIRARD AVENUE S)
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 1011 (66th STREET)
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10995.
Council Meeting Minutes -6- October 28, 2014
RESOLUTION NO. 10996
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING HENNEPIN COUNTY IN SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT) FOR
DESIGN OF CURB REACTION DISTANCE FOR
COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (CSAH) 53
PRELIMINARY LAYOUT 4B (EAST OF NICOLLET AVENUE S)
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 1011
This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10996.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #14 CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD TO FILE A HUD FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT S.R. NO. 191
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 192.
Mayor Goettel stated that she was a member of the Housing Policy Committee and had
voiced her concerns but they had not been considered.
M/Goettel; S/Elliott that the following resolution be adopted and that it be made part of
these minutes:
RESOLUTION NO. 10997
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
TO FILE A HUD FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT
Council Member Garcia stated that Legislators should consider changing the Met Council
membership to elected rather than appointed.
Motion carried 5-0. This resolution appears as Resolution No. 10997.
Item #15 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONFIRM
THE APPOINTMENT OF JAY HENTHORNE AS PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR
FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD S.R. NO. 193
Mayor Goettel presented Staff Report No. 193.
M/Goettel; S/Sandahl to confirm the appointment of Jay Henthorne as Public Safety
Director for the City of Richfield.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #16 CONSIDERATION OF THE APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVISORY
COMMISSION S.R. NO. 194
Council Member Sandahl presented Staff Report No. 194.
Council Meeting Minutes -7- October 28, 2014
M/Sandahl, S/Goettel to appoint Sarah Nelson and Quoc Tran to the Arts Commission with
terms expiring on January 31, 2017.
Motion carried 5-0.
Item #17 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Devich reported provided an update on the cable television franchise transfer.
Item #18 CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS
M/Fitzhenry, S/Sandahl that the following claims and payrolls be approved:
A/P Checks: 235387-235714 760,412.27
Payroll: 105362-105692 $ 564,987.69
TOTAL $ 1,325,399.96
Motion carried 5-0.
OPEN FORUM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council open meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:26 p.m.
Date Approved: November 10, 2014
Debbie Goettel
Mayor
Cheryl Krumholz Steven L. Devich
Executive Coordinator City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
November 6, 2014
Council Memorandum No. 111
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Public Health Community Assessment & Prioritization
(Agenda Item No. 1)
Council Members:
The Local Public Health Act of 2003 (MN Statues 145A10, Subd. 5(a) requires
community health boards (which in our case is the Richfield City Council) to:
• Complete an assessment of community health needs
• Seek community input of health issues and priorities
• Establish local public health priorities based on identified community health
needs
• Address and implement essential local public health activities
• Address local public health priorities to achieve statewide outcomes, within the
limits of available funding
The Advisory Board of Health, on behalf of our City Council, completed this Public
Health Community Assessment and Prioritization process with the cities of Bloomington
and Edina on May 21, 2013. A presentation was given that evening by Bloomington
Public Health Staff on a list of health issues to be considered and how they were
selected. A data presentation was made to the three cities supporting the list of issues
being considered.
After the presentation, the three cities gathered within their respective groups for
individual city discussion. Bloomington, Edina and Richfield Advisory Health Board
members each voted on their respective health issues in order to focus on a list of each
City's top ten priority issues. Richfield chose to review their selections at their June
2013 meeting to complete their conversation and reach their final list of top eleven
priority issues after adding an additional item for the City which is attached for Council
review.
This is a requirement that must be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health by
February 2015 and the Council is being asked to approve the Richfield Public Health
Top Eleven Health Issues work of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health in this
prioritization and assessment process that covers the 2015-2019 Community Health
Services Plan.
Ily submitt d
Cityf Manager
SLD:bao
Attachment
Email: Department Directors
Assistant City Manager
RICHFIELD - TOP ELEVEN PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES
1. Maternal and Child Health — Home visiting for high-risk parents, teen pregnancy,
assessments and resources for families with children ages 0-3 with
developmental concerns, asthma home assessments.
2. Nutrition, Obesity and Physical Activity
SHIP (Statewide Health Improvement Program) and CTG (Community
Transformation Grant) funded activities which work on policy, systems and
environmental changes (farmers markets, school food, child care centers), WIC
(Women, Infants and Children to age 5), family home visiting to low income
families.
3. Social and Emotional Wellbeing
Community Health Improvement (CHIP) Action Team, intensive home visiting.
4. Sexual and Reproductive Health
Educational presentations in the middle and high school focus on reproductive
health.
5. Mental Illness
Referrals for our clients, home visits to disabled and older adults, maternal
depression.
6. Aging of the Population
7. Community clinics for seniors (blood pressure, hearing, medication review, safety
issues and high-risk home assessment (referrals from police, families and
community members and Environmental Health)
8. Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Use and Abuse
CTG (tobacco), MN Student Survey data analysis, scheduled ATOD
screens/assessments are done with long term home visiting clients.
9. Intentional Injury Prevention
Intensive home visiting, referrals from police (secondary prevention), working
with Cornerstone, support and resources for suicides.
10. Individual and Family Emergency Preparedness
Public Health Volunteers (Medical Reserve Corp/Citizens Emergency Response
Team), Health Alert Network, community engagement in preparedness,
developing response plans for disasters and emergencies.
11. Immunization and Infectious Disease Prevention
Low cost immunizations, follow up on reportable diseases, consultation with
school nurses, consultation with child care centers, quality improvement visits to
clinics to assess their vaccine storage and administration practices.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.A.
STAFF REPORT NO. 195
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
John Stark, Director of Community Development
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance increasing the number of on -sale
Wine licenses in the City from twelve (12) to seventeen (17).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Current City code states that the City can issue up to twelve (12) on -sale Wine licenses. The City currently
has a total of ten (10) of this type of license issued. As a result, staff is proactively requesting an increase of
this type of license due to anticipated growth in future business developments that will likely increase the
number of licenses needed in order to facilitate new business as early as late 2014 or 2015.
The number of on -sale Wine licenses is not controlled by the State. Therefore, the State has no objection to
the number being increased.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance increasing the number of on -sale Wine licenses
in the City from twelve (12) to seventeen (17) and schedule a second reading of the ordinance for
December 9, 2014.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
• A study session discussion occurred in June of 1999 with the City Council about increasing the allowed
number of on -sale Wine licenses. Some time after that session, the number of on -sale Wine licenses was
increased to its current level of twelve (12).
• Also at that time, discussions with staff in the Community Development Department regarding future
redevelopment projects in the City and how those projects will impact alcohol licensing needs in the future drove
the need for a discussion with the City Council regarding increasing the number of licenses allowed in the City
Code.
• That same issue is currently driving a request to consider proactively increasing the number of on -sale Wine
licenses from twelve (12) to seventeen (17) at this time.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The number of on -sale Wine licenses is not controlled by the State. Therefore, the State has no objection to the
number being increased.
The only liquor license category that the State does control is the number of on -sale intoxicating licenses a City
may have. The City currently still has enough room in that category and staff is not requesting that this category
be increased. Current code allows for up to fifteen (15) on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses and we only have nine
(9) currently being used so there is currently no need to increase the licenses in that category.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and approves of its contents.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Council could decide not to increase the number of on -sale Wine licenses which at some point would
mean that no additional new licenses would be available for new business development.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Wine Ordinance Ordinance
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ON -SALE WINE LICENSES
AVAILABLE TO BE ISSUED
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 1202.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended as
follows:
Subd. 3 Types of licenses. The following types of licenses will be issued by the
City:
(d) Wine
(1) On -sale wine licenses may be issued to restaurants.
(2) No more than 42 17 wine licenses may be issued.
Sec. 2. This ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the
City Charter.
Adopted this 10th day of November, 2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
/_IaION9
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.B.
STAFF REPORT NO. 196
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
John Stark, Director of Community Development
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an ordinance increasing the number of on -sale 3.2
percent Malt Liquor licenses in the City from fifteen (15) to twenty (20).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Current City Code states that the City can issue up to fifteen (15) on -sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor licenses.
The City currently has a total of thirteen (13) of this type of license issued. As a result, staff is proactively
requesting an increase of this type of license due to anticipated growth in future business developments that
will likely increase the number of licenses needed in order to facilitate new business as early as late 2014 or
2015.
The number of on -sale 3.2 percent Malt Liquor licenses is not controlled by the State. Therefore, the State
has no objection to the number being increased.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance increasing the number of on -sale 3.2 percent
Malt Liquor licenses in the City from fifteen (15) to twenty (20) and schedule a second reading of the
ordinance for December 9, 2014.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
A study session discussion occurred in June of 1999 with the City Council about increasing the allowed number
of on -sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses. Some time after that session the number of on -sale 3.2 Percent Malt
Liquor licenses was increased to its current level of fifteen (15).
Also at that time, discussions with staff in the Community Development Department regarding future
redevelopment projects in the City and how those projects will impact alcohol licensing needs in the future drove
the need for a discussion with the City Council regarding increasing the number of licenses allowed in the City
Code.
That same issue is currently driving a request to consider proactively increasing the number of on -sale 3.2
Percent Malt Liquor licenses from fifteen(15) to twenty (20) at this time.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
• The number of on -sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses is not controlled by the State. Therefore, the State has
no objection to the number being increased.
• The only liquor license category that the State does control is the number of on -sale intoxicating licenses a City
may have. The City currently still has enough room in that category and staff is not requesting that this category
be increased. Current code allows for up to fifteen (15) on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses and the City only has
nine (9) currently being used so there is currently no need to increase the licenses in their category.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the ordinance and approves of its contents.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
The Council could decide not to increase the number of on -sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor licenses which at
some point would mean that no additional new licenses would be available for new business development.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D 3.2 Ordinance Change Ordinance
BILL NO.
AN ORDINANCE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSES
AVAILABLE TO BE ISSUED
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 1202.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows:
Subd. 3. Types of licenses. The following types of licenses will be issued by the
City:
(a) 3.2 percent malt liquor.
(1) On -sale. The City may issue on -sale licenses to restaurants, hotels,
clubs and establishments having food licenses, provided that no 3.2
percent malt liquor manufacturer or wholesaler has any interest in such
business. No more than 45 20 on -sale licenses will be issued.
Sec. 2. This Ordinance will be effective in accordance with Section 3.09
of the City Charter.
Adopted this 10th day of November, 2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
452244v1 MDT RC 160-3
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.C.
STAFF REPORT NO. 197
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014 for the
consideration of the renewal of on -sale wine and on -sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for 2015 for
Last Call Operating Co. II, Inc. d/b/a/ Champps Americana (Richfield Ice Arena location), Chipotle
Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a
Fireside Pizza, Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, Lariat Lanes, The Noodle Shop Co. Colorado, Inc. d/b/a
Noodles and Company (two locations), Patrick's Bakery & Cafe, Henry Thou d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese
Restaurant.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the renewal of all
on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor license renewals and a date be set for the public hearing. This
request is for the approval of the setting of the public hearing scheduled for December 9, 2014, for the
consideration of these license renewals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014, for the
consideration of the renewal of on -sale wine and on -sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for 2015 for
Last Call Operating Co. II, Inc. d/b/a/ Champps Americana (Richfield Ice Arena location), Chipotle
Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC d/b/a Chipotle Mexican Grill, Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a
Fireside Pizza, Joy's Pattaya Thai Restaurant, Lariat Lanes, The Noodle Shop Co. Colorado, Inc. d/b/a
Noodles and Company (two locations), Patrick's Bakery & Cafe and Henry Thou d/b/a Red Pepper
Chinese Restaurant.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
• The on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on December 31,
2014.
• Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
• The renewal process has been initiated.
• Holding the public hearing on December 9, 2014 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before
January 1, 2015.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all on -sale wine and 3.2
percent malt liquor license renewals.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Current on -sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses will expire on December 31, 2014.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are no financial considerations.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this will delay the licensing process.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
There are no parties expected at the meeting.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.D.
STAFF REPORT NO. 198
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014 for the
consideration of the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2015 for Last Call
Operating Co. II, Inc. d/b/a Champps Americana, Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablo's,
Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mexican Restaurant, Financial Guidance, Inc. d/b/a Four
Points by Sheraton, Frenchman's Pub, Inc. d/b/a Frenchman's, Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a
Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, Lyn 65, LLC d/b/a Lyn 65, Pizza Luce VII,
Inc. d/b/a Pizza Luce, Minneapolis -Richfield American Legion Post 435 and Fred Babcock VFW Post
555 d/b/a Four Nickels Food & Drink.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Richfield City Ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the renewal of all
on -sale liquor license renewals and a date be set for the public hearing. This request is for the approval of the
setting of the public hearing scheduled for December 9, 2014, for the consideration of these license renewals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014, for the
consideration of the renewal of on -sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2015 for Last Call
Operating Co. II, Inc. d/b/a Champps Americana, Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablo's,
Tejaban Mexica Grill, LLC d/b/a EI Tejaban Mexican Restaurant, Financial Guidance, Inc. d/b/a Four
Points by Sheraton, Frenchman's Pub, Inc. d/b/a Frenchman's, Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a
Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, Lyn 65, LLC d/b/a Lyn 65, Pizza Luce VII,
Inc. d/b/a Pizza Luce, Minneapolis -Richfield American Legion Post 435
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
• The on -sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on December 31, 2014.
• Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
• The renewal process has been initiated.
• Holding the public hearing on December 9, 2014 will provide ample time to complete the licensing process before
January 1, 2015.
POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all on -sale intoxicating
liquor license renewals.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Current on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses will expire on December 31, 2014.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are no financial considerations.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this will delay the licensing process.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
There are no parties expected at the meeting.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.E.
STAFF REPORT NO. 199
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of setting a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014 for the
consideration of the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for 2015 for
University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry and Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Richfield City ordinance requires that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer license renewals and that a date be set for the public hearing. This request is for the
approval of the setting of the public hearing scheduled for December 9, 2014, for the consideration of these
license renewals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the setting of a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2014, for the
consideration of the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for 2015 for
University Cash Company, LLC d/b/a Avi's Pawn and Jewelry and Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for pawnshops will expire on December 31, 2014.
Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
The renewal process has been initiated.
Holding the public hearing on December 9, 2014, will provide ample time to complete the licensing process
before January 1, 2015.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Richfield City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider all pawnbroker and
secondhand goods dealer license renewals.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
Current pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses will expire on December 31, 2014.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There are no financial considerations
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Schedule the hearing for another date. However, this will delay the licensing process.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
There are no parties expected at the meeting.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 61.
STAFF REPORT NO. 200
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Mike Flaherty, Police Lieutenant
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of a resolution for a grant from the Office of Justice Programs for
bulletproof vests in the amount of $4,586.10.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, through their Bulletproof Vest Partnership/Body
Armor Safety Initiative (BVP), created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998, is designed to provide a
critical resource to state and local law enforcement. The Richfield Department of Public Safety has participated
in this grant since 2003. This grant allows the department to continually replace bulletproof vests to police
officers that are no longer covered by warranty.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution accepting the grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, in the amount of $4,586.10 for the purchase of bulletproof vests for the Richfield
Department of Public Safety.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The U.S. Department of Justice is committed to improving officer safety and has undertaken research to review and
analyze violent encounters and law enforcement officer deaths and injuries. The Richfield Department of Public Safety
has received a total of $36,089.93 in the past ten years. The Department of Public Safety has applied for and received
a grant in the amount of $4,568.10 for providing compliant armored vests to their officers.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
• Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires that every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property on
terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of more than two-thirds majority of the City Council.
• The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004, requiring that all grants and
restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and passed by more than two-thirds majority of the
City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership requires that the vests are ordered on or after April 1, 2014. The deadline to request
payments from the FY 2014 award funds is August 31, 2016, or until all available FY 2014 funds have been exhausted.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The grant total is $4,568.10 for the Bulletproof Vests.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
There are no legal considerations.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Council could deny acceptance of the grant; however, the contributions would be beneficial to the Richfield
Department of Public Safety.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D 111014 Bulletproof Vest Grant Resolution Resolution Letter
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANT WITH THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND
RICHFIELD POLICE FOR BULLETPROOF VESTS.
WHEREAS, since 1999, the BVP (Bulletproof Vest Partnership) program has
reimbursed more than 13,000 jurisdictions a total of $375 million in federal funds for the
purchase of over one million vests. Based on data collected and recorded by BJA staff,
in FY 2012, protective vests were directly attributable to saving the lives of at least 33
law enforcement and corrections officers in 20 different states; an increase of 13.7%
over FY 2011. At least 14 of those life-saving vests had been purchased, in part, with
BVP funds; and,
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Justice is committed to improving officer
safety and has undertaken research to review and analyze violent encounters and law
enforcement officer deaths and injuries; and,
WHEREAS, the Richfield Department of Public Safety has been informed that a
grant has been awarded to the department by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, under their Bulletproof Vest Partnership program, for $$4,586.10 for
the purchase of ballistic vests; and,
WHEREAS, the BVP grant is under the Fiscal Year 2014 BVP awards, allowing
purchases beginning on or after April, 2014, until August 31, 2016, or until all available
2014 award funds have been requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, that the Public Safety Department and the Director of Public
Safety will enter into an agreement to receive grant money for the Public Safety's
bulletproof vest expenditures as outlined in the agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10 day of
November, 2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
/_IaI2MM
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.G.
STAFF REPORT NO. 201
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of the resolution for approval of a Mutual Aid Pact with Hennepin
County for the use of law enforcement personnel and equipment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Minnesota State Statute 471.59 authorizes governmental units by agreement of their governing bodies to
jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to them. The general purpose of this pact is to permit
agencies to share law enforcement resources with other agencies in Hennepin County. Requesting parties
may select the resources that best meets their needs, and are not required to make requests through a
particular party. Resources may be utilized for many reasons and are not limited to major catastrophic
situations. The pact allows for all agencies to use the resources located among all participating parties in
Hennepin County. The original Mutual aid pact was written in 1968. The Hennepin County Chiefs of Police
Association has revised its Mutual Aid Pact to clarify and update the language of the Joint and Cooperative
Powers Agreement for the use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the Resolution for the Hennepin County Mutual Aid Pact for the use of Law
Enforcement Personnel and Equipment.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The original Mutual Aid Pact was created in 1968 with various agencies joining the pact throughout the years. Many
provisions of the original pact were continued into the new pact. The Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law
Enforcement Personnel and Equipment was updated to accurately reflect procedures, address current issues and
enhance the ability of departments to share resources with each other. This pact allows agencies to utilize resources
for routine circumstances such as training efforts and back up patrol services. The Richfield Police Department is a
small agency and being able to call upon surrounding communities for back up patrol service or join with a larger
department for training benefits the department and the community.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Minnesota State Statute Section 471.59 authorizes governmental units by agreement of their governing bodies to
jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to them.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
. There are no critical timing issues.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
. There is no financial impact to the City of Richfield or the Richfield Police Department.
LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
. There are no legal issues.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
. The Council could decide not to approve the agreement. This would mean that Richfield could not
share the resources of other law enforcement agencies in Hennepin County.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
d Resolution For Hennepin Co. VOTF Agreement Resolution Letter
D HC Chiefs of Police Mutual Aid Pact Contract/Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING Resolution Approving Joint and Cooperative Agreement for
use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 authorizes governmental units by
agreement of their governing bodies to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to
them; and
WHEREAS, THE Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association previously developed a
Mutual Aid Pact to foster the sharing of law enforcement resources among agencies in
Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association has revised its Mutual
Aid Pact to clarify and update the language of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the use
of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment (the Agreement); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement allows other governmental units and municipalities to
become a party to the agreement by the adoption of a resolution and sending notice to the
Hennepin County Sheriff; and
WHEREAS, the governing body of the City of Richfield considers it to be in its best
interests to become a Party to the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Richfield
1. Authorizes the Richfield Department of Public Safety to be a party to the Joint and
Cooperative Agreement for the Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and Equipment
developed by the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association.
2. The Director of Public Safety is directed to send a copy of the signature page of the
Agreement and this Resolution to the Hennepin County Sheriff; and
3. The Richfield Department of Public Safety agrees to comply with all terms of the
Agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10 day of November,
2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
HENNEPIN COUNTY
CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
MUTUAL AID PACT
Effective January 1, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD 2
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT 4
I. GENERAL PURPOSE 4
II. DEFINITION OF TERMS 4
III. PARTIES 5
IV. PROCEDURE 5
V. LIABILITY 7
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE 9
VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 9
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 1 -
HENNEPIN COUNTY
CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
MUTUAL AID PACT
FOREWORD
The Mutual Aid Committee of the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association was tasked
with revising and updating the mutual aid pact among all the police agencies of Hennepin
County. The original pact was created in 1968 with the various agencies joining the pact
throughout the years. Many provisions of the original pact were continued into the new pact.
The Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law Enforcement Personnel and
Equipment ("Joint Powers Agreement") was updated to reflect accurately the procedures,
address current issues and enhance the ability of departments to share resources with each
other.
The general purpose of the pact is to permit agencies to share law enforcement resources
with other agencies in Hennepin County. The Joint Powers Agreement specifically allows a
requesting party to select the resources that best meets the needs of a given situation. A
requesting party may call upon any other participating party for mutual aid. There is no
requirement to make requests through a particular party. In addition, the Joint Powers
Agreement should not be interpreted as restrictive in providing resources to deal with only
major catastrophic situations. Participating parties can utilize the resources for many
reasons including routine circumstances such as training efforts and back-up patrol service.
This pact provides the flexibility for all agencies to use the resources located among all
participating parties in Hennepin County.
The decision as to when to invoke mutual aid and whether to respond is left to the discretion
of the requesting or sending party. Each agency should acquaint supervisory personnel with
any internal procedures used for mutual aid. While the Joint Powers Agreement does not
require particular words or actions to initiate mutual aid, agencies should be clear about
whether mutual aid was requested and what type of assistance is being provided. Parties
should not self -deploy.
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 2 -
Furthermore, each officer within a department should have a basic familiarity with mutual aid,
the responsibilities when reporting to another agency and the protections afforded under the
agency's worker's compensation.
For liability reasons, management of a mutual aid situation is under the control of the
requesting party. However, the sending party has discretion whether to provide personnel or
equipment and can recall such assistance at any time.
Time commitments for mutual aid requests: While there is no hard and fast time limit, the
commitment of resources can be taxing on agencies. In addition, in some situations, an
advantage can be gained by ending a mutual aid request and entering into some contractual
assistance, especially when the law enforcement costs need to be tracked or can be
recovered from other sources.
The Hennepin County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff") has again volunteered to serve as the
administrative coordinator of the pact. As communities adopt the Joint Powers Agreement,
the appropriate documentation and signature page need to be forwarded to the Sheriff.
Each agency is responsible for entering and updating available agency resources.
Previously the parties used the Regional Automated Property Information (RAPID) database.
Resources will now be listed online in a mutually agreed upon resource management
database. The parties to this agreement are solely responsible to update their available
resources in the agreed upon database.
The effective date for the new Joint Powers agreement is January 1, 2015. This date was
established to allow enough time for agencies to receive the appropriate authority and to
provide some finality between the old pact and the new pact. The former pact will expire at
midnight on December 31, 2014. Failure to execute the new agreement by December 31,
2014 will terminate a party's participation in the pact. Participation can be resumed upon
execution of the new agreement. Agencies that elect not to participate in the new agreement
may be bound by other existing mutual aid agreement or state statutes.
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 3 -
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
USE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT
I. GENERAL PURPOSE
The general purpose of this Joint and Cooperative Agreement for Use of Law
Enforcement Personnel and Equipment ("Agreement") is to provide a means by which
a Party to this Agreement may request and obtain Law Enforcement Assistance from
other Parties when a Party deems such Law Enforcement Assistance necessary. This
Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, which authorizes
the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common to the Parties.
II. DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section shall have the
following meanings:
Subd. 1. "Eligible Party" means a "governmental unit" as defined by Minnesota
Statues, Section 471.59, subd. 1 or a "municipality" as defined by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 466.01, subd. 1, that is authorized to exercise police powers in Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Subd. 2. "Law Enforcement Assistance" means equipment and personnel, including
but not limited to, licensed peace officers and non -licensed personnel.
Subd. 3. "Party" means an "Eligible Party" that elects to participate in this Agreement
by the authorization of its governing body. "Parties" means more than one Party to
this Agreement.
Subd. 4. 'Requesting Official' means a person who is designated by the Requesting
Party to request Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties.
Subd. 5. 'Requesting Party" means a Party that requests Law Enforcement Assistance
from other Parties.
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 4 -
Subd. 6. "Sending Official" means a person who is designated by a Party to
determine whether and to what extent that Party should provide Law Enforcement
Assistance to a Requesting Party.
Subd. 7. "Sending Party" means a Party that provides Law Enforcement Assistance
to a Requesting Party.
Subd. 8. "Sheriff" means the Hennepin County Sheriff or designee.
III. PARTIES
The Parties to this Agreement shall consist of as many Eligible Parties that have
approved this Agreement by December 31, 2014. Additional Eligible Parties shall
become a Party on the date this Agreement is approved by the Party's governing
body.
Upon approval by a Party, the executed signature page of this Agreement shall be
sent to the Sheriff along with a resolution approving this Agreement.
IV. PROCEDURE
Subd. 1. Each Party shall designate, and keep on file with the Sheriff, the name of the
person(s) of that Party who shall be its Requesting Official and Sending Official. A
Party may designate the same person as both the Requesting Official and the
Sending Official. Also, a Party may designate alternate persons to act in the absence
of an official.
Subd. 2. Whenever, in the opinion of a Requesting Official of a Party, there is a need
for Law Enforcement Assistance from other Parties, such Requesting Official may, at
his or her discretion, call upon the Sending Official of any other Party to furnish Law
Enforcement Assistance.
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 5 -
Subd. 3. Upon the receipt of a request for Law Enforcement Assistance from a Party,
the Sending Official may authorize and direct personnel and equipment of the Sending
Party be sent to the Requesting Party. Whether the Sending Party provides such Law
Enforcement Assistance to the Requesting Party and, if so, to what extent such Law
Enforcement Assistance is provided shall be determined solely by the Sending Official
(subject to such supervision and direction as may be applicable within the
governmental structure of the Party by which they are employed). Failure to provide
Law Enforcement Assistance will not result in liability to a Party and each Party hereby
waives all claims against another Party for failure to provide Law Enforcement
Assistance.
Subd. 4. When a Sending Party provides Law Enforcement Assistance under the
terms of this Agreement, it may in turn request Law Enforcement Assistance from
other Parties as "back-up" during the time that such Law Enforcement Assistance is
provided.
Subd. 5. Whenever a Sending Party has provided Law Enforcement Assistance to a
Requesting Party, the Sending Official may at any time recall such Law Enforcement
Assistance or any part thereof, if the Sending Official in his or her best judgment
deems such recall necessary to provide for the best interests of the Sending Party's
community. Such action will not result in liability to any Party and each Party hereby
waives all claims against another Party for recalling Law Enforcement Assistance.
Subd. 6. The Requesting Party shall be in command of all situations where Law
Enforcement Assistance is provided. The personnel and equipment of the Sending
Party shall be under the direction and control of the Requesting Party until the
Sending Party withdraws Law Enforcement Assistance or the Law Enforcement
Assistance is no longer needed.
Subd. 7. No charges will be levied by a Sending Party to this Agreement for Law
Enforcement Assistance rendered to a Requesting Party under the terms of this
Agreement unless that assistance continues for a period of more than eight (8) hours.
If Law Enforcement Assistance provided under this Agreement continues for more
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 6 -
than eight (8) hours, the Sending Party may submit to the Requesting Party an
itemized bill for the actual cost of any Law Enforcement Assistance provided after the
initial eight (8) hour period, including salaries, overtime, materials and supplies and
other necessary expenses. The Requesting Party will reimburse the Sending Party
providing the Law Enforcement Assistance for that amount. Such charges are not
contingent upon the availability of federal or state government funds.
V. LIABILITY
Liability for Injury, Death or Damage to Sending Party's Personnel or Equipment
Each Party shall be responsible for its own personnel and equipment and for injuries
or death to any such personnel or damage to any such equipment. Responding
personnel shall be deemed to be performing their regular duties for each respective
Sending Party for purposes of workers' compensation.
Worker's Compensation: Each Party will maintain workers' compensation insurance or
self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are providing Law
Enforcement Assistance pursuant to this Agreement. Each Party, and where
applicable its insurer, waives the right to sue any other Party for any workers'
compensation benefits paid to its own employee or volunteer or their dependants,
even if the injuries or death were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any
other Party or its officers, employees or volunteers.
Damage to Equipment: Each Party shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its
own equipment. Each Party, and where applicable its insurer, waives the right to sue
any other Party for any damages to or loss of its equipment, even if the damages or
losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other Party or its
officers, employees or volunteers.
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 7 -
Liability for Injury or Death to Third Parties or Property Damage of Third Parties
For the purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability Act (Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466), the employees and officers of the Sending Party are deemed to be
employees, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.01, subd. 6, of the
Requesting Party.
The Requesting Party agrees to defend and indemnify against any claims brought or
actions filed against a Sending Party or any officers, employees, or volunteers of a
Sending Party for injury or death to any third person or persons or damage to the
property of third persons arising out of the performance and provision of Law
Enforcement Assistance pursuant to the Agreement, using legal counsel reasonably
acceptable to the Sending Party.
Under no circumstances shall a Requesting Party be required to pay, on behalf of
itself and other Parties, any amount in excess of the limits of liability established in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, applicable to any one Party. The limits of liability for
the Parties may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability
for a Party pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, subd. 1 a.
The purpose of creating this duty to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of
claims by eliminating conflicts among the Parties and to permit liability claims against
the Parties from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. However,
the Sending party, at is option and its own expense, shall have the right to select its
own attorney or approve a joint attorney as appropriate, considering potential conflicts
of interest. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to constitute a waiver of any
immunities and privileges from liability available under federal law or the laws of
Minnesota.
If a court determines that the liability of a Party or Parties is not subject to the tort caps
and liability exceeds the tort cap maximum, a Party shall be subject to liability only for
the acts of its officers, employees and volunteers.
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 8 -
No Party to this Agreement nor any official, employee or volunteer of any Party shall
be liable to any other Party or to any other person for failure of any Party to furnish
Law Enforcement Assistance or for recalling Law Enforcement Assistance.
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement shall become effective and operative beginning at 12:01 A.M., local
time on January 1, 2015.
The Sheriff shall maintain a current list of the Parties to this Agreement and, whenever
there is a change, shall notify the designated Sending Officials. Notice may be sent to
the Sending Officials via email or through the United States Postal Service.
VII. WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION
A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by action of its governing body.
Withdrawal is effective after thirty (30) days' written notice is provided to the Sheriff.
The Sheriff shall thereupon give notice of such withdrawal, and the effective date
thereof to all other Parties. Parties that have withdrawn may rejoin by following the
procedure set forth in Section III of this Agreement. This Agreement will terminate
when the number of Parties to the Agreement falls below eleven (11). The Sheriff
shall notify the remaining parties that the Agreement has terminated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties, by action of their respective governing bodies,
caused this Agreement to be approved on the dates below.
(Each Party must attach a dated and signed signature page
consistent with that Party's method of executing contracts.)
Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association Mutual Aid Pact - 9 -
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.H.
STAFF REPORT NO. 202
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of the Continuing Agreement for 2015 with Hennepin County and City of
Richfield/Public Safety Department/Police for Police Cadet Funds and Joint Community Police
Partnership (JCPP) program Training Funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Hennepin County has presented an agreement on behalf of the Hennepin County Human Services and Public
Health Department to furnish a Police Cadet position for the City of Richfield and its Police Department along
with multicultural training for department personnel. The agreement is a continuation of the 2014 agreement
and is for the period beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2015. The cost of the agreement
will not exceed $20,000 for 2015.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the 2015 Agreement between the Hennepin County Human Services and Public
Health Department and the City of Richfield Police Department for continuing funds for a Police Cadet
position and JCPP training. The funds available for 2015 will be $20,000.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The Richfield Police Department has, in the past, hired a Police Cadet with funding supplied by Hennepin
County. The Department will not be hiring a Cadet this year, but will still need to utilize the funds budgeted for
the Joint Community Police Partnership to support the program's meetings and trainings (Teen Academy, PMAC,
Explorers) for the community. The amount budgeted for the JCPP program is $5,000.
The six communities utilizing the JCPP program (Richfield, Bloomington, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Brooklyn Park
and Brooklyn Center) are currently in the process of redeveloping the application and hiring of Cadets in order to
benefit all the communities equally. The Richfield Department of Public Safety will reconsider the hiring of a
Cadet when the redeveloped process has been completed.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Hennepin County notified the City that they wished to renew the contract with the City of Richfield.
The Public Safety/Police Department wishes to renew the contract with Hennepin County for the Joint
Community Police Partnership program.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• The agreement must be signed for the Joint Community Police Partnership program to continue and for funding
to be received.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• The total cost of this agreement shall not exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to be paid by Hennepin
County in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
• $5,000 is to be used for JCPP programs.
• The total cost of hiring a Cadet is $35,000. The Police Department has not budgeted for this expense for 2015
and therefore will not be utilizing the $15,000 budgeted by the County for a Cadet. It is anticipated that a process
will be in place for the hiring of a new Cadet by 2016.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• There are no legal considerations.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
. The Council could choose to not sign the contract which would make the agreement null and void with
the County and the department would have to discontinue the JCPP program.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
d 2015 JCPP Attachment Contract/Agreement
Contract No: A] 42066
PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA,
A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ("COUNTY"), on behalf of the
Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department, A-2300 Government Center,
300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 ("DEPARTMENT") and City of
Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 ("CONTRACTOR").
The parties agree as follows:
TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish services to the COUNTY commencing January 1,
2015 and expiring December 31, 2015, unless cancelled or terminated earlier in
accordance with the Default and Cancellation/Termination provisions of this Agreement.
The total cost of this Agreement, including all reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed
Twenty -Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00), as more fully described in Exhibit B, attached
and incorporated by this reference.
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
CONTRACTOR shall provide implementation of the Joint Community Police
Partnership (JCPP) Project, as more fully described in Exhibit A, attached and
incorporated by this reference.
3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
Payment for services shall be made directly to CONTRACTOR after completion of the
services upon the presentation of a claim as provided by law governing the COUNTY's
payment of claims and/or invoices. CONTRACTOR shall submit monthly invoices for
services rendered on forms which may be furnished by the COUNTY. Payment shall be
made within Thirty -Five (35) days from receipt of the invoice.
4. PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services.
Nothing is intended or should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of
a partnership or a joint venture between the parties or as constituting CONTRACTOR as
the agent, representative, or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose.
CONTRACTOR is and shall remain an independent contractor for all services performed
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013)
Contract No: A] 42066
under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall secure at its own expense all personnel
required in performing services under this Agreement. Any personnel of
CONTRACTOR or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or
services required by CONTRACTOR will have no contractual relationship with the
COUNTY and will not be considered employees of the COUNTY. The COUNTY shall
not be responsible for any claims that arise out of employment or alleged employment
under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law or the Workers' Compensation Act
of the State of Minnesota on behalf of any personnel, including, without limitation,
claims of discrimination against CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents, contractors, or
employees. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any
compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind from the COUNTY, including, without
limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers'
compensation, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement
benefits.
6. NON-DISCRIMINATION
In accordance with the COUNTY's policies against discrimination, CONTRACTOR
agrees that it shall not exclude any person from full employment rights nor prohibit
participation in or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race,
color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public
assistance status, or national origin. No person who is protected by applicable Federal or
State laws against discrimination shall be subjected to discrimination.
7. INDEMNIFICATION
CONTRACTOR agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY, its
officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of
action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's
fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of CONTRACTOR, a
subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose
acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the services required by
this Agreement, and against all loss by reason of the failure of CONTRACTOR to
perform any obligation under this Agreement. For clarification and not limitation, this
obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless includes but is not limited to any
liability, claims or actions resulting directly or indirectly from alleged infringement of
any copyright or any property right of another, the employment or alleged employment of
CONTRACTOR personnel, the unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data, or other
noncompliance with the requirements of the Data Practices provisions set forth in Section
9 hereof.
8. DATA PRACTICES
CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and
subcontractors shall abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (MGDPA) and all other applicable state and federal
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013) 2
Contract No: A] 42066
laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, which may
include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and/or
the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH),
adopted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that classification of data as trade secret data
will be determined pursuant to applicable law and, accordingly, merely labeling data as
"trade secret" does not necessarily make it so. If CONTRACTOR creates, collects,
receives, stores, uses, maintains or disseminates data because it performs functions of the
COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, then CONTRACTOR must comply with the
requirements of the MGDPA as if it were a government entity, and may be held liable
under the MGDPA for noncompliance. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly notify the
COUNTY if it becomes aware of any potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims,
under the MGDPA. The terms of this section shall survive the expiration, cancellation
or termination of this Agreement.
9. RECORDS — AVAILABILITY/ACCESS
Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5,
CONTRACTOR agrees that the COUNTY, the State Auditor, or any of their authorized
representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may
reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt,
and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the
accounting practices and procedures of CONTRACTOR and involve transactions relating
to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain these materials and allow access
during the period of this Agreement and for six (6) years after its expiration, cancellation
or termination.
10. SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. CONTRACTOR binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal
representatives to the COUNTY for all covenants, agreements and obligations
contained in the contract documents.
B. CONTRACTOR shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement and/or the
services to be performed, whether in whole or in part, nor assign any monies due
or to become due to it without the prior written consent of the COUNTY. A
consent to assign shall be subject to such conditions and provisions as the
COUNTY may deem necessary, accomplished by execution of a form prepared
by the COUNTY and signed by CONTRACTOR, the assignee and the COUNTY.
Pei -mission to assign, however, shall under no circumstances relieve
CONTRACTOR of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement.
C. CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be
performed, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the
COUNTY. Permission to subcontract, however, shall under no circumstances
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013)
Contract No: A] 42066
relieve CONTRACTOR of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement.
Further, CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible for the acts, omissions, and
failure of its subcontractors in the performance of the specified contractual
services, and of person(s) directly or indirectly employed by subcontractors.
Contracts between CONTRACTOR and each subcontractor shall require that the
subcontractor's services be performed in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified herein. CONTRACTOR shall make contracts between
CONTRACTOR and subcontractors available upon request.
11. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
A. The entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and supersedes all
oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject
matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and
made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this
Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall
prevail.
B. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties. The express substantive
legal terms contained in this Agreement including but not limited to the License,
Payment Terms, Warranties, Indemnification and Insurance, Merger and
Modification, Default and Cancellation/Termination or Minnesota Law Governs
may not be altered, varied, modified or waived by any change order,
implementation plan, scope or work, development specification or other
development process or document.
12. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION
A. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so
fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, it
shall be in default. Unless CONTRACTOR's default is excused by the
COUNTY, the COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel or
terminate this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the
terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for the COUNTY to delay payment
until CONTRACTOR's compliance. In the event of a decision to withhold
payment, the COUNTY shall furnish prior written notice to CONTRACTOR.
B. Upon cancellation or termination of this Agreement:
At the discretion of the COUNTY and as specified in writing by the
Contract Administrator, CONTRACTOR shall deliver to the Contract
Administrator copies of all writings so specified by the COUNTY and
prepared by CONTRACTOR in accordance with this Agreement. The
term "writings" is defined as:
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013) 4
Contract No: A] 42066
Handwriting, typewriting, printing, photocopying,
photographing, facsimile transmitting, and every other means of
recording, including electronic media, any form of
communication or representation, including letters, works,
pictures, drawings, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof.
2. The COUNTY shall have full ownership and control of all such writings.
CONTRACTOR shall have the right to retain copies of the writings.
However, it is agreed that CONTRACTOR without the prior written
consent of the COUNTY shall not use these writings for any purpose or in
any manner whatsoever; shall not assign, license, loan, sell, copyright,
patent and/or transfer any or all of such writings; and shall not do anything
which in the opinion of the COUNTY would affect the COUNTY's
ownership and/or control of such writings.
C. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary,
CONTRACTOR shall remain liable to the COUNTY for damages sustained by
the COUNTY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR.
Upon notice to CONTRACTOR of the claimed breach and the amount of the
claimed damage, the COUNTY may withhold any payments to CONTRACTOR
for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the
COUNTY from CONTRACTOR is determined. Following notice from the
COUNTY of the claimed breach and damage, CONTRACTOR and the COUNTY
shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith.
D. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to
the COUNTY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity.
E. The COUNTY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to
exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or
waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not
constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the
Agreement.
F. This Agreement may be canceled/terminated with or without cause by either party
upon thirty (30) day written notice.
13. SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS
Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or
termination of this Agreement include but are not limited to: SERVICES TO BE
PROVIDED (as to ownership of property); INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR;
INDEMNIFICATION; INSURANCE; DATA PRACTICES; RECORDS-
AVAILABILITY/ACCESS; DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION;
PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE; and MINNESOTA LAW GOVERNS.
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013)
Contract No: A] 42066
14. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of CONTRACTOR with the activities of the Human
Services and Public Health Department/Initial Contact and Assessment Area so as to
accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, Mohamed Hassan, Principle Planning
Analyst, or successor, ("Contract Administrator"), shall manage this Agreement on behalf
of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and CONTRACTOR.
15. COMPLIANCE AND NON -DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION
A. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes,
regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted.
B. If the source or partial source of funds for payment of services under this
Agreement is federal, state or other grant monies, CONTRACTOR shall comply
with all applicable conditions of the specific referenced or attached grant.
C. CONTRACTOR certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either
the federal government or the State of Minnesota as a result of debarment or
suspension proceedings.
16. SUBCONTRACTOR PAYMENT
As required by Minnesota Statutes Section 471.425, Subd. 4a, CONTRACTOR shall pay
any subcontractor within ten (10) days of CONTRACTOR's receipt of payment from the
COUNTY for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. CONTRACTOR shall
pay interest of 1'/2 percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any
undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest
penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid
balance of less than $100.00, CONTRACTOR shall pay the actual penalty due to the
subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties
from a prime contractor must be awarded its costs and disbursements, including any
attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action.
17. PAPER RECYCLING
The COUNTY encourages CONTRACTOR to develop and implement an office paper
and newsprint recycling program.
18. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or
any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail.
Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the
originating Department at the address given in the opening paragraph of the Agreement.
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013) 6
Contract No: A] 42066
Notice to CONTRACTOR shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of
the Agreement or to the address stated in CONTRACTOR's Form W-9 provided to the
COUNTY.
19. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONTRACTOR affirms that to the best of CONTRACTOR's knowledge,
CONTRACTOR's involvement in this Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest
with any party or entity which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement.
CONTRACTOR agrees that, should any conflict or potential conflict of interest become
known to CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR will immediately notify the COUNTY of
the conflict or potential conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement giving rise to the
conflict or potential conflict, and will advise the COUNTY whether CONTRACTOR will
or will not resign from the other engagement or representation.
20. PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE
CONTRACTOR agrees, to the extent applicable, to abide by the current Hennepin
County Communications Policy (available upon request). This obligation includes, but is
not limited to, CONTRACTOR not using the term "Hennepin County" or any derivative
in any promotional literature, advertisements of any type or form or client lists without
the express prior written consent of a COUNTY Department Director or equivalent.
21. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations
between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for
any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the
appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this
Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be
affected.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013) 7
Reviewed by the County
Attorney's Office
Date:
Contract No: A] 42066
COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Chair of Its County Board
ATTEST:
Deputy/Clerk of County Board
Date:
And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Date:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its:
And:
Its:
CITY represents and warrants that the person who executed this contract is authorized to do so
pursuant to applicable law and that any other applicable requirements have been met.
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013) 8
Contract No: A] 42066
EXHIBIT A
CONTRACTED SERVICES
The Joint Community Police Partnership (JCPP) Project is a project designed to provide
assistance and training for both police and the new, emerging and diverse cultures within
communities to alleviate conflict. The JCPP includes selection and training of cadets,
community engagement, police training, and outreach by community liaisons embedded in the
police departments.
Cadet Selection: CONTRACTOR shall conduct recruitment, interviewing, testing and selection
for a cadet position. The cadet must pass relevant police screening and background checks as
necessary. Upon approval, the cadet will be enrolled into the trainee program in
CONTRACTOR'S local police department and will undergo academic and skills training
regimens.
Cadet Training: CONTRACTOR shall provide supervision, support, and training of a cadet in
its local police department. The cadet will receive training and educational opportunities in
conformance with police department rules and procedures, and the department will coordinate
activities of the cadet in conjunction with the JCPP. The cadet will complete required academic
and skills portions of police -officer training under the direct supervision of police and academic
representatives. Cadet transcripts, enrollment records and performance, and on-the-job
performance reviews by supervising police officers will be provided quarterly. The cadet will
execute up to 20 hours per week as cadet -trainee and maintain acceptable academic performance
in academic portions.
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013) A-1
EXHIBIT B
FINANCIAL
2015 Budget
Contract No: A] 42066
Budget Category
Program Budget
Amount
a. Salary:
Hourly salary ($15.78/hr @ 12.86879 hrs/wk x 52 wks/yr)
$10,559.61
PERA Coordinated Retirement @ 7.25%
$765.57
FICA contribution @ 7.65%
$807.81
Total Salary Costs
$12,133.00
b. Supportive Technology/Equipment/Examinations:
Uniforms/Equipment
$100.00
Medical/Psychological Examinations
$100.00
Total Supportive Costs
$200.00
c. Education/Training:
Training
$2,667.00
Total Education/Training Costs
$2,667.00
d. Subtotal
$15,000.00
e. Additional Miscellaneous Training Dollars & Expenses
$5,000.00
f. TOTAL
$20,000.00
Note: CONTRACTOR agrees to match this funding by an equal amount or as closely as possible
to the amounts listed in the above -referenced budget.
Form 101 (Revised 8/2013) B-1
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.1.
STAFF REPORT NO. 203
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval and acceptance of the Master Grant Contract (MGC) from the State of
Minnesota, Department of Health for the 2015-2019 grant cycle that is designed to administratively
simplify the review of grant agreements of local public health agencies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Minnesota Department of Health has, since the 2005-2008 grant funding cycle, requested approval from
local public health agencies for one master grant contract rather than individual grant contracts for each of the
various funding streams that public health agencies may apply for and receive funds from.
Since that time, the length of the grant funding cycles has changed from three years to five so this request for
approval will cover the grant cycle for 2015-2019. It should be noted that Support Services Manager, Betsy
Osborn has authority, by resolution, to sign the agreement on behalf of the Board of Health but that it should
also be approved by the City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve and accept the Master Grant Contract (MGC) from the State of Minnesota,
Department of Health for the 2015-2019 grant cycle that is designed to administratively simplify the
review of grant agreements of local public health agencies.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
This Master Grant Contract was originally approved by Council for 2005-2008 and then lengthened and approved for a
five year period from 2009-2013. A one year amendment was approved by the City Council in 2014 for calendar year
2014. This Master Grant Contract covers the period of time from January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2019.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
Support Services Manager Osborn has authority, by resolution, to sign the grant contract on behalf of the Board
of Health but that it should also be approved by the City Council.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• None
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Failure to approve of the master grant document would result in grant funds being held by the State until a
contract is approved.
LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
. The Minnesota Department of Health requires that an approved master grant contract be on file from each local
public health agency receiving funds.
. The City Attorney has reviewed the document and approves of its contents.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
. The City Council could decide not to approve the State's master grant document for grant funds
received from 2015-2019 which would result in funds not being disbursed from the State to the City.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.J.
STAFF REPORT NO. 204
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Karen Barton, Community Development Assistant Director
John Stark, Community Development Director
Mike Eastling, Public Works Director
Steve Devich
Consideration of the approval of authorizing the purchase of pedestrian -scale street lights for the
Penn Avenue Corridor between T.H. 62 and 67th Street, utilizing Community Development Block
Grants, in an amount not to exceed $61,000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the September 9, 2014 City Council meeting, the Council approved a resolution authorizing the
reprogramming of $120,982 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to be used for streetscape
improvements in the Penn Avenue corridor, between T.H. 62 and 67th Street.
Federal guidelines state that the City should expend at least $60,491 of the allocated funding by December 31,
2014. Therefore, staff is proposing to utilize these funds by purchasing pedestrian -scale street lights for the
corridor before the end of the year. These street lights would be installed next spring, along with other
streetscape improvements such as new sidewalks.
Community Development staff will be working with the Public Works staff to determine the exact number and
installation locations of the street lights.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Authorize the purchase of pedestrian -scale street lights for the Penn Avenue Corridor,
utilizing Community Development Block Grants, in an amount not to exceed $61,000.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The City Council approved the reallocation of CDBG funds to be used for streetscape improvements in the Penn
Avenue Corridor between T.H. 62 and 67th Street on September 9, 2014.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
This activity meets one of the three national objectives for use of CDBG funds and is consistent with the County's
Consolidated Plan priority of neighborhood revitalization activities.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The 2013 Fiscal Year began on July 1, 2013. Federal guidelines state that the City has until December 31, 2014
to spend the 2013 funds.
The 2014 funds should be expended by December 31, 2015.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$60,491 of 2013 federal CDBG funds and $60,491 of 2014 CDBG funds have been allocated to streetscape
improvements along Penn Avenue.
LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
Do not authorize purchase of street lights at this time.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None.
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 6.K.
STAFF REPORT NO. 205
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Melissa Poehlman, City Planner
John Stark, Community Development Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of the first reading of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed amendment will add "municipal parking lots" to the list of permitted uses in the Penn
Avenue Corridor Overlay District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Over the past few years, parking in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District (Penn Avenue from
approximately Highway 62 to 67th Street) has been a near -constant issue. Parking is not generally permitted
as a primary or sole use in any district in the City; however, the unique characteristics of the Penn Avenue
Corridor make this an option that the City may want to consider in the future. There are no current plans for a
municipal parking lot on Penn Avenue.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Approve a first reading on an Ordinance amending Subsection 541.21, Subdivision 3 of the
Richfield City Code to allow municipally -owned parking lots in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay
District and schedule the second reading on December 9, 2014.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
Discussed above.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
. Ongoing review and periodic updating of the Code is necessary to ensure that regulations are serving their
intended purposes.
• The proposed amendment is in keeping with the Penn Avenue Master Revitalization Plan.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
None
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 27, 2014.
Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper in accordance with State and Local
requirements.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment (7-0).
If this reading is approved, a second reading of the proposed ordinance will be held on December 9, 2014.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
. Approve a first reading with amendments.
. Deny a first reading of the proposed ordinance.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Ordinance Ordinance
BILL NO.
AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE
SUBSECTION 541.21, SUBDIVISION 3
RELATED TO
MUNICPAL PARKING LOTS
IN THE
PENN AVENUE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1 Subsection 541.21, Subdivision 3 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read
as follows:
Subd. 3. Applicable regulations. The regulations of the underlying Mixed -Use
Community (MU -C) District shall apply with the following additions and exceptions:
a) Uses. All permitted, accessory, conditional and interim uses allowed in the MU -C
District are allowed in the PAC District with the following additions, qualifications and/or
exceptions:
Table 1
Uses in the Penn Avenue Corridor Overlay District
Note — The following abbreviations are used within the use table:
P = Permitted use
A = Accessory use
C = Conditionally permitted
N = Not permitted
Use
PAC
Regional retail services
P
Auto mechanical or body repair shops
N
Auto detailing
N
Dwelling, townhouse (min. density 6
du/acre
P
Dwelling, multifamily (min. density 6 du/acre)
P
Live -work units (min. density 6 du/acre)
P
Transit facilities or municipal parking lots
P
b) Uses not listed. Any land use not listed as Permitted, Accessory or Conditional in
this subsection or other referenced subsections is prohibited in the Penn Avenue
Corridor Overlay District unless the use is found to be substantially similar to a use
listed, as determined by the City in accordance with Subsection 509.23 of this Code.
c) Conditional uses. All conditions applicable in the MU -C District, as found in
Subsection 537.05 of this code, apply in the PAC District with the following additions,
qualifications and/or exceptions:
(i) Restaurant Class III or Drive -Up Window Teller Service. In addition to the
rules governing drive -up window or teller service in the underlying MU -C District,
a minimum distance of 150 feet must be maintained between such facilities in
the PAC District (as measured from property line to property line).
d) Bulk and dimensional standards. All bulk and dimensional standards applicable in
the MU -C District, as found in Subsection 537.07 of this code, shall apply in the PAC
District with the following additions, qualifications and/or exceptions:
(i) The minimum two-story building requirement prescribed in Table 2 of
Subsection 537.07 does not apply within the PAC District.
(ii) The maximum number of building stories in the PAC District shall be eight
(8) stories.
(iii) A mix of uses, as prescribed by Subsection 537.07, Subd. 2(b) is not
required within the PAC District.
e) Other Performance Standards. All additional performance standards applicable in
the MU -C District, as found in Subsection 537.11 of this code, shall apply in the PAC
District with the following additions, qualifications and/or exceptions:
(i) The above -ground parking ramps orientation requirement described by
Subsection 537.11, Subd. 6(d) does not apply in the PAC District.
(ii) The open space requirement described by Subsection 537.11, Subd. 8 does
not apply in the PAC District.
Sec. 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 9th day of December,
2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
AGENDA ITEM # 61.
STAFF REPORT NO. 206
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Theresa Schyma, Deputy City Clerk
Steven L. Devich
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the approval of a resolution determining the results of the City General Election on
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City General Election was conducted on Tuesday, November 4, 2014 in conjunction with the State
General Election. The City General Election included contests for the offices of Mayor and Council Member at
Large.
The Richfield City Charter states that the Council shall meet and canvass the election returns at the next
regular or Special Council meeting immediately following any regular, primary or special election, but in no
event later than the time prescribed by State law, and must make full declaration of the results as soon as
possible, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the resolution determining the results of the City General Election on Tuesday,
November 4, 2014.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
This information is contained within the Executive Summary.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
• The City Charter provides that the City Council declare the results of the election.
• Minnesota Statutes Chapter 205 governs the conduct of municipal elections.
o Section 205.02, Subd. 2 states that all City elections are governed by Chapter 205 as far as practicable.
o Section 205.185, Subd. 3 sets the date for canvassing any city general election as "between the third and
tenth days after an election."
o The provisions of Chapter 205 preempt the City Charter; therefore the canvassing of election results is
scheduled for the November 10, 2014 Regular City Council Meeting.
c. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
The City Council must take action by November 14, 2014.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
Legal review is not required.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
There are no alternative recommendations.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Resolution Resolution Letter
d Attachment A - abstract Exhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2014
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Council,
having received and considered the tally of votes by the election judges of the General
Election held November 4, 2014, the results are determined to be as follows:
Votes cast for Mayor:
Four Year Term
Votes cast for Council Member at -Large
Four Year Term
Total number of voters in this election: 11,947
Debbie Goettel 7,179
Marty Kirsch 3,684
Write -In 68
Michael Howard 6,071
Herbert W. "Herb" Perry 3,616
Write-in 84
Attachment A is the complete tabulation of results.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying
returns of said election:
Stephanie Ahlstrand
Linda Boyd
Francie Fletcher
James Alagna
Sandra Bradley
Sharon Flick
Leslie Alvarado
James Broveleit
Mary Gagne
Robert Amundson
Nancy Buck
Claire Gahler
Janis Anderson
Marjorie Cain
Grant Gartland
Jason Arce
Janice Carroll
Nancy Gibbs
Beverly Arnold
Calvin Cheng
Dennis Gillespie
John Ashmead
Doris Christine
Joann Gleason
Mary Ann Ashmead
David Clark
Judith Goebel
Carol Athey
Amanda Cook
Mary Gover
James Atkins
Kirsten Croone
James Grant
Yvonne Atkins
Ellen Cutter
Rebecca Guarino
Cheryl Avenson
David Dahl
Roger Guarino
Patricia Bailey
Kathy Dahlen
Christina Gutierrez
Mary Barnes
Marie Dallager
Jean Hall
Jack Barta
Eileen Davenport
Robert Hall
Patricia Bates
Sandra Decker
Mary Hayden
Barbara Bauer
Kelsang Dolma
Alyssabeth Hester
Sam Beaulieu
Cynthia Dubansky
Ruth Hiland
William Bednar
Katie Eagle
Cheryl Hjortaas
Spencer Bergen
Denise Eckerman
Oliver Hoffman
Rosalie Bjorkman
Liz Ekholm
Ilene Holen
Joel Blanchard
Betty Elenbaas
Janette Holter
Mark Blanchard
Carolyn Engeldinger
John Holter
Kimberly Blomberg
Donna Englert
JeNee Honnigford
Larry Blount
Angie Faison
Chelsea Johnson
Alannah Boncher
John Fleming
Kathy Johnson
Reed Bornholdt
Ed Fletcher
Nathan Johnson
Sita Johnson
Bailey Olson
Janell Joyner
Mary Olson
Kalla Kalloway
Robert Olson
Susie Kalmi
Ruby Olson
Betty Lou Kamps
Mark Pafiolis
Thomas Keegan
Frank Pafko
Susan Kenney
Jeannine Pafko
Claire Killian
Kevin Perry
Abby Knipp
Marlene Peterson
Nicholas LaFontaine
Carol Petkoff
Sophie Lamo
Monica Petrov
Amy Larson
Nathae Richardson
Bonnie Leslie
Carolyn Ring
Daniel Leslie
Jeffrey Rundgren
Nancy Lindberg
Matthew Ryan
Myrt Link
Jonathan Sanchez
Jeanette Lofstrom
Saldivar
Rick Loney
Shannon Schmidt
Benjamin Lowthian
Margaret Schow
Michael Lueck
Theresa Schyma
Clarissa Maas
Karin Sinning
Cynthy Mandl
Eric Smith
Mary Karen Marso
Julie Smith
Lawrence Martin
Margaret Smith
Veronica Martinez-
K. LaShel. Solberg
Hernandez
Becky Spitzack
Sharon Mattson
Hannah Springer
Paul Matuschek
Mary Jane Steinhagen
Andrew May
Catherine Sullivan
Karin McComb
Roger Swanson
Michele McGee
Delilah Taylor
Michael McNamara
Edward Thom
Sandra Menning-Glavan
Myrtle Thom
Eryn Miles
George Thomas
Ruth Miller
Janet Thompson
Richard Morey
Steve Thompson
Isabelle Moulinier
Doris Thorson
Tom Murphy
Mary Jo Tuttle
Geraldine Nachicas
John Twisk
Helen Nachicas
Daniel Van Eyll
Caroline Naumann
Beatrice Van Liew
Linda Nemitz
Elizabeth VanHoose
Jennifer Neumann
Marcus Voigt
Hayden Nollenberger
David Vrieze Daniels
Cindy Norland
Erin Vrieze Daniels
David Nyholm
Sandra Walstrom
Janet Nyholm
Mollly Weber
Kevin O'Dare
Megan Webster
Martha (Betty)
Sophie Webster
Obenchain
Christian Wellens
Christopher Okey
Robert Wells
Joan Olinger
Cheryl West
Elaine Wetsch
Kristen Whittenbaugh
Timber Wolf
Judy Wood
Marian Woolery
Rachel Youngquist
Janelle Zeinelabdin
Deborah Zierden
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
November, 2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
City of Richfield
® General Election November 4, 2014
Page 1 of 1
11/5/2014 3:13:04 P41
Precinct
Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
COUNTY & CITY OFFICES
CITY OFFICES
19,794
95.6%
1,501
2,704
2,617
2,072
2,432
2,510
1,765
1,688
2,505
Mayor
914
4.4%
74
206
116
16
95
140
65
68
134
MARTY KIRSCH
3,684
33.7%
318
476
493
405
441
464
313
315
459
DEBBIE GOETTEL
7,179
65.7%
462
1,003
979
641
1,102
873
713
609
797
WRITE-IN
68
0.6%
10
8
10
5
5
12
5
7
6
Council Member At Large
1,536
12.9%
78
328
168
76
303
197
128
99
159
HERBERT W. "HERB" PERRY
3,616
37.0%
265
460
534
410
545
434
297
263
408
MICHAEL HOWARD
6,071
62.1%
438
833
802
529
840
781
599
547
702
WRITE-IN
84
0.9%
7
10
13
10
6
8
11
7
12
Precinct
Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
VOTER TURNOUT
Registered Voters
Persons Registered at 7:00 AM
19,794
95.6%
1,501
2,704
2,617
2,072
2,432
2,510
1,765
1,688
2,505
New Registrations on Election Day
914
4.4%
74
206
116
16
95
140
65
68
134
TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS
20,708
100.0%
1,575
2,910
2,733
2,088
2,527
2,650
1,830
1,756
2,639
Ballots Cast
Number Voting at Polls
10,411
87.1%
792
1,320
1,465
1,096
1,354
1,282
993
906
1,203
Number Voting Absentee
1,536
12.9%
78
328
168
76
303
197
128
99
159
TOTAL PERSONS VOTING
11,947
100.0%
870
1,648
1,633
1,172
1,657
1,479
1,121
1,005
1,362
Turnout Percentage
57.7%
55.2%
56.6%
59.8%
56.1%
65.6%
55.8%
61.3%
57.2%
51.6%
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
AGENDA ITEM # 8.
STAFF REPORT NO. 207
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Melissa Poehlman, City Planner
John Stark, Community Development Director
N/A
Steven L. Devich
Public hearing and consideration of a resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to
allow expansion of an existing sober -housing facility (Progress Valley) at 308 - 78th Street East.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Progress Valley, Inc. ("Progress Valley") is a nonprofit organization that has been providing chemical health
treatment services to adults since 1972. They have operated a 28 -bed facility at 308 - 78th Street East in
Richfield for 35 years. Progress Valley is requesting permission to expand and remodel their building. The
proposed expansion will not increase the number of persons treated at the facility, but rather it will bring the
building into compliance with a number of current Code requirements (bedroom size, Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, kitchen facilities) and provide additional group and individual meeting
spaces and office areas.
In 2005 the City adopted an 1-494 Corridor Master Plan which has since been incorporated into the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The following year, the City codified zoning regulations to aid in the implementation of
this Corridor Plan. In acknowledgement of the fact that some existing buildings and uses would be made
nonconforming by these changes, the City included provisions allowing limited expansion. So long as certain
conditions can be met, legally nonconforming buildings are permitted to expand with Council approval of a
conditional use permit. The Code does not put a dimensional limitation on this expansion. Legally
nonconforming uses can request a conditional use permit to expand by up to 10 percent of the existing gross
floor area provided that the use does not significantly impede implementation of goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. Progress Valley is requesting a variance to allow them to expand the building by 50%
(4,488 square feet); however, this does not include any actual intensification of their services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the resolution granting a Conditional Use
Permit and Variance to allow the expansion of an existing sober -housing facility at 308 - 78th Street
East.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
In 1978, the Richfield City Council approved a Special Use Permit to allow Progress Valley to convert the Assumption
Church Convent building into a residential treatment facility serving up to 28 chemically -dependent persons. At the time
of approval, the proposed use did not fit neatly into any of the described uses of the Zoning Code and this continues to
be the case. In 1978, City staff and the Council agreed that because of the relatively "isolated" location, the potential for
negative impacts was slim and that there was a need for this type of service in the area.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
The City's Comprehensive Plan and the Mixed Use Zoning District regulations stress a mix of uses, walkability, cohesive
design and active uses. The applicant is proposing to continue operation of a successful business on a site that is
significantly constrained by its size, location and limited visibility. There is little potential for assembly of a larger piece
of land at this location. The Comprehensive Plan envisions this area as the continued location of Quasi -Public uses and
non-profit organizations. The applicant has proposed a plan that includes not only improved facilities for their clients
and staff, but also one that significantly improves the site's overall compliance with zoning requirements. It is not
possible to bring the building up to current Code standards related to bedroom size, kitchen facilities and ADA
requirements without a variance to allow expansion that will be greater than 10 percent of the current building size. It is
the opinion of staff that the proposal meets the requirements necessary for the approval of a conditional use permit and
variance.
Review Criteria: A full discussion of all review criteria is provided as an attachment to this report.
1. Expansion of a legal nonconforming use in the Mixed Use Districts
The City Council may allow an expansion by up to 10 percent of the gross floor area of a legal nonconforming use
through the issuance of a conditional use permit provided that the proposal meets all other applicable City requirements
and that the expansion will not significantly impede implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The intent of this regulation was to limit the intensification or growth of uses that were not considered compatible
with the Mixed Use Districts. The proposal does not call for any intensification, but rather an improvement of
current facilities. Progress Valley has co -existed with this neighborhood for many years and the proposed
expansion is not expected to have any impact on that relationship.
2. Expansion of nonconforming buildings in the Mixed Use Districts
Buildings that do not meet dimensional or bulk standards of the Mixed Use Districts may be expanded so
long as the applicant can demonstrate that the overall degree of nonconformity has not been increased,
that current requirements are met to the greatest degree possible, that superior design has been utilized to
off -set departures from current requirements and that expansion will not impede implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
. The proposal meets or improves upon all requirements of the Zoning Code. Staff does not believe
that there will be any significant impact to the overall implementation of the Comprehensive Plan as a
result of this expansion.
3. Variance
It is the opinion of staff that the requirements necessary to approve the requested variance to allow an expansion by 50
percent are met.
The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant is proposing to continue to
use the site in a manner that serves the community. The intensity of the use will not increase; all changes are
related to improving conditions, services and the accessibility of a building that is nearing obsolescence. It is
reasonable to allow improvement of the facilities for the betterment of clients, even if this improvement requires
the addition of more floor area than is typically permitted.
There are unique circumstances that apply to this property and use. Supervised living facilities like Progress
Valley are not currently permitted in any of the City's Zoning Districts. Not only would it be difficult to find an
alternative location for the facility, but Progress Valley has been operating their program from this location for 35
years without any significant complaints from neighboring properties. It is reasonable to allow expansion within a
neighborhood that has co -existed with the facility for many years.
No negative impacts related to the project are anticipated. Positive impacts include better client facilities, but
also a more attractive site and a building that comes closer to current zoning requirements.
Timing / Extension of land use approvals
Land use approvals typically expire one year from issuance unless the use has commenced or building permits have
been issued and substantial work has been performed. The applicant is requesting an extended time -frame due to the
particulars of their use and the need to relocate current tenants during construction. Progress Valley anticipates
relocating clients in late September or early October 2015 following completion of renovations to a new site in
Bloomington. Site construction will begin in Richfield on or before October 15, 2015 and completion is anticipated in
March of 2016. Staff is recommending that the Council modify the expiration date of these approvals and allow two
years for substantial completion of the project.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
60 -DAY RULE: The 60 -day clock 'started' when a complete application was received on October 16, 2014. A decision
is required by December 15, 2014 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a
maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• A public hearing was also held before the Planning Commission on October 27, 2014.
• Notice of both required public hearings was published in the Sun Current newspaper and mailed to properties
within 350 feet of the site.
• No members of the public spoke before the Planning Commission.
• The City has received a number of letters of support for the proposed project (attached).
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests (7-0).
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
• Approve the attached resolution with modifications.
• Deny the requests with findings that requirements are not met.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
Susanne Lambert - Executive Director Progress Valley, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Type
D Resolution
Resolution Letter
D Requirements document
Exhibit
D Proposed plans
Exhibit
D Correspondence
Exhibit
D Planning & Zoning Maps
Exhibit
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL
OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE AT
308 78TH STREET EAST
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which
requests approval of conditional use permit for expansion of a legal nonconforming
residential treatment facility/supervised living facility on the parcel of land located at 308
78th Street East (the "Property"), legally described in the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit includes an addition to a legally
nonconforming building. The addition will increase the gross floor area dedicated to a
legal nonconforming use by 50 percent; and
WHEREAS, the City Code allows for the expansion of legally nonconforming
buildings in the Mixed Use Districts;
WHEREAS, the City Code allows for the expansion of legal nonconforming uses
in the Mixed Use Districts by up to 10 percent of their gross floor area;;
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6, provides for the
granting of variances to the literal provisions of the zoning regulations in instances
where their enforcement would cause "practical difficulty" to the owners of the property
under consideration; and
WHEREAS, based on the findings below, the Richfield City Council approves the
requested variance from Richfield Zoning Code Subsection 537.13, Subd. 1; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the
conditional use permit; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
The City Council makes the following general findings:
a. The Property is zoned Mixed Use — Community.
b. The existing use is legally nonconforming and can continue indefinitely.
C. The existing building is legally nonconforming and can continue
indefinitely.
d. The proposed site plan will improve or fully comply with the following
requirements which are currently unmet: building coverage, landscaping,
front setback, parking, parking lot screening, trash enclosures, and
landscaping.
e. Code states that the Council can approve the expansion of legally
nonconforming uses by up to 10 percent of the gross floor area in the
Mixed Use Districts. The proposed expansion will increase gross floor
area by 50 percent. A variance from Subsection 537.13 is required.
f. Code states that the Council can approve the expansion of legally
nonconforming buildings that do not increase the overall, site -wide degree
of nonconformity.
2. With respect to the application for a variance to allow the expansion of a legally
nonconforming use by more than 10 percent, the City Council makes the
following findings:
a. Strict enforcement of Richfield Zoning Code Subsections 537.13,
Subdivision 1 would cause a practical difficulty. The applicant is
proposing to use the site in the same manner that is has been used
historically. The applicant has proposed site improvements that will
improve overall compliance with current Code requirements. Further, the
proposed expansion will not intensify the existing use, which was the
intent of limiting the expansion of nonconforming uses. All changes are
related to improving conditions, services, and the accessibility of a building
that is nearing obsolescence. It is reasonable to allow improvement of the
facilities for the betterment of clients even if this improvement requires the
addition of more floor area than is typically permitted.
b. Unique circumstances affect the Property that were not created by the
land owner. Supervised living facilities are not currently permitted in any
of the City's Zoning Districts. Not only would it would be difficult to find an
alternative location for the facility, but Progress Valley has been operating
their program from this location for 35 years without any significant
complaints from neighboring properties. It is reasonable to allow
expansion within a neighborhood that has co -existed with the facility for
many years.
C. Granting the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The requested variance is not expected to have any
impact on the character of the neighborhood.
d. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the
practical difficulty. The proposed variance will allow the applicant to
remodel their facility in such a manner that it will meet a variety of health
and safety codes with which it is now noncompliant.
3. Based upon the above findings, a variance is hereby approved to permit the
expansion of a nonconforming use by 50 percent of the existing gross floor area.
4. Based upon the above findings and variance, the proposed conditional use
permit is hereby approved according to the terms of Richfield City Code
Subsection 537.13, with the following additional stipulations:
a) Final dumpster enclosure plans, complying with City Code Section 544.05
must be approved by staff prior to construction;
b) The property owner is responsible for the continuous maintenance of required
landscaping in accordance with approved plans;
c) All required parking stalls must be maintained and free of snow year-round
(minimum City requirement is 12 stalls for facility serving 28 persons);
d) Approval of this conditional use permit does not include approval of any signs.
Sign permits must be applied for separately;
e) All lighting changes must be approved by City staff;
f) Any new mechanical equipment must be screened in accordance with Code
requirements;
g) All new utility service must be underground;
h) The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits, compliance
with all requirements detailed in the City's Administrative Review Committee
Report, and compliance with all other City and State regulations. Permits are
required prior to commencement of any work;
i) The recipient of this conditional use permit record this Resolution with the
County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1 and the
City's Zoning Ordinance Section 546.05, Subd. 7. Proof of recording must be
provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit; and
j) Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit a
surety equal to 125% of the value of any outstanding improvements (in
accordance with Section 547.17 of the City Code).
k) This permit shall expire two years after it has been issued unless: 1) the use
for which the permit was granted has commenced; or 2) building permits have
been issued and substantial work performed.
5. This conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as conditions
regulating it are observed, and the conditional use permit shall expire if normal
operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months, as required
by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 547.09, Subd. 9.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
November 2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Parcel 1:
The East 125.00 feet of the South 174.00 feet of the South Half of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, EXCEPT
those parts taken for State Trunk Highway No. 5 and 100 over the South 40 feet
thereof, pursuant to Documents No. 1349782 and 1719066.
AND
The West 206.54 feet of the South 120.14 feet of the South Half of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24.
AND
The West 28.05 feet of the North 53.86 feet of the South 174.00 feet of the South Half
of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range
24.
Parcel 2:
Non-exclusive easement for access and utility purposes created pursuant to Driveway
Access and Utility Easement Agreement dated April 16, 2004, recorded January 3,
2005 as Document No. 8501482, over the following described land:
The North 32.18 feet of the South 206.18 feet of the East 155.00 feet of the South Half
of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range
24.
AND
That part of the North 30.00 feet of the South 204.00 feet of the South Half of the
Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24,
lying West of the East 155.00 feet, and lying East of the West 30.00 feet of the East
Quarter of said South Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter.
AND
The North 32.18 feet of the South 206.18 feet of the West 28.05 feet of the South Half
of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range
24.
Code Requirements / Required Findings
Part 1: The following conditions apply to the expansion of nonconforming uses
in the Mixed Use Districts:
Expansion may be allowed up to 10 percent of the gross floor area provided the
expansion meets all other applicable City requirements. Any expansion or
modification of a legal nonconforming use should not significantly impede
implementation of goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed expansion is not expected to have any significant adverse
impact on the implementation of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Part 2: The following conditions apply to the expansion of nonconforming
buildings in the Mixed Use Districts:
Expansion or modification of a legally nonconforming building shall:
a) Not increase the overall, site -wide degree of nonconformity; The proposal will
only increase compliance with current code requirements.
b) Demonstrate that zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements are met to
the greatest degree practical. These requirements include, but are not limited
to: parking, landscaping, architectural design and fagade treatment, and site
design; The proposal will meet or improve upon all requirements contained in
the zoning code.
c) Off -set departures from zoning and Comprehensive Plan requirements
through superior design and/or additional community/site amenities; There
are no significant departures from zoning and Comprehensive Plan
requirements in terms of building form. The site will be significantly improved
in terms of compliance.
d) Not significantly impede implementation of goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan; No significant impediment is anticipated.
e) Not have undue adverse impacts on neighboring residential properties; No
undue adverse impact is expected. The proposed expansion is not related to
intensity and site aesthetics will be improved.
f) Not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services
or existing or proposed improvements; The proposed expansion has been
reviewed by City staff and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated.
g) Not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety or welfare. No
undue adverse impacts are anticipated.
Part 3: The findings necessary to approve a variance are as follows (Subd.
547.11):
1. There are "practical difficulties" that prevent the property owner from using
the property in a reasonable manner.
2. There are usual or unique circumstances that apply to the property which
were not created by the applicant and do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone or vicinity.
3. The variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood or the locality.
4. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty.
5. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
ordinance and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has requested variances from the following requirement: Legal
nonconforming uses may be allowed to expand by up to 10 percent of the gross
floor area (537.13, Subd. 1).
The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The
applicant is proposing to use the site in the same manner that is has been used
historically. The applicant has proposed site improvements that will improve
overall compliance with current Code requirements. Further, the proposed
expansion will not intensify the existing use, which was the intent of limiting the
expansion of nonconforming uses. All changes are related to improving
conditions, services, and the accessibility of a building that is nearing
obsolescence.
Supervised living facilities are not currently permitted in any of the City's Zoning
Districts. Not only would it would be difficult to find an alternative location for the
facility, but Progress Valley has been operating their program from this location
for 35 years without any significant complaints from neighboring properties. It is
reasonable to allow expansion within a neighborhood that has co -existed with the
facility for many years.
The requested variances are the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical
difficulty.
The proposed plan is in keeping with the intent of both the Zoning Ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan significantly improves compliance
with current regulations.
o Po
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ao
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000000000..
cr
Ail
ki
SII
411
ci
NmZ
,sLL W } O F
„—
?sa
el.
Z r
� z
zp
c74�
�oa
5nzl
wL)m
,
el.
ci
z
'n z
LLI
o in
m 13
>
-7n
ci
z
U) co Z
LLI
in
zi
I
oz co
C)
L) Z
0 000000
02
00 �0000000
00
000000
�bbttl
1 1
1.5 t --t
lz
LL
'Un-
F7
U—n-
Fling
ago
foo of F—V9 . . . . . .
fl
zi
I
oz co
C)
L) Z
0 000000
02
0 000000
00 �0000000
00
000000
LL
'Un-
F7
Fling
ago
foo of F—V9 . . . . . .
N m ZLLI
= a
HN
a
0
1 z
5
0
3 2
is
e O
30 opt
�arcw -
_ _ F ITl�lill
0
I s� Q z IIIII��
u
u z IIIIIIIIII z
a III�III o
= u
_= z
a w
III=III O
c z �
F,74 `a .
' - a
N)
1 I
LJ
I
--
Y5 r
C W g
1 N
IIII
�i OTFFM„
a �.s
U
n C
❑ p
w
Z 3
o>
' � 3 0
e
� O
Ur
”,
I'
4 a_
I
1 Mo M5
IIII r
o
.slk
a s
I I
I
°t
I w
s
0
I I I H
a p a a
I I
I I I 1
I
� wm
I
vip
r
as
NLU
LU
� wm
I
�p
z
0
N
w
MOM
as
N
w
F n
00N
C7Lu
�¢
U
z
0
w
MOM
w
F n
U
September 22, 2014
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Progress Valley, Inc. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Request and Regtaest
Variance for 308 East 78th Street, Richfield
Dear Richfield City Councilmembers;
Please accept this letter as evidence of my enthusiastic support for Progress Valley, Inc.'s
request for an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit, as well as a variance for
renovations and an addition, to their women's program facility at 308 East 78th Street.
1 am an assistant professor teaching alcohol and drug counseling at Metropolitan State
University. Many of our students have completed internships at Progress Valley, and a
number of our graduates have gone on to work at Progress Valley facilities. Our
interactions with Progress Valley staff have been uniformly professional and highly
supportive of our interns and graduates. I have great respect for the quality of service
provided by Progress Valley.
In addition, I have a family member who is a graduate of the Progress Valley women's
program. She gained tremendous benefit from her stay, and has maintained continuous
sobriety to this day, many years after her time at Progress Valley.
I have considerable professional and personal respect for and appreciation of the mission
and work of Progress Valley. The renovations and addition will provide needed client
rooms, increased group meeting space, increased individual therapy/meeting rooms and
staff offices. Additionally the renovations will fully meet ADA requirements, which, as you
know, is key to ensuring accessibility for all.
I respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Request
and the Request Variance
Thanking you for your consideration,
„_ ,...�
Therissa Libby, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Human Services Dept.
Metropolitan State University
700 East Seventh St.
Saint Paul, MN 55106
651-793-1501
th a riss a.l ib byg m et ro state. e d u
Sep 22 15 09:32a
September 20, 2014
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, SAN 55423
051-454-9003 p.1
Subject. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request- 308 E. 78th St.,
Richfield, MN
Dear Richfield City Council Members:
Please accept this letter as evidence of my support for Progress Valley, inc.'s request for an
amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit and a variance for renovations and an
addition to their women's program/facility at 308 East 78th Street, Richfield, MN.
J went through Progress Valley in 1987 following treatment at Hazelden. Hazelden was not my
first treatment, and I believe that my successful 27 years of sobriety is because of Progress
Valley.
Life at Progress Valley included 2 -hour group meetings 3 times a week and periodic assigned
meetings with other clients (usually 2-3) in the house, in addition to scheduled meetings with
our counse tors.
The group meetings included all the Clients in a large room with seating all around - but there
was never enough seating. We took turns sitting on the floor because of lack of space.
Also due to the lack of space, there were no rooms for our client meetings. We would just
have to find a corner in a room that would hopefully provide a little privacy.
I volunteer at Progress Valley to "give back". It is my way of saying thanks for saving my life.
When I speak, it is in the same group room, and 27 years later, clients are still sitting on the
floc r.
believe the clients deserve better.
The renovations and addition wilt provide needed client rooms, increased group meeting
space, increased individual therapy/meeting rooms and staff offices. These renovations and
addition will make life at Progress Valley much better for its clients and staff. Additionally,
the renovations will fully meet AOA requirements, ensuring accessibility for all.
In closing, I greatly respect and believe in the positive results that result from the mission and
work of Progress Valley. i respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit Request and the Variance Request.
Sincerely,
Kay Hamltt
651-454-9003
Roxanne Kibben, M.A.
1695 Edgemont St, Maplewood, MN 55117 (443) 822-6747 roxannekibben@gmaii.Gom
September 19, 2014
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Subject: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request- 3o8 E. 78th St., Richfield, MN
Dear Richfield City Councilmembers:
People given a second chance at life are typically grateful. Thinking I'd die before I was 27, now at 62,1 am
sure the life 1 have led turned 18o degrees while 1 was a resident at Progress Valley (PV), in 1979. My path,
not unlike many who gain recovery through supportive long term care (like PV) led me to heal, redefine
myself, improved my health and wellness, rejoin and rebuild a life in my community. I am unique in how
far it has taken me as an advocate for alcohol and drug addiction recovery. Not only have I served the
Twin Cities and many other communities, but I served as President for NAADAC the Association for
Addiction Professionals and was a Senior Fulbright Scholar for Cyprus. Trust me, this was not my path
prior to PV, even considering having completed a five-week local residential treatment program.
I support for Progress Valley, Inc.'s request for an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit
and a variance for renovations and an addition to their women's program/facility at 3o8 East 78th Street,
Richfield, MN.
Progress Valley has deep roots in the community and philanthropic endeavors. Do you know how and
why it was founded by Opus? Not only do the healthcare providers and funders maintain high positive
regard for PV, the families of those helped are enhanced, coworkers learn to support people in early
recovery and the individuals learn to daily life skills necessary to maintain recovery. Progress Valley gives
so much mare than it will ever take, or request, as in this case.
The stigma still remains to discriminate against those with this illness. I urge you to not go down that dark
alley. As the world looses Robin Williams and mourns his untimely death there are millions others who go
un -treated (or under -treated) because of people worried about what "that type of person" will bring to
the neighborhood. Really?
In closing, I greatly respect and appreciate the mission and work of Progress Valley. The renovations and
addition will provide needed client rooms, increased group meeting space, increased individual
therapy/meeting rooms and staff offices. Additionally the renovations will fully meet ADA requirements,
ensuring accessibility for all.
I respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Request AND the
Variance Request.
Kind regards,
c
September 18, 2014
Richfield City Council
5700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Subject: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request —308 E. 78th 5t., Richfield, MN
Dear Richfield City Councilmembers:
Please accept this letter as evidence of our support for Progress Valley, Inc.'s request for an amendment
to their existing Conditional Use Permit and a variance for renovations and an addition to their women's
program/facility at 308 East 78`h Street, Richfield, MN.
I met with women at Progress Valley for 6 years, seeking to assist those living there with their
spirituality. The facility always had a welcoming presence, encouraged personal responsibility and
growth and held individuals accountable in relation to those goals.
In the course of conversations with the women in the program I often heard that it was sometimes hard
to follow what the program required. However, residents readily admitted that they could personally
see the value in the program requirements , respected the counselors, and believed these individuals
truely cared about them and their future sober paths.
The program, its effective administrative structure, commitment to move ahead and grow in relation to
the population of women they serve, it's extremely competent and dedicated staff, solid goals and
values in programming has served clients well. The program not only saves lives, I believe it brings
healthier, responsible, productive women to the community in general.
In closing, I greatly respect and appreciate the mission and work of Progress Valley. The renovations
and addition will provide needed client rooms, increased group meeting space, increased individual
therapy/meeting rooms and staff offices. Additionally the renovations will fully meet ADA
requirements, ensuring accessibility for all.
I respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Request AND the
Variance Request.
Sincerely,
Lynn Knapp
2647 Boulder Way, Burnsville, MN 55337 952-894-4335
9/20/14
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
Subject: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request- 308 E. 78th St., Richfield, MN
pear Richfield City Councilmern bers:
Please accept this letter as evidence of our support for Progress Valley, Inc.'s request for an amendment
to their existing Conditional Use Permit and a variance for renovations and an addition to their women's
program/facility at 308 East 78th Street, Richfield, MN.
In February of 2007, we were in dire straits. Our daughter Laura had been struggling with the disease of
addiction for several years and nothing she had done to date had given her any extended relief from her
suffering. She had done detox, out-patient therapy, even a stint in an in-patient rehab program, but to
no avail. All the while, her suffering was taking atoll onus, as we tried to support her not really
understanding what she needed. We kept thinking that all she needed to do was stay away from drugs,
not realizing that her issues were much deeper and a more radical solution was needed.
Laura's sponsor, herself clean and sober five years at the time, had gone to Progress Valley and
recommended Laura do the same. The thought of sending Laura half way across the country terrified us
but we knew our options were few. We bought her a one-way ticket to Minnesata, not really knowing
what awaited her on the other end.
After six weeks, we were able to come out to visit her. We were amazed to see the difference the six
weeks at Progress Valley had already made in Laura. PV had made her take responsibility for herself.
She had to find a job right away and had restrictions where she could go and when she had to return to
the House. She had to attend counseling sessions, participate in group meetings, and start actively
working a 12 -step program. The little girl (at least in our eyes) that we had placed on a plane in New
Jersey had started to become a woman,
At the end of the 90 days, we came back to attend her graduation. We had expected that after her stint
at Progress Valley, she would return to New Jersey, but with the help of her counselor, Laura decided to
stay on in Sober Living. While in Sober Living, Laura continued to see her counselor and attend meetings
at the House, reinforcing the work she had started. At the end of the 90 days she had such a support
network that she decided to stay in Minnesota and try to build a life there.
Flash forward seven and a half years. Laura is sober, married, has a beautiful 15 month-old son, and is
working as a stylist in an uptown Minneapolis salon. She is active in her Church and has a large circle of
friends. She is very active in a 12 -step program and has sponsees of her own, And she stays in touch
with the staff at Progress Valley.
In this time, our family went from desperation, fearing what would happen next, to optimism and hope
for the future. While Laura has worked very hard at her recovery, Progress Valley gave her the
environment, tools, and support she needed to start in earnest on her road to that recovery.
In closing, we greatly respect and appreciate the mission and work of Progress Valley. The renovations
and addition will provide needed client rooms, increased group meeting space, increased individual
therapy/meeting rooms and staff offices. Additionally the renovations will fully meet ADA
requirements, ensuring accessibility for all.
I respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Request AND the
Variance Request.
Sincerely,
Lance & Fran Harris
306 E Buttonwood St
Wenonah NJ 08090
856-468-0263
' Hennepin County Human Services & Public Health
Behavioral Health Services
Chemical Health
1SOOChicago Ave, Mpls. MN, 55404
612-879-3158
Fax 617-466-9559
Date: September 17, 2014
TO: Richfield City Council
6704 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
From: Tom Turner
Chemical Health Unit Supervisor
Department
RE: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request- 308 E. 78th St.,
Richfield, MN
Dear Richfield City Councilmembers:
Please accept this letter as evidence of our support for Progress Valley, Inc.`s request
for an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit and a variance for
renovations and an addition to their women's program/facility at 308 East 78th Street,
Richfield, MN.
Progress Valley has always been one of our most highly valued Hennepin County
programs. They have maintained a high quality of service and professionalism over
the many years we have worked with them. We are excited about the possibility of
them upgrading their existing facility to continue to provide quality services in a
setting that is conclusive to recovery, where clients can feel they have respect, dignity
and value.
In closing, we greatly respect and appreciate the mission and work of Progress Valley.
The renovations and addition will provide needed client rooms, increased group
meeting space, increased individual therapy/meeting rooms and staff offices.
Additionally the renovations will fully meet ADA requirements, ensuring accessibility
for all.
f respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
Request AND the Variance Request,
Sincerely,
,--� AvA�
Tom Turner
9/17/14
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
subject: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request- 308 F. 78''' St., Richfield, MN
Dear Richfield City Councilmembers;
Please accept this letter as evidence of my support for Progress Valley, Inc: s request for an amendment
to their existing C❑nciltionaI Use Permit and a variance for renovations and an addition to their women's
program/facility at 308 East 78'h Street, Richfield, MN.
1 have been a neighbor of Progress Valley's for over 15 years. They are great neighbors and we have had
no problems or issues. 1 respect and appreciate the mission and work of Progress Valley. The
renovations and addition will provide needed client rooms, increased group meeting space, increased
individual therapy/meeting rooms and Staff offices. Additionally the renovations will fully meet ADA
requirements, ensuring accessibility for all,
I respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Request AND the
Variance Request.
Sincerely,
John Nordin
612-250-4800
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
12 September 2014
Richfield City Council
.. . i.... V•': F. E
M Tim Burkett, Ph D., LP
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
h hnOsborn,Pres+dent
Alden Drew.Vice President
James Peter, Treasurer
Subject: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request- 308 E. 78th St.,
Elizabeth Wehster.Secret ary
Richfield, MN
Julia Adams
Janice Anderson
Marc Hadley
Dear Richfield City Councilmembers:
Keith Miller
Susan Rydell. Ph.D., LP
Patrick Seeb
Please accept this letter as evidence of our support for Progress Valley, Inc.'s request for
Ann Tulloc,h
an amendment to their existing Conditional Use Permit and a variance for renovations
HONOeARY MEMnFoti
and an addition to their women's program/facility at 308 East 781h Street, Richfield, MN.
Or THE BOARD
Corn misslone r Gail Dorfman
People Incorporated has a longstanding relationship with Progress Valley. We provide
John & Ruth Huss
Molly McMillan
mental health services to their clients as well as consultation and training to their staff.
Dick Nicholson
This is a valued relationship, and we are pleased to collaborate with them. They have an
Charles Schulz, M.D.
excellent reputation for providing the highest level of client care based on best practices
Trisha Stark. Ph.D..LP
Paul Ver rel
in the field. The administration and staff are quality, ethical individuals who provide a
tremendous servics to the recovering community. Our intent is to continue this
professional relationship for many years.
Linda Berghn
Andy Bess
Lee Carlson
In closing, we greatly respect and appreciate the mission and work of Progress Valley.
Elizabeth DeBaut
The renovations and addition will provide needed client rooms, increased group
Nancy Dillon, Ph.D.,RN, CNS
Steve Fenlon
meeting space, increased individual therapy/meeting rooms and staff offices.
Diane Follmer
the renovations will fully meet ADA requirements, ensuring accessibility for
Don GAdditionally
all.
Andre Hanson
Andre Hanson
Jan Hogan, Ph.D.
Margee Klas Johnson
respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
John
KluzI
Request AND the Variance Request.
Sue Lite[kyteckyk,M.Q
Steve Marina
Malcolm McDonald
Sincerely,
Nancy McKillips
Kate O' Reilly
Patricia Rorke
Linda Roszak
LLinda
Satorius
r _
John West ram
Mary White
Susan M. Hoisington, Psy.D.
Nancy Wray
Licensed Psychologist
Director of Clinical Services
People Incorporated Mental Health Services
2060 Centre Pointe Boulevard, Suite 3
Saint Paul, MN 55120
2060 Centre Pointe Blvd., Suite 3, 5t. Paul, MN 55120
651.774.0011 651.774.6535 651.774.0606 Peoplelncorporated.org
September 24, 2014
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield MN 55423
Subject: Progress Valley rnc.
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request
308 E.78'" Street Richfield MN
Richfield City Council Members:
Sf.P 2
BY
Progress Valley has made a request for an amendment to their existing Conditional Use
Permit and a variance for renovations and an addition to their women's facility and
associated programs at their Richfield facility. We believe that the proposed additions
for client rooms, group meeting space, and increased individual therapylmeeting rooms will
certainly aid in their success as they reach women in need.
We have had personal experience with Progress Valley and seen their organization in
action. We are a strong supporter of their mission and the services they provide for their
clients, a service that is greatly needed in the Community, When our family member was
attending their in-home treatment program in Richfield, we could see that they provided a
strong environment and were very focused on safety, security, education and support to
clients of all ages who are dealing with addiction, At no time did we feel that their client
did no- come first_ We are continually thankful for the role that they played not only
during the in-home portion of the treatment, but also for the on-going support they
provided (and stilt provide) with sober housing, weekly Counseling sessions and continued
interaction with staff. Their program encompasses a very balanced approach and they are
very community minded. We cannot say enough good things about their organization and
their leadership.
In conclusion, we request that you approval their request.
Sincerely,
Dennis & Karen Martodatn
14125 46"' Place N
Plymouth MN 55446
Date 1 1�
Richfield City Council
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
EIVEi
BY: - -- -
Subject: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit AND Variance Request- 308 E. 78th St., Richfield, MN
Dear Richfield City Councilmembers:
Please accept this letter as evidence of our support for Progress Valley, Inc.'s request for an amendment
to their existing Conditional Use Permit and a variance for renovations and an addition to their women's
program/facility at 308 East 78th Street, Richfield, MN.
F _ �--�'� L. � ��. o � �.� , tip._►.-�� � �_�� ?...
s
2G.-] epi' i -'� i H '�tt
In closing, we greatly respect and appreciate the mission and work of Progress Valley. The renovations
and addition will provide needed client rooms, increased group meeting space, increased individual
therapy/meeting rooms and staff offices. Additionally the renovations will fully meet ADA
requirements, ensuring accessibility for all.
I respectfully request that you approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Request AND the
Variance Request.
Sincerely,
L �
Name
Contact information
--i •. � � '.....,�v ► � � iii �.:, �t �`J� r� 7 -� iZ-�--�
m
m
D
%
�
\
/
$
@
$
�
�
K
|
i
��
�
�
,.
�
,)
��
),
{
,
/
'-�
�§
G
(
�
�
�
/
s`
�1
��
/�
�
�,
�
}{
U
�
!
�
\
�
�
�
`
�.
�
y
�
�
;!
.
�
. j
&�
�
\
/�
�i
�
§
f
�
�
��
�
/
�
-
�
X
�
�
�
�:
�
�
..
�
�
�\
.
.� -
.
�
.
�.
�
�
-- .
\
�
K
L
� .
�
`\
�
�
�
»
-, '_
��
[
— .
�
�
K
|
N
a
x
a
Z �
U
�
�
Q
U
o
WL o
WL o
w
w
�
m
N
U
o
`D
m
N
U
o a
W
J,r
U
V>
'c
ose
~
�
�
a
aC:o
jV
w
w
c-
c-
O
4J
u) to
Z
o
o
Q
ti
a
N
o
r
' i
1
w
w
a
m
c
'
�
a
m
N
WO
L
LO
U
s
o n
o 0
�
WLu
O
E
' ^
lJ J
ti
a
~
r
O
' ■
-
.
x
H
�
E
a
U
a
Q
amid
m
E
LV
/��
W
i F
a
�
O
WLU
y CJ
M
aNz
cn
C:3nv
LO
o L
a
2
O
f�
E y
N
L
a
a a
Umid
W
g m
O U
Q
w
aax
O m 0
O
U 0_
Of a
M
N
Z �a
N
�
u�
Q
U
WL o
w
w
�
m
N
U
o
`D
a
a
U
a�o
�
�
a
r
jV
w
w
c-
c-
O
u) to
U
o
o
Q
ti
a
N
o
r
' i
1
a
3
'
U
E
WO
L
■ i In
s
O
U
LO
WLu
C7
cn
' ^
lJ J
3nH aNz
~
L
-
.
x
H
�
E
a
i
a
Q
amid
gW
Z m
m
x
/��
W
W
�
O
M
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCES
AGENDA ITEM # 9.
STAFF REPORT NO. 208
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Betsy Osborn, Support Services Manager
Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director
None
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of the second reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 -month moratorium on new
establishments allowing indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products and a resolution
authorizing summary publication of the ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Minnesota Clean Indoor Act was enacted to protect employees and the general public from the hazards of
secondhand smoke by eliminating smoking in public places, places of employment, public transportation, and
at public meetings. "Public place" means "any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public" and includes
retail and commercial establishments.
The Clean Indoor Air Act, however, allows customers to "sample" tobacco products in certain tobacco retail
establishments as defined by statute. The Act allows cities and counties to enact and enforce more stringent
measures to protect individuals from secondhand smoke. In other words, cities can prohibit the sampling of
tobacco if they wish to do so.
The City currently has three establishments that offer sampling of tobacco or e -cigarettes. The City has also
received an inquiry regarding an establishment wishing to offer indoor smoking or sampling. Richfield City
Code does not prohibit sampling of tobacco and, thus, it is allowed under state law.
City staff is recommending adoption of a 12 -month moratorium on consideration of any additional smoking or
sampling establishments so this issue can be properly studied and, if determined necessary, City ordinances
can be amended. During the moratorium period, no new establishments may allow indoor smoking or
sampling. Although the City could legally apply this to existing establishments that offer sampling, staff is
recommending that existing businesses be exempt from the moratorium and future ordinance amendments, if
any.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion:
1. Approve the second reading of an ordinance establishing a 12 -month moratorium on the
consideration of any new establishments requesting to allow indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco
or similar products.
2. Approve the resolution authorizing summary publication of an ordinance establishing a 12 -month
moratorium on new establishments requesting to allow indoor smoking or sampling of tobacco or
similar products.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
First reading of the ordinance was approved by the City Council at their October 28, 2014, Council Meeting.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
• State Law allows cities to adopt interim ordinances for the purposes of protecting the planning process and the
health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
• The Clean Indoor Air Act allows cities to enact more stringent measures than state law to protect individuals from
secondhand smoke.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• The City received an inquiry about a business wishing to allow indoor smoking or sampling. A moratorium would
allow the City to determine whether, as a policy matter, it wishes to further restrict indoor smoking or sampling.
• The term of the proposed moratorium is for 12 months; however, the City can repeal the moratorium at an earlier
time if studies have been completed and necessary ordinance changes, if any are adopted.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the attached ordinance and drafted the summary publication resolution.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
• Do not approve or approve with modifications, the attached ordinance and resolution.
• Approve a moratorium for a different length of time (cannot exceed one year).
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
D Ordinance Regarding Moratorium Ordinance
I-) Resolution Approving Summary Publication Resolution Letter
CITY OF RICHFIELD
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
A ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING
INDOOR SMOKING OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS AND
DIRECTING THAT A STUDY BE CONDUCTED
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Background.
1.01. The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act ("Act") was enacted to protect
employees and the general public from the hazards of secondhand smoke by
eliminating smoking in public places.
1.02. The Act allows customers to sample tobacco products in certain retail
establishments as defined by state statute.
1.03. The Act allows cities to enact and enforce more stringent measures to
protect individuals from secondhand smoke.
1.04. The City has at least three existing establishments offering sampling of
tobacco or related products and has received at least one inquiry about a
potential establishment that would allow indoor smoking or sampling.
1.05, The City's ordinances currently do not address or restrict sampling in retail
establishments.
1.06. Pursuant to its police power, the City has authority to undertake a study to
determine whether or not to adopt any restrictions on indoor smoking or
sampling.
1.07. The City may also, pursuant to its general police power and authority under
the Act, enact and enforce restrictions on smoking, including sampling, within
the City to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents_
1.08. The City Council has determined a need to undertake a study to determine
whether it should adopt such restrictions on smoking or sampling.
1.09. Upon completion of the study, the City Council, together with such city
commissions as the City Council deems appropriate or as may be required
by law, will consider the advisability of amending its ordinances.
Sec. 2. Findings.
2.01, The City Council finds that it is necessary to conduct a study to determine
whether the City should prohibit or restrict smoking or sampling of tobacco or
similar products in order to protect the health and welfare of the residents.
2.02. The study will allow the City to determine the appropriate changes, if any,
that should be made to City Ordinances.
1
2.03. The City Council finds that there is a need to adopt a City-wide moratorium,
while the study referenced in paragraph 2.01 is being conducted.
Sec. 3. Authorized Studv: Moratorium.
3.01. A study is authorized to be conducted by City staff, to be followed by
consideration of potential changes to the City's Ordinances by the City
Council and such other commissions of the City as required by law or as
directed by the City Council.
3.02. Pending completion of the study and adoption of any amendments to the
City's ordinances, the City Council finds that this moratorium should apply to
any new retail establishments requesting to allow smoking or sampling of
tobacco or similar products.
3.03. During the period of the moratorium, no approvals, applications, or requests
related to new smoking or sampling establishments shall be accepted by the
City, nor shall the Planning Commission or City Council consider or grant any
such approvals, applications or requests.
3.04. The moratorium established by this Ordinance shall apply to any approval,
application, or request pending as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
3.05_ The City Council may approve exceptions to this moratorium for an
application if the City Council, in its sole discretion, determines that the
approval being sought will not interfere with the purposes for which this
moratorium was adopted.
Sec. 4. Enforcement. The City may enforce this Ordinance by mandamus,
injunction or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Sec. 5. Term. Unless earlier rescinded by the City Council, the moratorium
established under this Ordinance shall remain in effect until October 28, 2015.
Sec. 0. Effective Date_ This Ordinance is effective as provided by Section
3.09 of the Richfield City Charter.
ATTEST:,
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 12 -MONTH MORATORIUM
RELATED TO ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING INDOOR SMOKING
OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS
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. 2014 -
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 12 -MONTH MORATORIUM ON
NEW ESTABLISHMENTS ALLOWING INDOOR SMOKING
OR SAMPLING OF TOBACCO OR SIMILAR PRODUCTS
On November 10, 2014, 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 purpose of the Ordinance is to establish a 12 -month moratorium
on the consideration of any new establishments in the City wishing to offer indoor
smoking or sampling of tobacco or similar products. The Ordinance also directs
that a study be conducted by City staff to determine whether or not the City
should adopt restrictions on smoking or sampling pursuant to its authority under
state law in order to protect its residents from the effects of secondhand smoke.
Upon the completion of the study, the City will consider whether it is necessary to
amend its ordinances. During the moratorium, no approvals, applications, or
requests related to new smoking or sampling establishments shall be accepted by
the City, nor shall the Planning Commission or City Council consider any such
approvals, applications or requests. Existing establishments that offer sampling
are exempt from the moratorium.
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 612-861-9881
of the Support Services Division.
431858v1 MDT RC1 60-3
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 10th day of
November, 2014.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
431858v1 MDT RC1 60-3
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTIONS
AGENDA ITEM # 10.
STAFF REPORT NO. 209
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
Jeff Pearson, Transportation Engineer
Mike Eastling
Mary Tietjen, City Attorney
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of a resolution authorizing condemnation of property for the reconstruction of Portland
Avenue.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Portland Avenue reconstruction project requires the purchase of permanent and temporary easements on
85 parcels. Offers were presented to all identified parcel owners either in person or by mail by October 24,
2014. As of Monday, November 10, easements are expected to have been secured voluntarily on 43 of those
parcels. In order for the project to stay on schedule and secure federal funds, all right-of-way acquisition
needs to be completed by March 1, 2015. This timeline requires that the condemnation process begin by
November 15, 2014.
As advised by legal counsel, the list of properties in the resolution includes all those parcels for which an
easement has not yet been recorded. This means that the list currently includes some properties that have
agreed to the easement purchase but for which that easement has yet to be recorded. The voluntary
acquisition process will continue concurrently with the condemnation process in the hope that condemnation
can be avoided in most cases. For all cases, parcels listed will be removed from the condemnation
proceedings as offers are accepted and easements are recorded.
It is expected that due to issues such as foreclosure, probate or title concerns, or general disagreement with
the project, some parcels will continue to go through the entire condemnation process.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing condemnation of properties as listed for the Portland
Avenue Reconstruction Project.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The City Council approved the preliminary layout concept for the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project on
April 22, 2014.
The design introduces boulevards between the roadway curb and sidewalk. This results in the need for 4 -foot
permanent easements along properties at which adequate right-of-way does not exist.
There are additional temporary easements where needed in order to complete construction. Property owners
receive compensation for this temporary easement but the area remains under their ownership after construction
is complete.
Project Timeline/Condemnation Process
• April 22, 2014 - Preliminary Design approved.
• May - August, 2014 - Complete title work, legal descriptions, and easement valuations.
• September - October, 2014 - Present offers to parcel owners.
• November 15, 2014 - File Condemnation Petition on outstanding parcels.
• March 1, 2015 - All necessary right-of-way acquired (voluntary and condemnation).
• March 2015 - All required project documents due to MnDOT for Federal Aid Review (funding).
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
. The City has the legal authority to acquire private property by eminent domain for a public purpose.
. The subject properties have been identified as requiring easement purchase for the Portland
Avenue Reconstruction Project.
Right-of-way acquisition procedures set forth by Minnesota Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration are being followed.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• Condemnation proceedings must begin soon to maintain the right-of-way acquisition deadline established for
2015 federally funded projects.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• Funding for the purchase of easements required for the Portland Avenue Reconstruction Project will be provided
by both City and County funds as part of the project costs.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution and will be present at the meeting to answer questions.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
• Council may choose to delay approval of the condemnation resolution. However, this may jeopardize
the ability of the project to meet federal deadlines for right-of-way acquisition and subsequently the use
of federal funds.
• Council may choose to not approve the condemnation resolution and direct staff on how to proceed.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
❑ Condemnation Resolution Resolution Letter
CITY OF RICHFIELD
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CONDEMNATION OF EASEMENTS ENCUMBERING
CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield ("City Council") is the official
governing body of the City of Richfield ("City"); and
WHEREAS, the City, a Minnesota municipal corporation acting by and through its City
Council, is authorized by law to acquire land and other interests in real estate which are needed for
public use or purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that public safety and convenience require that the City
undertake and complete improvements to Portland Avenue between 67`]' Street and 78'1' Street in the
City, including construction of trail, sidewalk, curb and gutter, utility and roadway improvements
("Project");
WHEREAS, it is necessary to acquire easements encumbering each of the properties
described in Exhibit A in order to construct the Project; and
WHEREAS, despite the good faith efforts of employees and agents of the City, it has not
been reasonably possible to voluntarily obtain these easements.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is reasonably necessary, proper, and convenient,
and in the interest of the public safety, public health, and general welfare of the citizens of the City
that title to and possession of easements encumbering the properties hereinafter described be
acquired through use of the power of eminent domain in furtherance of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the funding and construction schedule for the
Project make it necessary to acquire title to and possession of easements encumbering properties
1
451529v1 RC145-679
hereinafter described prior to the filing of the final report of the condemnation commissioners to be
appointed by the district court; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RICHFIELD IN REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that it is the considered judgment of the
City Council that it is necessary to obtain easements encumbering the properties described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof as though fully set forth at this point, for the stated
public purposes, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Attorney is authorized and directed to take all
steps necessary to acquire the easements described herein through use of eminent domain
proceedings, including use of the quick -take procedure.
Adopted this day of November, 2014 by the Richfield City Council.
Debbie Goettel, Mayor Edwina Garcia
Pat Elliott
Tom Fitzhenry
0 TTR CT
Sue Sandahl
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Suzanne M. Sandahl, Mayor Pro Tempore
451529v1 RC145-679 2
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield at a duly authorized meeting thereof held
on the day of November, 2014, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession.
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
451529v1 RC145-679
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPERTIES TO BE ENCUMBERED BY EASEMENTS
Parcel 1
6820 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440006
Legal Description:
The East '/2 of the following described tract: That part of the Northeast '/4 of the
Southeast '/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of
the 4th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of
said tract 278.15 feet South of the Northeast corner thereof, thence West parallel to the
North line of said Northeast 1/4 a distance of 330.92 feet; thence South parallel to the
East line of said Northeast 1/4a distance of 49.58 feet; thence East to a point in said East
line a distance of 49.63 feet South of the point of beginning; thence North along said
East line a distance of 49.63 feet to the point of beginning except the Easterly 33 feet
thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2
600 68th Street East, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824320132
Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 2, Smieja's 3rd Addition.
Parcel 3
6812 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No. 2702824440004
Legal Description:
The South Half of the part of the South Half of the South Half of Section Twenty-seven
(27), Township Twenty-eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24), described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the East line of said Section 27, a distance of 129.28 feet
South of the Northeast corner of the South Half of the South Half of said Section 27;
thence West a distance of 300.98 feet to a point 129.16 feet South of the North Line of
the South Half of the South Half of said Section 27; thence South 99.16 feet; thence East
300.92 feet to a point in the East line of said Section 27; which point is 228.52 feet
South of the Northeast corner of the South Half of the South Half of said Section 27;
thence North 99.24 feet to the point of commencement, except the West 128 feet
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
A-1
451529v1 RC145-679
Parcel 4
601 68th Street East, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330131
Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 3, Smieja's 3rd Addition.
Parcel 5
6721Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824320137
Legal Description: Lot 12, Block 2, Smieja's 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PnrrPl h
6725 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824320136
Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 2, Smieja's 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 7
6729 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824320135
Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 2, Smieja's 3rd Addition.
Parcel 8
6735 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824320134
Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 2, Smieja's 3r1 Addition.
Parcel 9
6739 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824320133
Legal Description: Lot 8, Block 2, Smieja's 3rd Addition.
Parcel 10
6800 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440001
Legal Description:
The North 80 feet of that part of the South 1/2 of the South 1/2 of Section 27, Township
28, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South
1/2 of the South 1/2of said Section 27; thence West along the North line of said South 1/2
of South'/2 a distance of 301.09 feet; thence South a distance of 129.16 feet; thence East
a distance of 300.98 feet to the East line of said South'/2 of South 1/2 of said Section 27;
451529v1 RC145-679 A-2
thence North 129.28 feet to point of commencement, except West 116.3 feet of said tract
and except that part reserved for roadway on Portland Avenue and 68t" St., according to
the United States Government Survey thereof.
Parcel 11
6804 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440002
Legal Description:
That part of the South '/2 of the South 1/2 of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 24
West of the 4`h Principal Meridian described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of the South '/2 of the South '/2 of said Section 27,
Township 28, Range 24; thence West along the North line of said South '/2 of the South
%2 a distance of 301.09 feet; thence South a distance of 129.16 feet; thence East a
distance of 300.98 feet to the East line of said South '/2 of the South '/2 of Section 27;
thence North a distance of 129.28 feet to the point of commencement; EXCEPT the
West 116.3 feet thereof and EXCEPT the North 80 feet thereof, according to the United--
States
nitedStates Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 12
6809 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No. 2602824330130
Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 3, Smieja's 3:d Addition
Parcel 13
6810 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No. 2702824440003
Legal Description:
The North 1/2 of the following described tract: That part of the South 1/2 of the South
1/2 of Section 27, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian
described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the East line of said Section 27 a distance of 129.28 feet
South of the Northeast corner of the South 1/2 of the South 1/2 of Section 27; thence
West a distance of 300.98 feet to a point 129.16 feet South of the North line of the South
1/2 of the South 1/2 of said Section 27; thence South a distance of 99.16 feet; thence
East a distance of 300.92 feet to a point in the East line of said Section 27 which point is
228.52 feet South of the Northeast corner of the South 1/2 of the South 1/2 of said
Section 27; thence North a distance of 99.24 feet to the point of commencement, Except
the West 128 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof
and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
451529v1 RC145-679 A-3
Parcel 14
6816 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440005
Legal Description:
That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, described as follows:
Beginning at a point of the East line of said tract a distance of 228.52 feet South of the
Northeast corner of said tract; thence Westerly and parallel with the Northerly line of
said tract a distance of 330.92 feet; thence Southerly and parallel to Easterly line of said
tract a distance of 49.58 feet; thence Easterly to a point in the East line of said tract
which is 49.63 feet South of the point of beginning; thence North along the East line of
said tract to the point of beginning, except the West 158 feet thereof, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 15
6817 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330107
Legal Description:
Lot 2, except the South 135 feet thereof, Block 4, "Portland Avenue Acres", according
to the recorded plat thereof.
Parcel 16
6821 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330108
Legal Description:
The North 75 feet of the South 135 feet of Lot 2, Block 4, "Portland Avenue Acres",
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 17
6826 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440007
Legal Description:
The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, except the
South 255 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and
situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
451529v1 RC145-679 A-4
Parcel 18
6832 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440008
Legal Description:
The North 75 feet of the South 255 of the East 1/2 of the East '/2 of the South 1/ of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, Section 27,
Township 28, North Range 24, West of the 4t' Principal Meridian, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Parcel 19
6838 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No. 2702824440009
Legal Description:
Parcel 1: The South 1/2 of the North 150 feet of the South 255 feet of the East 1/2 of the
East 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter, Section 27, Township 28, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal
Mendan, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2: The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter except the South 105 feet thereof and except
the North 150 feet thereof and except the West 130 feet thereof, Section 27, Township
28, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 20
6850 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440010
Legal Description:
That part of the South 105 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying East of the West 130 feet thereof of
Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, except the Easterly 33 feet of said premises.
Parcel 21
6825 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330109
Legal Description:
The North 50 feet of the South 60 feet of Lot 2, Block 4, "Portland Avenue Acres",
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
451529v1 RC145-679 A-5
Parcel 22
6829 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330110
Legal Description:
The South 10 feet of Lot 2; The North 51 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, 'Portland Avenue
Acres", Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PnrrPl 71
6833 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330111
Legal Description:
The South 51 feet of the North 102 feet of Lot 3 in Block 4 in Portland Avenue Acres,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 24
6837 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330112
Legal Description:
The South 51 feet of the North 153 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, "Portland Avenue Acres",
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 25
6859 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330113
Legal Description:
All of Lot 3 except the North 153 feet thereof, Block 4, "Portland Avenue Acres."
Parcel 26
6933 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330008
Legal Description:
The North 77.00 feet of the South 253.00 feet of the West 162.57 feet of the West 1/2 of
the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, Township 28,
Range 24, except the West 33 feet thereof, according to the United States Government
Survey thereof.
451529v1 RC145-679 A-6
Parcel 27
6914 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440036
Legal Description:
The North 74.48 feet of the South 148.95 feet of the East 1/8 of North '/2 of South '/2 of
Southeast '/4 of Southeast '/4 of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof.
Parcel 28
6917 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330009
Legal Description:
The West Half of the North 75.58 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 28,
Range 24 West of the 4`h Principal Meridian.
ParrPl '79
6920 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2702824440037
Legal Description:
The South Half of the South 148.95 feet of the East Quarter of the East Half of the North
Half of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27,
Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and
situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 30
6939 and 6999 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330006
2602824330007
Legal Description:
The North 77.33 feet of the South 173 feet of the East 129.57 feet of West 162.57 feet of
Southwest 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, Township 28, Range
24,
And
The North 3 feet of the South 176 feet of the West 162.57 feet of Southwest 1/4, except
road, Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
451529v1 RC145-679 A-7
Parcel 31
6945 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 2602824330005
Legal Description:
The North 62.67 feet of the South 95.67 feet of East 129.57 feet of West 162.57 feet of
Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 26, Township 28, North
Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian.
Parcel 32
601 70th Street East South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824220124
Legal Description:
That part of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, described as commencing at the Northwest corner
of said Section 35; thence East along the North line thereof a distance of 180.00 feet
thence South parallel with the West line of said Section a distance of 109.60 feet; thence
West parallel with said North line a distance of 180.00 feet to the West line of said
Section; thence North along said West line a distance of 109.60 feet to the point of
beginning, except the East 56.00 feet thereof, according to the United States
Government Survey thereof.
Parcel 33
7007 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824220066
Legal Description:
That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter lying between the North line of the South 130 feet thereof and the
South line of the North 109.6 feet thereof and West of the East 120 feet thereof, except
street, all in Section 35, Township 28, Range 24.
Parcel 34
7000 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824110071
Legal Description:
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and all of Lot 5, except the South 10 feet thereof, all in Block 1, Savage's
1 st Addition.
451529v1 RC145-679 A_8
Parcel 35
7012 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824110072
Legal Description:
Lots 6, 7, 8 and the South 10 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, "Savage's 1st Addition."
Parcel 36
7015 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No.3502824220122
Legal Description:
The North 65 feet of the South 130 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the West 5 feet of the
North 65 feet of the South 130 feet of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest
1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24,
according to the United States Government Survey thereof.
Parcel 37
7016 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824110073
Legal Description:
Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 1, "Savage's 1st Addition", Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 38
7020 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824110074
Legal Description:
Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 1, Savage's 1't Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 39
7021 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824220064
Legal Description:
The South 65 feet of the West 1/2 of the South 130 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28,
Range 24, Except the West 33 feet thereof, according to the United States Government
Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
451529v1 RC145-679 A_9
Parcel 40
7028 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824110075
Legal Description:
Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, "Savage's 1st Addition", Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 41
7036 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No.3402824110076
Legal Description:
Lots 18, 19 and 20, Block 1, Savage's I" Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 42
7044 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824110077
Legal Description:
Lots 21, 22, 23 and the North 20 feet of Lot 24, Block 1, Savage's lst Addition,
according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 43
7132 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824110005
Legal Description:
That part of the East'/4 of the South '/4 of the Southeast %4 of the Northeast %4 of the
Northeast 1/4 lying South of the North 90 feet thereof, except the East 50 feet thereof, Section
34, Township 28, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, according to the United
States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 44
7105 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824220082
Legal Description:
Starting at a point 33 feet East and 30 feet South of the Northwest corner of the South
1/2 of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence East a distance of 129.8 feet along a
line parallel with and 30 feet South of the North line of the South 1/2 of the Northwest
451529v] RC 145-679 A-10
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24; thence South
a distance of 105 feet along a line parallel with and 162.85 feet East of the West line of
Section 35, Township 28, Range 24; thence West a distance of 129.85 feet along a line
parallel with and 135 feet South of the North line of the South 1/2 of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24; thence North
a distance of 105 feet along a line parallel with and 33 feet East of the West line of
Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, excepting the East 7 feet thereof for the purposes
of an alley, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 45
7108 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824110001
Legal Description:
The East 1/3 of the East 3/4 of the North 1 acre of the South 3 acres of the North 1/2 of
the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28,
Range 24. Also the East 10 feet of the West 1/2 of the East 2/3 of the East 3/4 of said
North 1 acre, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 46
7111 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824220081
Legal Description:
The South 95 feet of the North 230 feet of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2
of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, Section 35, Township 28,
Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 47
7114 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824110002
Legal Description:
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28 North,
Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows:
The North 1/2 of that part of the South 2/5ths of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4
of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 lying East of the line running from a point in
the North line thereof distant 174.52 feet west from the Northeast corner thereof to a
point in the South line thereof distant 174.49 feet West from the Southeast corner
451529v] RC 145-679 A-1 1
thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 48
7117 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824220080
Legal Description:
South 95 feet of North 325 feet of West 1/2 of West 1/2 of West 1/2 of South 1/2 of
Northwest 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Parcel 49
7120 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824110003
Legal Description:
The South 1/2 of that part of the South 2/5 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 lying East of a line running from a point in the
North line thereof a distance of 174.52 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof to a
point in the South line thereof a distance of 174.49 feet West of the Southeast corner
thereof, Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian,
according to the United States Government Survey thereof.
Parcel 50
7127 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824220079
Legal Description:
The South 80 feet of the North 405 feet of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2
of the South 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24.
Parcel 51
7133 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824220078
Legal Description:
That part of the South one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 35, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian described
as follows:
Commencing at a point 33 feet East and 405 feet South of the Northwest corner of the
South one-half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35,
451529v] RC 145-679 A-12
Township 28, Range 24; thence East a distance of 130 feet along a line parallel with and
405 feet South from the North line of the South one half of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24; thence South a distance of
77.2 feet along a line parallel with and 163 feet East of the West line of Section 35,
Township 28, Range 24; thence West a distance of 130 feet on a line parallel with and
482.2 feet South from the North line of the South one-half of the Northwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24; thence North a distance
of 77.2 feet on a line parallel with and 33 feet East of the West line of Section 35,
Township 28, Range 24, to the point of beginning.
Parcel 52
7141 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824220077
Legal Description:
The North 87 1/2 feet of the South 175 feet of the West 1/8 of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, Except the West 33 feet thereof,
according to the United States Government Survey thereof.
Parcel 53
7232 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824140006
Legal Description:
The South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter (S1/2 of NEI/4 of SEI/4 of NEI/4), Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24
West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the Westerly 274.83 feet thereof, and except
the South 27 feet thereof deeded for East 73rd Street, said tract being a rectangular
parcel of land extending Northerly 328.30 feet more or less from the center line of East
73rd Street and extending 332.87 feet more or less Westerly from the center line of
Portland Avenue South; and together with an easement for ingress and egress over the
Easterly 12 feet of the Westerly 274.83 feet of the Southerly 281.22 feet of said (S 1/2 of
NE1/4 of SE1/4 of NE1/4) lying Northerly of East 73rd Street.
Parcel 54
7407 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824320010
Legal Description:
That part of the South 59.45 feet of the North 148.9 feet of the West Half of the
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter lying West of the
East 153 feet thereof except street, Section 35, Township 28, Range 24.
Parcel 55
451529v] RC 145-679 A-13
7357 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824230007
Legal Description:
That part of the following described tract of land which lies West of the extension South
of the center line of Block 2, "Blair's Wooddale Portland Fifth Addition", to wit:
That part of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 28,
Range 24 described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the West line of said Section 16.5 feet North of the Southwest
corner of said Northwest Quarter, thence East parallel to the South line of said
Northwest Quarter 642 feet; thence North parallel with the said West line of said Section
132 feet; thence West 642 feet, more or less, to a point in the West line of said Section
distant 132 feet North of the point of beginning; thence South along said West line 132
feet to the point of beginning, except the North 60 feet thereof.
Parcel 56
7421 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824320007
Legal Description:
The North 59.45 feet of the South 386.75 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 24
West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, lying West of the East 153 feet thereof and
except the West 33 feet thereof.
Parcel 57
7339 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3502824230008
Legal Description:
The North 60 feet of that part of the following described tract of land which lies West of
the extension South of the center line of Block 2, "Blair's Wooddale Portland Fifth
Addition", to wit:
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35, Township
28, Range 24 described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the West line of said Section 16.5 feet North of the
Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter, thence East parallel to the South
line of the said Northwest Quarter 642 feet; thence North parallel with the said
West line of said Section 132 feet; thence West 642 feet, more or less, to a point
451529v] RC 145-679 A-14
in the West line of said Section distant 132 feet North of the point of beginning;
thence South along said West line 132 feet to the point of beginning.
Parcel 58
7400 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No.3402824410001
Legal Description:
The North 148.9 feet of the East 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, except the West 154.4 feet
thereof.
Parcel 59
7401 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824320011
Legal Description:
The North 89.45 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, North Range 24 West of the West line of
Wallace's Sunnyside Acres 9th Addition, according to the U.S. Government Survey.
Parcel 60
7412 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410002
Legal Description:
The North 59 feet of the South 118.9 feet of the North 267.8 feet of the East 1/2 of the
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34,
Township 28, Range 24 except the West 162.8 feet thereof.
Parcel 61
7414 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824410003
Legal Description:
The South 59.9 feet of the North 267.8 feet of the East 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24,
except the West 162.8 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 62
7415 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
451529v] RC 145-679 A-15
PID No. 3502824320009
Legal Description:
That part of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4
of Section 35, Township 28, North Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, lying
West of the East 153 feet thereof, South of the North 148.9 feet thereof and North of the
South 441.75 feet thereof.
Parcel 63
7417 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No.3502824320008
Legal Description:
The North 55 feet of the South 441.75 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 24 West
of the 4th Principal Meridian lying West of the East 153 feet thereof, except the West 33
feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 64
7418 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410005
Legal Description:
East 1/2 of the South 63.9 feet of North 331.7 feet of the East 1/2 of Northeast Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range
24, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 65
7420 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410004
Legal Description:
East 1/2 of the South 55.0 feet of the North 386.7 feet of the East 1/2 of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 66
7424 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410006
Legal Description:
451529v] RC 145-679 A-16
The East 1/2 of the South 59.45 feet of the North 446.15 feet of the East 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 28,
Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 67
7425 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824320006
Legal Description:
The North 59.5 of the South 327.3 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28, Range 24, lying West
of the East 153 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 68
7427 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824320005
Legal Description:
That part of the North 63.9 feet of the South 267.8 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest
1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 lying West of the East 153 feet thereof, all
in Section 35, Township 28 North, Range 24, West of the 4`h Principal Meridian,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 69
7428 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410007
Legal Description:
The East 1/2 of the South 59.45 feet of the North 505.6 feet of the East 1/2 of the
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34,
Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and
situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 70
7430 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410008
Legal Description:
The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, excepting
herefrom the North 505.6 feet of said tract, and except that part thereof lying South of
the North 573.6 feet, of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of the
451529v] RC 145-679 A-17
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section and East of the West 18 feet
thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 71
7439 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824320003
Legal Description:
That part of the North 50 feet of the South 148.9 feet of the West Half of the Northwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, lying West of the East 153 feet thereof, Section 35,
Township 28 North, Range 24, West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Parcel 72
7444 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410009
Legal Description:
That part of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, lying South of
the North 573.6 feet and East of the West 18 feet, according to the United States
Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 73
7459 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824320002
Legal Description:
West 1/2 of the South 98.9 feet of West 1/2 of Northwest 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of
Southwest 1/4 and the West 10 feet of the East 1/2 of the South 98.9 feet of the West 1/2
of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, all in Section 35,
Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Parcel 74
7431 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824320004
Legal Description:
That part of the North 55 feet of the South 203.9 feet of the West 1/2 of the Northwest
1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 28 North, Range
451529v] RC 145-679 A-18
24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of the
East 153 feet thereof.
Parcel 75
7526 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824410093
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 1, Larson's Portland Avenue Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
PnrrPl 76
7500 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824410017
Legal Description:
The East 165.75 feet of the North 148.9 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter except the Southerly 60 feet, front and
rear thereof, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States
Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 77
7508 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824410018
Legal Description:
The Southerly 60 feet, front and rear, of the East 165.75 feet of the North 148.9 feet of
the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government
Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 78
7514 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824410019
Legal Description:
The South 63.9 feet of the North 212.8 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28 North,
Range 24 West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except
the West 155 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey.
451529v] RC 145-679 A_ 19
Parcel 79
7516 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410020
Legal Description:
That part of the South 55 feet of the North 267 8/10 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28,
Range 24, lying East of the West 155 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 80
7520 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410021
Legal Description:
The East 165.8 feet of the South 75 feet of the North 342.8 feet of the East Half of the
Southeast Quartet- of the Northeast Quartet- of the Southeast Quartet- of Section 34,
Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and
situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 81
7532 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410022
Legal Description:
The South 87.8 feet of the North 505.6 feet of the East 1/4 of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 82
7538 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410023
Legal Description:
The South 60 feet of the North 565.6 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24,
excepting therefrom the West 154.33 feet, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 83
7544 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824410024
Legal Description:
451529v1 RC145-679 A-20
That part of the East 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 34, Township 28, Range 24 lying South of the North 565.6
feet thereof and lying East of the West 154.33 feet thereof, except that part thereof
which lies Southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the east line of said tract distant
75 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof to a point on the South line of said tract
distant 75 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof, according to the United States
Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 84
7220 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PTD No.3402824140005
Legal Description:
The South 75 feet of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of
the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, Section 34, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Parcel 85
7336 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824140024
Legal Description:
Lot 10, Block 1, Blairs Wooddale Third Addition, according to the plat thereof on file in
the office of the County Recorder.
Parcel 86
7340 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824140025
Legal Description:
Lot 11, Block 1, "Blairs Wooddale Third Addition", according to the plat thereof on file
in the office of the County Recorder.
Parcel 87
7600 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3402824440001
Legal Description:
Parcel 88
7621 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824330047
Legal Description:
451529v1 RC145-679 A-21
Parcel 89
7625 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No.3502824330046
Legal Description:
Parcel 96
7144 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423
PID No. 3402824110005
Legal Description:
The East 50 feet of that part of the East 1/4 of the South 1/4 of the Southeast'/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 lying South of the North 90 feet thereof, Section 34,
Township 28, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian.
451529v1 RC145-679 A-22
REPORT PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER REVIEW:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS
AGENDA ITEM # 11.
STAFF REPORT NO. 210
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
11/10/2014
John Stark, Community Development Director
John Stark, Community Development Director
No other department review is needed.
Steven L. Devich
Consideration of authorizing the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and its staff to
negotiate a Preliminary Development Agreement and/or Purchase Agreement with the Donald James
Group for the former City Garage Site pending later City Council ratification.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On October 20, 2014, Donald James presented a concept plan to a concurrent worksession of the City Council
and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). The proposal calls for the redevelopment of the 7600
block of Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues with approximately 44 for -sale townhomes. The portion of this site
that previously contained the old City Garage building is owned by the City while the HRA owns the remainder
of the site.
At the worksession, Council Members and HRA Commissioners expressed support for the concept of medium
density for -sale townhomes on the site. There were, however, concerns about the site layout and building
materials and architecture. The prospective developer has since engaged a different architect to devise a plan
that better addresses those concerns.
With policy -level support of the proposal, the next step would be to draft a preliminary agreement that would
grant the developer exclusive rights to make a proposal and would have provisions that require the developer
to compensate the City/HRA for staff and consultant expenses. In an effort to eliminate redundant activities,
staff has recommended that the City and HRA enter into joint agreements with Mr. James rather than each
drafting and approving separate agreements. Both the City Council and the HRA expressed agreement with
this recommendation at the Work Session.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Authorize the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and its staff to negotiate a
Preliminary Development Agreement and/or Purchase Agreement with the Donald James Group for the
former City Garage Site pending later City Council ratification.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
A. HISTORICAL CONTEXT:
The City Garage was vacated and demolished with the anticipation that the site would be redeveloped.
The HRA has also acquired and/or demolished multiple properties on the site for future redevelopment.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for Medium Density Housing (i.e. townhomes) on the site.
A previous proposal was rejected because its density exceeded the Comprehensive Plan designation and
because it was 100% affordable rental housing.
B. POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc):
• This action would not bind the City in any way, it merely allows the process for drafting the Preliminary
Agreement and/or Purchase Agreement to begin.
C. CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES:
• It is anticipated that the HRA would consider approval of an Agreement at their November 17 meeting.
• If the HRA does approve an Agreement in November, that Agreement would be brought to the City Council for
ratification at the November 25 or December 9 City Council meeting.
D. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
• It is anticipated that the Agreement would include payment of Earnest Money by the prospective developer as
well as provisions for their reimbursement of staff and consulting costs incurred by the City and HRA.
E. LEGAL CONSIDERATION:
• HRA Attorney Julie Eddington would draft the Agreement to be considered by the HRA and City.
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S):
• Direct staff to draft a separate and individual Agreement for the City Council to consider as it pertains
only to the City -owned land (thus having a separate process and agreement from the HRA).
• Continue consideration of this item to a later date in order to gather more information.
• Do not approve the recommended motion and instruct staff to seek out different development
proposals.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING:
None.