The URL can be used to link to this page

02-12-08 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2008 _ SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY HALL EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 1. Interview of persons interested in serving on City's advisory commissions (Council Memo No. 28) Adjournment SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:00 P.M. AGENDA Call to order Roll call 6:00 - 6:10 p.m. 1. Discussion regarding facility and amenity dedication policy (Council Memo No. 30) Notes: 6:10 - 6:30 p.m. 2. Review of storm water projects (Council Memo No. 31) Notes: 6:30 - 6:50 p. m. 3. Discussion regarding 75th/76th streetscape design (Council Memo No. 32) Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of January 5, 2008; (2) Special City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Meeting of January 14, 2008; (3) Special City Council Meeting of January 22, 2008; (4) Special City Council Worksession of January 22, 2008; (5) Regular City Council Meeting of January 22, 2008; (6) Reconvened Regular City Council Meeting of January 23, 2008; and (7) Special City Council Worksession of January 23, 2008 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of proclamation designating February 28, 2008 as "Red-and-White" Day in Richfield 2. Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to David C. Delzer for serving three consecutive terms on Friendship City Commission COUNCIL DISCUSSION 3. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain improvements from Special Revenue Fund and scheduling public hearing and second reading for March 11, 2008 S.R. No. 29 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Subsections 1125.03, 1188.19 and 1195:09 of City Code related to parking and zoning regulations for car wash, therapeutic massage and auto detailing establishments and scheduling second reading for February 26, 200.8 S.R. No. 30 C. Consideration of approval of first reading of new Section 550 of City Code related to floodplain management regulations and scheduling second reading for February 26, 2008 S.R. No. 31 D. Consideration of approval of resolution supporting legislation revising Minnesota _ Statutes relating to Local Government Aid S.R. No. 32 ~ ' E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing acceptance of $18,019 grant for Centennial Celebration from Richfield Tourism Promotion Board and $22,293 federal grant for Free Lunch Program from U.S. Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Education S.R. No. 33 F. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing application to Minnesota Department of Finance for special funding of Honoring All Veterans Memorial S.R. No. 34 G. Consideration of approval of renewal of lawful gambling license for Minneapolis- Richfield American Legion Post #435, 6501 Portland Avenue, and resolution approving gambling activity requested by applicant in accordance with Richfield City Code 1100.13, subd. 6. S.R. No. 35 H. Consideration of approval of purchase of new reactor mixer for Water Treatment Plant in amount of $36,125 S.R. No. 36 I. Consideration of approval of on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and public dance license for Sweetheart Dance at Church of the Assumption on February 17, 2008 S.R. No. 37 J. Consideration of approval of temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and itinerant food license for Edina Morningside Rotary Winter Social on February 23, 2008 at Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 38 K. Consideration of approval of the following 2008 renewal of business licenses for 3.2 percent liquor sales and 2008 license renewals to operate businesses in Richfield: S.R. No. 39 License to Sell 3.2 Percent Malt License to Operate in Richfield `Li uor A New Star Limousine & Taxi Service - 10 Airport Bowl - On-Sale vehicles Aldi Foods -Off-Sale Airport Taxi - 11 vehicles Davanni's Pizza - On-Sale Black & White Taxi - 5 vehicles EI Jalapeno -Off-Sale Ecuadorian Express - 5 vehicles Kwik Way Foods -Off-Sale Gold Star Taxi - 27 vehicles Lariat Lanes - On-Sale Latino Express - 10 vehicles RBF Corporation of Wisconsin Suburban Taxi Corporation - 5 vehicles (Rainbow Foods) -Off-Sale Twin Cities Airport Taxi - 3 vehicles Richfield U.S. (Mobil Mart) - Off- Sale Paul's Rentals & Sales -Trailers and Trucks Sandy's Tavern - On-Sale Rental SuperAmerica #4186 -Off-Sale SuperAmerica #4188 -Off-Sale .SuperAmerica #4191 -Off-Sale SuperAmerica #4615 -Off-Sale Vina Restaurant - On-Sale Worldwide Supermarket -Off-Sale Target T-2300 -Off-Sale Notes: 6. Consideration. of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 7. Public hearing regarding consideration of resolution authorizing use of funds for 2008 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Staff Report No. 40 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 8. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amending Section 210.01 of Richfield City Code related to City Council salaries Staff Report No. 41 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 9. Consideration of resolution regarding imposing civil enforcement on establishments in Richfield that underwent alcohol compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth Staff Report No. 42 Notes: 10. Consideration of resolution regarding imposing civil enforcement on establishment in Richfield that underwent tobacco check conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling tobacco to underage youth Staff Report No. 43 Notes: 11. Consideration of resolution approving Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 92182-R between Mn/DOT and City of Richfield for replacement of 76th Street bridge over I-35W Staff Report No. 44 Notes: 12. Consideration of resolution approving provisions of 2008-2009 labor agreement with Police Supervisors Law Enforcement Labor Services Local 162 Staff Report No. 45 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 13. Consideration of appointment(s) to City advisory commissions Staff Report No. 46 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 14. City Manager's report Notes: 15. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 16. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least'96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9738. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5A REPORT # 29 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of transitory ordinance providing funding for certain capital im rovements from the S ecial Revenue Fund. ~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~ By Motion: Approve first reading of the transitory ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements and schedule public hearing and second reading for March 11, 2008. II. BACKGROUND • At the December 11, 2007 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized $500,000 of Special Revenue Funds for improvements to several City capital improvements in 2008. • Included in the $500,000 are: • $198,000 Outdoor Pool renovation loan repayment • $100,000 for Major Park maintenance projects • $102,000 for Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction • $50,000 Lincoln-.Field and other ballfield improvements • $50,000 for Liquor Operation Capital Improvements In addition, the 2008 Capital Improvement Budget also provides for expenditures for all types of funds contained in the budget including municipal state aid, user fees, federal grants and state grants. Authorization by ordinance is not required for expenditures other than Special Revenues. 02122008 Transitory Ord III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • .City Charter Section 7.12, Subd. 2 requires that Special Revenue Funds used for capital improvements must be authorized by ordinance. • This process provides for public input through a public hearing. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • .Under Section 3.09 of the City Charter, a transitory ordinance becomes effective 30 days after publication of the .second hearing notice. • The. ordinance requirements must be completed early enough in 2008 so that the capital projects can be initiated on a timely basis, completed and the funds expended. • In order for the timely start of the projects under consideration in the Capital Improvement Budget, it is suggested that the first reading of the transitory ordinance take place on February 12 and a public hearing and second reading be completed at the March 11, 2008 City Council meeting. C: FINANCIAL • While the total 2008 Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) includes total budgeted expenditures of $37,666,440 the portion of CIB concerning proposed funding from the Special Revenue fund is $ 500,000. Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment 198,000 Park Maintenance 100,000 Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction 102,000 Lincoln Field and other. ballfied improvements 50,000 Liquor Operation CapitalJmprovements 50,000. A transitory ordinance is necessary to finalize these appropriations pursuant to City Charter. The source of Special Revenue funds is municipal liquor profits. D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires that a transitory ordinance be used to authorize the expenditure of Special Revenue funds. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could postpone the first reading of the transitory ordinance to a future City Council. meeting: • The City Council could decide to authorize none or only a portion of-the expenditures identified from special revenue in the CIB. V. ATTACHMENTS • An ordinance providing for the expenditure of money from the Special Revenue Fund for certain capital improvements. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None J -I BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: It is found and determined to be necessary and expedient for the City to expend money from the Special Revenue Fund for the making of capital improvements listed in Section 2 hereof, for which the City would be authorized to issue general obligation bonds. Section 2: The capital improvements and amounts of expenditures for such improvements which are authorized to be paid from the Special Revenue Fund under Section 7.12, Subdivision 2 of the City Charter, are as follows: Outdoor Pool Renovation Loan Repayment $ 198,000 Park Maintenance $ 100,000 Ice Arena Parking Lot Reconstruction $ 102,000 Lincoln Field and Ballfield Improvements $ 50,000 Liquor Operation Capital Improvements $ 50,000 Section 3: The expenditures herein authorized shall be made pursuant to such contracts as are authorized from time to time by Council action. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this to day of , 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CON ENT AGENDA ITEM # rjB REPORT # 30 ~.' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NaNtE TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of City Code amendments regarding regulations that are redundant or in conflict with newly adopted zoning regulations. The proposed amendments relate to parking requirements for car wash establishments, the location of therapeutic massage establishments, arkin and location re uirements for auto detailing establishments. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a first reading of the attached ordinance amending Subsections 1125.03, 1188.19, and 1195.09 of the City Code related to parking and zoning regulations for car wash, therapeutic massage, and auto detailing establishments. ~ II. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2007 the City Council approved revised citywide zoning regulations. There are many instances of cross-referencing and the redundant statement of regulations in the Zoning Code and the City Code. The proposed amendments reconcile the two codes by removing inconsistent language and out- dated terminology. The only substantive change proposed is a change in parking requirements for stand-alone car washing establishments. The current city code re uires ue q q umg 021208 - 1st Reading City & Zoning Code Reconciliation space for 40 cars waiting to be washed. This requirement has been considered excessive for many years and as a part of the conditional use permit process the requirement has consistently been reduced. The proposed parking requirements would require one parking space per employee (based on the largest shift), plus queuing area for six vehicles per wash lane and two spaces per wash lane for drying. The proposed revisions are based on a comparison of the parking regulations of similarly-sized communities conducted by the American Planning Association and existing Richfield zoning regulations. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The current parking requirements for car wash establishments is excessive. It is appropriate to revise these standards. • All other amendments are intended to reconcile the zoning code and City Code and do not constitute changes in policy. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Code and Zoning Code should be in agreement. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • A second reading is scheduled for February 26, 2008. • A public hearing is not required. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Approve the attached Ordinance with revisions. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT 1VIEETING • N/A ~~ "'' BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING AND ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CAR WASH, THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND -AUTO DETAILING ESTABLISHMENTS; AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 1125.03, 1188.1.9 AND 1195.09 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 1125.03, Subdivisions 1, 2 and 5 of the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Off-street parking. For any establishment there shall be sufficient off-street area to provide fnr an ~I ~±n.,m,~nh, ~~o~ ~.,,,:+...,. +.. w_ ...__~ _ _, ~~r +hi~ ... ..-......... aV_ ----- -r ..~. r - - - -- - Subd. 2. Subd. 5. rcepealea. Sec. 2. Subsection 1188.19, Subdivision 2 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 2. Zoning compliance. A therapeutic massage enterprise ma~~.nnt ha ~nmmarr_ial rtictrirtc of tha rit i must be loci and daes_unt meet all zoning requirements. Sec. 3. Subsection 1195.09 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 021208 - 1st Reading City & Zoning Code Reconciliation Repealed. ~~ ~~ 1195.09. Conditions governing issuance. The following conditions are imposed upon the granting of licenses under this Section: (a) The site of the .licenses activity shall abut and have access to an arterial roadway. (b) No mechanical car washing equipment shall be used in connection with the licensed activity. (c) No overnight outside storage of vehicles shall be permitted. (d) The site shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential properties. (e) The licensed activity shall not result in undue congestion on surrounding streets. (f) ThAra chill ha ^r'IPnII,~tP narkinn Cnaroc nrnviriarl nn tho~~i+o f,,. to nark nn ci irrni inrlinn ctraatc parking shall be provided in accordance with (g) The licensed activity must be conducted totally within the confines of the building. (h) There shall be no exterior storage or sales of equipment, materials or products. (i) The licensed activity shall not generate noise, dust, or odors which disturb or annoy occupants of adjacent residential properties. N (j) There shall be no more than one curb cut per street which must be located at least 50 feet from any intersection. (k) Exterior lighting shall be designed and directed so as not to cast light on adjacent residential property. (I) The establishment may be open only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (m)The premises shall be maintained in a state of good repair at all times and shall be kept free of litter, trash, debris and weeds. (n) Underground storage tanks shall be removed as required by the City. (o) Licenses shall be granted only to establishments located in the rnmmarrial rlictrirtc of tha r`it i an approved zoning district. {p) If thE.~$ta.t).IjS,h.glpgt-1S Inra+crl in _ a C~_1 rlic+ri~+ i+ .,,,~ ~~.+ ~... Repealed. Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 3.06 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SC REPORT # 31 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of floodplain regulations. Floodplain regulations were inadvertently removed during the adoption of the City's new zoning ordinances. There are no proposed substantive changes to the floodplain regulations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a first reading of new Section 550 of the City Code related to flood lain mana ement re ulations. II. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2007 the City Council approved new ordinances related to zoning. Floodplain regulations were intended to be adopted as part of this approval. ' No substantive changes were proposed to the floodplain regulations section of the code, as this Section was just recently revised (2005). This lack of revision led to the regulations being inadvertently left out of the new Zoning Code. 021208 - 1st Reading -Section 550 Floodplain III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Regulations for floodplain management are necessary to ensure Richfield's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Changes to this Section of the code are related to organization only. • The subsection proposed for removal is out of date and the updated information is covered elsewhere in the Section. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Other Actions: o The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. o A second reading is scheduled for February 26, 2008. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • N/A V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Section 550 of the Zoning Code L VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~c~i BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE ADOPTION OF NEW SECTION 550 OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 The Richfield City Code is amended by adding new Section 550 as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. 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 day of , 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 021208 - 1st Reading -Section 550 Floodplain ~C-~- SECTION 550 -ZONING: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS 550.01 Purpose ................ 550 1 550 03 Administrati . on ........................................................................................... .550-1 550.05 Application and interpretation of provisions 550 1 550.07 Definitions ..................................................................................................550-2 550.09 Flood insurance study 550 4 550.11 Permitted uses in the floodplain overlay district 550 4 550.13 Fooodplain uses in the floodplain overlay district 550 4 550.15 Applications for floodplain use permits 550 5 550.17 Application review 550 5 550.19 Variance ...................................................................................................... 550-5 550.21 Review of subdivision proposals 550 5 550.23 Construction standards near or in floodplain overlay district 550 6 550.25 Utility standards 550 6 550.27 Amendments ................................................................................................ 550-6 550.29 Building elevation information ........................................................... 550-7 Penalties .......................................................................................................550-7 5350.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. It is the purpose of this section to guide and regulate the orderly development of land within the floodplain by establishing a floodplain overlay district. The floodplain within the City of Richfield, Minnesota is subject to periodic inundation, which adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare. Subd. 2. It is .the intent of this section to promote a uniform floodplain management program consistent with the surface water management plan of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed District and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) 53s150.03. Administration. The Director of Public Works, hereinafter referred to as the responsible person, is appointed as the "person" responsible for receiving applications and examining the plans and specifications for the proposed construction or development. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) 5.150.05. Application and interpretation of provisions. Subdivision 1. Provisions of this section shall apply to the floodplain of the City, which shall include those areas designated or otherwise defined by the City as being within the .100-year floodplain. The boundaries of the floodplain shall be that area that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. All decisions will be based on elevations of the 100-year floodplain and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the floodplain boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals in accordance with the provisions of subsection 546.03. _- ~c ie City Code Page 550-1 Floodplain Management Regulations ~ v ~ .~ Section 550.05 Subd. 2. It is not intended by this section to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this section imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this section shall prevail. Subd. 3. Warning and disclaimer of liability. This regulation does not imply that areas outside the floodplain or land uses or obstructions permitted within the floodplain will be free from flooding or flood damages. The City is not responsible for any flood damages that result from reliance on this section or any administrative action lawfully taken as a result of reliance on this section. Subd. 4. The provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall be deemed separable and the invalidity of any portion of this Ordinance shall not affect the validity of the remainder. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 5350.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. Basement. For floodplain management purposes, any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base sub- grade below ground level. Subd. 2. Development.. Any man-made change to real estate, including but not limited to construction or .reconstruction of buildings, installing manufactured homes or travel trailers, installing utilities, construction of roads or bridges, erection of levees, walls, or fences, drilling, mining, filling, dredging, and storage of materials. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 3. Flood. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from overflow of inland or tidal waves, or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 4. Flood frequency. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. Subd. 5. Floodplain or Flood Prone Area. Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see Flood) as determined by the City in Section 538.05. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 6. Flood prop offing. Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. Flood proofing requirements are contained in the State Building Code. Subd. 7. Flood stage. Peak flood elevation of an area for a given return frequency event. Subd. 8. Floodwav. The channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplain that are reasonably required to carry the discharge floodwater and provide storage during a flood. Subd. 9. Manufactured Home. A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designated for use with or Richfield City Code 550-2 Floodplain Manaeement Regulations ~~ I Section 550.07 without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 10. New Construction. For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes, new construction means structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 11. Person. Includes any individuals, corporation, partnership, association, or any other entity, .including State and local governments and agencies. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 12. Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, water course, or regulatory floodplain that may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 13. Reach. A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a drainage system influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a drainage system between two consecutive bridge crossings or culverts would most typically constitute a reach. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 14. Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two-feet above the elevation of the floodplain plus any increase in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 15. Structure. For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building, including gas or liquid storage tanks, that is principally above ground. The term includes recreational vehicles and travel trailers on site for more than 180 days. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 16. Substantial Improvement. Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (a) before the improvement or repair is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure regardless of the actual work performed. The term does not, however, include either (1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions or (2) any alteration. of a "historic structure", provided that the alteration will not Richfield City Code 550-3 Floodplain Management Regulations ~~~ / Section 550.07 preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 53950.089. Flood insurance study. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) has been completed for areas within the City of Richfield. This FIS is titled "Flood Insurance Study, Hennepin County, Minnesota, All Jurisdictions, Volume 1 of 2 and Volume 2 of 2;" dated September 2, 2004. The foregoing FIS, and the respective Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels contained therein for the City of Richfield, show all areas of the City as an Unshaded Zone X. An Unshaded Zone X is an area where FEMA did not have sufficient supporting hydrologic and/or hydraulic data to designate 100-year or 500-year floodplains. Therefore, to administer this Ordinance consistent with the provisions of Section 549.05, the City will use, at a minimum, the reports titled Watershed Management Plan, Richfield-Bloomington Watershed, Nine Mile Creek Watershed, and Minnehaha Creek Watershed to determine floodplain boundaries. A copy of the foregoing reports are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Ordinance. Subd. 1. No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, improve, move, or demolish any building or structure without first obtaining a separate permit for each building or structure from the designated responsible person. Subd. 2. No man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, fences, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, shall be commenced until a separate permit .has been obtained from the designated responsible person for each change. Subd. 3. No manufactured home shall be placed on improved or unimproved real estate without first obtaining a separate permit for each manufactured home from the designated responsible person.(Added, Bill No. 2005-9) ~~ 53-950.11. Permitted uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any use of land that does not involve a structure, a habitation, addition to the outside dimensions of an existing structure, an obstruction, or the storage of materials, supplies, so long as such use is permitted in the underlying zoning district is permitted within the floodplain. The use must not increase any stage of the 100-year flood, cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected, or reduce the existing storage capacity of the floodplain. 53950.13. Floodplain uses in the floodplain overlay district. Any permitted, accessory, or conditional use or structure allowed in the underlying zoning district may be allowed as a floodplain use in the floodplain upon the issuance of a special permit in accordance with the provisions of this section. Subdivision 1. The use or structure will Richfield City Code 550-4 ~C~~ Floodplain Management Regulations Section 550.13 not cause a net decrease in storage capacity of the floodplain. Compensatory storage will be required if the use or structure decreases the floodplain capacity, and Subd. 2. The use or structure will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other properties, and Subd. 3. The use or structure will not restrict flood flows, or Subd. 4. The use is for railroads, essential government facilities, accessory structures for public and private recreational facilities, essential utilities, marinas, docks, other water oriented accessory structures, or reasonable plan to reduce flooding. 5950.15. Applications for floodplain use permits. Applications for floodplain use permits shall be made to the administrator. A fee as specified in Appendix D shall be charged for floodplain use permits. The application shall be prepared by a registered engineer and shall include the following. Subdivision 1. A report detailing the results of the computer modeling of the impact of the proposed structure, obstruction, or use on the floodplain, and Subd. 2. A site plan showing property lines, work area, existing and proposed contours of the work area, and existing and proposed floodplain elevations, and Subd. 3. Computation of the change in water storage capacity resulting from the project. 5350.17. Application review. The administrator shall review applications for floodplain use permits and make a determination. Subd. 1. After reviewing the application, the responsible person may require any additional measures, which are necessary to meet the minimum requirements of this Ordinance. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9). Subd. 2. The responsible person shall review proposed development to assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies from which approval is required by Federal or State. law, including Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 5350.19. Variance. A variance to the standards outlined in this section may be requested under City zoning code section X547.11. 5350.281. Review of Subdivision Proposals. The responsible person shall review subdivision proposals and other proposed new development to determine whether such proposals will be reasonably safe from flooding. If a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development is in a flood prone area, any such proposal shall be reviewed to assure that: Subd. 1. All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area, Richfield City Code 550-5 Floodnlain Manaeement Reeulations ` ~ ~ Section 550 13 Subd. 2. All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and Subd. 3. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 5~150.2~3. Construction standards near or in floodplain overlay district. The building official administers this section. If a use or structure is either permitted or a special use, the following construction standards apply. Subdivision 1. All permanent structures, including accessory structures and additions to existing structures shall be constructed on fill so that the low building opening elevation shall be at least two-feet above the floodplain elevation. Subd. 2. As an alternative to construction on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500-square feet may be internally flood proofed in accordance with FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. Subd. 3. Structures shall be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from .hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 4. Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 5. Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current, or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall not be allowed to encroach on a floodway, and are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105. Subd. 6. Parking lots must be at or above the floodplain unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the lot will be .used infrequently and/or vehicles or other stored items could be moved in a short period of time. Subd. 7. Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and methods and practices that minimize flood damage. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) Subd. 8. Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damages. (Added, Bill No. 2005-9) 5~350.2~5. Utility standards. Subdivision 1. The responsible person shall require within flood prone areas, new and replacement water supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) Richfield City Code 550-6 Floodolain Manaeement RePUlatioris ` ~ s Section S50 23 Subd. 2. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters. (Amended, Bill No. 2005-9) , 5~50.2~7. Amendments. The floodplain overlay designation shall not be removed from a floodplain area unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been lawfully filled to or above the elevation of the 100-year floodplain and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. 550.29. Building elevation information. The applicant shall provide to the Building Official the elevation of the first floor and basement of all new. structures or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The Building Official shall maintain a record of these elevations. 550.2A31. Certificate of compliance. No structure in the floodplain that is hereafter erected, altered or moved shall be occupied until the applicant submits a certification by a registered Engineer, Surveyor, or Architect to the City Engineer that the finished fill elevations or other flood-proofing measures are in compliance with this Section. 550.33. Penalties for violation. Subdivision 1. Violation of the provisions of this Section. or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Richfield from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: a) In responding to a suspected violation, the Administrator and/or Building Official may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available. Richfield must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. b) When a violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Administrator or Building Official, the situation shall immediately be investigated. Documentation of the nature and extent of the violation shall be provided. c) The Administrator shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this section and all other official controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation. If the structure or use is under construction or development, the Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit is granted by the City. If the. construction or development is already completed, then the Administrator may either a) issue an order identifying the ,corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls; or b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 days. Richfield City Code 550-7 Floodvlain Manaeement Reeulations ~ ~' Section 550 29 d) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Administrator or Building Official within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Section and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Administrator shall also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition that existed prior to the violation of this regulation. Richfield City Code 550-8 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5D REPORT # 32 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution supporting legislation that would revise Minnesota Statutes relatin to Local Government Aid. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution supporting legislation that would revise Minnesota Statutes relatin to Local Government Aid. III. BACKGROUND The City of Fridley has been working with its legislative delegation and others to draft a bill that would .revise the local government aid (LGA) formula. In essence, the bill would replace the complicated, five-factor needs portion of the current formula with a new needs indicator that is based on expenditures. Fridley has requested suburban cities support this effort by passing the proposed resolution. The essential factors of this legislative proposal would: 1. Base need on a rolling three-year average that includes operating expenditures and debt service expenditures listed in the three most recent expenditure reports published by the Office of the State Auditor. 2. .Place a 5% cap on the annual growth of this three-year average. 3. Provide that no Minnesota city would receive less than 90% of its 2007 ,LGA distribution. 4. Apply to all Minnesota cities rather than continue two different formulas for cities under and over 2,500 in population. 5. Cost the State an additional $100 million and would come close to returning to total LGA allocation to 2003 levels. The proposal replaces complexity with simplicity, should eliminate volatility. and adjusts-the imbalance in the current LGA formula. The intent in proposing the 0212LGA legislation is to raise the visibility of the LGA issue and attempt to build highly visible support for a suburban proposal. The proposed legislation may require some modifications, but it has many advantages over the current needs portion of the LGA formula. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The current State LGA formula is very complicated and leads to dramatic swings in the amount of LGA that cities such as Richfield receive in a given year. • These dramatic fluctuations in LGA making budgeting very complicated for cities and. can result in dramatic swings in municipal property tax levies. • The current formula should be changed to provide a much more stable source of State aid and recognize the special concerns of older communities such as Richfield. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The formula should be addressed in the current legislative session and as such this resolution should be considered as soon as possible. C. FINANCIAL • The proposed formula modification proposed in the attached bill would provide considerably more LGA to Richfield and make that revenue stream much more stable. • The proposed bill would provide the opportunity for the City of Richfield to have a far more stable basis for future property tax levy increases. D. LEGAL • None. ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ ~ • Do not approve the reso ATTACHMENTS • ~ Resolution • Letter from the City of Fridley • Proposed legislation • Certified 2008 LGA vs. alternative LGA proposal ~ V 1. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ • None. s~- i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REVISE MINNESOTA STATUES RELATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID WHEREAS, the current formula for the distribution of Local Government Aid (LGA) distributes less than 5% of the total to metropolitan area suburbs; and WHEREAS, the current formula for the distribution of LGA provides for a per capita distribution that generates $213 for the residents of Minneapolis and St. Paul, $210 for the residents of Greater Minnesota cities, and $10.90 for the suburban residents of the seven- county metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the population of these suburbs is 41 % of the total population of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the residents and businesses of the suburban portions of the seven- county metropolitan area generate 67% of Minnesota's income and sales tax collections; and : WHEREAS, the current LGA distribution bears little resemblance to the growing costs of local government in Minnesota cities; and- WHEREAS, the 2003 amendments to these statutes established a definition of local government need that is based on a complex set of statistical calculations that must be recalculated annually for all Minnesota cities; and WHEREAS, the 2003 amendments have created aid distribution numbers to cities that are certified late in each city's- budget cycle and subject to considerable volatility; and WHEREAS, the complexity created by the 2003 amendments has created law that is very difficult to understand and interpret; and WHEREAS, many suburban cities in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area have been forced by the 2003 amendments to raise property taxes by more than 50% to accommodate lost LGA revenue; and WHEREAS, property taxes are the most regressive form of taxation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield requests that the Governor and the Legislature for the State of Minnesota approve legislation that changes the State's Local Government Aid distribution formula by substituting local government expenditures, subject to a 5% annual. cap, for the five-part needs formula currently used for this distribution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield requests the Governor-and the Legislature of the State of Minnesota provide funding for this revised distribution, subject to the condition that no Minnesota city receive less allocation that 90% of the amount certified to it for fiscal year 2007. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA THIS 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk SCOTT J• LUND MAYOR lunds @ ci. fridley. mn. u s www.ci.fridley.mn.us FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287 January 23, 2008. Mayor Debbie Goettel City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mayor Goettel: As you might have heard by now, the City of Fridley has been working with its legislative delegation and others to draft a bill that would revise the LGA formula. In essence, the bill would replace the complicated, five-factor needs portion of the current formula with a new needs indicator that is based on expenditures. The essential features of this legislative proposal are as follows: 1. It would base need on a rolling three-year average that includes operating expenditures and debt service expenditures listed in the three most recent expenditure :reports published by the Office of the State Auditor, 2. It would place a 5% cap on he annual growth of this three-year average. 3. It provides that no Minnesota city would receive less than 90% of its 2007 LGA distribution. 4. It would apply to all Minnesota cities rather than continue two different formulas for cities under and over 2,500 in population. 5. It would cost the state an additional $100 million and would come close to returning the total LGA allocation to 2003 levels. The proposal replaces complexity with simplicity, it should eliminate volatility, and it adjusts the imbalance in the current LGA formula that leaves the Minneapolis/St. Paul suburban cities with only 4.8% of the total LGA distribution. Although it continues to juxtapose need and ability to pay, it also recognizes that the suburban portion of Minnesota's population comprises 41% of the total population and contributes 67% of the State's sales and income taxes. RESIDENCE 580 - 69TH AVENUE N.E. • .FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 PHONE (763} 571-0214 ~.J //`~ Letter on LGA January 23, 2008 Page 2 Our intent in proposing the legislation is to raise the visibility of the LGA issue and to attempt to build highly visible support for a suburban proposal. Although we hope to gain passage of LGA reform in 2008, we feel we will have succeeded if we are able to get a strong contingent of other suburban cities to support a common suburban LGA cause. To the extent that we are successful in building support for this cause, we will have greatly improved our joint bargaining position vis-a-vis the two core cities and the greater Minnesota cities in future LGA reform efforts. As we seek to gain your support for our LGA reform proposal, we recognize that there are also problems with the ability to pay side of the formula as well as potential problems with other state distribution programs, including those involving schools. While ideally we might deal with all of these problems in one comprehensive package, we also feel that our chances for reform diminish as the reform becomes more complex. We also firmly believe that nothing will ever get done if we continually take a wait until next year approach, and we strongly oppose any attempts to raise the LGA funding levels without removing the objectionable and unfair needs portion of the existing formula. What are we asking from you? We're asking that you review the proposed legislation and the accompanying distribution tables with your city staff and council. As you do this, we also ask you to consider the increases in property taxes that the absence of a fair LGA distribution has cost and will continue to cost your residents. If you have suggestions. for change, we hope you will pass them on to us along with your other comments on our proposal. If you would like to meet and discuss the proposal, I will be happy to meet with you and others from your city. Ultimately, we hope that you will. approve the enclosed resolution and contact your legislative delegation in support of this common cause. If members of your delegation would like to be co- authors of the bill, that opportunity is available. Finally, we ask that you support the proposed change through participation at legislative hearings. As we work with you, we will continue our communications with the LMC, Metro Cities, the Department of Revenue, Pat Dalton at House Research, the members of our legislative delegation, and key legislators on both the House and Senate Tax Committees. Additionally, we will attempt to find media opportunities to raise public awareness of the LGA issue. Thanks for considering this proposal. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ~~~ Scott Lund Mayor Enclosures c w/enc: Steve Devich, City Manager 5~~ 01/14/08 HOUSE RESEARCH ANALYST PD TTLGAl 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to aids to local governments, amending the formula for distributing 13 local government aid to cities amending Minnesota Statutes 2006, sections 1.4 477A.011, subdivision 34; 477A.013, subdivisions 8, 9; 477A.03, subdivision 1.5 2a; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 477A.011, subdivisions 30, 31, 1.6 32, 33, 38, 39, 40. 1.7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: - l.s Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 477A.011, subdivision 34, is amended to 1.9 read: 1.10 5ubd. 34. City revenue need. 1.11 , , uwu as ~uv aura ... ~a~ ..... •.~ •..~.. _______ ~__ r_ -_ 1.12 , ' 1.13 .~.~.~ v.~-r i ~ i r 1.14 1.15 > > 1.16 ~ ' 1.17 ' 1.18 1.19 1.20 > 7.21 ' 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 Section 1. 1 -5 01/14/08 HOUSE RESEARCH ANALYST PD TTLGAI 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 ~ , 2.5 , 2.6 2.7 , 2.8 2.9 z.1o (a) The "revenue need" of a city is equal to the three year average of the sum of its 2.11 current expenditures and debt service listed in its governmental funds, as reported in the z.i2 annual state auditor's reports, for the host recently available years as of July 15 of the 2. t 3 year in which the aid is certified. For purposes of this subdivision "governmental funds" 2.14 consist of general funds, special revenue funds, capital proiects funds and debt service 2.15 funds but exclude enterprise or proprietary funds. 2.16 (b) Beginning with aids payable in 2010, no city's per capita revenue need may 2.17 increase by more than five percent over its per capita city revenue need in the previous year. 2.ts EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective for aids payable in calendar year 2.19 2009 and thereafter. 2.2o Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 477A.013, subdivision 8, is amended to read: 2.21 Subd. 8. City formula aid. In calendar year z96~ 2009 and subsequent years, the 2.22 formula aid for a city is equal to the need increase percentage multiplied by the difference 2.23 between (1) the city's revenue need multiplied by its population, and (2)~iiz-sairrof the 2.24 city's net tax capacity multiplied by 'the tax effort rat , 2.25 , 2:26 2.27 , 2.28 , 2.29 , 2.30 , 2.31 2.32 , 2.33 , , , 2.34 Sec. 2. 2 '_ 01/14/08 HOUSE RESEARCH ANALYST PD TTLGAl 3.t No city may have a formula aid amount less than zero. The need increase percentage 3.2 must be the same for all cities. 3.3 The applicable need increase percentage must be calculated by the Department of 3.a Revenue so that the total of the aid under subdivision 9 equals the total amount available 3.s for aid under section 477A.03 after the subtraction under section 477A.014, subdivisions 3:6 4 and 5. 3.7 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective for aids payable in calendar year 3.s 2009 and thereafter. 3.9 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 477A.013, subdivision 9, is amended to read: 3.to Subd. 9. City aid distribution. (a) In calendar year 2002 and thereafter, each 3.11 city shall receive an aid distribution equal to the sum of (1) the city formula aid under 3.12 subdivision 8, and (2) its city aid base. 3.13 (b) For aids payable in z89f2010 and thereafter, the total aid for any city shall 3.14 not exceed the-sum of (1) ten percent of the city's net levy for the year prior to the aid 3.t5 distribution plus (2) its total aid in the previous year. For aids payable in 20052010 and 3.t6 thereafter, the total. aid for any city may not decrease 3.17 from its total aid under this section in the previous year by an amount greater than ten 3.1s pel•cent of its net levy in the year prior to the aid distribution. 3.19 (c) For aids payable in 20042009 only, the total aid for a city 3.20 , 3.21 3.22 3.23 , 3.24 3.2s .may not be less than 90 percent of its aid payable 3.26 in 2008 under this subdivision. 3.z7 (d) If a city's net tax capacity used in calculating aid under this section has decreased 3.2s in any year by more than 25 percent from its net tax capacity in the previous year due to 3.29 property becoming tax-exempt Indian land, the city's maximum allowed aid increase 3.30 under paragraph (b) shall be increased by an amount equal to (1) the city's tax rate in the 3.31 year of the aid calculation, multiplied by (2) the amount of its net tax capacity decrease 3.32 • resulting from the property. becoming tax exempt. 3.33 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective for aids payable in calendar year 3.34 2009 and thereafter. Sec. 3. 3 ~~~7 01/14/08 HOUSE RESEARCH ANALYST PD TTLGAl a.1 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 477A.03, subdivision 2a, is amended to read: 4.2 Subd. 2a. Cities. , 4.3 > , 4.4 .For 4.5 aids payable in 20062009 and thereafter, the total aids, paid under section 477A.013, a.6 subdivision 9, is limited to ~°°`~~-v~z;^vvv $581,423,433. a.~ EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective for aids payable in calendar year a.s 2008 and thereafter. a.9 Sec. 5. REPEALER. 4.10 Minnesota Statutes 2006 section 477A.011 subdivisions 30 31 32 33 38 39 a.11 and 40, are repealed. a.lz EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective beeinning with aids savable in a.13 calendar year 2009. Sec. 5. 4 House Research Department ~ D_ 1/1.8/08 R ttbb1ga082a Certified 2008 LGA vs. Alternative LGA Proposal The attached run shows certified LGA for Pay 2008 and projected LGA for Pay 2008 under an alternative proposal: The amendment does the following: ^ Replaces the current measures of city "need" with a new measure where need is equal to the 3 year average of the sum of each city's current expenditures plus debt service; ^ Caps the loss of any city's LGA to an amount equal to 10% of its certified 2008 LGA amount. ^ Increases the total LGA appropriation from $485 million to $580.5 million The colwnns contain the following information: • Column 1: 2006 Population • .Column 2: Certified Pay 2002 LGA (before the 2003 appropriation cuts and formula changes) • Column 3: Pay 2008 LGA under current law • Column 4: Projected Pay 2008 LGA under proposed LGA alternative • Column 5: Increase in 2008 -LGA under proposed alternative compared to 2008 LGA under current law • Column 6: Per capita Change in 2008 LGA under proposed alternative compared to under current law ~~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblga082a p Certified 6000 L GA VS Page 1 of 25 1/18/2008 04:08 PM Alterna tive LGA Proposal Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita C hange in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) .., {4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Metro Central Cities Minneapolis 387,970 111,567,143 82,230,891 115,968,797 33,737,906 86.96 St. Paul 286,620 73;554,056 56,781,644 54,143,210 -2,638,434 -9.21 Group 674,590 185,121,199 139,012,535 170,112,007 31,099,472 46.10 Large Cities Apple Valley 48,832 403,875 0 1,451,640 1,451,640 29.73 Blaine 54, 927 1,168, 630 0 1,145,109 1,145,109 20.85 Bloomington 85,832 105,731 0 6,069,274 6,069,274 70.71 Brooklyn Park 71,942 2,302,645 0 6,870,722 6,870,722 95.50 Burnsville 61,048 396,606 0 1,603,806 1,603,806 26.27 Coon Rapids 63,649 2,782,129 450,000 1,824;383 1,374,383 21.59 Eagan 66,508 71,425 0 0 0 0.00 Eden Prairie 61,325 59,645 0 0 0 0.00 Edina 46,896 0 0 0 0 0.00 Maple Grove 58,491 179,762 0 1,796,858 1,796,858 30.72 Minnetonka 51,519 63,141 0 0 0 0.00 Plymouth 70,676. 74,570 0 0 0 0.00 Group 741,645 7,608,159 450,000 20,761,792 20,311,792 2 Older Cities Anoka 18,076 1,723,710 947,030 1,171,477 224,447 12.42 Brooklyn Center 27,901 2,265,267 1,113,243 2,382,197 1,268,954 45.48 Columbia Heights 18,288 2,588,641 1,260,148 1,717,514 457,366 25.01 Crystal 22,306 2,032,824 1,742,380 1,568,142 -174,238 -7.81 Hastings 22,001 1,439,978 125,703 2,043,539 1,917,836 87.17 Hopkins 17,389 854,766 50,000 1,549,388 1,499,388 86.23 New Brighton 22,325 701,012 0 4,292,803 4,292,803 192:29 New Hope. 20,904 1,087,075. 449,578 973,860 524,282 25.08 Richfield 33,099 3,225,539 2,175,689 4,125,823 1,950,134 58.92 Shoreview 26,093 31,921 0 438,148. 438,148 16.79 South St. Paul .20,024. 3,273,550. 2,043,465 2,306,421 262,956 13.13 West St. Paul 18,816 1,118,800 1,277,135 1,149,422 -127,714 -6.79 White Bear Lake 24,723 784;304 1,342,081 1;207,873 -134,208 -5.43 Group 291,945 21,127,387 12,526,452 24,926,606 12,400,154 42.47 Diversified Arden Hills 9,903. 11,729 0 0 0 0.00 ~~- / ~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblgao82a Certified 2008 LGA vs Page 2 of 25 ,. loos 04:06 PM Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Cityname Population 2002 LGA .2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) {6=(5/1) Coates 181 222 1,086 1,086 0 0.00 Forest Lake 17,424 321,875 0 0 0 0.00 Fridley 26,603 1,556,948 722,306 2,440,175 1,717,869 64.57 Gem Lake 464 0 2,808 2,784 -24 -0.05 Golden Valley 20,355 44,535 0 2,355,432 2,355,432 115.72 Lilydale 736. 727 4,589 79,227 74,638 101.41 Long Lake 1,727 129,723 141,041 173,053 32,012 18.54 Maple Plain 1,968 179,887 ~ 360,402. 324,362. -36,040 -18.31 Maplewood 36,397 717,295 0 2,175,579 2,175,579 59.77 Oak Park Heights 4,676 4,881 28,056 36,623 8,567 1.83 Osseo 2,459 430,945 695,906 874,175 178,269 72.50 Roseville 33,969 41,381 0 299,259 ~ 299,259- 8.81 Louis Park St 44,569 1,911,731 0 2,509,553 2,509,553 56.31 . Wayzata 4,059 4,960 24,354 24,354 0 0.00 Group 205,490 5,356,839 1,980,548 11,295,662 9,315,114 45.33 High Growth Andover 30,207 119,827 0 1,421,988 1,421,988 47.07 ?arver 2,568 73,803 205,276 184,748 -20,528 -7.99 :enterville 3,820 9,315 22,920 225,804 202,884 53.11 Champlin 23,860 467,462 0 710,470 710,470 29.78 Chanhassen 22,017 20,472 0 1,117,880 1,117,880 50.77 Chaska 23,216 914,604 50,000 3,639,734 3,589,734: 154.62 Cologne 1,355 88,915 127,158 114,442 -12,716 -9.38 Cottage Grove 33,529 965,845. 0 1,541,853 1,541,853 45.99 East Bethel 12,142. 96,281 0 0 0 0.00 Elko -New~Market 3,305 6,375 226,387 203,748 -22,639 -6.85 Farmington 17,495 496,117 0 7,150,347 1,150,347 65.75 Greenfield 2,794 2,090 16,764 16,764 0 D.00 Ham Lake 15,005 176,909 0 0 0 0.00 Hugo 10-,361 31,477 0 0 0 0.00 Inver Grove Heights 33,139 454,165 0 1,986,916 1,986,916 59.96 Lakeville 52,323 499,096 0 396,017 396,017 7.57 Lino Lakes 19,736 157,715 0 567,222 567,222 28.74 Mahtomedi 8,039 142,848 0 86,853 86,853 10.80 Medina 4,811 4,598 28,866 28,866 0 0.00 Mendota Heights 11,566 13,301 0 228,677 228,677 19'77 Oak Grove 8,249 213,222 200,000 200,000 0 0.00 House Research Dept. Run:ttbblga082a 1/18/2008 04:08 PM Cityname Oakdale Prior Lake Ramsey Rogers Rosemount Savage Shakopee St. Bonifacius St. Francis Vadnais Heights Victoria Waconia Woodbury Group High Income Afton Birchwood Village Corcoran Deephaven Dellwood Grant Greenwood Independence Lake Elmo Lakeland Lakeland Shores Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista North Oaks Orono Pine, Springs Shorewood Sunfish Lake Tonka Bay Woodland Group Small Cities 2006 Population (1) 27,249 21,542 22,059 6,570 20,207 25,065 30,971 2,305 7,201 13,019 6,039 9,557 55,395 586,716 ~-11 Certified 2008 LGA vs Alternative LGA Proposal Certified Certified Alternative 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. (2) (3) (4) 618,524 0 1,735,455 44,585 0 1,485,195 303,894 0 856,604 1,991 0 1,108,424 394,723 0 1,599,366 69,984 0 1,576,873 165,666 0 545,905 117,782 315,486 283,937 283,385 .200,000 510,433 15,815 0 254,835 4,376 0 136,733 313,614 0 453,625 43,226 0 623,358 7,332,002 1,392,857 24,993,073 LMC City Cluster Listing Page 3 of 25 Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (5=4-3) (6=(511) 1,735,455 63.69 1,485,195 68.94 856,604 38.83 1,108,424 168.71 1,599,366 79.15 1,576,873 62.91 545,905 17.63 -31,549 -13.69 310,433 43.11 254,835 19.57 136,733 22.64 453,625 47.47 623,358 11.25 23.,600,216 40.22 2,923 3,508 17,538 17,538 0 0.00 945 1,245 5,702 5,670 -32 -0.03 5,800. 27,442 0 0 0 0.00 3,767 0 22,602 22,602 0 ~ 1,120 1,119 6,720 6,720 0 G.__ 4,236 3,840 25,416 25,416 ~ 0 O:DO 814 0 4,884 4,884 0 0.00 3,715 0 22,290 22,290 0 0.00 7,695 12,150 0 0 0 0.00 . 1,900 77,256 119,351. 107,416 -11,935 -6.28 361 441 2,166 2,166 0 0.00 595 695 3,715 3,570 -145 -0.24 5,902 4,841 0 0 0 0.00 4,457 9,516 26,742. 26,742 0 0.00 7,842 9,283 0 0 0 0.00 388 540 2,472 2,328 -144 -0.37 7,499 8,417 0 0 0 0.00 541 575 3,246 3,246 0 0.00 1,525 1,801 9,420 9,150 270 _ -0.18 497 0 3,168 2,982 -186 -0.37 62,522 162,669 275,432 262;720 -12,712 -0.20 House Research Dept. Run:ttbblga082a ~, zoo8 oa:os PM Cityname Bayport Belle Plaine Bethel Circle Pines Columbus Dayton Excelsior Falcon Heights Hamburg Hampton Hilltop Jordan Lake St. Croix Landfall Lauderdale Lexington Little Canada Loretto tarine on St. Croix ~Jlayer Medicine Lake Mendota Miesville Mound Mounds View New Germany New Prague New Trier Newport North St. Paul Norwood Young Randolph Robbinsdale Scandia Spring Lake Park Spring Park St. Anthony Village St. Marys Point 5D- I ~ LMC City Cluster Listing Certified 2008 LGA vs Page 4 of 25 Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGAAIt. vs. 3,245 211,614 _ 444,051 399,646 -44,405 6,595 515,752 347,522 713,766 366,244 502 16,360 32,069 101,827 69,758 5,153 252,677 0 190,137 190,137 4,135 24,810 60,704 35,894 5,013 26,714 0 137,627 137,627 2,395 216,076 107,265 96,539 -10,727 5,776 239,923 313,133 281,820 -31,313 558 46,220 57,363. 69,971 12,608 752 14,073 66,947. 60,252 -6,695. 789 91,221 138,779 124,901 -13,878 5,146 496,161 191,762 468,301 276,539 1,161 27,549 35,470 31,923 -3,547 731 26,254 134,852 121,367 -13,485 2,321 306,601 463,233 416,910 -46,323 2,062 351,732 424,872 382,385 -42,487 10,082 77,770 225,168 202,651 -22,517 613 17,907 9,034 64,183 55,149 695 805 4,170 4,170 0 1,615 33,633 213,345 192,011 -21,335 365 0 2,190 2,190 0 188 5,552 1,406 20,307 18,901 164 165 1,018 6,581 5,563 9,800 296,833. 0 236,152 236,152 12,680 789,466 121,371 766,374 645,003 342 15,021 13,645 39,719 26,074 6,787 669,288 737,055 663,350 -73,706 110 1,677 947 852 -95 3,565 353,384 684,156 615,740 -68,416 11,776 963,496. 1,816,975 1,635,278 -181,698. 3,526 351,158 214,224 445,662 231,438 364 7,401. 11,452 10,307 -1,145 13,698 1,981,039 1,235,352 1,689,756 454,404 4,189 25,134 25,134 0 6,623 219,255 0 516,256 516,256 1,900 14,243 80,812 120,441 39,629 8,361 141,265. 0 1,095,598 1,095,598 407 0 2,520 2,442 -78 Per Capita Change in LGA Alt vs. cert. (6=(5/1) -13.68 55.53 138.96 36.90 8.68 27.45 -4.48 -5.42 22.59 -8.90 -17.59 53.74 -3.06 -18.45 -19.96 -20.60 -2.23 89.97 0.00 -13.21 0.00 100.54 33.92 24.10 50.87 76.24 -10.86 -0.86 -19.19 -15.43 65.64 -3.15 33.17 0.00 77.95 20.86 131.04 -0.19 -House Research Dept. Runatbblga082a 1/18/2008 04:08 PM Cityname St. Paul Park Stillwater Vermillion Watertown Willernie Group Region total ~p-t3 LMC City Cluster Listing Certified 2008 LGA vs Page 5 of 25 Alterna tive LGA P roposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita C hange in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) 5,323 541,892 214,219 272,859 58,640 11.02 17,929 1,400,432 455,942 1,999,677 1,543,735 86.10 451 2,395 6,255 5,630 -626 -1.39 4,081 282,620 94,409 414,055 319,646 78.33 634 41,446 66,583 59,925 -6,658 -10.50 172,602 11,047,070 9,019,510 14,765,373 5,745,863 33.29 2,735,510 237,755,325 164,657,334 267,117,234 102,459,900 37.46 ~p~~~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblgao82a Certified 2008 LGA vs Page s of 25 ~,. .zoos 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Non-metro Major Cities Duluth 85,170 29,635,152 29,061,709 26,155,538 -2,906,171 -34.12 Rochester 98,649 10,700,664 7,620,306 10,864,485 3,244,179 32.89 St. Cloud 64,711 12,597,803 11,710,745 11,327,195 -383,550 -5.93 Group 248,530 52,933,619 48,392,760 48,347,218 -45,542 -0.18 Regional Albert Lea 18,184 6,383,540 5,331,666, 4,798,499 -533,167 -29.32 Austin 23,702 7,567,420 7,620,975 6,858,878 -762,098 -32.1.5 Bemidji 13,074 3,820;026 3,068,058 2,761,252 -306,806 -23.47 Brainerd 13,947 4,005,088 3,958,462 3,562,616 -395,846 -28.38 Cloquet 11,714 3,360,290 2,246,014 2,021,413 -224,601 -19.17 Fairmont 1.0,720 3,721,192 4,009,327 3,608,394 -400,933 -37.40 Faribault 22,733 6,446,016 5,842,432 5,258,189 -584,243 -25.70 Fergus Falls 13,949 4,248,291 3,987,564 3,588,808 -398,756 -28.59 Hibbing 16,283 6,961;841 8,007,516 7,206,764 -800,752 -49.18 Hutchinson 43,977 2,305,717 2,180,166 2,727,034 546,868 39.13 ' ittle Falls 8,407 2,418,646 2,223,678 2,001,310 -222,368 -26.45 Aankato 35,493. 9,371,261. 7,294,878 6,565,390 -729,488 -20.55 Marshall 13,031 2,560,016. 2,481,314 2,512,104 30,790 2.36 Moorhead 35,225 8,241,938 7,698,569 7,306,967 -391,602 -11.12 New Ulm 13,610 4,165,314 4,521,077 4,068,969 -452,108 -33.22 Northfield 19,413 3,152,280 2,890,999 2,601,899 -289,100 -14.89 Owatonna 24,725 5,113,330 4,122,060 3,709,854 -412,206 -16.67 Red Wing 16,329 723,557 1.,410,476 3,122,733 1,712,257 104.86 Virginia 8,776 4,529,571 4,186,252 3,767,627. -418,625 -47.70 Willmar 18,948 4,352,393 4,374,578. 3,937,120 -437,458 -23.09 Winona 27,324 9,821,348 9,911,969 8,920,772 -991,197 -36.28 Worthington 11,349. 3,406,166 3,059,814 2,753,833 -305,981 -26.96 Group 390,913 106,675,241 100,427,844 93,660,425 -6,767,479 -17.31 Sub-regional Aitkin ~ 2,127 449,137 669,522 602,570 -66,952 -31.48 Alexandria 11,323. 1,655,482 1,341,156 1,21)7,040 -134,116 -11.84 Appleton 2,749. 836,835 984,130 885,717 -98,413 -35.80 Gaudette 1,067 310,345 320,665 288,599 -32,067 -30.05 Baxter 7,594 352,589 0 244,842 244,842 32.24. Cambridge 7,382 587,518 603,742 1,515,339 911,597 123.49 ~l~- i ~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblga082a !~ ~ Q !'+ Certified 2~~g LGA VS Page 7 of 25 1/18/2008 04:0$ PM Alternative LGA Proposal Cityname 2006. Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008. Per Capita C hange in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt: vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3). (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Deerwood 576 65,129 37,786 79,521 41,735 72.46 Detroit .Lakes 8,185 1,546,644 919,647 844,651 -74,996 -9.15 Grand Marais 1,419. 279,637 184,209 325,147 140,938 99.32 Grand Rapids 8,790 1,840,623 1,204,051 1,84b,659 641,608 72.99 Hinckley 1,438 236,106 245,519 220,967 -24,552 -17.07 International Falls 6,335 3,230,389 3,386,933 3,048,240 -338,693 -53.46 Long Prairie 3,040 746,120 759,890 683,901 -75,989 -25.00 Mahnomen 1,183. 414,782 404,810 364,329 -40,481 -34.22 Mora 3,568 663,966 727,285 654,557 -72,729 -20.38 `Motley 671 105,931 130,523 170,577 40,054 59.69 Park Rapids 3,519 688,836 500,897 635,146 134,249 38.15 PequotLakes .1,980 112,915 88,039 79,235 -8,804 -4.45 Perham 2,749 439,608 534,009 484,436 -49,573 -18.03 Pine City 3,272 600,072 507,183 456,465 -50,718 -15.50 Pine River 935 229,444 248,965 224,069 -24,897 -26.63 Princeton 4,535 617,836 .741,676 667,508: -74,168 -16.35 Roseau 2,879. 501,388 658,970 851,540 192,570 66.89 Spicer 1,159 130,313 118,120. 222,125 104,005 89.74 Waite Park 6,738 482,160 110,271 910,621 800,350. 118.78 Walker 1,114 190,036 141,449 417,224 275,775 247 Warroad 1,739 443,821 624,486 599,554 -24,932 -14.34 Group 98,076 17,757,662 16,193,933 18,529,578 2,335,645 23.81 Urban Fringe Albertville 5,856 55,718 0 0 0 0.00 Becker 4,105 2,572 24,630 1,274,198 1,249,568 304.40 Big Lake 9,035 595,995. 337,115 616,363 279,248. 30.91 Breezy Point 1,642 769 9,852 65,616 55,764 33.96 Isanti 5,206 530,794 474,792 427,313 -47,479 -9.12 North Branch 10,468 472,127 349,538 1,040,498 690,960 66.01 Rockville 2,632 85,329 15,792 15,792 0 0.00 Bartell 13,917 333,210 0 1,172,043. 1,172,043 84.22 St. Michael 14,698 145,848 0 715,671 715,671. 48.69 Zimmerman 4,775 180,492 311,773 280,596 -31,177 -6.53 Group 72,334 2,402,854 1,523,492 5,608,090 4,084,598 56.47 High Income Avon 1,296 173,986 254,884 262,247 7,363 5.68 Buffalo 13,776 1,274,194 775,361 2,451,138 1,675,777 121.64 House Research Dept. Run:ttbblga082a ', ?008 04:08 PM Cityname Byron Cannon Falls Clearwater Courtland Crosslake Delano Dundas -East Gull Lake Elk River Hanover Hermantown La Prairie Mantorville Medford Monticello Nisswa North Mankato Oronoco `tsego _: <<ice Sauk Rapids St. Augusta St. Stephen Wyoming Group Moderate Annandale Brownsville Buffalo Lake Center City Chatfield Chisago City Cohasset Cokato Cold Spring Cottonwood Dassel ~~ r ~ " ' LMC City Cluster Listing Certifi ed 2008 LGA vs Page 8 of 25 Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population .2002 LGA. 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) ~2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) 4,716 269,090 181,376 176,943. -4,433 -0.94 4,109 639,541 656,482 950,862 294,380 .71.64 1,400 73,946 163,183 146,865 -16,318 -11.66 589 42,685 65,435 58,892 -6,544 -11.11 2,052 .1,779 12,312 12,312 0 0.00 5,050 492,103 119,517 235,785 116,268 23.02 798 42,970 86,589 163,907 77,318 96.89 1,028 1,052 6,168 6,168 0 0.00. 22,550 937,155 686,820 2,051,244. 1,364,424 60.51 2,421 19,396 195,165 175,649 -19,517 -8.06 9,192 508,519 550,650 536,459 =14,191 -1.54 630 52,101 72,437 .65,193 -7,244 -11.50 1,184 196,064 245,030. 220,527 -24,503. -20.70 1,146 138,572 197,016 194,469 -2,547 '2.22 11,136 8,167 0 1,468,328 1,468,328 131.85 2,047 0 12,288 12,282 -6 0.00 12,817 2,325,057 1,747,247 1,794,777 47,530 3.71 .965 87,877 63,055 56,750 -6,306 -6.53 11,660 56,649 0 584,884 584,884 50.16 1,151. 36,330 138,057 124,251 -13,806 -11.99 12,679 1,969,930 1,998,307 1,798,476 -199,831 -15.76 3,135 174,154. 115,638 104,074 -11,564 -3.69 841 75,774 104,198 93,778 -10,420 -12.39 3,760 114,980 22,560 135,731 113,171. 30.10 132,128 9,712,071 8,469,775 13,881,991 5,412,216 40.96 2,957 389,026 339,343 358,879 19,536 6.61 491 51,375 64,074 .52,667 -6,407 -13.05 749 172,439 218,323 196,491 -21,832 -29.15 618 57,171 46,226 41,603 -4,623 -7.48, 2,532 604,568 794,481 715,033 -79,448 -31.38 4,307 329,206 111,816 118,974 7,158 1.66 2,582 0 15,492 15,492 0 0.00 2,734 545,856 470,261 423,235 -47,026 -17.20 3,738 426,050 552,728 497,455 -55,273 -14.79 1,169 260,943 301,599 271,439 -30,160 -25.80 1,315 285,926 347,435 312,692 -34,744 -26.42 5~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runatbblgao82a Certified. 2008 LGA vs Page 9 of 25 1/,8/2008 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal Cityname 2006 Certified ` ~ Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita C hange in Population 2002,LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Dodge Center 2,565 656,969 768,590. 691,731 -76,859 -29.96 Emily 904 5,948 5,424 5,424 0 0.00 Eyota 1,822 268,834 423,064. 380,758 ~ -42,306 -23.22 Foley 2,624 554,012 736,385 662,747 -73,639 -28.06 Gaylord 2,268 646,578. 811,705 730,535 -81,171 -35.79 Glencoe .5,758 1,106,497 1,166,314 1,049,683 -116,631 -20.26 Glyndon 1,166 198,782 288,781 259,903 -28,678.. -24.77 Goodhue 907 141,172 190,715 171,644 -19,072 -21.03 Goodview 3,289 243,956 133,011 128,750 -4,261 -1.30 Harris 1,276 88,624. 156,013 140,412 -15,601 -12.23 - Henderson 947 263,690 259,641 233,677 -25,964 -27.42. Holdingford 760 168,551 153,006 188,667 35,661 46.92 Howard Lake 1,995 380,980 523,647 471,282 -52,365 -26.25 Isle 835. 77,218 71,600 93,686 22,086 26.45 Kasson 5,504 734,215 944,234 849,811 -94,423 -17.16 Kenyon 1,701 418,128 528,100 475,290 -52,810 -31.05 La Crescent 5,158 403,997 566,362 509,726 -56,636 -10.98 -Lake City 5,339 1,076,738 784,069 707,795 -76,274 -14.29 Lake Shore 1,038 0 6,228 6,228 0 0.00 Le Center 2,365 511,137 618,094 556,285 -61,809 -2r Le Sueur 4,300 909,452 934,550 999,755 65,205 15: , Lester Prairie 1,702 282,844 437,857. 394,071 -43,786 -25.73 Lewiston 1,507 299,007 425,820 383,238 -42,582 -28.26 Lindstrom 3,966 166,977 156,606 140,945 -15,661 -3.95 Lonsdale 2,684 203,307 398,853 358,968 -39,885 -14.86 Madison Lake 928 139,438 132,602 .198,984 66,382 71.53 Maple Lake 1,912 299,906 432,312 389,081 -43,231 -22.61 Nicollet 991 144,060 183,231 164,908 -18,323 -18.49 Pine Island 3,301 605,863 657,569 591,812 -65,757 -19.92 Plainview 3,397 583,033 644,525. 580,073 -64,453 -18.97. Redwood Falls 5,307 1,342,422 1,161,104 1,044,994 -116,110 -21.88 Richmond 1,311 224,729 290,029 261,026 -29,003 -22.12 Rockford 3,903. 361,034 274,516. 459,149 184,633 47.31 Rush City 3,056 400,135 518,419 466,577 -51,842 -16.96 . Rushford 1,781 405,304 573,225 515,903 -57,323. -32.19 Sandstone 2,505 553,995 734,295 660,866 -73,430 -29.31 Sauk Centre 4,203 1,196,738 1,135,823 1,022,241 -113,582 -27.02 St. Charles 3,561 618,740 747,520 672,768 -74,752 -20.99 House Research Dept. Runabblga082a 1. .2008 04:08 PM Cityname St. Clair St. Joseph Stacy Stewartville Stockton Taylors Falls Wanamingo Waverly Winsted Zumbrota Group Established Ada Adams Adrian Albany Alden -'~mboy . _ ,,rgyle Arlington Atwater Aurora Babbitt Bagley Balaton Barnesville Barnum Battle Lake Belgrade Benson Bird Island Biwabik Blackdudc Blooming Prairie Blue Earth Bovey Braham SD--tB LMC City Cluster Listing Certified 2008 LGA vs Page 10 of25 Alternative. LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) 795 123,788. 174,536 157,082 -17,454 -21.95 873 5 780,719 801,839 721,655 -80,184 -13.65 , 357 1 126,709 224,356 201,920 -22,436 -16.53 , 759 5 904,491 709,315 638,384 -70,932 -12.32 , 766 62,103 103,046 92,741 -10,305 -13.45 054 1 132,511 195,970 176,373 -19,597 -18.59 , 055 1 209,323 229,25D 273,491 44,241 41.93 , 975 98,747 62,248 160,181 97,933 100.44 323 2 533,708 643,040 578,736 -64,304 -27.68 , 3,113 583,182 537,967 484,170 -53,797 -17.28 144,798 23,360,851 25,917,184 24,113,081 -1,804,103 -12.46 1,645 664,719 768 197,020 1,231 359,712 2,138 436,559 642 161,103 541 129,918 665 191,600 2,110 570,603 1,042 289,866 1,726. 753,598 1,611 261,391 1,259 454,032 600. 208,026 2,334 413,844 598 109,194 775 119,895 722 172,979 3,390 1,109,320 1,153 387,012 875 464,653 720 183,756 1,965 566,853 3,463 1,174,880 715 364,721 1,655 345,679 604,161 208,607 412,301 575,042 143,690 121,939 194,158 701,806 269,173 554,489 343,073 417,436 193,957 507,193 122,353 89,200 172,570 944,287 408,356 319,935 189,084 712,151 1,414,370 265,212 441,816 543,745 187,746 371,071 517,538 129,321 109,745 174,742 631,625 242,256 499,040 358,168 375,692 174,561 456,474 11D,118 128,957 181,748 849,858 367,520. 287,942 170,176 640,936 1,272,933. 238,691 397,634 •60,416 -20,861 -41,230 -57,504 -14,369 -12,194 -19,416 -70,181 -26,917 -55,449 15,095 -41',744 -19,396 -50,719 -12,235 39,757 9,178 -94,429 -40,836 -31,994 -18,908 -71,215 -141,437 -26,521 -44,182 -36.73 -27.16 -33.49 -26.90 -22.38 -22.54 -29.20 -33.26 -25.83 -32.13 9.37 -33.16 -32.33 -21.73 -20.46 51.30 12.71 -27.86 -35.42 -36.56 -26.26 -36.24 -40.84 -37.09 -26.70 House Research Dept. Run:ttbblga082a 1/18/2008 04:08 PM Cityname Breckenridge Brewster Brooten Browerville Browns Valley Brownsdale Brownton Buhl Butterfield Caledonia Canby Carlton Cass Lake Chisholm Clara City Claremont Clarissa Clarkfield Clarks Grove Clearbrook Cleveland Coleraine Cook Cosmos Crookston Crosby Danube Dawson Deer River Dilworth Eagle Bend Eagle Lake East Grand Forks Eden Valley Edgerton Elbow Lake Elgin Ellendale 5b~1 q LMC City Cluster Listing Certified 2008 LG A vs - Page 11 of 25 Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Att. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) - 3,539 1,344,873 1,250,960 1,125,864 -125,096 -35.35 482 86,108, 126,882 114,194 -12,688 -26.32 641 183,237 151,604 136,444 -15,160 -23.65 724 161,973 204,671 184,204 -20,467 -28.27 636 345,447 258,116 232,304 -25,812 -40.58 704 117,968 156,201 140,581 -15,620 -22.19 819 211,461 210,128 189,115 -21,013 -25.66 983 522,313 346,139 311,525 -34,614 -3521 523 152,271. 149,782 134,804 -14,978 -28.64 2,940 711,865 830,039 , '..747,035 -83,004 -28.23 1,835 721,448 714,591 643,132 -71,459 -38.94 806 221,428 221,160 199,044 -22,116 -27.44 823 409,739 406,894 367,522. -39,372 -47.84 4,676 2,367,138 2,335,446 2,101,901 -233,545 -49.95 1,340 366,154 419,772 377,795 -41,977 -31.33 611 156,487 159,261 143,335 -15,926 -26.07 624 220,599 166,821 168,640. 1,819 2.92 903 374,735 334;677 301,209 -33,468 -37.06 699 110,646 134,794 121,315. -13,479 -19.28 557 154,129 140,849 126,764 -14,085 -2'~ 713 107,904 115,983 104,385 -11,598 -18.c~ 1,134 473,338 337,357 413,782 76,425 67.39 586 124,471. 153,758 138,382 -15,376 -26.24. 575 1.53,531 134,081 120,673 -13,408 -23.32 7,950 2,957,069 3,159,121 2,843,209 -315,912 -39.74 2,313 730,869 749,752 674,777 -74,975 -32.41 491 140,823 130,275 117,248 -13,028 -26.53 1,448 589,912 584,936 526,442 -58,494 -40.40 .932 262,594 286,627 .257,964 -28,663 -30.75 3,543 677,971 594,564 535,108 -59,456 -16.78 609 .192,735 149,642 134,678 -14,964 -24.57 2,070 281,711 391,972 352,775 -39,197 -18.94 7,934 2,384,154 2,678,942. 2,411,048 -267,894 -33.77 889 221,788 212,298 191,068 -21,230 -23.88 984 254,807 291,937 262,743 -29,194 -29.67 1,240 429,904 403,250 362,925 -40,325 -32.52 981 136,334 246,306 221,675 -24,631 -25.11 651 116,204 131,539 118,385 -13,154 -20.21 ~~~a~ LMC City Cluster Listing House Research Dept. ~.-+ ~ a ~1 Q Runabblga082a Certified 2~0g LGA VS Page 12 of 25 ,2008 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Cityname Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Ellsworth 528. 157,230 158,069 142,262 -15,807 -29.94 Elmore 668 239,435 216,406 194,765 -21,641 -32.40 Ely 3,544 1,578,185 1,554,634 1,399,171 -155,463 -43.87 Evansville 568 123,044 121,470 109,323 -12,147 -21.39 Eveleth 3,631 1,776,976 2,041,813 1,837,632 -204,181 -56.23 Fairfax 1,267 395,938 440,511 396,460 -44,051 .-34.77 Fertile 864 201,752 251,915 226,724 -25,192 -29.16 Floodwood 536 190,925 129,124 177,897 48,773 90.99 Fosston 1,527 460,908 537,341 .483,607 -53,734 -35.19 Frazee 1,411 283,466 368,084 331,276 -36,808 -26.09 Fulda 1,311 403,932 450,495 405,446 -45,050 -34.36 Gibbon 781 217,630 213,058 191,752 -21,306 -27.28 Gilbert 1,772 923,601 613,508 552,157 -61,351 -34.62 Glenville 670 137,220. 171,396 154,256 -17,140 -25.58 Glenwood 2,660 820,394 737,415 663,674 -73,742 -27.72 Good Thunder 559 129,061 141,760 127,584 -14,176 -25.36 Graceville 593 219,793 184,366 165,929 -18,437 -31.09 Grand Meadow 922 230;431 262,467 236,220 -26,247 -28.47 _ 'ranite Falls 3,057 822,084 698,748 .685,695 -13,053 -4.27 ~reenbush 740 213,319 200,687 180,618 -20,069 -27.12 Grove City 624 171,87Y 156,270 140,643 -15,627 -25.04 Hallock 1,126 412,015 411,384 370,246 -41,138 -36.53 Halstad 596 159,416 155,724 140,152 -15,572 -26.13 Hancock 709 184,654 216,653 238,548 21,895 30.88 Harmony 1,131 346,431. 363,666 327,299 -36,367 -32.15 Hawley 1,924 336,669 441,539 397,385 -44,154 -22.95 Hayfield 1,355 330,813 400,640 360,576 -40,064 -29.57 Hector 1,167 337,166 343,618 309,256 -34,362 -29.44 Hendricks .700 204,334 207,839 187,055 -20,784 -29.69 Henning 829 209,544 242,747 218,472 -24,275 -29.28 Heron Lake 772 234,241 258,454. 232,609 -25,845 -33.48 Hills 550 122,950 132,727 119,454 -13,273 -24.13 Hoffman .651 133,996. 146,054 203,790 57,736 88.69. Hokah 567 208,831 161.,583 145,425 -16,158 -28.50 Houston 1,010. 307,498 323,623 291,261 -32,362 -32.04 Hoyt Lakes 1,872 479,827 281,043 371,701 90,658 48.43 Ivanhoe 630 216,832 196,224 176,602 -19,622 -31.15 Jackson 3,469 .1,284,117 1,193,528 1,074,175 -119,353 -34.41 House Research Dept. Run:ttbblga082a 1/18/2008 04:08 PM Cityname Janesville Jasper Kandiyohi Karlstad Kasota Keewatin Kerkhoven Kiester Kimball Lafayette Lake Benton Lake Crystal Lake Park Lakefield Lamberton Lanesboro Le Roy Litchfield Littlefork Luverne Lyle Mabel Madelia Madison Mapleton Marble Mazeppa McIntosh Melrose Menahga Milaca Minneota Minnesota Lake Montevideo Montgomery Montrose Moose Lake Morgan ~~ -- ~.1 LMC City Cluster Listing Certified 2008 LG A vs Page 13 of 25 Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita C hange in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5!1) 2,197. 512,667 674,961- 607,465 -67,496. -30.72 580 168,434 170,905 153,815 -17,091 -29.47 532 75,655 96,734 87,061 -9,673 -18.18 735 226,922 227,434 204,691 -22,743 -30.94 687 96,310 114,179 102,761 -11,418 -16.62 1,172. 542,298 392,745 353,471 -39,275 -33.51 742 181,076 .175,352 157,817 -17,535 -23.63 502 180,417 147,068 132,361 -14,707 -29.30 681. 105,107 124,417 180,267 55,850 82.01 521 126,210 127,344 114,610 -12,734 -24.44 673 247,582 194,252 174,827 -19,425 -28.86 2,575 603,120 722,773 650,496 -72,277 -28.07 856 163,745 194,224 174,802 -19,422 -22.69 1,701 706,450 669,276 602,348 -66,928 -39.35 820 .292,789 279,635 251,672 -27,964 -34.10 757 265,132 201,444 181, 300 -20,144 -26.61 903 216,482 283,499 255,149 -28,350 -31.40 6,869 1,532,100 1,753,432 1,578,089 -175,343 -25.53 . 705 167,737 203,899 183,509 -20,390 -28.92 4,597 1,365,046 1,262,094. 1,140,385 -126,709 -2""~ 569 135,491 159,373 143,436 -15,937 -28:u1 747 243,634 220,987 198,888 -22,099 -29.58 2,299 616,491 748,423: 673,581 -74,842 -32.55 1,686 752,359 781,329 703,196 -78,133 -46.34 1,649 378,749 509,471 458,524 -50,947 -30.90 704 315,140 235,484 211,936 -23,548 -33.45 784. 135,003 155,179 139,661 -15,518 -19.79 609 172,247 195,175 175,658 -19,518 -32.05 3,292 785,378 734,036 660,632 -73,404 -22.30 1,234 309,486 311,187 280,068 -31,119 -25.22 2,776 598,945 609,596 548,636 -60,960 -21.96 1,416 413,256 456,497 410,847 -45,650 -32.24 654 185,936 137,612 123,851 -13,761 -21.04 5,463 1,681,210. 1,776,218 1,598,596 -177,622 -32.51 3,229 679,341 763,431 891,414 127,983 39.64 2,360 181,806 389,757 350,781 -38,976 -16.52 2,445 371,093 464,268 417,841 -46,427. ~ -18.99 860 347,610 286,419 257,777 -28,642 -33.30 House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing .~ Certlfi a p ed 20~g LGA VS Page 14 of 25 Runatbblga082a P ~ Alternative LGA P roposal M ,. .zoos 04:08 Cityname 2006 Certified. Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Morris 5,184 1,717,992 1, 956,265 1,760,639 -195,627 -37.74 Morristown 1,040 168,542 232,296 209,066 -23,230 -22.34 Mountain Iron 2,843 528,046 825,649 743,084 -82,565 -29.04 Mountain Lake 2,084 718,890 850,912 765,821 -85,091 -40.83 Nashwauk 949 577,209 422,330 380,097 -42,233 -44.50. New London 1,170 227,332 295,567 266,010 -29,557 -25.26 New Richland 1,163 277,138 345,983 311,385 -34,598 -29.75 New York Mills 1,203 360,651 374,492 461,848 87,356 72.62 Olivia 2,565 885,142 768,739 691,865 -76,874 -29.97 Onamia 863 158,654 210,395 189,356 -21;040 -24.38 Ortonville 1,954 961,923 760,344 684,310 -76,034 -38.91 Osakis 1,615 446,033 455,647 410,082 -45,565 -28.21 Packers Prairie 1,032 218,028 271,396 244,256 -27,140 -26.30 Paynesville 2,319 577,093 678,145 610,331 -67,815 -29.24 Pelican Rapids 2,424 522,618 730,117 657,105 -73,012 -30.12 Pennock 494 88,673 108,387 97,548 -10,839 -21.94 Pierz 1,374 199,909 287,637 258,873 -28,764 -20.93. Pipestone 4,342 1,427,528 1,648,038 1,483,234 -164,804 -37.96 _ 'reston 1,409 503,869 538,356 484,520 -53,836 -38.21 proctor 2,823 794,743 968,475. 871,628 '-96,848 -34.31 Randall 586 87,016 110,826 99,743 -11;083 -18.91 Raymond 790 167,355 206,140 185,526 -20,614 -26.09 Red Lake Falls 1,605 575,357 594,023 534,621 -59,402 -37.01 Renville 1,276 443,030 446,188 401,569 -44,619. -34.97 Rock Creek 1,370 96,380 134,011 120,610 -13,401 -9.78 Rollingstone 644 90,768. 128,079 115,271 -12,808 -19.89 Royalton 913 117,900 .164,236 147,812 -16,424 -17.99 Rushford Village 779 55,614 73,749 66,374 -7,375. -9.47 Sacred-Heart 513 221,693 183,989 165,590 -18,399 -35.87 Scanlon 848 248,649 192,233 173,010 -19;223 -22.67 Sebeka 676 235,883 ~ 167,328 _ 162,766 -4,562 -6.75 Sherburn 1,027 352,131 324,251 291,826 -32,425 -31.57 Silver Bay 2,013 530,848: 545,493 490,944 -54,549 -27.10 Silver Lake 813 184,676 167,993 151,194 -16,799 -20.66 Slayton 2,035 789,350 836,926. ` 753,233 -83,693 -41.13 Sleepy Eye 3,584 1,177,895 1,381,345 1,243,211 -138,135 -38.54 Spring Grove 1,297 436,378 414,970 373,473 -41,497 -31.99 Spring Valley 2,568 783,995 875,120 787,608 -87,512 -34.08 ~i'J" House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblga082a !^~ .~ v Certified 200 LGA vS Page 15 of 25 v1s/2oo8 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal - Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita C hange in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Springfield 2,196 759,971 929,538 836,584 -92,954 -42.33 St. James 4,634 1,217,595 1,396,568 1,256,911 -139,657 -30.14 St. Peter 10,887 2,018,281 2,405,110 2,164,599 -240,511 -22.09 Staples 3,149 1,091,982 1,025,933 ~ 923,340 -102,593 -32.58 Starbuck 1,339 339,103 371,462 334,316 -37,146 -27.74 Stephen 690 153,159 .178,793 160,914 -17,879 -25.91 Stewart 540 189,938. 140,828 126,745 -14,083 -26.08 Thief River Falls 8,509 2,153,571 2,432,768 2,189,491 -243,277 -28.59 Tracy 2,155 894,376 918,871 826,984 -91,687 -42.64 Trimont 697 235,081 214,291 192,862 -21,429 -30.74 Truman 1,186 389,294 419,827 377,844 -41,983 -35.40 Twin Valley 819 240,701 266,161 239,545 -26,616 -32.50 Two Harbors 3,673 1,430,800 1,222,283 1,100,055 -122,228 -33.28 Tyler 1,199 323,274 375,952 338,357 -37,595 -31.36 Ulen 542 128,375 138,569 124,712 -13,857 -25.57 Verndale 559 114,368 129,142 116,228 -12,914 -23.10 Wabasha 2,727 669,941 668,851 601,966 -66,885 -24.53 Wabasso 651 192,408 176,419 158,777 -17,642 -27.10 Wadena 4,227 1,057,043 1,225,463 1,102,917 -122,546 -28.99 Walnut Grove 701. 190,329 219,427 280,793 61,366 8' Warren 1,683 423,849 497,519 447,767 -49,752 -29:ori` Waseca 9,828 2,01.5,115 2,447,542 2,202,788 -244,754 -24:90 Waterville 1,863 552,753 514,555. 463,100 -51,456 -27.62 Watkins 952. 165,958 229,733 206,760 -22,973 -24.13 Welcome 653 217,559 215,334 193,801 -21,533 -32.98 Wells 2,508 882,220 926,055 833,450 -92,606 -36.92 West Concord 828 213,707 246,695 222,026 -24,670 -29.79 Westbrook 706 284,819 238,545 214,691 -23,855 -33.79 Wheaton 1,513 599,969 610,374 549,337 -61,037 -40.34 Windom 4,436 1,119,069 1,294,749 1,165,274 -129,475 -29.19 Winnebago 1,409 548,639 563,065 .506,759 -56,307 -39.96 Winthrop 1,354 476,036 443,992 399,593 -44,399 -32.79 Group 344,123 99,796,268 104,639,662. 95,276,263 -9,363,399 -27.21 Small Rural Akeley 402 76,829 56,543. 50,889 -5,654 -14.07 Alberta 131 16,582 28,348 .25,513 -2,835 -21.64 Aldrich 45 3,257 4,835 4,352 -484 -10.74 SQ--~~ LMC City Cluster Listing House Research Dept. Certlfi ed 2~~g LGA VS Page 16 of 25 R«^atbblga082a o Alternative LGA Proposal oe 04:08 PM ,._.~J2 Cityname 2006 .Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in rt G Aft Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. A LGA Alt. vs. L . vs. ce (1) (2) (3) {4) {5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Alpha 127 33,476 35,096 31,586 -3,510 -27.63 Altura 421 51,706 39,641 35,677 -3,964 -9.42 Alvarado 373 31,585 40,449. 43,111 2,662 7.14 Arco 93 25,843 24,174 21,757 -2,417 -25.99 Ashby 465 100,706 106,829 96,146 -10,683 -22.97 Askov 371 59,968 59,969 53,972 -5,997 -16.16 Audubon 481 59,872 97,206 102,952 5,746 11.95 Avoca 123 29,297 28,613 44,965 16,352 132.94 Backus 324 37,584 30,028 72,445 .42,417 130.92 Badger 468 102,152 96,560 86,904 -9,656 -20.63 Barrett 333 62,396. 61,650 69,154 7,504 22.53 Barry 19 2,308 2,795 2,516 -280 -14.71_ Beardsley 237 82,188 72,019 64,817 -7,202 -30.39 Beaver Bay 184 35,920 24,433 21,990 -2,443 -13.28 Beaver Creek 247 61,671 42,829 38,546 -4,283 -17.34 Bejou 87 19,017 19,325 17,393 -1,933 -22.21 Bellechester 169 15,608 18,857 16,971 -1,886 -11.16 Bellingham 180 76,292 63,677 57,309 -6,368 -35.38 eltrami 93 21,647 25,774 23,197 -2,577 -27.71 Belview 375. 125,341 101,610. 91,449 -10,161 -27.10 Bena 106 21,605 24,928 22,435 -2.,493 -23.52 Bertha 474 158,659 128,636 115,772 -12,864 -27.14 Big Falls 269 80,316 66,757 60,081 -6,676 -24.82 Bigelow 227 35,631 49,888 44,899 -4,989. -21.98 Bigfork 468 110,308 84,250 75,825 -8,425 -18.00 Bingham Lake 158. 29,066 28,911 26,020 -2,891 -18.30 Biscay 112 5,635 10,807 9,726 -1,081 -9.65 Blomkest 179 24,094 18,985 17,087 -1,899 -10.61 Bluffton 208 13,739 25,593 23,034 -2,559 -12.30 gook 107 7,606 13,836. 12,452 -1,384 -12.93 Borup 80 11,949 14,675 13,208 -1,468 -18.34 Bowlus 257 29,458 36,262 32,636 -3,626 -14.11 Boy River 38 2,463 3,198 2,878 -320 -8.42 Boyd 178 96,070 69,246. 62,321 -6,925 -38.90 - Brandon 437 93,208 92,975 83,678 -9,298 -21.28 Bricelyn 339 125,239 .122,459 110,213 -12,246 -36.12 Brook Park 151 24,171 20,302 18,272 -2,030 -13.45 Brooks 144 19,035 22,976 20,678 -2,298 -15.96 ~_" House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblga082a ,7 O Certified ZOQg LGA vS Page 17 of 25 1/18/2008 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita C hange in Population 2002 LGA :2008 LGA Prop. LGA, Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Brookston 95 9,519 7,591 6,832 -759 -7.99 Bruno 107 25,454 18,905 17,015 -1,891 -17.67 Buckman 244 12,718 16,474 14,827 -1,647 -6.75 Burtrum 124 20,156 24,272 21,845 -2,427 -19.57 Callaway 209 40,106 36,041 32,437 -3,604 -17.24 Calumet 373 172,562 126,061 113,455 -12,606 -33.80 Campbell 206 54,112 53,565 48,209 -5,357 -26.00 Canton 324 96,969 81,666 73,499 -8,767 -25.21 Carlos 397 50,102 40,170 44,753 4,583 11.54 Cedar Mills 49 2,020 5,787 .5,208 -579 -11.81 Ceylon 364 150,467 128,515 115,664 -12,852 -35.31 Chandler 244 52,241 67,769 60,992 -6,777 -27.77 Chickamaw Beach 146 0 876 876 0 0.00 Chokio 423 139,135 117,438 151,680 34,242 80.95 Clear Lake 413 58,589 37,379 61,795 24,416 59.12 Clements 160 36,389 34,843 31,359 -3,484 -21.78 Climax 225 56,701 45,419 40,877 -4,542 -20.19 Clinton 427 188,256 146,150 131,535 -14,615 -34.23 Clitherall 120 13,501 14,420 12,978 -1,442 -12 ^' Clontarf 158 8,715 20,092 18,083 -2,009 -1: Cobden 51 2,360 2,942. 2,648 -294 -5.77 Comfrey 357 153,560 97,572 118,589 21,017 58.87 Comstock 11.1 12,840 15,467 13,920 -1,547 -13.93 Conger 145 32,360 22,791 20,512 -2,279 -15.72 Correll 35 8,233 8,933 8,040 -893 -25.52 Cromwell 209 22,513 26,162 52,596 26,434 126.48 Currie 208 69,918 66,943 60,249 -6,694. -32.18 Cuyuna 273 19,865 12,663 16,923 4,260 15.60 Cyrus 286 68,920 76,050 68,445 -7,605 -26.59 Dakota 326 16,094 34,662 31,196 -3,466 -10.63 Dalton 248 43,269 46,665 41,999 -4,667 -18.82 Danvers 96 10,595 10,577 10,440 -137 -1.43 Dartur 122 23,634 30,065 27,059 -3,007 -24.64 Darwin 301 12,139 22,768 20,491 -2,277 -7.56 De Graff 131 12,300 18,447 16,602. -1,845 -14.08 Deer Creek 329 51,863 57,935 52,142 -5,794 -17.61 Delavan 182 • 64,196 52,341 47,107 -5,234 -25.76 Delhi 73 16,695 16,169 14,552 -1,617 -22.15 ©- ~.~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing R~=^atbblga082a Certified 2~~g LGA Vs Page 18 of 25 ,, si2oo6 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5!1) Denham 36 0 234 216 -18 -0.50 Dennison 170 25,186 16,564 14,908 -1,656 -9.74 Dent 192 21,661 35,353 31,818 -3,535 -'18.41 Dexter 335 82,883 70,953 63,858 -7,095 -21.18 Donaldson 28 3,575 5,070 4,563 -507 -18.11 Donnelly 241 41,040 47,946 43,151. -4,795 -19.89 Doran 43 9,791 12,153 10,938 -1,215 -28.26 Dover 578 71,575 96,364 86,728 -9,636 -16.67 Dovray 67 9,827 13,726 12,353 -1,373 -20.49 Dumont .111 27,190 20,173 18,156 -2,017 -18.17 Dundee 95 15,180 21,239 19,115 -2,124 -22.36 Dunnell 186 54,019 60,311 54,280 -6,031 -32.43 Easton 199 45,413 34,750 31,275 -3,475 -17.46 Echo 246 102,174 74,621 67,159 -7,462 -30.33 Effie 92 1,555 7,757 6,981 -776 -8.43 Eitzen 234 23,656 33,102 ~ 29,792 -3,310 -14:15 Elba 202 9,583 17,015 15,314 -1,702. -8.42 _Elizabeth 171 30,511 27,920 25,128 -2,792 -16.33 Ikton 149 16,925 13,002 11,702 -1,300 -8.73 Elmdale 108 5,960 5,855 5,270 -586 -5.42 Elrosa 162 15,995 24,699 22,229 -2,470 -15.25 Elysian 551 .101,993 56,966 137,952 80,986 146.98 Emmons 418 96,379 79,958 71,962 -7,996 -19.13 Erhard 139 18,349 22,539 20,285 -2,254 -16.22 Erskine 429 98,546 .98,587 88,728 -9,859 -22.98. Evan 90 7,490 12,193 10,974 -1,219 -13.55 Farwell 47 19,314 15,112 13,601 -1,511 -32.15 Federal Dam 99 2,739 2,012 1,811 -201 -2.03 Felton 198 37,428 29,441 26,497 -2,944 -14.87 Fifty Lakes 406 475 2,436 2,436 0 0.00 Finlayson 333 28,033 36,143 .32,529 -3,614 -10.85 Fisher 395 51,737 73,377 136,144 62,767 158.90 Flensburg 237 25,610 21,493 19,344 -2,149 -9.07 Florence 45 1.1,903 9,757 8,781 -976 -21.68 Forada 193 1,115 1,158 1,896 738 3.82 Foreston 507 47,914 63,158 56,842 -6,316 -12.46 Fort Ripley 65 270 390 390 0 0.00 Fountain 374 44,542 57,926 52,133 -5,793. -15.49 ~~ - House Research Dept. r Q LMC City Cluster. Listing Runabblga082a Certified 2~0g LGA Vs Page 19 of 25 1/18/2oos 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008. LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Foxhome 115 20,086 24,431 21,988" -2,443 -21.24 Franklin 488 171,381 128,609 177,585 48,976 100.36 Freeborn 282 51,170 55,630 50,067 -5,563 -19.73 Freeport 477 94,220 75,088 123,652 48,564 101.81 Frost 229 61,624 53,172 47,855 -5,317 -23.22 Funkley 15 50 145 131 -15 -0.97 Garfield 302 19,538 32,425 29,183 -3,243 -10.74 Garrison 229 5,676 1,374 36,132 34,758 151.78 Garvin 141 54,607 38,575 34,718 -3,858 -27.36 "Gary 197 71,194 53,217 47,895 -5,322 -27.01 Geneva 468 57.,684 64,804. 58,324 -6,480 -13.85 Genola 67 217 1,672 1,505 -167 -2.50 Georgetown 123 8,542 12,754 11,479 -1,275 -10.37 Ghent 364 .60,717 76,153 68,538 -7,615 -20.92 Gilman 228 2,192 5,374 8,696 3,322 14.57 Gonvick 279 83,612 59,395 53,456 -5,940 -21.29. Goodridge 115 27,558 21,196 26,267 5,071 44..10 Granada 295 74,377 86,985 78,287 -8,699 -29.49 Grasston ~ 114. 22,325 16,624 14,962 -1,662 -14.~R Green Isle 450 61,409 35,769 142,591 106,822 23; Greenwald 185 12,510 21,422 19,280 -2,142 -11.58 Grey Eagle 341 89,589 65,844 59,260 -6,584 -19.31 Grygla 240. 48,331 38,631 61,307 22,676 94.48 Gully 93 11,359 13,567 12,210 -1,357 -14.59 Hackensack 314 13,852 6,928 16,521 9,593 30.55 Hadley 64 7,690. 15,191 13,672 -1,519 -23.74 Halma 64 9,125 10,341 9,307 -1,034 -16.16 Hammond 235 20,725 31,832 28,649 -3,183 -13.55 • Hanley Falls 304 77,855 72,110 64,899 -7,211 -23.72 Hanska 416 106,540 109,292 98,363. -10,929 -26.27 Harding 107 660 1,247 1,122 -125 -1.17 Hardwick 202 43,778 44,900 40,410 -4,490 -22.23 Hartland 271 59,225 53,285 47,957 -5,329 -19.66 Hatfield 43 2,864 4,108 3,697 -411 -9.55 Hayward 230 41,301 31,750 31,482 -268 -1.17 Hazel Run 57 12,511 13,605 12,245 -1,361 -23.87 Heidelberg 100 517 600 600 0 0.00 Hendrum 308 70,696 60,530 .54,477 -6,053 -19.65 5 D-~,~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing R~~^;ttbblga082a Certified 2008 -LGA VS Page 20 of 25 ,, . ,2008 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative. Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Cityname Population 2002 LGA 2008 iGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Henriette 103 4,711 10,045 9,041 -1,005 -9.75 Herman 422 158,838 116,287 125,551 9,264 21.95 Hewitt 274 54,975 57,061 51,355 -5,706 -20.83 Hill City .465 64,759 54,683 .59,300 .4,617 9.93 Hillman 21 3,271 3,040 2,736 -304 -14.48 Hitterdal 179 55,078 42,195 37,976 -4,220 -23.57 Holland 202 48,599 46,513 41,862 -4,651 -23.03 Hollandale 284 43,062 41,623 37,461 -4,162 -14.66 Holloway 1.03. 22,519 15,695 14,126 -1,570 -15.24 Holt 96 10,995 13,379 12,041 -1,338 -13.94 Humboldt 51 9,938 11,214 10,093 -1,121 -21.99 Ihlen 92 19,634 16,942 15,248 -1,694 -18.42 Iona 146 42,815 35,672 32,105 -3,567 -24.43 Iron Junction 85 7,640 9,936 8,942 -994 -11.69 Ironton 539 153,894. 110,672 .99,605 -11,067 -20.53 Jeffers 358. 110,582 113,107 101,796 -11,311 -31.59 Jenkins 316 10,158 5,122 10,802 5,680 17.97 Johnson 29 4,682 6,938 6,244 -694 -23.92 ~Iliher 313 78;009 90,837 81,753 -9,084 -29.02 -Kellogg 469 67,148 79,562 71,606 -7,956 -16.96 Kennedy 215 70,920 65,281 58,753 -6,528 -30.36 Kenneth 52 14,329 11,370 10,233 -1,137 -21.87 Kensington 285 57,164 55,428 49,885 -5,543 -19.45 Kent 115 ~ 20,853. 20,593 18,534 -2,059 -17.91 Kerrick 72 5,910 4,053 8,426 4,373 60.74 Kettle River 182 38,361 .25,032 48,860 23,828 130.92 Kilkenny 155 38,989 35,211 31,690 -3,521 -22.72 Kinbrae 17 884 589 530 -59 -3.46 Kingston 158 7,919 12,034 10;831 -1,203 -7.62 Kinney 172 94,384 63,315 61,520 -1,795 -10.44 La Salle 83 13,518 16,284 14,656 -1,628 -19.62 Lake Bronson 232 72,498 68,826 61,943 -6,883 . -29.67 Lake Henry 85 4,748 6,412 7,016. 604 7.11 Lake Lillian 239 52,633 37,765 33,989 -3,777 -15.80 Lake Wilson 254 77,448 74,879 93,011 18,132 71.39 •Lancaster 333 85,360 77,128 69,415 -7,713 -23.16 Laporte 1'38 9,276 10,181 9,163 -1,018 -7.38 Lastrup 95 3,701. 2,698 2,428 -270 -2•~ ~Q~a ~ House Research Dept. a ~f Q /-r LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblga082a Certified 2~~g LISA VS Page 21 of 25 1/1a/2oo8 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal Citynami: 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Lengby 80 28,392 23,366 21_,029 -2,337 -29.21 Leonard 24 .2,452 3,468. 3,121 -347 -14.45 Leonidas 53 49,351 35,770 32,193 -3,577 -67.49 Lewisville 250 52,230 63,934 57,541 -6,393 -25.57 Lismore 211 77,070 65,178 58,660 -6,518 -30.89 Long Beach 309 0 1,854 1,854 0 0.00 Longville 182 6,663 1,092 90,702 89,610 492.36 Louisburg 36 5,454 6,818 6,136 -682 -18.94 Lowry 286 63,681 49,971 58,097 8,126 28.41 Lucan 206 63,635 47,720 42,948 -4,772 -23.17 Lynd 394 62,557 61,667 55,500 -6,167 -15.65 Magnolia 204 23,577 33,068 29,761 -3,307 -16.21 Manchester 73 8,118 10,694 9,625 -1,069 -14.65 Manhattan Beach 62 0 372 372 0 0.00 Mapleview 170 70,742 53,537 48,183 -5,354 -31.49 Marietta 167 72,246 53,797 48,417 -5,380 -32.21 Maynard 351. 146,807 119,338 107,404 -11,934 -34.00 McGrath 72 2,574 4,938 18,457 13,519 187.76 McGregor 402 92,133 91,694 ~ 209,439 117,745 292 °^ McKinley 84 76,334 52,842 47,558 -5,284 -6: Meadowlands 126 17,385 19,213 17,292 -1,921 -15.25 Meire Grove 144 8,722 12,679 11,411 -1,268 -8.80 Mentor 129 17,340 26,148 41,654 15,506 120.20 Middle River 329 53,502 70,079 63,071. -7,008 -21.30 Milan 304 114,169 90,330 81,297 -9,033 -29.71 Millerville 114 1,175 3,191 10,887 7,696 .67.51 Millville 166 16,827 19,032 17,129 -1,903 -11.47 Milroy 251 57,127 55,273 53,558 -1,715 -6.83 Miltona 312 16,570 31,290 28,161 -3,129 -10.03 Minneiska 103 8,739 6,759 6,083 -676 -6.56 Minnesota City 222 26,459 35,305 31,775 -3,531 -15.90 Mizpah 64 4,232 5,121 4,609 -512 -8.00 Morton 424 130,103 127,621 114,859 -12,762 -30.10 Murdock- 295 .76,770 69,931 62,938 -6,993 -23.71 Myrtle 58 9,650 11,487 10,338 -1,149 -19.81 Nashua 50 401 357 321 -36 -0.71 Nassau 76 10,993 15,593 14,034 -1,559 -20.52 Nelson 153 15,726 24,009 21,608 -2,401 -15.69 House Research Dept. R' ~^_ttbblga082a 'r,-..,2008 04:08 PM Ciryname Nerstrand Nevis New Aubum New Munich Newfolden Nielsville Nimrod Norcross Northome Northrop Odessa Odin Ogema Ogilvie Okabena Oklee Ormsby Orr slo Ostrander Ottertail Palisade Pease Pemberton Perley Peterson Pillager Plato Plummer Porter Prinsburg Quamba Racine Ranier Regal Remer Revere Richville ,51D -30 LMC City Cluster Listing Certified 2008 LGA vs Page 22 of 25 Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt., vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) 245 22,444 17,809 16,028 -1,781 -7.27 362 67,723 48,791 56,551 7,760 21.44 507 65,930 98,517. 88,665 -9,852 -19.43 366 46,481 66,994 60,295. -6,699 -18.30 359 82,948 75,500 70,074 -5,426 -15.11 84 21,880 21,605 19,445 -2,161. -25.72 73 1,043 2,712 2,441 -271 -3.72 55 24,700 17,617 15,855 -1,762 -32.03 243 66,889 65,987 81,125 15,138 62.30 242 30,128 43,292 38,963 -4,329 -17.89 104 52,031 39,903 35,913 -3,990 -38.37 1.11 19,382 22,812 .20,673 -2,139 -19.27 124 36,695 28,716 28,357 -359 -2.90 480 124,715 120,731 108,658 -12,073 -25.15 182 53,683 48,007 62,479 14,472 79.52 398 130,1.16 107,422 96,680 -10,742 -26.99 145 21,223 23,905 21,515 -2,391 -16.49 240 64,604 41,350 73,874 32,524 135.52 336 103,834 73,514 66,163 -7,351 -21.88 247 35,022 51,536 46,382 -5,154 -20.86 495 1,002 2,970 2,970 0 0.00 148 14,748 15,763 16,555 792 5.35 180 10,449 15,922 14,330 -1,592 -8.85 242 19,888 26,111 25,546 -565 -2.33 110 17,671 21,253 19,128 -2,125 -19.32 252 35,519 45,264 40,738 -4,526 -17.96 474 87,022 116,988 105,289 -11,699 -24.68 316 38,422 24,262 43,324 19,062 60.32 ' 256 58,888 48,873 45,835 -3,038 -11.87 161 50,554 38,285 34,457 -3,829 -23.78 .455 104,479 76,843 69,159 -7,684 -16.89 107 4,862 14,248 12,823 -1,425 -13.32 411 30,971 57,772. 51,995 -5,777 -14.06 173 23,267 23,250 20,925 -2,325 -13.44 33. 391 2,031 1,828 -203 -6.15 366 67,933 55,616 50,054 -5,562 -15.20 98 28,155 22,561 25,289 2,728 27.84 107 6,622 12,933 11,640 -1,293 -12.09 ~~ ° ~~ House Research Dept. LMC City Cluster Listing Runabblga082a / ~1 Q Certified Z~Qg LGA VS Page 23 of 25 1/18/2008 04:08 PM Alternative LGA Proposal Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita C hange in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) {2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) Riverton 107 9,968 6,566. .5,909 -657 -6.14 Ronneby 38 2,376 4,525 4,073 -453 -11.91 Roosevelt. 142 7,469 12,347 11,112 -1,235 -8.70 Roscoe 110 14,183 21,481 19,333 -2,148 -19.53 Rose Creek 394 76,145 76,091 68,482 ` -7,609 -19.31 Rothsay .501 95,652 117,460 105,714 -11,746 -23.45 Round Lake 418 74,524 95,696 86,126 -9,570 -22.89 Rushmore 365 81,518 99,549 89,594 -9,955 -27.27 Russell 341 113,726 81,780 73,602 -8,178 -23.98 Ruthton 253 72,746 76,688 69,019 -7,669 -30.31 Rutledge 184 640 3,321 2,989 -332 -1.g0 Sabin 419 62,290 75,436 67,892 -7,544 -18.00 Sanborn 403 112,125 124,405 123,323 -1,082 -2.68 Sargeant 72 6,482 11,179 10,061 -1,118 -15.53 Seaforth 65 19,152 16, 677 15,009 -1,668 -25.66 Sedan 56 4,314 7,062 6,356 -706 -12.61 Shafer 869 34,550 136,520 122,868 -13,652 -15.71 Shelly 247 61,415 64,884 58,396 -6,468 -26.27 Shevlin 173 14,970 20,151 18,136 -2,015 -11 ^' Skyline 299 3,789 4,722 4;250 -472 Sobieski 180 2,912 10,205 9,185 -1,021 -5.67 Solway 73 7,918 5,717 5,145 -572 -7.83 South Haven 209 33,653 29,230 38,335 9,105 43.56 Spring Hill 61 4,840 2,598 2,620 22 0.36 Squaw Lake 93 8,704 10,1.04 9,094 -1,010 -10.86 St. Anthony 84 4,645 6,134 5,521 -613 -7.30 St. Hilaire 273 41,553 52,461 47,215 -5,246 -19.22 St. Leo 97 12,293 15,961 14,365 -1,596 -16.45 St. Martin 342 23,280 39,301 35,371 -3,930 -11.49 St. Rosa 32 .2,975 1,110. 3,863 2;753 86.03 St. Vincent 90 13,352 16,360 14,724 -1,636 ~ -1g,1g Steen 174 19,205 24,425 21,983 -2,443 -14.04 Storden 250 92,412 70,980 63,882 -7,098. -28.39 Strandquist 76 14,306 16,129 14,516 -1,613 -21.22 Strathcona 26 3,496 3,336 3,002 -334 -12.83 Sturgeon Lake 395 14,696 27,212 65,770 38,558 97.62 Sunburg 98 21,128 25,115 24,593 -522 -5.33 Swanville 356 81,632 80,031 72,028 -8,003 -22.48 House Research Dept. R~watbblga082a ,. .2008 04:08 PM Cityname Taconite Tamarack Taopi Taunton Tenney Tenstrike Thomson Tintah Tower Trail Trommald Trosky Turtle River Twin Lakes Underwood Upsala Urbank Utica `~rgas -Demon Center Vesta Viking Villard Vining Wahkon Waldorf Wafters Waltham Wanda Warba Watson Waubun Wendell West Union Westport Whalan Wilder Williams J`~"'~2, LMC City Cluster Listing Certified 2008 LGA vs Page 24 of 25 Alternative LGA Proposal 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cert. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5=4-3) (6=(5/1) 332 139,800 99,424 89,482 -9,942 -29.95 53 4,960 3,037 12,761 9,724 183.47 82 4,320 6,622 5,960 -662 -8.08 185 19,648 29,692 26,723 -2,969 -16.05 6 1,728 1,130 1,017 -113 -18.83 195 1,344 3,094 2,785 -309 -1.59 163 16,357 10,658 10,671 13 0.08 68 11,957 11,763 10,587 -1,176 -17:30 497 149,355 90,126 203,159 113,033 227:43 60 3,618 2,712 2,441 -271 -4.52 117 10,357 8,054 7,249 -805 -6.88 105 6,969 13,063 11,757 '-1,306 -12.44 75 103 450 450 0 0.00 156 38,433 29,171 26,254 -2,917 -18.70 344 80,585 74,024 66,622 -7,402 -21.52 432 71,344 60,829 54,746 -6,083 -14.08 • 59 4,482 5,516 10,282. 4,766 80.78 232 26,499 30,055 27,050 -3,006 -12.95 327 19,532 32,646 29,381 -3,265 -9.98 335 55,543 64,933 58,440 _ -6,493 -19.38 321 87,228 60,930 72,837 -8,093 -25.21 82 26,034 20,162 18,146 -2,016 -24.59 232 45,982 36,719 33,047 -3,672 -15.83 60 11,870 10,182. 9,164 -1,018 -16.97 344 16,897 11,852 10,667 -1,185 -3.45 230 60,983 46,081 41,473 -4,608 -20.04 g2 27,332 20,593 18,534 -2,059 -25.11 192 35,122 36,702 33,032 -3,670 -19.12 90 14,979 21,962 19,766 -2,196 -24.40 182 10,308 13,511 12,160 -1,351 -7.42 210 57,766 58,394 52,555. -5,839 -27.81 387 61,969 86,339 77,705 -8,634 -22.31 170 51,716 37,512 33,761 -3,751 -22.07 73 3,313 5,099 4,589 -510 -6.98 71 2,127 3,771 3,394 -377 -5.31. 59 14,075 9,111 8,200 -911 -15.44 66 15,853 15,839 14,255 -1,584 -24.00 207 40,873 39,347- 35,412. -3,935 -19.01 ~~~""~~ House Research Dept. Runabblgao82a Certified 2008 LG A vs 1., 8i2oo8 04:08 PM Alterna tive LGA Pr oposal Cityname 2006 Certified Certified Alternative Population 2002 LGA 2008 LGA Prop. ~1) (2) (3) (4) Willow River 398 36,156 45,787 41,208 Wilmont 314 71,171 85,096 76,586 Wilton. 198 0 3,845 3,461 Winger 184 48,149 35,830 32,247 Winton 167 36,597 27,197 24,477 Woff Lake 50 866 3,251 23,146 Wolverton 134 30,063 24,410 21,969 Wood Lake 412 127,577: 108,533 97,680 Woodstock 104 36,624 31,637 .28,473 Wrenshall 370 63,976 .48,797. 43,917 Wright 97 8,635 8,210. 7,752 Wykoff 425 136,702 115,747 104,172 Zemple 73 1,208 862 776 Zumbro Falls 167 30,173 34,887 31,398 Group 76,685 14,586,134 13,926,503 13,986,042. Region total 1,507,587 327,224,700 319,491,153. 313,402,687 State Total 4,243,097 564,980,025 484,148,487 580,519,920 LMC City Cluster Listing Page 25 of 25 Change in 2008 Per Capita Change in LGA Alt. vs. LGA Alt vs. cart: -4,579 -11.50 -8, 510 -27.10 -385 -1.94 -3,583 -19.47 -2,720 -16.29 19,895 397.90 -2,441 -18.22 -10,853 -26.34 -3,164 -30.42 -4,880 -13.19 -458 -4.72 -11,575 -27.23 -86 -1.18 -3,489 -20.89 59,539 0.78 -6, 088,466 -4.04 96,371,433 22.71 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5E REPORT # 33 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 _ REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR rt~°` /,i/~~ REVIEW: u ,h.~/ / /~/jL REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing acceptance of a grant for the Centennial Celebration in the amount of $18,019, and a federal grant in the amount of $22,293 for the Free Lunch Proaram from the U.S. Department of A riculture and Minnesota De artment of Education. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution authorizing acceptance of a grant for the Centennial Celebration and a federal grant for the Free Lunch Program from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Education. II. BACKGROUND ~ The Richfield Tourism Promotion Board approved a donation of $18,019 on May 2, 2007, to provide funding for the Richfield Centennial Celebration. Along with $18,045 in the 2008 Recreation Services operating budget, this will fulfill the Centennial Celebration budget of $36,064. When the donation was made, the City Council received notification by Council Memo. For three weeks in June and three weeks in July, Richfield staff provided over 7,600 lunches to youth 18 and under during the lunch hour of the Kids In the Parks program. 0212 Grants Expenses for this program are provided through a federal grant from the United States Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Department of Education, Food and Nutrition Services. The amount provided in 2007 was $22,293.95. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council • The Administrative Services Department issued a memo on November 9, 2004 requiring that all grants and restricted donations to departments be received by resolution and by more than two-thirds majority of the City Council in accordance with Minnesota Statute 465.03. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Richfield Tourism Promotion Board grant will provide half of the funds for the Centennial Celebration expenses. • The federal grant for the Free Lunch Program makes it possible to offer this program to Richfield youth, in conjunction with the Kids in the Parks program. C. FINANCIAL • All of the donations listed were given without obligation to provide any additional matching funds. D. LEGAL • Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real or personal property of more two-thirds majority of the City Council. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • .Decline to accept the grants. V. ATTACHMENTS • Council Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~~-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FOR THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,019, AND A FEDERAL GRANT FOR THE FREE LUNCH PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,293 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows: below: Any city, county, school district or town may accept a grant or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor. Nothing herein shall authorize such acceptance or use for religious or sectarian purposes. Every acceptance shall be by resolution of the council adopted by two-thirds majority of its members, expressing such terms in full, and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received grants and donations as described DATE j DONOR AMOUNT Ma 2, 2007 Richfield Tourism Promotion Board $18,019 U.S. Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Education June 2007 Food & Nutrition Services) $22,293 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: That the City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts all grants and donations as listed above for the year 2007 and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms prescribed by donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 CONSENT 5F 34 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing application to the Minnesota Department of Finance for fundin of the Honorin All Veterans Memorial RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the resolution authorizing an application to the Minnesota Department of Finance for funding of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial II. BACKGROUND - A request was presented to Senator Dan Larson, State Representative Paul Theissen and State Representative Linda Slocum at a City Council Worksession on December 11, 2007 to consider including the Honoring All Veterans Memorial for State funding. Senator Larson and Representative Theissen recently announced their intention to present a funding request to the State Legislature at the next legislative session and asked Recreation Services Director Jim Topitzhofer to prepare an application. Honoring All Veterans, Inc., anon-profit organization, .has developed plans for a memorial to be built in Veterans Memorial Park and donated to the City of Richfield when complete. They have raised over $120,000 so far and have begun the 0212funding electrical portion of the construction. The have contracted Anderson Memorials, Inc. to complete a bronze statue of the late Charles Lindberg. The unveiling of the statue is scheduled on July 4, 2008. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The resolution is an official statement of support from Richfield City Council to submit an application to the Minnesota Department of Finance for funding of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial. • This is a special request for funding and is not intended to be included in the State's bonding bill. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Senator Larson and Representative Theissen are planning to present a request for funding the Honoring All Veterans Memorial in the next Legislative session. C. FINANCIAL • Matching funds for the project are provided in the following ways: 1) Past and future private donations and engraving donations .given directly to Honoring All Veterans, Inc. 2) Trail and lighting improvements are included in the 2007 Capital Improvement Budget in the amount of $15,000. • The amount of the funding request to the State has not been finalized, but is anticipated that the amount will fall in a range from $100,000 to $200,000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny authorization. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 5~- I RESOLUTION NO.' RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL FUNDING TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE FOR ' THE HONORING ALL VETERANS MEMORIAL WHEREAS the City of Richfield (the "City") is a city located within the State of Minnesota and is therefore eligible to make application for special funding through the State Legislature; and WHEREAS, the City supports the Application made to the Minnesota Department of Finance for funding of the Honoring All Veterans Memorial as a regional capital improvement project that features a bronze statue of Charles Lindberg, one of the members of the team of US Marines that first raised the American flag on Japanese soil during the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS The City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreements. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to apply to the Minnesota Department of Finance for this funding on behalf of the City of Richfield and to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5G REPORT # ~ ~ ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: Portland Avenue; Nauc, Tircc REPORT PRESENTER: Nanar, T/TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for the issuance of a lawful gambling license for Minneapolis- Richfield American Legion Post #435, 6501 Portland Avenue with a resolution approving the amblin activit re uested b the ap licant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the request for the renewal of a lawful gambling license for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post #435 6501 BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER Approve the attached resolution approving the gambling activity requested by the applicant in accordance with Richfield C Code 1100.13, sub.6. II. BACKGROUND On January 29, 2008, Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post #435 submitted an application for the renewal of their lawful gambling license. The $100 investigation fee has been received. The Public Safety Department has conducted the required background investigation and has determined that the applicant has complied with all of the requirements. 0212 American Legion Gambling License and Resolution III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code 1100.13 requires the Public Safety Department to review the request for the gambling license and make its review and recommendation to the City Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The applicant has complied with the State statutes and City code pertaining to lawful gambling. • The applicant has submitted the request within sixty days of the renewal of the license. • The applicant has demonstrated that the gambling activity requested is a benefit to the community. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for the renewal of a lawful gambling license for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post #435. This would mean that the applicant would not be able to conduct gambling activities within their establishment; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • A resolution granting approval for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post #435 to conduct lawful gambling. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 5~- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL FOR MINNEAPOLIS-RICHFIELD AMERICAN LEGION POST #435 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING WHEREAS, Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post #435 has submitted an application for the renewal of their lawful gambling license; and WHEREAS, the application requests renewal of their bingo operations; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 349.213 provides authority for review of applications by local authorities; and WHEREAS, the Department of Public Safety has completed an investigation of the application and finds the application to be in order; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Council, City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That a lawful gambling license be granted to Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post #435, 6501 Portland Avenue. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: _ CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5H REPORT # ~( ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FESRUARy 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: I Consideration of purchase of new Reactor Mixer for Water Treatment Plant. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Approve the purchase of a new Reactor Mixer for the Water Treatment Plant in the amount of $36,125.00. II. BACKGROUND The 2008 Water Utility Budget includes the replacement of the two reactor mixers. Reactor mixers are used to mix the raw water with lime slurry and polymer to start the softening process. One of the existing mixers failed in December 2007 and needs to be repaired or replaced. Repair of the mixers is not feasible since many parts needed for repair are obsolete and not manufactured any longer. Since the estimated cost of the work was less than $50,000.00, the formal bidding. process was not required. Two quotes were obtained; one from Philadelphia Mixing Solutions at $ 37,480.00 and the other from Lightnin Mixers and Aerators at $36,125.00 ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION BRIAN YOUNG, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT r~ 0212Reactor Mixer A. POLICY • The City can contract up to $50,000.00 by obtaining quotes. • The lowest quote was provided by Lightnin Mixers and Aerators in the amount of $36,125.00.- B. CRITICAL ISSUES • .The reactor mixer needs to be replaced quickly in order to meet the summer water demands. • Approval at the February 12th Council Meeting will facilitate delivery of the new mixer. C. FINANCIAL • The replacement of this mixer was provided for in the approved 2008 budget (line Item 51000 - 7350, $28,000 - to be revised. to $36,125 in the 2008 Revised Budget). D. LEGAL • All contracts and purchases in excess of $25,000.00 require Council approval.- IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may choose to reject afl quotations and direct staff to obtain more quotations, however, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # SI REPORT # ~7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAML', TITL[ COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~j REVIEW: ~J REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request by The Church of the Assumption for a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and a public dance license for their Sweetheart dance to be held Februa 17, 2008. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor. license and a public dance license for The Church of the Assumption for their Sweetheart Dance to be held on February 17, 2008. II. BACKGROUND On January 10, 2008, The Church of the Assumption submitted a request for a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor. They also submitted a request for a public dance license for their Sweetheart Dance to be -held February 17, 2008. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving such food items as popcorn, hot dogs, sloppy joes, hamburgers, nachos and potato chips. The Church of the Assumption has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. 0212 Assumption Sweetheart Dance Licensing requirements for the preparation and service of food for this event is covered under The Church of the Assumption's annual food license. The event will take place from 6 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. Liquor Liability insurance coverage has been provided showing. The Catholic Mutual Relief Society as affording the coverage. The Public Safety Department has received no complaints regarding similar events for the Church of the Assumption for the previous year. IIL BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Necessary fees have been paid and insurance coverage has been submitted. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request. However; the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted similar licenses for The Church of the Assumption events. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The Church of the Assumption staff/representative AGENDA SECTION: .CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5,j REPORT # 38 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAME, T!"%LE .ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request by Edina Morningside Rotary for a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and an itinerant food license for their Winter Social to be held on Saturday, Februa 23, 2008 at Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license and an itinerant food license for Edina Morningside Rotary for their Winter Social to be held on Saturday, February 23, 2008 at Lariat Lanes, 6320 Penn Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On January 23, 2008, Edina Morningside Rotary submitted a request for an itinerant food license and a temporary license to serve 3.2 percent malt liquor for their Winter Social to be held at Lariat Lanes on February 23, 2008. The required licensing fees have been received. They will be serving food items; such as wraps, vegetables, pasta salad, fruit salad, meatballs, mini hotdogs, and sloppy joes. Edina Morningside Rotary has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling 0212 Edina Rotary Winter Social Liquor & Business Licenses practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. The event will take place from 7 P.M. to 11 P.M. and will not be open to the general public. In addition, Lariat Lanes will not be open for bowling to the general public during this event. Licensing requirements for the preparation and service of food for this event is covered under Lariat Lanes' annual food license. Liquor Liability insurance coverage has been provided showing PPH National Insurance Company affording the coverage. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to these licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Necessary fees have been paid and insurance coverage has been submitted. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request. However, the Public Safety Department has not found. any basis for a denial V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Edina Morningside Rotary staff/representative AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 5g REPORT # 39 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER. NAME, TiTi E' REPORT PRESENTER: NAMr, TiTrr; DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the renewal of 2008 business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales and licenses to do business in Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the 2008 renewal of named business licenses for 3.2 percent malt liquor sales; and • Approve licenses to operate named businesses in the City of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND The below listed businesses have not been required to have a staff report prepared in the past, nor is there a requirement for a public hearing, to be held for renewal of these type of licenses. Staff presented a report for each business at the time that they originally applied for and received Council approval to operate their businesses, or to sell malt liquor at their businesses, in the City of Richfield. For the sake of preserving time, the 0212 Annual Renewal of Consent Licenses for 3.2 Malt Liquor & Business Licenses license renewal requests were placed on the consent calendar. However, a staff report is presented to the City Council for informational purposes. The businesses named below with the corresponding licenses are presented for Council approval on this date. Licenses to Operate in Richfield • Airport Taxi - 11 vehicles • A New Star Limousine & Taxi Service - 10 vehicles • Suburban Taxi Corporation - 5 vehicles • Latino Express - 10 vehicles • Ecuadorian Express - 5 vehicles • Black & White Taxi - 5 vehicles • Gold Star Taxi - 27 vehicles • Twin Cities Airport Taxi - 13 vehicles • Paul's Rentals & Sales: Trailers and Trucks Rental License to Self 3.2 Percent Malt Li uor •' Airport Bowl - On-Sale • Aldi Foods -Off-Sale • Davanni's Pizza - On-Sale • EI Jalapeno -Off-Sale • Kwik Way Foods -Off Sale • Lariat Lanes - On-Sale • RBF Corporation of Wisconsin (Rainbow Foods) -Off=Sale • Richfield U.S. (Mobil Mart) -Off-Sale • Sandy's Tavern - On-Sale • SuperAmerica #4186 -Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4188 -Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4191 -Off-Sale • SuperAmerica #4615 -Off-Sale • Vina Restaurant - On-Sale • Worldwide Supermarket -Off-Sale • Target T-2300 -Off-Sale III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • All businesses must annually request renewal of their licenses to the City Council. • Businesses must meet the set requirements for renewal of their licenses. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • All license fees must be paid and application forms submitted in order to be considered for license renewal C'. FINANCIAL • All businesses listed have met the requirements and paid the required fees. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None; however, businesses have been notified of the date of presentation to the City Council. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 PIIBLIC REARING 7 40 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, INTERIM HOUSING COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: INTERIM DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding the. use of funds from the Community Develo ment Block Grant .allocation for 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2008 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing signature of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin Countv and anv required third party agreements. II. BACKGROUND The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on February 12, 2008 to authorize Richfield's use of-the 2008 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation of $194,693. As in past years, Richfield proposes the funds go toward home rehabilitation and public service. CDBG funds come from the federal government to Hennepin County. Hennepin County then distributes the funds to local communities. The chart below summarizes the recommended funding for Richfield's allocation: 021208 CDBG Project Allocation Per Total Recommendation Project 1. Public Service: a. H.O.M.E. $ 2,983 b. JVS $ 7,700 c. CASH $ 2,983 d. Home Line $ 15,537 TOTAL $ 29,203 $ 29,203 2. Rehab of Owner-Occupied $ 165,490 $ 165,490 Property TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $ 194,693 $ 194,693 The City's home rehabilitation loan program for low-income homeowners is administered by Hennepin County on behalf of the City. The program provides no- interest, deferred loans to homeowners on limited incomes to make necessary home repairs and improvements. The loan is satisfied when the home is sold. The City can use up to 15 percent of its CDBG allocation to fund public services. The Richfield Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) work collaboratively to address public service needs. In the past, RCHSPC determined the percentage of funding to be received by the following four public service agencies: • Household Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.) is a homemaker, maintenance and chore service program for residents who are 60 years old or more, or who have a disability, with the goal of keeping people in their homes longer to avoid the high costs of nursing home care. Clients are asked to pay for services based on a sliding fee scale. • Jewish Family and Children's Services (JVS) provides vocational assistance to low and moderate individuals to advance beyond lower-wage employment and become self-sufficient. JVS targets families relying on governmental subsidies to afford childcare while working or going to school to improve their employment outlook. • Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) provides homebuyer workshops, individual homebuyer counseling, foreclosure prevention services and counseling, and reverse mortgage services. Services are available to residents of any income level, but CASH estimates that two-thirds of the Richfield households served are below 50 percent of the median income. • HOME Line provides support to renters by offering free call-in or walk-in service, providing information and advice on tenant/landlord law and on court procedures. Staff also helps solve problems such as maintenance/repair related issues or instances of management abuses. A Renter Education Program for high school students is a program presenting the basics of renting for young people soon to be entering the rental market for the first time. This program has been successful at Richfield High School and Academy of Holy Angels. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Allocation of federal CDBG funds is an annual activity. • Hennepin County has an allocation system, which is unique in providing an annual funding source that can be planned for. • At least 70 percent of CDBG expenditures must be used for activities benefiting very low and low-income persons. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for February 12, 2008. • The application for funds is due to Hennepin County on February 21, 2008. A local public hearing must be held prior to submission of the application. • The $29,203 available this year for public service was distributed on a percentage basis as in the past, based on recommendations of the Richfield Community Service Planning Council • Third party agreements are prepared annually with each of the public service agencies. • JVS (and before that, Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association) previously used CDBG funds to supplement the County's sliding fee day care program for Richfield residents. This year, based on the results of a survey of program participants, JVS proposes to use CDBG funds to supplement its sliding fee day care program by providing vocational services to the participants. C. FINANCIAL • The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation for Richfield in 2008 is $8,138 (4%) less than 2007. D. LEGAL • Notice of public hearing was published January 31, 2008 in the Sun Current. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOIVIMENDATION(S~ • Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still achieves funding guidelines. • Fund other projects. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A `1-1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2008 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, The City of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on February 12, 2008 to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities for the City's proposed use of $194,693 from the 2008 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota approves the following projects for CDBG and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2008 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program: Project Allocation Per Total Recommendation Project 1. Public Service: e: H.O.M.E. $ 2,983 f. JVS $ 7,700 g. CASH $ 2,983 h. Home Line $ 15,537 $ 29,203 2. Rehab of Owner-Occupied 165,490 $ 165,490 Property TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION 194,693 $ 194,693 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2008 CDBG Program. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 021208 CDBG AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # L~ j STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT. PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of second reading of an ordinance amending Section 210.01 of the Richfield Cit Code related to Cit Council salaries. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve second reading of the ordinance amending Section 210.01 related to Cit Council salaries. IL .BACKGROUND Chapter II, Section 210 of the City ordinance establishes the salaries of the City Council. Section 210.01, Subd. 5 provides that the salaries of the Council Members shall be reviewed by the City Council set by this section by May 1 in each year in which an election is held pursuant to Section 200 of this code. An ordinance amending the salaries as established in this section must not take effect until after the next succeeding- municipal election. The next City Council salary adjustment would be effective January 1, 2009, if the City Council approves the ordinance amendment. The City Council has not approved a salary adjustment since January 1, 2006. The current annual salary for the Mayor is $9360. The current salary for the City Council is $7266. According to previously established City Council policy, any increase should be based upon the amount of increase granted to employees in the year(s) subsequent to the 0212salaries previous salary adjustment. The salary increase for employees in the General Services and Management pay plans was 3.5 % in 2007 and 2008. However, the City Council may set salaries in relationship to other metropolitan cities, especially since salaries have not been adjusted since 2006. The City Council should address salaries for atwo-year period, 2009 and 2010. A proposed ordinance is attached to this Staff Report to cover this two-year period. Attached is a list of Council salaries of 10 selected cities in the metro area. of a comparable size. First reading of the proposed ordinance was conducted on January 22, 2008. ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~ A. POLICY • Chapter II, Section 210 of the City Code establishes the salaries of the City Council and provides that the salaries of the Council Members be reviewed each year in which an election is held. • The City Charter stipulates that City Council salaries may be adjusted only by ordinance. B.- CRITICAL ISSUES • A public hearing is not required per State Statute or City Charter. C. FINANCIAL • The City Council did not receive a salary adjustment in 2007 and 2008. Their salary remains at the 2006 rate. • Richfield's .Mayor and City Council Member salaries are below average for the metropolitan cities surveyed. D. LEGAL • N/A IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could defer action on this item to a future meeting. • Do not approve second reading of the ordinance and take no further action. V ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance. • Salary survey. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0~( BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 210 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 210 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield is hereby amended by amending Subsection 210.01 to read as follows: Subdivision 1. Mayor. The annual salary of the manor as of January 1 2008 is $9,360. Effective January 1, 20029, the salary of the mayor shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage increase in the annual pay structure granted on January 1, 20028 to Management and General Services pay plans. Subdivision 2. Council. The annual salary of a member of the council as of January 1, 2008 is $7,266. Effective January 1, 20029, the salary of a member of the council_shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage increase in the annual pay structure granted on January 1, 20028 to Management and General Services pay plans. Subdivision 3. Effective January 1, 200810, the annual salary of the mayor and a member of the council as provided in Subdivision 1 and 2 above shall be increased by a percentage that is the lesser of 3.5 percent or the percentage increase in the annual pay structure granted on January 1, 20089 to Management and General Services pay plans Subdivision 4. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective. on January 1, 20029 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th .day of February, 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 0~~ METROPOLITAN AREA CITY COUNCIL 2008 SALARY SURVEY ~, r Cit Po ulation 2007 Ann Ma or ual Salary Council 2008 Ann Ma or ual Salary Council Apple Valley 48,418 $10,584 $ 7,560 $10,896 $ 7.,788 Blaine 49,962 13,637 10,003 No increase in 2008. Eden Prairie ~ 62,000 9,900 7,200 No increase in 2008. Edina ~ ~ 48,156 10,000 7,498 10,348 7,758 Fridley 2 27,480. 10,224 7,42 No increase in 2t?08. Golden Valley 3 20,736 11,619 8,696 No increase in 2008. Maple. Grove 61,263 13,000 11,000 13,500- 11,500 Minnetonka 51,658 10,500 8,000 12,000 9,000 Richfield 34,502 9,360 7,266 <oseville 34,080 9,300. 7,020 No increase in 2008. St. Louis Park4 44,896 10,985 7,165 12,417 7,165 Average Salary: '10,828 8,076 NOTES: In addition to salary, the Eden Prairie Mayor/Council are paid $35/day for attending special meetings of the Council and other meetirgs involving City business, regardless of the length or number of meetings attended that day. Such activities for which the Mayor/Council may qualify to be paid are limited to service as a representative of the City: 1. At meetings of boards, committees, commissions, or other entities of the City, or of which the City is a member, and which do not compensate attendees; 2. For appearances related to litigation; , 3. for appearances to testify at the proceedings of other units of government; 4. For out-of-town travel directly. related to City business. 5. For Council. assignments to participate in scheduled meetings in support of City business. Each person shall also be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred while attending to business of the City. The Eden Prairie Mayor/Council are also paid $60/month ($720/year) in recognition of costs incurred by them for technological communications facilities or equipment (packets are sent electronically). 2 The Fridley Council Member at Large received $8,398 in 2007 (no increase in 2008). s The Golden 'Valley Mayor/Council also receive $50 per meeting up to three meetings per month for special meetings, i.e., Community Services or Planning Commission. The St. Louis Park Mayor/Council also serve on the Economic Development Authority. The additional salary compensation in 2007. was $4,299 for the Commissioners and $5,731 for the President. In 2008, the additional compensation is $4,299 for both the Commissioners and the President. The difference in the 2008 and 2007 compensation for President was added to the Mayor's salary as that person serves in both capacities. Updated: 1 /16/08 AGENDA SECTION: RESOLDTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # b9 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAMG, TITLG ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks, conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth. I. .RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing for the establishments that failed alcohol compliance checks and approve the attached resolution imposing the following penalties for the first time violating establishments: • Suspending the license resolution to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days, -and; • Levying a fine against the establishments in the amount of $1,000 and; • Requiring a meeting with the Public Safety Director to present an individual establishment plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind, and; • Requiring a manager to attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety with all costs to be paid by the establishment. 0212 Disciplinary Action for Alcohol Compliance Failures N,vuc, TITLE II. BACKGROUND On October 18, 2007, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by four underage youth that were 18 and 19 years of age. These compliance checks were the second compliance checks conducted in 2007. Richfield Public Safety staff made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In two instances, an underage youth was served alcohol. In both cases, the servers were 18 years old or older. The businesses that made sales to underage youth on October 18, 2007 are: • Rainbow Foods - 140 66th St. W. • Davanni's - 2312 66th St. W. This is a first offense for~both Rainbow Foods and Davanni's. This is a first offense for the Rainbow Foods. Technically, it is a fourth violation; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes) it is considered a first offense. They will be fined $1,000 and there will be a five (5) day suspension. The age of the youth that purchased alcohol at this business is 18 years old. The clerk did ask for an ID and an ID was shown. Previous failures occurred on July 16, 1999, April 4, 2002, and November 9, 2004. This is a first offense for Davanni's. Technically, it is a third violation; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes) it is considered a first offense. They will be fined $1,000 and there will be a five (5) day suspension. The age of the youth that purchased alcohol at this business is 19 years old. The clerk did ask for an ID and an ID was shown. Previous violations occurred on July 14, 2001 and December 3, 2003. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their IDs and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell alcohol within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION POLICY • Resolution No. 9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the first time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days and levy a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,000 for the first violation. Staff is also proposing that the first time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment's plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, one employee, preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session, provided by a private firm approved by Public .Safety. The cost of the training is to be paid for by the establishment. A. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. B. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol compliance check. Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. C. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of alcohol to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary action against the establishment. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well-being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9511. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution for Rainbow Foods • Resolution for Davanni's VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from the establishments are expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing regarding the City Council meeting date. R-/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR RAINBOW FOODS, 140 66TH ST., AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Rainbow Foods ("Licensee") holds a 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2007, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their fourth compliance check failure; but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 12, 2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before March 12, 2008, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 12, 2008 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of February 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR DAVANNI'S, 2312 66TH ST. W., AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Davanni's ("Licensee") holds a 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2007 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor; and WHEREAS, this is technically their third compliance check failure; but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on February 12, 2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor License is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before March 12, 2008, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by March 12, 2008 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of February 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: RESOLDTIONS AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # ~~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER NAMG, T/TLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: TURF ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolution regarding civil enforcement for an establishment in Richfield that underwent tobacco compliance checks that were conducted b Richfield Public Safet staff, and failed b sellin tobacco to undera a outh. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing and approve the attached resolution imposing the following penalties: • Suspending the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; • Levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400 for a second time violation; and • Proposing that the Public Safety Director select the two consecutive days that the license will be suspended. II. BACKGROUND On November 1, 2007, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted tobacco compliance checks at all of the establishments in Richfield that sell tobacco. They were assisted by three underage youth that were 16-17 years of age. These compliance checks were the second checks conducted in 2007. 0212 Disciplinary Action for Tobacco Compliance Failures On November 1, 2007, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In-two instances, tobacco was sold to underage youth. The businesses that sold tobacco to underage youth on November 1, 2007 are: Gada Auto Service - 7733 Portland Avenue South Pump n' Munch - 6300 Lyndale Avenue South This is a second offense for Gada Auto Service. Technically, it is a third offense; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is considered a second offense. They will be fined $400, and there will be a two (2) day suspension. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this business is 17 years old. The clerk did ask for an ID and an ID was shown. Previous failures occurred on April 19, 2007 and December 18, 2000. This is the first offense for Pump n' Munch as a new owner purchased the store in October of 2007. Because it is their first offense, their license will not be suspended, and they are not required to appear before the City Council. They will however, be required to pay a $200 fine. The age of the youth that purchased tobacco at this business is 16 years of age. The clerk did not request ID and an ID was not shown. At no time did any of the minors use the tobacco products. The youth presented their IDs, if requested, and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at various times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in purchasing tobacco, the clerk was congratulated by officers. The employee that sold tobacco will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell tobacco within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future tobacco and alcohol education efforts within the community.. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code section 1146 specifies certain improper conduct of tobacco license holders .and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of tobacco to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the license to sell tobacco for two (2) consecutive days for the second time violating establishment; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $400. Staff further recommends that the Public Safety Director select the two (2) consecutive days that the license will be suspended. B. .CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell tobacco to underage youth. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing a tobacco compliance check. Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future tobacco and alcohol educational efforts within the community.. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of tobacco to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would,. however, send a message to the community that children and their well being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold tobacco to underage youth; however; that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in City Code 1146. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution for Gada Service Station. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from the establishment is expected to be in attendance at .the meeting. They have been notified in writing of this requirement. ~c~-I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE TOBACCO LICENSE FOR GADA AUTO SERVICE, 7733 PORTLAND, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME TOBACCO COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Gada Auto Service.("Licensee") holds a license to sell tobacco products within the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2007, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment, and during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold tobacco to a minor; and WHEREAS, this is technically their third failed tobacco compliance check; however, due to the step back option (two consecutive compliance check passes), it is considered their second offense; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the City Council on February 12, 2008 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's tobacco license is hereby suspended for a period of two (2) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $400 is hereby imposed. On or before March 12, 2008, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $400. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of February 2008. Debbie Goettel ,Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 KESOLUTIONS 11 44 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER ]NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: -ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 92182-R between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield for the replacement of the 76th Street Bridge over I-35W. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Adopt the attached resolution to approve the Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 92182-R between Mn/DOT and the City of Richfield for Replacement of the 76th Street Bridge over I-35W. II. BACKGROUND The Minnesota Department of Transportation has proposed to replace the 76tH Street Bridge over I-35W in 2008. The current bridge has a low clearance that has resulted in several trucks hitting the bridge. The project includes a new traffic signal on 76tH Street at the west exit ramp from I-35W and modifications to two other signals on 76tH Street at Girard Avenue (35W east ramp) and on 76th Street at Knox Avenue. The new.bridge will include apedestrian/bike. path on the north side of the bridge that will form part of a regional pedestrian/bike trail on 75tH Street and 76tH .Street. The City secured federal funds to assist in .adding the .new pedestrian/bike trail on the bridge. The City's local match ($61;9.84,10) for the Federal funds will be paid from MSA (Gas Tax) funds. 0212 76th St. Bridge Agreement The attached agreement describes the City's share of project costs ($61,984.10) and its responsibility to maintain 76th. Street, streetlights, the pedestrian/bike trail, sidewalks, and storm sewers. The City's share of project costs is an estimate and could change depending upon actual costs. The agreement also transfers jurisdiction for the west frontage road (Humboldt Avenue) to the City at the time construction is completed. The City then is responsible for all maintenance on the frontage road. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Replacement of the 76th Street Bridge is identified in the City's 1997 Comprehensive Plan • The pedestrian/bike trail was identified in the Hennepin .County First Tier Trails, Greenways & Parks Plan. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A Cooperative Construction Agreement is needed to allow Mn/DOT to bid the construction project in February, 2008. C. FINANCIAL • The City will. use $61,984.10' in its Municipal State Aid Streets (gas tax revenues) funds to pay its share of project costs. Federal highway funds will cover $248,000 in project costs for the pedestrian/bike trail. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed the attached agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None.. V. ATTACHMENTS. • Resolution Authorizing Approval of Cooperative Construction Agreement 92182-R between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City. of Richfield: • State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 92182-R ~ . • Graphic VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated ~i-i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT No. 92182-R BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF CITY'S SHARE OF BRIDGE COSTS, LIGHTING, TRAFFIC SIGNALS ALONG AND ADJACENT TO TRUNK HIGHWAY 35W AT 76TH STREET WITHIN THE CORPORATE CITY LIMITS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield supports the replacement of the 76t" Street Bridge over 35W; and .WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has secured federal funds to build a pedestrian bike trail as part of the new 76t" Street Bridge over I-35W; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has prepared a cooperative construction agreement that outlines the responsibilities of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield to build and maintain the new 76t" Street Bridge over I-35W including a new traffic signal at 76th Street and the Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp, modified traffic signals on 76t" Street at Girard Avenue and at Knox Avenue, street lights, storm sewers and apedestrian/bike trail NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 92182-R with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the bridge, lighting and traffic signal system construction and other associated construction to be performed along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 35W at 76t" Street within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2782-288 and State Project No. 15.7-090-01. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to .execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor A``TTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City .Clerk I ~-~. PRE-LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA Mn/DOT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF. TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT N0. SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 92182-R S.P. 2782-288 (T.H. 35W=394) S.P. 157-090-01 Fed. Proj. BRSTP 0353(307) The State of Minnesota AMOUNT ENCUMBERED Department of Transportation, and The City of Richfield (None) Re: City cost for bridge, trail., lighting and traffic signal systems. construction by the ESTIMATED AMOUNT State adjacent to .and crossing RECEIVABLE - T.H..35W at 76"' Street $61,984.10. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the-City of Richfield, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City". 1 ~c-3 92182 WHEREAS, the State is about to perform grading, surfacing, signing, lighting,. signal system, retaining wall and Bridge No. 27V98 construction and-other associated construction upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 35W from Trunk Highway No. 494 to a point 1900 feet north of Trunk Highway No. 494 and on 76°'' Street from Knox Avenue to Girard Avenue within the corporate City limits in accordance with State plans, specifications and special provisions designated as State Project No. 2782-288 (T.H. 35Tn1=394), State Project No. 157-090-01 and in the records of the Federal Highway Administration as Minnesota Project BRSTP 0353(307); and WHEREAS, It •is considered in the public's best interest for the State to provide a master controller and a new cabinet and control equipment (State-furnished materials) to operate the new Traffic Control Signal; and WHEREAS, the City has requested and the State has agreed to the inclusion of decorative lighting on Bridge No. 29V98, bike trail construction along 76t'' Street, the widening of Bridge No. 27V98 to accommodate a bike .trail which is separated from traffic by a barrier and traffic signal system construction; and WHEREAS, the City has expressed its willingness to participate in the, costs of the decorative lighting on Bridge No. 29V98, bike trail construction along 76`h Street, the widening of Bridge No. 27V98 to accommodate a bike trail which is separated from traffic by a barrier and traffic signal system construction and associated construction engineering as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, due to extensive excavation necessary to complete Metropolitan Council's sanitary sewer construction on the project, the City shall. receive a-lump sum credit from the Metropolitan 2 i ~ -~{ 92182 Council for costs involving the impact to Signal System "B" as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, a separate Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 91890M shall be prepared to address the maintenance responsibilities of each party. concerning the traffic control signal systems; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that Federal funding will be applied to certain portions of the City cost participation construction, and if so,-the cost of the City participation construction and associated construction engineering will be reduced by the amount of Federal funding received therefor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE Section A. Contract Award The State shall advertise for bids and award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder for State Project No. 2782-288 {T.H. 35W=394) in accordance with State plans, specifications and. .special provisions which are on file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and are incorporated .into. this.Agreement by reference. Section B Direction and Supervision of Construction The State shall direct and supervise all construction activities performed under the construction contract, and perform all construction engineering and inspection functions in connection with the contract construction. All contract construction shall be 3 I~~~ 92182 performed in compliance with .the approved plans, specifications and special provisions. Section C Plan Chana~es, Additional Construction,__Etc. The State in consultation with the City, shall make changes in the plans and contract construction, which may include the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement, and shall enter into any necessary addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements with the State's contractor that are necessary to cause the contract construction to be performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. However, the State District Engineer's authorized representative will inform the appropriate City official of any proposed addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements to the construction contract-that will affect the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. Section D Satisfactory Completion of Contract. The State shall perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner. ARTICLE II - INSPECTION BY THE CITY The City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement shall be open to inspection by the City. If the City believes the City cost participation. construction covered under this Agreement has not been properly performed or that the construction is defective, the City shall inform the State District Engineer's authorized representative in writing of those defects. Any recommendations made by the City are not binding on the State. The State shall have the .exclusive right to determine whether the State's contractor has satisfactorily performed-the City cost participation construction .covered under this Agreement. .....,...... . ARTICLE III - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY 4 ~i=~ 92182 Section A. SCHEDULE "2" A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement. The Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" includes all anticipated City cost participation construction items and the construction. engineering cost share covered under this Agreement, and is based on engineer's estimated unit prices. Section B City Cost Participation Construction The City shall, at the percentage indicated or lump sum amount indicated, participate in the following construction to be performed adjacent to and crossing Trunk Highway No. 35W at 76th Street within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 2782-288 (T.H. 35W=394) and State Project No. 157-090-01. The construction . includes the City's proportionate share of item costs for mobilization,. field office, field laboratory and traffic control. 1. 100 Percent minus all anticipated City Federal-aid funding shall be the City's rate of cost participation in all of the lighting; .signal system and walk/trail construction as listed on sheet 2 of the attached Preliminary Schedule "I". 2. A lump sum in the amount of $56 875.00 minus all anticipated City Federal-aid funding shall be the City's rate of cost participation for the bridge widening construction as shown on the attached Preliminary Schedule "I". 3. A lump sum in the amount of $26,331.00 minus-all anticipated City Federal-aid funding shall be the City's rate of cost participation for the State Furnished Materials as shown on the attached Preliminary Schedule "I". 5 i r -~ 92182 4. The City .shall receive a lump sum amount of $2,623.20 as a credit for Metropolitan Council's impact to Signal System "B" necessitated by the extensive excavation necessary to complete sanitary sewer construction. Section C. Construction Enaineering Costs. The City shall pay a construction engineering charge in an amount equal.to 8 percent of the total .cost of the City participation construction covered under this Agreement. Section D. Addenda, Chance Orders and Supplemental Agreements The City shall share in the costs of .construction contract addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements that are necessary to complete the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. _ Section E. Liquidated Damages All liquidated damages assessed. the State's contractor in connection with the construction contract shall result in a credit shared by each party in the same proportion as their total construction cost share covered under this Agreement is to the total contract construction cost before any deduction for liquidated damages. Section F City Cost May Include Anticipated Federal Aid It is anticipated that Federal funding will be applied to the City cost participation construction as indicated in Section B of this article, and to the associated construction engineering. City costs shall include an amount equal to all anticipated Federal funding not applied to the City cost. participation construction and associated construction engineering. 6 ~c~~ 92182 ARTICLE IV - PAYMENT BY THE CITY Section A Estimate and Advancement of the City's ,Cost Share It is estimated .that the City's share of the costs of the itemized contract construction, the lump sum costs for Bridge No. 27V98, the lump sum costs for State Furnished Materials, the credit for Metropolitan Council Environmental Services extensive sanitary sewer excavation necessitating the signal system work plus the 8 percent construction engineering cost share. is the sum of $61,984.10 as shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I". Upon award of the construction contract the State shall prepare a Revised SCHEDULE "I" based on construction contract unit prices. After the following conditions have been met, the City shall advance to the Commissioner of Transportation the City's. total estimated construction cost share, which does not include the 8 percent construction engineering cost share, as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I": 1. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's. transmittal of it to the City along with a copy of the Revised SCHEDULE "I". 2. Receipt by the City of a written request from the State for the advancement of funds. Section B Final Payment by the City Upon completion .and acceptance of the contract construction, computation of the final amount due the State's contractor and determination by the Federal Highway Administration of the amount of its reimbursement. to the State, the State shall prepare a Final SCHEDULE "I" and submit a copy to the City. The Final SCHEDULE"I" shall be based on final quantities, and include all City cost participation construction items and the construction engineering cost share covered under this Agreement. In accordance with 7 ~r-~ 92182 Article III, Section F. of this Agreement, the Final SCHEDULE "I" shall also include City costs in an amount equal to all Federal funding not applied to .the City cost participation construction and associated construction engineering. If the final cost of the City participation covered under this Agreement exceeds the amount of funds advanced by the City, the City shall, upon receipt of a request from the State, promptly pay the difference to the State without interest. If the final cost of the City participation covered under this Agreement is less than the amount of funds advanced by the City, the State. shall promptly return the balance to the City without. interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 15.415, the State waives claim for any amounts less than $5.00 over the amount of City funds previously advanced to the State, and the City waives claim for the return of any amounts less than $5.00 of those funds advanced by the City. Section C Acceptance of City's Cost and Completed Construction The computation by the State of the amount due from the City shall be final, binding and conclusive.- Acceptance by the State of the completed contract construction shall be final, binding and. conclusive upon the City as to the satisfactory completion of the contract construction. ARTICLE V.- GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. Plan Changes The City may request changes in the plans. If the State determines that the requested-plan changes are necessary or desirable, the State will cause those plan changes to be made. Section B. Replacement of Castings The City shall furnish the State's contractor with new castings and parts for all inplace City-owned facilities constructed hereunder 8 11--~~ 92182 when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State or the State's contractor, except for replacement of castings and parts broken or damaged by the State's contractor. Section C. Utility Permits The City shall submit to the State's Utility Engineer an original permit application for. all City-owned utilities to be constructed hereunder that are upon and within the trunk highway. right-of-way. Applications for permits shall be made on State form "Application For Utility Permit On Trunk Highway Right-Of-Way" (.Form TP2525). Section D. Limited Use Permit The City agrees to apply for, through the District's Right-of-Way Area Manager, a Limited Use Permit covering the City's liability and . maintenance responsibilities, including repair and replacement,~of the bike trail to be constructed within the State right-of-way. Section E Maintenance by the City Upon completion'of the 76th Street. and Humboldt Avenue South (West Frontage Road) construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the roadways and all of the facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the State.. .Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, resurfacing and seal coating and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the roadways in a safe and usable condition. Upon completion of the .storm sewer facilities construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall .provide for the proper routine maintenance of those facilities, without cost or expense to the State. Routine maintenance includes, but is not limited to, removal of sediment, debris, vegetation and ice from structures, grates and pipes, repair of minor erosion problems, and minor structure and pipe repair, and 9 92182 any other maintenance activities necessary to preserve the facilities, and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration o.f the facilities. Upon completion of the City-owned utilities construction to be ....,performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of those utilities, without cost or expense to the State. Upon completion of the walkways construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the walkways, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, patching, crack repair, panel, replacement, and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the walkways in a safe and usable condition. Upon completion of the bike trail and barrier construction to be performed within the corporate City. limits under. the construction contract, the City shall provide for .the proper routine maintenance of the bike trail without cost or expense to the State.. Routine maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, patching, crack repair, mowing, trimming, signing, pavement marking, and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the bike trail in a safe and usable condition. Upon completion of the lighting facilities construction. to be performed along 76th Street and within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City will provide for the proper maintenance and be the-owner of those facilities.. Maintenance includes but is not limited to; replacing faulty luminaires and knocked down or otherwise damaged poles; repairing or replacing underground facilities and wiring; repairing service cabinets, photocells, and all other miscellaneous hardware to keep the lighting 10 ~~-~a 92182 facilities in working order; cleaning and relampira.g the luminaires; and painting the lighting facilities. The City will pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the lighting facility.. Section F. Additional Drainage Neither party to this Agreement shall drain any additional drainage into the storm sewer facilities to be constructed under the construction contract, that was not included in the drainage for which the storm sewer facilities were designed, without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. The drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities .constructed under the construction contract are shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT "Drainage Area", which is.on file in the office of the State's District Hydraulics Engineer at Roseville and is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section G. Future Responsibilities Upon completion of the 76t'' Street and Humboldt Avenue South (West Frontage Road) construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall thereafter -accept full and total responsibility and all obligations and liabilities arising out of or by reason of the use, operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of 76t'' Street and Humboldt Avenue South (West Frontage .Road) and all of the facilities apart thereof constructed hereunder, without cost or expense to the State. Section H. Release and Conveyance of Roadways The State shall,. upon completion of the 76t'' Street and Humboldt Avenue South (West Frontage Road) construction and all of the facilities a part thereof constructed within the. corporate City limits under the construction contract, serve upon the City a "Notice. of Release" placing those roadway portions under the jurisdiction of the City; and .subsequent thereto, after all necessary and required 11 I ~-~3 92182 documents have been prepared and processed, the State shall convey to the City all right, title .and interest of the State in those roadway portions. Upon receipt of that"'Notice of Release", the City shall become the road authority responsible for the roadway portions so released. Section I Examination of Books, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by each party, and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from final payment.. Section J. Claims Each party is responsible for-its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City. Section K Agreement Apvroval Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be approved.by a City Council resolution and executed by such State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or their authorized representative. ARTICLE VI - AUTHORIZED AGENTS The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly=Sonnek, Municipal Agreements Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 12 1~ 92182 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MC~TT 55155; (651) 366-4634. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Thomas Foley, Transportation Engineer, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 6700 Portland. Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423, (612) 861-9791. C I - ~.~ 92182 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers.- CITY OF RICHFIELD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By Debbie Goettel,MaYor Date By Steve Devich Title City Manager By District Engineer Approved: By State Design Engineer Date Approved as to form and execution: Date By Contract Management Date COMMISSIONER''OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By Date 14 d N . a °~° A . (~ N a ~ .~. x~x~ U H Uz ~w~' ~~o. r~ ~aE. a Q U '•Ni ' '~"6I I I ~ ~ ZIt\i O!CV' ~inl MINI~~ I ~ I IG,; ~ i I I , ICI ~ I _I , p~~.I,~~Mi Imo; !~~,~ ~ ' I j I I I ~ [~ N, ~ ,-a ~ I . j j I ~Ii i ,ii I IIIIi I' jj' ~~i- IIIjI ICI I i I I . I I ~ ! j liil !~II- i I Ij~i,l Ili, l~~ VIII ' I 'I-I ' i~ I , I.i-1 ) I ~ i. ~ I IjIi ii I ~ I I~ I i ~I I .I M I~ j II , 'oi I :31 ~~I ~ ~/'1 M : I I M M z lol i I ~, as ' i 'x o~~" I INTO ~I iN `r'Iaj ~. )Cin .Di ~ y:. i~ `~i-" ~ i i I °'~ .~ I ' UI j, ! --11 ~ i I - ~ ~yiwj -E-i 6~4 I ,--~i Ef3 1 ~ Nl I i~ I - NI ~,~ 6R i I I NI 69 N I 64 ~ ~ - . j I ~ ~I 1 i !' I ~. I I I i i I j o - ~I ~ I - ! j I j I, ~ I N I ,~, I I i ~ ~; ` z oI OI V I ~ ~ O o ~ ` ° i I N ~I ~I ~ I CT ol ~ ,c I l o v~l ; ~ ~ I I ~~ I I i l I ~ ~ `n ~ i ~ OI ~ ° ~ ~ I o- ,~ ~^ r ~I I . CI ~ ~ I I wl~i ~. ~ I ' ~ i ~I ~' ~ j I I I I j i t i ~ k al I! ~ I I o, , ~~ j ~ i i - j j I . - ~ I ! ~I ¢! j I. I i I I I I ~ i i I i I I I I z . ' o I l i I ~ ~j i ~ ) '~ °I l . li ~ I ~ ~ ~I I of I l i ~ a I °~ ~I ~E. ICI I o- 'I N ; i'O of ~' z- -~i. ~I >~ ~; ~- of ~_ ~ - ~ 3 ~ bn' c) w '>~ ; I.o j I o, 'Y ! j ~„ ~j - ~~ of I ~,; cn ~ I ~• j ~ I _( z I I ~~ y j ~, I I cI3 ~I ern; ICI I ~ I~ i ; I •~ I ~ I ~' olM{ I 1 ,U I UIxI I I, ~~y:E- I ~ ~;.~ i I bq.~~~ I f ~~ ~! U~ I~ ~.C%~ j p I i I ' I j i YI >~ ~I . ~ '~ 3 - I I~ j j i ~i - ~ ~ I >- N ~. ~~ I o - I i , y, - ~ -C3 ~ I I i ~'I I bA m ; I I ~ ~; ~„ Iw , ~ ~ ; - i~l U 'b ~ I i - ~ I -~ N -.~ i.~ N I ~ j I i o ) -. I ~ ' ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ' N' ~ +~' ~I W. ~~ I ~ 7r I' ~ ~ bA IW ~ -~ jU j ~ ~' { 1 j j I I i I I i ~ _ i.l I U: I ~ z lc~ l ° U I ~ 'L: I ~, O 1 I I I i ~ ~ '~ . . ~ iw ~ I ~ I w y ~ I I I ~ i o f ~ l ~ .~,.. I ~ j e - I ! I I ~ j Tl Iw la ~ lt~~ C rn I l o IU f ~ ;v~ l IW I I I - I n j l ^ i l I I j I I . Tf ~~ : I v ; l I i ' i l i I i I I I i ! ~ I I I i l I UI ~, I j .. i i i ~ - ~ j ICI. I '. I ' ~ I ' ~ ~ ; I~ _ I i i I I ' I ! l i l ! I I 1 ! 1 i I '~ C O I I 1. ' I I ~ ~ j : I j ~ j i - ~.+ col i I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ! ~ ~ ~ . I I ! I j I ; i ~ ~' I I I i I ~ I I , i ~ ~ i ~' r 3 N N - O~ U ~ o F N .~ 0 A a a n O 'Jr d' 0 0 0 O N O oo O~ 0 0 0 ~--~ O ~n 0 0 0 [~ M" 0 0 0 0 0 0 M -. O O v'1 ~t ~t O ~- M O N M d' -00 O ~ G1 V1 t~ O O O l~ O\ O O O O O~ ~ 00 O d- M~~ _M O~ ~- O ~n ~D M - l~ M a ~ --~ N N~ 00 N o0 N O O~ ~ ~ ~ rn M v-~. N I~ O oo O N N G~ co ^-~ O O ~n v~ O O O ~n ~n ~h O v-~ M N ~ FI O. ~F N N 00 N N N V'1 [~ -M M ~/'~ E~ vl ~ N ~ GO ~ .~ N [~ d N M M ^-~ ^-~ 00 ~ v1 .-~ ~ v'1 M d' ~-+ ~ V'~ ^+ N vl - ~ M d' N Ul .-~ d' N O 00 U ~`J4 W O O\ 00 O vl O o0 d' O d• O ~ l~ O O O\ ~--~ ~ OO O 01 M O B G~ v'~ O O O [~ O O\ v~ O~ d- O v'~ O~ ~ ~ _ ~ M l~ O [~ O\ O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' a Q (, O ~--~ ~O O~ M O ~O o0 N oo ~ OO ~ O ~--~ ~n vy .~ --~ .-+~ ~O N G O O O O -O ; H ~~/ O. O~ ~-+ O ~~ ~--~ O oo V M N ~ •--~ M CO [~ ~ M 00 v-~ ~ 00 ~--~ N [~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O ~n v7 •--~ N i 0 [~ . ~yy O M oo N ~--~ ~, ~ O ~ ,N• OV ~ - z ~"~ M M M O O O O O O O -O O O O O O O O O ~O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O M ~ O~ .O vl 0 O \O l~ O [ E"~ O O O O O O O O O O O O d' ~h O oo M N l~ M O B M M O v~ 0 0 0 •--~ ~ c~i C O O ~-+ O t~ ~ O~ M O ~--~ M ~ ' ~ ON ~ O O z ~ -, ~ M a ~~~~~ Z. ~"~xxxxAAAw F"w~Fx xx www wwxx xa.~.°.F~ ~ a~ Q 4 d A A A~ '~ Z 'd Q d ~ Z Z ~ Z d Q d~ v~~~ a w w w w U v U a O O ~ a a v~ w w w a a a a a w w w a v~ a v~ v~ .-. ~ n a a.+ a .~ .., ... ' o ~ W ~ j c' C~' ' W. U .~ N ~t N .--~ F V] b om q A ~ t . ~ ^~ ~ W z ~;r °' r a. A A ~ C7 C7 N ~.o~ 0 W et a ~` o ~ w o o ~ ~ >. ~ ~~ W W' o z ooF z ~ ~.. F~ ~ a ~~ s M X~ U~o AA a A AA. ~..'~ . inv AA O„-,q W 3 z ~r~ ..~ H H W ~ U U U ~ d q , a' II ~ F, ~ zo¢~ HQ '^ o aQ~ Z ~~ d ~ ~!~ ~ ~~ ~ W W o W W w~w W~ • A Z ~ ?~ '-~ W C7 C7 W W z A Z ~ W x x `-' a F F A U w ~ H c7 ¢ ~ w A a ~ ~ w y, ~" ~~, C 7 z ~ ~ ~„ q 3~W a a ~ "' z" w~~ ;Wo. o ~Ov~~'a~~, ¢ ¢q F ~O F~ ~~ A A AA OO C~C4w N ~' A zF Fxd~ z U ~ 3~ F A Fw A ~ w¢~ Z-¢ ~~ m a ,aa ¢¢ am z z °' ~~ X ~ o W ~,~o~,~w~FF w ~~ z ~w~ W z ~~ ~FO OO¢F y , ~,oo~~~ N w d w w z~ ww U F F d~ Z m ~ t~ 7 t~ 7 t~ 7 w w w v a v~ O D 77 v~ C ~Oa~ OF w ~xU Q ~ ~~U~ U x c~ww ~ a~ `~ U E' x A Q Q~ ~ a 0 z z a ~ ' v v z Q z Q Q~~ Z ' z Q¢ w ~~ w d O w t7 z ~ _ O O~ ~ - v _ a ~ W O ~ ¢ ~~~ W w ~ c =, :~, ~ v~ U vl ¢ r, v U U F . a a N N zn w F F w x~ O O O O N O N O ~t 0 0 0 -J --~ N N M M M V- d' vl O --- O Vl ~/'1 ~/"1 N V'1 ~ ~/'1 ~ ~ ~ V"1 ~ ~O ~ t/') ~/'1 V7 N ~ t!') ~ {!1 Vl Vl ~O ~/'1 ~O ~O lJ W F l~ II-~~ N M M O O O O --~ O .-• t17 N M M M d- ~ ~ ~ d' Vl ~/"1 V-i d' ~ d' ~ ~ ~. Vl d ~t ~t ~ V-1 M ~ V~ V'1 ~ ~ ~D lC V' ~O ~D i .+ ~ O O O •--~ •--~ •-• •-• N M N N N N N N N N N N t/') V1 v) t!-~ N N N N N V-~ ~ N N ~ . V1 V-1 N N N vl ~ ~ .~ N N N N ~!1 ~ V-) t!'~ t/-1 ~ N N N N N N z - _ N ~- '//q q I r ~ ~ A~ r Q~qR...~ iii ?~x~ Q : ~ ~ © ~>Fx 7b a q q q ~ avox a~.Y ~ q U J ~ ~ rn at..,~,,. 1. o '- ~ \ ~ H ~I . ° ~ ov I ~ \ © APfT19Y t ~ y ~ ~ ~; ~, ~\ p~ DI ~ to tYr. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ -2 2~182~ ~ I ~~ ~ t oQ -------------_~„r-- .. , _ ~ ' ~ Ott Y• - .rwsY i~ " i ~ pp ~ ^ i~ 9 D~~ S ~ ~ ~hk I S l , /, . s . . ~ a1 ~# i ~ o + 9 OIRApD AVE S. ~~'r _ tae+w.o ', '~~ i # ~ ~ ~~ Q 1 C-l g v t ~ ~~ i N Cj ~`. ~ ~~ ; ~~ >EI I ( ~g + ~t k 11 , . ~ ~ tk 60. Ramp ya ~w~* "-~] j~ CIE. ~+, `c'=ta tteo2~ 1F3 10t sm J ® 4.4 A3B/ w ~ ~ X35 40 ~ ~ + +r s~< ' ~ ~o <~ Y~ 'Q/ J =° ~L ~''x~ 'r ~ ~ ~ 8 s ~ ~ ,~'~ 7 Ia ~ .. ! .. ~ o ~ `~ D c rs ~u_, --, o a - -- _ •~~- -_ -~ ~ ~~~ rYnw iwnrwa row ~ ~ 'AY HU ~ ~ ~=~_~~_Re \ \~ • - - Mr~T AVE. s. r~s i ._ -_< _ e~ pYM \ ~ ~ ooh ~ ` ~ ~ .q HUMBOLDT AVE. S. (E. Fra r` - '' d i ~ rot >st~ not ~ 1 LJ X11 ~ ~~Y] • ~ Q /~Q ~.n $i3. ~ ~ 'Dsa ? Jr /~ \ v ~ a ~ R EEMaM ~° o ~, ~ , .~ Q ~ ~' a. .o ~~ q q 4 q ~ENEnsoN avE. s. ~n ~c Girard ~ 7 <691 ~' 3 t61t-- 1l (4917. AM PY AGENDA SECTION: RF.$OL.DTTONS AGENDA ITEM # j 2 REPORT # 45 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER . NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY 1VIANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with the Police Supervisors LELS Local 162 for the contract period Janua 1, 2008 throu h December 31, 2009. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2008-09 labor agreement with the Police Supervisors LELS Local 162 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. II. BACKGROUND City staff has completed labor negotiations with the Police Supervisors LELS Local 162 (Union). The provisions of the two year contract, for calendar years 2008 and 2009, -cover all of the employees in this Union, which consists of 12 positions: 8 Sergeants, 3 Lieutenants and 1 Captain. 0212PoliceSupvContract The tentatively approved settlement includes the following significant changes: Wages A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective January 1, 2008, with an additional .5% increase effective the first full pay period in July 2008. The contract calls for a re-opener of this provision for contract year 2009. Health Insurance A maximum $30 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution for contract year 2008 which provides full coverage to single Employee, $730 per month for Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren) coverage, and $780 per month for Employee plus family. The contract calls for a re-opener of this provision in 2009. The Employer would maintain its current contribution of $32 per month towards the Employee single dental insurance premium. Clothing Allowance A $25 increase to the. annual clothing allowance in 2008 to $770 with an additional $25 increase in 2009 to $795. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its representatives and is bound .under the Public Employer's Labor. Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. • The 2008-09 proposed settlement is the third union contract settled for 2008. It is identical in wage increase to non-union City employees, Fire and -Labor & Trades members and is also identical in health insurance provisions. This contract reflects the second contract settlement for 2009. The 2008-09 contract provisions are within the range for other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2008 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on February 12, 2008 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2008. C. FINANCIAL • 3% wage increase effective January 1, 2008 and an additional .5% increase the first full pay period in July 2008. • A maximum $30/month increase in the Employer contribution towards health insurance coverage. A $25 increase to the annual clothing allowance for both contract years. D.> -LEGAL • If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~p~-~1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (EELS), LOCAL 162 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEARS 2008-2009 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Supervisors EELS Local 162 have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for years 2008- 2009; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize EELS Local 162 members who have negotiated in good faith; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be completed by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does. hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and EELS Local 162 Bargaining Unit for years 2008-2009, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented, effective January 1, 2008 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of February 2008. Debbie Goettel, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs,. City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 46 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2008 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR. NauE, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to City advisory commissions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Appoint persons to fill the expiring or vacant terms on the - Cit adviso commissions. II. BACKGROUND . Several terms of City commission members expired on January 31, 2007. In addition, there were mid-term vacancies due to resignations that needed to be filled. Some appointments were made at the January 23, 2008 Special City Council Meeting. However, there are vacancies remaining on .some commissions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A.- POLICY • The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. Terms are for three-years and are staggered. Several terms expire on January 31 annually. The Council directs the City Manager's office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the vacancies. Interviews of the applicants are conducted at Special City Council meetings. These Council meetings were posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. 0212commission B. CRITICAL ISSUES Applicants were interviewed at Special City Council meetings on January 5 and 22, 2008. An additional Special City Council meeting was held on February 12, 2008. Terms of several commission members expired on January 31, 2007. There are mid-term vacancies, which need to be filled. In order to ensure quorums for future meetings, appointments should be made on February 12, 2008. IV ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ Defer appointments to a later Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS ~ Commission vacancy list ~VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. f 3-- ~ 0 N O O ~n W_ V Z V Z O N ~_ V NN NNN N N N N MM MMM M ~j M M c c c c c ~~ ~~ N X W H N .~ C (6 U t6 N 2 w OEE ~~~ O~~ m "" 0 N 0 Q N N ~U C ca U ca '~ N U C (6 U tB E ~., ~~E zu~m O~_-a N .~ E cn .~`. 0 U N Q ~-+ N 0 c Q t L Q~ .~ Z O N z O ~a m W J W ~..~ U C (Q U (~ L O r U (a U t0 L N +'+ .~ r I Z O N O~ UL a~ ~~ ~~ ~ V E a 0 Z W_ LL U C f0 U (a O ~+ r N ~U C tQ U (~ L .~ ~•~ ~^ ~~ a~ V ~_ ~ N ~E °, _ ....~ c~ z Q U w J U