The URL can be used to link to this page

09-13-05 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:00 P.M. Call to order Roll call 5:00 - 6:20 p. m. 1. Discussion regarding City of Richfield key financial strategic planning with Ehlers & Associates Notes: Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for 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 Worksession of August 9, 2005; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of August 9, 2005; (3) Special City Council Meeting of August 10, 2005; (4) Special City Council Worksession of August 23, 2005; (5) Special City Council Meeting of August 30, 2005; and (6) Special Concurrent City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of August 31, 2005 .PRESENTATIONS Recognition of Metropolitan Airports Commissioner Kari Berman's efforts to help secure Metropolitan Airports Commission's funding to assist with purchase of four homes in Richfield in the 65 DNL noise contour 2. Presentation by former Richfield Mayor Loren Law who recently authored book referencing Richfield 3. Presentation of $3000 donation from CenterPoint Energy Community Partnership Grant Program to Richfield Fire Services Department for self-contained breathing apparatus 4. Annual meeting with Charter Commission 5. Presentation by City of Richfield Street and Park Maintenance Divisions regarding mowing operations COUNCIL DISCUSSION 6. Council discussion • Formal acceptance of HRA resignations from Kristal Stokes, effective September 8, 2005 and Tom Harms, effective in December 2005 • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 7. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 8. 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 proposed ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting reference to Minnesota Statutes and Rules and scheduling second reading for September 27, 2005 S.R. No.159 B. Consideration of approval of professional services agreement with BCL Appraisals, Inc. for purchase of properties on 17th Avenue south of 66th Street S.R. No. 160 C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing agreement between Minnesota Department of Public Safety and City of Richfield Public Safety Department and accepting grant used for Police Officer overtime payment from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 pertaining to Safe and Sober Program S.R. No. 161 D. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting $3000 donation from CenterPoint Energy Community Partnership Grant Program to defray cost of self-contained breathing apparatus used by Richfield Fire Services Department S.R. No. 162 E. Consideration of approval of resolution accepting $19,000 Minnesota Releaf grant from Department of Natural Resources to reimburse residential homeowners for portion of cost of diseased tree removals S.R. No. 163 F. Consideration. of approval of requested extension of variance permit until September 17, 2006 to allow construction of two-car garage at 6733 Lakeview Drive S.R. No. 164 G. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Specialty Systems, Inc. for installing standing seam roof at Taft Park north building in amount of $39,853 S.R. No. 165 H. Consideration of approval of purchase of estimated 1,700 ton of winter deicing salt for 2005/06 winter season from North American Salt Company, Overland Park, KS at price of $36 per ton, delivered, plus tax S.R. No. 166 I. Consideration of approval of itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Visions, Inc. for Richfield Cattail Days events at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue, on September 17, 2005 S.R. No. 167 Notes: 9. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public hearing regarding resolution to transfer control of cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (continued from August 9, 2005) Staff Report No. 168 Notes: 11. Public hearing regarding issuance of new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with optional 2 a.m. closing, forAribel's Restaurant/Bar, 1120 East 66th Street Staff Report No. 169 Notes: 12. Public hearing and second reading of_amendments to Richfield City Code Sections 500.05, 500.13 and 500.25, Subdivision 1 to update and clarify subdivision regulations and resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance amendments Staff Report No. 170 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 13. Consideration of 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed Budget resolutions adopting 2006 preliminary property tax levy and setting Truth in Taxation hearing dates, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of 2005 budget of various departments, and authorizing use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for certain police and fire expenditures Staff Report No. 171 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 14. Consideration of request for City Council to confirm appointment of Brad Sveum as Fire Services Director for City of Richfield Staff Report No. 172 Notes: 15. Consideration of communications plan for I-494 Corridor Planning Study Staff Report No. 173 Notes: 16. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to NewMech Companies, Inc. for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) renovation at Water Plant in amount of $298,910 and award of contract for electrical improvements to Wild River Electric as part of HVAC renovation at Water Plant in amount of $32,810 Staff Report No. 174 Notes: 17. Consideration of bid minutes/tabulation and award of contract to Metro Fire for new self-contained breathing apparatus and related accessories for use by Fire Services Department in amount not to exceed $157,565.10 Staff Report No. 175 Notes: 18. Consideration of designating City of Richfield voting and alternate delegates for National League of Cities annual Congress of Cities business meeting on December 10, 2005 Staff Report No. 176 Notes: 19. Consideration of rescheduling the Regular City Council meeting on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 to Monday, November 7, 2005 due to School District Election Staff Report No. 177 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 20. City Manager's report Notes: 21. 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: 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: mT'HER BIISINESS AGENDA ITEM # 19 REPORT # 177 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK Na,~rE, Tr7zE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of rescheduling the City Council meeting on Tuesday, November 8, 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Reschedule the November 8, 2005 Regular City Council meeting to Monda ,November 7, 2005. II. BACKGROUND The first City Council meeting in November is scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, which is the School District Election. The City Council is prohibited by State Statute to meet between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on the day an election is held within the boundaries of the special taxing district, school district, county, city or town. Therefore, staff suggests that the Regular Council meeting be rescheduled to Monday November 7, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. .POLICY • Richfield City Code Section 205.01 establishes that regular City Council meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. State Statute 204C.03, Subd. 1 establishes that no special taxing district governing body, school board, county board of commissioners, 0913reschedule ~~~~ city council, or town board of supervisors shall conduct a meeting. between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on the day that an election is held within the boundaries of the special taxing district, school district, county, city, or town. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council is prohibited by State Statute to meet on Election Day. • This item has been placed on the September 13 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • State Statute establishes that the City Council not meet during the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on the day of the election. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reschedule the November 8, 2005 regular City Council meeting to Wednesday November 9, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2~U5 OTHER BUSINESS I8 176 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, Ti7zE NAME, Tr REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of designating the City of Richfield voting and alternate voting delegates for the National Lea ue of Cities annual Con ress of Cities business meetin on December 10, 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Designate the City of Richfield official voting delegate and alternate voting delegate for the National League of Cities annual Congress of Cities business meeting on December 10, 2005. II. BACKGROUND The National League of Cities (NLC) annual Congress of Cities conference is December 6-10, 2005 in Charlotte, North Carolina. The annual business meeting will be held on December 10. Under the bylaws of the NLC, each direct member city is entitled to cast one to 20 votes, depending upon the city's population, through its designated voting delegate at the annual business meeting. Richfield is eligible to cast one vote. To be eligible to cast the City's vote, -each voting delegate and alternate must be designated by the City. NLC's bylaws expressly prohibit voting by proxy. Thus, the designated voting delegate must be present at the annual meeting to cast the City's vote. Before the Congress of Cities, the NLC website at www.nlc.orq will have information summarizing the proposed National Municipal Policy amendments and resolutions that are to be voted on at the annual business meeting. CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR 0924n1c / 8- l The City Council should determine who will attend the NLC conference and be the designated voting delegate at the business meeting. The delegate must be present at the annual business meeting to cast the City's vote. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield is a member of the NLC. • Richfield is eligible to cast one vote at the annual business meeting • A designated voting delegate must be present at the business meeting to cast the City's vote. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • To establish Richfield's credentials and facilitate voting delegate preparation for the Congress of Cities, a voting delegate designation must be submitted to the NLC not later than October 13, 2005. • It is important for the City to vote on NLC policy amendments and proposed resolutions. C. .FINANCIAL • The early registration postmark deadline is September 15, 2005. • Funds are available in the General Fund City Council budget. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not attend the NLC conference. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA SECTION: QTHER BIISINESS AGENDA ITEM # 17 REPORT # 175 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRAD SVEUM, ACTING FIRE CHIEF NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR r-J~ REVIEW: LJ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract for new self-contained breathing apparatus and related accessories to Metro Fire in the amount not to exceed $157,565.10. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve bid minutes and tabulation and award of contract to Metro Fire for new self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and related accessories in the amount not to exceed $157,565.10. II. BACKGROUND In February 2005, the Richfield Fire Department was notified it had received a grant from the 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. This is a federally funded program. to aid local fire departments. This is the third year the Richfield Fire Department has been awarded and AFG grant. As part of the grant acceptance, the City of Richfield must match the grant amount by 10% of the total project amount. In August 2005, the City of Richfield wrote bid specifications for new (SCBA) which will be compliant with today's safety and operational standards and advertised those 0913SCBA 1~-/ bids as required by Minnesota State Statute. Competitive bids were received and opened on August 19, 2005. One bid was received from Metro Fire. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Richfield City Council must approve all equipment bid awards in excess of $50,000 as per State Statute. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Only one bid was received. There are approximately 4 manufacturers of SCBA. o One manufacturer declined to bid since the specification was written to allow several manufacturers to comply and they stated -they could not bid a competitive price unless the specification was written specifically to their design. o The bid price by Metro Fire is competitive with another competitive manufacturer who recently sold five times as many units to a neighboring city. o These same units are available for purchase form the Minnesota Fire Agency Purchasing Consortium. The bid price we received is well below the price from the consortium bid. o Two other manufacturers did not bid however in checking with other fire departments that have recently bid SCBA they did not, submit bids to them either. C. FINANCIAL • 90% of the cost, approximately $142,000, is offset by the AFG grant. • After doing comparisons of other purchasing options and comparing this bid to bids received by neighboring departments, staff feels this to be a reasonable and competitive bid. D. LEGAL • Purchases over $50,000 must be bid by open, competitive bidding. • The City Attorney, prior to bid advertising, checked specifications and wording and required bonds, etc. were received by the vendor. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Reject the bid and direct staff to "re-bid". However, staff does not believe a lower price bid will be received. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 19, 2005 9:00 am Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and Related Equipment and Accessories !`ie~tis~d~ I`7-~ Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for a Self Gontained Breathing Apparatus and Related Equipment and Accessories, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 4, 2005. Present: Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Brad Sveum, Acting Fire Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Name Metro Fire Ham Lake, Minnesota Certified Check/Bid Bond 5% Provided A) 25 SCBA Add. 2nd St. Reg's ea. $76,393.89 N/A B) 50 (4500 psi) Air bottles $22,387.22 C) 4 RIT packs w/60 min. $16,576.76 D) 2 Tool Kits $2,345.80 E) 25 Face Pieces Add. Face Piece ea. $4,117.78 $278.89 F) 36 FPC. Storage Bags $450.00 G) Total of above (less add. Face Piece ea (E) $122,550.34 - 278.89 $122,271.45 H) Voice Amp. ea.* $275.49 I) Eyeglass Holder ea.* $48.07 J) 50 APR's &Adaptors* $7,016.53 K) 1 TSI Fit Test Machine* $8,555.56 L) 2 TSI Adaptors* $135.96 M) Trade-in allowance ($8,400.00) *Equipment quoted price per each -may be purchased in multiples of up to 10 or 20 The Deputy City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 13, 2005 City Council Meeting. Deborah Guiher Deputy City Clerk ~ ~- ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening August 19, 2005 9:00 am Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and Related Equipment and Accessories Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open and read aloud, bids for a Self Contained Breathing Apparatus and Related Equipment and Accessories, as advertised in the official newspaper on August 4, 2005. Present: Deborah Guiher, Deputy City Clerk Brad Sveum, Acting Fire Services Director Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Name Metro Fire Ham Lake, Minnesota Certified Check/Bid Bond 5% Provided A) 25 SCBA Add. 2nd St. Reg's ea. $76,393.89 N/A B) 50 (4500 psi) Air bottles $22,387.22 C) 4 RIT packs w/60 min. $16,576.76 D) 2 Tool Kits $2,345.80 E) 25 Face Pieces Add. Face Piece ea. $4,117.78 $278.gg F) 36 FPC. Storage Bags $450.00 G) Total of above (less add.) $122,271.45 H) Voice Amp. ea. $275.49 I) Eyeglass Holder ea. $48.07 J) 50 APR's & Adaptors $7,016.53 K) 1 TSI Fit Test Machine $8,555.56 L) 2 TSI Adaptors $135.96 M) Trade-in allowance $8,400.00 The Deputy City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the September 13, 2005 City Council Meeting. Deborah Guiher Deputy City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2UU5 OTHER BUSINESS =-= I6 ~- 174 REPORT PREPARED BY: ROBERT HINTGEN, UTILITY SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITZE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ry REVIEW: L~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the award of contracts for the HVAC renovation and electrical improvements at the Water Treatment Plant. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve the bid minutes and tabulation and award of contract to NewMech Companies, Inc. in the amount of $298,910.00. • Award of contract for electrical improvements to Wild River Electric as part of the HVAC renovation in the amount of $32,810.00. II. BACKGROUND • The Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment at the Water Plant is original equipment from construction in 1963. The lack of dehumidification and ventilation are causing fixtures, equipment, doors, walls, and piping to corrode, rust, and become a hazard. Mold has formed within the existing venting and on the walls. • The V1/ater Treatment Facility has several improvements planned in the upcoming 24 months and .the need for improving the HVAC system is a 0913HVAC 4'j "..' priority before beginning other improvement projects and the arrival of new equipment. Council approved the purchase of Engineering Services from Wentz Associates, March 22, 2005, to prepare a bid package for the HVAC work. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A bid opening was held on August 4, 2005 for the HVAC renovation contract. • NewMech Companies was the lowest responsible bidder and is an established contractor that meets all of the City's requirements. • Quotes were obtained for the electrical portion of the HVAC project. • Wild River Electric submitted the lowest quote and is an established contractor that meets all of the City's requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The current HVAC system is the original out-dated system from the Water Treatment Facility built in 1963. • Before investing millions of dollars in renovations to the Water Treatment Facility, staff feels strongly that correcting the HVAC will not only save new equipment to be installed as part of the renovation, but allow corrections to made on existing equipment and help eliminate the damage that is now occurring. All of these will aid in providing a safer work environment. • Approval at the September 13, 2005, Council meeting will facilitate the process to begin the renovation of the HVAC. C. FINANCIAL • The expenditure for this entire project was originally planned in the 2007 CIB/CIP. $450,000 is now identified in the revised 2005 budget. • The Water Division has the funds to cover the entire portion of the work. D. LEGAL • All contracts or purchases over $50,000 require sealed bids to be solicited by public notice. • All contracts or purchases in excess of $25,000 require Council approval. TERNATIVE • Council could reject all bids and instruct staff to re-advertise. It is the opinion of staff that the bid submitted by NewMech Companies Inc. is reasonable and responsible. • Council could reject all quotes and instruct staff to re-advertise. It is the opinion of staff that the quote submitted by Wild Electric Companies Inc. is reasonable and responsible. • Council could decide the Water Division should keep the old HVAC system but staff feels keeping the old system will only continue to damage the existing equipment and will prematurely damage any new equipment. ~ V . ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes and tabulation • Electrical quote tabulation ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETIN~ ne ~' w Z Z J _~ LL 2 O _~ V ~Oo '~ N O ~ Q. ~ ~ O O ~N m Q C a~i 0 L Q E c O C O 0 U o ~ O C ~ O O O Z ca =m 0 Y L U .~ Ua vi ~ O O ~ ~ O ~ - N ~ O 00 ~ U >, C ~ 7 Z ~ ~ c ~ o0 O O N 02 ~ U N m fn ~ C 3 L O O ~"' ~, U ~ ~ i ~1-/ ~ ~ ~ :n c >~U o a~ N (~ ~ .~ ~ ~ Q ~ O ~ ~ N O Q~ O O ^~ ~ ~ W •~ O L Q O Q 03~ o ~~ Z .~ ~' U O O ~ ~ o m ~ ~~~ ~ ~_ N Q • L.L o vOi ~ Q~ L ~~ t6 ~ t N .~ .~+ ~ a' c~ ~~~ C O ~ ~ U C N c a ~ ~ ~ C N .~ C ~ ~ L ~A` •W Y~(n N A ~+ U~- ~ U ~• U p ~ ~ ~ ~ UY= c a~i ~ ZU~ O a O (6 c ca N .n O C O 0 a~ H 1 ~ -~ M O O O O O O Z o 0 0 0 0 ~o ~o -ao -ao ~o ~O Q O ~M Q~ "aO Q O ~O Q 00 'O LC) Q N C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q N Z o 0 0 0 0 ~o ' -ao ~o ~o ~o O O Qd'~ "a M Q0~ 'a O QO ~ O QLL~ 'a O Qc- ~ ~ ~ ff} ~ EH ~{} , Q r Z ° ° ° ° ° o o o o o ~o ~o ~o ~~ri ~o ~m Q OD -vim Q In ~o Q In ~ti Q N ~o Q l~ ~ ai ~ C°cn- ~ ~ ~ Q . . . . . - p O O O O O M_ W I..L I..L 1..1. 1..1. 1..1. O O O O O m O O O N O M O 00 M 00 f~ M N I~ OD ~- ~- Ef} ~} d9~ (f} 64 cv U O ~ C - ~ O i O fB (ff ~ C (~ (~ i t/) N C O ~~ O N C O - (A (6 ~ . V~ U D C to N~ C ~ > ~c oc ~ tc , _ U~ ~ ~ •~ U •~ U O ~ .~ _ .~ t .. N .. ~ .~ L O Q. O~ ~a ~m Qa - a C m 3 ° ~ }; ~(~ ~; Z(A ~ a i YZ o ~; U(A ~ ,~ J~ c N N U C O U ._ U 0 O N M r N Q N C O U .O C (a _~ f6 N N .~ a~ t N U C O C C c~ Y N _A U a~ Y L U U N ..Q /~ V U C (~ Z 1~~3 J V U W J W J J 0 0 W Z la- m O W W u~ F G W F- a W ... I- 'JJ J.I n z u I N ~ C ~ ~ O O O O m ~ R O O ~ E GO _ R O v= M N ~ ~a ~ M ~ O •c Z ~ R o~ O Eo a, o v m ~ ~ z° N ~ Z N m N >g ~~ ~ O ~ ~ Q J 0 0 O d' g Z a~ m ~ > ~ Ri o2S 0 O ~ O 0 O ~+rj Q J ~ ~ ..~ H .~ ~ d ~ as a om~ O N ~ ~ O N eM- ~ ~ aU Lm~ _ N o° ~ E N= N ~ ~. ~ ._ G) NUS ~ ~ U Q ~ ~ O ~ ~ p •~ U w- O N - O L ~ .v -a O C .Q ~ ~ N ~ mmUQj 0 0 0 O O M d' CO O U ~ ~ .~ ~,, Z ~ ~~ W L fn .~ ' ~j~ ~' 4 L O ~ F- 0 0 O M ffl a C ~ _M O ~ U W ~ . ~ Z Z p N W L ~ ~.O ~ L -Q O _~ ~~~ AGENDA SECTION: OTI~R BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # IS REPORT # 173 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: PATRICK SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Communications Plan for the I-494 Corridor Planning Study. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the Proposed Communications Plan for the I-494 Corridor Plannin Stud . II. BACKGROUND • The Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has hired Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) to conduct a visioning process to help guide future development in the I-494 Corridor area. Ehlers is assisting HKGi with the Communications Plan for the visioning process. The Communication Plan, formulated with input from the City Council and HRA, includes the following communication tools: • Three open houses in which the community will be able to comment on the planning process, the alternative plans, and finally the preferred alternative. • Three newsletters sent to the Richfield community explaining the process and goals and inviting them to the three open houses. 091305 Communications Plan I-494 Corridor I ~~' • Letters to all property owners in the planning study area inviting them to come early to the open houses. • News releases in the Sun Current. • Cable announcements of the three open houses. • The City's website to update the planning process. • The readerboard located outside City Hall to announce the three open houses. • Sending invitations to Bloomington staff, MnDOT, Metro Transit, Metropolitan Council sector representative and staff. • Meetings with the School Board and Chamber of Commerce. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council has a record of supporting comprehensive concept planning efforts in the commercial areas to help guide potential future land use decisions, i.e. Lakes at Lyndale and the Cedar Corridor. • The City Council took action earlier this year to support a planning process for the area. • The City has historically taken a proactive approach with citizen participation in defining issues and evaluating alternatives with input from the Community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Ensuring the City has used the appropriate communication venues to inform the community about the I-494 planning process in general and the three open houses specifically. C. FINANCIAL • The estimated cost of the communications work by Ehlers is $9,000. The majority of the cost is the three newsletters. These costs are borne by the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. D. LEGAL • N/A. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the proposed Communications Plan. • Suggest modifications to the proposed Communications Plan. V. ATTACHMENTS • Communications Plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A '~~~ ~--~ ~ ~ bA .~ ~ 4 may- U d- • ~ a~ o ~ ~ U 0 0 cV a~ a~ u, o~ O ~ N ~ ~ U~ ~ti ti ,~ v 0 °~ N ti w O ti O h ri ~ ~ ~ b { ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~~~ bA M M V~ ~O [~ 01 ,--~ a ~~ ~a w ~ ~ '~ ~ U a ~ °~~' ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ O ~ F ~ U ,o .~ •~ ~ a ~ ~ >' o . ~ U ' o C7 '~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ o ~ ~ ~ o a ~ H U H U d ~ 0 . . , . . v ~ r-i N M d' V7 ~ l~ N r ~ `~ a w 0 O C. it a .~ bA ~ O ox O ~ r. ..s." •~ •~ ,y ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ U O U o ~ ~U `~ ,~ ~~ '.~ ~ U "V"' ~~ o a~i ~~ ~ ~~ `° 3 ~ Q., O ~~ ~~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ b~A ~ O ~ o ~ •~ ~ a Q.i ..U'r ~ F, ~: ,o ~~x .~o~ ~ ~ ~~~ o ~ ~ r.., .'r ~ o ~ ~ ~~ o a -~ ~~ ~ ~~x H '~ nn N b~A .'., cd ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~, ~ ~ "~ ~ O ~' 3 'a ~ O ~ x 3 ~ ~ 3 .S,' U 3 ~ s~, ~~ 3 o ~~ o N ~ O ,.~ ,~ ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~ x U ~ cd O 4-ti O ~ ~ en o .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~~ ~~ ~~ U y O '~ z H ~ U O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ., 'C O U ~' v Q, ~ ~ N ~ '~ ~ ¢, O • ~ o ~ ~ O .~ }, ' a~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o, O p ~ ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ N U ~ ~ , •~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~, ~ 4-i bA o ~ ~ o ~ ' ~,~, O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O p N ~ ~ cd N .~ ~ ~ ,--~ ~+-~ ~ bn ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ >, ~ ° ~ °' ~ aA , • ~ ~, ~, ~ +-~ i--+ O ~ 4r Q' N Q., ~" ~ ~ +-~ 3 ~ ~ Q, ~ a w 3~ ~.~° ~~ ~ ,5.," U ~ "C U ~ ~ v O ~ O O . ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ , ~3~ H ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, a~ ~ ~ ,~Q.~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ CN ~ S~ r " o ~ o ~ o ~ ~, ~ ,~ ' •~ ' ~ ~ bn '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a,~ ~ rn ~; a~ ,~ a~ O1 x ~ ~, ~ ~ E-~ o ~ H ,~ v E-~ o . ~ M v a ~5--~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ° o~ ° ~ o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ,~ O cn f' O ~ ~ +-' .--i ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ Q-' N p cd ~ f1, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ,--. N CC3 ++ by N .,--~ fit". ~ ~'' O '~ ~~" 'C !". o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,~ ~ o o ,~ ~ a ,~ ,~ ~ rn o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ v a~ ~~° ~ ~ ~ ~~~~'o ~ ~ ° ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ o ~ U O ~ ~ 4: ~ ~L ~ O ~ ~, ~ j N O O ~"i ~ '7' V V ~ ~ ~. "O ~ t"' ~ 'd cd '~ ,_, ~ "" U 'C3 ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N "~ ~ ~ • ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vii Q., O U ~ ~ ~ O 'may. E-~ ~,• ~ ~~ c~ >, ~ ~^' ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ y U ~ ~' O ~ ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~xWv~t~~~~a, ~ ~ o ~ ~ c~ H ~~ E~-AAAAAA A H ~~ ~ 3 0 ~~ ~ o ~ ~ o o o ~ U U ,~-.i ~ ~~ ~ U N ~ •~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ,'"y ~ U ~ O 'r ~ O ~ •~ N ,~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o 'C '~ '~ ~ on ~ U v~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ ,_., U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ .~ N ~ ~ ~. ~ '~" +' 3 O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bA ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ ~ 4-a ~ °' ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~°, ~U p ~ ~ '~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ +' ~ ~ 3 3 :~ ~ ~ U U ~ ~ N gyp., +>'~ ~' ~' '~ to ,-. ~ ~ 'r .,..~ ~ ~ ~ H ~° ai ~ . ~ d' F v d M ~~ -~ 0 . ~ . ~ 0 U a .-: ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~: . U •~ ~ ~ .~ ° ~ o ~ ° H ~ ~ s a~ °` '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ,~ °' '~ .o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~, o x ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' 0 U ~ ~ °~' ~ ~ o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ o ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ o U o o ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ UH ~.~ ~~d ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ o ,~ ~ ~ Q o o ~ ~ U o ~ ,~ ~ o ~ ~ U r~ U ~ ~_ ~ _o ;~ .~ ~ :~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 00.1 .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ° ' ~ ~ ~ o o o ~ w ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o s a ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o A d 0.1 G~ L~ Ga rs: v~~~~Uxa1~ U ~ .-. ~U ~ ~. a~ ~ ^o ~ Q c~ a~ ~ v ~ i e, ~ ~ a,o ~ ~ •~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 'o ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ o ~ ° i o ~ ~ z,.. ~ ~ U ~ o bn ~ ~ ~ U ~ U ' ~ G G Q~ a ~o o U r. ~ ~ c . Z ~n "L7 0 C7 c~ 0 .~ 0 ~~"~- 7 ~ ~ o ~ ~, ~ ~ U N ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ,x ~o ~yy ~ U "C ~ N ~ ~ U ~ O V i ~ i ., ~ ~ U ~ CJ ~ ft3 ~ ~ "~ ~~" ~ ~ ~ ~+ ~ ~Uy ~ CC ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ '~ ~ o, ~ ai U, ~ ~ •~ ~° ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o '~ ~ o ~'+ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ N ,s,' ~ U ~ ' ~ ;.o ~ U s"" ~ ~ o ,~ ~ cd . ~ c~3 x., ,~ ~ a~ ~ ,~ O ~ ~ _ ,~ ~ on ~ ~, ~ ~ x o 'a~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ U •" p ~ ~ .~ bA ~ , N ~ .-~ ~ 'L ~ ~ N ~~, N N ~ "" ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~-=i ~ N O -- ~' ~ ~ ~ . ^' cd ai c~3 O ^C ~ •,~ U ~ N ~ U ~., ,~ ~ O ~ •~ +~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~a -~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -° a ~~ ~ ~ ?~ s 0 ~' ~ U ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ s , ~ o v ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~, w, ~, a~ ~ ~ •~ ono U ~ o~ ~ a~ ~ ~ , o >,3,~ o. ~4. o ~ a~iw° _ ~ o ~~ ~ ~.~ U.Y ~ ~ ~ o ~.~ a~ ~ a~i ~ p, ~ ~ . ~ a~i ~ ,x ~ ~ v ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~, LJ Fo--~ ~ E° ~ H E° ~ E ' ~ F ~ F a _ ~ U ° ~ ' ' -~ F . ~ ~. .x ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~Q ~ "' ~ ~ ~ U ~,o U a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ '~ ~vI ~ ~U U fir" U +~ ~'-+ S". ~ ~ •" " ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ .~ 'C C/] U ~ U . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ;~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ U ~ a~ o ~ ° ~ a~ ~ ~ x ~~ ~ ~ rx Q.~ a ~~ ~ z N ~ N ~ M ~ ~ ~ Q , ~ c~ O DO a; l~- g 0 ~~ °~~,~ ~ p ~~ ~ ~ ~ o •~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ O U ~ ~ o ~~~o z ~ ~ y o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a1 ~ N ,~ ~ cn .O ~ O 't'" ~ O ~ U ~ N O ~ Q" ~ U ~ ,~ ~, `n O O O , z ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ F-H~OZH o ~H ~,~ ~~~ O ~ a ~ O "~ ~ ~S"„ U N ^fl N ~ ~' o vi p N . . N ~~ O N~ O O ~" ~~-. U N O bA ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~o ~an~a °~ ~~,~ . „~ ' ° TJ O ¢ ~ ~ ~ O a `~ U ~ ~ ~ o ~ ' .~ n .fl ai ~ ~ ~ a ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ on ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ 'N o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~x'~ ~a o o c ~ - ~, n ~ '., . ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a.~ o 'o~ ~ a~ o'o'~ ..°' ~ ~ ~ a~i~ o ~ ~ A O a ~ Z ~ ~ ~., Ts ~ U U U ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ' ~ o i--~ °' a~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ a~ ~ , ~, o ? i ~ ~ , ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .U ~ U ~ ~ O O ' ~ p .~ '~ v i ~ N ~ . ~ .~ Q. O ~ , ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~' ~ Q ~ (~ , ~ x O ~ ~ ~ x, U ~ •~ H O o a ~ ~ U ~ U Q, i ~ a ~5-~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~~ Q" O U ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ CFy +~ N ~ ~' . ~ V ,~ ~ ~ O N ~ , ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ .~ O p„ ~.~ S~.i U F.. . ~ Cd ~" ~ ~ CC ~ . O N ~ ' ~ ~ bA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • O ~ ~ .O O bA ~ F., +~ O ~., p ~ O ~: O vVi ~ ~ a o a O ~'~ ~o •" a •~' a °' Q~ , ~~~ U•° ~~~ °o ~~ •~ 3~ ~ ° ~ ~ `~ o w° ~ °A ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~, o ~ ' ~ ° ~ o bn ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ o., ~ ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~., -~ o v o o ~ ~ ~ ,.~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ . ~ .~ ~ ~ „ °' . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~' ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ x ~. o ~ o ~ 3 ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ U ~~ • ~ a ~ ~ o •~ ~ ~ , ~ ~., ~ ~ Ts o i ~ a ~ '~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a 0.' ~ ~, ~, ~ a~ ~ i ~ ~ o ~ o ~' a '~ ~ ~ d o o ~ ~ o ..fl z ~ .~ .~ d ~ u, t~ ~~ ~ U U z o ~ ° }' U N O '~ ^O O ~ ~ O O O 4"' O ~ ~ bA s.. ~1 ~ ti ~ ~ ~ y , . O `~ O ~ vOi O ^C ~ ~ ~ ~ bA vi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Via U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ x " ~~ z ~ Q o • U ~~., ~ .~ o0 ~ as ~ U U tea. 00 f~-10 ~, 0 oon ~, o o ~, ~ aA ~; o o ~s.~ ~ ~ ,~ en cn ~, ,--~ .,. o o ~ ~ ~ ~ .o 0 `~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aA ~ o ~ o~ o o O 0 o ~ ~ o U ~~ ~ ^' N N~ ~ '~'' N U ~ O ~ U ~S".i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ,~ ~, ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~O U O N ~ o o N U N ^O ~" ~ Q" o C.i O ,Sr" N ~ cC3 c~ ~ r-' t, vi • r+ N N ~ ~ +' .~, tti c~ cd r-+ ~ ,--. p o S1, N U~ O~ N~ p U~ ~ U ,~ N~ o ~~~~~ O N SUr" .~ ~ ~, a ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o ~, C ~ ~ ~ ~ N M ~ U ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ O ~ '~ ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~bA ~' v~ p .,U. '~ cn ~ O ~ ,fir-! O xU'' ~'" ~ ,~ NS"i '~ '~ 4--i '. ~ O ~ .'., _ ,~ ~ V ~~ U ~~ ~ p U ~ O~ 0 0~ O :. U~ O ~~ O~ ~ ~ A A., a~ ,~ U . ~ w P., ~ ~ ~ U ~ W ~ ~ ~ U W ~ u, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. '~ .~ cd ~•~ ~'.U O ~ U V U U.O '. ~,' H N r/1,--i N~ ~ M~ ~"~ ~~ a~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,o ~ o o ~ 4, ° ~ rn U ~ }' ~ cd ^ ~ ~ ~ y ++ a ~ H A., a ,~ ~. U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ' ~ a o ~" ~ ~ , ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ U ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ fl ~ a ,. N U ~ U . V Fti rn O ~ ~ ~ • • $ "' a~ Q ~ O O ~ ~ a~~~a ~ z ~ •~ ~ rn V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O U ,.~ _~ ~ rig O "C~ N `n ~ + T. ,~ ~ '~" ~ ,'"' ~ ~ N O ap c~ U O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ "O Z] N ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ N "d ~' ~ ~ O " ~ cd ~ •--~ p O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O 'C3 cC ~ ~ O •~ p ~ = ~ v 0 ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ,~ . •~ 3 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ,o ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ 0 0.~ ~, ~ N O O ~ O ,.~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ W~ Q, o ~ ~.~ ° ~ o o Z ~; ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ., . °o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ,-. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~. ~ ~ •~ ~ ~-' U N ~ v "' ~ ~ v0 ~ •~ ~ O ~ N ~ o Q , ~ .~ ~ ~, ~ ~ z 0 ~- /2 c~ a 0 w F~ ~ ~ . H , ~ ~ ~ U ~ U M ~ a v~ ~ O ~, o ... a ~ ° z ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ o ~ ~, •° ~, ~. ~ ~~ ~., ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ U 0 ~ O a 0 o p a , ~ ~ ~ .~ ~" ~ o .~ o x ~ ~~ 0 U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~• ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?; •o ~ ~ ~ ~; ~cs 3 •~ a , ~ ~~ ~ ~~ x x ~ ~x ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~x ~ ~~ ~ ~ p ~ ° ~ ~ U ~ u, ,.~ ~ ~ v~ .~ ~ px U ~ ~ r~ ~-• ~~ ~ o° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a '~ ~ U U w ti .~ U U U U v~ U U x ~ O ~ ~ ~ >, oA ~ ~ i ~ ~ ^' ~ ~ U y,., ~ ..r N ~ 4~r ~ r~'n • ~ ~ bA -' ~ ,~ cC3 O , `1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~, ~ Q. ~, 3 4, ,~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ O ~ ~ O p ~A U p O ~ ~ ~ +' ~ O , ~ U ,~ • ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ' .~ ~ . ~ ~ U + a3 cd ~ ~ ' N • C .~ •~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ U c~ O c~ O U ~ .-~ '' ~ ~ + • ~ t~ 4 ~ c0 ~ U ~ ~ ~ ti ~ "~ , bA c~ ~ ,~ - U O O ~ 'C~ ~ s-• '~ ~ p ~ ~n -a U , ~ ~ ,- , C O ~-' c~ v i i~+ v ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ +' O ~ ~ ~ O ~ V ~ '~ U O .,~ ~ N N 'O O O • ~ ~ O O ~ ~ r-, v, ~ r--~ ~ O aA ~ ~ p ~ r--~ ~ ~ ~ .~ N ~ ~ v ~~" N N N N ~, ~, O f~"r O O N ,~" bA d ., w ~ ~ z~ a ~ Q ~ O~° U ~ Q ~U ~.. a,v~ ~ Z ~; 4-, ~ r.. a~ ~ , ~ . , - f~-/3 .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lp lp \p ~ ~ `p M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z O O O O O O N ~ o 0 0 0 O O O O O O ~.., ~ O O O O a a a a a a, ~ O a a a a 0 ~~ ~ .~ ~--~ ~ c~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ p o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ C7 ~ ~ c~C O x O bA ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ U ~ ~ ~ x ~ O ~^' ~ O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~c~ ~ Uv~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~~,~ ~ .-. c~ ~ v '~ ~ O "p .p ~ N C~ ~ ~ Q" '~C ~ ~ O ti ~ •y Rt O ~; O ~ ~ Q., G~ ~ U ~ S~, O ~ N s-. N rs-~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 M M ~ O O z z O O p~ ~ M ,--~ 0 z a a z z 0 ... 0 .~ ~ ~ U U U o ~ ~ 0 : a ~ a, ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 5 ~ O _ V (.~ ~ U (7 U cd ~ U U U v~ U U rig U on .~ o tin .~ o~, bn ,~ .'., bn ~ .,~ ~ ~s ~ x ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ U x •o ~ •° ~ •~ V p :--~ Q., N O ~ ,-" ~ ~ ~ N ~ .'. ~ N +~+ O ,_, ~ O ~ "O ~ N .~ N O ~ O ~ ~ .~ rn 4-i O ~ N .,.. ~ ~ ,~ .O ~,O O~ ~ O O ~.O ~ U s .~ ~ O ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O o 'O M AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BIiSINESS AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2U~5 14 172 REPORT PREPARED BY: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER PAM DMYTRENKO NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the City Council to confirm the appointment of Brad Sveum as Fire Services Director for the Cit of Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Confirm the appointment of Brad Sveum as Fire Services Director for the Cit of Richfield. II. BACKGROUND Since former Fire Services Director, Kevin McGinty, .retired in April 2004, Brad Sveum has been serving as Acting Fire Services Director/Fire Chief. A recruitment process for a new Fire Chief was undertaken in June 2004, but none of the finalists were ultimately selected. Since that time, Acting Chief Sveum has been performing the duties of Fire .Chief very competently. In July, the City Manager requested that the position of Fire Services Director be posted as an internal recruitment. Mr. Sveum was the only applicant r'or the position. He was interviewed by City Manager, Steve Devich and Assistant to the City Manager, -Pam Dmytrenko on August 3, 2005. As a result of this screening process, and based on Mr. Sveum's exemplary performance in his role as Acting Fire Services Director, he has been selected by the City Manager for appointment to the position of Fire Services Director. 0913FireChief ~~-/ Mr. Sveum has spent 32 years in fire service. He has been with the Richfield Fire Department since December 1981, rising to the level of Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal prior to assuming the role of Acting Fire Services Director. Mr. Sveum also served 25 years as a volunteer with the Bloomington Fire Department before retiring in 2002. In Bloomington, he was responsible for all training programs as the Chief of Training. Mr. Sveum graduated from. Richfield High School and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management. He has also attended numerous courses in fire service management at the National Fire Academy. Mr. Sveum has extensive experience in fire department management and program training coordination, as well as a long history with. the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • According to Richfield City Charter Section 6.02 Powers and Duties of the City Manager, subsection 3, and under Richfield City Code Section 310.01 Subd. 3, Charter authority, appointment or removal of department heads shall be made final only upon a majority vote of the Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Fire Department has been without a permanent Fire Services Director since the retirement of Chief McGinty in April 2004 and Mr. Sveum has been serving as Acting Chief since that time. C. FINANCIAL • The 2005 Budget includes the funding necessary to provide for the salary and benefit contributions as negotiated. D. LEGAL • According to Richfield's City Code, the Council must approve the selection of Mr. Sveum before he is appointed Fire Services Director. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council may reject the candidate and direct the City Manager to undertake a new selection process. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 171 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2Q05 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS. REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed Budget resolutions adopting 2006 preliminary property tax levy, setting truth in taxation hearing dates, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of 2005 budget of various departments, and authorizing use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for police and fire expenditures. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the attached resolutions establishing the 2006 preliminary property tax levy and proposed dates for Truth in Taxation hearings, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of 2005 budget of various departments, and authorizing the use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for Police and Fire expenditures. IL BACKGROUND On August 30 and September 6, 2005, two special City Council Worksessions were conducted. At these meetings, a presentation and discussion of the 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed Budget and 2006 preliminary property tax levy took place. For taxes payable 2006, levy limits have been removed by the legislature, therefore 09132005budgetres i ~ ~- ~ at the two Worksessions information was presented to the City Council regarding the preliminary property tax levy and other non-tax revenue information. Consequently; as a result of these two meetings the City of Richfield's preliminary gross tax levy has been established at $11,935,629, which includes a levy for general fund operations of $11,514,525 and an equipment levy of $421,104. This levy amount represents an 8.57% increase from the 2005 gross levy. III. BASIS .OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Charter establishes that at a special budget meeting of the Council on or before September 15, the City Manager must submit to the Council a proposed budget and a budget message in the form and containing the information specified in Section 7.06. In affect the City Charter now more closely follows the Truth in Taxation Statute, which in the past overrode the Charter process for budget adoption. • Consequently, as required by the Truth in Taxation legislation (MS 275.065) each "taxing authority" must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2006 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 2005. "Taxing authority" includes all counties, all school districts, all cities regardless of population, all towns and all special taxing districts. No local units of government are exempted from this requirement. • In addition, each "taxing authority" with a population of 500 or more, must certify to their County Auditor the dates that have been selected for the Truth in Taxation hearings by September 15, 2005. The date for this hearing must not conflict with the hearing dates of the county or of the school district in which the "taxing authority" is located. This Truth in Taxation public hearing must be held between November 29 and December 20, 2005. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Along with the 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed budget and preliminary property tax levy, City staff is also recommending dates for this year's Truth in Taxation public hearings. It is recommended that this year's hearings be set for 6:30 p.m. Monday, December 5, 2005 with a continuation date of 6:30 p.m. Monday, December 12, 2005. As Council Members are aware, at these public hearings, the tax levy may be reduced from the preliminary tax levy, but not increased. • All official action concerning the preliminary tax levy and setting dates for the Truth in Taxation hearings must be concluded before September 15, 2005. C. FINANCIAL • The preliminary gross levy for taxes payable 2006 is $11,935,629. • The City's tax capacity rate will reflect a slight increase from 38.870% in 2005 to 39.135% in 2006. r3-a • A final resolution for consideration authorizes the revision of the 2005 budget to conform to the most recent 2005 revenue and expenditure projections. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could adopt a lesser 2006 preliminary property tax levy, or 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed budget or select other allowable Truth in Taxation hearing dates. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Adopting a Proposed .Budget and Tax Levy for the Year 2006 • Resolution Authorizing Budget Revisions • Resolution Authorizing Revision of 2005 Budget of Various Departments • Resolution Authorizing Use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund Refund Interest Earnings for Police and Fire Expenditures for 2005 Revised and 2006 Proposed Budget VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A /3--3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2006 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2005 and then recertified before December 31, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2006 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative/Executive $ 812,240 Administrative Services 1,064,520 Public Safety 7,155,780 Fire Services 2,628,910 Community Development 219,280 Public Works 3,557,030 Recreation Services 1,529,810 Transfers 25,690 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $16,993,260 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2006 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2006 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $16,993,260 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2005, payable in 2006 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE AMOUNT General Fund' $11,514,525 Equipment 421,104 ~ Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retrement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution amounts. 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2006 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2005, payable in 2006 for the following purposes: f~`~ PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $389,320 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. 6. The Truth in Taxation public hearings shall. be set for 6:30 p.m. December 5, 2005 with a continuation hearing at 6:30 p.m. December 12, 2005 if necessary. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of September 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk X3--5 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial to restate such authority with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the approval of the City Council Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of September, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk /3-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2005 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 9545 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2005; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2005 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and .as detailed in the Proposed 2006 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2005 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Legislative/Executive $ 889,310 Administrative Services 1,025,740 Public Safety 6,896,040 Fire Services 2,681,050 Community Development 220,810 Public Works 3,451,440 Recreation Services 1,484,310 Transfers 72,170 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 16,720,870 INCREASE - $ 286,450 2. Estimated 2005 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2006 budget, are hereby revised as follows: INCREASE $286,450 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of September 2005. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk l3 -~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION POLICE AND FIRE FUND REFUND INTEREST EARNINGS FOR CERTAIN POLICE AND FIRE EXPENDITURES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield received a refund of overfunded residual assets from the closed Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Fund; and WHEREAS, the City adopted a plan where only interest earnings on the principal of the residual assets are to be used for eligible expenditures; and WHEREAS, all eligible expenditures be restricted to Police and Fire expenditures; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Revised 2005/Proposed 2006 Police and Fire Expenditur 2005R Capital Improvement Budget 800 MHz Radio 20,000 General Fund Operating Expenditures Motor Vehicle 117.000 137,000 es using PERA funds 2006 20,000 118,000 138,000 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of September 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2UU5 Public Hearing I2 170 REPORT PREPARED BY: MELISSA POEHLMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding consideration of amendments to the Richfield City Code Sections 500.05, 500.13 and 500.25, Subdivision 1 to update and clarify subdivision re ulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve second reading of the attached ordinance amendments to Richfield City Code Section 500.05, 500.13 and 500.25 Subdivision 1 to update and clarify subdivision regulations. • Approve the attached resolution for summary publication of an ordinance amendment to the Richfield City Code Section 500. IL BACKGROUND • The first reading of the ordinance came before the City Council on July 26, 2005. • In reviewing the Subdivision section of the City Code, staff has discovered some out- of-date references and inconsistencies with State Statutes. The proposed changes are minor and will bring the Code into compliance with current State laws, update out-of-date language, and clarify requirements. Summary of recommended changes. The recommended revisions to the City's Zoning Code can be summarized as follows: I a_, zoning: a) The proposed changes update the Code to reference current Statutes and repeals language that is no longer valid. b) The proposed changes clarify minimum lot size requirements by deleting potentially confusing language. c) The proposed changes reduce the number of copies required for plat submissions. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • The recommended ordinance amendments will update and clarify plat and subdivision regulations for properties in the R, R-1, MR, MR-1, MR-2, MR- 3, C-1, C-2, C-3, PC-2, PMR, PMR-1 and I zoning districts. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Code should be in compliance with and reference current State Statutes. • Minimum lot requirements should be based on the underlying Zoning District in which a parcel is located; additional language unnecessarily confuses the issue. • The City Attorney has reviewed and approved these proposed amendments to the City's Code. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL Zoning: This ordinance amendment clarifies plat and subdivision regulations for the entire City of Richfield. Land Use: All zoning districts Comprehensive Plan: N/A Notification: Notification for the City Council public hearing on this proposed Zoning Code amendment will be provided as by State Statute and City requirements. Other Actions: Council: If the City Council adopts the recommended changes, they will take effect 30 days after the approved Council resolution is posted in the Sun Current newspaper. TERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Reject the motion to amend Richfield Zoning Code Sections 500.05, 500.13 and 500.25 Subdivision 1 to update and clarify subdivision and plat regulations. V. ATTACHMENTS • Draft of proposed ordinance amendments to Zoning Code Sections 500.05, 500.13 and 500.25 Subdivision 1 to update and clarify subdivision regulations. • Resolution for summary publication of the ordinance. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ pC "'" BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION 500.05; SECTION 500.13; AND SECTION 500.25, SUBDIVISION 1 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Section 500.05 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 500.05. Conveyances by.metes and bounds. Subdivision 1. Conveyances prohibited. No conveyance of land in which tha land rnnvPVarl is rlacrrihari not aTT rnyart h~i rtni ~nr_il racnli rtinn shall ha marlA nr rartnrrlPri if th ~arr_al Sec. 2 Subd. 1 a. Subdivision 1 does not apply to a conveyance if the land described: 1. 1945 or the date of adoption or ivision reaulations b. was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to such time, or c. was a separate parcel of not less than 2-1/2 acres in area and 150 feet in width on January 1, 1966, or d. was a separate parcel of not less than five acres in area and 300 feet in width on July 1, 1980, or n tlve a into two or more lots or parcels. any one of f. is a sinale parcel of and its conveyance does not which is less than 20 acres in area or 500 feet in width; or Section 500.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new subdivision 1 a as follows: ~a-3 g. Sec. 3. Section 500.05, subdivision 5 of the Richfield City Code is repealed. Sec. 4 Section 500.13 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 500.13. Minimum lot area. The minimum area and minimum width of any lots in a Sec. 5 Section 500.25 Subdivision 1 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 500.25. Final approval of plats. Subdivision 1. Submission to council. The final plan on mylar ~-- tra~~nn ~i~tn and four two prints thereof, together with fact two copies of any deed restrictions when such are too lengthy to be shown on the plat or plan, and tfa.Gee two prints of the certified plans showing the improvements as built or as they are to be built within the subdivisions shall be submitted to the council. Before approving the final plat or plan of all or part of a proposed subdivision, the council will require proof that the improvements and revisions thereof required have been satisfactorily completed or their construction secured by contract and bond. The final plat accepted shall cover only that part of the subdivision upon which all improvements have been completed or secured. Sec. 6. 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 September, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk conform to -the standards of the zoning district in which the parcel falls. Where corner lots rear upon lots facing the side street, the corner lots shall have extra width sufficient to permit the establishment of front building lines on both the front and side of the lots adjoining the streets. Extra width shall be provided on all corner lots irrespective of whether they rear upon lots facing the side streets. ~ a -~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 500 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO PLAT AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendments to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following. summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE, SUBSECTION 500.05; SUBSECTION 500.13; AND SUBSECTION 500.25, SUBDIVISION 1 The City Council has adopted Ordinance No. an ordinance entitled "Amendment to Richfield City Code, Subsection 500.05, Subsection 500.13 and Subsection 500.25, Subdivision 1." This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The ordinance makes technical amendments to the City's subdivision regulations. Subsection 500.05 is amended to conform to state law with respect to land divisions that do not require city approval. Subsection 500.13 is amended to provide consistency with City zoning regulations with respect to lot size. The amendment to Subsection 500.25 reduces the number of plat mylars required to be submitted to the City. Copies of the full text of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of September, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 169 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW : (,a SIGNA REVIEWED BY CITY ~ MANAGER: ® , ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with optional 2 AM closing for Aribel's Restaurant/Bar, 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the issuance of new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with optional 2 AM closing for Aribel's Restaurant/Bar. 1120 East 66th Street, Richfield. II. BACKGROUND On June 8, 2005, the City received the application and other required documents for new on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with optional 2 AM closing for Aribel's Restaurant/Bar. The applicant has satisfied all objective criteria for eligibility under state and local ordinances. 0913 Aribel's New Liquor Licenses The following requirements for license issuance have all been satisfied: 1. The applicant has paid the required licensing fees. 2. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received, showing Lexington Insurance Company affording the coverage. 3. Proof of Worker's Compensation insurance has not been provided, due to the fact that they have no employees at this time. 4. The property being leased by Aribel's is owned by Munna Jaiprakash. The real .estate property taxes are paid and current. The lease between the applicant and the landlord is in effect with all payments current. 5. As this is a new business, there are no unpaid general sales and withholding taxes. 6. As this is a new license, there are no previous "calls for service" or contact records. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The applicant and sole owner/manager of Aribel's is Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud. Her husband, Leon Seepersaud, will be the cook. Criminal history checks were conducted on Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud and Leon Seepersaud. According to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension's database, there were no matches for either Chetranee Seepersaud or Leon Seepersaud. In checking the Infotrak Investigative Query and CriMNet, these two databases showed that both Chetranee and Leon Seepersaud were arrested for theft at Sears in Bloomington on March 6, 2005. Chetranee Seepersaud did indicate on her application that she and Leon were arrested for theft and that the charge would be dismissed in November 2005. The checks further showed that Leon Seepersaud was arrested and convicted of DWI, which had occurred in Richfield on September 2, 2003. Leon Seepersaud is currently on probation for DWI.. Besides the DWI and theft arrests, no other issues were found during this investigation that raised any concerns about the applicant's suitability regarding the application for 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine licenses. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 9511, which outlines discipline they can expect if any on-going problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. 1- ~. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statues pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with optional 2 AM closing. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the requirements in Resolution 9511are met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to deny the license request, which would mean that the current applicants would not be able to obtain on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Chetranee Jwalapersad Seepersaud AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # lO REPORT # 168 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Continued public hearing regarding the proposed transfer of control of the cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and to determine if there may be adverse affects on cable television subscribers (Continued from August 9, 2005). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the the proposed transfer of control of the cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC Continued from August 9. 2005 II. BACKGROUND • At the -July 12, 2005, City Council meeting, a public hearing was scheduled for August 9, 2005 to determine whether the proposed transfer of control will -have an adverse effect on the City's cable television subscribers. Notice of the public hearing was published 14 days in advance of the public hearing. A final decision by the City regarding Comcast's transfer request must be issued within 30 days of the close of the public hearing. • Public testimony was taken at the August 9, 2005 public hearing and the City Council continued the hearing to September 13, 2005. • This public hearing is required under the City's cable regulatory ordinance for the proposed transfer of its cable television franchise. In this case, Time Warner Cable has presented the City with a request to transfer its franchise 0913CATV ~ ©-~ to Comcast Communications. The City received this request in mid-June and notified Time Warner of the need for a public hearing. The City is a member of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSCC) which generally handles the regulatory oversight of cable television matters on the City's behalf. The commission's attorney, Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett, is preparing a report regarding the proposed transfer as well as the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Comcast. The commission has set a meeting on the afternoon of September 1, 2005 to review the findings and report prepared by Moss & Barnett and to develop a recommendation for City action on this mattEr. ' • At the September 1, meeting of the SWSCC, the law firm of Moss & Barnett presented their findings regarding the proposed change of control of Time Warner. Brian Grogan, Moss & Barnett, reported that after a thorough review of the reports and information presented regarding the proposed transfer, he believes that the necessary legal, technical, and financial qualifications have been met by the Proposed Franchisee, MOC Holdco II, Inc. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A public hearing was deemed necessary in that the City should perform due diligence in determining any potential adverse impact on Richfield cable subscribers. From a public policy perspective, staff strongly recommended that this issue be considered after holding a public hearing. The five cities of the SWSCC pursue the public hearing track before deciding on the transfer. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A public hearing was deemed necessary to determine whether the proposed transfer of control will have an adverse effect on the City's cable television subscribers. Notice of the public hearing was published 14 days in advance of the public hearing. A final decision by the City regarding the transfer request must be issued within 30 days of the closing of the public hearing. • .The City has received the SWSCC's recommendation and final report prepared by Moss & Barnett, which recommends that the City listen to all interested parties at tonight's public hearing, and thereafter approve the proposed change of control of Time Warner on September 13, 2005. C. FINANCIAL • The transfer of control should have no adverse impact on the financial arrangements between the cable provider and the City of Richfield. • The cost of processing the transfer could cost the SWSCC member cities several thousand dollars. However, the cost will likely be fully reimbursed by the cable providers. ~ a --~ ~. D. LEGAL • Under state and federal law as well as the City's ordinance, the City may review the qualifications of the prospective controlling party. • The Moss & Barnett report will outline their recommendations regarding the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Comcast under the proposed transfer. The report will also incorporate appropriate closing documentation including a detailed resolution and related documents. The SWSCC issued a recommendation to the City to approve the transaction concerning the transfer application at it's September 1, 2005 meeting. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brian Grogan, Moss & Barnett 1 ~ --3 RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF CONTROL OF TIME WARNER RECITALS: 1. On or about January 1, 1997, the City of Richfield, Minnesota ("City") passed and adopted Ordinance No. 1996-27, granting a Cable Television Franchise ("Franchise"), currently held by Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Franchisee"). 2. On or about June 14, 2005, Franchisee submitted to the City FCC Form 394, Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise ("Form 394"). 3. Form 394 constitutes Franchisee's application to transfer the system to MOC Holdco II, Inc. which will wholly own Cable Holdco II Inc. ("Proposed Franchisee"). 4. Pursuant to a Redemption Agreement, dated April 20, 2005, by and among Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc.; MOC Holdco II, Inc.; TWE Holdings I Trust, TWE Holdings II Trust; Cable Holdco II tnc., Time Warner Cable Inc. and other related parties: (a) the Franchisee cable system and Franchise will be assigned to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Franchisee, Cable Holdco II Inc. and (b) immediately thereafter, pursuant to the same Redemption Agreement, all of the stock of Cable Holdco II Inc. will be acquired by MOC Holdco II, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc. The assignment and change of control described herein shall collectively be referred to as the "Transaction." 5. Under the City's Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance ("Cable Ordinance") .and applicable law, the Transaction requires consent from the City. j~--~ 6. The City is a member of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission which has conducted a review of the Transaction and issued a recommendation that the City approve the Transaction subject to the conditions contained herein. 7. The City has reviewed the Transaction and the legal, technical, and financial qualifications of MOC Holdco II, Inc. and its corporate parent entities. 8. Based on information obtained and on the reports and information received by City, including the recommendation of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, the City has elected to consent to the Transaction. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Richfield, Minnesota hereby resolves as follows: 1. The Franchise is in full force and effect, and Franchisee is the lawful holder of the Franchise. 2. Each of the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The City hereby consents and approves of the Transaction as contemplated under the Redemption Agreement, subject to: a. Closing of the Transaction described in information provided to the City by Franchisee and MOC Holdco II, Inc. b. MOC Holdco II, Inc., within thirty (30) days of the date of closing, notifying the City in writing of the completion of the Transaction. c. Cable Holdco II Inc., within thirty (30) days of the date of closing, providing the City with a signed acceptance of this Resolution in the form attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 4. The City hereby waives any right of first refusal which the City may have to purchase the Franchise, or the cable television system serving the City, but only as such right of first refusal applies to the request for approval of the Transaction now before the City. 1 ~ "~~ 5. By this consent the City does not make any representation that Franchisee is in compliance with its obligations under the Franchise. 6. By this consent the City does not waive any of Franchisee's commitments, duties and obligations under the Franchise, including any accrued and unfulfilled obligation of the Franchisee, whether known or unknown, relating to the Franchise. 7. In the event the Transaction contemplated under the Redemption Agreement is not completed, for any reason, or is modified in any material manner, the City's consent provided hereunder shall not be effective. This Resolution shall take effect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date of its passage, approval, and adoption. A motion to approve the foregoing Resolution No. was made by City Council Member and duly seconded by City Council Member The following City Council Members voted in the affirmative: The following City Council Members voted in the negative: Passed and adopted by the City Council for the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of September, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 1~~~ ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT Cable Holdco II Inc., hereby accepts this Resolution No. ("Resolution") and agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Resolution and the lawful terms and conditions of the Franchise referenced within the Resolution. Dated this _ day of , 20_ CABLE HOLDCO II INC. By: Its: STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of SEAL 200_, by of Cable Holdco II Inc. the Notary Public AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # $j REPORT # 167 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, T/TLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by Richfield Visions, Inc. for itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 17, 2005, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Visions, Inc., for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 17, 2005, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On August 22, 2005, Richfield Visions, Inc. applied for itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for the activities scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park on September 17, 2005. The license fees for the event have been paid. The City has previously granted these licenses to Richfield Visions, Inc. for the Richfield Cattail Days celebration. 0913 Cattail Days Festival Licenses ~~ The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets the requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • All license fees have been paid. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for an itinerant amusement and food license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on September 17, 2005. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 8H REPORT # 166 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: TRENT JUTTING, STREET SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of purchase of winter deicing salt. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize the purchase of an estimated 1,700 ton of winter deicing salt for the 2005/2006 winter season from North American Salt Company, Overland Park, KS at-the price of $36.00 per ton, delivered, plus sales tax. II. BACKGROUND Each year the City purchases rock salt to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City participates in a joint purchasing agreement with the State of Minnesota. • The State of Minnesota solicited bids for all the participants in the joint purchase agreement. 091305sa1t ~3N-] B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount, and may purchase up to 120% of the agreed amount, in accordance with the contract. C. FINANCIAL • A recent history of prices for this product is: Year Base Price Vendor 01/02 39.02/ton I.M.C. Salt Inc., Overland Park, KS 02/03 27.97/ton Cargill Inc., North Olmsted, OH 03/04 27.71/ton Cargill Inc., North Olmsted,. OH 04/05 31.71/ton North American Salt Co., Overland Park, KS • Funding for this purchase is included in the 2005 and 2006 operating budgets for street maintenance. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of merchandise, materials, equipment, or construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could choose to discontinue the use of rock salt to control ice on road surfaces during the winter season. However, staff is not aware of a more effective means of providing the safest road condition possible under icy conditions. • Although the City is obligated to purchase 80% of the agreed amount for the 2005/2006 winter season, further participation in the cooperative State bidding process for deicing salt could be abandoned. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 8G REPORT # 165 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: MARK HALL, PARK AND FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Specialty Systems, Inc. to install a new steel roof at the Taft Park north building. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a purchase order to Specialty Systems, Inc. for $39,853 for installing a standing seam roof at the Taft Park north building. II. BACKGROUND The north building at Taft Park was built in 1974. It is a brick building with asphalt shingles on the roof, which are now 31 years old. It is the last park building in need of a new steel roof, which will last approximately 50 years. The building is in good condition, but without a new roof will soon fall into major disrepair. Patching on the roof to fix leaks has already been done, but this was a temporary repair, not a permanent solution. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 091305Taftroof g~--i • As required by City policy, staff solicited quotes and received quotes of $46,000 and $39,853. The lowest quote was from Specialty Systems Inc. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the September 13, 2005 Council meeting will facilitate the removal of the asphalt shingles and the installation of a new steel roof on the building. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2005 CIP budget contains $40,000 for the installation of the new roof. D. LEGAL • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or services exceeds $25,000.00, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to reject this bid and direct staff to solicit more bids in an attempt to receive a lower bid. However, staff does not believe lower prices could be obtained from a responsible contractor. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 CONSENT 8F 164 MELISSA POEHLMAN, REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request to extend a variance permit until September 17, 2006 to allow the construction of a two-car ara e, located at 6733 Lakeview Drive. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the requested extension for a variance permit until September 17, 2006 to allow the construction of a two-car garage, located at 6733 Lakeview Drive. II. BACKGROUND • On September 17, 2003 the Richfield Hearing Examiner granted a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Gray to allow construction of an attached two-car garage with living space above, located at 6733 Lakeview Drive. In August 2004 Mrs. Gray submitted a written request asking that the expiration date for the variance be extended. Bids for the project had not been within the couple's budget. (Letter attached). 091305-Va rianceExte n s ion-6733La keViewD r. doc S~-r • On September 16, 2004, the City Council authorized aone-year extension of the variance. • On August 16, 2005, Mr. Gray submitted a written request asking that the expiration date for the variance be extended for an additional year. Bids for the project have continued to be out of the couple's budget; however, they have scaled down the project and intend to commence with construction soon. (Letter attached). • Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09, Subdivision 12(b) states that "any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for additional period." III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09, Subdivision 12 allows variances to be extended for up to one year at the request of the variance holder. • Public review by the Hearing Examiner occurred in late 2003. The requested extension will allow the homeowners more time to begin construction on the two-car garage. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • As stated in the original staff report to the Hearing Examiner, "the City encourages investments and improvements to residential properties..." C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the requested time extension and allow the variance to expire. In order to construct atwo-car garage, the applicants would need to apply for a new variance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter dated August 19, 2004, requesting an extension. • Letter dated August 16, 2005, requesting time extension. • Copy of Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. and Mrs. Gray, applicant ~~`„~ August 19, 2004 Ms. Christine Costello Hand Delivered Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: time extension for variance for 6733 Lakeview Avenue Case # 03-VAR-04 Dear Ms. Costello: As. you know, we (my husband David and 17 are seeking to extend the time of the variances that we were granted for our house at 673.3 Lakeview Avenue. We received the approval of our varinces on September 17, 2003, and it is our understanding that said approval is good for one year. We~need a time extension for the variances. The reasons are as follows: After being granted the variances for a remodelling project of a two car attached garage with a second floor for a bedroom and bathroom we set about meeting with several contractors to get appropriate and affordable bids. Our biggest concern was that our budget was limited to a specific dollar amount. (We got approval for a home remodelling loan.) None of the contractors was able to come within this budget. This process took all winter. We finally met with a friend of the family who runs aconstruction/remodelling company, Michael Otogawa-Anschel, who told us that he could put together a different remodelling project that would allow us to build the two car garage we wanted (without a second floor) with an addition off of the kitchen. He knew about the variances- that had been granted to us. He was told of our budget limitations and he explained to us that he could "get the job done" within our amount. That was.in late February, 2004. He and his co-workers came to the house on several occasions to appraise what needed to be done, took measurements, etc. We finally met with him over at his office sometime in 1vlay and were told that the project would cost us $60,000.00 more than what we had told him our budget limit was! Needless to say, we were discouraged because we~ had told other contractors to stop with their plans and estimates. We were back to square one. We then thought about selling and moving to a new home. We met three times with a builder (Hans Hagen Homes) out in Minnetrista where a newer development is being completed. After several weeks we decided not to go forward with new construction, again due to cost. I then had major surgery. on July 14th for a hysterectomy. Even though I am more mobile _ now, I had been "laid up" for several weeks. This has caused more delay in trying to get something done/built on time before the variance expires. But, we have now met with four different contractors who specialize in garages (Model Garage Builders, Durabilt, ~~ page 2 Western Construction, and Sussel). Our original idea of a two story two car attached garage has changed to a one story two car garage that will still comply with our variances. This change will allow us to fit within our budget. We are waiting to receive all the bids, and with luck we could start construction before our variance time frame ends, but it would be "cutting it close." That is why. we are seeking to get a time extension for our variance. If need be, we can supply paperwork regarding all of the things discussed in this letter. Both I and my husband hope to be at the meeting scheduled for September 16th at the Richfield City Hall. Thank you for considering this time extension. Sincerely yours, - ~.. Sandra A. Gray ~r 2 - ~'~/- 99/~ ~~ DAVID G. GRAY, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 23616 Richfield, MN 55423 Phone (612) 866-1313 Fax (612) 866-1414 Email Uwolfstein@aol.com August 16, 2005 Ms. Melissa Poehlman Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 VIA FASCIMILE TRANSMISSION :.'"_~.: %xtel"1~:iCl11 C~i•ti'~3C'• f~.~Y'?`J1ii11b v'w ali eS i~7i i~~%~J3 Ld.11F.~c:`vi/ tiV~liu~'. Case#: 03-VAR-04 Dear Ms. Poehlman: Thank you for meeting briefly with me earlier today. I am~ making this request on behalf of my wife and me for an extension of the original variances that was granted to us almost two years ago. These ~artances were necessary fir us in order to expand cur single car garage into a two car garage. The anginal vanances were granted to us becaase of litniied options (side restrictions and nearness. tu, street restrictions), caused by a berm .placed through fur backyard by the City of Richfield,'the.shape o,f fur lot, closeness to neighbors of our already existing garage structure, etc. •W e were-granted a~ year's extension on these variances one. year ago due to the. failure of our then contractor to honestly stick to his original promise to us to keep the price of the work within certain dollar amounts, and we had no time to restart the project with someone else. Within this past year, we talked with numerous garage specialty companies (Sussel, Western, Durabilt, and Model Garage Builders) that all, it seemed, over-quoted us, we think in part, because they didn't want to handle such a "small" job. We thought they were overpriced, and we honestly just gave up on getting the job done. Most recently, our friend, Curt Blandin, who opera~es under the name of cKli Constriction, has told us that he could do what we want for a price that we can afford. Problem is, there would be no possible way that he could complete the task by September 17th, 2005, the deadline for the variances. We are therefore in need of another extension. As before, we think the garage expansion would ad value to our properly and therefore the neighborhood in general. We really do feel the need for a two car garage. Enclosed with the hard copy of this letter is our check for $75.00 which is made payable to the City of Richf eld. We would 1rke the extension of the variances issue to be heard before the ~ ity,Coimci> on the second Tuesday o~ ,September (tl~e 13th) as that. would be the last ... . date ~ossibte.for us to get this time e~tensiun before.the variances run out. _- Thank you fur considering this issue on Bach short n~,ti.ce page 2 ~'~ Sincerely yo , 0~1r~~~~~c~ _ avid and Sandra Gray g~- ~ 546.09. Variances. Subdivision 1. Limitations. The following limitations apply to variances: a) a variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this code only in instances where such action would be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code and all the following criteria are found to exist: (i) strict enforcement of this code would cause an undue hardship. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by this code. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this code. Undue hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; (ii) unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having interest in the property; (iii) the variance, if granted, would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The completed project would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values, or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; and (iv) the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the undue hardship. b) use variances shall not be granted. Subd. 2. Committee of Hearing Examiners. The Committee of Hearing Examiners is a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and shall be administered by the Director. The specific duties of this Committee are to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of this code. This Committee of at least two Examiners is appointed by the City Manager for a term of two years subject to confirmation by the Council. During the term of appointment members serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Public hearing. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Director shall assign the application to one Hearing Examiner and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of property located wholly or partially within 350 feet. Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 60 days after receipt of a completed application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Hearing Examiner fails to make a timely decision, the variance shall be deemed to have been approved. The decision shall be supported by findings specifically related to the applicable ~~~ criteria contained in this code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with the City Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. The Hearing Examiner may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code and to protect adjacent properties. (Amended, Bill No. 1995-19, Sec. 6) Subd. 6. Staff report. The Director shall provide a written report to the Hearing Examiner outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for a recommendation to either approve or deny the variance request. The .written report shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the applicant, and shall be furnished to others upon request. Subd. 7. Powers of Hearing Examiner. A Hearing Examiner may call witnesses, subpoena relevant reports, and accept any evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the Hearing Examiner is relevant to the issues being heard. Those in attendance at the public hearing shall have the right to present testimony and evidence. The Hearing Examiner may impose limitations on the number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimony. Subd. 8. Record keeping. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape will be transcribed on request of the Board. The tape will also be transcribed at the request of any person upon the payment of all costs of transcription. Written minutes shall also be taken at the public hearing, and shall be kept on permanent file in the Office of Community Development or may be transferred to State Archives. Subd. 9. A eals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director within ten days of the date of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd. 10. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing of the Hearing Examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied by the Hearing Examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant to the case not available to the applicant in the original hearing can be presented. The request for a rehearing shall state the nature of the new evidence and why it was not previously available. If an application for rehearing is timely made, the time to appeal will be extended until the decision on granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be withdrawn. Subd. 11. (Repealed, Bill No. 1999-3) Subd. 12. Expiration of variance. Any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless: a) the project for which the variance was granted is completed within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period. Subd. 13. Term of variance. If the project is completed as approved, the variance shall run with the land and.remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed. ~~~ Subd. 14. Assumed risk. Any applicant who obtains a building permit, starts construction and/or begins a use prior to the expiration of the appeal period, assumes the risk that the decision may be reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the appeal and informed as to the date of the Board meeting where it will be heard. Subd. 15. Specific project. A variance shall be valid only for the project for which it was granted. Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner or Board. Subd. 16. Violations. Any person who violates, fails to comply with, assists, directs, or permits a violation of the conditions of a variance shall be subject to the provisions outlined in Sections 115 and 320 of the City Code. Such violation may render the variance null and void. Subd. 17. Fee. The fee for a variance is set by Appendix D of the City Code. Subd. 18. Annual Report. The committee of Hearing Examiners shall annually prepare a report for the Council and Planning Commission outlining the activities of the Hearing Examiners and making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite the processing of variances to the literal provisions of this code. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 Consent 8E 163 REPORT PREPARED BY: RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITZE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution accepting a Minnesota Releaf grant to be used to reimburse residential home owners fora onion of the cost of diseased tree removals. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of a Minnesota Releaf grant from the Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $19,000 to be used to reimburse residential home owners for a portion of the cost of diseased tree removals. II. BACKGROUND The Public Works Forestry Division applied fora $26,000 Minnesota Releaf grant from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that would provide an incentive for prompt removal of private diseased trees. The grant funds will be used to help Richfield residential homeowners offset the high cost of having diseased tree(s) removed from their property. On July 13, 2005, staff was notified that the City was selected as a recipient of this grant in the amount of $19,000. The City intends to use this money to reimburse residential homeowners for 20% of the cost of diseased tree removals. 091305DNRgrant ~~~~ Homeowners will be notified through regular City communications (website, newsletters) and through diseased tree notices. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Minnesota Statue 465.03 requires that the City approve a resolution accepting the funds of the grant money. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • This grant money will be used to reimburse residential homeowners for 20% of the cost of diseased tree removals. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could not approve the resolution, which would void the acceptance of the grant • The DNR has given the City permission to use a percentage other than 20%. The number of diseased trees varies from year to year. Staff estimates that if the percentage was lowered to 15%, it may be possible that not all of the money in the two programs would be used. If the percentage was raised to 25%, the money could be used up in a bad diseased tree year. After the first year, the City can reevaluate the percentage for year two. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None gE-z RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD TO ACCEPT A MINNESOTA RELEAF GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,000 TO BE USED TO REIMBURSE RESIDENTIAL HOME- OWNERS FOR A PORTION OF THE COST OF DISEASED TREE REMOVALS. WHEREAS, the Public Works Department, Forestry Division, has applied for and received a Minnesota Releaf Grant in the amount of $19,000; and WHEREAS, the City intends to use these funds to reimburse residential. homeowners for 20% of the cost of diseased tree removals; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 requires every acceptance of a grant or devise of real personal property on terms prescribed by the donor be made by resolution of .more than two-thirds majority of the City Council: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the .City Council of the City of Richfield hereby accepts the Minnesota Releaf Grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in the amount of nineteen thousand dollars and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with grant agreements and terms described by the DNR. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of September 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # $D REPORT # 162 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRAD SVEUM, ACTING FIRE CHIEF NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: r REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution accepting a grant donation from CenterPoint Energy Community Partnershi Grant Pro ram. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution accepting the grant donation of $3000 -from CenterPoint Energy Community Partnership Grant Program to be used to defray part of the cost of self contained breathing apparatus being purchased in 2005. II. BACKGROUND CenterPoint Energy has made grant donations for three years to area emergency responders for emergency response equipment as part of their Community Partnership Grant. Program. This is the first year the City of Richfield and the Richfield Fire Department have been the recipients of the grant. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY 0913CenterPoint ~~_i • Minnesota Statue 465.03 requires all donations to be accepted by resolution of the City Council and adopted by two-thirds majority of its members. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This donation aids in reducing the expenditure for fire operations from the General Fund. C. FINANCIAL • There are no financial costs associated with the acceptance of this donation D. LEGAL • Minnesota State Statute 465.03 requires all donations to be accepted by resolution of the City Council and adopted by atwo-thirds majority vote of its members. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Connie Hargest, CenterPoint Energy RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF CENTERPOINT ENERGY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ADMINISTER THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GRANT AGREEMENTS AND TERMS PRESCRIBED BY THE DONORS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 reads in part as follows: 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 been awarded the grant as described below, CenterPoint Energy Community Partnership Grant for $3000.00 to be used to purchase self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). 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 the CenterPoint Energy Community Partnership Grant funds in the amount of $3000 for 2005 and authorizes the City to administer the funds in accordance with the grant agreements and terms prescribed by the donors. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of September 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # $~ REPORT # ~6j ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: MIKE KOOB, POLICE LIEUTENANT NAME, TITLE COUIe1CIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution regarding an agreement between the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department, pertaining to the Safe and Sober Pro ram. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds to be used for the payment of overtime for officers involved in the Safe & Sober Program. II. BACKGROUND Edina, Airport and Richfield police departments submitted a joint grant application to the State for funds that were to be utilized for enhanced traffic enforcement during the upcoming year. They have been jointly awarded $32,000 and plan on scheduling joint enforcement campaigns. 0913 Safe and Sober Grant Acceptance S C -1 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The State requires that the City approve a resolution accepting the grant funds prior to their issuance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The resolution needs to be signed by the City Councils of all three agencies before the release of funds to the police departments. • Traffic"law enforcement is a critical function of the police division. Approval of the resolution makes funds available to cover the costs associated with focusing on this area. C. FINANCIAL • Edina, Airport and Richfield Police were jointly awarded a grant of $32,000 to be split evenly; or, $10,650. each. • Overtime traffic enforcement efforts and equipment will be paid from the grant funds. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could disapprove the resolution; however, this would void the agreement for the cities. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~G-~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT/POLICE TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, AS PART OF THE SAFE AND SOBER PROGRAM AND TO ACCEPT FUNDS TO BE USED FOR OFFICER OVERTIME PAYMENT FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2005 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 WHEREAS, the Governor of Minnesota has designated the State of Minnesota, Office of Traffic Safety, in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (hereinafter called the STATE) as the agency responsible for administration of a project entitled Safe & Sober Communities; and WHEREAS, the STATE is authorized to make contracts from state funds to qualified applicants; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Department of Public Safety (hereinafter called the GRANTEE) is authorized to accept state funds for overtime for traffic enforcement programs; and WHEREAS, the period this grant covers will be October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006; and WHEREAS, GRANTEE represents that it is duly qualified and will carry out the tasks described above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City of Richfield will enter into a cooperative grant agreement with the Office Traffic Safety in the State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, for the project entitled Safe & Sober Communities, for the period October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006. 2. Public Safety Director Dan Scott is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Richfield Police Division and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,. Minnesota this 13th day of September 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # $$ REPORT # I ( ~ ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NavtE TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of Professional Services Agreement for appraisal services for purchase of properties on 17th Avenue, south of 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve execution of Professional Services Agreement with BCL A raisals, Inc. II. BACKGROUND • Eight houses on the 6601 block of 17th Avenue (east side, south of 66th Street) have been identified for acquisition for the alignment of the new intersection at approximately 17th Avenue and 66th Street. • The City of Richfield (City) will purchase the northern four properties using City funds. The City will purchase the southern four properties using Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) funds. • An agreement between the City and MAC is being prepared at this writing and will be presented to the City Council on September 27, 2005. ~~-i • MAC is participating in the purchase of these homes because absent purchase, they would expend funds to insulate as they fall within the 65 DNL. • Property owners have been notified of the need to purchase these properties. • BCL Appraisals, Inc. is available to undertake appraisal work in order to meet property acquisition and site clearance completion by Spring 2006. • Appraisal fees will cost $350 per single family residential property, or $2,800 total. ($1,400 for each group of four properties). • The standard Professional Services Agreement, written for appraisal work, is attached. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • In previous acquisition projects undertaken by the City with MAC as a partner, a standard Professional Services Agreement (attached) is prepared. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • With the new runway opening October 27, staff would like to be in a position to make offers to property owners as soon as practical. C. FINANCIAL • -Appraisals will be made now. Offers will not be made until the City Council approves an intersection design at 17th Avenue and East 66th Street. • A permanent source of funding needs to be identified for the intersection, which also would include the four houses to be purchased by the City using City funds. Both of these matters are scheduled for City Council action on October 25, 2005. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has. been working with staff and MAC on this project and is preparing the Agreement with MAC for the acquisition of four properties. This is a standard form agreement for appraisers. • The contract with MAC will have MAC reimbursing the City for the cost of the appraisals, since the City is advancing funds for the four MAC appraisals: IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay appraisal work at this time and do not approve the Professional Services Agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Professional Services Agreement VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~ ~-~- REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield, State of Minnesota (whose address is 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423, ATTN: Katia Medvetski), hereinafter referred to as the "City" and BCL Appraisals, Inc., (whose address is 2852 Anthony Lane South, Minneapolis, MN 55418, ATTN: Ron Lachenmayer), hereinafter referred to as "Appraiser". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City wishes to purchase the services of the Appraiser for the 17th Avenue Road Improvement project; and WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and the Appraiser agree as follows: 1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT The Appraiser agrees to furnish services to the City in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Appraiser shall complete Uniform Residential Appraisal Reports (URAR) for the properties listed on Exhibit A attached hereto no later than October 31, 2005. The fee for the URAR shall be as listed on Exhibit A. The fee for subsequent services, including attending meetings and hearings, if any, where Appraiser is required to attend or for preparation of further reports addressing the value of the property shall be at the rate of $150.00 per hour. The fee for testimony, if any, by the Appraiser shall be at the rate of $150.00 per hour. 2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Appraisal reports prepared pursuant to this Agreement shall conform to recognized professional appraisal standards, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) of the Appraisal Foundation and the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. In addition, these appraisals shall conform to the Appraisal Specifications (5-491.203) set forth in the State of Minnesota's Right of Way Manual. Appropriate maps and plans for the Project will be furnished by the City. 3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Payment for services shall be made directly to the Appraiser after completion of the services upon the presentation of a claim in the manner provided by law governing the City's payment of claims and/or invoices. Payment shall be made within 45 days from receipt of the invoice and following certification by the Appraiser. ~~-~ 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The Appraiser shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Appraiser as the agent, representative, or employee of the City for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The Appraiser is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The Appraiser represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the Appraiser or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Appraiser under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the City, and shall not be considered employees of the City. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the Appraiser, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City. The Appraiser shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or others persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, disability, severance pay and PERA. 5. NONDISCRIMINATION In accordance with the City's policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits of any service performed or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. If the Appraiser is not an individual or sole proprietorship: (1) it shall furnish all information and reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy; and (2) it shall adopt and comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE The Appraiser agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the Appraiser his agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of said Appraiser to fully perform in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. A L~ 7. DATA PRIVACY Appraiser agrees to abide by all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations concerning the handling and disclosure of private and confidential information concerning individuals and/or data including but not limited to information made non-public by such laws or regulations. Appraiser shall maintain all appraisal reports submitted to him on behalf of City as confidential until released by counsel for the City. 8. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY The Appraiser agrees that the City, the State Auditor, Federal personnel or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Appraiser and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment of Federal funds to the State with respect to the Project. 9. NON-ASSIGNMENT The Appraiser shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the City. 10. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 11. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If the Appraiser fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the Appraiser's default is excused, upon written notice to the Appraiser the City may immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Any such consent shall apply only to the specific circumstances described in the writing granting the consent and in no event shall 8 ~ ~-5 constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement unless specifically so stated. c. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon ten (10) days written notice to the other party. 12. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of the Appraiser with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Katia Medvetski, Redevelopment Specialist, shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between the City and the Appraiser. 13. RECYCLING PROGRAM The City encourages the Appraiser to develop and implement an office paper and newsprint recycling program. 14. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement or any- statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party at the address stated in the opening paragraph of this Agreement. CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF MINNESOTA Steven L. Devich, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF )SS. APPRAISER Ron Lachenmayer The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by Steven L. Devich, the City Manager, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment g~~~ Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF )SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005, by Ron Lachenmayer, the President of BCL Appraisals, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank) ~` ExH= Description of Properties to be Appraised and Appraisal Fees Pro a Address PID Number T e of Takin Fee for Uniform Residential A raisal Re ort 6601 - 17th Ave.1 26-028-24-41-0079 Full Fee $350.00 6609 - 17th Ave.l 26-028-24-41-0078 Full Fee $350.00 6615 - 17th Ave.l 26-028-24-41-0077 Full Fee $350.00 6621 - 17th Ave.' 26-028-24-41-0076 Full Fee $350.00 6627 -17th Ave.Z 26-028-24-41-0075 Full Fee $350.00 6633 - 17th Ave.2 26-028-24-41-0074 Full Fee $350.00 6639 -17th Ave.2 26-028-24-41-0073 Full Fee $350.00 6645 - 17th Ave.2 26-028-24-41-0072 Full Fee $350.00 TOTAL $2,800.00 'To be purchased by City of Richfield using City funds. 2To be purchased by City of Richfield utilizing MAC funds. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # $~ REPORT # 159 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 205 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, EXEC. COORDINATOR. NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an amendment to the City'Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting references to Minnesota Statutes and Rules and schedule second readin for Se tember 27, 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter 1, Subsection 100.07 adopting reference to Minnesota Statutes and Rules and schedule second reading for September 27. 2005. II. BACKGROUND The City Attorney has recommended to amend Section 100.07 (Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances) to reflect the adoption of the most current State Statutes and Rules. This change will update a section of the City ordinance code that should be periodically updated. Section 100.07 currently references Minnesota Statutes 2002, with 2003 supplements and Minnesota Rules in effect on July 1, 2003. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0919statute ~A -1 A. POLICY • Section 100.07 is an ordinance section that references Minnesota Statutes and Rules. These Statutes and Rules should be-the most current and therefore, readopted periodically. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • There is no critical time issue, but the amendment should be made as soon as possible to reflect the most current law. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial impact associated with this change. D. LEGAL • Amendment to Section 100.07 will keep the City ordinance in accordance with State law. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the ordinance amendment and take no further action. • .Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed City Administrative Ordinance Code change. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~~ ~~ BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 100.07 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 100.07 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Official statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances" is hereby amended: 100.07. Official statutes, codes, regulations and ordinances. References in this code to Minnesota Statutes are to Minnesota Statutes 20024, Minnesota Statutes, 20035 Supplement and Laws of Minnesota 20035, unless otherwise provided iri this code. References in this code to rules and regulations of state agencies, codes, and ordinances of other municipalities are to those documents in effect on July 1, 20035, unless otherwise provided in this code. Section 2. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk