Loading...
07-12-05 Agenda~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005 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 Meeting of June 27, 2005; (2) Special City Council Worksession of June 28, 2005; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of June 28, 2005 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation regarding Richfield Arts Commission Mural Program 2. Annual meeting with Community Services Commission 3. Presentation regarding Gopher State One in Richfield COUNCIL DISCUSSION 4. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 5. .Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action 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 setting public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider proposed transfer of control of cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC S.R. No. 129 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing application to Metropolitan Council for Livable Communities Demonstration Program grant for Cedar Corridor S.R. No. 130 C. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of apartment building at 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program and Cedar Point Project) S.R. No. 131 D. Consideration of approval of Richfield Fire Department participation in joint Food and Drug Administration/Hennepin County Emergency Medical Services field study of sudden cardiac arrest management S.R. No. 132 Notes: 7. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARING 8. Public hearing and consideration of second reading of amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create new floodplain management regulations and consideration of resolution authorizing summary publication of ordinance amendments Staff Report No. 133 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 9. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave Staff Report No. 134 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 10. Disciplinary hearings and consideration of resolutions regarding civil enforcement for establishment in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth Staff Report No. 135 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 11. Consideration of scheduling Special City Council meetings on August 30, 2005 and September 6, 2005 to review and discuss 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed Budget and preliminary tax levy prior to certification to Hennepin County Staff Report No. 136 Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 12. City Manager's report Notes: 13. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow suifcient 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: O_~'HER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # j j REPORT # _ 13 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NarrE Ti7zE COUNCIL PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY -- - MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of scheduling Special City Council meetings for 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed bud et and settin relimina tax lev . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Authorize Tuesday, August 30, 2005 and Tuesday, September 6, 2005 (if necessary) as Special City Council meetings to review and discuss the 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed Budget and preliminary tax levy prior to certification to the County on September 15, 2005. II. BACKGROUND Each year the City has held a Special City Council meeting(s) to discuss the upcoming budget and tax levy before adopting the preliminary levy. The meeting provides an opportunity to present the key initiatives, issues and financial impact of the proposed budget and tax levy. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City staff is now in the process of preparing the draft 2005 Revised/2006 Proposed budget. Included in that draft document is the proposed preliminary property tax levy for the City and for the Richfield HRA. The 0712budget Truth in Taxation statute requires that a preliminary levy be adopted by the local units of government and certified to the County Auditor on or before September 15 each year. In order to review the draft budget document with the City Council prior to the September 15 deadline, it is necessary to establish at least one special meeting. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Because of the strict timeframe associated with the Truth in Taxation process, this issue should be considered at the July 12, 2005 meeting so that a date for special meetings may be established if the City Council wishes to use that process. C. FINANCIAL • Draft budget documents will be available to Council Members on or before August 18. This will allow some time for Council Members to review the draft budget before the scheduled meetings. D. LEGAL • The Truth in Taxation statute requires that a preliminary levy be adopted by local units of government and certified to the County Auditor on or before September 15 of each year. • The City Charter requires that the City Manager submit to the City Council, at a special budget meeting, a budget and explanatory budget message on or before September 15 of each year. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could schedule meetings on different dates than those suggested. • The City Council could schedule additional sessions than those suggested. • The City Council could decide not to schedule any budget meetings and proceed with the preliminary levy at a regular City Council meeting before September 15, 2005. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None AGENDA SECTION: RF.$11T,iTTTnNR AGENDA ITEM # T n REPORT # i ~ s STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~`~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks, conducted by Richfield Public Safet staff, and failed b selling alcohol to underage youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct a disciplinary hearing for establishments that failed alcohol compliance checks and approve the attached resolutions for each of the first time violating establishment: • Suspend the license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days, and; • Levy a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,000, and; • Require a meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment plans to ensure. eliminating any future actions of this kind, and; • Require the establishment to provide proof of the attendance of the manager of the establishment in an alcohol sales awareness aroaram. 0712 Alcohol Compliance Violators II. BACKGROUND On May 18 and May 24, 2005, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by three underage youth that were all 18-20 years of age. These compliance checks were the first set of checks conducted in 2005. Richfield Public Safety staff made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In two instances, the underage youth were served alcohol. There were no sales to underage youth that occurred when alcohol compliance checks were conducted on May 18, 2005. The businesses that made sales to underage youth on May 24, 2005 are as follows: • SuperAmerica - 7500 Lyndale Avenue South • Taco Morelos - 2 West 66th Street This is a first offense for SuperAmerica. Technically, it is a second violation, but because of the time elapsed between now and the previous violation, it is considered a first violation. This is a first offense for Taco Morelos. Technically, it is a second violation, but because of the time elapsed between now and the previous violation, it is considered a first violation. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their ID's and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It does_n't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell alcohol within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur in the future. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 9511 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the first time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days and levy a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,000 for the first violation. Staff is also proposing that each first time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment's plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, one employee, preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session, provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety. The cost of the training is to be paid for by the establishment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol compliance check. • Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of alcohol to a minor which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well-being are not a priority in Richfield. • The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against. the establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9511 V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution for SuperAmerica Discipline • Resolution for Taco Morels Discipline VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from each of the establishments are expected to be in attendance at the meeting. They have been notified in writing regarding the City Council meeting date. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3,2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR SUPERAMERICA , 7500 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, SuperAmerica, ("Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2005 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their second alcohol compliance check but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the December 13, 1999 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on July 12, 2005 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows. 1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before August 12, 2005, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by August 12, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of July 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR TACO MORELOS, 2 WEST 66TH STREET, IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Taco Morelos, ("Licensee") holds an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2005 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their second failed alcohol compliance check, but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure. The previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the July 8, 2003 meeting, and; WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on July 12, 2005 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before August 12, 2005 the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Licensee will meet with the Director of Public Safety by August 12, 2005 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 12th day of July 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ~ , AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: PAM DMYTRENKO ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of second reading of an amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describin vacation leave. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.33 describina vacation leave. II. BACKGROUND With the completion of all five collective bargaining agreements for 2005, three changes are .being recommended to City ordinance, Section 1, Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave. The changes would provide an additional day of vacation leave (8 hours) to employees with more than 25 years of service, increase the vacation leave accrual maximum from 240 to 248 hours and increase the sell back of vacation leave hours from 36 to 40 hours each year. These changes would affect employees included in the General Services and Management Pay Plans who are not represented by a Union. The amendments are requested so that the. City of Richfield's benefit package remains competitive with those of other Stanton V cities and to balance the benefits of the City's non- union employees with those represented by collective bargaining agreements. The proposed ordinance changes to Section 1, Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave, are as follows: 0712vacation Subd. 2. Full-time employees. Full-time regular and full-time probationary employees shall accrue vacation according to the following schedule effective on the first full pay period of September 2005: (e~from the beginning of the twentieth year and through the twenty-fifth year of continuous employment, each employee shall eam vacation at a rate of 6.77 hours per biweekly pay period (22 days per year); ~f from the beginning of the twenty-sixth year of continuous employment, throughout the duration of employment, each employee shall earn vacation at the rate of 7.08 hours per biweekly pay period (23 days per year). Subd. 7. Vacation accumulation. Effective September 15, 2005, vacation leave may be accrued to a maximum of 240 248 hours unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the department head and the city manager. Hours in excess of 24II 248 hours, if not approved, shall be forfeited by the employee. Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Effective January 1, 2006, employees may sell-back up to 3G 40 hours of vacation time each year if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation authorized under this subdivision, may do so only once per calendar year between February 15 and November 15. First reading of the proposed ordinance was held on June 28, 2005 and second reading was scheduled for July 12, 2005. A public hearing is not required for this ordinance amendment. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 1~. POLICY • The proposed modifications to Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave, aids in balancing some of the benefits offered to non-union City employees. In practice, those benefits offered to Union employees should not exceed the benefits offered to employees not represented by unions. Of additional consideration is the fact that the majority of employees represented by collective bargaining agreements are men while the opposite is true for non-union employees. B. CRITICAL ISSITES • In order to meet publishing requirements for the second reading of an ordinance amendment, it was recommended at the June 28, 2005 City Council meeting that the second reading be scheduled for July 12, 2005. • In past years, employees have either forfeited their accumulated leave time or taken time off at the last minute, possibly interfering with the operations of their department. While the City encourages employees to regularly use vacation leave, demands of the job and short-staffed divisions do not always allow employees to take leave when wanted or needed. • The addition of 8 hours of vacation leave for employees with more than 25 years of service recognizes the contributions of long-time staff members and is commensurate with similarly situated employees represented by collective bargaining agreements. C. FINANCIAL • By amending Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave, approximately 17 regular and part-time General Services and Management employees, with more than 25 years of continuous service, would receive an additional 8 hours of vacation leave. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested additional vacation leave, and modify the sell back and maximum accumulation hours, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not amend the ordinance. Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. BILL NO. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 310.33 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.33, Vacation Leave, Subdivision 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Full-time employees" is hereby amended: Subd. 2. Full-time employees. Full-time regular and full-time probationary employees shall accrue vacation according to the following schedule effective on the first full pay period of September 2005: (e) from the beginning of the twentieth year and through the twenty-fifth year of continuous employment, each employee shall earn vacation at a rate of 6.77 hours per biweekly pay period (22 days per year); (f) from the beginning of the twenty- sixth year of continuous employment, throughout the duration of employment, each employee shall earn vacation at the rate of 7.08 hours per biweekly pay period (23 days per ear . Section 2. Subsection 310.33, Subdivision 7 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Vacation accumulation" is hereby amended: Subd. 7. Vacation accumulation. Effective September 15, 2005, vacation leave may be accrued to a maximum of 24II 248 hours unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the department head and the city manager. Hours in excess of 24II 248 hours, if not approved, shall be forfeited by the employee. Section 3. Subsection 310.33, Subdivision 8 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Sell-back of vacation" is hereby amended: Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Effective 2IIII2 January 1, 2006, employees may sell- back up to 3fi_40 hours of vacation time each year if they have an accumulated bank of vacation leave in excess of 64 hours. Employees eligible to sell-back vacation authorized under this subdivision, may do so only once per calendar year between February 15 and November 15. Section 4. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this _th day of July, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: piTRT.TC HF.ARTN(T AGENDA ITEM # g REPORT # i ~ 2 ~~ STAFF REPORT JULY lz, zoos REPORT PREPARED BY: NarrE, Tr7zE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CHRISTINE COSTELLO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~J. REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: d ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create new flood lain mana ement re ulations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: • Approve second reading of the attached ordinance amendment to the Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create new floodplain management regulations. • Approve the attached resolution for summary publication of an ordinance amendment to the Richfield Zonin Code Section 538. II. BACKGROUND • The first reading of the proposed ordinance went before the City Council on June 14, 2005. • The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is currently in the process of updating all flood insurance rate maps. The maps are used for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). • The NFIP is a federal program under which flood-prone areas are identified and flood insurance is made. available to property owners in eligible communities. The City of Richfield participated in NFIP from 1975 to 1981. 071205_FEMA_2ndRdg • In 1981, the flood hazard boundary map for the City of Richfield was rescinded by FEMA. FEMA determined that Richfield would be very unlikely to experience a qualifying flood. Richfield has remained a part of NFIP however, so homeowners may participate if they desire. Insurance coverage is offered on a voluntary basis (other than the flood plain regulations the City of Richfield has no involvement in the program.) • There are currently seven flood insurance policies in force in Richfield on improved residential property, providing a total of $1,051,300 of flood insurance coverage. Not participating in the program means homeowners would not have the option to participate. • Richfield currently has floodplain Management Regulation in Section 538 of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of Section 538 is to promote a floodplain management program consistent with the surface water management plans of the Minnehaha Watershed District and to maintain eligibility in NFIP. The current floodplain management regulations are not considered sufficient by FEMA in order to maintain our eligibility in NFIP. Therefore, FEMA is requiring -the adoption of a new/revised ordinance to meet their requirements. • The requirements of the proposed ordinance only applies to those properties designated as being within the 100-year floodplain. The City of Richfield is not within the 100-year floodplain. • It is felt that these changes should be made to Section 538 of the Zoning Code because NFIP is a Federal program and every resident should have the ability to participate in the program if they so desire, • Insurance agencies sell the NFIP insurance and not participating would make all Richfield residents ineligible to receive flood insurance. In speaking with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), they stated that there have been 13 claims since 1978 in Richfield. The definition of "flood" within this ordinance is broad enough that it sometimes covers stormwater concerns which FEMA has not traditionally mapped. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The recommended ordinance amendment will create new floodplain management 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 • Regulations for floodplain management are necessary to ensure Richfield's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). • The FEMA and the Minnesota DNR have reviewed and approved these proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. • Because Richfield does not typically have qualifying floods, the provisions of the code have no impact on construction. The ordinance needs to be in place should a homeowner want to seek the NFIP insurance. • The Engineering Division of Public Works has reviewed the proposed ordinance amendment and they are satisfied with the amendments. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Zoning: This ordinance amendment creates floodplain management 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 required by State Statute and City requirements. Other Actions: Council: The recommendation of the Planning Commission has gone to the City Council for two readings and a public hearing. 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. ~ IV. PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTION ~ • uate or Hction: iviay ~3, ~uua • Subject of Vote: Recommendation to amend the relevant portions of Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create new floodplain management regulations • Vote:5-1 • Comments: Concerns from Commissioners in attendance at the meeting included: A member of the Planning Commission was concerned as to why we should approve the changes to an ordinance that does not apply to Richfield. Others felt it important to have regulations in place so that homeowners would have the option available. • Public Notice: Planning Commission -Not required City Council -Published in the June 30, 2005 Sun-Current for the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance. • Mailed Notices: Does not require mailed notices. V. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the motion to amend Richfield Zoning Code Section 538 to create new floodplain management regulations. VI. ATTACHMENTS • Draft of proposed amendments to Zoning Code Section 538. • Resolution for summary publication of the ordinance. VII. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Persons interested in land-use and floodplain management regulations. BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION 538 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1 Section 538.01, Subdivision 2 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 538.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. It is the purpose of this section to guide and regulate the orderly development of land within the floodplain by establishing a floodplain overlay district. The floodplain within the City of Richfield, Minnesota is subject to periodic inundation, which adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare. Subd. 2. It is the intent of this section to promote a uniform floodplain management program consistent with the surface water management plan of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, and the Richfield-Bloomington Watershed District and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Sec. 2 Section 538.03 of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: 538.03. Administration. The Director of Public Works, hereinafter referred to as the responsible person, is appointed as the "person" responsible for receiving applications and examining the plans and specifications for the proposed construction or development. Sec. 3 Section 538.05, Subdivision 4 of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: 538.05. Application -and interpretation of provisions. Subdivision 1. Provisions of this section shall apply to the floodplain of the City, which shall include those areas designated or otherwise defined by the City as being within the 100-year floodplain. The boundaries of the floodplain shall be that area that could be inundated by a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. All decisions will be based on elevations of the 100-year floodplain and other available technical data. Persons contesting the location of the floodplain boundaries shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the board of adjustments and appeals in accordance with the provisions of subsection 546.03. Subd. 2. It is not intended by this section to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this section imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this section shall prevail. Subd. 3. Warning and disclaimer of liability. This regulation does not imply that areas outside the floodplain or land uses or obstructions permitted within the floodplain will be free from flooding or flood damages. The City is not responsible for any flood damages that result from reliance on this section or any administrative action lawfully taken as a result of reliance on this section. Sec. 4 Section 538.07 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 538.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. Basement. For floodplain management purposes, any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base sub-grade below ground level. Subd. 2. Development. An; manmade chang.P to imnrnvari nr ina but not limited to construction or reconstruction of ounaings, instaurng manuracturea Homes or travel trailers, installing utilities, construction of roads or bridges, erection of levees, walls, or fences, drilling, mining, filling, dredging, and storage of materials. Subd. 3. FIOOd. A tamnnrarv inrraaca in tha flnw nr ctana of a ctraam nr in tha ctana of a watlanrt nr aka A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally drv land areas from overflow of uiation or ru Subd. 4. Flood frequency. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. Subd. 5. Floodolain or Flood Prone n erection as determined by the Subd. 6. Flood proofing. Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. Flood proofing requirements are contained in the state building code. Subd. 7. Flood stage. Peak flood elevation of an area for a given return frequency event. Subd. 8. Floodway. The channel of the watercourse, the bed of water basins, and those portions of the adjoining floodplain that are reasonably required to carry the discharge floodwater and provide storage during a flood. Subd. 9. Manufactured Home. A structure. transportable in one or more or without a permanent foundation when attached to Subd. 10. New Construction. For the purposes of determini insurance rates. structures for which the "start of construction" co on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM or after December : structures. For floodplain manaaement purposes. new construction means ate of a floodplain manaaement reaulation adopted by a association, or any other entity, including State and local governments and agencies Subd. 12. Obstruction. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, water course, or regulatory floodplain that may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. Subd. 13. Reach. A hydraulic engineering .term to describe a longitudinal segment of a drainage system influenced by a natural or man- made obstruction. In an -urban area, the segment of a drainage system between two consecutive bridge crossings or culverts would most typically constitute a reach. Subd. 14. Regulatory flood protection elevation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two feet above the elevation of the floodplain plus any increase in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain. Subd. 15. Structure. For floodplain above around. The term includes recreational vehicles and travel trailers on site for more than 180 days. Subd. 16. Substantial Improvement. Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure. the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of started. or ('bl if the structure has been damaaed, and is beina restored. before ilina. floor. or other structural part of the buildi rmed. The term do neaitn. sanitary. or sarety coae specirications wnicn are soieiv necessary to as a historic structure. Sec. 5 Section 538.08 of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: Flood I Federal Emeraencv Ma n County, Minnesota, All Jurisdictions, Volume 1 of 2 and Volume 2 of 2," dated September 2, 2004. The foregoing FIS, and the respective Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels contained therein for the city of Richfield, show all areas of the city as an Unshaded Zone X. An Unshaded Zone X is an area where FEMA did not have sufficient supporting hydrologic and/or hydraulic data to designate 100-year or 500-year floodplains. Therefore, to administer this ordinance consistent with the provisions of Section 538.05. Plan. Richfield-Bloomington Watershed. Nine Mile Creek Watershed. and in boundaries. A e 1. No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair re, or demolish any building or structure without first obta mit for each building or structure from the designated responsible person. Subd. 2. No man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, fences, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, shall be commenced until a separate permit has been obtained from the designated responsible person for each change. Subd. 3. No manufactured home shall be placed on improved or Sec. 6 Section 538.12, Subdivision 1 and 2 of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: 538.12 2Application review. The administrator shall review applications for floodplain ,use permits and make a determination. Subd. 1. After reviewing the application, the responsible person may require any additional measures, which are necessary to meet the minimum requirements of this ordinance. Sec. 7 Section 538.14, Subdivision 3, 4, 7, and 8, of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 538.14. Construction standards near or in floodplain overlay district. The building official administers this section. If a use or structure is either permitted or a special use, the following construction standards apply. Subdivision 1. All permanent structures, including accessory structures and additions to existing structures shall be constructed on fill so that the low building opening elevation shall be at least two feet above the floodplain elevation. Subd. 2. As an alternative to construction on fill, accessory structures that do not exceed 500 square feet may be internally flood proofed in accordance with FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the state building code. Subd. 3. Structures shall be lumbina. and air cond movement n m enterina or Subd. 5. Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current, or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall not be allowed to encroach on a floodway, and. are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105. Subd. 6. Parking lots must be at or above the floodplain unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the lot will be used infrequently and/or vehicles or other stored items could be moved in a short period of time. Subd. 7. Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Subd. 8. Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damages. Sec. 8 Section 538.15, Subdivision 1 and 2, of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 538.15. waters i Subdivision 1 Sec. 9 Section 538.20, Subdivision 1, 2, 3, of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: Subd. 4. Subd. 2. ~a~niar anti avatar ci innl~ svctamc shall ha rlACinnari anti minimi~a infiltratinn by flnnri avatars New and replacement sanitary sewage systems to be desianed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into Subd. 1. AI n e need to e area Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of July, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Subd. 3. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 538 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO NEW REGULATIONS FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT. 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. AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 538 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO NEW REGULATIONS FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is to guide and regulate the orderly development of land within the City of Richfield and to maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling the Department of Community Development at (612) 861-9760. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of July, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CCINSENT AGENDA ITEM # 6D ~~ STAFF REPORT BRAD.SVEUM, ACTING FIRE CHIEF CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: REPORT # 132 N~ TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Richfield Fire Department's participation in the joint Food and Drug Administration/Hennepin County Emergency Medical Services field study of sudden cardiac arrest mana ement. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve Richfield Fire Department's participation in the joint Food and Drug Administration/Hennepin County Emergency Medical Services field study of sudden cardiac arrest management. II. BACKGROUND At the City Council meeting of June 28, 2005, Dr. Brian Mahoney of Hennepin County Medical Center gave a detailed presentation of the sudden cardiac arrest management study. This presentation was part of the "Community Consultation" component of the study required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The Fire Department operates under the medical direction of the Hennepin County Medical Center. The study is scheduled to last approximately three years. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This study hopes to gather data demonstrating these new cardiac arrest management techniques increase the survival rate of victims. This has been indicated with lab tests and in Europe where the method has been used in the field by emergency responders. Less than 10 cities in the United States have been asked to participate in this study. C. FINANCIAL • There is no financial cost to the City. All supplies, equipment and training are provided as part of the study. D. LEGAL • All medical procedures and protocols that the Richfield Fire Department does and adheres to are under the direction of its Medical Director -Hennepin County Medical Center. No additional liability issues arise beyond current existing ones. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Choose not to take part in the study. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 6 C REPORT # 1 '~ 1 r STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2005 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST N,4nrE, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of the apartment building located at 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acquisition Program and Cedar Point Pro~ect . RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just compensation and. authorizing the purchase of 6400 Cedar Avenue (Airport Noise Acauisition Program and Cedar Point Project). II. BACKGROUND • On March 26, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations. • Single family and duplex properties in the 6600 and 6700 blocks of 18th Avenue were identified for first priority purchase with the funds. The remaining funds are to be used to purchase as many of the apartment buildings north of 66th Street as possible, beginning with the northernmost building and moving south. • Five apartment buildings, 6328, 6344, 6412, 6444, and 6520 Cedar Avenue, have been purchased to date. 071205_JustComp6400 cedar • The previous owner of the apartment building located at 6400 Cedar Avenue declined the City's purchase offer in 2003. The current owner is aware of the City's need to purchase the property. • Areal estate appraisal was recently completed for this property. The appraised value is $405,000. • Staff is recommending just compensation in the amount of $405,000. The apartment tenants may also be eligible for relocation benefits. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act when the City's offer is accepted by the property owner. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City and MAC have identified certain properties for purchase for the Airport Noise Acquisition Program in accordance with the, Agreement. • The subject property is within the 87 dB contour. • The property will need to be conveyed from the City to the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority for inclusion in the Cedar Point Project. • Uniform acquisition procedures will be followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Conworth, Inc. will present a purchase offer to the property owner upon the City Council's approval of just compensation. C. FINANCIAL • Sufficient grant funds remain for the purchase of this property. • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction in accordance with the Agreement. D. LEGAL • MAC has concurred with the appraised value for this property and purchase offer. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay approval of just compensation. • Do not approve just compensation and acquisition. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6400 CEDAR AVENUE AIRPORT NOISE ACQUISITION PROGRAM WHEREAS, on September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the acquisition strategy for residential property in the airport mitigative area, using $10 million in federal funds secured by Congressman Sabo; and WHEREAS, on March 26;;2002, the City Council approved an agreement (Agreement) with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to provide $10 million of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport improvement program funds to the City of Richfield to purchase properties (including all related costs) that are, or will be, negatively impacted by airport operations; and WHEREAS, within the aforementioned airport mitigative area the real property identified for purchase is: Property Address Legal Description 6400 Cedar Ave S Lot 6, Block 2, Iverson's Third Addition, Hennepin County Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has caused an appraisal for the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser for the real property has certified the appraisal reports as being in conformity with 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, Appraisal Specifications (5-491.203) set forth in the State of Minnesota's Right of Way Manual, and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Preparation of Real Estate Appraisals, Appraisal Report Content, Detailed Appraisals and Appraisal Reviews; and WHEREAS, the fair market value, as recommended by the review appraiser and approved by MAC and recently updated to reflect current market conditions, is $405,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the just compensation amount of $405,000 for the purchase of 6400 Cedar Avenue is hereby approved. 2. That the City's acquisition/negotiation/relocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., is authorized to present purchase offers of approved amounts to the respective property owners. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2005. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk J STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2005 CONSENT bB 130 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 resolution authorizing application to the Metropolitan Council for a Livable Communities Demonstration Pro ram rant for the Cedar Corridor. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing an application to the Metro olitan Council fora rant for the Cedar Corridor. II. BACKGROUND • On January 11, 2005, the City Council approved the Cedar Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Concept Master Plan (Concept Plan). • The Concept Plan calls for the redevelopment of the 87 db area to land uses and structures compatible with the new north-south runway. • At 66th Street and Cedar Avenue, the Concept Plan calls for the creation of a new gateway into the Corridor and the community. It also recommends a new intersection at 17th Avenue and 66th Street. • Staff has submitted a grant request to the Livable Communities program of the Metropolitan Council to fund the gateway and streetscape improvements along 66th Street. 071205 Cedar LCDA grant rsln • A requirement of the grant process is that a resolution indicating City Council support of the application must be passed, within 30 days of submittal. The application was submitted June 30, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The need for a new intersection at 17th Avenue and for streetscape and "gateway" features into the Cedar Corridor and community has been identified. Funding for these projects. needs to be identified. • It is appropriate to seek outside funding for City projects whenever possible. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The grant would fund items such as extensive landscaping, pedestrian lighting, special features, signage, and pedestrian and bicycle amenities. These improvements would create a gateway into the community and make the area accessible for both pedestrians and bicyclists. • Ryan Companies is working on the Cedar Point development, north of 66th Street, which would be accessed by the new intersection and gateway. High quality infrastructure improvements will contribute to the success of this development as well as the remainder of the Cedar Corridor. C. FINANCIAL • The grant request is for $679,400. • The entire cost of the intersection, streetscape improvements, and right-of-way acquisitions is estimated at approximately $6 million. • Potential funding sources for the remainder of the project include City assessment bonds ($4 million), state aid funds, and other to be identified resources. D. LEGAL • Metropolitan Council guidelines require the City Council to pass a resolution in support of the grant application. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny support for the application. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS, CEDAR CORRIDOR WHEREAS the City of Richfield is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2005 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified the Cedar Corridor streetscape improvements as a proposed project within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application submitted on June 30, 2005; and WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund, projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed project or key components of the proposed project can be replicated in other metropolitan-area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur "but for" the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed project to occur at this particular time. 2. Finds that the project component(s) for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought: (a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (b) will not occur within two years after a grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for this project at this time. 3. Authorizes its staff to submit on behalf of the City an application for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project component(s) identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of July, 2005. actin irsc , ayor ATTEST: ancy i s, ity er AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 12, 2005 CONSENT 6A 129 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of setting a public hearing to consider the proposed transfer of control of the cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and to determine if there ma be adverse affects on cable television subscribers. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Set a public hearing on August 9, 2005 to consider the proposed transfer of control of the cable television franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable Communications. LLC. IL BACKGROUND • Time Warner Cable and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast") have announced that Comcast will acquire control of the cable systems and franchises in the member cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota). The proposed transfer of control requires approval under 1) Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 and 2) the City of Richfield's ("City") current Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance ("Ordinance"). • As part of the regulatory approvals necessary for this merger, on or about June 14, 2005, Richfield received, Federal Communications Commission Form 394 -Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise ("Form 394") from Comcast. Form 394 is Time Warner's application seeking consent to the proposed transfer of control of the City's cable television franchise to Comcast. 0712Cable • A number of procedural requirements control cable television franchise transfer requests. Under federal law, the City has 120 days from the date of receiving Form 394 to act upon the transfer request. Thus, the federal deadline for City action is approximately October 12, 2005. The City's failure to act within that time serves as an implied approval of Time Warner's transfer request. • The City's Ordinance requires that the City either approve the transfer request within thirty (30) days of receiving Form 394 or determine the need for a public hearing. Richfield's Ordinance provides that a public hearing may be held at the time of a proposed transfer of control in order to assess whether the transaction may have an adverse effect on the City's cable television subscribers. There is no requirement that a public hearing must be held, however, if the City chooses not to hold, a public hearing, it must approve the proposed transfer of control within thirty (30) days of June 14, 2005. • If a public hearing is deemed necessary to determine whether the proposed transfer of control will have an adverse effect on the City's cable television subscribers, the public hearing must be held within thirty (30) days of the date the City makes its determination of the need for a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing must be published fourteen (14) days in advance of the public hearing. A final decision by the City regarding Comcast's transfer request must be issued within thirty (30) days of the close of the public hearing. This will allow the City to hold the hearing on August 9, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has a choice of how to deal with this issue. The City Council could approve the transfer without a public hearing. However, a public hearing is much preferred 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 recommends that this issue be considered after holding a public hearing. • Of the five cities of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SSWCC), it appears that most , if not all of the cities will pursue the public hearing track before deciding on the transfer. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City must decide on holding a public hearing on or before July 14, 2005. • If a public hearing is deemed necessary to determine whether the proposed transfer of control will have an adverse effect on the City's cable television subscribers, the public hearing must be held within 30 days of the date the City makes its determination. Notice of the public hearing must be 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. 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. 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. These qualifications fall into three (3) categories; legal, technical and financial. On behalf of a number of their clients, the law firm of Moss & Barnett (Attorneys for the SWSCC) will be preparing a report regarding the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Comcast based on the proposed transfer of control. Moss & Barnett will review the voluminous information provided by Comcast as part of Form 394 and may seek additional information to clarify unanswered questions. Mr. Yuri Berndt, an attorney in their office and former CPA, will perform a review of the financial qualifications of Comcast under the proposed transfer of control. Moss & Barnett will also review Time Warner's compliance with the existing franchise. • Moss & Barnett intend to issue a report outlining 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 Southwest Suburban Cable Commission is expected to issue a recommendation to the City later this summer concerning the transfer application. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. City of Richfield, Minnesota Notice of Public Hearing Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System The City of Richfield, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 9, 2005, at 6:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall to discuss issues regarding the proposed transfer of the Cable Television Franchise and system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The City Hall is located at 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. Any person may speak to the City concerning the proposed transfer at the time of the public hearing. Any person may submit written comments by addressing those comments to the City Clerk, .Any person who wishes to speak at the public hearing is requested to contact the City Clerk prior to the public hearing or to sign up to speak at the public hearing on a list which will be available in the City Council Chambers immediately prior to the hearing. The City Clerk's telephone number is (612) 861-9700. Dated this _ day of July, 2005. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By: Its: [CITY LETTERHEAD] [SEND BETWEEN JULY 12-14, 2005] Ms. Kim Roden Vice President, Public Affairs and Programming Time Warner Cable 9705 Data Park Minnetonka, MN 55343 Re: Proposed Transfer of Control Dear Ms. Roden: On June 14, 2005 the City of Richfield received a letter, FCC Form 394 and numerous enclosures from Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications, LLC ("Comcast"). This information is related to a proposed transfer whereby Comcast will acquire control of the City's cable system from Time Warner Cable. Pursuant to the City's Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance, the City has determined that the proposed transfer may have an adverse impact on subscribers and therefore a public hearing will be necessary to address this issue. The City's public-hearing will be held on August 9, 2005 and appropriate notice will be placed in a newspaper of general circulation in our area. We invite representatives from Time Warner Cable and Comcast to attend the meeting and present any information they desire. The City has also determined to utilize the services of Brian T. Grogan at Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. Grogan will advise the City, via the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, regarding the proposed transaction and will prepare a report for the City addressing the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Comcast. Mr. Grogan may be forwarding a request for supplemental information in the near future. Please direct all relevant correspondence regarding this matter to Mr. Grogan at Moss & Barnett, 4800 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4129, 612-347-0340, 612 339-6686 (facsimile). Should you have any further questions please feel free to contact either myself or Mr. Grogan. Sincerely, CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Steven L. Devich City Manager