Loading...
05-25-2004 Agenda~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 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) Richfield Board of Equalization of May 4, 2004; (2) Special City Council Meeting of May 7, 2004; (3) Special Concurrent City Council/HRA/Planning Commission Worksession of May 11, 2004; and (4) Regular City Council Meeting of May 11, 2004 PRESENTATION COUNCIL DISCUSSION 1. Council discussion • Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 2. City Manager's report Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 3. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing full-time Public Works employees to issue violation notices amending Richfield City Code Subsection 115.11, Subd. 5 S.R. No. 85 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing purchase of real property at 6805- - 12th Avenue and 6329-14th Avenue and first reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of properties to HRA for affordable home development and schedule public hearing and second reading for June 22, 2004 S.R. No. 86 C. Consideration of approval of resolution transferring Board of Equalization authority to Hennepin County for three-year period beginning in 2005 S.R. No. 87 D. Consideration of approval of resolution granting off-street parking permit at 7514-16 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 88 E. Consideration of approval of award of contract to Effective Golf Course Systems for Phase One feasibility study and other planning services for proposed golf practice facility in Richfield in amount of $900 S.R. No. 89 F. Consideration of approval of bid minutes/tabulation for purchase of new aerial lift truck for use by Street Maintenance Division from Dueco, Inc. for total of $96,658.34 S.R. No. 90 Notes: 5. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing regarding resolution granting preliminary approval to financing of project undertaken by Academy of Holy Angels pursuant to MN Statutes, Section 469.154 and authorizing submission of application to Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Staff Report No. 91 Notes: 7. Public hearing regarding second reading of ordinance amendments to Richfield Zoning Code Sections 506 and 526 and Richfield City Code Section 920 to create regulations. for firearms related uses (Continued from March 23 and April 27, 2004) Staff Report No. 92 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 8. Disciplinary hearing and consideration of resolution regarding civil enforcement for Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street, that underwent alcohol compliance check conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth Staff Report No. 93 Notes: 9. Consideration of resolution approving 2004 labor agreement between City of Richfield and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Local 123 bargaining unit for January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 Staff Report No. 94 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 10. Re-consideration of six month temporary multi-pet license for 6310 Vincent Avenue; four dogs and two cats (Due to date/time conflict for applicant, staff is requesting item be continued to June 8, 2004) Staff Report No. 95 Notes: 11. 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 fo keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient fime 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: 12.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # `. _rE~ `~ ;.. , STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~'~ ~ ~` ~ MAY 25, 2004 OTHER BUSINESS 10 95 RELATED TO: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO. N/A CITY COUNCIL GOALS(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT .SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Re-consideration of the six-month temporary multi-pet license for Janice Dahnke, 6310 Vincent Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Due to the date and time conflicts with the applicant, staff is recommending the re-consideration of the six-month temporary multi-pet license for Janice Dahnke, 6310 Vincent Avenue, be continued to the City Council meeting of June 8, 2004. II. BACKGROUND April 2003 Environmental Health staff received two complaint calls March 12 and 24, 2003 regarding barking dogs and the number of dogs at the address. A Community Service Officer left a note informing the homeowner of the complaints and that she needed to apply for amulti-pet residential license if she had more than two animals. At that time, staff was not aware of the number of animals that the resident had. 0525 New Multi-Pet License Dahnke May 20, 2003 • Janice Dahnke submitted an application for a new multi-pet residential license. • A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on June 20, 2003. The CSO noted that Ms. Dahnke had four dogs and four cats, which exceeds the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The applicant requested additional time to find homes for two of the animals. August 23, 2003 • Another inspection of the property was conducted and there were no apparent problems at that time. The interior of the home was found to be very clean and free of any feces and odors. • The applicant had complied with the policy and decreased the number of animals to six. She now owns four dogs and two cats. Ms. Dahnke's application did not contain the signatures of contiguous property owners. Ms. Dahnke provided the City with a letter stating that she approached three contiguous property owners, but they would not sign. September 9, 2003 • Ms. Dahnke's request for a new multi-pet residential license appeared before the City Council. • The City Council issued Ms. Dahnke a 60-day conditional license with the provision that she would purchase bark collars and would provide training for her two large dogs that seemed to be the problem. • She was advised by City Council to provide proof to City staff that she purchased the bark collars and provided training before the next Council meeting. September 18 and October 23 • Staff sent letters (attached) to Ms. Dahnke confirming the City Council's request for her to provide proof of purchase for the bark collars and training. October 23, 2003 • Letters were sent again to all surrounding neighbors advising them to contact the Environmental Health staff with any concerns regarding the request for this multi-pet residential license, and informing them of the November 25, 2003 Council meeting date. • City staff received two letters (see attached) and three phone calls. They were all opposed to the multi-pet residential license. They stated that the barking still persists and they have not seen any evidence of the anti-bark collars on either of the two larger dogs. It was stated that when the animals are outside, the sight of anyone still provokes the barking behavior. When the barking incidents occur, the dogs are quickly taken inside. The dogs are being kept inside more; however, the neighbors expressed their concerns about the dogs not being allowed to remain outside for any length of time now and feel they are being too confined. October 27, 2003 • Ms. Dahnke brought in two bark collars to show City staff. • As of November 12, City staff had not received any proof of animal training. November 25, 2003 • Ms. Dahnke appeared at the City Council meeting and was granted asix-month temporary license, with the understanding that she would provide bark collars for all four of her dogs, not just the two larger dogs. Council would consider her application after the six months. On April 14, 2004 letters were again sent to all surrounding neighbors advising them to contact the Environmental Health staff with any questions or concerns regarding the request for this multi-pet license. City staff received one phone call opposed to the multi-pet license. The concern was that the dogs are still barking and that the anti-bark collars are not being used. A Community Service Officer inspected the property again, unannounced, on April 24, 2004 and there were no apparent problems at that time. A letter was sent reminding Ms. Dahnke that her license application would be going before the City Council again on May 25, 2004, per the six-month temporary license agreement. Ms. Dahnke left a voice mail for staff indicating that she would not be able to appear because of a work schedule problem. A voice message was left for Ms. Dahnke indicating that the application will be going before the Council on that date and that she needed to be in attendance. Council will need to decide what action they will take if Ms. Dahnke is not present. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license application. In August 2003 the Environmental Health staff received two letters and two calls from residents that were opposed to this multi-pet residential license. The residents were opposed due to the barking dogs. Copies of the letters are attached. • The neighbors were notified by City staff of the 60-day conditional license and were advised to contact City staff with concerns. City staff received three calls and two letters (letters attached). All were still opposed to the multi-pet residential license. • On April 14, 2004 neighbors were once again notified of this license, and staff received one phone call opposed to the multi-pet license, due to barking dogs. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Contiguous property owners did not sign the application for the multi- pet kennel license. C. FINANCIAL • Pending the City Council's approval of this license, the applicant will be required to fill out a new application and pay the fee for the upcoming 2004-2005 year. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for amulti-pet residential kennel license. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter from Ms. Dahnke. • Letters from neighbors opposing the license. • Letters sent to Ms. Dahnke from City staff VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Janice Dahnke. c_-_ JANICE DAHNKE 6310 Vincent Avenue South Richfield MN 55423 612-243-3510 jdahnke@mn.rr.com May 20,2003 Dear City of Richfield, On March 14, 2003 I received a violation notice from the city regarding a need for licensing my dogs and for barking dogs. At that time I called to ask for an extension in addressing this matter since I was to be gone for the next fwo weeks on vacation. On April 4th I went into the city and licensed my four dogs and inquired about the process of obtaining a kennel license. On April 26th, I approached the neighbor to the west of me to get a signature for the license but was turned down. They told me that while they had noticed I had been going outside with the dogs that they did not like the barking and would not consider signing. The neighbor to the north of me stated that while she did not have a problem with the dogs, she did not want to sign if no one else did because she did not want to have problems with the neighbors. She has already had some problems with the neighbors to the north so 1 could completely understand her position. I then decided not to approach the neighbors to the south of me since I already knew their position on my dogs. When I moved into my house in July 2000, another neighbor told I that this couple would not like my dogs. This was confirmed last summer on June 20, 2002 at about 7:30 p.m. when 1 walked out of my family room to see the man next door with a broom over my fence swatting at my standard poodle. On April 27th I went back to the City of Richfield to inform them of my inability to obtain signatures. I was told to write a letter regarding this matter and attach it to my application. I decided to approach my neighbors one more time and try to negotiate ' with them for a license. I decided I would like to move out of the neighborhood and thought that maybe they would consider a license giving me time to secure a loan for a new house, sell my house and buy a new home. On Monday of last week, I again approached my neighbors to the west. I spoke with -- -who told me she would talk to her husband and would call me. In the meantime, I contacted the City of Richfield to let. them know I planned to move and was trying to negotiate a license. I did not receive a call from the neighbors on the west so on Wednesday May 14th I approached the =. He told me that his wife had not conveyed to him that I had planned to move and would revisit this, and call me that night. By Saturday, May 17th I had not heard anything and in the a.m., I again approached - . He stated that his wife had lost my number so they did not call. He then stated they preferred not to be a "solution to my problem" and would not sign. He stated it wasn't the barking but would stick with the city about only two dogs. They did not want me to have four dogs. He stated that a license for one year was too long and they had lived with it long enough. He was not willing to give me time to move. On Sunday, approached the neighbors to the south of me. They had been gone all weekend so had not had a chance to talk to them. They were on the phone and did not have time to talk to me. I then went to work but :came to speak with me in the morning. He stated he already knew why I had wanted to talk to him. He stated that all he and ---- and _ and . wanted were to live in peace and alluded to the fact that I was young and could move that this was it for them. He stated that he did not want to sign a waiver and was not willing to consider any time for me to move. In fact, I was not allowed to even explain anything about my position. I apologize for the lengthiness of this letter. I regret any inconvience I have caused my neighbors or the City of Richfield. At this time, I am only asking for time to move. My dogs are well cared for. They are groomed every three weeks, and have the best of veterinary care. All vaccinations are up to date including shots for rabies. My dogs are not outside much and two of my dogs that are small are inside dogs. The dogs do bark as dogs will when the see strangers, and rabbits and squirrels (our neighborhood is full of them). When they do bark they are brought into the house immediately. I have even taken to going out with them and staying outside until they are ready to come in. Oddly enough, while out I have heard other neighborhood.dogs barking as well. My dogs are described as being aggressive but have no history of aggressive behavior. I am a professional person who works hard and has awell-kempt house: have not ever had trouble with people either whom I work with or live around. This has been a stressful and time-consuming problem. I realize in a neighborhood where houses are close together there is a need to consider all the needs of those who live around us. f feel I have tried to do that. For example, since f moved here, I have rarely turned on my patio light. When I first moved to Richfield, the neighbors to the south of me asked me not to turn my patio light on because it would shine into their porch and they liked to sit in the dark. I have felt a great deal of anxiety on those few occasions when the light has accidentally been turned on either by myself, a babysitterand/or my nine yr. old. I have also tried to accommodate them by not letting the dogs out between 7:00 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. because that is the time they leave in the morning. I believe it was two winters ago that they told me it was my fault or rather the dogs fault that Nila slid on the ice because my dogs barked, even though the were in their own fenced in yard more than 10 feet away. . This process discourages me. I do feel the neighbors on the west and on the south of me had conversations regarding this matter and made a joint decision to deny even my second request seeing this as an opportunity for a mandate to have at least two of the dogs removed. Buying a house for the first time and living in a neighborhood has been a disappointing experience. I am not only disappointed but also feel on edge all the time worrying if the dogs are going to bark or if my neighbors will come up with other complaints. I am only asking for some cooperation and consideration, the same as I feel I have given others around me, in order to sell my house, buy a new one and move. Thank you for your consideration in this manner. Sincerely, t ~~ -C t ~-~ ~ T - ~ GDr1 ~ (~,~-c~~c3lit~ r' J Q ~ d¢~~- v t ~~4 C~ ~ F ~ s7~ ~ ~ +~ a..rt. ,~c~~ ~~~s ~~ ~--~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~5 ~ `~'~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~- T- ~ / ~~ /'^// ~ (,,jam `~ ~~t%3 \.~ - \ ~, ,~.~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ c~ ~- ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~- ~ _ ~`]~ Ct~Jz G%~~ a- ~~ ~ V T ~ r ~/" ~. ~ ~ ~s ~ ! ~ ~~J JC~t.itA~C .~ n f~~~ dt cc~~ 1 ~ `~ ~yc.c~c~ ~ e ~~ ~~~-.~ FORM C-~ CITY OF INNEAPOLIS RIAL AND SUPPLIES INVENTORY SHEET NO lOM 12-62 ~ EPARTMENT YEAR ENDING DEC. 31, 19_.. TA EN BY APP VED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD AUDITED BY - I QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION I PRICE I EXTENSION I 1 ~/L- ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ Ud n o~ .~~ t - ~ \ i ~ "' .V ~" _ .. • i t ~ ~ {~ o-~ v l , c- Z . ~ ~/lf~ J ~~,( ~ j AMOUNT FORWARD I I October 31, 2003 athy Mueller, Public Safety Dept. City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 CC: Richfield City Council Members To Whom It May Concern: Since the Richfield City Council meeting of 9/9/2003 where the Council granted a temporary 60-day Multi-Residential Kennel License for 6310 Vincent Ave. So., it was our understanding that the owner was to have purchased and applied 2 anti-barking collars, one each for the black poodle ST the big white dog, to satisfy the granting of the temporary license. We, as residents at - ,, have seen no evidence of the anti-barking collars on either dog. And, as a result, the barking problem STILL PERSISTS!! When barking incidents have occurred during this time period, they have usually been quickly herded back inside. Although this helps, it still does not prevent the barking episode in the first place. We have observed, since the granting of the temporary license, that the dogs have been kept inside more than in the past and have spent less time outside each time when they've been out. With the cooler season, our activities in the bads yard have naturally decreased. However, when one or either of us have been working outside and the dogs are let out, the sight of either of us it has provoked the same barking behavior as in the past. Our consensus is that in a comparison of barking incidents since the temporary license was granted and the barking incidents before the license issuance, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We, therefore, ask the Richfield City Council to DENY any further approvals of this license and that the owner comply with the animal ownership limit as per the current ordinance restrictions. this Multi-Residential Kennel License request is denied, will an "inspector" from the City of Richfield ensure that animal limit of the current ordinance is complied with by the owner within the "grace" number of days after the denial? Nothing has seemed to work up to this point except for the owner "buying a lot of time" at the neighbors' expense of putting up with this problem. We need some assurance that something will indeed happen to correct the situation in question. Sincerely, Richfield, MN 55423 ~ : (~ ~ r o V ~ ~r c~.c T August 31, 2003. Based on observations so far, these our dos 'Il~ become an even further nuisance in an outside kennel. The reason is that they collectively bark at any moving object. They bark at the three closest neighbors at every opportunity but also at my neighbors on the north side. They seem to be rarely, if ever, walked in the neighborhood. It became too difficult to continue planting and watering flowers on the south side of my house because of the dogs. I usually look to see if the dogs are out before going outside to avoid confrontation and certain commotion. Dog manure accumulated for the entire past winter and when collected this past spring, by one of the hired house persons, filled several large garbage bags that had to be dragged to the front. J as made no effort to control the spreading sedge grass that are really weeds. It is ecoming more and more difficult to keep it out of my yard. There is also a dying tree that needs to be removed. This was a nice neighborhood when I moved here in 1988. It is sad to see it begin to deteriorate. Sincerely yours, ]uly 1, 2003 Kathy Mueller, Licensing 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Dear Kathy Mueller: As per your request during our recent phone conversation, we are expressing our concerns re: the multi-animal residential license request at 6310 Vincent Ave. So. Back in April our neighbor across our back fence to the east at the above address came to us asking us to sign her application for the Residential Kennel license. We refused...as did the other neighbors who are in proximity. As an incentive, she then offered to move out of the neighborhood in about a year if we would sign. We still refused. We are totally against granting this license. The following are our reasons for re ectin her bfd for a multi-animal residential license: 1. Why does the City of Richfield have ordinances restricting the number of animals per household? Then, as an "out", it allows residents to seek a way around these restrictions? -Why bother with ordinances in the first place if this is the case? 2. All of her 4 dogs are barkers...the large, white one is especially the worst offender. There are two small white ones, amid-sized black one and the large, white dog. if we are working in our back yard when they are let out, they all come running to the fence barking offensively. They will continue barking all the while if we would continue working. Until the lady would come out (if she ever did sometimes in past yearn, she tries to shush them up and herd them back into the house. Sometimes if we are sitting on our deck, the large white dog will stand at the fence and bark at us. The back fence is at least 50+ feet from our porch 8t deck. Other times, the large white dog will stand at the fence and bark if it even spies us INSIDE our porchl Last winter, it would stand or lay outside and bark endlessly by itself for no apparent reason at all. During our conversations with her when she was requesting us to sign her original petition, she offered to quiet the large white dog by putting on an electronic anti-barking collar. Nothing was ever done. 3. On warm summer days, working or being next to her back yard, it has a strong odor of dog droppings. She claims to pick up droppings frequently, but our experience 8t observations suggest otherwise. 4. Over the 29 years we've lived in Richfield at our current address, we have experienced a peaceful neighborhood. But in the last 3 years since this neighbor moved in across our back fence with 3 dogs and with now a 4th, it has been anything but peaceful when the dogs are let out of the house. One must try to gauge when and when not to get work done in the back yard -gardening, mowing, flower tending, etc. - to avoid the barking clamor that erupts on these occasions. 5. In past conversations with the Richfield Licensing staff concerning this problem, this neighbor has a seeming history of claiming ignorance of Richfield ordinances in that she had never licensed her dogs until someone apparently notified the City of the circumstances. Only THEN did she at last license them when she was notified that she was not in compliance. In addition, last summer there suddenly appeared one day a good-sized playhouse of some sort next to our common fence. Many years ago when we built a storage shed in our back yard and applied for a permit, the City person informed us our building had to be on a concrete foundation, bolted •down. There is no such thing as a "temporary" structure in the City of Richfleld was his comment. An inspector came around twice to ensure all was OK. Weli, this new structure on her property has NO concrete foundation. It is sitting, unanchored, an the grass. A permit . for this? We doubt it. 6. As neighbors, we're a bit indignant that WE are the ones who are seeming to have to "jump through all the hoops" in order to justify why we are a ainst her request for this license, while she does seemingly nothing except to just apply for the license in question! What about her stating her reasons and arguments in support of her need for this license? Sincerely, Richfield,,MN 55423 Update - ]uly 7, 2003 An added note and incident: on July 7th this neighbor apparently has left a family to dog-sit for her while she is gone for a period of time. During this afternoon, the white dog was let out and it began barking for whatever reason. No one paid any attention to it and it continued barking for quite some time. We had planned on doing some repair work to our sprinkler system in the afternoon, but it was put off due to the apparent non-control of this one animal's barking. One can hardly work on one's own property while putting up with this incessant noises RICHFIELD MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH CITY COUNCIL JOHNENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG SUZANNE M.SANDAHL GERTRUDE ULRICH May 14, 2004 Janice Dahnke 6310 Vincent Ave. So. I Crch ~'e~d, I~f~ti' S~-~~.3 Public Safety Department Support Services Division RE: Your application request for a new Multi-Pet License This letter is notification that your request for the new multi-pet license has been CITY MANAGER scheduled to a e SAMANTHA ORDUNO pp ar before the City Council on May 25, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. Please be present at the meeting so that you can address any issues or concerns that may arise. If you have any questions prior to the date of the meeting, please feel free to contact me at (612) 861-9880. Sincerely, r~ 1'l~ .~ `i`~~-tl Kathy Mueller Business Licensing KM:ttf Tltc~ Urba~t Hontc.~hnrn 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.881.9800 EMERGENCY 911 www.ci.richlield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Public Safety Department Support Services Division MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH ~ CITY COUNCIL JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG SUZANNE M.SANDAHL GERTRUDE ULRICH September 18, 2003 Janice Dahnke 6310 Vincent Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Dahnke: This is confirmation of the decision that was made by the City Council on Tuesday, clrY MANAGER September 9, 2003, regarding your request for amulti-animal residential license. The City SAMANTHA ORDUNO COUnCII'S decision was to issue you a 60-day conditional license. The City Council requires that you provide proof to city staff by October 27, 2003 that you have purchased bark collars for the dogs and that training has occurred. Information regarding training should come from someone skilled in the area of animal training. Proof of these two items must be provided to me prior to the next meeting in which this will be addressed. After the 60-day conditional license period, the City Council will meet again~on November 11, 2003. You must be present at this meeting to address any issues and concerns that may arise. We will also contact neighbors prior to that meeting to obtain any feedback they may have to share with the City Council. If you have'any questions prior to the date of the meeting, please feel free to contact me at (612)-861-9880. Sincerely, - - ~~-~ - ~ ~~ L~ y Mueller -Business:Licensing KM:ttf Tfrc~ Urban ffontehnrn 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.881.9800 EMERGENCY 911 www.ci.rich(fekl.mn.us AN EOUAI OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Public Safety Department Support Services Division October 23, 2003 Janice Dahnke MAYOR 6310 Vincent Avenue South MARTIN J. KIRSCH Richfield, MN 55423 ~ CITY COUNCIL JOHN ENGER SUSAN ROSENBERG Re: Your request for aMulti-Animal Residential Kennel License SUZANNE M.SANDAHL GERTRUDE ULRICH Dear Ms. Dahnke: clrY MaNaceR This letter is notification that your request for aMulti-Animal Residential Kennel License is SAMANTHA ORDUNO scheduled to appear before the City Council again on November 25, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue South. On September 9, 2003 the City Council granted you a 60-day conditional kennel license. At that time, the City Council required that you purchase bark collars for the dogs and provide training. Proof of these two items must be provided to city staff no later then November 1, 2003. We will also be contacting your neighbors to obtain any feedback they may have and to inform them of the City Council meeting date. Please be present at the meeting so that you can address any issues or concerns that may arise. If you have any questions prior to the date of the meeting, please feel free to contact me at (612) 861-9880. Sincerely, ~2r~h~ A4~lealer Business Licensing KM:ttf The Urban Hometown ' 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 www.cl.~IChlleld.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AGENDA SECTION: RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # 94 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. 29 REPORT PREPARED BY: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO PAM DMYTRENKO ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MGR NAn~ TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: r~ d ~ NA ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the contract with the Police Officers and Detectives LELS Local 123 for the contract eriod Janua 1, 2004 throu h December 31, 2004. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution approving the provisions of the 2004 labor agreement with the Police Officers and Detectives LELS Local 123 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. II. BACKGROUND City staff has completed labor negotiations with the Police Officers and Detectives LELS Local 123 (Union). After the first agreement failed for a lack of votes, a mediation session was held and the agreement was accepted by a majority of the union members. The provisions of the contract agreement for 2004 cover all employees in this Union. There are thirty-one employees represented in this unit. 0511 Police contract2004 The tentatively approved settlement includes the following changes: 1. Wages A 3% across-the-board wage increase, effective January 1, 2004. 2. Health Insurance A $50 increase to the Employer health insurance contribution for contract year 2004 which provides full coverage to single Employee, $565 per month for Employee plus spouse or Employee plus child(ren) coverage, and $580 per month for Employee plus family. 3. Vacation Accrual The maximum vacation leave accrual was increased from 240 hours to 248 hours. 4. Court Standby Court standby pay was increased by $5 to $35 per occurrence. 5. Clothing Allowance An increase of $25 in the clothing allowance to $650. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has met and negotiated in good faith with the Union and its representatives and is bound under the Public Employer's Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. • The 2004 proposed settlement is the third union contract settled for 2004 and is identical in wages and health insurance provisions to non- union City employees, Local 49 and 911 Dispatchers. The contract provisions are also well within the range for other comparable bargaining groups in similar metro cities. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2004 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on May 25, 2004 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2004. C. FINANCIAL • 3% wage increase. • $50 increase in Employer contribution towards health insurance coverage. • $25 increase in clothing allowance. • $5 increase in court standby pay. D. LEGAL • If the terms of this agreement are not approved, further negotiation and/or mediation will be necessary. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the terms of this agreement and prepare for further negotiation and/or mediation. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (EELS), LOCAL 123 BARGAINING UNIT FOR THE YEAR 2004 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Richfield Police Officers and Detectives EELS Local 123 have reached an understanding concerning conditions of employment for year 2004; and WHEREAS, it would be inappropriate to penalize EELS Local 123 members who have negotiated in good faith; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinance requires that contracts between the City and the exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit shall be completed by Council resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Richfield and EELS Local 123 Bargaining Unit for year 2004, under the provisions of the Labor Agreement to be implemented, effective January 1, 2004 and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of May, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2004 RESOLUTION 8 93 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. N/A AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A BETSY OSBORN, SUPPORT SERVICES REPORT PREPARED BY: DIVISION MANAGER NAME, T/TLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ (,' ,~~' SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolution regarding civil enforcement for Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street, that underwent an alcohol compliance check, conducted b Richfield Public Safet staff, and failed b sellin alcohol to undera a outh. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution suspending the license for Frenchman's to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days as a first time violating establishment; levying a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,000 for the first violation; requiring a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind; and providing proof of the attendance of the manager of the establishment in an alcohol sales awareness pro ram. 0525Frenchman's Alcohol Non-Compliance Resolution II. BACKGROUND On December 4, 2003, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by three underage youth that were 18-20 years of age. These compliance checks were the second alcohol compliance checks conducted in 2003. Public Safety staff made arrangements for the youths to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. While conducting the compliance check at Frenchman's, alcohol was served to an underage person. At no time did the minor consume any alcohol. The underage youth that was served presented an ID and at no time attempted to convince anyone that he was of legal age, The officers identified themselves to the employee after the alcohol was served and a citation was issued. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the business that holds a license to sell alcohol within the City. This is a first offense for Frenchman's. Technically it is their second violation but because of the time elapsed between now and their previous violation in July of 1999, it is considered a first violation. The fine being recommended at this time is intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. Compliance checks will continue to occur during 2004. At the March 23, 2004 City Council meeting, Kristine Blake requested that the discipline action be delayed pending the court action of the employee that sold alcohol to a minor. The employee that sold alcohol was scheduled to appear in court on May 4, 2004; however, they did not appear at that time. A warrant was issued but stayed until May 14, 2004. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 9204 specified certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend the first time violating establishment license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days and levy a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1000 for the first violation. Staff is also proposing that the first time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind. One employee, preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session; provided by a .private firm approved by Public Safety, with the cost of the training 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 City 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 highly valued and 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 establishment for the sale of alcohol to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions against Frenchman's. 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 establishment that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9204. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL. PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • A representative from the establishment is expected to be in attendance at the meeting and has been notified of this requirement. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR FRENCHMAN'S., 1400 EAST 66TH STREET, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALITY FOR A FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Frenchman's, ("Licensee") holds an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 2003, 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 more than two years has elapsed since the previous failure, it serves as a first failure. Their original first penalty was imposed by the City Council at the October 11, 1999 meeting; and WHEREAS, Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on May 25, 2004 and admitted the violation; and the Licensee has 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 $1000 is hereby imposed. On or before June 25, 2004, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1000. 3. Licensee shall meet with the Director of Public Safety by June 25, 2004 to present an written action plan to ensure future compliance; and 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 25th day of May, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING 92 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY: MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding amendments to the Richfield Zoning Code Sections 506 and 526 and the Richfield City Code Section 920 to create regulations for firearms related uses. (Continued from March 23 and April 27, 2004) I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached ordinance amendments to the Richfield Zoning Code Sections 506 and 526 and the Richfield City Code Section 920 to create reaulations for firearms related uses. II. BACKGROUND • An applicant requested zoning requirements for locating a firearms safety. training center at 6611 Chicago Avenue in June of 2003. After reviewing current land-use rules, staff determined that no zoning regulations existed for such a use in Richfield. On July 8, 2003 the City Council voted to classify any use involving the discharge of a firearm as a `firearms related use' and to limit such uses to the C-2 or I districts within the City. The Council further directed the Planning Commission and Public Safety department to work together to draft suggested zoning regulations for such uses. The City Council also enacted a 052504-Exten d SecR ea d i n g F i rea rm s moratorium on such uses until after regulations could be drafted and adopted. • This land-use moratorium took effect on July 8, 2003 and will expire on July 31, 2004 unless it is extended by the City Council prior to the expiration date. • A public hearing was set for March 23, 2004, continued to April 27, 2004 and again continued until May 25, 2004 to allow additional time to develop building standards. • Standards for indoor firearm buildings have been included. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The recommended ordinance amendment will create a definition for firearms-related uses and provide zoning regulations and licensing requirements for such uses in the C-2 and I zoning districts. • . It is important to develop minimum standards for buildings used for firearms activities that at the same time do not exceed building code requirements. (See attached proposed ordinance; 526.27, Subdivision 19.) • The regulations from a .number of Minnesota communities were reviewed. A group of staff from Community Development and Public Safety as well as the City Attorney formulated the proposed code based on that review: B. CRITICAL ISSUES - • Regulations for firearms related uses are necessary to provide reasonable controls for such uses to insure public health, safety, and welfare. • The amended ordinances should be adopted and published 30 days before the moratorium expires on July 31, 2004 or the moratorium will need to be extended. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL Notification: Notification for the City Council public hearing on this proposed Zoning Code amendment was published in the Sun Current on March 11, 2004 as required by City Ordinances and State Statutes. It was not necessary to publish again because of the continuation action by the City Council. • Legal counsel has reviewed the proposed amendment. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Continue the second reading again in order to obtain more information. V. ATTACHMENTS • Amendment to Richfield Citv Code. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO RICHFIELD CITY CODE SECTION 506.07, SUBDIVISION 32; SECTION 526.27, SUBDIVISION 19; SECTION 920.01, SUBDIVISION 4; SECTION 920.03 SUBDIVISIONS 1, 7, and (new) 8; AND SECTION 920.11 SUBDIVISION 4(b) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 506.07, Subdivision 32 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 506.07, Subdivision 32 "Firearms-Related Uses"-uses operated by a private person or entity that involve the discharge of a firearm, including but not limited #o shooting galleries, firing ranges, and fire-arms safety training centers. 2. Section 506.07 is amended so all subdivisions, starting with "Floor Area, Gross"; are renumbered by increasing their subdivision number by one (1). 3. Section 526.27, Subdivision 19 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 526.27, Subdivision 19. Gun or ammunition sales/repair and firearms-related uses, provided the following conditions are met: a) such uses shall be licensed under Section 920 of the City Code; b) such uses shall be located not less than 300 feet from any school; Church, daycare center, public library, or government building; c) such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from other gun or ammunition sales/repair businesses or firearms related uses; a~ d) such uses shall be located not less than 100 feet from residentially .zoned. property; e) firearms-related uses shall not operate before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 ~~ f) firearms-related uses shall only be allowed within an enclosed structure which is soundproofed to prevent the sound to be heard bypersons on adjoining property g) no firearms-related use shall be allowed in a trailer or other non- . permanent building; and h) any firing-range existing in the City on or prior to January 1, 2004 shall be allowed to continue. i} The use, occupancy, and construction of the building shall conform to the Minnesota State Building Code. j) The use shall conform with the applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, and OSHA standards for indoor ventilation, emissions into the atmosphere, indoor sound levels, lead containment, and outside noise standards. k) The design and construction of any firearm-related use shall totally confine all ammunition rounds within the buildinng and in a controlled manner. The design and construction of the firing range shall be certified by a registered architect and engineer in the State of Minnesota. The certified plans shall include the specifications and construction of the bullet tray(s), ceilings, exterior and interior walls, and floors. The certified plans shall state what type and caliber of ammunition the range is designed to totally confine. I) No ammunition shall be used in any firearms-related use that exceeds the certified design and construction specifications of the firing range. m) A written log of users of any firing range or other firearms-related use shall be maintained by the range operator. The log shall include the name and address of the range user, and the time and date the. user was in the range. The name and address of the user shall be verified by photo identification. n) An alarm system, cut wire protected, shall be supplied to provide security for a building containing any firearm-related use. o) Firearms which are stored on the premises shall. be stored in a vault when the range is closed for business. An alarm system, independent of the general alarm system and cut wire protected, shall be supplied for the firearm vault. p) Ammunition shall not be stored in the firearm vault. q) On site supervision at any firearm-related use shall be supplied at all times by an adult with credentials as qualified range master. r) An outside security plan for the general grounds of any firearm-related use shall be submitted to the City Manager or designee for review and approval. s) The transport of firearms on the premises shall conform to State. Law. t) Minors shall not be allowed in anYfiregrm-related use unless accompanied by an adult at all times. This provision shall not be interpreted to prohibit minors from participating in a firearm safety class which is supervised by an adult instructor. u) The Council reserves the authority to review or modify the performance standards for the range. Section 920.01, Subdivision 4 is of .the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: 920.01, Subdivision 4. "Firearms-Related Uses"-means uses operated by a private person or entity that involve the discharge of a firearm, including but not: limited to shooting galleries, firing ranges, and fire-arms safety training centers.. 5. Section 920.03, Subdivision 1 of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 920.03, Subdivision 1. License required. A manufacturer or dealer may not sell at wholesale or retail, or lease, pledge or accept as security for a loan a firearm without first having procured a license as specified below under Subdivision 7. An operator of afirearms-related use may not operate anv firearms-related use without first havingprocured a license as specified below under Subdivision 8. 6. Section 920.03, Subdivision 7 of the code of the City of Richfield is .amended to read as follows: 920.03, Subdivision 7. Conditions Governing Issuance for firearms manufacturers or dealers. The following conditions govern issuance of a license for firearms manufacturers or dealers pursuant to this subsection: [items a) through t) under 920.03, Subdivision 7 remain.unchanged...] 7. Section 920.03, Subdivision 8 of the code of the City of Richfield is created to read as follows: 920.03, Subdivision 8. Conditions Governincglssuance for operators of firearms- related uses. The following conditions govern issuance of a license for operators of firearms-related uses. a) All licensees must be at least 21 years of age; b) No person may, in ap~lying for a license to operate afirearms-related use, give false identification or offer false evidence of his identity; 8. Section 920.11, Subdivision 4 (b) of the code of the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 920.11, Subdivision 4(b). persons engaged in target shooting at inanimate objects at afirearms-related use that is licensed under this section and complies with the. requirements of Section 526.27, Subdivision 19 of this code. ::~",n,-a~°~s:~~ 2004. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of May, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # j STAFF REPORT ......: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO N/A CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NaneE, TITLL ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a preliminary resolution with regards to the financing of a project to be undertaken by the Academy of Holy Angels. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: approve the attached resolution giving preliminary approval to the financing of a project to be undertaken by the Academy of Holy Angels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.154, and authorizing the submission of an application to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development and the preparation of necessary documents. II. BACKGROUND • Holy Angels is again requesting financial assistance from the City of Richfield in the form of access to $3,300,000 of the City's 2004 bank qualified debt allotment of $10,000,000. The request is for the financing of a project that would consist of the acquisition of land upon which the Academy of Holy Angels (Holy Angels) is 05252004 Holy Angels .Note Land Purchase located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue. The use of the City's bank qualified debt would mean lower interest cost to Holy Angels. • Previously, at the December 10, 2002 and November 25, 2003 City Council meetings, the Council approved the issuance of Educational Facilities Revenue Notes, Series 2002 and 2003, in the amount of $8,540,000 and $1,460,000 respectively for a project that renovated and added to the existing facilities at Holy Angels. The project included the construction and equipping of a new convocation center and gymnasium, including class and meeting room space together with related facilities. • Holy Angels is now requesting an additional $3,300,000 to acquire the land that the school is located. This will bring the total outstanding financing to $13,300,000. • The City will issue a revenue obligation note to be designated the Educational Facilities Revenue Note (Academy of Holy Angels Project), Series 2004. The revenue obligation would be purchased by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association, with the proceeds of the sale then being loaned to .Holy Angels. • The City would only serve as a conduit for the project financing. The City would not incur any financial liability as a result of the issuance of the debt, nor would the City incur any out of pocket expenses. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, the City of Richfield has authority to issue revenue bonds. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The $3,300,000 would count against the City's limit of $10,000,000 of bank qualified debt for 2004. • This will leave $6,700,000 of bank qualified debt available for use by the City. It is expected this amount will be sufficient for City bonding needs in 2004. C. FINANCIAL • The bonds will be issued in the City's name, but will not be a charge against the City's general credit or taxing powers. The City will act as a conduit for the financing of the project. It does not create any financial liability to the City. • The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out- . of-pocket expenses related to the tax exempt financing, including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst fees, bond counsel fees, staff costs, and any deposits or application fees required under state law in order to secure allocation of bonding authority. • The applicant will be charged an annual administrative fee in the amount of 1/8th of 1 % (.125%) of the outstanding principal balance of the bonds. D. LEGAL • Kennedy & Graven will serve as bond counsel for the issue. A public hearing is required as part of the issuance of private activity revenue bond financing. The notice for the public hearing was published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on May 10, 2004. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Forgo approving the attached resolution at this time and not proceed with the issuance of the private activity revenue bonds. ~ V . ATTACHMENTS ~ • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING John Utley, Kennedy tk vraven Representative from the Academy of Holy Angels RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE FINANCING OF A PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY ACADEMY OF HOLY ANGELS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.154, AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City"), is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152-469.165, as amended the ("Act"), to issue revenue obligations to finance, in whole or in part, the costs of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, betterment, or extension of a project to be owned by a contracting parry; and WHEREAS, a "project" includes any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise and, in the case of an organization primarily engaged in educational activities as an elementary, secondary, or post-secondary school, may also include the payment and discharge of all or any part of the outstanding indebtedness of the contracting party previously incurred in the acquisition or betterment of its existing facilities, including accrued interest and prepayment premium; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City has received from the Academy of Holy Angels, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower"), a proposal that the City undertake to finance a project to be owned and operated by the Borrower through the issuance by the City of revenue obligations pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, the Borrower is the owner and operator of the Academy of Holy Angels High School, located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue South in the City (the "Facility"); and WHEREAS, the Borrower recently acquired from the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, St. Paul Province, the land on which the Facility is located (the "Land") and such acquisition was temporarily financed with a conventional loan from Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Bank"); and WHEREAS, the proceeds derived from the sale of the revenue obligations proposed to be issued by the City (the "Obligations") will be loaned by the City to the Borrower and applied by the Borrower to refinance the acquisition of the Land by the Borrower (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, as required by the terms of Section 469.154 of the Act, a notice of public hearing stating the time and place of the public hearing and stating the general nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal amount of Obligations to be issued to finance and refinance the Project was published in the official newspaper of the City and newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than fourteen (14) days and not more than thirty (30) days prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance and refinance the Project was held on May 25, 2004; and WHEREAS, the notice and public hearing satisfy the public approval requirements set forth in Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance of the Obligations for such purposes and in an amount not to exceed $3,300,000 is hereby approved, subject to the approval of the Project by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development ("DEED"), and subject to the mutual agreement of the City, the Borrower, and the initial purchaser of the Obligations as to the details of the Obligations and provisions for their payment.. In all events, it is understood, however, that the Obligations of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, and the Obligations, when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the Obligations, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues derived from the Project and the Facility and from other property or security expressly pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a pecuniary obligation of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers. The Obligations shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. 2. Based solely on representations made to the City by the Borrower, it is hereby found and determined that: (a) the Project constitutes properties, real and personal, used or useful in connection with one or more revenue producing enterprises within the meaning of subdivision 2(b) of Section 469.153 of the Act; (b) the Project furthers the purposes set forth in the Act; (c) the availability of the financing under the Act and the willingness of the City to furnish financing in the recent past for other. portions of the Facility was a substantial inducement to the Borrower to undertake the Project; and (d) no public official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the Project or the Facility nor will any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project or the Facility. 3. In accordance with Section 469.154 of the Act, the City Manager of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the application for approval of the Project to DEED. The City Manager and other officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide DEED with any information needed for this purpose, and the City Manager is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project. 4. The law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project and the Obligations to be issued in connection therewith. The City Manager and other officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby. authorized to assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents. 5. In accordance with Section 469.154, subdivision 7, of the Act, the Mayor and other officers, employees, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to encourage the Borrower to provide employment opportunities to economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals. Such individuals may be identified by such mechanisms as are available to the City such as a first source agreement in which the Borrower agrees to use a designated State of Minnesota employment office as a first source for employment recruitment, referral, and placement. 6. The Borrower has agreed to pay any and all costs paid or incurred by the City in connection with the Project and the issuance of the Obligations whether or not the Project is approved by DEED and whether or not the Obligations and related documents are executed and delivered. 7. All commitments of the City expressed herein are subject to the condition that by December 31, 2004, the City and the Borrower shall have agreed to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Obligations, the loan agreement, and the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Obligations and that the Obligations shall have been issued and sold. If the events set forth herein do not take place within the time set forth above, or any extension thereof, and the Obligations are not issued and sold within such time, this resolution shall expire and be of no further effect. 8. The adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a guaranty or firm commitment that the City will issue the Obligations as requested by the Borrower. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not to issue the Obligations, or issue :the Obligations in an amount less that the amount referred to herein, should the City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue the Obligations, or to issue the Obligations in an amount less than the amount referred to in paragraph 1 hereof, or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction. 9. In anticipation of the issuance of the Obligations to finance all or a portion of the Project, and in order that completion of the Project will not be unduly delayed when approved, the Borrower is hereby authorized to make such expenditures and advances toward payment of that portion of the. costs of the Project as Borrower considers necessary, including the use of interim, short-term financing, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the Obligations if and when delivered but otherwise without liability on the part of the City. 10. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 25th day of May, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Attest: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT_ AGENDA ITEM # 4F REPORT # q0 ~~;~~+~`~~~~~; ' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING y~:.. MAY 25, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A AND/oR R~CI-FIELD 2020 GOAL(s) NO 10,11,14 ~~ HALL, GARAGE AND PARK REPORT PREPARED BY: MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY SIGNATURE MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Purchase of an aerial .lift truck for use by the Street Maintenance Division L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the bid minutes/tabulation and approve the purchase of a new aerial lift truck from Dueco, Inc. along with the quoted trade-in prices and sales tax, for a total purchase price of $96.658.34. II. BACKGROUND Unit 291, a 1985 Ford-Altec aerial lift truck is scheduled for replacement for the Forestry Division. Staff prepared specifications and sent them to four manufacturers requesting the opportunity to bid on the new aerial lift truck. The bid proposal asked for atrade-in price for the old unit #291. This unit is nineteen years old and has far exceeded its original life expectancy of ten years. Many major repairs have been done over the last five years to keep it running, but it is time to replace this unit, as future repairs will become cost ineffective. 0525Aerial A formal bid opening for the purchase of the new aerial lift truck was held on May 11, 2004 with the following results: Vendor Amount Dueco, Inc. $95,759.00. (-$5000.00) Trade-in Altech Ind. $99,998.00 (-$4000.00) Trade-in Fleet Sales $113,473.00 (-$4260.00) Trade-in The notice of bids for the aerial truck was published both in the Construction Bulletin on April 23, 2004, and the Richfield Sun-Current on April 22, 2004 with the hope of a greater response. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Dueco, Inc submitted the lowest qualifying bid for this work. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the May 25, 2004, Council Meeting will facilitate delivery of the new Aerial Truck. C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2004. budget contains $115,000.00 for this purchase. • Funding for this vehicle will be Equipment Certificates issued in 2004. D. LEGAL • When the. purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or services exceeds $50,000, sealed bids shall be solicited by public notice • The bid opening held on May 11, 2004, was in accordance with legal requirements IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could reject the bids and instruct staff to re-bid this piece of equipment. However, staff does not believe we can obtain a better price from a reputable contractor. V. ATTACHMENTS • Bid minutes/tabulation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Bid Opening May 11, 2004 10:00 a.m. One Aerial Truck Bid No. 04-05 Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative Staff was called by Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose of the meeting was to receive, open. and read aloud, bids for the purchase of one Aerial Truck, as advertised in the official newspaper on April 22, 2004 and the Construction Bulletin on April 23, 2004. Present: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk. Randy Hughes, Public Works Representative Cheryl Krumholz, City Manager Representative The following bids were submitted and read aloud: Vendor Bond Total Base Bid Trade-In Altec Industries Inc. Provided $99,998.00 $4,000.00 Dueco, Provided $95,759.00 $5,000.00 Fleet Sales Provided Check $113,473.00 $4,260.00 The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the May 25, 2004 City Council Meeting. Nancy Gibbs City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4E REPORT # $ 9 `: ~ STAFF REPORT .~ ~. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. 'I 6 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO 4 JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAAfE, TITLE' ~f. SIGN RE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of award of contract to Effective Golf Course Systems for a feasibility study and other planning services for a proposed golf practice facility in Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Award a contract, in the amount of $900 as described in Phase One, to Effective Golf Course Systems for the creation of a feasibility study and other planning services for a proposed golf aractice facility in Richfield. III. BACKGROUND ~ In pursuit of City Council Goal #16 to investigate the feasibility of constructing a golf practice facility in Richfield, Recreation Services Director Jim Topitzhofer has formed the Golf Practice Facility Task Force. The group has been meeting for several months. One of the first tasks of the groups was to access available parkland in Richfield that would be suitable to accommodate a golf practice facility. The task force identified two potential park sites, Taft Park and Veteran's Park, 0525 Golf because of space availability and excellent accessibility to a regional transportation route. The task force then approached a nearby consulting company to help access the suitability of these parks further. Effective Golf Course System (EGGS), a group out of Bloomington and present managers of the Braemar Golf Course in Edina, was available to do so at a very reasonable cost. For a fee of $900, EGGS would analyze the two sites through aerials and onsite visits, recommend potential footprints of teaching facilities including number of tee locations, and calculate preliminary cost estimates. Should one or both sites be deemed suitable for development, the Golf Practice Facility Task Force may recommend City Council to consider additional work from EGGS at a future date to include a marketing analysis, budget projections and recommendations for facility amenities. At this time, the task force is only asking City Council to consider Phase One of the attached contract. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • None B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • The consultant's fee will be funded by the Recreation Services Operating Budget in the General Fund. This expenditure was anticipated and included in the Professional Services section of the 2004 budget. D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Effective Golf Course Systems Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Russ Susag, Golf Practice Facility Task Force Chair Effective Golf Course Systems, Inc. 7922 Wyoming Avenue South '~ Bloomington, MN 55438 "` Phone 612-810-b490 • Fax 952-929-2760 May I I , 2004 To: Jim Topitzhofer Recreation Services Director City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield MN 55423 From: EGCS Re: Contract for Teaching Facility Site Analysis and Market Study This letter, upon signature of both parties, is a contractual agreement between the City of Richfield and Effective Golf Course Systems (EGCS). The scope of the project as follows: Phase One • Analysis of two potential sites through aerials and onsite visits. • Recommendation of "footprint" of teaching facility on each potential site including the number of potential tee stations. • "Ballpark" estimates of possible construction costs for sites deemed feasible for development. • A brief write-up and meeting to present the findings. • Expenses are included in the price below. Cost $900.00 Should one or both of the sites be deemed suitable for development by the client, EGCS would proceed to Phase Two (optional) at the client's direction. Phase Two To include the following: • Analysis of market competition (data to be collected by City of Richfield). • Brief demographic overview. • "Ballpark" estimates of potential revenues and expenses • Recommendations for facility amenities. Effective Golf Course Systems, Inc. E C CS 7922 Wyoming Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55438 ~- Phone 612-810-6490 • Fax 952-929-2760 • Eight bound copies of the report and informal meeting to present the findings. • Expenses are included in the price below. Cost $2,950.00 Phase One For the City of Richfield: Title: Date: For EGCS: Title: ~/~2 ~,.5 Date: /`~ !~} ~ // . Z 6 4 Phase Two For the City of Richfield: Title: Date: For EGCS: Title: Date: EGCS wishes to convey it's thanks for the opportunity to be of service to the City of Richfield. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # ~~ REPORT # $ $ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2.003 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) No CHRISTINE COSTELLO, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAnes, TITLC 27, 31 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 1__I , SIGNAT(IRE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 7514-16 Lyndale Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the attached resolution for an off-street parking permit at 7514-16 Lyndale Avenue. II. BACKGROUND • William and Patti Chadwell, owner of the property at 7516 Lyndale Avenue South, are requesting an off-street parking permit to add additional off-street parking spaces for their restaurant establishment. • The site currently contains atwo-unit building. The petitioner's business, Broadway Pizza is approximately 2,334 sq. ft. of space, the second unit, Rapid Printing is also approximately 2,334 sq. ft. of space and both businesses share 14 off-street parking spaces. 052504-OSP-7514-16LyndaleAvenueSouth.doc • Mr. and Mrs. Chadwell, have purchased the property at 7514 Lyndale Avenue, formerly Floyd's Lock and Key. The plan is to demolish the building and expand their parking to accommodate customers. The lot is approximately 5,558 sq. ft. • City parking standards require restaurant uses with no liquor to have 1 space per 60 sq. ft. of gross floor area or 1 space per 2.5 seats, whichever is greater. Using the parking lot standards criteria, Mr. and Mrs. Chadwell's restaurant at 7516 Lyndale Avenue and the retail building next door should have a combined total of 48 off-street parking spaces. • Mr. and Mrs. Chadwell are proposing to provide a total of 28 parking stalls, which include an additional 14 new off-street parking spaces, that that create a new parking area for their restaurant. The applicant has passed site plan review with staff, where the following matters were satisfactorily addressed in the parking lot site plan: • The site does not meet the parking space requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, but with the demolition of Floyd's Lock and Key, the site will be decreasing the amount of commercial space on the lot and increasing the amount of parking to more than what was there previously. Therefore, after review staff believes that the parking will be adequate relative to the anticipated need, and an improvement over the previous parking configuration. • Adequate traffic control devices and safety features have been incorporated into the design of the parking lot. • Stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping are adequate. • The impact on nearby streets and intersections will be negligible. • The proposed parking lot meets parking lot standards for drive aisle width, stall dimensions, and the provision of handicapped spaces. • The parking lot landscaping does not meet full Zoning Ordinance requirements but, the petitioners are providing substantial improvements over what currently exists on the site. The proposed landscaping is also in keeping with the proposed Lyndale Avenue Corridor Landscape Plan. • The parking lot does not meet setback requirements on the north, east, and south sides, but does meet City standards for setbacks on the west side, where it is adjacent to the alley. City standards require a minimum three-foot setback for parking lots adjacent to right-of--ways; however, such a setback would make it impossible to improve this parcel as desired. Both the applicant and staff want to leave sufficient area to ensure that the City sidewalks fronting this property can be plowed properly during winter conditions. Therefore, staff has recommended that the required three-foot setback along the alley be reduced to zero to allow for City services. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Procedures for issuance of an off-street parking permit are outlined in City Code Section 800.17, which authorizes the City Council to issue a permit after determining that the requested parking area will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare of the community. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. .LEGAL • 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was received on May 10, 2004. A decision must be given to the applicant by June 9, 2004 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for an off-street parking permit with a finding that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS • City Council resolution • Site Plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. and Mrs. Chadwell, applicant and owner of 7514-16 Lyndale Avenue RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING AN OFF-STREET PARKING PERMIT AT 7514-16 LYNDALE AVENUE WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests approval of an off-street parking permit for the parcel of land located at 7514-16 Lyndale Avenue, legally described as: Lots 4, 5, and 6, of Irwin Shores Addition WHEREAS, the requested off-street parking permit has been reviewed by staff and meets city requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed parking area will adequately serve the purpose for which it is proposed and will not have an adverse effect upon the public safety or general welfare; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the off-street. parking permit. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That an off-street parking permit for 7514-16 Lyndale Avenue is hereby approved for a parking area as detailed in the site plan entitled "Chadwell Properties, LLC." Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of May, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 4 C REPORT # 8 ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL. MEETING MAY 25, 2004 Related to: CrrY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOALS} NO N/A STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR N.9ME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Transferring the Board of Equalization authority to Hennepin County fora 3-year period be innin in 2005. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution transferring the Board of Equalization authorit to Hennepin Count fora 3- ear period be innin in 2005. II. BACKGROUND Minnesota statutes currently provide the authority for cities whose assessment is done by the County to transfer the duties of the local board of equalization to the County Assessor. Richfield has contracted with Hennepin County since the early 1980's for the annual assessment of local properties. However, until the repeal of a Richfield City Charter provision in early 2004, the City was required to conduct its own Board of Equalization each spring. With the repeal of the Charter requirement, the City is now able to follow state statutes and transfer the local board duties to Hennepin County for 2005. ~V If the City wishes to take advantage of this statutory provision, proper notice must ___ be given prior to City Council consideration of the matter and notification must be sent to the County Assessor before December 1 of the year to be effective for the following year's assessment. Thus, the notice to the County Assessor must be sent by December 1, 2004 to be effective for the 2005 equalization/review process. It is recommended that the transfer of the local Board of Equalization authority to the County be done fora 3-year period initially. Three years is the minimum amount of time the transfer may be made for. If the process appears to work well for the City and its residents, the transfer authority may be extended in the future or even transferred permanently. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A number of cites that contract with Hennepin County for their annual assessment, have transferred the Board of Equalization duties to the County. • The County utilizes "open book" meetings to informally meet with .residents who feel that their property values have been set too high. This process may be far less intimidating for a resident than speaking before a formal Board of Equalization. • Residents who are not satisfied with the results of the "open book" meeting may proceed to the County Board of Equalization/Review. • Statutory changes enacted in 2003 will make it more cumbersome for cities to conduct local boards beginning in 2006. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This action must be completed and notification filed with the County Assessor on or before December 1, 2004. • Notice of the May 25, 2004 City Council consideration of this item was posted and published according to State statute. C. FINANCIAL • There is no cost associated with transferring the duties to the County. In fact, there will be a small savings to the City each year. D. LEGAL • The City Charter provision requiring the City to conduct its own Board of Equalization has been repealed. However, the City still may continue to conduct its own Board of Equalization under State statutes. • MN Statutes provide that a city that contracts with a county for its annual property assessment may transfer the local board. of equalization duties to that respective county. • Transfers of local board of equalization authority from a city to the county must be for a period of at least three years. However, the transfer may be for a longer period or permanent, if the city decides to do so. • If the City decides not to renew the assessing contract with Hennepin County in the future, the City would have to once again assume the statutory duties of a Board of Equalization at that time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council may decide to retain the local Board of Equalization duties. • The City Council may decide to transfer the local Board of Equalization duties for an initial period of longer than three years. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the transfer of Board of Equalization duties to the County. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION DUTIES TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR ATHREE-YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING IN 2005. WHEREAS, MN Statutes allow cities to transfer the local Board of Equalization duties to the County if said city contracts with the county for assessment services; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield currently contracts with Hennepin County for annual assessment services; and WHEREAS, the City Council repealed the City Charter provision requiring the City to conduct an annual Board of Equalization, which became effective in 2004; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to transfer the duties of the local Board of Equalization to Hennepin County for a three year period beginning in 2005; and WHEREAS, the City has considered this matter pursuant to the requirements of M.S. 274.01, subd. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The City of Richfield hereby transfers the duties of the local Board of Equalization to Hennepin County for a three year period commencing with the 2005 review/equalization process. 2. The City Council further directs the City Manager to notify the County Assessor in writing of this action before December 1, 2004. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 25th day of May, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2004 CONSENT 4B 86 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. 9 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO PAM BOOKHOUT, REHABILITATION SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~y- REVIEW: u ~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY ^ MANAGER: ?~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution authorizing the acquisition of 6805 12th Avenue and 6329 14th Avenue and first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of the properties to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for affordable home development and schedule the public hearing and second reading for June 22, 2004. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the purchase of real property located at 6805 12th Avenue and 6329 14th Avenue and conduct the first reading of a transitory ordinance authorizing the sale of the properties to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for affordable home development and schedule the public hearing and second reading for June 22, 2004. II. BACKGROUND • The sellers have requested to sell their property to the City. 052504 6805 12th • The house at 6805 12th Avenue has 672 sq. ft. on the first floor with less than a half story above. The house is very small with several functionally obsolete features. • The house at 6329 14th Avenue consists of only 540 sq. ft. Its garage, built in 1981, exceeds it in size at 672 sq. ft. Small doorways, the orientation of the house on the lot, the lot size, and design of the house framing will not support a second story and limit remodeling potential. • The City would purchase both properties by the end of June 2004 and convey to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in July 2004 for development under the New Home Program. • After conveyance, the HRA would provide two affordable homes for first time homebuyers. A .contract with Habitat for Humanity for 6805 12th Avenue would rehabilitate, construct an addition and create more usable space. The HRA would demolish the house at 6329 14th Avenue, retain the garage, and convey the lot and garage to a nonprofit developer for single family new construction. • The negotiated purchase price of 6805 12th Avenue is $150,000 based on an independent appraisal. $110,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds would be used to purchase the property; $40,000 would come from the nonprofit developer. • The purchase price of 6329 14th Avenue is $140,000. Of that, $90,000 would come from CDBG, and $50,000 may come from the nonprofit developer. • No City General Fund revenues would be used for either of the two properties. • Upon completion, both homes would meet all zoning requirements and comply with Comprehensive Plan goals. • Both properties would be sold to income-qualifying families, as defined by CDBG regulations. An eligible family of four would earn less than $57,500 annually. • This is the first reading of a transitory ordinance for the City to purchase 6805 12th Avenue and 6329 14th Avenue and convey them to the HRA for $1.00. City to HRA purchase process ensures that the CDBG funds do not have to be repaid to Hennepin County at a future time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • To fully leverage CDBG funds, the City must acquire the properties .and convey to the HRA. To effectuate aCity-owned property sale to the HRA, a transitory ordinance must be adopted. • The acquisition and disposition of the properties would meet zoning requirements and comply with Comprehensive Plan goals. • Using CDBG funds to purchase substandard property and develop with a nonprofit developer, whether through remodeling or new construction, has been an effective HRA program. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Acquisition for rehabilitation or for demolition and redevelopment on sites scattered throughout Richfield has been well received. • The house plans would be subject to the HRA's design criteria. • One very small house with limited market appeal will be remodeled to __ accommodate afirst-time home buying family. Another very small house with no remodeling potential would be replaced with a newly constructed three to four bedroom house for a family to buy. • Continuing relationships with nonprofit developers helps solve for financial gaps to provide appealing homes for first time buyers. C. FINANCIAL • 2003 and 2004 CDBG funds will be available for acquisition of the properties: $110,000 for 6805 12th Avenue, and $90,000 for 6329 14th Avenue. Proceeds of sale and grants received by nonprofit developers will make the acquisitions possible. • The nonprofit developers would cover construction costs. • No City General Fund revenues would be used for development. D. LEGAL • A public hearing is required at the second reading of the transitory ordinance, scheduled for June 22, 2004. • The HRA has approved general acquisition activities for its use of CDBG funds. The HRA will review acquisition of these specific properties at the June 21, 2004 HRA meeting. • The HRA would establish a contract with nonprofit developer(s) for construction to begin after the City conveys the property to the HRA. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City can choose not to acquire the property. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Transitory Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6805 12TH AVENUE AND 6329 14TH AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") has considered the purchase of 6805 12th Avenue and 6329 14th Avenue with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on behalf of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA") for $150,000.00 and $140,000, respectively. The properties are legally described as: 6805 12t" Avenue: All of the South seventy-two (72) feet of the North One Hundred Forty-four (144) feet of Block Five (5), except the East One Hundred Thirty-three (133) feet thereof, Rich Fields, Hennepin County, Minn., according to the plat or map thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for said County and State. Subject to a right of way for private roadway eight (8) feet wide commencing at road on the North side of Southeast Quarter (SE'/) Sec. 26 Twp. 26 R. 24 and running South along the Westerly side of said tract to the South ten (10) acres of the West fifty-five (55) rods of the West Half (W %2) of said Southeast quarter (SE'/) according to deeds record in Book 264 of Deeds page 123 and Book 340 of Deeds page 129 and Book 460 of Deeds page 192. Also That part of the South Thirteen Hundred and Ten (1310) feet of the East Eight and 58/100 (8.58) feet of the West Forty-one and 58/100 (41.58) feet of the Southwest Quarter (SW %4) of Southeast Quarter (SE'/), Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, which lies between the north and south lines extended of the South 72 feet of the North 144 feet of Block 5, Rich Fields, Hennepin County, Minn. according to the map or plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County and State; 6329 14t" Avenue: Lot 17, Block 2, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Block 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Girard Parkview, Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to sell the properties to the HRA for $1.00 each, in furtherance of HRA housing programs; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter, Section 13.04, the City is authorized to sell its property following a public hearing for which notice was published not less then ten days before such hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to take those actions necessary to purchase 6805 12th Avenue for $150,000, and 6329 14th Avenue for $140,000. 2. The City shall hold a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance regarding the sale of the land to the HRA on Tuesday, June 22, 2004. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of such hearing in the official newspaper of the City and post notice of said hearing. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of May, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED~REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (6805 12TH AVENUE SOUTH AND 6329 14T" AVENUE) The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. The following described real properties located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, are hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of and conveyed by the City as herein provided: 6805 12th Avenue: All of the South seventy-two (72) feet of the North One Hundred Forty-four (144) feet of Block Five (5), except the East One Hundred Thirty-three (133) feet thereof, Rich Fields, Hennepin County, Minn., according to the plat or map thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for said County and State. Subject to a right of way for private roadway eight (8) feet wide commencing at road on the North side of Southeast Quarter (SE'/4) Sec. 26 Twp. 26 R. 24 and running South along the Westerly side of said tract to the South ten (10) acres of the West fifty-five (55) rods of the West Half (W'/) of said Southeast quarter (SE'/4) according to deeds record in Book 264 of Deeds page 123 and Book 340 of Deeds page 129 and Book 460 of Deeds page 192. Also That part of the South Thirteen Hundred and Ten (1310) feet of the East Eight and 58/100 (8.58) feet of the West Forty-one and 58/100 (41.58) feet of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4} of Southeast Quarter (SE'/4), Section 26, Township 28, Range 24, which lies between the north and south lines extended of the South 72 feet of the North 144 feet of Block 5, Rich Fields, Hennepin County, Minn. according to the map or plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County and State; 6329 14th Avenue: Lot 17, Block 2, Nokomis Gardens Rearrangement of Block 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Girard Parkview, Hennepin County; and Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limi#ation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this 22th day of June 2004 by the Richfield City Council. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk ,~ ~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 25, 2004 CONSENT 4A 85 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 28 REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 39 RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of the attached transitory ordinance authorizing full time Public Works employees to issue violation notices amending Richfield City Code Subsection 115.11, Subdivision 5 I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of the attached transitory ordinance authorizing full time Public works employees to issue violation notices; amending Richfield City Code Subsection 115.11, Subdivision 5 and schedule the second reading for June 22, 2004. ~ II. BACKGROUND ~ The expansion of snow regulation enforcement to include part-time and non-police personnel was set as a goal at the January 2004 Council/Staff Strategic Planning Worksession. It was also discussed at the April 8, 2004, City Council Worksession. The current City Code allows Public Works supervisors to issue snowbird tickets. Presently, there are six Public Works supervisors authorized to issue citations. PWissue citations Public Safety can have up to seven officers, two community service officers and two reserve officers tagging during a snow event. The problem that occurs is that many of the staff issuing tags are pulled off the assignment .because of other duties or responsibilities. The Police for example, always have accidents that require their presence. The Streets and Park supervisors are responsible for fueling the plowing equipment, are involved in emergency repairs and are dealing with resident complaints. Both the staff member and the vehicle are lost to a competing task. By allowing three or four more non-supervisory Public Works staff to issue snowbird citations, staff could do a better job of getting cars off the street for plowing. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Charter general provisions on adoption of ordinances require a first and second reading on ordinances. A public hearing is not required unless a separate statute, charter provision or ordinance requires it. In this case there is no public hearing requirement. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • More staff can be assigned to tag snowbirds. Three or four select non- supervisory Public Works staff could supplement the staff now being used for tagging. C. FINANCIAL • More efficient enforcement of snow ordinances will result in faster, more efficient plowing of the streets. D. LEGAL • The transitory ordinance was prepared by Corrine Thomson amending the current ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council may choose not to-amend the present ordinance and allow only Public Works supervisors to issue violation notices. V. ATTACHMENTS • transitory ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING FULL TIME PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES TO ISSUE VIOLATION NOTICES; AMENDING RICHFIELD CITY CODE SUBSECTION 115.11, SUBDIVISION 5. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1, Subsection 115.11, Subdivision 5 of the Richfield City code is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 5. Full time employees of c^mm„ni+., ~o.,,;,.o~ Public Works department. Full time employees of the cvmm„ni+„ ~.e.,,;,.o~ public Works department as designated by the Public Works Director may issue notices of violation for violations of subsection 1305.13 of 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 22nd day of June 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk