Loading...
09-16-2004 AgendaPLEASE NOTE SPECIAL DATE (DUE TO PRIMAR*Y~EL*E*CTION) *~********~******* CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 REGU COUNICILCCHAMBERS ETING 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 commenf pe~-oto address the Council)on items no# otnrthef agenda. others. Comments are to be an opportun y Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of August 18, 2004; (2) 2004; (3) Special. City Council Worksession of Regular City Council Meeting of August 24, August 24, 2004; and (4) Special City Council Meeting of August 25, 2004 PRESENTATIONS 1. Swearing-in of Richfield Police Officers Thomas Swanson and Joseph Edwards 2. Presentation of Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association Award of Excellence for YMCA/Tri-City Skate Park 3. Annual meeting with Friendship City Commission COUNCIL DISCUSSION 4. Council discussion Hats Off To Hometown Hits Notes: CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 5. City Manager's report Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 6. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 7. 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 resolution authorizing acceptance of grant funds from Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety, to pay overtime to officers involved in Safe & Sober Program S.R. No. 140 B. Consideration of approval of consent to register title to certain real estate related to Kensington Park redevelopment project S.R. No. 141 C. Consideration of approval of resolutions authorizing Signal Agreements No. 86781 M and 86777M between Minnesota Department of Transportation and City of Richfield for maintenance of existing traffic signal at 76th Street and Trunk Highway 35W west ramp at 76th Street; and 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue, 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, and 77th Street and 12th Avenue S.R. No. 142 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing Minnesota Department of Transportation to receive federal aid funds on behalf of City for construction engineering services on eligible transportation related projects and consultant agreement with URS Corporation for engineering services needed for reconstruction of 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue in amount of $165,727.94 S.R. No. 143 E. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision waiver for 6210 Morgan Avenue S.R. No. 144 F. Consideration of approval of extension of variance permit until September 17, 2005 to allow construction of attached two-car garage with living space above S.R. No. 145 G. Consideration of approval of itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Visions, Inc. for Richfield Cattail Days events at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield, 6400 Portland Avenue, on September 18, 2004 S.R. No. 146 Notes: 8. Consideration of item(s), if any, removed from Consent Calendar Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Public hearing regarding resolution authorizing refunding of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A and 20006, with issuance of Series 2004 Senior Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds Staff Report No. 147 Notes: 10. Public hearing regarding resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan changing designation of properties in Cedar Point area from single family residential, single family residential high density and community commercial to regional commercial/office Staff Report No. 148 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 11. Consideration of: • Second reading of ordinance that repeals Sections 1200, 1210, 1215 and 1225 in entirety and creates new Section 1202 which amends and adopts new sections relating to sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages; • Resolution revising penalties section of liquor discipline and rescinding Resolution No. 9204; • Resolution authorizing summary publication of new ordinance Section 1202; • Resolution amending Appendix D and setting new licenses fees for temporary sale of 3.2 malt liquor and intoxicating liquor Staff Report No. 149 Notes: 12. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to Section 1146 revising training for individuals who sell to minors and changing fines for selling tobacco to underage youth Staff Report No. 150 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 13. Disciplinary hearings and consideration of resolutions regarding civil enforcement for alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth Staff Report No. 151 Notes: 14. Consideration of resolution ordering Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet maintenance work for January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and costs specially assessed (deferred from July 27, 2004) Staff Report No. 152 Notes: 15. Consideration of resolution ordering 77th Street maintenance work for January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and costs specially assessed (deferred from July 27, 2004) Staff Report No. 153 Notes: 15. Claims and payrolls Open forum (additional 15 minutes if more time needed after first Open Forum and by majority vote of the City Council) Each speaker is to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: 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: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 15 REPORT # 1S3 ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 36 AND~oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 29, 26 RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution pertaining to the annual 77th Street maintenance district assessment rocess for 2005. Deferred from Jul 27, 2004. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution ordering the 77th Street maintenance work for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 to be done and the costs specially assessed. (Deferred from July 27, 2004.) II BACKGROUND I Since the 1988 construction of the short section of 77th Street around the Hampton Inn, the City has been performing special, high-quality maintenance along 77th Street. The special maintenance services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of the landscaping on both sides of the 77th Street wall. The maintenance functions, known as current services, are funded through the maintenance assessment on the 77th Street businesses. City staff has estimated costs to be assessed for the maintenance of the 77th Street redevelopment area between I-35W and Cedar Avenue for 2005. 0916 77th 05assess Council deferred action from the Council Meeting on July 27, 2004, pending a review of the possibility of extending the assessments to residential property. Staff recommends keeping the existing assessment process. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY Resolution No. 7405, adopted in 1988, established a policy for assessing the costs. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council held and closed a public hearing on July 27, 2004 on the assessment for the cost of maintenance services performed in the 77th Street Project area for 2003 and to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for maintenance service costs for 2005. The City does not assess residential properties for maintenance costs in the LHN maintenance district. C. FINANCIAL The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 2005 is $80,000. All commercial properties would be assessed, on a square foot basis. All residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, would be exempt from the special assessment levy. D. LEGAL The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount. However, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. V ATTACHMENTS Resolution proposing to specially assess for current services for 2005. Graphic displaying 77th Street special assessment district. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT 77TH STREET PROJECT AREA JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 - WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain current services be undertaken by the City in the 77th Street Project Area, approximately bounded by I-35W, 77th Street, I-494 and Cedar Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of the public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying of special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on July 27, 2004 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services. of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the 77th Street Project Area, which area constitutes the. special assessment district with the exception of residential properties, plus the two churches in the area, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Street sprinkling oi- other dust treatment of streets; e. Trimming and care of trees and the. removal of unsound trees; f. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks. and other pedestrian .walkways; g. Operation of the street lighting system; h. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; i. Snow removal. and other maintenance of streets; i. General maintenance, including repairs and replacement. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through December 31, 2005. Costs of the project shall be in .the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield,. Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk g 0 z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N av0a~ n U 3 z ~I~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ li ~~ Z 4101 ~ IID ~ ~ N~1~JN1w00'19 Z __ W ® 414E ~ ~p W Q IID ® 41-1 IID® ~-' 41E1 U = IIIDID ~ ~ U IID ® 4121 m ~ $~ 4111 ~ 1W ,,...:. W ~~jj 4101 U ~1® ""-"~ ®'z~:`r; W ~" W ~',,,rc 10TH ~ !•- ~C~ ~° .y ~~ ~ a Z ~ zoo ®~ ~ ~~~ snewmo~ W ~® t a ~ ~.r HaVd ~ W S 7~~ ® "~~ ONV'011~ ~ N W 1iL~ ONV1iaOd ~ Z [~ J LLW ®~ 4~S ®~ tpd PAZ LL 1JJJ ® •. sN3A31s ~ W ~® ~1 LlJ J.311001N IID ®~~ '` . HLaONLLN3M ®~ ~anes-n1d .wvsv~d ® ONrra~ ® .~1aavF1 Ol3l~aVJ ®®~ g ®P"'-19 3'1tlONJl'i ~ 6 HOIaO~tl ® .1.N~r~ae ~ ~ ® xv~ Z ~ ® 1NOdn0 Nosa3wa _ ~D~. ~~ 1NOwaa~ -~p OaVa1J Y ® 1O108wf1H O AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # j[E REPORT # 1S2 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. NA REPORT PREPARED BY: COUNCIL, PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 29 RANDY HUGHES, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT NAME, TITLE ,SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution pertaining to the annual Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment rocess for 2005. Deferred from Jul 27, 2004. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution ordering the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance work for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 to be done and the costs specially assessed. (Deferred from July 27, 2004.) II. BACKGROUND The Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet (LHN) maintenance assessment was established to recover extraordinary maintenance expenses in the LHN (66th Street/Lyndale/Nicollet) area in 1981. The extraordinary services include irrigation, weeding and mowing of landscaped areas. The LHN Redevelopment Area is approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson 0916 LHN 05assess Avenue. City staff has determined actual costs of current services to be assessed for the 2003 maintenance of this area and estimated costs for the 2005 maintenance. Council deferred action from the Council Meeting on July 27, 2004, pending a review of the size of the assessment district. After consultation with legal counsel, staff recommends the boundaries of the assessment district not be changed at this time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 6372, adopted in 1981, established a policy for assessing the costs. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City Council conducted and closed a public hearing on July 27, 2004 on the assessment for the cost of maintenance services performed in the LHN development area for 2003 and to consider the establishment of a special assessment district for maintenance service costs for 2005. C. FINANCIAL The estimated maintenance cost for the period January 1 through December 31, 2005 is $50,000. All commercial properties would be assessed on the basis of area, with each square foot of assessable property to be assessed equally, for the costs incurred in the maintenance of common areas such as street islands, the civic plaza and sidewalks. Generally, the businesses maintain the property behind the curb. In the event the City must perform this maintenance, the particular business is assessed for the cost of the special, individual maintenance of direct benefit to the given property. D. LEGAL The City Attorney will be in attendance at the Council meeting should a legal question arise. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to establish a set rate and limit the maintenance performed to that dollar amount. However, staff believes the redevelopment area would suffer if limited maintenance was performed. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution proposing to specially assess the costs of current services for 2005. • Graphic displaying Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet special assessment district. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING UNDERTAKING OF CURRENT SERVICE PROJECT LYNDALE/HUB/NICOLLET (LHN) MAINTENANCE JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinance, the City Council of the City of Richfield did establish a special assessment district and did propose that certain services be undertaken by the City in the Lyndale/HUB/Nicollet Redevelopment Area approximately bounded by 64th Street, First Avenue, 67th Street and Emerson Avenue and that the cost of such services be specially assessed against benefited property, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield did also by such resolution set the date of public hearing on the undertaking of such current service project and the levying. of special assessment to bear the cost thereof, and WHEREAS, following due notice, such public hearing was held on July 27, 2004 at which time all interested parties desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the following examples of current services of the City shall be undertaken by the City within the LHN Redevelopment. Project Area, which area constitutes the special assessment district with the exception of single family, two family and multifamily residential properties, with the cost of such services to be specially assessed against-the benefited property within the district: a. Snow, ice or rubbish removal; b. Weed elimination; c. Elimination or removal of public health or safety hazards from private property, excluding any structure included under the. provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 to 463.26; d. Installation and repair of water servicelines; e. .Street sprinkling or other dust #reatment of streets; f. Trimming and care of trees and the removal of unsound trees; g. Repair of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian walkways; h. Operation of the street lighting system; i. Maintenance of landscaped areas and other public amenities on or adjacent to street right-of-way; j. Maintenance of civic plaza;. k. Snow removal and other maintenance of streets; I. repair of furniture; m. General maintenance, including. repairs and replacement. 2. The work to be performed may be by day labor, by City force, by contract or by any combination thereof. 3. The designated period of the project shall be from January 1 through. December 31, 2005. Costs of the project shall be collected in the manner provided in the Richfield Ordinance Code. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk W z ~ ~ U 3 W is U H D H Z W W Q Z 2 J ~ O ~ W W U a ~ ~ z d W W W 2 C7 ~ a ~ ~ W W J a ~ ~ K ~ ~O c0 Illilllillllllif-1IIIIIII i llllltlii{I ~® _ ~ ~~ 0 O N Z W W Z z W O W U r-, ... m 0 g ^ 0 0 0 N O i ~ ii~iii~i~~ WJ1L ~~'n,-~® AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 151 ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 RELATED TO: CITY COUNCIL GOALS NO. 1 AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO. 1 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ ~~ ~'r SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Council consideration of a disciplinary hearing and resolutions regarding civil enforcement for alcohol establishments in Richfield that recently underwent alcohol compliance checks, conducted by Richfield Public Safety staff, and failed by selling alcohol to underage youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Approve the attached resolutions suspending the license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days for each of the first time violating establishments; levying a fine against each 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 plans 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 program. Approve the attached resolutions suspending the license to sell alcohol for seven (7) consecutive days for each of the second tii 0916 Liquor Compliance Violator Resolutions violating establishments; levying a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,750 for the second violation; proposing that the Public Safety Director select the seven consecutive days their licenses will be suspended; requiring a second meeting with the Public Safety Director; and conducting a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session with all of their employees, provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety officials, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. II. BACKGROUND On May 11 and June 8, 2004, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by three underage youth that were all 18-19 year of age. These compliance checks were the first set of checks conducted in 2004. Richfield Public Safety staff made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In four instances, the underage youth were served alcohol. No alcohol was sold to underage youth at any of the businesses where compliance checks were conducted on May 11, 2004. The businesses that made sales to underage youth on June 8, 2004 are as follows: • EI-Jalapeno Market -1430 East 66th Street • Frenchman's - 1400 East 66th Street • La Villa Restaurant - 1120 East 66th Street • Oasis Market - 6300 Lyndale Avenue South This is a first offense for EI Jalepeno Market. Technically, it is a third violation but because of time elapsed between this violation and the previous violations, it is considered a first violation. This is a second offense for Frenchman's. Technically, it is a third violation but because of the time elapsed between this violation and the previous violations, it is considered a second violation. This is a first offense for La Villa Restaurant. This is a first offense for Oasis Market. Technically, it is. a third violation but because of the time elapsed between this violation and the previous violations, it is considered a first violation. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their ID's and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy or not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys. It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerks and issued them ~ citation if th~;y failed. If the underage youth was unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell alcohol within the City. The fines being recommended at this time are intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur during 2004. It is also recommended that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Resolution No. 9204 specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders and delineates the progressive discipline that can be expected when violations occur, such as the sale of alcohol to minors. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the first time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for five (5) consecutive days and levy a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,000 for the first violation. Staff is also proposing that each first time violating establishment attend a mandatory meeting with the Public Safety Director to present their individual establishment's plan to ensure eliminating any future actions of this kind. In addition, one employee, preferably the manager, must attend a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session, provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety. The cost of the training is to be paid for by the establishment. Staff recommends that the City Council suspend each of the second time violating establishment's license to sell alcohol for seven (7) consecutive days and levy a fine against each establishment in the amount of $1,750 for the second violation. Staff is also proposing that the Public Safety Director will select the seven consecutive days that the licenses will be suspended. It is further recommended that second time violating establishments be required to meet a second time with the Public Safety Director and to also conduct a mandatory alcohol and sales awareness training session with all of their employees. This training will be provided by a private firm approved by Public Safety, with all costs of the training to be paid by the establishment. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation to continue in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol compliance check. • Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishments for the sale of alcohol to a minor which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishments. This would, however, send a message to the community that children and their well-being are not a priority in Richfield. The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishments that sold alcohol to underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 9204 V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution for EI-Jalapeno Market's Discipline • Resolution for Frenchman's Discipline • Resolution for La Villa Restaurant's Discipline • Resolution for Oasis Market's Discipline VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from each of the establishments are expected to be in attendance at the meeting as they were notified in writing of the need for someone to be present. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR EL-JALAPENO MARKET, 1430 EAST 66TH STREET, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, EI-Jalapeno Market, ("Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their third failed alcohol compliance check but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first failure. The previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the December 13, 1999 meeting and the September 10, 2001 meeting and; WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on September 16, 2004 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 2004. 1. The Licensee's Off-Sale 3.2 Percent Intoxicating Malt Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before October 16, 2004, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by October 23, 2004 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 16th day of September, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSES FOR FRENCHMAN'S, 1400 EAST 66TH STREET SOUTH, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR SECOND TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Frenchman's, ("Licensee") holds On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor Licenses from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004 the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted a compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor and; WHEREAS, this is technically their third failed alcohol compliance check but because of the time that has elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a second failure. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the October 11, 1999 meeting and the March 23, 2004 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on September 16, 2004 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses are hereby suspended for a period of seven (7) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,750 is hereby imposed. On or before October 16, 2004, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,750. 3. Meet with the Director of Public Safety by .October 16, 2004 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. 2004. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 16th day of September, Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR LA VILLA RESTAURANT, 1120 EAST 66TH STREET, AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, La Villa Restaurant, ("Licensee") holds an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor License from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004 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 their first failed alcohol compliance check with the civil penalty for that failure being imposed by the Council at the September 16, 2004 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on September 16, 2004 and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before October 16, 2004, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Licensee will meet with the Director of Public Safety by October 16, 2004 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OFF-SALE 3.2 PERCENT INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR OASIS MARKET, 6300 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH; AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR FIRST TIME ALCOHOL COMPLIANCE FAILURE WHEREAS, Oasis Market ("Licensee") holds an Off-Sale 3.2 Percent intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004, 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. WHEREAS, this is technically their third failed alcohol compliance check but because of the time elapsed between now and the previous failures, it serves as a first. Their previous penalties were imposed by the Council at the July 23, 2002 and the February 22, 2003 October 11, 2003 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield City Council on September 04, and admitted the violation and stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The Licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of five (5) consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but to take place within 30 days of their Council appearance. 2. A civil penalty of $1,000 is hereby imposed. On or before October 16, 2004, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,000. 3. Licensee will meet with the Director of Public Safety by October 16, 2004 to present a written action plan to ensure future compliance. 4. One staff member, preferably the manager, must attend an alcohol compliance and sales awareness presentation conducted by a private firm, approved by Public Safety, with all costs to be paid by the establishment. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 16th day of September 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: prnnncPd (1rrlinanreS AGENDA ITEM # ~ ~ REPORT # 1 SO J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A Arm/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) No REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: N/A ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the second reading and approval of an ordinance amendment to change the trainin for individuals who sell to minors and the fines for sellin tobacco to undera a outh. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct the Second Reading and By Motion: Approve the attached ordinance amendment to change the training for individuals who sell to minors and change the fines for selling tobacco to underage youth. II. BACKGROUND In February of 2004, the City Council made a request to the Richfield Advisory Board of Health that they review the discipline grid for establishments that fail tobacco compliance checks. It was noted at that time that there wasn't a step four in the discipline process and that fines and lengths of suspensions may also need to be reviewed and updated. 0916 Second Reading of Tobacco Ordinance On February 23, 2004, at their regular meeting, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health began a discussion of the City's current tobacco ordinance. They were provided with copies of other neighboring city tobacco ordinances and compared them to one another. Members asked staff what had the biggest impact on establishments when they failed a compliance check, and staff responded that they are most affected by the length of a suspension. The suspension period results in lost revenue, in this case, for the sale of tobacco products. It was suggested that the board consider bringing violators before the City Council earlier and that fees/suspension periods be considered also. There was also a great deal of interest in staff conducting an analysis of the City's cost in conducting the compliance checks. On March 15, 2004, Board members met again and reviewed the cost analysis information prepared by staff. The board agreed that the City's current license fee for a tobacco license should remain as it is for 2004, with perhaps yearly, smaller increases thereafter. Members agreed that the fines should cover the cost of the compliance checks and should be comparable to what the surrounding cities are charging. At this meeting, the Board members came up with two option plans but wanted additional information on the revenue loss that can be expected when a business receives a suspension. On April 19, 2004, Board members agreed on one of the two original option plans and were prepared to introduce their recommendation to the City Council on May 11, 2004, which was their annual meeting with the City Council. On May 11, 2004, Board members presented their recommendation to the City Council and were told that a worksession would be scheduled at which time they could discuss their recommendation with the Council in more detail. At this meeting, members of the Council suggested that staff also consider whether there is a need to meet with Director Scott after a failure and/or a training component similar to that in place for alcohol compliance check failures. On June 22, 2004, Board members presented a draft of the ordinance for Council's review. The City Attorney had suggested that there be a "step back" component within the tobacco ordinance similar to the liquor discipline resolution so that after an establishment has passed two consecutive compliance checks, they would be eligible to "step back" one step. The Council also thought that the fine for a clerk selling tobacco to an underage individual should be increased from $50 to $100 and suggested that the City Attorney research whether the business could be held liable for that fine if the clerk fails to pay it. With those changes identified, the Council directed staff to return for a first reading of the ordinance amendment and scheduled it for July 27, 2004. On July 27, 2004, the City Council met and staff reported that a "step back" option, similar to the alcohol discipline grid, had been added to the tobacco ordinance. It is also the opinion of the City Attorney that businesses should not be held liable for paying a clerk's fee if the clerk sells tobacco to an underage youth. To clarify, this would be the City's administrative fine to the clerk, not the criminal action taken through the courts. All tobacco retailers received a copy of the amended ordinance on August 13, 2004 along with a letter highlighting the changes. They were encouraged to contact staff if they had any questions about the changes. No calls were received. The ordinance is being submitted for second reading and City Council approval at this time. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council directed the Richfield Advisory Board of Health to study the ordinance and make recommendations for changes to the Council. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health met several times during their meetings to discuss the ordinance and to amend it for the City Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL The fines connected with this ordinance are used in their entirety to pay for the cost of conducting tobacco compliance checks. Approximately, 15% of the fine money is also used for educational purposes within the community. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could decide to not update the ordinance. This would mean that licensed tobacco establishments would continue to pay the same fines as they have in the past. V. ATTACHMENTS Tobacco ordinance 1146 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CITY'S TOBACCO ORDINANCE, SECTION 1146 -TOBACCO, AND AMENDMENTS BEING MADE TO IT IN THE AREAS OF TRAINING, PENALTIES IF TOBACCO IS SOLD TO A MINOR, AND AN INCREASE IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AGAINST THE CLERK SELLING TO A MINOR. THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1146.05. Subsection 9 -Employee training is hereby amended to read as follows: Subd. 9. Employee training. The applicant must provide proof that an employee training program on tobacco sales has been ;w,^'°m°^+°~. provided during the license year by submitting records supporting that training at the time of their license renewal each year. Section 1146.23 Subsection 1 and 2 -Penalties and other individuals is amended to read as follows: Penalties. Subdivision 1. Licensees. Any license found to have violated this section, or whose employee shall have violated this section, shall be charged an administrative fee as follows: ; ttiittJ-dtfC1'F.~. ° +~mc°-iivCtt~C"~'1°11 ho ~~ ~~r~onrl o'J fir r~~+ Ie~+e. +h.+.~ n~.i`..~. .J....r.. First violation - $200 fine with no suspension. Second violation - If within 24 months of the first violation, $400 fine with a two day suspension (Council appearance mandatory) - If outside of 24 months of the first violation. it will be counted as a first violation. Third violation - If within 24 months of the second violation, $600 fine with a seven day suspension (Council appearance mandatory) - If outside of 24 months of the second violation, it will be counted as a second violation. Fourth violation - If within 24 months of the third violation, $1,000 fine with a suspension of up to 60 days, with the option to revoke the license (Council appearance mandatory) - If outside of 24 months of the third violation, it will be counted as a third violation. When a license is revoked, one year's time must elapse from the date of revocation before the establishment is eligible to reapply for a tobacco license. Step Back Option -The City's disciplinary penalties include a "step back" option as an incentive for licensed establishments. Under the "step back" option, each time an establishment passes two consecutive compliance checks, the establishment is deemed to have "stepped back" one violation level. For example, if an establishment has had a total of three violations but successfully passes two consecutive compliance checks after the third violation, the establishment "steps back" one level to the second violation level• if a subsequent violation were to occur the penalty would be imposed as if it were a third violation rather than a fourth violation Each step back requires two new consecutive successful compliance checks. Subd. 2. Other individuals. Individuals, other than licensees regulated by subdivision 1 of this subsection, found to be in violation of this section shall be charged an administrative fee of $5A 100. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: proposed Ordinances AGENDA ITEM # it REPORT # 149 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY OSBORN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~V ~,,~ ~~ "~ ~ y SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Motion to approve: • Second reading of an ordinance that repeals sections 1200, 1210, 1215, and 1225 in their entirety; and second reading of a new section 1202 which amends and adopts new sections relating to the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages; • Rescind Resolution No. 9204 and approve a new Resolution No. #### which revises the penalties section of the liquor discipline; • Approve summary publication of new ordinance section 1202 due to its length; • Approve Resolution No. #### which amends Appendix D and sets new license fees for the _ tem ora sale of 3.2 malt liquor and intoxicating liquor. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: • Approve second reading of an ordinance that repeals sections 1200, 1210, 1215, and 1225 in their entirety, and second reading of anew section 1202 which amends and adopts new sections relatin to the safe and consumption of alcoholic beveraaes: 0916 Second Reading Liquor Ordinance Changes • Rescind Resolution No. 9204 and approve a new Resolution No. #### which revises the penalties section of the liquor discipline; • Approve summary publication of new ordinance section 1202 due to its length; • Approve Resolution No. #### which amends Appendix D and sets new license fees for the temporary sale of 3.2 malt liquor and intoxicating liquor. II. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2003, staff met with the City Council t~ discuss some potential changes to the City's current liquor ordinance. Staff was specifically looking for direction on allowing businesses, per new state law, to stay open until 2 a.m.; allowing for alcohol sales on Sundays as early as 10 a.m.; allowing for temporary sale of intoxicating alcohol by groups; and, whether businesses in town should be allowed (off sale) to deliver alcohol to private homes. Staff also indicated that there are numerous housekeeping items that needed attention within the ordinance and some general updating of information. At that meeting, the Council gave staff the following direction: • The ordinance should allow for alcohol sales to occur up until 2 a.m. for those establishments that are licensed by the State to do so. • The ordinance should allow for the sale of alcohol to occur on Sundays as early as 10 a.m. • The ordinance should allow for the temporary sale of intoxicating alcohol by groups. • The ordinance should not allow for the delivery of alcohol from businesses in Richfield to private homes. At their April 13, 2004 worksession, the City Council directed staff to proceed in presenting the ordinance for a first reading. The first reading was scheduled for July 13, 2004. On July 13, 2004, the ordinance was presented to the City Council for consideration. The first reading of the ordinance received Council approval at that time. On August 12, 2004, staff sent a copy of the new ordinance to all licensed alcohol establishments along with a letter highlighting the changes. License holders were encouraged to contact staff if they had any comments or questions. They were also made aware that the second reading of the ordinance would occur on September 16, 2004 and were invited to attend if they chose to. Staff received no telephone calls or inquiries regarding the ordinance or any proposed changes. At this time, the ordinance is presented to the City Council for their second reading consideration and approval. ~ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • City ordinance requires that any changes to the language of an ordinance must be brought before the City Council for their consideration and review. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Issues relating to 2 a.m. sales have been added. • Issues relating to the starting time that alcohol can be served on Sundays have been added. • Allows for temporary sale of intoxicating alcohol by groups. • Does not allow for delivery of alcohol to private homes by businesses. C. FINANCIAL • Identifies fees for the temporary sale of on-sale intoxicating liquor and 3.2 malt liquor. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney's office has reviewed the document and made any necessary changes. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide not to approve the revised alcohol ordinance, which would mean that it would not be updated or merged from many sections into one section for easier retrieval for staff, residents and businesses. V. ATTACHMENTS • New Ordinance Section 1202. • Resolution to rescind Resolution No. 9204 and adopt a new resolution to clarify the "step back" option. • Resolution requesting summary publication of the new ordinance • Resolution requesting that Appendix D be amended to include new fees for the temporary sale of intoxicating a~cohol and 3.2 malt liquor. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT; REPEALING SECTIONS 1200, 1210, 1215, AND 1225 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE IN THEIR ENTIRETY, AMENDING CURRENT SECTIONS ANn ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter XII of the Richfield City Code is amended by repealing in their entirety the following Sections: Sections 1200, 1210, 1215, and 1225. Section 2. Chapter XII of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following new Section 1202: Section 1202 - General Provisions: License Applications, Eligibility and Restrictions 1202.01. Definitions. Subdivision 1. The definitions in this subsection will apply when these words and phrases are used in this chapter. Subd. 2. "Alcoholic beverage" means any beverage containing more than one- half of one percent alcohol by volume. Subd. 3. "City" means the City of Richfield. Subd. 4. "Club" or "veterans organization" means an incorporated organization organized under the laws of the state for civic, fraternal, social, or business purposes, for intellectual improvement, or for the promotion of sports, or a congressionally chartered veterans' organization, which: (i) has more than 30 members, (ii) has owned or rented a building or space in a building for more than one year that is suitable and adequate for the accommodation of its members; (iii) is directed by a board of directors, executive committee, or other similar body chosen by the members at a meeting held for that purpose. No member, officer, agent, or employee shall receive any profit from the distribution or sale of beverages to the members of the club, or their guests, beyond a reasonable salary or wages as may be fixed and voted each year by the governing body. Subd. 5. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of public safety of the state of Minnesota. Subd. 6. "Director" means the director of public safety or the director's designee. Subd. 7. "Hotel" means an establishment where food and lodging are regularly furnished to transients and which has: (i) a dining room serving the general public at tables and having facilities for seating at least 30 guests at one time; and (ii) not fewer than 25 guest rooms. Subd. 8. "Intoxicating liquor" or "liquor" means ethyl alcohol, distilled, fermented, spirituous, vinous and malt beverages containing more than 3.2 percent of alcohol by weight. Subd. 9. "Liquor stores" means the municipal liquor stores. Subd. 10. "Minor" means a person under the age of 21. Subd. 11. "Off-sale" means the sale of alcoholic beverages in original packages for consumption off the licensed premises only. Subd. 12 "On-sale" means the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises only. Subd. 13. "Restaurant" means an establishment, other than a hotel, under the control of a single proprietor or manager, where meals are regularly prepared on the premises and served at tables to the general public, and having appropriate facilities for serving no fewer than 40 guests at one time. Subd. 14. The terms "sale" and "sell" and "sold" include and refer to all barters and all manner of furnishing alcoholic beverages, including such furnishing in violation or evasion of law. Subd. 15. "3.2 percent malt liquor" means malt liquor containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume nor more than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight. Subd. 16. "Wine" is the product made from the normal alcoholic fermentation of grapes, including still wine, sparkling and carbonated wine, wine made from condensed grape must, wine made from other agricultural products than sound, ripe grapes, imitation wine, compounds sold as wine, vermouth, cider, perry and sake, in each instance containing not less than one-half of one percent nor more than 24 percent alcohol by volume for non-industrial use. 1202.03. State law adopted. Except as modified by this chapter, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes chapter 340A are adopted by reference. 1202.05. License. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person, except wholesalers or manufacturers authorized under state license, may directly or indirectly deal in, sell, or keep for sale any alcoholic beverages without first having received a license to do so as provided in this section. Subd. 2. License term. All licenses are effective January 1 through December 31. Subd. 3. Tvpes of licenses. The following types of licenses will be issued by the City: (a) 3.2 percent malt liquor. (1) On-sale. The city may issue on-sale licenses to restaurants, hotels, clubs and establishments having food licenses, provided that no 3.2 percent malt liquor manufacturer or wholesaler has any interest in such business. No more than 15 on-sale licenses will be issued. (2) Off-sale. The city may issue off-sale licenses for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor for consumption off the premises. (3) Temporary on-sale. The city may issue temporary on-sale licenses to clubs, or charitable, religious or non-profit organizations for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor. A temporary license for the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor is effective for a single period of not more than 12 consecutive hours. Only three temporary licenses may be issued to a single applicant in one calendar year. (b) Intoxicating liquor. (1) On-sale. The city may issue on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses only to hotels, restaurants, and clubs. No more than 10 licenses may be issued, excluding licenses issued to clubs. (2) Temporary on-sale. The city may issue temporary licenses for the on- sale of intoxicating liquor to (a) a club or charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organization in existence for at least 3 years; (b) a political committee registered under Minn. Stat. § 10A.14, or (c) a state university in connection with a social event within the city sponsored by the licensee. The temporary license may authorize the on-sale of intoxicating liquor for not more than four consecutive days, and may authorize on-sales on premises other than premises the licensee owns or permanently occupies. The temporary license may provide that the licensee may contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of a full-year on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by any municipality. (3) Additional restrictions on temporary licenses Temporary licenses for the on-sale of intoxicating liquor are subject to the following additional restrictions: (a) The city may not issue more than three four-day, four three- day, six two-day, or 12 one-day IicensAs, in any combination not to exceed 12 days per year to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within a 12-month period; (b) The city may not issue more than one license to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within any 30-day period unless the licenses are issued in connection with an event officially designated a community celebration by the. municipality; (c) If the city issues separate temporary wine and liquor licenses, the city may separately apply the limitations in paragraphs (a) and (b) to the issuance of such licenses to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location. (c) Sunday Sales. (1) Hotels, restaurants and clubs that hold an on-sale intoxicating liquor license and that have facilities for serving not less than 40 guests at one time, may obtain a Sunday sales license and serve alcoholic beverages between the hours of 10:00 a.m. Sunday and 2:00 a.m. Monday in conjunction with the serving of food. (2) No separate public hearing, bond, investigation fee or insurance is required for a Sunday sales license. (3) An applicant for a Sunday sales license may adopt, and need not repeat, the information contained in its on-sale license application, for use in its Sunday license application. (d) Wine. (1) On-sale wine licenses may be issued to restaurants, hotels and clubs. (2) No more than seven wine licenses may be issued. 1202.07. License Eligibility Subdivision 1. Ineligible person. No license may be granted to or held by: (a) any person who is ineligible for a license under state law; (b) any person who is under the age of 21 years of age; (c) any person who is not of good moral character and repute; (d) any person who has had an intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license revoked within five years of the license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; (e) any person who, within five years of the license application, has been convicted of a felony or any willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance, governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of an alcoholic beverage, or w,~ose liquor license has been revoked for any willful violation of any such laws or ordinances; (f) any person who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer or wholesaler; (g) any person who is directly or indirectly interested in any other establishment in the city to which a license has been issued under this chapter; the term "interested" as used in this paragraph means and includes any pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management or profits of such an establishment; (h) any person who is the spouse of a person ineligible for a license under this section; and (i) any person who, in the judgment of the city council, is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business operated, or to be operated, under the license. Subd. 2. Ineligible places. No license shall be granted to or held by: (a) any premises upon which taxes or assessments or other financial claims of the city or of the state are due, delinquent and unpaid. The city council may, upon request by the applicant or licensee, waive strict compliance with this provision if the applicant or licensee has contested their tax liabilities or other financial claims through a process permitted by federal or state regulations or by city ordinance; or is working out debt problems under the supervision of a bankruptcy court or pursuant to some other formal agreement No waiver may be granted, however, if taxes or any portion thereof, remain unpaid for a period exceeding one year after becoming due; or (b) any premises owned by a person who is ineligible under this chapter. Premises are not disqualified if the sole basis for disqualification is that the owner is a minor. Subd. 3. Specific entities. (a) Corporations. A corporation is ineligible for a license or a license renewal if any of its officers or managers are ineligible for a license under this subsection. (b) Restaurants. A license may not be granted to a restaurant which does not have a total market value, including land and buildings, of at least $600,000. (c) Hotels. A license may not be granted to a hotel which does not have a total market value, including land and buildings, of at least $1,000,000. (d) Veterans organization or club. A veterans organization or club that does not limit access to the organization's facilities to i~nembers and their bona fide guests is not eligible for a license. 1202.09. License applications in general. Subdivision 1. Filing. License applications must be filed with the director at least 60 days prior to the time that the business will open. Subd. 2. Contents of application. All license applications must contain the following information: (a) Whether the applicant is a natural person, corporation, partnership, or other form of organization; (b) The street number where the sale of liquor is to be conducted and the rooms where liquor is to be consumed; a floor plan of the licensed premises, including all rooms and areas where liquor is to be consumed; (c) Financial data acceptable to the city showing the amount of investment that the applicant has in the business, building, premises, fixtures, furniture, stock in trade and similar items, and proof of the source of such money; (d) The names, and addresses of all persons, other than the applicant, who have any financial interest in the business, buildings, premises, fixtures, furniture, or stock in trade, including, but not limited to, any lessees, lessors, mortgagees, mortgagors, lendors, lien holders, trustees, trustors, and persons who have co-signed notes or otherwise loaned, pledged, or extended security for any indebtedness of the applicant; and the name of such interest, the amount of the interest; terms for payment or other reimbursement; (e) Whether or not all real estate and personal property taxes for the premises to be licensed have been paid and, if not paid, the years for which such taxes are delinquent; (fl Copies of any agreements relating to the payment of taxes; (g) If the application of a license is for premises planned, under construction or undergoing substantial alteration, the application must be accompanied by a set of preliminary plans showing the design of the proposed premises to be licensed, unless such plans are already on file with the inspections division of the city; (h) Proof that the applicant has complied with all of the procedures required under the zoning regulations of the city to qualify the proposed licensed premises as an approved location; the council will not act upon an license application until the applicant has complied with all such regulations and the council has given final approval of the site and building plans; and (i) Any other information that the city council requires. Subd. 3. Additional information natural persons. If the applicant is a natural person, the following information shall be furnished: (a) true name, place and date of birth, and street residence address of the applicant; - (b) whether the applicant has ever used or been known by a name other than the applicant's true name, and if so, what was such name, or names, and information concerning dates and places where used; (c) the name of the business if it is to be conducted under a designation, name or style other than the full individual name of the applicant; (d) whether the applicant is married or single; if married, true name, place and date of birth and street residence address of the applicant's present spouse; (e) street addresses at which the applicant and present spouse have lived during the preceding ten years; (f) whether the applicant or the applicant's spouse, or the manager and all persons holding or possessing an interest in the husiness to be licensed, have ever been convicted for violation of any law of the United States, State of Minnesota, or any other state or territory or any municipal ordinance; (g) whether the applicant or applicant's spouse has ever been engaged as an employee or in operating a saloon, hotel, restaurant, cafe, tavern or other business of a similar nature, and if so, the applicant must furnish information as to the time, place and length of time; (h) the name, home address and business address of each person who is engaged in Minnesota in the business of selling, manufacturing or distributing intoxi- cating liquor and who is nearer of kin to the applicant or the applicant's spouse than second cousin, whether of whole or half blood, or who is a brother-in-law or sister- in-law of the applicant or applicant's spouse. Subd. 4. Additional information: partnership. If the applicant is a partnership, the application must provide the names and addresses of all partners and all information concerning each partner as required under this subsection of a natural person applicant or corporate applicant, as may be applicable. A managing partner or partners must be designated, the interest of each partner in the business must be disclosed, and a true copy of the partnership agreement must be submitted with the application. Subd. 5. Additional information: corporation. If the applicant is a corporation or other organization, the following information must be furnished: (a) the corporate name, and, if incorporated, the state of incorporation; (b) a true copy of the certificate of incorporation, articles of incorporation or association agreement and bylaws; (c) the name of the manager or proprietor or other agent in charge of the premises to be licensed, giving all the information about said person as is required of a natural person in subdivision 3 of this subsection; (d) a list of all natural persons who, singly or together with their spouse, or a parent, brother, sister or child of either of them, own or control an interest in said - corporation or association in excess of 5%, or who are officers of said corporation or association, together with their addresses and all other information required of a natural person in subdivision 3 of this subsection. Subd. 6. Execution of application. An application must be executed as follows: (a) an application by a natural person, by that person; (b) an application by a corporation, by an officer of the corporation; (c) an application by a partnership, by a partner; (d) an application by an incorporated association, by the manager or managing officer. 1202.11. License fees. Subdivision 1. Amounts. License fees are established by the city council and are fixed in appendix D to this code. Subd. 2. Payment. An applicant for any license must pay the total license fee when the application is filed. License fees will be paid into the general fund of the city. Upon rejection or withdrawal of any application for a license, the license fee will be refunded to the applicant except where rejection or withdrawal is for a willful misstatement in the license application. Subd. 3. Investi ation fee. (a) In general. At the time of each original application for a license, the applicant must also pay an investigation fee set by appendix D. If the expenses of the investigation exceed the investigation fee, the director will notify the applicant and require the applicant to pay an additional investigation fee as provided in appendix D which the director deems necessary to complete the investigation of the applicant. The applicant must pay any additional investigation fee within five days after notification and before the license will be issued. If such additional inves- tigation fee is not paid within the five day period, the city will give no further consideration to the application. (b) Exceptions. The city will not charge an investigation fee for a Sunday license. The city will,provide a partial or complete waiver of any applicable investigation fee if all of the following conditions exist: (1) the applicant is a fraternal, veterans, or charitable organization; (2) revenues in excess of operating expenses are contributed to the support of community projects or programs; and (3) the officers of the organization are elected by and responsible to the general membership. Subd. 4. Refunds. No part of a license or investigation fee shall be refunded except in accordance with this subsection or city council action. Subd. 5. Additional investigation. If additional investigation is required because of a change in the ownership, interest or control of a partnership or a corporation, or other reasons determined necessary by the director, the applicant must pay an additional investigation fee as provided in appendix D. 1202.13. Liability insurance. Subdivision 1. General requirement. No license may be issued unless the applicant demonstrates proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes section 340A.801. This subsection also applies to the municipal liquor stores as described in Section 1220 of this Chapter. Subd. 2. Proof of financial responsibility. Proof of financial responsibility must be submitted to the director at the time of application for a new license or renewal of an existing license and may be given by filing: (a) A certificate of insurance that there is in efrect an insurance policy issued by an insurer required to be licensed under Minnesota Statutes section 60A.07, subdivision 4, or by an insurer recognized as an eligible surplus lines carrier pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 60A.206 or pool providing at least $300,000 of coverage because of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence, $1,000,000 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence, $100,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence, $300,000 for loss of means of support of any one person in any one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrence; or (b) A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided in paragraph (a); or (c) A certificate of the state treasurer that the licensee has deposited with the state treasurer $300,000 in cash or securities which may be purchased by savings banks or for trust funds having a market value of $300,000. Subd. 3. Payment and coverage. (a) The insurance policies must provide that no payment of any claim by the insurance company will in any manner decrease the coverage provided for any other claim or claims brought against the insured or the insurer. (b) The insurance policies must provide coverage for claims arising out of incidents on both the interior and exterior of the licensed premises. (c) If the application for a license under this chapter is for a new license or a renewal, the applicant must provide proof of insurance valid from January 1 through December 31. If the application is for a license for any portion of a year, the applicant must provide proof of insurance valid from the date of approval of the license through December 31. Subd. 4. Exclusions. The insurance requirements in this subsection do not apply to licensees who by affidavit establish that: (a) they are on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licensees with sales of less than $25,000 of 3.2 percent malt liquor for the preceding year; (b) they are off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licensees with sales of less than $50,000 of 3.2 percent malt liquor for the preceding year; (c) they are holders of on-sale wine licenses with sales of less than $25,000 for wine for the preceding year; or (d) they are holders of temporary wine licenses issued under law. Subd. 5. Partnership. In the case of a partnership, any required bond or insurance policy must be in the name of all partners. 1202.15. Granting of licenses. Subdivision 1. Recommendation by director of public safety. Applications for licenses will be referred to the director and to such other city departments as the city manager deems necessary, for verification and investigation of the facts set forth in the application. The director will make such investigation of the information requested in subsection 1202.09 as necessary and will make a written recommendation and report to the council which will include a list of all violations of federal or state law or municipal regulations. Subd. 2. Public hearing. (a) A public hearing will be held for original applications on annual licenses. Upon completion of the director's preliminary report, the council will instruct the city clerk to publish a notice of the hearing in the official newspaper ten days in advance of the hearing to be held by the city council. The notice must set forth the day, time and place where the hearing will be held, the name of the applicant, the premises where the business is to be conducted, and such other information as the council may direct. (b) At the hearing, opportunity will be given to any person to be heard for or against the granting of the license. The applicant or applicant's representative must be present at the hearing to provide such additional information as may be required by the council. Failure to be present at the meeting is grounds for denial of the application. (c) After the hearing, the council may either grant or deny the license. If the council grants the license, the council may withhold its issuance until the applicant is fully-qualified for the license. If the premises to be licensed are not complete at the time that the hearing is conducted, the council may grant the license but will withhold its issuance until the premises have been completed in accordance with the representations made by the applicant. If a license has been granted but its issuance has been withheld pending completion of the premises to be licensed, and if the licensee does not complete the premises within a reasonable time, the council may rescind its action granting the license. Before the council takes such action, however, it must give the licensee at least eight days' mailed notice of the time and place of a hearing on the proposed rescission. 1202.17. Renewal applications Subdivision 1. Time. Applications for the renewal of a license must be filed with the director at least 60 days prior to the date of the expiration of the license. If in the judgment of the council good and sufficient cause is shown by any applicant for failure to file for a renewal within the time provided, the council may, if the other provisions of this section are complied with, waive this requirement and grant the application. Subd. 2. Statement for food sales. At the time a restaurant or hotel submits a renewal application for an on-sale license, the applicant must file with the director a statement made by a certified public accountant that shows the total alcohol sales and the total food sales of the restaurant or hotel for the 12-month period immediately preceding the date for filing the renewal application. 1202.19. Revocation. Subdivision 1. General. The city council may suspend or revoke a liquor license for the violation of any provision or condition of this section or of any state law or federal law regulating alcoholic beverages and will revoke a license for any willful violation which, under state law, is grounds for mandatory revocation. Subd. 2. Procedure. The city council will follow the revocation and suspension procedures in Minnesota Statutes, section 340A.415. 1202.21. License restrictions. Subdivision 1. All licenses are subject to the restrictions in this subsection, unless otherwise provided. Subd. 2. Hours of operation. (a) No sale of alcoholic beverages may be made: (1) between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Sunday; and (2) between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Monday through Saturday. (b) Any establishment that keeps or sells alcoholic beverages must be closed to the public by 2:00 a.m. After 2:00 a.m., no person may remain on the premises, except the owner or licensee, or the owner's or licensee's agents or employees only for the purpose of cleaning, preparing meals, making repairs or performing other work-related duties. (c) It is unlawful for alcoholic beverages to be drunk or consumed on the licensed premises during the times when the sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited. During the times that such sale is prohibited, no alcoholic beverages are permitted to be on any table, booth, bar, or other place in the licensed premises. Subd. 3. Laws and ordinances. All licenses are subject to the provisions of this section and of any other applicable ordinance or law. Subd. 4. Posting. The written license must be posted in a conspicuous place in the licensed premises at all times. Subd. 5. Conduct. The licensee is responsible for the conduct of the place of business and for the conditions of sobriety and order in the place of business and on the premises. Subd. 6. No combination sales. (a) On-sale licensees may not sell alcoholic beverages off-sale. (b) No 3.2 percent malt liquor licensee may permit the consumption of intoxicating liquor on the licensed premises, unless licensed to do so. Subd. 7. Applicant only. All licenses must be issued to the applicant only. Subd. 8. No transfer of licenses. (a) Licenses may not be transferred to a different person, location, or premises. (b) A transfer is deemed to occur if: (1) there is a change in the business structure or organization of the licensee, including, but not limited to, changes in the corporate or association officers, charter, articles of incorporation, bylaws or partnership agreement; (2) there is a change in the legal or beneficial ownership of corporate stock which, together with the interest of a spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child, involves 5% or more of the corporate stock; (3) there is a grant of any power of attorney, voting proxy, pledge or other assignment of the voting rights of corporate stock which will affect alone, or in conjunction with any other assignment to the same assignee, their spouse, parents, brother, sister, or child, 5% or more of the voting shares of stock; (4) there is the creation of any new pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management, or profits of the licensed business; or (5) there is the existence of any other situation whereby individuals other than those listed in the original license application acquire a role in the management, operation or profits of the licensed business. (c) Upon the occurrence of-any corporate change in paragraph (b), a new license application and required fees. containing all of the information required under subsection 1202.09 must be filed with the director. (d) Notification of any corporate change in paragraph (b) must be submitted to the director not less than 30 days before such changes are to be made. Subd. 9. Licensed area. A license shall be issued only for the premises described in the application and is not effective beyond the compact and contiguous space shown in the application. Subd. 10. Employment of Minors. (a) Except as provided in this subdivision, no person under 18 years of age may be employed in a place where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises. (b) Persons under 18 years of age may be employed as musicians or in bussing or washing dishes in a restaurant, hotel, club, or other establishment, provided that the person under the age of 18 may not serve or sell any alcoholic beverages. (c) No person under 18 years of age may offer for sale, sell, or in any way assist in the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises. This prohibition does not apply to activities merely incidental to the sale of alcoholic beverages, such as stocking shelves or carrying alcoholic beverages from the establishment at a customer's request. Subd. 11. Illegal sales. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold, furnished or delivered to any obviously intoxicated person, to a minor or to any person to whom sale is prohibited by state law. Subd. 12. Gambling prohibited. No licensee or any employee of a licensee may keep, possess, or operate or permit the keeping, possession or operation on the licensed premises, or in any room adjoining the licensed premises of any gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 349.30, or any gambling device or apparatus which is capable of being used for unlawful gambling. This subdivision does not prevent lawful - gambling on the licensed premises for which a license has been obtained pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 349.16. Subd. 13. Prostitution. No licensee or any employees may knowingly permit the licensed premises or a room in those premises or any adjoining building directly or indirectly under the licensee's control to be used as a resort for prostitutes. Subd. 14. Nudity. (a) It is unlawful for any person on premises licensed under this chapter to: (1) Employ or use any person in the sage or service of alcoholic . beverages in or upon the licensed premises while such person is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing so as to expose or to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or of any portion of the pubic hair, anus, cleft or the buttocks, vulva or genitals. (2) Employ or use services of any host or hostess while such host or hostess is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as described in paragraph (1) above. (3) Employ or use any dancers, musicians or other performers or _ entertainers, who are unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as described in paragraph (1) above. (4) Directly or indirectly sponsor any contests which may foreseeably cause, result in, or lead to the occurrence of the acts or incidents described in paragraph (6) below. (5) Encourage or permit any person on the licensed premises to touch, caress or fondle breast, buttocks anus or genitals of any employee of the licensee or any performers or entertainers who are employed or whose services are used by the licensee. (6) Permit any person. to perform acts of or acts which.simulate: a. With or upon another person sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual act which is prohibited by law. b. Masturbation or bestiality. c. With or upon another person the touching, caressing or fondling of the buttocks anus, genitals or female breasts. d. The displaying of pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals or female breasts below the top of the areola. (7) Permit any person to use artificial devices or inanimate objects depicting any of the prohibited activities described in this subdivision. - (8) Permit any person to remain in or upon the licensed premises, or any area owned or controlled by the licensee upon the licensee's premise, who permits the public to view any portion of their genitals or anus. (9) Permit the showing of film, still pict~:res, electronic reproduction or other visual reproduction depicting: a. Acts or simulated acts of sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual act which is prohibited by law. b. Any person being touched, caressed or fondled on the breast, buttock, anus, or genitals. c. Scenes wherein a person displays the vulva, the anus or the genitals. d. Scenes wherein artificial devices or inanimate objects are employed to depict, or drawings are employed to portray, any of the prohibited activities described in this subdivision. (b) The provisions of this subdivision do not apply to any theatrical production _ performed in a theater by a professional theatrical or musical company which has serious artistic merit. (c) Both the licensee and the person(s) actually engaging in any of the acts prohibited by paragraph (a) of this subdivision wiil be criminally liable. Any violation of this subdivision will also constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of the licensee's license. Subd. 15. Inspections. (a) A properly designated officer or employee of the city may enter, inspect and search the licensed premises during business hours without a warrant. (b) A properly designated officer or employee of the city may inspect the business records of the licensee, including federal and state tax returns, at all reasonable times. Subd. 16. DisplaX. No licensed establishment may display alcoholic beverages to the public during hours when the sale of liquor is prohibited by this chapter. Subd. 17. Federal stamp. A licensee may not apply for or possess a federal wholesale or retail liquor dealer's special tax stamp or a federal gambling stamp. Subd. 18. Restaurants and hotels. Restaurants and hotels licensed under this chapter must be conducted such that of the total alcohol and food sales, more than fifty (50) percent of that total is derived from business activities related to the serving of food. Subd. 19. Notice required. (a) All licensed establishments, and municipal liquor stores, must post and maintain in a conspicuous place within the licensed premises clearly visible to consumers: one sign 14 - % inches wide by 8 inches high as designed by the commissioners of health and public safety, which incorporates the following information: (1) the penalties of driving while under the influence of alcohol; (2) the penalties for serving alcoholic beverages to a person who is obviously intoxicated or under 21 years of age; and (3) a warning statement regarding drinking alcohol while pregnant. (b) The licensee or municipal liquor store may not modify the sign as designed by the commissioners of health and public safety, but may modify the color of the sign. Subd. 20. Original package. A licensee may not sell, offer for sale, or keep for sale, alcoholic beverages in any original package which has been refilled or partly refilled. No licensee may in any manner tamper with the contents of an original package so as to change its composition or alcoholic content while in the original package. Possession on the premises by the licensee of any alcoholic beverage in the original package differing in the composition or alcoholic content in the liquor when received from the manufacturer or wholesaler from whom it was purchased will be rp ima facie evidence that the contents of the original package has been diluted, changed or tampered with. Subd. 21. Delivery prohibited. Licensed establishments may not deliver alcoholic beverages off the licensed premises. 1202.23. Enlargement, alteration or extension of licensed premises. The proposed enlargement, alteration or extension of any licensed premises must be reported to the director at or before the time an application is made for a building permit for the change. The licensee must also provide any additional information as required by subsection 1202.09. Section 3. Chapter XII of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following new Section 1204: Section 1204 -Minors 1204.01. Adoption of state law. Minnesota StatutES sections 340A.503 and 340A.412, subdivision 10 are adopted by reference and apply to all retail liquor establishments, including the municipal liquor stores. 1204.03. Restrictions involving minors. Subdivision 1. General prohibitions. No licensee, its agent or employee or a municipal liquor store, may sell, serve, or dispense alcoholic beverages to a minor. No licensee, its agent or employee or a municipal liquor store, may permit a minor to be furnished or to consume any alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. Subd. 2. Giving or procuring for minors. No person may give, procure or purchase, alcoholic beverages for a minor. Subd. 3. Inducing. No person may induce a minor to purchase or procure alcoholic beverages, unless. the inducement is related to a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Subd. 4. .Possession. No minor may be in possession of any alcoholic beverage for his or her own consumption or for consumption by any other person. Possession by a minor of any alcoholic beverage will create a rebuttable presumption of intent to consume. Subd. 5. Misrepresentation of age. No minor may misrepresent his or her age for the purpose of obtaining or purchasing alcoholic beverages. Section 4. Chapter XII, Section 1205 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: Section 1205 -Consumption and display 1205.01. Statutes adopted by reference. Minnesota Statutes section 340A.414 regulating the licensing of establishments for the consumption and display of intoxicating liquor is adopted by reference. Section 5. Chapter XII of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding the following new Section 1208: Section 1208 -Specific Conditions for Intoxicating Liquor Licenses 1208.01. Employee Licenses. Subdivision 1. General Rule. All employees of a premises licensed under this section, including, but not limited to, managers, bartenders, and wait persons, who serve or dispense alcoholic beverages in any manner must be licensed by the city. An employee must apply for the license within seven days after being first employed. Subd. 2. Application. An employee must complete the application provided by the city. The application must contain the following information: (a) a history of the applicant's addresses for the last five years; (b) the record, if any, of any arrests and convictions for crimes and misdemeanors, other than traffic offenses. Subd. 3. Review of application. The director will review and investigate the facts in the application, and either approve or deny the license. If the director approves the license, it will be issued immediately. If the director denies the license, the applicant may request a hearing before the city council and may offer evidence to show that the license should be issued. Subd. 4. _Ineligibility for license. If, within ten (10) years of the license application, the applicant has been convicted of a felony or a~iy willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance, governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of an alcoholic beverage, or has knowingly falsified information in the application, the applicant is not eligible for a license. Subd. 5. Revocation. The city may revoke an employee's license for any violation of this chapter or Minnesota Statutes section 340A, or for any conviction of any crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. Subd. 6. License term. An employee license is valid for two years from its issuance. Subd. 7. License fee. The fee for an employee license is set by the city council and is as provided in appendix D to this code. Section 7. Chapter XII, Section 1220 of the Richfield City Code is amended as follows: Section 1220 -Municipal liquor stores 1220.03. Li uor stores established and continued. The municipal liquor stores, established pursuant to council resolution dated January 30, 1943, are hereby established and continued. 1220.05. Locations. The liquor stores will be located at a suitable place or places in the city as the council determines. The location sites and facilities may be either leased or owned by the city. 1220.07. Regulations; liquor operations director established. The liquor stores will be in the immediate charge of the liquor operations director. Policies relating to the operation of the liquor stores will be determined by the city council. The liquor operations director will be assisted by such other employees as the council may authorize. The liquor operations director will have full charge of the liquor stores and will have authority to purchase supplies as are necessary. 1220.09. Hours of business. The liquor stores may be open for business only during the days and hours authorized by state law. 1220.11. Limitations. No business other than the sale of alcoholic beverages and other items offered for sale at the liquor stores may be carried on by the liquor operations director and employees while they are so employed. 1220.13. Payment for merchandise. Checks maybe accepted in payment for merchandise, in the discretion of the liquor operations director, provided such checks are for the purchase price of the merchandise only. Credit cards issued by national credit companies which have entered into credit agreements N~ith the city, may also be accepted in payment for merchandise, in the discretion of the liquor operations director. No other form of credit may be advanced by the liquor stores. 1220.15. Clean conditions required. The liquor stores must be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. 1220.17. Consumption on premises prohibited. No alcoholic beverages may be sold for consumption on liquor store premises. 1220.19. Loitering prohibited. Habitual loitering about a liquor store is prohibited. 1220.21. Delive rohibited. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or delivered by liquor store employees or any agents thereof, except on the liquor store premises. 1220.23. Liquor store fund. The liquor store fund established pursuant to council resolution dated January 30, 1943, is hereby establishe~J and continued. All revenues received from the operation of the liquor stores will be paid into such fund and all operating expenses will be paid out of such fund, subject to the provisions of the city charter. 1220.25. Sale prohibited. Intoxicating liquor may not be sold off-sale at retail, or by any liquor store employee, in the city except at the liquor stores. Adopted this day of , 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. ##~/# RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR, WINE AND 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9204. WHEREAS, at their July 13, 2004 Council meeting, City Council directed staff to update the City's current alcohol discipline document. This, therefore, is a new Resolution that specifies the discipline an alcohol establishment can expect for the types of violations listed and rescinds Resolution No. 9204; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: I. BACKGROUND STATEMENT The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the sale of on- sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code. Although the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected of licensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which may subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. The list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not .intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establishments. Other activity or conduct which is detrimental to the public safety, health, morals and welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions which the City may take in accordance with-this resolution are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. II. SPECIFIC PROHIBITED CONDUCT AND PROPOSED SANCTIONS. A. Noise and Other Disturbing Conduct Within or Near the Licensed Premises. Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment whom are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the continued operation of a licensed alcohol establishment in circumstances where it is evident that the licensed activity is having a detrimental 'mpact upon the health, welfare, safety and morals of the community and patrons of the establishment. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons entering or leaving): 1) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 2) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 3) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outlined above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the Director of Public Safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code of the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the Director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for services in situations where the licensee is capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal misconduct. The Department of Public Safety shall establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee fails to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license: 1) For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year -suspension of license for up to five days and a civil fine of $2,000. 2) For the second such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. 3) For the third such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. Serving Alcoholic Beverages Beyond the Interior of the Licensed Premises or Permitting Patrons to Leave such Licensed Premises with Alcoholic Beverages. Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses: 1) The first incident during the license year- up to a 10-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the license year -- up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth incident during the license year -revocation of license. C. Permitting Occupancy to Exceed the Limits Permitted Under the Uniform Fire Code 25.114 (overcrowding) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environment wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shall state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for incidents of overcrowding verified by the City's Public Safety Director or their designee' 1) The first incident during the license year- up to a 10-day license suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the license year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year -revocation of the license. D. Facilitating Gambling. Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises, which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises, which could be used, for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling devica as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01. For any incident of facilitation of gambling, the on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license may be suspended for up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. E. Effect of Suspension or Revocation of Food License. On-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the .result of actions taken by the City Manager, enforcement officer or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. F. The Sale, Consumption or Service to a Minor of Intoxicating Liquor, Wine or 3.2 Malt Liquor. Licensees must assure that the sale, consumption or service to a minor of any alcoholic beverage is prohibited under any condition. Failure to do so will result in swift and severe progressive civil penalties. The following discipline will be imposed upon on- sale intoxicating, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports or compliance checks of misconduct occurring at the establishment: 1) For a first offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for (five) 5 days and a civil fine of $1000 will be due and payable to the City. 2) For a second offense, (if within one (1) year of the first offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for seven (7) days and a civil fine of $1750 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of one (1) year of a first offense, it will be considered a first offense. 3) For a third offense, (if within 2_years of the second offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for 12 days and a civil fine of $2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of a second offense, it will be considered a second offense. 4) For a fourth offense, (if within 2 years of the third offense), the establishment's license will be brought before the City Council fora 'revocation hearing and a civil fine of $2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of two years of a third offense, it will be considered a third offense. 5~ For a fifth offense, (if within 2 years of the fourth offense, the establishment's license will be revoked for the remainder of the license year and a civil fine of $2,000 will be due and payable to the City. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. A revocation hearing at the fourth offense level would result in a hearing before the City Council to discuss whether there are alternatives available that can be agreed upon by Council and the owner of the establishment to prevent the need to revoke the establishment's license. Alternatives will be determined on a case-by-case basis. If no alternatives exist, the license would be revoked. If feasible alternatives exist, conditions will be placed on the licensee by the City Council. A fine will be assessed in either instance. An establishment whose license is revoked is ineligible for a license for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. Step Back Option - It is possible to "step back" a failure level if an establishment has successfully passed a minimum of two consecutive compliance checks. For example, if an establishment is at the third offense level but has successfully passed two consecutive compliance checks since the last failure, they are eligible to "step back" to a second offense level. This provides a serious incentive to establishments to work on keeping their record clean so that they can "step back" in the discipline grid. If an establishment passes two consecutive compliance checks, they step back one offense level. It is, however, possible that if an establishment has several failures but continues to pass compliance checks time after time for several years, they may eventually "step back" to the step one starting point. Each step back requires two new consecutive passes. Previous passes to "step back" can not be used toward future passes. G. General Provisions Regarding Sanctions. In addition to the sanctions listed for specific offenses listed in paragraphs A through F above, the City Council may impose other mandatory requirements upon the establishment such as: meetings with the Public Safety Director to present a plan of action to assure that the problem will not continue; mandatory educational sessions with Crime Prevention staff; or other actions that the City Council deems appropriate. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time to time and to impose penalties greater than or less than those contained herein when in the judgment of the Council it is appropriate to do so. The City Council may suspend all or a portion of any penalty or license suspension upon compliance with such conditions as the Council deems appropriate. Prior to imposing any monetary penalty or license suspension or revocation, the City Council will set an initial appearance at which the licensed establishment must appear before the City Council to admit or deny the violation. If the violation is admitted, the licensed establishment will be allowed to explain any mitigating circumstances at the time of the initial appearance. If the violation is denied, the licensed establishment may request a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance. Licensed establishments may explain mitigating circumstances or request a hearing in writing prior to the initial appearance or may do so orally by appearing at the initial appearance. The City Council strongly encourages licensed establishments to make a personal appearance at the initial appearance. A licensed establishment that does not rec;uest a hearing at or prior to the initial appearance will be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing, and the City Council may deem the violation admitted and impose sanctions as provided in this resolution. Where a hearing is requested, the City Council may conduct the hearing or refer the hearing to an independent hearing examiner. All hearings involving possible suspension or revocation of a license will be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 16th day of September 2004. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF BILL NO. #### WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL NO. #### AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT; REPEALING SECTIONS 1200, 1210, 1215, AND 1225 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE IN THEIR ENTIRETY, AMENDING CURRENT SECTIONS AND ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS RELATING TO THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES On September 16, 2004, the Richfield City Council adopted an ordinance designated as Bill No. ####, the title of which is stated above. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. This ordinance merges four current sections of the ordinance into one new section, revises the City's liquor discipline resolution, and amends Appendix D to include new fees for the temporary sale of 3.2 malt and intoxicating liquor. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the City Clerk during normal business hours or upon request by calling Betsy Osborn at (612) 861-9881 of the Public Safety Department, Support Services Division. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk be directed to keep a copy of the ordinance in the city clerk's office at city hall for public inspection and to post a full copy of the ordinance in a public place in the City for a period of two weeks. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. # RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION 9417 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2004 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES" PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9417 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The following shall be added to SECTION 11. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES Type of Permit Section Of License Requiring Description Fee (1) 3.2 Malt Liquor 1202.05 (f) Temporary $50.00 per event License (2) Liquor 1202.05 (e) Temporary $100.00 per event License Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September 2004. I~lartin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Public Hearings 10 148 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. 36 REPORT PREPARED BY: ArD/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO 5, 19, 29 JULIE URBAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLF, COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing regarding resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan for the Cedar Point area. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:. Conduct and close the .public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan that would change the designation of properties in the Cedar Point area from Single Family Residential, Single Family Residential High .Density, and Community Commercial to Re Tonal Commercial/Office. II. BACKGROUND • In 1998, the City determined that noise impacts from the new north-south .runway will severely impact residential properties located in the Cedar Corridor, an area from Bloomington Avenue to Trunk Highway 77 and 62nd to 77th Streets. The Planning Commission worked with the community to develop a noise mitigation plan for the Cedar Corridor. 091604 Comp Plan • The noise mitigation plan called for redevelopment of the area to land uses compatible with low frequency noise. • In January of 2000, a master plan, based on the noise mitigation plan, was presented to the community. • The 2000 master plan called for retail development in the area from 63rd to 66th Streets and 17th Avenue to Trunk Highway 77 ("Cedar Point"). • In September 2000, a committee of noise experts endorsed by both the City and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) identified an 87 dB low frequency area where impact from the runway will be such that redevelopment needs to occur. This area is smaller than the original Cedar Corridor area reflected in the master plan. • The Richfield Housing & Redevelopment Authority is currently in discussions with the Ryan Companies regarding the development of a regional retail center in the Cedar Point area. • The Comprehensive Plan Guide Plan, adopted in 1997, designates the Cedar Point area as a mix of uses including single family residential, high-density single family residential, office, community commercial and regional commercial/office. • A plan amendment to designate the entire Cedar Point area as Regional Commercial/Office is necessary to proceed with the proposed retail development. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • The goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are supportive of the proposed amendment. Specifically, Goal 5 calls for the City to "Promote diverse development that will broaden the tax base while reinforcing the residential character of Richfield." • The existing housing in the area is not an appropriate land use in the 87 dB low frequency noise area. Redevelopment of the Cedar Point area with large structures and land uses less sensitive to low frequency noise is necessary. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In 2004, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) hired JLG Architects to revise the Cedar Corridor plan to reflect the current 87 dB low frequency noise area. It is anticipated that the final JLG plan will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the entire Corridor. The plan is nearing completion; however, staff is recommending that a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Cedar Point area proceed ahead of the broader amendment in order to accommodate the Ryan development in a timely fashion if and when a development agreement is approved. • The proposed guide plan change is consistent with the 2000 master plan, which calls for retail development in this area. The 2000 master plan was never adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan because the results of the noise committee expert panel came out later that year and established a smaller impact area. • Additional zoning, financial, and environmental approvals will be needed before the development can move forward. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is one step in the review process for the Cedar Point development and is needed before a rezoning can be _ approved. • The length of the Met Council review process can vary from as little as 10 days to as many as several months. The amendment process is being started now to allow time to address any issues or information requests raised by Met Council staff. Final approval of the amendment by the City Council will be contingent upon the Cedar Point development moving forward. C. FINANCIAL • There are no financial issues relating to the amendment. D. LEGAL • The City Council must adopt and amend the Comprehensive Plan by resolution by two-thirds vote of the full Council. (Four of the five members must vote in favor of the amendment.) • The amendment would be contingent upon Metropolitan Council approval. • On July 27, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the recommended amendment and voted unanimously to support the amendment. With one exception, the people who spoke at the hearing focused on the mechanics of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the redevelopment process. The hearing concluded with a round of applause from the public in attendance. • The City Council is not required by state statute to conduct a public hearing on a Comprehensive Plan amendment; however, it has been City policy for both the Planning Commission and City Council to hold public hearings. • A notice of public hearing was mailed on August 31, 2004. • Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun-Current on September 2, 2004. ~ IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(Sl ~ • Decide not to amend the Comprehensive Plan at this time; however, this could delay many other aspects of the development process. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Attachment A, map of existing and proposed Comprehensive Plan classifications • Attachment B, excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Residents within and adjacent to the development area may be present. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES IN THE CEDAR POINT AREA TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL/OFFICE WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan provides a Guide Plan establishing classifications for individual property; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Guide Plan designates the area from Trunk Highway 77 to 17th Avenue and 63rd to 66th Streets ("Cedar Point Area") as Single Family Residential, Single Family Residential High Density, .and Community Commercial; and WHEREAS, the City has studied this area and determined that projected airport- related noise will make the area more appropriate for commercial uses instead of residential uses; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Guide Plan classifications and determined that it would be appropriate to change the classification of this area to Regional Commercial/Office; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 27, 2004 concerning modifying the Guide Plan and approved the modification; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the amendment on September 16, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota that the City's Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to change the Cedar Point Area from Single Family Residential, Single Family Residential High Density, and Community Commercial to Regional Commercial/Office, contingent upon the following: 1. The revision is submitted to and approved by the Metropolitan Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: ~~-' Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 091604 Comp Plan EXISTING GUIDE PLAN F u z. 0 a m .3RD S1' E Plan Designation Community Comm'L. Reg'I. Comm'L/Office ® Com. Comm'I./Office ®Office Single Family Res. S. F. Res.- High Dens. !~ Public ~ .~ ~~ Park Church ~ ~~ School Quasi Pub. -Utility ~- - - - ~: ~~ ~~ ~,,~ I 1-' --~~ ~ ,... __.L__~_ _ ..__ ~.. Attachment A -Page 1 ,_ ._ °' - ~ ;, i~~ 0 315 630 Feet July 2004 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N W E S ~----, ~. PROPOSED GUIDE PLAN Plan Designation ~~ -~-~ Community Comm'L. ~e,,_ ~., ~.,,~; :r Reg I. Comm'I./Office ~• ' ~ -~~~ F~. ~~~i Com. Comm'I./Office ~ ~°~'~'~`~ ~ w `w y~,'~e.``~ ~,~ Office ~t=~; ~'~~"~"~.~' Single Family Res. ~, ay , S. F. Res.- High Dens. ~`~~ ~~.:~~.~' Public i4~ "•~„` ', *, ~. ~, ti~',~+' Park ~~~~~',~~,~~ ® Church ~' ~. ~ ~,, School ~~~ ~,~ ~~, ~., ~~~~~ Quasi Pub. - Utilit ~~ ~,. ~ ~. ~ ,, ~ 4 l ~ '~ : fit! I ~ ~ ~ 0 ~4`~~ ,xo ~` Y, x. i i July 2004 Attachment A -Page 2 N 0 160 320 640 Feet W E S Attachment B Excerpt from pages ONE-25 and THREE-21 D. CEDAR AVENUE CORRIDOR The Plan proposal for the corridor area between East 63rd Street and Diagonal Boulevard is proposed to be largely redeveloped to attract REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (C-R), COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL(C-C), and OFFICE (O), including ofF'ice-showroom as the primary uses. Some commercial uses related to the office-showroom use would also be appropriate for these areas. The intersection of East 66th Street and relocated Cedar Avenue would be designated °~~.;_ nd affords the opportunity to attract a major regional commercial use such as a , regional retail center. The existing church will provide a transition use from the community commercial north of East 66th Street, and SINGLE-FAMILY, HIGH-DENSITY (R-SFH) provides a transition between East 66th Street and East 67th Street. The East 66th Street Corridor plan addresses uses along East 66th Street to the west. AGENDA SECTION: publ i A a ingS AGENDA ITEM # q REPORT # 147 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~ REVIEW: / IGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY ~/ t~ MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution authorizing the issuance of Senior Housing Revenue Refundin Bonds, Series 2004. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve a resolution authorizing the refunding of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A and 20006, with the issuance of Series 2004 Senior Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. II. BACKGROUND At the August 24, 2004 City Council meeting a preliminary resolution was approved giving preliminary approval to the refunding of the Series 2000A and 20008 Senior Housing Revenue Bonds and the calling of a public hearing on the issuance of the Senior Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2004. 09162004RSHRefinancing In addition, the Council waived the guidelines on minimum denominations of the bonds issued and deferred the payment of the annual administrative fee to the end of the term of the refunding bonds. On October 18, 1999 the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment with Richfield Senior Housing, Inc. for the redevelopment of the Lyndale Gateway area. The development is the Mainstreet Village Senior Apartments and offices on the east side of Lyndale Avenue which includes a 161 unit senior apartment complex and 38,000 sq. ft. of adjoining office space. As part of the financing of the development, in December 1999, the Richfield City Council approved the issuance of up to $20,000,000 of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A and 20006. The purpose of the bonds was for property acquisition and construction costs. In addition to the issuance of the Senior Housing Revenue Bonds, the HRA loaned to Richfield Senior Housing, Inc. $338,251 to cover additional condemnation and site assembly costs that exceeded projections. Finally, the refinancing would provide sufficient proceeds to allow Richfield Senior Housing to repay the $338, 251 HRA loan. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Under the Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4620 the City of Richfield has authority to issue revenue bonds. • The Borrower has submitted an Application For Tax Exempt Bond Financing to the City with respect to the proposed Refunding Bonds. • With regard to the procedure for the level of bond denominations to be sold, the Council may depart from the guideline when in its judgement the project is of a level of merit and public purpose to justify the departure. However, in case of such a departure, the Council must state its reasons in the resolution awarding the sale of the bonds. • The Council has deferred the payment of the annual administrative fee to the end of the term of the refunding bonds. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The waiving of the administrative fee and minimum denominations need to be documented in the final resolution approving the sale of the bonds. • The issuance of these bonds will not count against the City's annual allotment of Bank Qualified Debt. C. FINANCIAL • The preliminary estimated amount of the refunding bonds is to be $20,275,000. • As of August 31, 2004 the Richfield HRA had an outstanding loan - receivable of $338,251 from Richfield Senior Housing. • The refinancing would include sufficient proceeds to allow Richfield Senior Housing to immediately repay the $338,251 loan. • 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 City has received anon-refundable application fee in the amount of $2,500. • The Council has deferred the annual administrative fee of 1/8th of 1% (.125%) of the outstanding principal balance of the bonds to the end of the bond term. By deferring the annual administrative fee, the City would not collect the fees until the end of the bond term, which is expected to be 35 years. The amount deferred is estimated to be $300,000. 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. Notice of public hearing was published August 26, 2004 in the Sun Newspapers. Time and date of the public hearing is 6:30 p.m. on September 16, 2004. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Forgo approving the attached resolution and not go forward with the issuance of the refunding bonds. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Authorizing the Refunding of Senior Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A and 20006, with the Issuance of Series 2004 Senior Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Richfield Senior Housing ke ~! ~ 5 ecL. ~~~ S I?.~p t- 1 7 ~~' " ~ N NO. + -~ A R ~ ~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHF] ~ ~Ci~ PRIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, JSING REVENUE REFUNDING BO I (~ fSING, INC. PROJECT), SERIES 2004, IN i nr, vtuull~Ai, AliliKl:(iATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF UP TO $21,500,000 (THE "BONDS"), WHICH BONDS AND THE INTEREST AND ANY PREMIUM THEREON SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE REVENUES PLEDGED PURSUANT TO THE INDENTURE OF TRUST; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE INDENTURE OF TRUST, THE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE BONDS; APPROVING THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF THE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), is a home rule charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the Issuer is authorized to issue its revenue bonds or obligations in such principal amount as, in the opinion of the Issuer, is necessary to provide sufficient funds for financing a "development" as defined in the Act, and to refund obligations previously issued for such purpose; and WHEREAS, Richfield Senior Housing, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower") has acquired and constructed a 130-unit senior housing facility and an attached 31-unit assisted living facility in the City of Richfield (collectively, the "Project"), using the proceeds of the Issuer's Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Richfield Senior Housing, Inc. Project) Series 2000A and 2000B (the "Prior Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to refinance the Project pursuant to the Act and this Resolution by the issuance of the Bonds, the proceeds of which will be used by the Borrower to refund the Prior Bonds and to refinance certain other indebtedness of the Borrower to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA Debt"), incurred in connection with the Project; and WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust, as hereinafter defined, and a pledge and assignment of certain other revenues, all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture of Trust, and the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, nor shall the Bonds constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than the Project; and WHEREAS, the Issuer on the date hereof has held a public hearing relating to the issuance of the Bonds with respect to the Project in accordance with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; -1- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. For the purpose of refinancing the Project through the refunding of the Prior Bonds and the refinancing of the HRA Debt, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds in the original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $21,500,000. The Bonds shall be in such principal amounts, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature within forty years of the date of issuance thereof, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, and shall be in such form and have such other details and provisions as are prescribed in the Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture"), between the Issuer and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer. The Bonds shall bear interest at the rates established by the marketing of the Bonds; provided that the average weighted interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed seven percent per annum. Notwithstanding the preceding, prior to issuance of the Bonds the Mayor may establish or change the maturity dates for the Bonds, the principal amount of the Bonds maturing on any date of maturity, the principal amounts of the Bonds subject to redemption, and the dates of redemption of the Bonds. The forms of the Bonds included in the Indenture are approved in substantially the forms in the Indenture, subject to such changes not inconsistent with this resolution and applicable law, and subject to such changes that are approved by the Mayor. The issuance and delivery of the Bonds shall be conclusive evidence that the Mayor has approved all provisions of the Bonds as issued and any changes to the forms of the Bonds on file with the Issuer on the date hereof. 2. The Bonds shall be special obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues provided by the funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The Issuer hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager of the Issuer to execute and deliver the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide the forms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations,- duties, and agreements of the bondholders, the Issuer, and the Trustee, as set forth therein. All the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force .and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Indenture. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 3. The Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") among the Issuer and the Borrower, providing for the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer with such variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 4. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement, among the Issuer, Dougherty & Company LLC -2- (the "Underwriter"), and the Borrower (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"), relating to the Series 2004 Bonds. All of the provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. The Bond Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations. omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 5. The Trustee is hereby appointed the custodian of the funds and accounts created under the Indenture and the paying agent and bond registrar with respect to the Bonds. 6. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer such other certificates, instruments, and other documents as are necessary, customary, or appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, or are necessary to establish the validity or enforceability of the Bonds, or are required by Bond Counsel to establish the validity or enforceability of the Bonds or the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for purposes of Federal and State of Minnesota income taxation (including a certificate as to the status of the Bonds as "arbitrage bonds," an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues (Form 8038), and UCC-1 financing statements). 7. The Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement, relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"). The Issuer hereby consents to the use by the Underwriter of the final Official Statement substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement described above (the "Official Statement") in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement are the sole materials consented to by the Issuer for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Issuer has not participated in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement and takes no responsibility for and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. 8. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer contained in this resolution and the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement of any member of the City Council of the Issuer, or any officer, agent, or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the Issuer nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. No provision, covenant, or agreement contained in the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents, or in the Bonds, or in any other document related to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein imposed upon the Issuer or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the agreements, provisions, -3- covenants, and representations set forth in such documents, the Issuer has not obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived from the Loan Agreement which are to be applied to the payment of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture. 9. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation, other than the Issuer or any holder of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution any right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Issuer and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution. 10. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. 11. .The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof and that all acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. 12. The officers of the Issuer and its attorneys, agents .and employees are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and documents, and this resolution. In the event that for any reason the Mayor is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, the Acting Mayor shall be authorized to act in the capacity of the Mayor and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the Issuer with full force and effect, which executions or acts shall be valid and binding on the Issuer. If for any reason the City Manager of the Issuer is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution,. such documents may be executed by any other officer of the Issuer, with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager. If the person whose signature appears on any of the foregoing certificates, instruments, or documents as the Mayor or City Manager shall cease to be the Mayor or City Manager, respectively, before the date of issuance of the Bonds such signature shall, nevertheless, be valid and sufficient for all purposes. 13. The Council expressly waives the minimum denominations requirement for non-rated bonds under .Part III, Section 1 of the City's Procedure for Application to City of Richfield, Minnesota for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing, effective as of July 13, 2004 ("Private Activity Guidelines"), because issuance of the Bonds will address cash flow problems that impair the operation of the Project and the security for holders of -4- the Prior Bonds, and because, based on representations of the Underwriter, marketing of the Bonds in smaller denominations to retail purchasers will produce more favorable interest rates and consequently further improve the Project's cash flow. 14. For the reasons described in Section 13, and because issuance of the Bonds will result in accelerated payment of the outstanding HRA Debt owed to the Issuer by the Borrower in connection with the Project, the Council further determines that the administrative fee described in Part II, Section 9 of the Private Activity Guidelines may be made payable only upon the last payment of principal and interest on the Bonds. Provisions substantially consistent with this section shall be included in the Loan Agreement. 15. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the City Council of the Issuer this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Attest: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk -5- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF SENIOR _ HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (RICHFIELD SENIOR HOUSING, INC. PROJECT), SERIES 2004, IN THE ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIl'AL AMOUNT OF UP TO $21,000,000 (THE "BONDS"), WHICH BONDS AND THE INTEREST AND ANY PREMIUM THEREON SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE REVENUES PLEDGED PURSUANT TO THE INDENTURE OF TRUST; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE INDENTURE OF TRUST, THE BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE BONDS; APPROVING THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF THE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), is a home rule charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act"), the Issuer is authorized to issue its revenue bonds or obligations in such principal amount as, in the opinion of the Issuer, is necessary to provide sufficient funds for financing a "development" as defined in the Act, and to refund obligations previously issued for such purpose; and WHEREAS, Richfield Senior Housing, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower") has acquired and constructed a 130-unit senior housing facility and an attached 31-unit assisted living facility in the City of Richfield (collectively, the "Project"), using the proceeds of the Issuer's Senior Housing Revenue Bonds (Richfield Senior Housing, Inc. Project) Series 2000A and 2000B (the "Prior Bonds"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to refinance the Project pursuant to the Act and this Resolution by the issuance of the Bonds, the proceeds of which will be used by the Borrower to refund the Prior Bonds and to refinance certain other indebtedness of the Borrower to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "HRA Debt"), incurred in connection with the Project; and WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust, as hereinafter defined, and a pledge and assignment of certain other revenues, all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture of Trust, and the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, nor shall the Bonds constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than the Project; and -1- WHEREAS, the Issuer on the date hereof has held a public hearing relating to the issuance of the Bonds with respect to the Project in accordance with the requirements of 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. For the purpose of refinancing the Project through the refunding of the Prior Bonds and the refinancing of the HRA Debt, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds in the original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $21,000,000. The Bonds shall be in such principal amounts, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature within forty years of the date of issuance thereof, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, and shall be in such forth and have such other details and provisions as are prescribed in the Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture"), between the Issuer and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer. The Bonds shall bear interest at the rates established by the marketing of the Bonds; provided that the average weighted interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed seven percent per annum. Notwithstanding the preceding, prior to issuance of the Bonds the Mayor may establish or change the maturity dates for the Bonds, the principal amount of the Bonds maturing on any date of maturity, the principal amounts of the Bonds subject to redemption, and the dates of redemption of the Bonds. The forms of the Bonds included in the Indenture are approved in substantially the forms in the Indenture, subject to such changes not inconsistent with this resolution and applicable law, and subject to such changes that are approved by the Mayor. The issuance and delivery of the Bonds shall be conclusive evidence that the Mayor has approved all provisions of the Bonds as issued and any changes to the forms of the Bonds on file with the Issuer on the date hereof 2. The Bonds shall be special obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues provided by the funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The Issuer hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager of the Issuer to execute and deliver the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide the forms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties, and agreements of the bondholders, the Issuer, and the Trustee, as set forth therein. All the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Indenture. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 3. The Mayor and City Manager of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement") among the Issuer and the Borrower, providing for the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement shall be -2- substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer with such variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 4. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement, among the Issuer, Dougherty & Company LLC (the "Underwriter"), and the Borrower (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"), relating to the Series 2004 Bonds. All of the provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. The Bond Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations. omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 5. The Trustee is hereby appointed the custodian of the funds and accounts created under the Indenture and the paying agent and bond registrar with respect to the Bonds. 6. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer such other certificates, instruments, and other documents as are necessary, customary, or appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, or are necessary to establish the validity or enforceability of the Bonds, or are required by Bond Counsel to establish the validity or enforceability of the Bonds or the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for purposes of Federal and State of Minnesota income taxation (including a certificate as to the status of the Bonds as "arbitrage bonds," an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues (Form 8038), and UCC-1 financing statements). 7. The Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement, relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"). The Issuer hereby consents to the use by the Underwriter of the final Official Statement substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement described above (the "Official Statement") in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement are the sole materials consented to by the Issuer for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Issuer has not participated in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement and takes no responsibility for and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. 8. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer contained in this resolution and the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement of any member of the City Council of the Issuer, or any officer, -3- agent, or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the Issuer nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. No provision, covenant, or agreement contained in the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents, or in the Bonds, or in any other document related to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein imposed upon the Issuer or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any charge upon. its general credit or taxing powers. In making the agreements, provisions, covenants, and representations set forth in such documents, the Issuer has not obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived from the Loan Agreement which are to be applied to the payment of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture. 9. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation, other than the Issuer or any holder of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution any right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Issuer and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution. 10. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the .Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. 11. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that. they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof and that all acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. 12. The officers of the Issuer and its attorneys, agents and employees are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and documents, and this resolution. In the event that for any reason the Mayor is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, the Acting Mayor shall be authorized to act in the capacity of the Mayor and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the Issuer with full force and effect, which executions or acts shall be valid and binding on the Issuer. If for any reason the City Manager of the Issuer is unable to -4- execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such documents may be executed by any other officer of the Issuer, with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager. If the person whose signature appears on any of the foregoing certificates, instruments, or documents as the Mayor or City Manager shall cease to be the Mayor or City Manager, respectively, before the date of issuance of the Bonds such signature shall, nevertheless, be valid and sufficient for all purposes. 13. The Council expressly waives the minimum denominations requirement for non-rated bonds under Part III, Section 1 of the City's Procedure for Application to City of Richfield, Minnesota for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing, effective as of July 13, 2004 ("Private Activity Guidelines"), because issuance of the Bonds will address cash flow problems that impair the operation of the Project and the security for holders of the Prior Bonds, and because, based on representations of the Underwriter, marketing of the Bonds in smaller denominations to retail purchasers will produce more favorable interest rates and consequently further improve the Project's cash flow. 14. For the reasons described in Section 13, and because issuance of the Bonds will result in accelerated payment of the outstanding HRA Debt owed to the Issuer by the Borrower in connection with the Project, the Council further determines that the administrative fee described in Part II, Section 9 of the Private Activity Guidelines may be made payable only upon the last payment of principal and interest on the Bonds. Provisions substantially consistent with this section shall be included in the Loan Agreement. 15. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the City Council of the Issuer this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin. J. Kirsch, Mayor Attest: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk -5- AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 7G REPORT # 146 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 RELATED TO: AND/OR RICHFIELD 20/20 GOALS: N/A COUNCIL/STAFF GOALS: N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME; TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: _ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request by Richfield Visions, Inc., for itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 18, 2004, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the itinerant amusement and itinerant food licenses for Richfield Visions, Inc., for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 18, 2004, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. IL BACKGROUND On August 12, 2004, Richfield Visions, Inc. applied for an itinerant amusement and an itinerant food license for the activities scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park on September 18, 2004. The license fees for the event have been paid. The City has previously granted this license to Richfield Visions, Inc. for the Richfield Cattail Days celebration. 0916 Cattail Days Licenses The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets the requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ - Deny the request for an itinerant amusement and a food license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on September 18, 2004. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A ~; AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 7 f REPORT # 1~+5 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRISTINE COSTELLO, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request to extend a variance permit until September 17, 2005 to allow the construction of an attached two-car ara a with livin s ace above. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the requested extension for a variance permit until September 17, 2005 to allow the construction of an attached two- car garage with living space above. II. BACKGROUND • On September 17, 2003, the Richfield Hearing Examiner granted a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Gray to allow construction of an attached two-car garage with living space above at 6733 Lakeview Drive. • Construction of the garage has not commenced and the variance granted for the project will expire on September 17, 2004, one year after it was issued. 091604-VarianceExtension-6733LakeViewDr.doc • The Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09, Subdivision 12(b) states "any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for additional period. • Mrs. Gray has submitted a written request asking that the expiration date for the variance be extended in order to continue seeking bids for the construction that falls within their budget (letter attached). • Staff recommends that the extension be granted until September 17, 2005. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09, Subdivision 12(b) allows variances to be extended for up to one year at the request of the variance holder. • Public review at the Hearing Examiner occurred in late 2003 for this project. The requested extension will simply allow the homeowners more time to begin construction on thetwo-car garage with living space above. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Mrs. Gray, the variance holder, has stated that the project is proceeding and that the bids had been coming in very high so they have been struggling with fitting the project into their budget, and had been further setback due to health issues. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the requested variance extension, although this action would prevent the project from being commenced. V. ATTACHMENTS • Letter dated August 19, 2004, from Mrs. Gray requesting an extension. • Copy of Richfield Zoning Code Section 546.09 Subdivision 12(b) VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. and Mrs. Gray, applicant August 19, 2004 Ms. Christine Costello Hand Delivered Zoning Administrator City of Richfield 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: time extension for variance for 6733 Lakeview Avenue Case # 03-VAR-04 Dear Ms. Costello: As you know, we (my husband David and I) are seeking to .extend the time of the variances that we were granted for our house at 6733 Lakeview Avenue. We received the approval of our varinces on September 17, 2003, and it is our understanding that said approval is good for one year. We need a time extension for the variances. The reasons are as follows: After being granted the variances for a remodelling project of a two car attached garage with a second floor for a bedroom and bathroom we set about ..meeting with several contractors to get appropriate and affordable bids. Our biggest concern was that our budget was limited to a specific dollar amount. (We got approval for a home remodelling loan.) None of the contractors was able to come within this budget. This process took all winter. We finally met with a friend of the family who runs aconstruction/remodelling company, Michael Otogawa-Anschel, who told us that he could put together a different remodelling project that would allow us to build the two. car garage we wanted (without a second floor) with an addition off of the kitchen. He knew about the variances that had been granted to us. He was told of our budget limitations and he explained to us that he could "get the job done" within our amount: That was in late February, 2004. He and his co-workers came to the house on several occasions to appraise what needed to be done, took measurements, etc. We finaily met with him over at his office sometime in Iv1a}' and were told that the project would cost us $60,000.00 more than what we had told him our budget limit was! Needless to say, we were discouraged because we had told other contractors to stop with their plans and estimates. We were back to square one. We then thought .about. selling and moving to a new home.. We met three times with a builder (Hans Hagen Homes) out in Minnetrista where a newex development is being completed. After several weeks we decided not to go forward with new construction, again due to cost. I then had major surgery on July 14th .Even though I am more mobile now, I had been"laid up" for several weeks. This has caused more delay in trying to get something done built on time before the variance expires.. But, we have now met with four different contractors who specialize in garages (Model Garage Builders, Durabilt, page 2 Western Construction, and Sussel). Our original idea of a two story two car attached garage has changed to a one story two car garage that will still comply with our variances. This change will allow us to fit within our budget. We are waiting to receive all the bids, and with luck we could start construction before our variance time frame ends, but it would be "cutting it close." That is why we axe seeking to get a time extension for our variance. If need be, we can supply paperwork regarding all of the things discussed in this letter. Both I and my husband hope to be at the meeting scheduled for September 16th at the Richfield City Hall. Thank you for considering this time extension. Sincerely yours, - Sandra A. Gray ~~ Z - a''~/- 99/G 546.09. Variances. Subdivision 1. Limitations. The following limitations apply to variances: a) a variance may be granted from the literal provisions of this code only in instances where such action would be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code and all the following criteria are found to exist: (i) strict enforcement of this code would cause an undue hardship. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by this code. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this code. Undue hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems; (ii) unusual or unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and such circumstances were not created by any persons presently having interest in the property; (iii) the variance, if granted, would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The completed project would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values, or have a detrimental or injurious impact on surrounding properties; and (iv) the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the undue hardship. b) use variances shall not be granted. Subd. 2. Committee of Hearing Examiners. The Committee of Hearing Examiners is a special committee of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and shall be administered by the Director. The specific duties of this Committee are to hear and decide requests for variances from the literal provisions of this code. This Committee of at least two Examiners is appointed by the City Manager for a term of two years subject to confirmation by the Council. During the term of appointment members serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Public hearine. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Director shall assign the application to one Hearing Examiner and a date shall be set for a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of property located wholly or partially within 350 feet. Subd. 5. Decision. Not less than 60 days after receipt of a completed application, the Hearing Examiner shall render a written decision regarding the application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Hearing Examiner fails to make a timely decision, the variance shall be deemed to have been approved. The decision shall be supported by findings specifically related to the applicable criteria contained in this code. The decision shall be mailed to all parties of record and filed with 091604-VarianceExtension-6733LakeViewDr.doc the City Clerk. The Hearing Examiner's decision shall be final, subject to appeal. The Hearing Examiner may impose conditions in granting variances to effect the intent of this code and to protect adjacent properties. (Amended, Bill No. 1995-19, Sec. 6) Subd. 6. Staff report. The Director shall provide a written report to the Hearing Examiner outlining the proposal and enumerating the various reasons for a recommendation to either approve or deny the variance request. The written report shall be filed with the Hearing Examiner at least 72 hours prior to the date of the hearing. Copies of the report shall be made available to the applicant, and shall be furnished to others upon request. Subd. 7. Powers of Hearing Examiner. A Hearing Examiner may call witnesses, subpoena relevant reports, and accept any evidence and testimony, which in the judgment of the Hearing Examiner is relevant to the issues being heard. Those in, attendance at the public hearing shall have the right to present testimony and evidence. The Hearing Examiner may impose limitations on the number of witnesses and on the nature and length of testimony. Subd. 8. Record keeping. A tape recording shall be made of the hearing. The tape will be transcribed on request of the Board. The tape will also be transcribed at the request of any person upon the payment of all costs of transcription. Written minutes shall also be taken at the public hearing, and shall be kept on permanent file in the Office of Community Development or may be transferred to State Archives. Subd. 9. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Hearing Examiner may appeal such decision if a written notice of appeal is submitted to the Director within ten days of the date of the decision. The notice of appeal -shall be addressed to the attention of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd. 10. Rehearing. Any applicant may within seven days of the date of filing of the Hearing Examiner's decision, apply for a rehearing of a variance request denied by the Hearing Examiner if significant new factual evidence relevant to the case not available to the applicant in the original hearing can be presented. The request for a rehearing shall state the nature of the new evidence and why it was not previously available. If an application for rehearing is timely made, the time to appeal will be extended until the decision on granting or denying a rehearing is made. If a rehearing is allowed, the Hearing Examiner's decision shall be withdrawn. Subd. ll. (Repealed, Bill No. 1999-3) Subd. 12. Expiration of variance. Any variance granted shall expire one year after it has been granted unless: a) the project for which the variance was granted is completed within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the variance, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period. Subd. 13. Term of variance. If the project is completed as approved, the variance shall run with the land and remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed. _ Subd. 14. Assumed risk. Any applicant who obtains a building permit, starts construction and/or begins a use prior to the expiration of the appeal period, assumes the risk that the decision may be reversed upon appeal. When an appeal is received by the City, the applicant will be notified of the appeal and informed as to the date of the Board meeting where it will be heard. Subd. 15. Specific project. A variance shall be valid only for the project for which it was granted. Construction of any project shall be in substantial compliance with the building plans and specifications reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner or Board. Subd. 16. Violations. Any person who violates, fails to comply with, assists, directs, or permits a violation of the conditions of a variance shall be subject to the provisions outlined in Sections 115 and 320 of the City Code. Such violation may render the variance null and void. Subd. 17. Fee. The fee for a variance is set by Appendix D of the City Code. Subd. 18. Annual Report. The committee of Hearing Examiners shall annually prepare a report for the Council and Planning Commission outlining the activities of the Hearing Examiners and making recommendations as to possible amendments to this code to expedite the processing of variances to the literal provisions of this code. AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Consent 7E 144 CHRISTINE COSTELLO, REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: .SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver for 6210 Morgan Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving the subdivision waiver for 6210 Mor an Avenue. II. BACKGROUND • The applicant, Mr. Jim Thomas, is seeking to divide his property at 6210 Morgan Avenue into two parcels. Currently, a house sits on the south half of this property and the north half is vacant. The parcel is immediately south of Highway 62. • If split, both parcels will meet minimum City requirements for lot area, width, and depth. The south parcel will contain the existing house and the north parcel will be an empty lot. Due to the expansion and construction,of Crosstown 62, it is anticipated that the empty lot will be purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The division of the parcel 091604-SubdivisionWaiver-6210Morgan.doc at this time will facilitate the purchase of the parcel by MnDot and will solidify the future of the parcel occupied by the house. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Approval of the subdivision waiver would not interfere with the purposes of platting regulations, Section 500.05. • Compliance with the regular platting requirements of Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 of the City Code would result in an unnecessary hardship. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval of the subdivision waiver will create two parcels that meet minimum city requirements for lot area, width and depth. • The minimum lot width in the R district is 50 feet and the minimum lot area is 6,700. sq. ft. • Parcel A will be 60 feet wide, 134 feet deep and include an area of 8,040 sq. ft. This parcel will contain the existing house. • Parcel B will be 59.8 feet wide on its Morgan Avenue frontage and 40.66 feet wide at the rear of the lot. The average lot width will be 50.23 feet. Parcel B will include an area of 6,740 sq. ft. • While the front of Parcel B meets the minimum lot width requirement, the rear of Parcel B-at 40.66 feet-will not meet this minimum width requirement. However, Zoning Code 521.09,Subdivision 3 does state that "A lot that was a lot of record on or before June 1, 1995 located in the R District which does not meet the minimum requirements set forth in this code as to area and dimensions, maybe used for single family (detached) development provided that the width of such lot is not less than 40 feet and such lot contains at least 5, 000 square feet in area..." • Parcel B was a lot of record before June 1, 1995. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION S~ • Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Zoning Map • Land Use Map • Survey of proposed parcel VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Jim Thomas. applicant RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER 6210 MORGAN AVENUE - WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield (the "City") which requests approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 6210 Morgan Avenue, legally described as: All of Lot 3 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3 Melbar, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying South of a line running from a point in the East line of said Lot 2 distant 59.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point in the West line of said Lot 2 distant 40.67 feet North from the Southwest corner thereof. WHEREAS, the proposed division of land for which the subdivision waiver is sought is legally described as: Parcel A: Lot 3, Block 2, Melbar. Parcel B: That part of Lot 2, Block 2 Melbar lying South of a line running from a point in the East line of said Lot 2 distant 59.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of said lot 2 to a point in the West tine of said Lot 2 distant 40.67 feet North from the Southwest corner thereof. WHEREAS, the resulting parcels A and B will comply with Section 521.09 of the City Code relating to lot area and width; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the request for approval for the subdivision waiver; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that compliance with the City Code Section 500.05, Subdivision 1 would result in unnecessary hardship and that failure to comply therewith will not interfere with the purposes of the platting regulations of Section 500.01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A waiver for the subdivision of the Subject Property legally described above is hereby granted; and 2. Future transfers of any of the Subject Property may be by parcel or parcels as described above as Parcel A and Parcel B; and 3. City staff is authorized and directed to take any action necessary to effectuate this resolution and to authorize the recording of conveyances complying with the terms of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor - ATTEST: ,~ Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 091604-SubdivisionWaiver-6210Morgan.doc SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR 6210 MORGAN AVENUE SOUTH SEPTEMBER 16, .2004 ZONING OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET LLi Q w O -~ ~~~~ 63RD ST. L ~~ ~~ r ~ C~ ZONINGSYMBOLS R =SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet Q 8-18-04 SUBDIVISION WAIVER FOR 6210 MORGAN AVENUE SOUTH SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 LAND USES OF PROPERTIES WITHIN 350 FEET LLI Q W J O 63RD ST. RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES RES Q a O J -~ ~~~ LAND USE SYMBOLS ~~~~ ~_ r~~ ~ RES = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Q 100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 8-18-04 S ~ ~~ ~';~~~~~.a ins - ~ ^ R • .~" ~ o y w O ~ ~ ~~ ~sw `'I M ~. 6 ii P ~~ ~~; ~ O ~ M ~' ~ _ O '~Q'1 ~t ~~ o v Z S e w w ~ -- r~@ - = n ~3 =x~~ c~^ °; O 0 ~~ :. 0 n O = n ~ Z N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v a x m+ ~ w~ ~' D e 0 n a ~~ 5.0 ~7 V T i .:~~ ~~N - ~T~ \\\\\\\\49.7,\\\\\\\'. $ - - - - 3t Of N 00'29'47' E . --100.66-- 99 Ot ~ i I I I I ' I < ' I I ,Z ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ w y ~ ~ I w~ a w 9'95. ~ I I ~m O p ~ " ~ ' b ~~ i ~ -- __ i ~ I ~ W ~ v I ~ O I ]~~~\~ V --119.88-- N 00'29'47' E w 0 ~IORG~N ~4 Tl~NU~' p Z Z to O a~ AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 7n REPORT # I (~~ J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) NO. AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO REPORT PREPARED BY: KRISTIN ASHER, PROJECT ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION`. (1) Consideration of an Agency Agreement No. 86928 authorizing the Minnesota Department of Transportation to receive federal aid funds on behalf of the City for construction engineering services on eligible transportation related projects. (2) Consideration of consultant agreement with URS Cor oration for rofessional services on the L ndale Avenue Reconstruction ro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: (1) Adopt the attached resolution authorizing MnDOT to receive federal aid funds for construction engineering services on eligible transportation related projects. (2) Approve the consultant. agreement with URS Corporation in the amount of $165,727.94 for engineering services needed for the reconstruction of the 7600 block of Lvndale Avenue. II. BACKGROUND As part of the Lyndale Gateway redevelopment, Richfield committed to reconstruct the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. The roadwork has already begun. 0914URSagreement The reconstruction of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue (curb line to curb line) is needed to match the new development on the west side of Lyndale, known as -- Kensington Park. The developer will construct the sidewalk and streetscape behind the curb. The attached Agency Agreement describes the responsibilities of both MnDOT and the City in carrying out the Delegated Contract Process. It also authorizes the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to act as the City's agent in accepting federal funds for future construction projects. The process will be used on the reconstruction of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. City staff lacks inspection experience on federal projects. Therefore, there is a need to hire an engineering consultant to perform the construction inspection, surveying, coordination efforts, and materials testing for this federally funded project. Currently, URS Corporation is on board temporarily to keep the project going until a permanent consultant could be selected. Using the federally required selection process, URS Corporation submitted the only proposal. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield has used infrastructure redevelopment as a tool in attracting new businesses to the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City Staff does not have the training or experience to meet federal .requirements to perform construction inspection services including surveying, inspection, coordination and other needed services for the Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction Project. The project is also on a very tight time schedule. C. FINANCIAL • The total cost of the construction engineering for the Lyndale Avenue project. is estimated to be $165,727.94. Federal highway funds will be used to fund 80% of the eligible engineering costs. The remaining portion will be financed using a combination of Municipal State Aid Street funds,. City utility funds and a contribution by the Cornerstone Group, the developer of Kensington Park. D. LEGAL • The Agency Agreement with MnDOT meets federal requirements for using federal funds to purchase construction inspection services. • The City has made commitments to the Lyndale Gateway developers to provide a new street with an upgraded streetscape: IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None. No other engineering firm submitted a proposal. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Agency Agreement No. 86928 between Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield • Proposal submitted by URS Corporation for construction inspection services. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None expected. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF STATE OF MINNESOTA AGENCY AGREEMENT NO. 86928 BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION. WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is proposing to use federal funds for the construction engineering portion related to construction, improvement, and enhancement of transportation projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that pursuant to Minnesota Stat. Sec. 161.36, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as agent of the City of Richfield to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible transportation related projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City of Richfield to execute and enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in "Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement No. 86928," a copy of which said agreement was before. the City Council and which is made a part hereof by reference. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Mn/DOT Agreement No. 86928 - STATE OF MINNESOTA AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION 1N CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING FOR S.P. 157-363-23; M.P. HPP MN10(105) This agreement is entered into by and between City of Richfield ("City") and the State of Minnesota acting through its Commissioner of Transportation ("Mn/DOT"), Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.36, the City desires Mn/DOT to act as the City's agent to accept and disburse federal funds for the construction, improvement, or enhancement of transportation financed in whole or in part by federal funds, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and The City is proposing a federal aid project to reconstruct Lyndale Avenue between 76tH and 77th Streets, the city desires reimbursement of costs for Construction Engineering on this project, hereinafter referred to as the "Construction Engineering"; and The Construction Engineering is eligible for the expenditure of federal aid funds, and is identified in Mn/DOT records as State Project 157-363-23, and in Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") records as Minnesota Project HPP MN10(105); and Mn/DOT requires that the terms .and conditions of this agency be set .forth in an agreement. THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. DUTIES OF THE CITY. A. DESIGNATION. The City designates Mn/DOT to act as its agent to accept and disburse federal funds made available for the Project. B. ELIGIBILITY /COSTS. The estimated cost of the Construction Engineering is $182,300. 1. It is anticipated that 80% (up to $145,840) of the cost of the Construction Engineering will be paid from federal funds made available by the FHWA, and A~'eement no. 86928 -1- that the remaining 20% will be paid by the City. The City will pay any part of the cost or expense of the work that the FHWA does not pay. 2. Any costs incurred by the City prior to authorization of the Federal Funds, will not be eligible for federal participation. 3. Eligible cost and expense, if approved, may consist of the following: a) The cost of construction engineering and project management b) The direct labor charges for City employees for the time that said employees are performing work pursuant to this agreement. Said labor charges may include the prorata share of "labor additives" applicable to said labor charges. Costs to the City of "labor additives" consisting of holiday pay, vacation, sick leave, retirement, pension, unemployment taxes, compensation and liability insurance, lost time charges and similar costs incidental to labor employment will be reimbursed only when supported by adequate records. c) The applicable equipment rental charges for City owned equipment used by the City and mileage charges for employee owned vehicles used by the City on work performed pursuant to this agreement, at rates reflective of the City actual cost. d) Expenditures for materials, supplies, mechanical data processing and equipment rental, limited to the actual expenditures .for the purposes of this agreement. e) The cost incurred by the City to employ outside forces to perform any or all of the work pursuant to this agreement, subject to the provisions of section LD. SUBLETTING. 4. Expenditures for general administration, supervision, maintenance and other overhead or incidental expenses of the City are not eligible for federal participation.- 5. Acceptability of costs under this agreement will be determined in accordance with the cost principles and procedures set forth in the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations, Contract Cost Principals and Procedures, 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 31 which is incorporated by reference and made a-part of this agreement. 6.: For costs expected to exceed $ 182,300, the City must request the preparation and execution of a supplement to this agreement, prior to incurring such costs. C. STAFFING. 1. The City will designate a publicly employed registered engineer, ("Project `' Engineer"), to be in responsible charge of the Project and to supervise and Agreement no. 86928 -2- direct the work to be performed under any construction contract let for the Project. If City elects to use a private consultant for engineering services, the City will provide a qualified, full-time public employee of the City, to be in responsible charge of the Project. The services of the City to be performed pursuant to this agreement may not be assigned, sublet, or transferred unless the City is notified in writing by Mn/DOT that such action is permitted under 23 CFR 1.33 and 23 CFR 635.105 and state law. This written consent will in no way relieve the City from its primary responsibility for performance of the work. 2. During the progress of the work on the Project, the City authorizes its Project Engineer to request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from Mn/DOT, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39. Such services may be covered by other technical service agreements. If Mn/DOT furnishes the services requested, and if Mn/DOT requests reimbursement, then the City will promptly pay Mn/DOT to reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such services. The costs and expenses will include the current Mn/DOT labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. Provision of such services will not be deemed to make Mn/DOT a principal or co-principal with respect to the Project. 3. The City will furnish the personnel, services, supplies, and equipment necessary to properly supervise, inspect, and document the work for the Project.. D. SUBLETTING. The City will prepare request for proposals in accordance with Minnesota law and applicable Federal laws and regulations. 1. The City will solicit proposals for construction engineering services after obtaining written notification from Mn/DOT that the FHWA has. authorized the Project. Any Project advertised prior. to authorization will not be eligible for federal reimbursement. 2. The City will prepare the request for proposal, which will include all of the federal-aid provisions supplied by Mn/DOT. 3. The City will prepare and publish the proposal solicitation for the Project as required by state and federal laws. The solicitation will state where the City will receive the proposals. 4. The City may not include other work in the contract for the authorized Project without obtaining prior notification from Mn/DOT that such work is allowed by FHWA. Failure to obtain such notification may result in the loss of some or all of the federal funds for the Project. 5. The City will prepare and distribute any addendums, if needed. Agreement no. 86928 -3- 6. The City will receive open, and evaluate proposals. 7. After the proposals. are opened, the City governing body will consider the - proposals and will award the contract as required by state and federal-laws, or reject all proposals. If the proposal contains a goal for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, the City will not award the contract until it has received certification of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise participation from the Mn/DOT Equal Employment Opportunity Office. 8. This written consent will in no way relieve the City from its primary responsibility for performance of the work. Subcontractor agreements must contain all appropriate terms and conditions of this agreement. E. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. 1. The City will request approval from Mn/DOT for all costs in excess of the amount of federal funds previously approved for the Project prior to incurring such costs. Failure to obtain such approval may result in such costs being disallowed for reimbursement. 2. The City will prepare reports, keep records, and perform work so as to enable Mn/DOT to collect the federal aid sought by the City. The City will retain all records and reports in accordance with Mn/DOT's record .retention schedule for federal aid projects. - 3. Upon completion of the Project, the Project Engineer will determine whether the work will be accepted. F• PAYMENTS. 1. The entire cost of the Project is to be paid from federal funds made available by the FHWA and by other funds provided by the City. The City will pay any part of the cost or expense of the Project that is not paid by federal funds. 2. The City may request partial payments not more than once each thirty (30) days. The Project Engineer will certify the amount of each partial estimate. 3. The invoice and supplements thereto, will contain all details that may be .necessary for a proper. audit. Such details will consist of at least the following: (a) A breakdown of labor by individual, classification, dates and hours .worked times the applicable rate to arrive at a total dollar amount for each individual. (b) The labor additive may be applied to total labor dollars, not including overtime labor dollars. Agreement no. $6928 -4- (c) The equipment charges must be broken down by type of equipment times the applicable rate and dates used to arrive at total equipment charges. (d) A detailed breakdown of outside services used and supporting invoices and documentation that costs of outside services have been paid. (e) Detail for materials, supplies, and other items with the description, units, and unit prices included in the invoice. If materials or supplies are purchased from an outside source, a copy of that .invoice should be included. (fl The invoices will include 100% of eligible charges applicable to the Construction Engineering so that the prorata share of federal and City participation can be applied to the total costs. 4. Following certification, by the Project Engineer, of the final estimate, the City may request reimbursement for costs eligible for federal funds. The City's request will be made to Mn/DOT and will. include a copy of the certified final estimate along with the required records. 5. Reimbursement of costs under this agreement will be based on actual costs, but limited to eligible items. G. LIMITATIONS. 1. The City must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. 2. Nondiscrimination. It is the policy of the FHWA and the State of Minnesota that no person in the United States will, on the ..grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (42 U.S.C. 2000d). Through expansion of the mandate for nondiscrimination in Title VI and through parallel legislation, the prescribed bases of discrimination include race, color, .sex, national origin, age, and disability. In addition, the Title VI program has been extended to cover all programs, activities and services of an entity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether such programs and activities are Federally assisted or not. Even in the absence of prior discriminatory practice or usage, a recipient in administering a program or activity to which this part applies, is expected to take affirmative action to assure that no person is excluded from participation in, or is denied the benefits of, the program or activity on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. It is the responsibility of the City to carry out the above requirements. Agreement no. 86928 -5- 3. Workers' Compensation. Any and all employees of the City or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required or permitted by the City under this agreement will not be considered employees of Mn/DOT, and any and all claims that may arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees, or other persons while so engaged, will in no way be the obligation or responsibility of Mn/DOT. The City will require proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance from any contractor and sub-contractor. F. AUDIT. 1. The City will comply with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office of Management and Budget (OMBj circular A-133 including amendments and successors thereto, which are incorporated herein by reference. 2. As provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the City are subject to examination by the United States Government, Mn/DOT, and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years. The City will be responsible for any costs associated with the performance of the audit. G. MAINTENANCE. The City assumes full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of any facility constructed or improved under this Agreement. H. CLAIMS. The City will pay any and all lawful claims arising out of or incidental to the performance of the Project work. The City acknowledges that Mn/DOT is acting only as the City's agent for receipt and disbursement of federal funds, and not as a principal or co-principal with respect to the Project. In all events, the City will indemnify Mn/DOT and hold Mn/DOT harmless from any claims arising out of the Project. II. DUTIES OF Mn/DOT. A. ACCEPTANCE. Mn/DOT accepts designation as Agent of the City for the receipt and disbursement of federal funds and will act in accordance herewith. B. PROJECT ACTIVITIES. 1. Mn/DOT will make the necessary requests to .the FHWA for authorization to use federal funds for the Project, and for reimbursement of eligible costs pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 2. Mn/DOT will provide to the City copies of the required Federal-aid clauses to be included in the proposal solicitation and will provide the required Federal- aidprovisions to be included in the Proposal. 3. Mn/DOT will review and certify the DBE participation and notify the City Agreement no. 86928 -6- when certification is complete. C. PAYMENTS. 1. Mn/DOT will receive the federal funds to be paid by the FHWA for the Project, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 161.36, Subdivision 2. 2. Mn/DOT will review and certify each partial pay request. Following certification of the partial estimate, Mn/DOT will reimburse the City, from said federal funds made available to the Project, for each partial payment request, subject to the availability and limits of those funds. 3. Upon completion of the Project, the City will prepare a final payment request in accordance with the terms of this agreement. Mn/DOT will review and certify the final payment request with a final audit. 4. No more than 90% of the reimbursement due under this agreement will be paid until completion of the final audit and approval by Mn/DOT's authorized representative. 5. In the event Mn/DOT does not obtain funding from the FHWA or other funding source, or funding cannot be continued at a sufficient level. to allow for the processing of the federal aid reimbursement requests, the City may continue the work with local funds only, until such time as Mn/DOT is able. to process the federal aid reimbursement requests.' D. AUTHORITY. Mn/DOT may withhold federal funds, if Mn/DOT or the FHWA determines that the Project was not. completed in compliance with federal requirements. E. INSPECTION. Mn/DOT, the FHWA, or duly authorized representatives of the state and federal government will have the right to audit, evaluate and monitor the work performed under this agreement. The City will make available all books, records, and documents pertaining to the work hereunder, for a minimum of seven years following the closing of the construction contract. III. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATNES. Each authorized representative will have responsibility to administer this agreement and to ensure that -all payments due to the other party are paid pursuant to the terms of this agreement. A. The City authorized representative is Kristin Asher, City of Richfield, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423-2599 phone 612.861.9795, or her successor. B. Mn/DOT's authorized representative is Lynnette Roshell; Minnesota Department _ of Transportation, State Aid for Local Transportation, Mail Stop 500, St Paul, MN 55155, phone 651.282.6479, or her successor. Agreement no. 86928 -7- TV. TORT LIABILITY. Each party is responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of any others and the results thereof. The Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736, governs Mn/DOT liability. V. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party will assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this agreement without prior written approval of the other party. VI. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments/supplements to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the same parties who executed the original agreement, or their successors in office. VII. .TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement will be effective upon execution by the City and by appropriate State officials, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, and will remain in effect for five (5) years from the effective date or until all obligations set forth in this agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. VIII. TERMINATION. This agreement may be terminated by the City or Mn/DOT at any time, with or without cause, upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. Such termination will not remove any unfulfilled financial obligations of the City as set forth in this Agreement. In the event of such a termination the City will be entitled to reimbursement for Mn/DOT-approved federally eligible expenses incurred for work satisfactorily performed on the Project to the date of termination subject to the terms of this agreement. Agreement no. 86928 -8- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as By: required b inn t. § § 16A and 16C.05. Title: Director, By: State Aid for Local Transportation •~ ~,.~ ~~ Date: a CFMS Contract No. A- ~~i ~~~ CITY City certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on its behalf as required by applicable resolutions, ordinances, or charter provisions By: date: September 16, 2004 Title: Mayor By: September' 16, 2004 City Manager. COMMISSIONER OF ADMII~TISTRATION By: Agreement no. 86928 -9- Proposal for: Construction Engineering Services Lynda'le Avenue -_ p_ _ i ~~ ~~~ a}.!_ J ~ (9 ~v 1 a ~_ l.a~'rS. Y.Ci~i•, 1~ L Vl!`L C+ August 26, 2004 Mr. Mike Eastling Ciry Engineer City of Richfield Public Works 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Proposal for Construction Engineering Services Dear Mr. Eastling: URS Corporation is pleased to submit this proposal to perform Construction Engineering Services for the Ciry of Richfield. We are very excited about this project and hope that we are able to continue the fine service we have delivered thus far on the project. It is our belief that we are best qualified to manage and inspect this project as URS designed the project and the construction services department assisted with the design of the construction phasing. We thank you for the opportunity to propose on these services, and we look forward to continued discussions regarding this scope of services. Sincerely, URS Corporation ~ - Stephen G. Pflipsen, PE Vice President Construction Services Manager #36264 700 Third Street South, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612)373-6863 Fax: (612) 373-6858 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................... 1 2. Project Understanding ................................................................... 2 3. Project Deliverables ...................................................................... 3 4. Background and Experience .......................................................... 7 5. Work Plan ..................................................................................... 9 6. Required Forms and Documents ..................................................10 7. Additional Tasks and Activities .....................................................1 8. Cost Proposal ................................................................................16 Appendix A • Key Personnel Resumes liRS i Construction Engiiiee~ing Services: Lyndale Avenue Ka6zea - ec~URS s,-oa City of Richfield x - The Minneapolis office of URS originated as BRW, Inc., a civil engineering consulting firm founded in 1956. Acquired by URS in 1999, BRW, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of URS. The URS Minneapolis office specializes in professional consulting services in the areas of civil and structural engineering, transportation and traffic engineering, site design, utilities design, surveying and construction services, landscape architectural design, community planning, urban design, environmental an@sis, environmental site investigations, cultural resources, transportation planning, transit design, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). ~~ At URS, corporate officers and principal practitioners are actively involved in day-to-day service to clients and project management. Client teams are organized to deliver the professional resources and specific technical expertise needed to produce effective solutions to client problems within the established schedule and budget. Locally and nationally, URS serves a diverse clientele that includes governmental agencies at local, county, state and federal levels. URS takes great pride in our reputation as an industry leader known for providing innovative and consistently high quality professional and technical services. Mr. Steve Pflipsen will be the URS point of contact for this project. Steve Pflipsen, PE Construction Services Manager Office: 612.373.6863 Fax: 612.373.6858 steve_pflipsen@urscorp.com Mr. Pflipsen manages the URS Construction Services Department and has experience with both roadway and bridge projects. Mr. Pflipsen will consult with the Ci@s Project E@neer at the beginning of the project and will meet periodically with the Ci@s Project Engineer throughout the project duration to verify that the URS staff is providing the high quality of service expected for this project. The. City of Richfield has our promise that we will provide experienced and well-trained individuals to assist on the construction of this project. Construction Engiireering Servicec: Lyndale Avenue City of Richfield URS it?6264- OURS 8/04 The Ciry of Richfield is soliciting a proposal for professional services for construction administration, construction inspection, construction staking, and material testing to reconstruct Lyndale Avenue. The project is a State Aid project and will be executed through the Delegated Contract Process (DCP). The reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue will occur between 76th Street and 77th Street. This roadway is currently a four lane undivided roadway and will be reconstructed as a divided four lane roadway. The reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue will include the replacement of watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer modifications The concrete pavement joint repair will occur on 77" Street between I-35W and Lyndale Avenue. This scope of work will require separate coordination with contractors working on private development improvements. URS will assist ~~ith this coordination. The project also includes the reconstruction of the intersection at Lyndale Avenue and 76`h Street. This will be the most challenging phase of the project. URS will work hard to maintain a smooth flow of traffic during this difficult construction phasing. liRS Construction Engineering Services: Lyndale Avenue #26364- ©URS B/04 ~ City of Richfield To better define the scope of services that URS will provide on this project. URS have separated the scope into seven tasks. These tasks are as follows: The Seven Scope Tasks are as follows: ^ Task 1 -Construction Administration ^ Task 2 -Construction Surveys ^ Task 3 -Construction Inspection ^ Task 4 -Construction Material Testing ^ Task 5 -Final Inspection ^ Task 6 -Final Documentation ^ Task 7 - As-Built Plans Listed on the following pages are detailed breakdowns of the individual tasks that are listed above. Construction Engineering Services: Lyndale Avenue 3 Cify of Richfield URS #36?64 OURS 8/04 TASK 1 -CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION .4 _. ~ ~~ ~~~ gg]] '_ i by /' %} y i~~. ~ i ~ r."'~,~.'} ^^, ^..e ....~,~y4:~~'°' f. ®. L ~ eK4 Yy ~~ ::.~ ~sl...ml~.•.ov.-A. G r. ...~-.1... ~ .. ,. ~..~ r l ~. y:. ,y,,, ~i" ~ f~ fig p~ _F' C7 ~d ~. ~ ~1 ~ i ~ ~ } If ~ L' 4!J s'd°il..~' ~1 ! Schedule / C __ ~._..._~~ i' .~i, i., r~__,.~~~. ,. _ ~~; ~ ~,~~~~1 ~~, ~~ ~.1 ~_.~~ ~_ _ ~.~~7~truction 1ngineer / Construction Ins ector L2 Collect, monitor, and post near the construction field office, all wage Construction Engineer / rates, EEO requirements, safety requirements and other pertinent Construction Inspector information. 1.3 Schedule, prepare for and attend regular progress meetings. Construction Engineer / Construction Ins ector 1.4 Review all documentation requirements with contractor, City and Construction Engineer others as re uired. 1.5 Prepare and submit all required project documentation in accordance Construction Engineer / ~~ith Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction and Contract Construction Inspector Administration Manual. 1.6 Arrange for and coordinate construction staking as required by the Construction Inspector contractors roo-ress. 1.7 Coordinate all re uired testin with Braun Intertec Construction Ins ector 1.8 Prepare and submit all required testing of materials documentation in Construction Inspector accordance with Mn/DOT. 1.9 Maintain daily diary of all project events and submit periodic status Construction Inspector re ort to Ci - of Richfield. ~ 1.10 Pre are documents in com liance with State re uirements. Construction En ~neer 1.11 Review and a rove sho drawinos as re uired. Construction Engineer 1.12 Review Contractor's Traffic Control Plans Construction Engineer / Construction Ins ector 1.13 Prepare supplemental design, issue change orders, work orders and/or Construction Engineer Supplemental Agreements and prepare request for encumbrance of funds as re uired. 1.14 . Prepare all written correspondence for project engineer's signature. Construction Engineer '~ ,~ C'c~o~~_nate independent assura~lce tes~~n~ ~~i~~ 1~I ~/D01. ~ Co»stniction Inspector TASK 2 -CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS URS has a large pool of survey crews and can certainly satisfy the survey needs during a demanding and busy construction project. ^ Horizontal and Vertical Control • Staking Computations • Special Survey Requests ^ Mark Removals Stake Storm Sewer • Stake Sanitary Sewer LRS Consh~uction Fngineeruig Services: Lyndale Avenue `gags, '=_'xss,°~ 4 City ofRidfeld ~~,~. ?, ~ ,,_ ^ Grade Stakes • Grading Grade Bluetop Stakes • Stake Concrete Pavement ^ Stake Curb and Gutter ^ Stake Signals and Lighting ^ Stake or Mark Signage and Striping ^ Stake Landscape ^ As-built Measurements TASK 3 -CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION ® ~ s ® .P '.~ ~~'® ® jPo 3.1 Perform observation of the construction activities. Construction Ins ector 3.2 Document method of measurement and maintain a record of the Construction Inspector quantities of each pay item in accordance with the Mn/DOT Contract Administration Manual 3.3 Periodically review contractor's progress Construction Engineer / Construction Ins ector 3.4 Perform field measurements for use in preparation of pay vouchers and Construction Inspector re aration of record laps. 3.5 U on substantial com letion, re are final unch list by une 3, 2005. Construction Ins ector 3.6 Conduct warran ins ection. Construction Ins ector 3.7 Pre are Partial Pa Estimate Construction Ins ector 3.8 Pre are Estimate to Submit to Ci Construction Engineer 3.9 Coordinate with Other Existing and Ongoing Projects Construction Engineer / Construction Ins ector 7 3.10 Provide appropriate field staff with proper Mn/DOT certifications. All URS Construction Inspectors are Mn/DOW Certified. TASK 4 -CONSTRUCTION 1VIATERTAT. TESTING URS will subcontract Braun Intertec to perform the project material testing. URS teams with Braun Intertec on numerous projects and will ensure that the material testing is performed in accordance with the guidelines set forth by Mn/DOT. TASK 5 -FINAL INSPECTION Conduct final inspection of the project in coordination with the Ciry of Richfield and Mn/DOT. URS Conctruction Engineering Services: Lyndale Avenue ~zeze4- ouxs sio< j City of Richfield ~-T.-. .. ~: ,. ~~,, r~f TASK fi -FINAL DOCUMENTATION Assemble and organize all final documentation in accordance with guidelines and requirements set forth for State Aid projects. TASK 7 - AS-BUILT PLANS URS will collect the project redline drawings and will generate record drawings for the City of Richfield. These documents will be forwarded for review and approval on compact disk (CD) in AutoCad format. URS Construction Engineering Services: Lyndale Avenue :zczca - c~~~RS s;oa 6 City of Richfield URS has been performing construction services in the Minneapolis area for over forty-five years. We have a good reputation as a company that inspects and manages quality projects. All of our Construction Inspectors and Construction Engineers are Mn/DOT certified and maintain these certifications yearly. We take great pride in our construction management and inspection experience. We have inspected and managed numerous projects very similar to this project. Our experience has been that one of the key advantages we have is the ability to communicate with the public and the client. Communication is the key to successful construction projects. One method we have used in the past is to forward a construction update letter to the public within the construction area to keep everyone informed of past and future construction. This has been helpful in the areas of traffic control and utility interruptions. These areas of construction are always a concern of the general public. We have the experienced staff that is required to complete this project successfully. Our experience in all areas of construction is the perfect match for this project. URS' experience has found that there are three key areas that need to be managed effectively to have a successful project. The areas are as follows: SCHEDULE It has been URS' experience that contractors are reluctant to maintain updated schedules. One method of addressing this problem is to have the contractor prepare athree-week outlook schedule that is updated and reviewed at every weekly progress meeting. Another schedule related benefit is to plot a master plan sheet that shows all utilities on one master sheet that is maintained and used to define future work. ~UALITY URS has an excellent record of delivering quality work. It is our view that the key to quality is an inspector that enforces the requirements of the plans and specifications. This requires an inspector that has the experience to determine quality work. It is URS' opinion that it is easier to perform work right the first time. COST URS understands that clients want quality work at a fair price. URS has experience in evaluating cost associated with extra work and changed conditions. We have an experienced staff that can add expertise to any extra work cost issues. Construction Engineering Services: Lyndale Avenue ~ City of Richfield URS ~'2E264- OURS 8/04 ~ z at _ URS is very aware of the need to assign quality experienced personnel. The assigned project team is as follows: Project Oversight: Steve Pflipsen, PE Project Engineer: Dan Beckmann, EIT Senior Construction Inspector: Dave Snidarich Survey Senior Technician: Tom Holker Survey Crew Chief: Michael Dahlin Material Testing Lead (Braun Intertec): Matt Ruble, PE Please refer to Appendix A for a complete list of resumes that defines the teams work experience, certifications, and similar work experience. URS Construction Engineering Services: Lyndale Avenue Rzezca ocas aioa g City of RichFeld The work plan for this project consists of several activities. The major °,a ~ , ;1"! ~ ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ :~, _ ~ activities are as follows: ^ Reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue between 76th Street and 77th Street ^ Concrete Joint Repair on 77th Street ^ Reconstruction of the Intersection at Lyndale Avenue and 76th Street LYNDALE RECONSTRUCTION The reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue includes the following scope of work: ^ Removal and replacement of the concrete pavement and curb and gutter. ^ Replacement of watermain on west side of Lyndale Avenue ^ Replacement of sanitary sewer on the east and west sides of Lyndale Avenue ^ Installation of new stone sewer catch basins and connections ^ Majority of work (Substantial Completion) to be completed by October 15, 2004 77TH STREET CONCRETE JOINT REPAIRS ^ Work to be coordinated with other private contractor ^ Work shall commence on or after September 6, 2004 and must be completed by October 1, 2004 LYNDALE/76TH INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTION ^ Detailed phasing has to be executed on time ^ Maintain smooth flow of traffic during Phase 3 Stages WORK PLAN SUMMARY It is the goal of URS to meet the following milestones on this Project Final Completion: June 10, 2005 project: 77th Street Joint Repairs Completion: October 1, 2004 Project Substantial Completion: October 15, 2004 Project Final Inspection Completed By: June 3, 2005 liRS Construction Engineering Services: Lyndale Avenue ~zczsa- oUxs sioa 9 City of Richfield For State of Minnesota Contracts and Grants over $100,000 The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that: (1) _No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, A Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying in accordance with its instructions. (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by 31 U.S.C. 132. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. URS Corporation Organization Name Stephen G. Pflipsen, PE Name and Title of Official Signing for Organization By: _ J -~ Signature of Official August 25, 2004 Date -8- LlC LGJ~JUl1SG, W LLllJ JU11l:11tLl1Vll 1J 111 cA~:cD~ vt ,ptvv,vvv, 1J1Ga~c ~,vulyicw ui~. uuviiiia~ivii •c~uwicu w to determine whether you are subject to the Minnesota Human Rights Act {Minnesota Statutes 073) certification requirement, and to provide documentation of compliance if necessary. It is your responsibility to provide this information and-if required-to apply for Human. Rights certification r to the due date and time of the bid or proposal and to obtain Human Rights certification prior to the ution of the contract. to determine which boxes ~to com lete on this form: Then you must complete these boxes.:. ~ W U A )n a single working day within the past 12 months, if your company... O Pa O ~ O GG O Pa 'smployed more than 40 full-time employees in Minnesota • • )id not employ more than. 40 full-time employees in Minnesota, but did employ more than 40 full-time • • m to ees in the state where you have our rimary lace of business >id not employmore than 40 full-time employees in Minnesota or in the state where you have your ~ • rimary place of business COX A -For companies which have employed more than 40 full-time employees within Minnesota n any single working day during the previous 12 months 'our response will be rejected unless your business: has a current Certificate of Compliance issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) -or- has submitted an affirmative action plan to the MDHR, which the Department received prior to the date and time the responses are due. heck one of the following statements if you have employed more than 40 full-time employees in iinnesota on any single. working day during the previous 12 months: 1 We have a current Certificate of Compliance issued by the MDHR. Proceed to BOX D. Include a copy of your certificate with your response. We do not have a current Certificate of Compliance. However, we submitted an Affirmative Action Plan to the MDHR for approval, which the Department received on (date) at (time). [If you do not know when the Department received your Plan, contact the Department.] We acknowledge that the plan must be approved by the MDHR before any contract or agreement can be executed. Proceed to BOX D. I We do not have a Certificate of Compliance, nor has the MDHR received an Affirmative Action Plan from our company. We acknowledge that our response will be rejected. Proceed to-BOX D. Call the Minnesota Department of 1-Iman Rights for assistance. lease note: Certificates of Compliance must be issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. ffirmative Action Plans approved by the Federal government, a county, or a municipality must still be viewed and approved by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights before a certificate can be issued. rmative Action Dat a Page ised 8/02 - IvIDHR 1 of 2 -9- have emptoyea more than 4u tuu-time employees on any smgie worxrng aay aurmg me previous 1~ months in the state where they have their primary place of business You may achieve compliance with the Minnesota Human Rights Act by certifying that you are in compliance with applicable Federal Affirmative Action requirements. Check one of the following statements if you have not employed more than 40 full-time employees in ~innesota but you have employed more than 40 full-time employees on any single working day during the previous 12 months in the state where you have your primary place of business: ^ We are not subject to Federal Affirmative Action requirements. Proceed to BOX D. ^ We are subject to Federal Affirmative Action requirements, and we are in compliance with those requirements. Proceed to BOX D. BOX C -For those companies not described in BOX A or BOX B heck below. You are not subject to the Minnesota Human Rights Act certification requirement. ~ We have not employed more than 40 full-time employees on any single working day in Minnesota or in the state of our primary place of business within the previous 12 months. Proceed to BOX D 30X D -For all companies 3y signing this statement, you certify that the information provided is accurate and that you are authorized to sign on behalf of the responder. lame of Company: URS Corporation authorized Signature: 'Tinted Name: Stephen G. Pflipsen, PE Vice President / Construction Services date: August 26, 2004 phone number: h 12 . ~ 7 ~ . h R h3 further information regarding Minnesota Human Rights Act requirements, contact: Znesota Department of Human Rights, Compliance Services Section il: 190 East Srh Street, Suite 700 Metro: (651) 296-5663 Paul, MN 55101 Toll Free: 800-657-3704 bsite: www.humanrights.state:mn.us Fax: (651) 296-9042 .ail: employerinfo@therightsplace.net TTY: (651) 296-1283 nnesota vendors must have a current Certificate of Compliance or submitted an affirmative action plan by the time ~posals are due, or their proposal wilt be rejected. e City of Richfield is under no obligation to delay the award or the execution of a contract until a vendor has completed Human Rights certification process. It is the sole responsibility of the vendor to apply for and obtain a Human Rights -tificate prior to contract award or execution as applicable. THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK imative Action Dat a Page iced 8/02 -MDHR of 2 - 10- ~. ...„md 6muim"' ~~ .~ ~+~1~ .~ ~~ d .~ .~ . a ~` o~ C`t^~ '" J .~ O O N .~ L C'~ e~.~ o N .~ .~ ~~ `~ .~ .~ `~ O~ `r 7 ~~ ~}d,~ .~ `~ •~ . ~ ,~, O ~-. ,~ ~ ~~ ~ -~ ~,, ~ ~~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ AFFIDAVIT OF NONCOLLUSION 3r (or affirm) under the penalty of perjury: it I am the Responder (if the Responder is an individual), a partner in the company (if the Responder is a partnership), or an ~~icer or employee of the responding corporation having authority to sign on its behalf (if the Responder is a corporation); hat the attached proposal submitted in response to the Lyndale Avenue Request for Proposals has been arrived by the Responder independently and has been submitted without collusion with and without any agreement, understanding or fanned common course of action with, any other Responder of materials, supplies, equipment or services described in the equest for Proposal, designed to limit fair and open competition; hat the contents of the proposal have not been communicated by the Responder or its employees or agents to any person not i employee or agent of the Responder and will not be communicated to any such persons prior to the official opening of the -oposals; and gat I am fully informed regarding the accuracy of the statements made in this affidavit- nder's Firm Name: URS Corporation rized Signature: August 25, 2004 bed and sworn to me this 2~Jth day of 20 D `f l~ ~~.1.v~--~~ N~l,~'rL1U.~ Public • • GLAUDIA GAIL HAMRICK Notary Public -' Minnesota My commission expires: f -,~ I _ ~~ O 5 fyy Corr~mission Expires ,lan. 31, 2005 THE BALANCE OF TFHS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -11- ,~< ._, ~. ~~ / _ l ~" Prolog is a very powerful construction management tool that organizes project documentation and reduces the time required to perform documentation tasks. The use of this construction management software is part of our services and is included in our hourly rates. „- ~ ~ ®. ~:. _i URS uses this document control software on most of the projects that we construct. URS has worked very hard over the pass four years to create a construction documentation system that is accessible to all inspectors and engineers via the Internet from their construction trailer. URS has reviewed this project and feels it will be a good candidate for some of the features within this software. The following items could be tracked using this software: Construction Meeting Minutes Submittals Plan Revisions Work Orders Change Orders Supplemental Agreements Project Contact Information Construction Engineering Services Lyndale Avenue 15 City of Richfield URS #26264- L7URS 8/04 V r :L. C G 'L U; ~= O ~ ~ v °~ ~ rc ~ ~ to Q ~ ~ O .~ U Q v; U c -U -" c; Y ~ K L u . ,-`~ O U v~ ~ °_ c o o c N N v; V ~' ~ C \ ~ r -. - "r cv p, o ~ i O W P. W O C C t'3 ,: ,: `" W O ^ ~ O ~ N `~ ~ C L O ~ -~ O '' ~".. /'rte H •~ U ~ F~ 7 `$ i ~ u r+ I i .~ v; ~ ~ ~ ;• ~ ~ U ' U ° : °n c, O _ y O r " V i bfJ ~ G U r ~ w (~ '.]" U ~ ~ .^. O G U N ti ~ o J o C a ~ N N ~ C ~; tf~ O O M N '~^ e r r ~. .~ tr; G d' .-. ~ Dv N 00 n .-i C +~+ C ~r ~. ~ N C C C C C C ~^ C C C O C x x N ~' 7 ~ c~ . C O y, ~. ~ ' U p C C C ~ ~ U ~ A C r~~ C O O N i N N O G N C C f~ to C n . r, N ~ N d, O H ~ ~, U ~ '' o U d C C CJ .. ~ ~ O ~ C G ~ O ~ ~ ~ W .--. 7-i ro ~ c A. 5A c c ~ ~ N C N G ~ ~ U1 .C. to V7 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ir, ~ 1~ ~ V tx V U ~+ C1~ `? u C 3 U ~ ~ H '^ T ~ ~ ' '~ N '1, ftt n ~ ~ O W ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ o y v ~ L . bn .°J ~ o a U ~ ~ ~ ~d r V '. 'G ~ ~ ro .^.. 7 ^~ M U v w '" O ~i V ,,V O ./ ~ ~''' .. ~ ~ y `~ ~ 2, O p U N > U O cJ G ~ 5 ~ C; C~ ° ~ o i ~ 0 0 U U V U U ~ ~. _ i U `y a ^. f1. ~ ~ u x U O O O O O ~ G ~ O O ~ ^' ~' P '~ '-' ~ a. a, a a a a a=. a~ w a a, c ~ H c~ a o ~n c c c, ~ O Q~ ~ 7 +--~ Q~ O ~ ~ M f/ i b~ ~ M in V ~ ro 'c7 O .~ ca U ~ °' ~ ~ i. ~ U v > 1-y O O a~+ O ~ ~N td U u. v ~; f/~ ~'i fJ O h .~ -a G U n C 0 U ~~ 0 c o ~ U ~ N ~ G N .~. N i c~ ~, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Op 00 ~ ~ O p O C O C O O O O O O O G O U ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O C O N ~' ~ O cp cn .-~. ~. N N ~ ~D ~G ~ ~ ~ M O N cV `"'a ~ . .~~. ~ L4' tt) t~ s§ ~ s4 ~ ~ t4 t4 sag ~ ~ s4 6~9 f/j ~ 69 N 69 ¢~ ~ s. cc i, i0 r ~ G ~ +~ O ~ O ~ 3 ~, v N O C C O G O O O C O O O O ~ ~ i W d~ O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p ~u O [~ .~ u O ~ O O O G O O C O 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~u "b LL ti .~ ~ .~ .~ .~ ~ .~ .-i .. ~ ~ [/] ~' q t9 6~ ~ s4 sb ~ ~ t4 t4 ~ sH V9 t4 t4 ~ 7 u ~ ~ VJ ~ '~'' ~ ~ ~ w~ U a N ~ ..~. cd u ~ «~. V L S+ O^ C ~ o' cn ~ C o c k H ~ U O O ~ A ~~ ~.. '~ ~~~-k N~ N x~ -7 ~ N O O ,.~ ~ rte' N M ~ iii N O O W cC C v ~ y W L'" s~ ~. ~y a. ~ ~' v o ~ U Q ~ ~ c ~ ~ v v a o ~ c a., ~ .. ~. ~, ° ~; ~n ~ a x ~ ~ ° ° Y "3 a c. a. ~ a a a. c. a a ~ ~ w w w w w w w w w u. w w ~, N 4-. p ~ ~ VY, cn tri cr c' i r'~ ~ ~"~ rn M r(; M ~ s4 r p U " ~ ~ ~ ~ cn b ~ n. ~.. c;~ c 'ti " c ~ v ~ ~ p ~ ~ o ~ ~ o N ~, > o o a Y ~~ ~~ r, M T v C Q 3 c~ N b'~ N '~ C. ~- ~ ~ ~ •y O ~ QJ ^ ~ V y ., ~ ~. .~ ~ ~ a. ~, '-( O ~ cd "' 'xs. U 'n i ~ fd ~ w r O d N u ~ ~ ~ o ~ N ~ ,~ p~ y. ~ ~ 7 a bA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ a> y v 'C ~ ~ LL 7 ~ c.N p O ~ ~ 't? Y a. v ~ xl s. X. y 'xi. .k .-.C` 'r ' b X .X .Y .x .-G` A LL I I ,y.' ~ ~?~~ C CU U .° W vr, E-~~ x ~- ~ rn ~ cn ~ C7 C7 v, rn rn cn ~ ~ W! ct T tf3 C a .~ U i E AGENDA SECTION: ('ons nt AGENDA ITEM # ](~ REPORT # 14 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S~ NO. NA AND/OR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S~ NO 39 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions authorizing approval of two Signal Agreements between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota De artment of Trans ortation. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolutions authorizing approval of two Signal Agreements between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. III. BACKGROUND ~ The Cities of Richfield, Edina and Bloomington had joined in 1994 with Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to improve signal coordination along arterials in the I-494 corridor. Computer technology from Sydney, Australia offered signal coordination both for north-south streets and east-west streets. However, the system has continually required substantial maintenance to keep the signals operating as originally intended. Recently, technical support for the Australian signal controllers is no 0916SignalAgmts longer available. The participating agencies, including the City of Richfield, decided to replace the signal controllers with controllers that are common in Minnesota. As part of this decision, maintenance responsibilities for certain signals will be changed to improve signal coordination and traffic flow. Under the first agreement the City will assume ownership of the MnDOT signal at the 76th Street exit ramp from I-35W in Richfield. This will make signal coordination easier on 76th Street from Newton Avenue to 77th Street and Meridian Crossings. The City owns all these neighboring signals. In the second agreement the signals at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue and at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue will be operated by MnDOT as part of five signals from American Boulevard to 76th Street. Also, the second agreement makes the signal at 77th Street and 12th Avenue part of afour-signal set on 12th Avenue from American Boulevard to 77th Street. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The proposed signal agreements are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan to "strengthen coordinated transportation efforts with other communities in the metropolitan are." $. CRITICAL ISSUES • The ,previous signal controllers were able to provide signal coordination for both north-south streets and for east-west streets. However, the communications network to run the system was unreliable. • Signal coordination in the east-west direction on 76th Street and 77th Street will be lost as the new controllers are not as advanced as the ones they are replacing. C. FINANCIAL • The City will be responsible for the added cost to maintain the signal at 76th Street and the exit ramp from I-35W. This cost is estimated at $800 to $1,200 per year. There is no change in costs in the second agreement. D. LEGAL • The first agreement shifts ownership from MnDOT to the City for the 76th Street exit ramp from I-35W. Both agreements describe the responsibilities of the City and MnDOT to maintain the signals. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ Reject the proposed signal agreements. While this may save some money, Coordination of east-west signal timing to improve traffic flow on 76th Street and 77th Street will be hindered. V. ATTACHMENTS • Two resolutions approving the proposed signal agreements between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. • Two signal agreements between the City of Richfield and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. One involves the signal at 76th Street and the exit ramp from I-35W. The other involves the signals at 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue, and at 77th Street and 12th Avenue. • Map of signals. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING approval of Signal Agreement No. 86781 M between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the City of Richfield for maintenance of the existing traffic signal at 76th Street and the Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp at 76th Street WHEREAS, the City of Richfield wishes to improve traffic signal coordination on its arterial streets; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has delegated to the City of Richfield the responsibility to maintain the traffic signal at 76th Street and the Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: For maintenance of the existing traffic control signal on Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp at 76th Street in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 86781 M, a copy of which was before the Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING approval of Signal Agreement No. 86777M between the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the City of Richfield for maintenance of the existing traffic signals at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue, 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, and 77th Street and 12th Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Richfield wishes to improve traffic signal coordination on its arterial streets; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated its willingness to assist the City of Richfield by maintaining the traffic signals at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue, 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, and 77th Street and 12th Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will be able to improve signal coordination between these signals and. others owned by Mn/DOT. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: For maintenance of the existing traffic control signals at the intersections of 12th Avenue and 77th Street, Lyndale Avenue at 76th Street, and Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 86777M, a copy of which was before the Council.. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 86781M BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR Maintenance of the existing Traffic Control Signal on Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp at 76th Street in Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Former ICTM Corridor Project Prepared by Metropolitan District Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE None AMOUNT ENCUMBERED None Otherwise Covered PARTIES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, (State) and the City of Richfield, (City) . T Tl^IT TT T !1 ' Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system. The-City and the State will participate in the maintenance and operation of the existing traffic control signal, (Traffic Control Signal), and emergency vehicle pre-emption, (EVP System), on Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp at 76th Street. The parties mutually desire the City to maintain the traffic signal cabinet and control equipment, maintain the EVP System, repair knockdowns of the existing .Traffic Control Signal system and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 86781M -1- CONTRACT 1. The responsibility for the existing Traffic Control Signal is as follows: a) The City will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the existing traffic control signal; (2) clean and paint the existing traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions; (3) maintain the luminaires and all their components, and including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; and (4) relamp the street lights; and b) The State will, at its cost and expense, maintain the signing and interconnect and perform all other existing traffic control signal and street light maintenance, which all is to be performed by the City on a reimbursable basis. 2. The EVP System will be operated, maintained, or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: a) It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the EVP System which is to be performed by the City on a reimbursable basis. b) Emitter units may be installed only on authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01, Subdivision 5. 86781M -2- Authorized emergency vehicles may use emitter . units only when responding to an emergency. c) Malfunction of the EVP System must be reported to the City immediately. d) In the event the EVP System or its components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after the City receives written notice from the State, the State may remove the EVP System. Upon removal of the EVP System pursuant to this Paragraph, all of its parts and components become the property of the State. e) All timing of the EVP System will be determined by the City's Traffic Engineer. 3. The City will, at its cost and expense, pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the existing Traffic Control Signal and EVP System. 4. The City will maintain and keep in repair the existing Traffic Control Signal and EVP System. The City will operate the existing Traffic Control Signal and EVP System, including timing, as specified in Paragraphs 1 and 2. The City will defend and indemnify the State from any claims arising out of 86781M -3- the performance or non-performance of the City's obligations under this paragraph. The City's liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law. 5. The City will invoice the State annually for the actual costs it incurs in maintaining and keeping in good repair the existing Traffic Control Signal and EVP System, as specified in Paragraphs land 2 excluding the following: Maintenance of the luminaires and all their components, and including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; relamping the traffic control signal and street lights; and cleaning and painting the traffic control signal, cabinet, and luminaire mast arm extensions, assigned to the City by this Agreement. The invoice must be submitted, in quintuplicate to the State's Metropolitan District .Electrical Service Unit. The invoice must include a detailed itemization of costs and be signed by a responsible. City official, attesting to the validity of the expenses. Subject to State's approval of the expenses and encumbrance of funds, the State will promptly pay the invoice. The invoice, and any supporting documents are subject to audit by proper. State officials, fora minimum of six years. 6. All timing of the existing Traffic Control Signal will be determined by the City's Traffic Engineer 86781M -4- 7. The State or the City may terminate the terms and conditions covering maintenance and .operation contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 upon providing 30 days notice to the other parties. The City's termination must be accomplished by a resolution of the City Council. The State's termination must be accomplished by a letter from Mn/DOT's Assistant Commissioner. Upon termination, responsibility for the existing Traffic Control Signal and EVP System will be as follows: a) The City will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the control signals; (2) clean and paint the traffic control signal, cabinet and luminaire mast arm extensions; (3) maintain the luminaires and all their components, and including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; and (4) relamp the street lights. The State will, at its cost and expense, maintain the signing and interconnect and perform all other existing traffic control signal and street light maintenance. In addition, all timing of the existing Traffic Control Signal and EVP System will be determined by the State, and no changes may be made except with the approval of the State. 8. Each party will be solely responsible for its own acts and omissions, and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law. The State's. liability is governed by the Minnesota Tort 86781M -5- Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736. Each party will be solely responsible for its own employees for any Workers Compensation Claims. 9. Upon execution and approval by the City and the State, this agreement will supersede and terminate maintenance and operation terms in Agreement No. 75960, Dated May 9, 1997 regarding this intersection. 10. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 11. If any party fails to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 12. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 13. Minnesota law governs this contract. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 86781M -6- 14. This Agreement is effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 16C.05, Subdivision 2, and will remain in effect until terminated by written agreement of the parties. 86781M -7- CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Mayor Date: By: City Manager Date: 86781M -8- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Metropolitan District Engineer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: State Design Engineer Date: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As to form and execution: As delegated to Materials Management Division By:_ By: Date: Contract Management Date: 86781M -9- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING approval of Signal Agreement No. 86781 M between the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Richfield for maintenance of the existing traffic signal at 76th Street and the Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp at 76th Street WHEREAS, the City of Richfield wishes to improve traffic signal coordination on its arterial streets; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has delegated to the City of Richfield the responsibility to maintain the traffic signal at 76t" Street and the Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota,. Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: For maintenance of the existing traffic control signal on Trunk Highway 35W West Ramp at 76t" Street in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 86781 M, a copy of which was before the Council Adopted by the City Council. of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 86777M BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR Maintenance of the existing Traffic Control Signals at the intersections of 12th Avenue at 77th Street, Lyndale Avenue at 76th Street, and Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street, in Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Former ICTM Corridor Project Prepared by Metropolitan. District Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE None AMOUNT ENCUMBERED None Otherwise Covered PARTIES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, (State) and the City of Richfield, (City) . 'o~n-rmT r n Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing,. maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system. The City and the State will participate in the maintenance and operation of the existing traffic control. signals, (Traffic Control Signals), and emergency .vehicle pre-emption systems, (EVP Systems), at the intersections of 12th Avenue at 77th Street, Lyndale Avenue at 76th Street, and Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street. The parties mutually desire the State to maintain the traffic signal cabinets and control equipment, maintain the EVP Systems, repair knockdowns of the Traffic Control Signal systems and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance not performed by the City and be responsible for timing and operation of the existing Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems, .all at the cost and expense of the City. 86777M -1- CONTRACT 1. The responsibility for the existing Traffic Control Signals is as follows: a) The City will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the existing traffic control signals; (2) clean and paint the existing traffic control signals, cabinets and luminaire mast arm extensions; (3) maintain the luminaires and all their components, and including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; and (4) relamp the street lights; and b) The City will, at its cost and .expense, maintain the signing and interconnect and perform all other existing traffic control signal and street light maintenance, which all is to be performed by the State on a reimbursable basis. 2. The EVP Systems will be operated, maintained, or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: a) It shall be the City's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the. EVP Systems which is to be performed by the State on a reimbursable basis. b) Emitter. units .may be installed only on .authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01, Subdivision 5. 86777M -2- Authorized emergency vehicles may use emitter units only when responding to an emergency. c) Malfunction of the EVP Systems must be reported to the State immediately. d) In the event the EVP Systems or its components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are violated, and such misuse or violation continues after the City receives written notice from the State, the State may remove the EVP Systems. Upon removal of the EVP Systems pursuant to this Paragraph, all of its parts and components become the property of the City. e) All timing of the EVP Systems will be determined by the State's Traffic Engineer. 3. The City will, at its cost and expense, pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the existing Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems. 4. The State will provide the necessary labor, material and equipment to maintain and keep in repair the traffic control signal cabinets and control equipment, the EVP Systems, repair knockdowns of the Traffic Control Signal systems and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance not 86777M -3- performed by the City, and will be responsible for the timing and operation of the existing Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems at the intersections of 12th Avenue at 77th Street, Lyndale Avenue at 76th Street, and Lyndale Avenue at 77th Street, all on a reimbursable basis with the City. 5. Upon completion of any work performed under this agreement, the State will submit to the City a detailed invoice in duplicate listing all labor, equipment and materials used. The City will reimburse the State for services provided hereunder as follows: a) Direct labor charges will be reimbursed at the actual hourly rates paid to State forces performing the work.. b) Fringe benefits will. be reimbursed as a percentage of direct labor charges, such percentage to be determined by the State Accounting and Finance Section at the beginning of each State fiscal year from the current cost accounting data. c) Overhead costs will be reimbursed as a percentage of the total of direct labor charges, fringe benefits and the cost of any materials, equipment and personal expense provided, such percentage to be determined 86777M -4- by the State Finance and Accounting Section at the beginning of each State fiscal year from the current cost accounting data. d) Any material used will be reimbursed at their actual cost to the State. 6. Upon receipt of said invoice, the City will promptly pay the State the full amount due. If the City fails to pay any amount due to the State under this agreement, the Commissioner of Transportation may withhold payment of State Aid money to the City to the extent provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 161.38, Subdivision 6. 7. Either party may terminate this agreement upon providing 30 days notice to the other party. The City's termination must be accomplished by a resolution of the City Council. The State's termination must be accomplished by a letter from Mn/DOT's Assistant Commissioner. Upon. termination it will be the City's responsibility, at its costs and expense, to maintain and keep in repair the existing Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems. Upon termination, the timing of the existing Traffic Control Signals and EVP Systems will be determined by the City's Engineer. 86777M -5- 8. Each party will be solely responsible for its own acts and omissions, and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law. The State's liability is governed by the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736 and the City's liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. Each party will be solely responsible for its own employees for any Workers Compensation Claims. 9. Upon execution and approval by the City and the State, this agreement will supersede and terminate maintenance and operation terms in any other existing agreements regarding these intersections. 10. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved .the original Agreement, or their successors in office.. 11. If any party fails to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 12. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 86777M -6- 13. Minnesota law governs this contract. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 14. This Agreement is effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 160.05, Subdivision 2, and will remain in effect until terminated by written agreement of the parties. The State may immediately terminate this Agreement at any time if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature, or other funding source, or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to complete the work under this Agreement. 86777M -7- CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Mayor Date: By: City Manager Date: 86777M -8- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Metropolitan District Engineer DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: State Design Engineer Date: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As to form and execution: As delegated to Materials Management Division 8~,: Contract Management By: Date: Date: 86777M -9- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING approval of Signal Agreement No. 86777M between the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT) and the City of Richfield for maintenance of the existing traffic signals at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue, 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, and 77th Street and 12th Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Richfield wishes to improve traffic signal coordination on its arterial streets; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated its willingness to assist the City of Richfield by maintaining the traffic signals at 76th Street and Lyndale Avenue, 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue, and 77th Street and 12th Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will be able to improve signal coordination between these signals and others owned by MnDOT; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: For maintenance of the existing traffic control signals at the intersections of 12t" Avenue and 77t" Street, Lyndale Avenue. at 76t" Street, and Lyndale Avenue at 77t" Street in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 86777M, a copy of which was before the Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September, 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Q V t+ 5 a AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Consent 7B 141 Related to: CrrY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: ANn/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: d N/A ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consent to register the title to certain real estate related to the Kensington Park redevelopment ro'ect. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Consent to register the title to certain real estate related to the Kensington Park redevelopment project. II. BACKGROUND Lyndale Gateway, LLC, developer of the Kensington Park redevelopment project at Lyndale Avenue and 77th Street, is in the process of registering real estate titles through a legal proceeding with Hennepin County District Court. In order for the proceeding to move forward, the City of Richfield needs to consent to this registration because it has an interest in a small portion of the land named in the proceeding. This portion is located at approximately the northwest corner of 77th Street and Lyndale Avenue. 091604LandRegisir KP The Report of the Examiner indicates that the only recorded interest of the City in the land that is being registered is a party wall interest (from a previously owned building purchased by the City for the 77th Street project) and its interest as an occupant of adjacent land (the adjoining street). Exhibit A to the Consent provides the legal description to the land being registered. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City is named in the proceeding because of its interest in the land. • The City's consent to the registration proceeding will expedite the land registration by the developer. B. CRrrICAL ISSUES • The proposed consent form accurately reflects the City's interest in the land being registered and will avoid the need for a contested hearing on the City's interests. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • By consenting to the proceeding, ,the City waives the right to contest the land registration proceeding. The City has no reason to contest the proceeding, however.. • Legal counsel has reviewed this matter. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Delay or do not consent to the registration proceeding. However, doing so will only delay the registration proceeding. V. ATTACHMENTS • Consent VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A STATE OF MINNESOTA No. 20747 DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CONSENT In the Matter of the Application of Lyndale Gateway, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, to register the title to certain real estate situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described in Exhibit A attached hereto. THE UNDERSIGNED hereby consents to the Application and Order prayed for in this matter. The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that the City of Richfield claims no interest in the land being registered pursuant to the party wall agreement recorded as County Recorder Document No. 2790922. The undersigned further represents that the City of Richfield is the sole occupant of the land described in Certificate of Title No. 1119310. Dated this day of , 2004. CITY OF RICHFIELD By: Its: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2004, by ,the of the City of Richfield, a municipal organization under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public EXHIBIT A Lots 1 through 6 and Lots 9 through 15; The North 28.3 feet of Lot 7; That part of the East Half of the vacated alley lying between the westerly extensions of the north line of said Lot 1 and of the south line of the North 28.3 feet of said Lot 7; That part of the West half of the vacated alley lying between the easterly extensions of the north line of said Lot 15 and of the south line of said Lot 9; All in "GLENN'S ADDITION." AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 7A REPORT # 140 ~~ STAFF REPQRT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Related to: CITY COUNCIL GOAL(S) No. N/A REPORT PREPARED BY: AND/oR RICHFIELD 2020 GOAL(S) NO N/A MIKE KOOB, POLICE LIEUTENANT TITLE COUNCIL PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~, ~i-~~7-- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution regarding an agreement between the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the City of Richfield, Public Safety Department, pertaining to the Safe & Sober Pro ram. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the acceptance of grant funds to be used for the payment of overtime for officers involved in the Safe & Sober Proaram. II. BACKGROUND Edina, Airport and Richfield Police departments submitted a joint grant application to the State for funds that are to be utilized for enhanced traffic enforcement during the upcoming year. They have been jointly awarded $30,000 and plan on scheduling joint enforcement campaigns. 0916 Safe and Sober Grant Funds III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION -I A. POLICY • The State requires that the City approve a resolution accepting the funds prior to the issuance of the grant money. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The resolution needs to be signed by all three agencies' City Councils before the release of funds to the police departments. • Traffic law enforcement is a critical function of the Richfield police division. Approval of the resolution makes available funds to cover the costs associated with focusing on this area. C. FINANCIAL The overtime paid to the officers will come from the grant funds. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council could disapprove the resolution which would void the agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RICHFIELD/POLICE TO PARTICIPATE JOINTLY WITH EDINA POLICE AND AIRPORT POLICE IN AN AGREEMENT WITH AND TO RECEIVE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, TO PAY OVERTIME TO OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE SAFE & SOBER PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Richfield Police submitted a joint grant application, along with the City of Edina Police Department and the Airport Police Department, to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and WHEREAS, the Office of Traffic Safety has awarded the police departments of Richfield, Edina and Airport a grant for $30,000 in a combined joint enforcement effort, the money to be split equally by the three departments ($10,000 each); and WHEREAS, the Richfield Police division has been appointed the lead agency this year in the grant, as far as managing the grant funds; and WHEREAS, the funds will be utilized for overtime enhancement efforts and equipment during the period October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005; and WHEREAS, the agencies will schedule joint enforcement campaigns during this period. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Richfield Police will enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for the project entitled SAFE & SOBER COMMUNITIES, during the period October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. Public Safety Director Dan Scott is hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Richfield Police division and to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 16th day of September 2004. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk