Loading...
06-25-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2002 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY HALL - HEREDIA ROOM 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1. Interview of persons interested in serving on City's Planning Commission Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER 6710 LAKE SHORE DRIVE 6:30 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (15 minutes maximum) Each speaker is asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked 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. Notes: Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of June 8, 2002 and (2) Regular City Council Meeting of June 11, 2002 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of proclamation designating Women of Today Founders Day, July 1, 2002 2. Receipt of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31; 2001. Staff Report No. 154 ,COUNCIL DISCUSSION Council attendance at community meetings Notes: 3. City Manager's report Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolution declaring adequacy of petition for alley vacation for 6300 blocks of Colfax and Dupont Avenues and first reading of transitory ordinance to vacate alley and schedule public hearing on August 13, 2002 S.R. No. 155 B. Consideration of approval of community celebration event and temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, with fee waiver, for Fourth of July Celebration Committee for annual events on June 27 through July 6, 2002 S.R. No. 156 C. Consideration of approval of itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for Church of St. Peter, 6730 Nicollet Avenue, annual Fall Festival on October 4 through 6, 2002 S.R. No. 157 D. Consideration of approval of temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and itinerant food licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue, for activities on July 3 and 4, 2002 S.R. No. 158 Notes: 6. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar OTHER BUSINESS 7. Discussion regarding request from searchlight companies seeking re-examination of City's ordinance related to prohibition of searchlights in Richfield Staff Report No. 159 Notes: 8. Discussion regarding amendment to Resolution No. 8808 which specifies certain improper conduct of on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensees and recommended discipline Staff Report No. 160 Notes: 9. Consideration of appointment to Planning Commission to fill mid-term vacancy Staff Report No. 161 Notes: 10. 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 asked to complete a speaker's form and provide it to a staff member. Speakers are also asked 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. Notes: 11.Adjournment AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 OTHER BUSINESS REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NauE TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: J. KIRSCH, MAYOR TITLE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of mid-term appointment to Planning Commission I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Appoint person to fill mid-term vacancy on the Planning Commission with the term ex irin on Janua 31, 2005 II. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has one mid-term vacancy due to a resignation. The term expires on January 31, 2005. The Council directed staff to the contact the four Planning Commission applicants who were interviewed in January during the annual recruitment but were not appointed. These four applicants were re-interviewed at a Special City Council meeting on June 25, 2002. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or ~~. ' resolution. Terms are for three years and are staggered. The Council directs the City Manager's office to conduct a recruitment seeking applicants to fill the vacancies. Interviews of the applicants are 0625appointment conducted at a Special City Council meeting. These meetings are posted in accordance with the open meeting law requirements. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Applicants were interviewed at a Special City Council meeting on June 25, 2002. • There is one mid-term vacancy on the Planning Commission. • In order to ensure quorums for future meetings, appointments should be made on June 25, 2002. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMI~~NDATION~S~ • Defer the appointment to a later Council meeting. V. ATTACI-Il~IENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ~~ AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # 16 0 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxIUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion and consideration of an amendment to attached Resolution No. 8808 which specifies certain improper conduct of on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees and states recommended disci line. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Discuss and consider an amendment to attached Resolution No. 8808 which specifies certain improper conduct of on- sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licensees and states recommended discipline. II. BACKGROUND On January 8, 2001,. the City Council reviewed information regarding a liquor establishment that had sold alcohol to an underage minor. As part of that discussion, Councilmembers decided that changes may need to be made to the resolution that outlines the progressive discipline that can be expected by establishments in the event they fail an alcohol compliance check. The discussion primarily revolved around fines, suspensions and length of time between violations. Staff reviewed the current process at a City Council Worksession on February 12, 2001 and highlighted the processes being used by neighboring cities. Staff was directed by Council, at that time, to continue to research how other cities are generally managing their alcohol compliance check process and what the track records were in other cities for the same establishments located in Richfield. In the meantime, plans were also underway to meet with Richfield establishments for the purpose of general discussion and providing feedback on the process. Staff hoped that through feedback at that meeting, they would be better able to determine what changes, if any, needed to occur in the current alcohol compliance check process and the resolution that identifies discipline. On February 20, 2001, letters were sent by Public Safety to all alcohol establishments inviting them to an alcohol information meeting.. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Richfield's current alcohol compliance check process and provide them with the opportunity to give the City feedback on the program. A total of 34 establishments were invited to attend. Twelve establishments were ultimately represented at that meeting. Feedback was solicited from them and ideas were exchanged. Some of their feedback was similar in nature to the feedback from the City Council regarding specifics within each violation level,. fines and penalties. Staff completed fhe research requested by the City Council and the mat'tLr ivas scheduled for continued discussion at the April 9, 2001 Worksession. A!I Richfield alcohol establishments were also invited-'to attend that 41,'orksession. The outcome of the Ap~'il 9, 2001 Worksession found that an ordinance amendment should be brought back to the Council fir review at a future Worksession. Some of the suggestions made were to: increase server fines, decrease the timeframe between violations for establishments, and consider the possibility of servers being required to perform community service hours. In a Council Memorandum dated November 21, 2001, staff outlined for the City Council the need to consider adding a "fifth" level to the progressive discipline contained in Resolution 8808 due to the fact that one establishment had already reached the fourth level. It was determined that the matter would be submitted to the City Council for general Council discussion at the November 26, 2001 Worksession. At the November 26, 2001 City Council Worksession, staff received direction from the City Council to return, at a later date, with progressive liquor discipline options for licensed liquor establishments. This was to include addressing discipline beyond the fourth violation, options for increasing the fines for each violation level and reducing the time frame between violations. ~~, Staff has completed that work and is submitting to the City Council for discussion and consideration various options for changes in an amendment to Resolution 8808. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • By amending the current Resolution 8808, the City Council will have an updated version of the progressive discipline resolution in place prior to the July 23, 2002 Council meeting. It will be at that meeting, that establishments who failed the most recent liquor compliance check, will appear. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Many establishments are diligently trying to do the best they can in training employees. Yet, there are a few who don't appear to be making that same level of effort. For those that are trying, an uncooperative or careless employee can result in their failure of an alcohol compliance check and cause them to have to pay a fine but more importantly, lose significant alcohol revenue as a result of having their license suspended. ,Feedback from alcohol establishments has encouraged the City to explore the strengthening of the penalties and training required for servers. They have also suggested increasing fines earlier and decreasing the amount of time between each violation, which is similar to the recommendations of the City Council. C. FINANCIAL • As noted earlier, establishments who fail alcohol compliance checks are penalized both with a dollar fine and in a significant loss of alcohol revenue as a result of suspensions. D. LEGAL • Servers in Richfield who fail an alcohol compliance check are currently being fined $200 in court. Some cities (Maple Grove is one example) are currently fining servers in their City in the amount of $400. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • In addition to the amendment of Resolution 8808, staff is also in the process of developing language to present to the City Council, at a later date, to amend the alcohol ordinance. This amendment would mean that servers who attend voluntary alcohol training given by the City, would receive a reduced fine in court if they were part of an alcohol compliance check failure, and would receive a higher fine if they chose to not participate in City sponsored alcohol training. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution 8808 Alcohol Discipline Options VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None ~~ CITY OF RICHFIELD RESOLUTION NO. 8808 RESOLUTION SPECIFYING CERTAIN IMPROPER CONDUCT OF ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR, WINE AND 3.2 MALT LIQUOR LICENSEES AND STATING RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 8714 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 impact 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 device 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 2 days and a civil fine of $500 will be due and payable to the City. 2) For a second offense, (if within 2 years of the 1st offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for 5 days and a civil fine of $1500 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of 2 years of a 1st offense, it will be considered a first offense. 3) For a third offense, (if within 3 years of the 2nd offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for 10 days and a civil fine of 1750 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of three years of a second offense, it will be considered a 2nd offense. 4) For a fourth offense, (if within 4 years of the 3rd offense), the establishment's license will be revoked and a civil fine of 2000 will be due and payable to-the City. If the offense occurs outside of four years of a third offense, it will be considered a 3rd offense. 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 request 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 13th day of December 1999. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Thomas Ferber, City Clerk ALCOHOL DISCIPLINE OPTIONS Current Discipline Grid for Sale of Alcohol to a Minor• First offense - 2-day suspension and $500 fine Second offense - 5-day suspension and $1500 fine Third offense - 10-day suspension and $1750 fine Fourth offense -Revocation and a $2000 fine Alternative Discipline Grid Options: O tion 1 Increase Over Current Grid First offense - 3-day suspension and $750 fine ----------- (1-day susp/$250 fine) Second offense - 7-day suspension and $1750 ----------- (2-day susp/$250 fine) Third offense - 12-day suspension and $2000 ------------- (2-day susp/$250 fine) Fourth offense - *revocation hearing and $2000 fine Fifth offense -revocation for one year and $2000 fine Option 2 First offense - 5-day suspension and $1000 fine ---------- (3-day susp/$500 fine) Second offense.-10-day suspension and $2000 fine ---- (5-day susp/$500 fine) Third offense - 15-day suspension and $2000 fine -------- (5-day susp/$250 fine) Fourth offense - *revocation hearing and $2000 fine Fifth offense -revocation for two years and $2000 fine Option 3 First offense - 7-day suspension and $2000 fine ---------- (5-day susp/$1500 fine) Second offense - 12-day suspension and $2000 fine ---- (7-day susp/$500 fine) Third offense - 17-day suspension and $2000 fine -------- (7-day susp/$250 fine) Fourth offense - *revocation hearing and $2000 fine Fifth offense -revocation for two years and $2000 fine *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 permanently 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. It is also recommended that the length of time between violations for a third and fourth offense, be decreased to two years rather than left at three years for a third offense and four years for a fourth offense. STEP BACK OPTION With any of these proposed options, it would be 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 has had a total of three failures but has successfully passed two consecutive compliance checks since the third failure, they would step back to a second failure 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. Depending on the number of compliance checks that are done by Public Safety, this could be a 1-2 year period at minimum. This would also show a commitment by the City to "work with" establishments on improving their ability to comply and rewarding them by moving back a failure level. This also supports the City's position that establishments are valued in the community, and that it is not a goal of the City Council to close any establishment's doors. AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 159 ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: RICK REGNIER, CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIItECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Discussion of the request from searchlight companies seeking to have the City's ordinance re- examined re ardin the rohibition of searchli hts in Richfield. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and Direction: Staff seeking discussion and Council direction regarding the request to have the City's attached Ci y Code 416.07, Subd. 1(a)(7) ordinance reviewed regarding the prohibition of searchlights in Richfield. II. BACKGROUND This issue has been before the Council numerous #imes. It was originally brought to Council during an Open Forum on September 10, 2001, by Mr. David Borun, Hollywood Searchlight. The attached Council Memorandum, dated November 8, 2001, was prepared and discussion was scheduled for the Council meeting on November 13, 2001; however, the requesting party did not show up for the discussion. It has since been rescheduled numerous times. Public Safety staff contacted the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requesting their input on the use of searchlights in Richfield, as it relates to Richfield's proximity to the airport. 0625 Searchlights Attached are comments from Rick Regnier, Richfield's Building Official, based on Inspections staff conversations with MAC and FAA. Also attached is a letter from the FAA in response to staffs questions. Staff is now bringing the matter before the Council for discussion and seeking direction. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code 416.07, Subd. 1(a)(7) prohibits searchlights in all zoning districts of the City. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The close proximity to the airport is a big concern because the searchlights are likely to interfere with air traffic control. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not change current ordinance, which would result in the continued prohibition of searchlights in Richfield. • Change the ordinance to allow searchlights in Richfield. This would be in conflict with FAA rules. • Defer the discussion and decision to another meeting. V. ATTACHIVIENTS • Richfield City Code 416.07, Subd.1(a)(7). • Council Memorandum No. 121, November 8, 2001 regarding Searchlight Regulations. in Richfield. • Memorandum of May 21, 2002 from Richard Regnier, Building Official, to Dan Scott, Director of Public Safety. • Letter of May 24, 2002 from Dawn Holst, Air Traffic Manager, FAA, to Dan Scott. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Staff contacted Jan Steuck, Skytracker Promotions, on June 19, 2002 notifying her of the discussion before Council tonight. She will contact Mr. ~ ~ David Borun, Hollywood Searchlight. Richfield City Code 416.05 416.05. Sign installer license. Subdivision 1. License required. No person shall engage in the business of erecting signs until licensed by the city council to do so. No such license shall be required for the erection of signs exempt from sign construction permits. Subd. 2. Application. Application for a sign installer's license shall be made to the city clerk upon such forms as required by the city. The license fee in the amount hereafter provided shall accompany the application. Subd. 3. License fee. The fee for a sign installer's license shall be in the amount provided for in Appendix D of this code. Subd. 4. License period. The licenses issued under this subdivision shall be for an annual basis running from July 1 through June 30 of the next year. Subd. 5. Bond. No permit shall be issued until the licensee has filed with the city clerk a bond with corporate surety in the sum of $1000. The bond shall guarantee that the licensee will fully and faithfully comply with the provisions of this ordinance and other applicable city ordinances. Subd. 6. Revocation or non-renewal of license. The sign installer's license may be revoked or not renewed for any violation of the requirements of this section. The decision to revoke or not renew a license. may be made by the city after notice to the licensee and a reasonable opportunity for the licensee to be heard. 416.07. District requirements. Subdivision 1. Provisions applicable to all districts. (a) Signs prohibited. The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts of the city: (1) Flashing and motion signs. (2) Roof signs, including temporary roof signs, but excluding promotional display devices. (3) Any sign which obstructs ingress or egress from any fire escape, window or door. (4) Any sign located and maintained on or over any public property except traffic signs and public directional signs, and signs on benches, bus shelters and telephone booths. (5) Any sign located, designed or maintained in a manner which is likely to cause confusion or interfere with the visibility of traffic signs, traffic control devices, crossroads, driveways or crosswalks. (6) Temporary ground sign (portable). (7) Searchlights. (8) Abandoned signs. (b) Si ris permitted. The following signs are permitted in all zoning districts of the city subject to all-other applicable requirements contained in the code: (1) Temporary signs. CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager November 8, 2001 Council Memorandum No. 121 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Searchlight Regulations in Richfield Council Members: In response to a question from David Borun, 2827 Stevens Avenue South, Minneapolis, at the September 10 City Council meeting, staff has outlined below Richfield regulations regarding searchlights. Section 416.07 Subdivision 1 specifies sign provisions applicable to all zoning districts in the City. Section `a' of Subdivision 1 outlines signs that are prohibited in all zoning districts in Richfield. Eight specific signs or types of signs are listed as being prohibited, including searchlights. Staff contacted two .adjoining communities to learn what their rules are regarding searchlights, with the following results: Bloomington: Use of searchlights is only allowed with a temporary sign permit. Such permits regulate how long such a sign can be in place. Edina: Edina prohibits searchlights in all districts and does not grant temporary permits for their use. If the Council wished to consider allowing spotlights in Richfield, two possible options include: The Council might consider allowing search lights as `promotional displays' and regulate them under Section 416.07, Subdivision 7 of the code. This section currently outlines rules for "promotional display devices" in the C-2 (General Commercial) and I (Industrial) districts. Subsection (iv) states that in these two zoning districts, a permit is required for signs that are promotional displays. Time limits are also outlined. • Another option is to institute "Temporary Use Permits". Currently, Richfield does not -~, have a "Temporary Use Permit" as many cities have. Zoning Administrator Bruce Sylvester is discussing the idea of creating a `Temporary Use Permit' system with the Planning Commission at its November 20 meeting. If this system is adopted, searchlights might also be regulated through this type of permit. Attached to this memo is a copy of Section 416.07, Subdivision 1 and 416.07 Subdivision 7 of Richfield City Codes. If you have any questions regarding this matter, contact Planning and Zoning Administrator, Bruce Sylvester, at 612-861-9766, or me. This matter is scheduled for discussion at the November 13 Council Worksession. Respectfully submitted, Samantha Orduno City Manager SO:cak Attachment CITY OF RICHFIELD Department Of Public Safety Memorandum Date: May 21, 2002 To: Richard Regnier, Building Official From: Dan Scott, Public Safety Director Subject: Searchlights in the City of Richfield Searchlights are prohibited anywhere within the City of Richfield by City Code Section 416.07 I contacted Josh Paurus, Mac Operations with the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Mr. Paunis stated that searchlights are not allowed within five to six miles of any airport. He then referred me to the FAA for fiu-ther clarification. Contact person: Josh Paurus, MAC- 612-726-5111 I contacted Carol Bernacchi, Air Traffic Specialist from the FAA. If searchlights are allowed by City Ordinance, the following information most be submitted to the FAA for approval: - A form must be filed with the FAA at the address below 30 days prior to the start date of tl~e searchlights - A map to scale, showing location of searchlights in relationship to the airport. - Submit specifications on the searchlight. Questions aild forms regarding FAA regulations may be directed to Carol Bernacchi, Air Traffic Specialist: FAA-AGL-520 Attn: Carol Bernacchi 2300 East Devon Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 1-847-294-8084 The entire city .limits of Richfield are within five miles of the airport. It is my recommendation that the City Ordinance that prohibits searchlights should not be changed for safety considerations. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration May 24, 2002 Mr. Don Scott Public Safety Director 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Scott: Airport Traffic Control Tower 6311 34`x' Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 This letter is in response to a question posed by your Administrative Assistant, Julie Bocuski, concerning the use of spotlights near the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. The FAA administers the navigable airspace in the public interest as necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of that airspace. Generally we approve or disapprove the use of spotlights near the airport on an individual basis determined by runways in use, traffic volume and complexity, weather conditions, etc. However, a more general guideline that ttie Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) practices to provide a safe environment for the flying public is to not allow spotlight usage within afive-mile radius of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport. If you have any additional questions concerning this issue please call. my Staff Specialist, Alan Lindquist at 612-713-4015. Sincerely, ~~ Dawn M. Holst Air Traffic Manager AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 Consent 5D 158 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an annual request for temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and itinerant food licenses for activities scheduled to take place on July 3 and 4, 2002 for the Minneapolis- Richfield American Le ion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and itinerant food licenses for the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue, for activities scheduled to take place on July 3 and 4, 2002. II. BACKGROUND On May 13, 2002, the Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435 submitted their annual request for a temporary license to serve on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor and an itinerant food license for the Fourth of July activities. The required licensing fees have been received. This request is in conjunction with the Richfield Fourth of July Celebration and has been organized by the Fourth of July Committee. The Legion plans to have an open house and community dance outside on their property, and they would like to serve refreshments, including beer. Their food menu will consist of items such as 0625Legion Fourth of July hot dogs, hamburgers, sloppy Joes, pork chops, chicken wings, onion rings, french fries, ice cream, candy, soda, and water.. Their current liquor license is only valid for the serving of alcohol within the establishment and does not cover the exterior serving. Proof of liquor liability insurance coverage, to cover the exterior of their property, has been provided showing American Employers Insurance as affording the coverage. The applicant 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. The Public Safety Department received two calls in connection with this celebration for the previous year. One call was regarding a disturbance and the other was regarding a weapons violation. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The-.applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. • The City has previously issued temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses in conjunction with the Fourth of July Celebration. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • That the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor cease no later than midnight. • The applicant has hired a professional security organization to oversee all hours of operation for this event. • There have been no alcohol-related incidents in the past for this event. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) ~ • Deny the request of a temporary 3.2 percent malt liquor license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning the temporary sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor, in conjunction with the Fourth of July Celebration. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for denial. ~ V. ATTACHMENTS ~ LPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Roger Wysong, Legion Manager, has been notified of the date for Council consideration of this request. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # S C REPORT # 15 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food license for the Church of St. Peter, -6730 Nicollet Avenue South, for their annual Fall Festival to be held October 4-6, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve an itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food license for the Church of St. Peter's annual Fall Festival to be held October 4-6, 2002 at 6730 Nicollet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On May 6, 2002, the Church of St. Peter submitted a request for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for their Fall Festival to be held October 4 through 6, 2002. All fees have been received. They plan to serve chili, spaghetti and French bread for dinner, as well as a few miscellaneous snacks from the concessions staffed by Herr Concessions. Herr Concessions will also be handling the rides and games for this event. 0625St.Peter's Fall Festival The Church of St. Peter has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. In addition, Herr Concessions has been in contact with the City of Bloomington regarding food preparation and handling practices. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. The City has previously issued this license in conjunction with the St. Peter Fall Festival. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to this license. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for itinerant place of amusement and itinerant food licenses for the Church of St. Peter. However, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. In addition, the Council has previously granted this license in conjunction with St. Peters Fall Festival. V. ATTACHMENTS • N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ann Garland or other church of St. Peter staff. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5 $ REPORT # 15 6 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMnvISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of an annual request for a community celebration event license and a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license, with a request for a fee waiver, for the Fourth of July Committee for events. scheduled to take place at Veterans Memorial Park, June 27 through Julv 6, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a community celebration event license and a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license, with a fee waiver, for the Fourth of July Committee for the annual events scheduled to take place June 27 throuah July 6. 2002. II. BACKGROUND Each year the Fourth of July Committee makes application for a community celebration event license and requests that the fee be waived for the activities that take place throughout the City for this celebration. This year's celebration is scheduled to take place June 27 through July 6, 2002. As in the past three years, they have also included a request for a temporary on- sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license which would allow them to serve beer and wine 0625 Fourth of July Committee coolers at Veterans Memorial Park during the July 3 activities. A copy of the liquor liability insurance has been provided. A detailed activity plan of the days' events is currently on file. A copy is also attached. The food concessions will be staffed by members of various organizations, most of whom have been with the committee since the celebration began. 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. In addition, each individual concessionaire has been approved by Doug Deyer of the Bloomington Health Department. All fees for each professional concession have been received. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City application process and meets the requirements for fee waiver. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Public Safety Police Officers have been hired by the Fourth of July Committee to patrol the area for this event. • There have been no alcohol-related incidents in the past for this event. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the request for a community celebration event license and a temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation and temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor sales, on June 27 through July 6, 2002. V. ATTACFIlVIENTS • Copy of the schedule of events. ,-_~~ VI. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Pat Rickert, President of the Fourth of July Committee, has been notified of the date for Council consideration of this request. ~,$Q~ °o.>~a''\..~ . ~ a~o via- ,w~.,~~~ ¢ v_,a aa ~ ~ ¢ Z ~ p Z .--~ ~ O g .-~ ¢ mow., K( "' O w -.. g coo>E °oOQ - wW u~. ~o ~¢_ ~ u~i .~-i +~ O ~ ¢ ~ O ¢ z ~ u.i ~~---- Q N uw3 O w= w 3 g ~ ° ¢ r-, > o as z z z o o: '~' ~ a t7~¢ ~ ~ p Q n~cOIO-j z ~ o ~ ~ ~ V'Z ~Ha Z~z ~ Go ~~~~~tna ~ ~~° ~Q °-~~ ~ V O a.~ Z~cc ~~'~ OoOQ-~1-O ~ ~~ I ~© ~o=Z ot~! Z o~= ~xnQ. f¢..~ oI z,...~z~. _OVWF- uZa Fa..~~ rim o~p~ ^g~ '' ~~ ~p7 ~ z ~ ~ Z ''' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g z g p cC Vf ~ ~ _ O ¢ ~ O 'Q ~ C7 f ~ t'-~'nw~ ~w~wg ~ ~~ =E~ E ~~ ~ v= V a- =a~.~m cn =a UJam ~ wza- c,)wn:m ~~z~t,7 Q~° ~ooUCa~ a~mpg d~°~ ~}Z~O ¢~iT„{.~ C7~C~pa 4 °¢C I ~ I °- ~ w !- I ¢ I V w V g w ~ Q~ ~ V ~ O rL Q pu$ QoZ~aS m~~WC° p~o~ ~ .LL~M OC~DatS ,~wF-~ou' r~ O a Z ~b N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >' N Y Q LL! Q ~ a w °G > LL ~ wWwcow~ ~ ,~ ~~ ,.., ! ~aa~~pm ~ ~~~OV O ~ W ~z V { ~O :.YwYy ¢ I J~o~~~~'v~~ QQ odS W ~ O O ~ to o- ~ F- ~ ¢ d- ~ G1 H U S = W E-VwpvZ~ V~°o ~~~~z~pQdS O°.~ F- V w m r~ ~ w iri zoo u.i a w ~ w ~ ll~ w ~~ Z aoo Nt- > ~ w ~ ~ `° ~ ~. AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 Consent 5A 155 REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TiTLe BRUCE NORDQUIST, REPORT PRESENTER: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER NAME, TITLE ACTING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: `- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~/ ~'~~~ ~' ~~, / ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution declaring the adequacy of petition for an alley vacation, conducting a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate an alley, and calling for a public hearing to consider the request to vacate an alley. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Adopt the attached resolution declaring the adequacy of petition for an alley vacation. By Motion: Conduct a first reading of a Transitory Ordinance to vacate an alley; and call for a public hearing on August 13, 2002 to consider the request to vacate an alley. III. BACKGROUND ~ Residents of the 6300 blocks of Colfax and Dupont Avenues have submitted a petition requesting the vacation of the unconstructed north-south alley located between Colfax and Dupont Avenues. Please see attachment `A' for a map of the alley in question. • There are five parcels abutting these alleys and four homes abutting this alley-one home occupies two parcels. 062502-AI IeyVacatio n • The owners of three of the homes and four of the properties have signed a petition asking-that the alley be vacated. • The owner of the fourth home and fifth parcel-Mr. George Holter-withdrew his request that the alley be improved and has informed Community Development staff that he is not opposed to the alley vacation. • The alley to be vacated has never been constructed or improved so that there is no pavement or vehicle access. Rather, there is an alley easement at the rear of the adjoining property-owner's yards. By vacating the alley, this alley easement will be converted from public to private land. I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • Richfield City Charter Section 13.05 specifies procedures for the City Council to vacate a street or alley. • Richfield City Code section 820.05 states that the Council "shall by resolution acknowledge receipt of any petition. The Council shall also set the date for a public hearing on any proposed street vacation. No vacation may be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so and only after a hearing preceded by two weeks published notice." B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds and Titles and public utilities have received notice of this alley vacation request and have been asked to identify any electric or telephone poles or lines; gas or sewer lines; water pipes, mains, or hydrants; and any other cables or utilities in the alley to be vacated. Their response is pending. Prior to the second reading, the transitory ordinance would state the results of their response. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • In order to be determined adequate, the petition must be signed by the owners of half of the land abutting on the alley to be vacated. Richfield City Code subsection 820.03. • The draft transitory ordinance provides alternative responses to the need to retain utility easements, if necessary. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council could acknowledge receipt of the petition but choose not to conduct a-first reading. V. ATTACHMENTS • City Council Resolution finding the petition to be adequate • Draft City Council Transitory Ordinance to vacate the alley • Attachment `A'-map showing alley to be vacated • Petition requesting an alley to be vacated VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mr. Rav Ahrndt. petitioner. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR VACATION OF AN ALLEY AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST TO VACATE AN ALLEY WHEREAS, the City has received a petition for the vacation of the north-south alley in the 6300 block between Dupont Avenue South and Colfax Avenue South; and WHEREAS, Richfield City Code Subsection 820.03 requires that a petition for vacation of a street or alley be signed by the owners of at least half of the land abutting the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the owners of approximately 60 percent of the land abutting on the alley have signed the petition for vacation of the alley. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: A certain petition requesting the vacation of the north-south alley in the 6300 block of between Dupont Avenue South and Colfax Avenue South in the City of Richfield, filed with the City on April 2, 2002, is declared to be signed by the owners of the required percentage of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity with Richfield City Code Subsection 820.03. 2. A public hearing on the proposed alley vacation is scheduled for August 13, 2002. The City Clerk is directed to publish notice of the public hearing in the City's official newspaper once each week for two consecutive weeks, with the first publication occurring at least 14 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 25th day of June, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. ~' AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS (6300 Block between Colfax and Dupont Avenues South) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: The following described lands are subject to the easements as described below for alley right -of-way purposes ("Alley Easement"): That part of the north-south alley which abuts Lots 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13, all in Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2 ° ADDITION, Hennepin County Sec. 2: The City of Richfield has received a petition for the vacation of the Alley Easement, and the City Council has determined the petition to be adequate by Resolution No. Sec. 3: The Alley Easement has not been opened to public travel and is not required for access to the abutting properties. Although there is a garage located on Lot 12, Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION that could use the alley for access if it were improved, access to that garage is currently obtained over the adjacent Lot 11, Block 4, which is held in common ownership. The owner of Lots 11 and 12, Block 4, RAY'S LYNNHURST 2ND ADDITION has verbally indicated his consent to the vacation of the Alley Easement. Sec. 4. There are no City-owned water or sewer facilities located within the Alley Easement. The City has notified the service providers for gas, electric, telephone, and cable communications services of the proposed vacation, and (none of the providers has reported the existence of any facilities within the Alley Easement) or (the following facilities are reported to be located in the Alley Easement: ). Sec. 5: The Council finds that there is not a public need for the Alley Easement (but that there is a continuing need for an easement for [electric/ gas/ telephone/ telecommunications] purposes over the following described portion of the Alley Easement: Sec.6: The Alley Easement is vacated or (reserving, however, to the public an easement for [electric/gas/telephone/ telecommunications] purposes over the following described area: ). Sec. 7: The vacation of the Alley Easement is effective 30 days following publication of this ordinance. The City Clerk is directed to prepare a certificate of completion of vacation proceedings and to record the vacation in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles or Hennepin County Recorder, as appropriate. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 13th day of August, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk 63RD ST. ui a H z O a O UNIMPROVED ALLEY 50 0 50 100 150 Feet N 6-1402 PETITION FOR VACATION OF STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC GROUNDS 1 To: Richfield City Council We, the undersigned owners of land abutting ,hereby petition that such public land be vacated by the City of Richfield. -7), ~ ,~,~ ~~, ~u ~.}.e ~ ~~ ~~ -((~'so ~ ~h a I le y ~1n -Ihe 63~ bloc be-I-vseerl ~l.Jv~Pon~-~ J ~i~~ fl~nue5~ ~CianatnrP Addrecc /please print clearly) - - ~~~- s/.~ ~ ~ LF~ ~ ~- ~~~t---- _. , , . r ~, is - ~~~ j - ~~~ * Signatures may not be removed after the petition is submitted to the City. AGENDA SECTION: presentations AGENDA ITEM # 2 REPORT # I S 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 25, 2002 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Receipt of the City of Richfield Comprehensive Annual. Financial. Report (CAFRj for the fiscal ear ended December 31, 2001. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the Cit for the ear ended December 31, 2001. II. BACKGROUND The City's auditing firm, HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd., has completed the annual audit of the City's financial records for-the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. A representative of HLB Tautges Redpath; Ltd. is present tonight to make a brief presentation on the 2001 financial information and answer questions. In addition, the CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota pursuant to State law and to the Government Finance Officers Association for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting program. 0625cafr III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Action to be taken at the June 25, 2002 City Council meeting is the official receipt of the December 31, 2001 City of Richfield CAFR by the City Council. • The City's auditor has pertormed an audit of the City's financial records for the year ended December 31, 2001 and prepared reports to the City Council concerning legal compliance and internal controls. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Action on this item is requested at the June 25, 2002 City Council meeting. C, FINANCIAL ..~..~_ ..._ _._ N/A D. LEGAL • The CAFR will be submitted to the State of Minnesota; pursuant to State law. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council could ask the auditors for further explanations of their findings at a future Worksession. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Tom Hodnefield, Principal, HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd.