11-12-02 agendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002
• REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6700 PORTLAND AVENUE
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS
....
Call to order
Roll call
Open Forum (15 minutes maximum)
Each speaker is 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 October 16, 2002; (2)
Special City Council Worksession of October 22, 2002; (3) Regular City Council
Meeting of October 22, 2002;. (4) Special City Council Meeting of October 23, 2002; (5)
Special City Council Meeting of October 23, 2002; (6) Special City Council Meeting of
October 29, 2002; and (7) Special Concurrent City Council, Planning Commission and
HRA Meeting of October 30, 2002
PRESENTATIONS
1. Annual- meeting with Charter Commission
Notes:
2. Review of City of Richfield-snow ordinance
•
Notes:
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• Notes:
AGENDA APPROVAL
3. Council approval of agenda... _. ~ . , _ , ,
CONSENT-CALENDAR
4. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by
the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been
approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been
approved.. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council
Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar-and
placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items
listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval
A. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to Richfield
City Code Section 325 for Administrative Hearing Enforcement Program and
schedule second reading for December 10, 2002 S.R. No. 257
• B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing procedures for private activity
revenue bond financing S.R. No. 258
C. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision waiver for 7309
Grand Avenue S.R. No. 259
D. Consideration of approval of resolution determining results of City General
Election of November 5, 2002 S.R. No. 260
E. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing Rebecca Ortega to Richfield
Tourism Promotion Board for unexpired portion of three-year term ending
December 31, 2002 S.R. No. 261
F. Consideration of approval of resolution appointing John Bjostad, member of
Richfield Community Human Services Council, as City's representative to
Hennepin South Services Collaborative, Collaborative Advisory Team to serve
remainder of two-year term beginning February 12, 2002 S.R. No. 262
G. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing amendments to City of
Richfield Health Care and Dependent Day Care Flexible Spending Account Plane
S.R. No. 263
H. Consideration of approval of resolution designating City's contribution toward
health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General Services and
Management employees S. R. No. 264
I. Consideration of approval of Stipulation of Settlement for Bloomington Parcel 4
(Rosenberg) of Penn Avenue Bridge Project S.R. No. 265
J. Consideration of approval of payment to Roger Skare, Colliers Towle Real Estate,
for appraisal services provided on acquisition of Parcel 5, 7601 Knox Avenue,
Fountainhead Apartments, as part of 76th Street Widening Project in amount of
$28, 954 S.R. No. 266
K. Consideration of approval of indemnification and cooperation agreement
regarding Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board and Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport zoning ordinance S.R. No. 267
•
L. Consideration of approval of continuation of contractual agreement with City of
Bloomington to provide various types of building inspections and code
enforcement for City of Richfield for 2003 and 2004 S.R. No. 268
M. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 10, 2002 for
renewal of 2003 on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Red
Pepper Chinese Restaurant; Ketsana's Thai Restaurant and Thompson's Fireside
Pizza S.R. No. 269
N: Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 10, 2002 for
renewal of 2003 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for: Chi Chi's
Mexican Restaurant; The Ground Round; Khan's Mongolian Barbeque;
Minneapolis-Richfield. American Legion Post 435; Fred Babcock VFW Post No.
5555 d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation,
.. _. d/b/a .Don Pablo's; Champps.Operating,Corporation-d/.b/,a.Champps-Sports .Cafe;
.Wiltshire Restaurants; `LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar; The Frenchman's;
and Taco Morelos S.R. No. 270
O. Consideration of approval of scheduling public hearing on December 10,;2002 for
renewal of 2003. pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro
Pawn and Gun., Inc. and Capital Cash, LLC d/b/a Hy's Pawn S.R. No. 271
Notes:
5: Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar
PUBLIC HEARING
6. Public. hearing and consideration. of resolution authorizing amendment to conditional
use permit to allow Academy of Holy Angels to reconstruct and expand gymnasium,
add classroom space and complete site improvements to school campus at 6600
Nicollet Avenue
Staff Report No. 272.
RESOLUTIONS
•
7. Consideration of resolution awarding sale of $2,495,000 Taxable General Obligation
Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series-20026
Staff Report No. 273
Notes:
•
8. Consideration of resolution awarding sale of $1,065,000 Taxable General Obligation
Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C
Staff Report No. 274
Notes'
..
.:
9. Consideration of resolution approving Business ..Subsidy Agreement: between City of
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority-and Gramercy Corporation for City
Bella Project
Staff Report No. 275
Notes:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
10. Consideration of first reading of transitory ordinance vacating alley right-of-way in
7600. block of Lyndale and Aldrich Avenues for Lyndale Gateway West
• redevelopment ..project and schedule public hearing and second reading for
December 10, 2002
Staff Report No. 276
Notes:-
OTHER BUSINESS
11. Consideration of design of pedestrian crosswalk with raised median island on Lake
Shore Drive between 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue
Staff Report No. 277
Notes:.
12. Update regarding Knox Avenue Wastewater Lift Station (Lift Station #3), needed as
part of Best Buy Project
Notes:
Staff Report No. 278
13. City Manager's report
Notes:
14. 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 anal provide`Yto a staff
member. Speakers are also asked to keep their comment period to-three minutes
to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to bean opportunity to address
the Council on items not on the agenda
Notes:
15.Adjournment
• Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available u on re uest.
Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative
Services Director at 612-861-9702.
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM # 12
REPORT # ~ ~ A
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Update of the Knox Avenue Lift Station (Lift Station #3), needed as part of the Best Buy
project.
I. RECOMIlVIENDED ACTION:
No formal action is required.
II. BACKGROUND
The 2002 Wastewater Revised Budget includes a capital outlay item for "Rebuilding Lift 3
with Generator" at $75,000. Lift 3 is the Knox Avenue Wastewater (sewer) Lift Station that
needed to be rebuilt as part of the Best Buy project. The developer's agreement stipulated
that the City was responsible for all public improvements outside the Best Buy property
line. This lift station is outside the property line. However, Metro Sewer required that the
wastewater from the Best Buy site be stored and then pumped rather than piped directly
into the Metro Sewer Main on 76th Street. Lift Station 3 was due for an overhaul, so the
City and Best Buy collaborated on a solution that provides benefits to both. The City and
Best Buy agreed to share the cost of one lift station rather than have two lift stations. Best
Buy is responsible for reconstructing the lift station building and underground storage and
the City is responsible for the pumps, generator and controls.
1112Lift3Funding
Nance; TITLE
PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED
Back-up Generator $21,498.09
•
Pumps 14,466.96
Stainless Steel Cabinet 3.790.00
Subtotal $39,755.05
PENDING PURCHASES
Labor for controls 8,000.00
Transfer switch/installation/testing 4,874.25
2-variable frequency drives 6,090.74
Cabinet 479.25
Control panel 6,011.93
Controller upgrade 2.076.75
Subtotal $27,532.92
FUTURE PURCHASES
Mechanical louvers 6,000
Fresh air vent 2,000
Subtotal $8,000
TOTAL $75,287.97
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
• A. POLICY
• The City's work needed to be coordinated closely with Best Buy. The
City made separate purchases of a variety of items in order to
coordinate with Best Buy.
• The generator and pump specifications were needed early this year in
order to complete design for the building. Per the City's purchasing
policy, the generator and pump were purchased from Interstate
Companies Inc. and W.W. Goetsch Associates, respectively, as low
written bids. The transfer switch, variable frequency drives and
cabinet were each separate purchases, less than $10,000 and were
compared to quotes from competitors.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The lift station work needed to be done as part of the developer's
agreement with Best Buy.
C. FINANCIAL
• The total cost for rebuilding Lift Station 3 with Generator is
$75,287.97. The 2002 Wastewater Revised Budget includes a capital
outlay item for "Rebuilding Lift 3 with Generator" at $75,000. There
may be some additional minor adjustments and purchases needed to
• complete the reconstruction of the lift station.
D. LEGAL
• None
• I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
None recommended
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Copies of invoices of the pending purchases totaling $27,532.92
• Graphic of site key plan for the Knox Avenue Lift Station
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated
C.
n
U
SYCOMInc
710 PENNAVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423
BILL TO
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: Robert
~il work is complete!
j Thank you for your business.
Invoice
~ DATE ~ INVOICE # i P.O. NO.
8/29/2002 ~ 39729A i V. Robert '
SHIP TO
~ City of Richfield - WTP
6221 Portland Ave S
'~, Richfield, MN 55423
TERMS REP SHIP DATE ~ SHIP VIA FOB ~ PROJECT
Net 15 TJK ~ 9/10/2002 ~ BestWay ~ MPLS ~ Equipment '
QTY ~ DESCRIPTION ~ RATE AMOUNT
1 iNon-Taxable portion of Best Buy Lift Station including labor for the 8,000.00 8,000.00
following: Presubmittal, drawing, building, testing and documentation.
Based on Quote to Robert.
;Sales and Use Tax 6.50%
~' ~ ~ 0.00
aoo a ~- P ~d ~ ~ ~- h~ ~~ ~
P
,~~ ~3 ~
~,~~,~y ~~5~,~~ ~ sf~-~,~~J
52000 ^~3S'O
CODING
SUPVSR APPROVAL ~~'~ ~
`~~ i
DEPT DIR APPROVAL
' Total $8,000.00
SYCOMInc
6710 PENNAVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423
BILL TO
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: Robert
Invoice
DATE ~ INVOICE # ~ P.O. NO.
8/29/2002 i 39727 ~ Verbal
SHIP TO
City of Richfield - WTP
6221 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
TERMS j REP '~ SHIP DATE i SHIP VIA ~ FOB PROJECT
Net 15 i TJK 8/29/2002 ~ BestWay MPLS Equipment
QTY ~ DESCRIPTION ~ RATE AMOUNT
1 Transfer Switch Cabinet List $3999 ' 3,450.00 3,450.OOT
I, 1 Labor,Testing-and Installation of Transfer switch and components i 1,200.00 1,200.00
24 hrs @ 50 hrs Tech rate
I
Sales and Use Tax 6.50% 224.25
I ~
I
~aaot rf-~Pro~~ro ~~~~~T
nwc r
-~, toe 5~ ~`t~,l~e ~ ~ 4 brc k •,P -S° ~. rye..
i
CODING S Z'd0~0~",~1350
SUPVSR APPROVAL /~:•~ ~1J'"~ ~ ~"
DEPT D!R APPROVAL
It's been a pleasure working with you!
Total $4,874.zs
SYCOMInc
6710 PENNAVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423
BILL TO
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: Robert
Invoice
DATE ~ INVOICE # ~ P.O. NO.
8/29/2002 ~ 39734 j V. Robert
SHIP TO
City of Richfield - WTP
6221 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
TERMS. REP SHIP DATE SHIP VIA FOB PROJECT
Net 15 ~ TJK '; 8/29/2002 ~ BestWay MPLS Equipment
~ QTY DESCRIPTION i RATE AMOUNT
2 VFD's for Best Buy per Engineer for Metropolitan Waste Commission " 2,859.50 5,719.OOT
! Sales and Use Tax
i 6.50% 371.74 !
'
~
aOba f~ ~a~-t~ ~Uk~ -e~.
PP ~ i
-~,~..
v~~ - ~.ttow s ~.s ~ Ic..~~ Cd s
s-
~ 1~~..~ rte, ~c a .-~'"r o -~' p ~, ,,,,~
I P
,
~~ b~ ~.~ ~ // ~ S
~; ~ ~t t ~~t~t ~ n a^ t J ~ !
PK~P~ n~ ~,~ .~-~- by ~~. ~~ ~~ t.
CODING SZU 0~ - !
' SUPVSRAPPROVAL ~ ~~ ~~~ ~
~nc~(,~ ~
= !
__
-
~ -- ~
DEPT D!R APPROVAL !
i ...._._..,
All work is complete!
Thank you for your business. Total $6,090.74
SYCOMInc
6710 PENNAYE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423
BILL TO
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423
Attn: Robert
All work is complete!
Thank you for your business.
Invoice
DATE ~ INVOICE # P.O. NO. ,
8/29/2002 39733 V Robert
SHIP TO i'
City of Richfield - WTP
6221 Portland Ave S
Richfield, NIN 55423
TERMS I REP 'SHIP DATE ;' SHIP VIA FOB PROJECT
Net 15 TJK ~ 8/29/2002 ' '; BestWay MPLS Equipment
QTY DESCRIPTION i RATE AMOUNT
1 Junction Cabinet 20x20 stainless steel with mounting feet per Best Buy' 450.00 450.OOT
Engineer
~ Sales and Use Tax ~ 6.50%
r 29.25
aoba ,~-~P~v~ ~ J~~.d~-~~
~~ ~ y OKs
2~
CODING ~~ ~ ~'~`, ~
-- - -
' SUPVSR APPROVAL _~r~~N
DEPT DIR APPROVAL
Total
$479.25
SYCOMInc
6710 PENNAVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423
BILL TO
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
', Richfield, MN 55423
'Attn: Robert
Invoice
~ DATE ~ INVOICE # ~ P.O. NO. j
8/29/2002 ~ 39729 i Verbal
~ SHIP TO
City of Richfield - WTP
6221 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN 55423 ~
- TERMS REP SHIP DATE SHIP VIA ! FOB ~ .PROJECT;
Net 15 TJK ~ 8/29/2002 ~ BestWay ~ MPLS Equipment
i
QTY DESCRIPTION I RATE AMOUNT
1 ~ Duplex Control Panel per quote for Best Buy ~ 9,435.00 9,435.OOT
i, 1 ~ Less Stainless Steel Cabinet paid on Invoice 39679 ~ -3,790.00 -3,790.OOT
Sales and Use Tax
r 6.50% 366.93
,~ i{ ~ Cd n ~rv ~
/V Q'~ n ~
/ ~
i
/~-~ I
C~nS~r~~
~-~~~'~`
'
++~~ ^ J
wl~1P1 J ~A AIA/I.~ l~ ~
' ~ 52ocn •735 ~
COOING
~~
SUPVSR APPROVAL ~ ~ ~
DEPT DIR APPROVAL
work is complete!
Total $6,011.93
~.~
,~.
:+
SYCOM Inc
•6710 PENNAVE S
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55423
BILL TO
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN ss423
Attn: Robert
Invoice
~ DATE ~ INVOICE # ~ P.O. NO. i
8/29/2002 ~ 3973s V. Judy
SHIP TO
City of Richfield - WTP
6221 Portland Ave S
Richfield, MN ss423
TERMS REP ~ SHIP DATE SHIP VIA FOB PROJECT ~
..Net 15 TJK I 9/9/2002 ~ ~ BestWay I MPLS Equipment
QTY DESCRIPTION ; RATE AMOUNT
1 Lift Station Controller Upgrade for L3 - I 1,950.00 1,9s0.00T ~
Sales and Use Tax ~ 6.50%
I 126.75
O~Z ~ ro~ti ~- ~ ~~~.,~
z PP
~ ~t~ ~,i~.s"C ra.u~L~ ~~ ~~ ~"3
j
I
~
j
i
-7 I
~Z~d~ ~ /~~
I
CODING
--~ i
SUPVSR APPROVAL
n
DEPT DIR APPROVAL
I
Total $2,o76.~s
•
~ocnnoN
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
aRam
BEST BUY CAMPUS
J
•
RAMP
~.~
;a
f ~ /~/
~~/
/~/
BLDG A ~Q
0
Z ~~ ~ EXISTING .
~o SANITARY LIFT
STATION
#~
' NEW GENERATOR
~~ ENCLOSURE
~•
NEW
2 SANITARY UFT .
STATION
~ ~~
~~~ ~~ N
•
s
x
~ Ff
. Zr
.~ - i ..e~
•
AGENDA SECTION: Other Business
AGENDA ITEM # 11
REPORT # 2 7 7
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MICHAEL EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR
NdeL1E, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ,~ ~~ ~__
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Provide direction on the design of a pedestrian crosswalk on Lake Shore Drive.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Endorse one of the two design alternatives for providing
a pedestrian crosswalk on Lake Shore Drive with a raised median
island.
III. BACKGROUND ~
At the Council work session on October 22, 2002, two design alternatives were
presented to Council for consideration on the design of a mid-block pedestrian
crosswalk with a raised median island on Lake Shore Drive between 66th Street
and Lyndale Avenue. The two options differed basically in providing on-street
parking on the north side of Lake Shore Drive. Both alternatives reduced the
roadway from four travel lanes to two to improve safety for pedestrians.
Council directed staff to evaluate whether or not on-street parking conflicted with the
S .use of the proposed shoulders of the roadway for a bicycle lane.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
1112Lake Shore Drive
A. POLICY
• Both proposed design alternatives are consistent with Minnesota State
Aid Standards for roadways with bike lanes.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Proposed cross sections were developed to determine if there is
adequate width to accommodate both a bike lane and on-street
parking on the north side of Lake Shore Drive.
• The proposed pedestrian crosswalk is being considered to increase
safety for pedestrians desiring to travel to and from the Wood Lake
Nature Center.
The redesign of Lake Shore Drive offers the possibility of providing
bike lanes and on-street parking on the roadway shoulders of Lake
Shore Drive.
Reduction of the number of traffic lanes from four to two will be
adequate to handle forecasted traffic volumes.
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no difference in cost in choosing one alternative or the other.
• The cost of installing the raised median will be borne by the Gramercy
Corporation, the developer of the City Bella Development Project.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney will be available to answer questions.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• It is reasonable to consider the Do Nothing alternative. Lake Shore Drive
would remain afour-lane undivided road with two mid-block pedestrian
crosswalks.
V. ATTACHIVIENTS
• Cross-sections of the two alternatives showing the lane widths with and
without on-street parking. Both alternatives provide for bike lanes on the
shoulders.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
r~
L
•
City of Rich Field City of Rich Field
Lakeshore Drive Ir~proverients Lakeshore Drive IMprover~ents
Potential Cross-Section Sketch Potential Cross-Section Sketch
Typical Section with Parking Typical Section Without Parking
5' 13' 13' S' 8' 10' 12' 12' 10'
z LANE LANE z PARK HLD LANE LANE SHLD
a ¢ BIKE BIKE
J J LANE LANE
Y Y
fit ~ PG
i
i
EWtig C~twlNe ~ I EWtYy WntMir
City of RichField
Lakeshore Drive Ir7proverients
Potential Cross-Section Sketch
Typical Section nt Ped Crossing
.5 12' 9' 12' S.5
z LANE IS~nN LANE z
J J
Y ! Y
pq ~ PD
1
i
i
1
i
i
~ Ewstiq hwtwnrr
•
AGENDA SECTION: prop. Ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM # I ~
REPORT # 2 ~ 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First. reading of a transitory ordinance vacating the alley right-of--way in the 7600 block of
Lyndale and Aldrich Avenues for the Lyndale Gateway West redevelopment project.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Conduct first reading of a transitory ordinance vacating
the alley right-of-way in the Lyndale Gateway West project area and
schedule second reading and a public hearing for December 10, 2002.
III. BACKGROUND
The Cornerstone Group is proposing to construct amixed-use development in the
7600 block between Lyndale and Aldrich Avenues. The Planning Commission
reviewed the proposed mixed-use project at a public hearing on October 28, 2002
and recommended that the proposed project be approved. The City Council will
consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission at its December 10,
2002 meeting. There is an alley in the development area that needs to be vacated
for the development to proceed.
1112-AIIeyVacate-Gateway.doc
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• With the Lyndale Gateway West development, the alley right-of-way
will no longer be needed for its existing public purpose.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The developer needs to use the alley-area in the proposed mixed-use
redevelopment.
• There are no City utilities in the alley-area (no water, storm, or sanitary
sewer lines)
• Private utilities (Qwest, Xcel, Reliant, and Time-Warner) have been
notified of the proposed alley vacation and have until December 2,
2002 to inform the City of any easements that need to be maintained
for private utility purposes. The final transitory ordinance that will be
considered at the second reading will reflect any such easements, if
they are needed.
~. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL _
• The following stipulations are included in the proposed resolution
vacating the right-of--way:
• That the Cornerstone Group obtain control over ail property
within the development area before the alley vacation becomes
effective;
• That any existing easements that need to be maintained or new
easements that need to be created be established in the plat;
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Deny the alley vacation at first reading.
• Refer the vacation to the Planning Commission for further review although
the Planning Commission is not required to review vacations. The
Commission did review the final development plan for Lyndale Gateway
West and voted unanimously to recommend approval on October 28, 2002.
V. ATTACFIMENTS
• Transitory Ordinance
• Attachment A: Illustration of alley to be vacated
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• • Representatives from Cornerstone Group will be at the meeting to answer
any questions.
BILL NO.
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1: The following described land is subject to an easement for public right-of-
way purposes ("Vacated Area"):
The alley dedicated in the plat of GLEN'S ADDITION, lying southerly of the
southerly right of way line of 76t" Street and northerly of the northerly right of
way line of 77t" Street, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Sec. 2: The City of Richfield has initiated the vacation of the Vacated Area.
Sec. 3: The Cornerstone Group has proposed to acquire all of the property abutting
the Vacated Area for a redevelopment project.
Sec. 4: The Council finds that there are no City water main, sanitary sewer, or storm
sewer facilities located within the Vacated Area and that the following private utilities are
located within the Vacated Area: ('Describe electric, gas, cable and telephone utilities, if
any].
Sec. 5: The Council finds that, at such time that the Cornerstone Group has control
over all of Lots 1 through 15, Block 1, GLEN'S ADDITION, there will no longer be a public
need for a public alley within the Vacated Area. The Council further finds, however, that
there is a continuing need for a public utility easement over the Vacated Area.1
Sec. 6: The alley easement over the Vacated Area, as described in Section 1 of this
Ordinance, is hereby vacated, Reserving, however, to the public a utility easement over
the Vacated Areal.
Sec. 7: The vacation will be effective 30 days following publication. The City Clerk
is directed not to publish this ordinance until the Cornerstone Group has produced
evidence satisfactory to the City Attorney that the Cornerstone Group owns all of Lots 1
through 15, Block 1, GLEN'S ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
December, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
LYNDALE GATEWAY WEST ALLEY VACATION
U
76TH ST.
ui
a
V
D
J
Q
77TH ST.
100 0 100 200 Feet
ED
-N
W
J
Z
J
~iJ
N
OCTOBER 2002
•
AGENDA SECTION: Resolution
AGENDA ITEM # 9
REPORT # 2 7 5
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REPORT PREPARED BY: REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE NORDQUIST, HOUSING AND
REPORT PRESENTER: REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
~~
'i1
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ _ _ u~_~-~~ ~, , ~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a Business Subsidy Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment
Authori and Gramerc Cor oration for the Ci Bella ro~ect.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Authorize a resolution approving a Business Subsidy
Agreement between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and
-for the City of Richfield and Gramercy Corporation.
II. BACKGROUND
In accordance with state law, both the City and Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) have established guidelines for evaluating requests by developers
for business subsidy. The HRA guidelines require that any HRA business subsidy
must be approved by the City. The HRA is asking the City to consider the HRA's
agreement with Gramercy Corporation for City Bella. (Since no city subsidy is
proposed, no city business subsidy agreement is being considered.)
The HRA has a contract with Gramercy Corporation, which was approved on April
19, 2002 and requires a business subsidy request to be considered. The HRA held
a public hearing and approved a business subsidy agreement on August 19, 2002.
Additional costs, primarily related to property acquisition by the developer, caused
1112026usSubCityBella
the HRA to hold another public hearing and approve an amended Business Subsidy
Agreement on October 21, 2002. It is the October 21 agreement that is being
• brought to the City Council.
The HRA evaluated a request of $8,473,460 in TIF financing of which $343,863 is
considered a business subsidy by the agreement based on state statute.
The guiding principles for the HRA and City Council determinations are:
• Assistance provided under the Contract for the housing related portions of the
development are by State law not a business subsidy.
• The total business subsidy assistance is based on the projected market values
of the non-housing portions of the development as a share of the total projected
market value.
• The public purpose of the subsidy is to redevelop an area occupied by legally
determined substandard and obsolete buildings, establish amixed-use
residential and commercial development restoring vitality to a part of the
downtown, and to increase the tax base.
• The subsidy is needed because of the eligible public costs, identified as
"extraordinary expenses" in the attachments. This includes the cost of
acquisition, structured parking, and plaza improvements.
• Mr. Sid Inman of Ehlers, Inc. will be available to explain the basis to conclude
that the project would not occur but-for the assistance.
. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The review of the HRA's Business Subsidy Agreement by the City is
required by HRA guidelines.
• The Business Subsidy Agreement sets the level of assistance that will
be treated as a business subsidy in accordance with state law.
• The agreement has been prepared to comply with the established
criteria.
• The HRA held a public hearing in approving the agreement.
• The City Council is not required to hold a public hearing to consider
the agreement.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The HRA consistently uses Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in a proper
and prudent manner.
• The public purpose and but-for findings have been clearly stated.
C. FINANCIAL
• The proposed $8,473,460 TIF reimburses the developer over time for
• $12,703,990 of eligible public costs (approximately 67 percent).
• An estimated $343,863 of the assistance, attributed to the commercial
project elements is the business subsidy.
• Ehlers, Inc. has reviewed the developers financial information and
prepared the recommendations.
•
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel has prepared the Business Subsidy Agreement and
supporting resolution.
• Legal counsel has reviewed and concurs with Ehlers' process for
calculating the business subsidy amount.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Do not support a business subsidy for the project.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Proposed Resolution
• HRA Business Subsidy Agreement
• But-For analysis prepared by Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Mr. Michael Conlan, Gramercy
• Mr. Sid Lnman, Ehlers
•
:7
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD
AND GRAMERCY CORPORATION.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Richfield, Minnesota, (the "City") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. On or about April 15, 2002, the HRA and Gramercy` Corporation (the
"Redeveloper") entered into that certain document entitled, Amended and Restated
Contract for Private Redevelopment (the "Contract").
1.02. Section 10.5 of the Contract called for the parties to enter into a separate
Business Subsidy Agreement as required by the Business Subsidy Act, setting the level
of assistance that is treated as a business subsidy under the Business Subsidy Act.
1.03. On or about August 19, 2002 the HRA approved a form of business
subsidy agreement following a public hearing and directed that the agreement by
forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
1.04. On or about October 21, 2002 the HRA conducted a public hearing
regarding certain proposed modifications to the business subsidy agreement at which
all interested persons were give an opportunity to be heard.
• '1.05. Following such hearing the HRA approved the modified agreement and
referred the matter to the City Council for action as required by law.
1.06 The City Council after consideration of the matter and hearing the report of
staff has determined that the execution thereof by the HRA and the performance of the
HRA's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. City Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. The City approves the Agreement.
2.02. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to take all steps and do all
things necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this resolution.
Approved by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
November, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
JBD-222725v1
RC125-209
DRAFT
Not reviewed or approved by the City
Business Subsidy Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 21st day of October, 2002 is by
and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic (the
"HRA"), and GRAMERCY CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation (the "Redeveloper").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the parties did, on or about April 15, 2002, enter into that certain
document entitled, Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment (the
"Contract"); and
WHEREAS, Section 10.5 of the Contract called for the parties to enter into a
separate Business Subsidy Agreement in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, sections
116J.993 through 116J.995 (the "Business Subsidy Act") setting the level of assistance
• that is treated as a business subsidy under the law;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto stipulate and agree as follows:
Section 1.1. Definitions. Unless the context clearly suggests a contrary intention, the
terms used in this Agreement shall have the meanings given them in the Contract.
Section 1.2. Business Subsidy Agreement.
(a) General Terms. The parties agree and represent to each other as follows:
(1) The business subsidy provided to the Redeveloper consists of (i) a
portion of the principal amount of the Note; and (ii), the estimated value of the
HRA Lands, which the Authority will convey to the Redeveloper for $1.00 under
Article I11. The estimated market value of the HRA Lands is $ 450,000. Each
payment on the Note represents a forgivable loan that is repayable by the
Redeveloper in accordance with this Section. As of the date of this Agreement,
the aggregate business subsidy (in present value terms) is estimated to be
approximately $343,863. However, a substantial portion of the assistance under
the Contract is intended to facilitate development of housing within the project,
which assistance does not constitute a business subsidy under the Business
Subsidy Act. The total assistance under the Contract for Component One is
$7,531,360; and the total assistance for Component Two is $942,100. The
• parties agree and understand that the total business subsidy assistance has
been determined, based on the projected market values of the non-housing
portions of the development as a share of the total projected market value of the
JBD-215993v1
RC125-209
• completed Minimum Improvements. Therefore, the business subsidy allocated to
the commercial portion of Component One is $130,718, and the business
subsidy allocated to the commercial portion of Component Two is $213,145. The
actual amounts of the business subsidy are subject to modification in accordance
with the provisions of Section 6.3 of the Contract.
The Note is payable from a portion of the Tax Increments from the TIF
District, a redevelopment tax increment financing district.
(2) The public purposes of the subsidy are to redevelop an area
occupied by substandard and obsolete buildings, establish a mixed use
residential and commercial development that serves as the "city center" of the
City, implement the City's land use goals identified in the comprehensive plan,
and increase tax base.
(3) The goals for the subsidy are: to secure completion of the
Commercial portions of Components One and Two by the Redeveloper, in each
case by the completion date for the Minimum Improvements under the Contract,
and to ensure that such components are operated for at least five years as
described in clause (6) below.
(4) If the goals described in clause (3) are not. met, the Redeveloper
must make the payments to the Authority described in Section 6.4(c).
(5) The subsidy is needed because the cost of land acquisition,
demolition and site clearance, make development of the Minimum Improvements
financially infeasible without public assistance, all as has been determined by the
Authority and City upon approval of the TIF Plan.
(6) The Redeveloper must continue or cause to be continued operation
of the Commercial portions of Components One and Two for at least five years
after the date of issuance of the final certificate of completion for such
components. For the purpose of this Section, space in any component will be
considered to be maintained in operation if it is leased, or available for lease, to
any person or entity, or occupied by Redeveloper for use in its trade or business.
After the five-year period the Redeveloper remains obligated to operate and
maintain the Commercial portions of Components One and Two as required in
the Contract, provided that the remedy described in Section 1.2 (c) will not apply.
(7) The Redeveloper does not have a parent corporation.
(8) The Redeveloper has not received, or expects to receive, financial
assistance from any other "grantor" as defined in the Business Subsidy Act, in
connection with the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements.
• (b) Job and Wage Goals. In accordance with Section 116J.994, subdivision
4, the Authority has determined after a public hearing that the creation or retention of
JBD-215993v1
RC125-209
• jobs is not the goal of this redevelopment effort. Accordingly, the wage and job goals
are set at zero.
(c) Remedies. If the Redeveloper fails to meet the goals described in Section
1.2 (a)(3), and subject to the notice and cure provisions of Article IX, the Redeveloper
shall repay to the Authority upon written demand from the Authority (a) the portion of the
aggregate business subsidy received the Redeveloper as of the date of default that is
allocable to the Component, which is the. source of the default, and (b) interest on the
amounts in clause (a) at the rate set forth in the Business Subsidy Act, accrued from the
date of issuance of the certificate of completion for the relevant component to the date
of payment. If the space is timely completed but the Redeveloper fails to meet the five-
yearoperation goal, the total subsidy amount allocable to such space will be further
prorated by the portion of the five-year operation period elapsed as of the date of
default.
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit the Authority's remedies under
Article IX in the event of a violation of any other provision of this Agreement, but the
remedies set forth in this paragraph (c) are the exclusive remedies for failure to comply
with the terms of this Section 1.2. In addition to the remedy described in this Section
and any other remedy available to the Authority for failure to meet the goals stated in
Section 1.2 (a)(3), the Redeveloper agrees and understands that it may not a receive a
business subsidy from the Authority or any grantor (as defined in the Business Subsidy
. Act) for a period of five years from the date of the failure or until the Redeveloper
satisfies its repayment obligation under this Section, whichever occurs first.
(d) Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the Authority a written report
regarding business subsidy goals and results by no later than March 1 of each year,
commencing March 1, 2003 and continuing until the later of (i) the date the goals stated
Section. 1.2 (a)(3) are met; (ii) 30 days after expiration of the five-year period described
in Section 1.2 (a)(6); or (iii) if the goals are not met, the date the subsidy is repaid in
accordance with Section 1.2 (c). The report must comply with Section 116J.994,
subdivision 7 of the Business Subsidy Act. The Authority will provide information to the
Redeveloper regarding the required forms. If the Redeveloper fails to timely file any
report required under this Section, the Authority will mail the Redeveloper a warning
within one week after the required filing date. If, after 14 days of the postmarked date of
the warning, the Redeveloper fails to provide a report, the Redeveloper must pay to the
Authority a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed. Failure by
the Authority to deliver a timely warning notice will not relieve the Redeveloper's
obligation to pay a penalty within 14 days after receipt of a notice to pay. The maximum
aggregate penalty payable under this Section is $1,000.
(e) Allocation of liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,
the Redeveloper shall have no liability as to a non defaulting Component under this
Section arising from failure to comply with any goals or covenants under this Section
related to the defaulting Component
JBD-215993v1
RC125-209
• Section 1.3. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in
this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by
either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered it if is dispatched by
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered
personally:
As to the HRA: Housing and Redevelopment Authority
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attention: Executive Director
With Copy to: John Dean
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 554302
As to the Redeveloper: Gramercy Corporation
6601 Lyndale Avenue South
Suite 110
Richfield, MN 55423
Attention: Michael W. Conlan, President
• With Copy to: Rolfe A. Worden
Hinshaw &Culbertson
Suite 3100
222 So. 9th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dated: , 2002 By:
Its:
•
or at such other address with respect to either such party as that party may, from time to
time, designate in writing and forward to the other.
Section 1.4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in
any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals as of
the day and year. first above written.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Chairperson
Dated: , 2002 By:
JBD-215993v1
RC125-209
• Its: Executive Director
GRAMERCY CORPORATION
Dated: , 2002 By:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2002, by
and
the Chairperson and Executive Director
of The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield,
Minnesota.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ss..
ss..
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2002, by
the
of Gramercy Corporation, a corporation under the
laws of Minnesota, by and on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
JBD-215993v1
RC125-209
MEMORANDUM
~ :_ _
TO: Project Team List
FROM: Sid Inman -Ehlers
DATE: .October 10, 2002
RE: City Bella BUT/FOR Update
Following is a list of the status of our But/For analysis.
1. The developer has stated that the plaza expense is $1,100,000. The city staff has
reviewed these costs and believes that they are "Over And Above" the normal cost
of redevelopment therefore extraordinary expenses. That amount has increased
by $758,460 for a total of $1,858,460.
2. Gramercy has submitted parking ramp costs fora 330-stall ramp totaling
$6,460,000. Assuming. a cost for surface parking is $1,000 per stall, the normal
cost would be $330,000. Therefore the net amount of extraordinary cost is
$6,130,000.
3. The developer has stated that the total amount they can spend for land is $20,000
a unit or $3,300,000. The estimated total acquisition cost is $7,415,530.therefore
the net amount of extraordinary cost is $4,115,530. The estimated total acquisition
costs is up $600, 000 for a total of $4, 715, 530.
With the addition of these cost ($1,358,460), the total redevelopment costs are now
$12,703,990. The developer was requesting $6,240,000 and is now requesting $8,473,460.
As you are aware, Section 6.3 of the Amended and Restated Contract for Private
Redevelopment requires us to review the developers Net Retum and comment when they
reach 50% presales. The developer is allowed to make up to 15% Net Return.
We asked the developer to submit a document to review the impact on the Net Return and
the result is a return of 10.71 %. Please let me know if you have other questions or
comments.
From the desk of.•
Sid Inman
Development
Consultant/Financial Advisor
Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
(612) 697-8507
FAX.' (612) 697-8555
E-MAIL•sid@ehlers-inc. com
•
Z
W
Z
O
a
O
V
T.
U
Q
W
O
H
W ~
V~
W i
a:
Qt
W ~
. Z `
a~
~<
~~
N ~
N L
a~
N ~
W ~
2~
~~
m <
g.
J
W
m
F
V
V
W
0
h
ZW NOO ~ N~ O ~
~ O Y
HW ~~ jr
~ p M
fAC'1 ~O
~ ~ Nr
r ~ ~
~ n
N O
Q ~
LL Z
oZ a o a°~ o
,
if O M ~ O
Q.''2 W ~ O ~ N O
WO
dU
°
° o °
° °
° ° °
~
o u o
a o
o n
i ~
OO N N M O
CO N M~
10 tC/ N
~ tN9
0
~ O CO O fD tn
~~ ~ r
< ~ ~
a°
o e
O
U~ ~ u N a C
~ N O
H ' S O ~l1
v •- N CO
v ~
o
Z~U
0
r ~ <
O ~. O N
W ~ c~ ~
~ U '- vi
~
LL
Q ~
1 F
U
W
a
C
LL
N 0
N
f0
H
~
~ ~
O N
a
~ ~
N Y. C N
~ N O
O
O O O
O
O
~ N ~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~ 0
m
~ ~
~ _
5 0'
'm
~ m
~
E
~ O
L x
t
~
c
E
~ _
~ _
~
E E
~H ~U
~ q
v° C
~ - o
~ 0
~-
q~
O U 5
F Q
~ ~ ~
(~ C7
O O
~ g. g. g c
E E E E
U U U p
G
U
a
X
1C
C
m
Lq
F
W
N
O
O
0
a
E
7
3
3
d
m
r
W
a
0
r
YNY
V
O
•
•N
N
a
a
~ g~~
a aaa
°'Rl~cgi 4~°ne4i g
e m $$
~~pp pp QQ77!! (Qm
~~ 1f1 ONN4.QN~~
N N 0 0 0~~ ~
O
Em
N
Z ~ O
m ~ ~
E °m
3 y ~~
LZ~ ~€
'~° o ~ .~
a ~~
~ E ~ w m
~a ~ ~~E>
~< ~ ~~~
m CL Q~.~~
E ~ ~ 0
~~ m~
O
~mZ'
~E'~Y ~~>g
`m m - a
>~~~sm~ ~~~~
m a ~
W O ~{~-}d ~ W ~ E
yz ~~qo;,
~~C$o xU CrO,EEEwma" G
,Tn G % ~ uSy~i uuu3~~i ~ yqq~ ~ U U E~ a mC
O C H ILQG~a(0 ~ ~Q ~ 0
w LLti ti EEEEEEE
j m~~ b o o a ~~
~~ ~UUUU
(0 VJ W
O~i OIAO tDO N^ O
W ~ r{O ~fO IN
xa ~°~~~p~~~~
Q ~ W ~~ l^ONr1AnA
Y Y .- In to t0
W m~7 N
~ Wi
= o ~
N~~E~
m ~ ~~ ~ ~
~~F=-RSF
44
Y~~N?~N7~?~
v eac
N N N N N N ',
sms ~ ~ ~ m
13~4~~R ',
N N N N N N '
O
N O
O
O N
Q
Q
25m 5~~
5
'S'S $
`g `~
~~
~' ~ r
INS IO N
~ ~
W~ p
g N p
p
O N S
U ~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~ ~
r 0 ~ ~ ~
U
8p~
O N 8 8
I
M W d
C
~O
p 19
0 p
{Or
OY n
tp N h O
~
N
m
~_
~a
2~
LL
o~
0
z ~
W ~tis
'8
1
0 O
A $ M
N
J F ~= 0 ~
U
W
za
a ~~
r N
~ Yf o °o
0
W IL
C
~rj~
N 0
O
p N
W M
.iC N N
o
~ ~ E
c E
~ S ~
a U ~ U ~ F C7
K K
~~ $
~
~
~ ~
c
E
E
E
U
~ U
U
~
`m
~Yg
Q~ In In
~ o0 00 0
~ ~~ ~ ~ i`
~
][
p ~ ~ Q
o o ~ C
O o
O
~ ~
4 ~
~ ~ ~ L
E
~U U g
g
OO g
O~
0
Z ~
~~
~~
~~
~
~
o
J ~~
O1 W ~ ~ O
m
U
V ~~ tib ~
~~
E &
~ E a
~'
aF
U S
K K
~~ ~~
UU UU
(q ap N nn OO~~NNtD 10O C1010m mIA f`mmm01 a+f l+f RQ1010 nnm
,:s8~~~88~~88s~ ~~sppsssRR~sssRss~Rss~s~R~~o~~s~~~s~~s~R~~~~~
N N N N N N N N N N N~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
~ ~ ,~ a ti ~ ~ IL u,. LL a ur ~ "r ~r 't 4' < "r ~t "r 't "r ~'r "r ~'r ~'- "r "r ~4 't
g o0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000'000000
W
~ 0 0 0 0 0 m O N 010 010 010 010 010 0 N O b 010 010 O N 010 010 0 m 010 010 0 N 0 b.0 M O o No O tff NO(~ E b~yy O h O b O N
' Y OO OO C O OO OO ~ ~ fV fV p> P/ O V' N N f0 iC Ip~ 1~ O) O) Oi Oi O O ~ ~pp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ m ~ mmm ~ ~ W N N N N N fN N N N N N N
OOOOO~~eO pMp N N~1n~O {~p~mm~f9~r f~On On N ~A np mn V <mmr~mm~OND -" ~~~(+~apQQ(mp. (~p_eM-ter
mmNN ~ W O1~1O1~1NN~(O~ inn C Y ~ Nf (O Mtn 1n ppm d~~DN ~N CpD ~lpp(pp0 ~tmp0 ~f~p0phb ~Yf h t"p-p~mnp pn~ Q l'4 ~p (p Q yN~
m~n~OD aD 01 W On/lp~~Qp S OCnnN N~~~~l+l PI M tQ Cl a0 f7 t9nn~~O~0YO0Y<OY V OO~O~Y~
N N N NNNNNf~J /0 Pf lOM l`') 10 /~1 l4 MM MM
~ Z
y
OOOOOf~fa~gf CDOO'1n 10NNQQY YOOi ONiPA~~OOmf010~'~NN~IO OI W ~~NN~~fO~PV~r~~ss'd,
~tOnn O.ONNION~~~ YOmmNNhn~~f0 fffmO00 nn _ q
~ m mNNf~t~O~,j Oi Of pp Na(yy ((~~a~ Pa ~p ~p 1~1~0/0iO0NNP1101p 1nmmaq tDO$m~$g~~~~~~pl W W
~M...M...~...0...m,.~v~.m....0..{.0.~(v{~fv fv f~f~f.~..iv(vf.~.f.~. iv n. .n..vn..~.nvvvn..v ~mr
N p
F IL 10
0000~~ Nhh N 0101 ~~o f~f. P~~f+l ht~OO +fO~J M10 m Ol O1N Nt~hMl9 •-,~~•~• •-•N fp tO ~Of
e~m~mpppc°R~i ~NpQQ a~ r1~j e9ivv m~~ _ ° '~oonnnnmmineo~~i~$'1mPQ
O Y S Omm~~10~<Ola/IONN NNNNP1MQOmmnn _
~p (~ppA nm m mOl Ol p p NNN) f7 N1ff nA Ol~pQ NfV {{ 10~p~p OOi p po
vv~vvv~ V vvvvv~.Q...Q....Q..v~ ~ vvv~ ~vv~Q~..Q...:,i~ ~.m.. O..v~ ~ v~ ~ ~vv~ ~ .0..~~ i~(~
00000 fr.J 1+1~ W 00~ ~ OD W OOl9 lONN R O~/O ~t~~oOO ~~ O ~OOAA~~ m011717 m~m CD~~ NN~~ iO0.
~ ~ _ _ _ _
ppp ~p ~p ~(7N V <lh /nNN N NNC9 l9 1~1~mT pm app W
~~n n 1r/ ~~ ~ 01 W 00 NNl9 M~~ MiA tO ~Ah ~ ~Ol Of ~~ NN /~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~t0 i0 i0
C IO IO 191D0<PO V YOY YO0 YY YO of lA bYf
Z `jj~~~CeCe
N N (~ ~ppp app (p ~p
' OOOOO~~O~NO1~0Of. O~~~~~~NNNCV mt917 /hOOYRNMnnNNgg~~gg~~<a n1NQ O1 W Q
'$. ~~b 1~v11e~~8S8Snn~~~tBO,~~~Bg~
m~
m
~a°
0)
00000 gyp} ~ONm~N N aM~ M ~lj N Of mm N Nt0 ~ f~ i~ ln+l~ ~~ Onf On1AAN~~~~~/7 f7N Onl ~~lS 7 Y ~ Alai l+f ROQ~QI~
~p XX ~ f0 n n O W M cp9O ~~p Ob~f~ Y O aa(O f0O Rl'~/7 Y1 tpm ~p ~pN b GGG Cn t~ tO fO GDm NNmmCD
C W m (Op rn~~p'~01~OlOpno mmNN ~Mp IO PI In Pl p~{ ~1nNNMfnOmO ^nyy W On/gp mp (N~
1yi1 m N~cO CO C°7,c°~ic+l anMMOOVQOV~~~~~~~~aa~~v<~10 b1q 1010NN~~~~1n a17S 171N Nf0 (O f0
y ~
O O O O O ~ ~ CD OD O O ~ b ~ M ~ ~ i0 ~O ~ ~ pN~p ~ ~Opp O ~ t9 g ~ ~~p p0pppp/ N N ~ ~ m ym1100~ ~ ~ l'~f t? epp: ~ NNN ~ ID 0 tD tD ~ m O pQ~~ ~ ~ A
XX ~ ~ U U N h ~ ~ b N tO t0 tN0 tN0 ~ f0 a0 i~0 {D ~ fn0 fnD i~0 t~0 0 n ~ A ~ n n f~ A A ~ ~ O ~ 06 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ anD CnD ~ ~OD W W ~
F
U
~ ~ fh CD CD~~O Of0 t0 ~ ~ ~ f~l ~b~ ~ W W O~ O <OOOONN~n~~(O mIM')_l0~ ~ fN9 !?O ~ mm0! ~~ ~ ~ Y
00000 pp m aD {(p~ p y {p {p pp py spy ~p p pN pa N _ pp~pp~~yN m@ ~@p ~yp~
~F. b 1N IN hh ~ O mm fN0 (NO fD m {O m ID f0 m (n0 ~f01~l~nnn n^~A~A AAnOO(OmO~O ~CnD GnD ~~NO/0! 01010) O! ~~
a ;~
1~ 0O o 00000 0 000 0 000o cccc ~y c0 No cq icy c(c~N Nc
~p Fmm. N ~0 N N 1~ N 101N N N NNbNYN1 YNIU NN 1N hN N N N NN ~h hN hh10N 1~NHh10 NhbhNN N iN hbh 10 N 101010
C N
~mU
O n n OOO p~_ pNNl0 /7 p_O pO Yf mpm_ pn nn_ mpmm0 Qa (pip ~1py7 NpO (pQ~pm NpN pn Npn (pmt m p
~~ ~~NNfV NNN ~ ~ fV fOV (V lV NNN(OV NfV NNNNNfV fOV yN$NIOV ~NNN~~~ N N N NfV ~~N NlV N~~N
1L 41L 4L~L ~Y~QIL 4l~L ~IL jpe lL ~l4 j~o ~}~~f ~~4~i" jQe~~~f yg~T~F ~yg ~t~~f jg ~f yg ~i"~~f ~f yg ~f ~i ~f ~i'
`~ `} ? T ~ T T~ T ~ T
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000 N O10ONO10 O10 O10ON O10 O10 O10 Oa0 O1n O N O1n ON O10 O1n O10O10ON O1CnOH~OV 1~Vn O1A O1n O
O CCOCC.-HIV CV Pf l+)O Q101N(G(Gh ha0m 0i 0iOC~"~M~~~~'~m"m~~~NIV NNIV fV NNNNN
MC
OOg
rr;
•
r
a
M
w
O
•
d
~O
a
c~
m
m
.a
N
L
U
O
U
•
.~+
t~
~+
N_
LL
H
~a
m
m
'o
t
O
V
O
M
M
O
O ~
F- tC
O
M
R ~
~ o
10 ~ C
G> C E
LL ~
(j O O
++ tlJ V
W m
.O N
7 ~
V ~
~+ ~ ~ o
m m V
3 ~ O
O m ~
O N ~ to
O
O O
O ~
r
O
M
M
to
N
O
O p 0 0 0 0 0
tOtpOOOtfI
~N000~0
~ t0 O tp ~ N
N C 7 h N N M
et~ODOMN
tV~Cf~N ~
r~
OOM at~000~
to ON0001~
O ~O~DN~NOM1
t o r~ r r
0 0'
0
0
O
O
O
r
0
°o
O
O
M
M
c
m ~
~ 3 cQ ~
H
C ° ~_~ W J O
3 v
C ~ ~ ~ C H
w rU oia E ~
Y•.-r
O N C O G C~ t ~_
~JJUJF`- U~
U
N
00000
N O O O O
e47 O O O O
M ~ N N ~
M
0000000
0000000
~ O O O O~ M
N O O ~A O OD r
00001 00 N
Op~~ALDNO~
~~ ~ ~ ~ O
N M
m ^
m~
a~~
c
rn o ~ v
v~ ~£ ~~
= C1 V 7 ~ M ~
V vva' ~ N O
~ ~ ~ C G1 fV
3 ~ OS d C
C ~ ~ C ~ ~ C
or ~ d °~'o
c~cnv~C9aUU
N
X
w
h
03
a
a
0
a
3
U
M
0
N
~O
a
m
m
r
.0
N
t
V
w
O
U
•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-
oonoooNOOOOO
O O M O O O t A 0 0 0 0 0 e 1'
to M 0 0 1p 1~ st M tp 0 0 0
Mc~OMtOMONer~~'O~-
NOMN~ Nom.- ~eiN
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~j 0 0 0 tp O M Y~ O ~A to O tip
~I~M~~~-NON t~~
000000000000
000000000000
000000000000
cooM~Nc+oi~~~~~~r
r ~
000000000000
O O I~ O O O N O 0 0 0 0 ~
O O M O O O t n 0 0 0 0 0~
O to X 0 0 I~ 01 O in t{7 O M r
~MNN~N~O~I~NON~
t=,
`+g ` ..
L
O Y ~
~ O {"'
~ `tS
~ C O 3 r V
Q`
c m~ c
V ~ ~ N ~ v N
m ~ w c a ru c
t- oo E rn rn~ rn ~ o c~
~ O p, _C y _ C (p
d_> ~° rn c h i m
O °~~ c aN m ~~pir} ~a
~ rn ~'i ~
~w` 2 ~~ c ~ Z~ ~ o~
r- c'h c'rnc Q.m o~~~aci ao.a
~:> o d o c 3~ m o« ~~a
QUUCUW~c~I-~U ~mQ
O
O
O
O
t'7
°o
0
0000000000
0000000000
o~oooooi•oo
tntn~Ni~O0N0~!
NNO~~srNNOC~
O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 O
ONtA~ON~~~ON~~
N
00000000000
00000000000
00000000000
OOOO>OOOOOOo
I~ f~ ~ t0 ~ f0 N O O
r
0000000000
0000000000
OtA 000001 00
O~tG1~00e~0NOO
~~MN~c'~~~ON
a ~
w ~
rn a
i
c ~
N _
C C !6
a~ ,,,
dm
otS > c
~' _
H O C
~ oa 'S
X
~ ~ O
~
W
W
o!f a p '~ ~ otl
c
Q
m _$
rn
O ~
co lL O
~
~
a
~~~
v
i
, ~ w
. ~
c co
~0 o'
~ ~ aH
. a
g ~
a`v~U ~m`
uLizo civ
i
0
0
0
v
0
0
N
h
X
w
h
a
0
a
.O
3
U
M
0
•M
N
~O
L
a
m
a~
m
.a
N
w
L
U_
Q.
w
O
U
N
OO N ~ 0
t
~ O
i ~ 1
p
M O O ~ ~ M N 10
et to to N <O N of t0
tl> 1~. O M t~ N O r
t[) efi O) r- O CO oD 1
r CM f~ I~ IA
to 10
O O O O
O O O
~ O O
I~ tp r
00 Opp O ~
O tp d' O
f~ O to 1C
C7 00 O OD
~ tp O tp
~ r 1p
°oo°o°O
O O O
N ~ N
r
O N ~ ti
O ~ ~ ~
N C~D GOO tOD
~ O
MOOS ~ N OD ~
N O tp N O> ~ O 1p
n
M M
~ ti M O
G
D
~ N ~ t0 l'0
~ O
tU O c0 N et
~ ~ t00 O ~
N ~ O O ~
c'o ~ of !~ O
~ W N ~ N
p 0 0 O tNA
O O O
~G ~O 01
O O
M O
M O
000 0 0 o~co 0
O
~ 0
t
CI O ~ N ~ ~ c
7
.
M
b ~ M O
0 N
O
i N a
0 a
D O o
0 o
0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ N to ti O
v ~ r
t~ O (O N ~
M ~ ~
O
N ~ M 1~ d0
~ ~
M a ~
t
0
~ h ~ O N
~ 1p ~''
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W 0" W
~ d ~ a cn
~ >
C
y ~_ O = w yW
~ °~ ~' .~ °z f °z
°'~~ c d
o LO ~ C ... 0 ... fQ
m ov ~ a ~ dLL ~ w `mw ~
~~~~~Q- to ~ ~ om~ m 0 op~ w
c~'iti ~ _ ~ :: a ° ~ ~~ 'o w dwa u~ ,~
w Q Q t
u.UUZ~ ~ U~ ~ N ~~~ 1~- ~ C7~~ ~ ~
tl1
X
N
~.
0
Q
a
U
E
w
C7
AGENDA SECTION: Resolution
AGENDA ITEM # g
REPORT # 2 7 4
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, .FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
FINANCE MANAGER
NAME,
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution awarding the sale of $1,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax
Increment Refundin Bonds, Series 200X.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approval of the attached resolution awarding the sale of
$1,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series
200X; Fixing their form and specifications; Directing their execution
and delivery: and providing for their payment.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1999, the City issued the $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand G.O.
Bonds, Series 1999, to fund the Richfield Rediscovered New Construction program.
The goal of the program is to remove substandard and obsolete housing and
develop new single family homes that have desirable features that are current in
today's market.
A second function of the bond issue was to provide funds for the Transformation
• Loan Program. This program provides zero interest loans for large, value-added
remodeling projects to qualified City of Richfield residents. The loans are recorded
as second mortgage liens against the property and are for 30-year terms.
11222002Refunding Bonds.1.065
Accordingly, at the October 22, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council
approved a resolution authorizing the refunding of the $1,570,000 Taxable Variable
• Rate Demand G.O. Bonds, Series 1999, with the $1,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax
Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 200X.
Proposals on the bonds are due in the offices of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. on
November 12, 2002 at 12:00 Noon. Mr. Sid Inman will be at the City Council
meeting to recommend the successful bidder and review the attached documents,
and provide information that is absent from the resolution and available only after
the bidding on the bonds has closed.
Following Mr. Inman's recommendation it would be appropriate for the City Council
to award the bond sale to the qualified buyer and undertake other related actions as
necessary and delineated in the approving resolution. The closing on the Taxable
G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C is scheduled for December 5,
2002.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council approved the refunding of the Taxable Variable Rate
Demand G.O. Bonds, October 22, 2002.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The sale of the refunding bonds at the same time as the $2,490,000
Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002A will
allow the City to save on costs of issuance.
• The closing on the bond sale is scheduled for December 5, 2002.
C. FINANCIAL
• The sources of principal and interest payments will be paid from the
following:.
• 15% of annual tax increment from Pre-1999 Richfield
Rediscovered Tax Increment Districts.
• 90% of annual tax increment from the Post-1999 Richfield
Rediscovered Tax Increment District.
• If the two above sources are not sufficient for the annual
debt service, Housing Trust funds will be used to satisfy any
remaining annual debt service.
• The maturity date of the new refunding issue will be two years shorter
than the current outstanding issue.
• D. _ LEGAL
• Legal counsel has been involved with the refunding transaction as
bond counsel to the City.
• IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDA`T'IOl~(S~
• Disregard the current refunding option, continue to retire the bonded debt as
presently scheduled, and forego the projected savings.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution Awarding the Sale of $1,065,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 200X; Fixing Their Form and Specifications;
Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing For Their Payment.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
• Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
• A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $ TAXABLE
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING
BONDS, SERIES 200X,
FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (City) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. It is hereby determined that:
(a) the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act)
and Section 475.67, Subdivision 3, of the Act to issue and sell its general obligation
bonds to refund obligations and the interest thereon before the due date of the
obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, when
determined by the City Council to be necessary or desirable for the reduction of
debt service cost to the City or for the extension or adjustment of maturities in
relation to the resources available for their payment;
(b) Section 475.67, subdivision 4 of the Act permits the sale of
refunding obligations during the six month period prior to the date on which the
obligations to be refunded may be called for redemption;
• (c) it is necessary and desirable to reduce debt service costs that
the City issue approximately $1,065,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C (Bonds) to refund certain outstanding general
obligations of the City;
(d) the outstanding bonds to be refunded (Refunded Bonds)
consist of the $1,570,000 Taxable Variable Rate Demand General Obligation Bonds
(Richfield Rediscovered Project), Series 1999, dated November 18, 1999, of which
$1,570,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding and is callable on January 1,
2003.
(e) the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement, Series 2002C between
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City (Authority) and the City (Pledge
Agreement) is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to
execute the Pledge Agreement on behalf of the- City in the form on file with the City on
the date hereof, with such modifications as are approved by such officials, whose
approval shall be conclusively evidenced by their execution of the Pledge Agreement.
(f) the Authority has requested the City to issue and sell its general
obligations to refund the Refunded Bonds.
1.02. The proposal of
(Purchaser) to purchase $ Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C (Bonds) of the City described in the Terms of Proposal
thereof is determined to be a reasonable offer and is accepted, the proposal being to
• purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest to date of delivery,
for Bonds bearing interest as follows:
Year of Interest Year of Interest
Maturi Rate Maturity Rate
•
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
True interest cost:
1.03. The sum of $ being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in
excess of $1,047,960 is credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created. The City
Finance Manager is directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending
completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the
unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute a
contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City.
1.04. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) in the total principal amount of $ ,originally
dated December 5, 2002, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple
thereof, numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and which mature
serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
Year Amount
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008.
2009
2010
Year Amount
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2012, and on any
day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2013. Redemption maybe in
whole or in part and if m part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will
determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will .notify
DTC (as defined in Section 7 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be
prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such
maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial
ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par
plus accrued interest.
1.06. Term Bonds. (To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the
Purchaser.)
Section 2. Registration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The
• interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is
payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last
interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond
has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an
interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in
which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of
authentication is prior to the first interest payment.. date, in which case the Bond will be
. dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1
and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2003, to the registered owners of
record as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month,
whether or not that day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint, and will maintain, a bond registrar,
transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are
as follows:
(a) Register. ,The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate
trust office a bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of
ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds
entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly
endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of
transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner
thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the
Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee. or
transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and
maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the
books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding
each interest payment date and until that interest payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the
registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or
more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by
the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange
will be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by
the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented
to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the
Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of
transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized.
The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers
which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may
treat the person in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the
absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of
receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and
for all other purposes, and payments so made to a registered owner or upon the
owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon
the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a
charge upon the owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds sufficient to
reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be
paid with respect to the transfer or exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes
mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like
amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon
cancellation of the mutilated -Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond
destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and
charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond
• destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it
that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon
furnishing to the Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and
amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and the
Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will
be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to
the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or
been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue
a new Bond prior to payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for
redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the
Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage
.prepaid) to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address
shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if
required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered
owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of the proceedings for the
redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest
after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are
on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Wells Fargo Bank
Minnesota,- National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The
Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a
contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another
corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to
conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to act as successor
Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar
for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30
days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which. event the
predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor
Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each
principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Finance
Manager must transmit to the Registrar monies sufficient for the payment of all principal
and interest then due.
2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under
the direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of
the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that all signatures may be panted, engraved or
lithographed facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of
whose signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of any
Bond, that signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes,
the -same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such
execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security
or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond
has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the
Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the
same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive
evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the
Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager will deliver
• the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the
contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see
to the application of the purchase price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive
Bonds one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in
Section 3 with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a
single temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary
Bonds will be exchanged therefor and cancelled.
• Section 3. Form of Bond:
3.01. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the following form:
[Face of the Bond]
No. R- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX
INCREMENT REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2002C
Rate Maturi Date of
Original Issue CUSIP
December 5, 2002
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of Richfield, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal
corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and
for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered-
assigns, :the principal sum of $ on the maturity date specified above with
interest thereon from the date hereof at the .annual rate specified above, payable
February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing February 1, 2003, to the person irr
whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether
or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon
presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the
United States of America by check or draft by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National
Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent
and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described
herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same
respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been
and are hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City may elect. on February 1, 2012, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds
due on or after February 1, 2013. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at
the option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than all Bonds
of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify Depository Trust Company
(DTC) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot
the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each
participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be
redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $ all of
like original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege,
and interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on
• November 12, 2002 (the Resolution), for the purpose of providing money to refund the
outstanding principal amount of certain general obligation bonds of the City, pursuant to
and in full conformity with the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.67 and the principal
hereof and interest hereon are payable primarily from tax increments resulting in increases
in the taxable value of real property in a tax increment financing district in the City as set
forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers
thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment
of this Bond and the City Council has obligated itself to levy ad valorem taxes on all
taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in tax increments pledged: which
. taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are
issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple
thereof of single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this
Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar,.
by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in
writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to
the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and
may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon
such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds- to be issued in the
name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount,
bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to
reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to
such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name
this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not,
for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor
the Bond Registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts,
conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution
and laws of the. State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed
preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding
• general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have
happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond
does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional, statutory or
charter limitation of indebtedness.
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or
benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been
executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized
representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its
City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual
signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the
date set forth below.
Dated:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
(Facsimile)
City Manager
(Facsimile)
Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
• WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA
National Association
By
Authorized Representative
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond,
will be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian
in common (Gust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or
by entireties Transfers to Minors
Act............
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and
not as tenants in common (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
the within Bond and all rights
thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for
registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name
as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of
the Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ("STAMP"), the Stock Exchange
Medallion Program ("SEMP"), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures
Program ("MSP") or other such "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by
the Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance
with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information
concerning the assignee requested below is provided.
•
Name and Address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this
Bond is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been
registered on the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Signature of
Date of Registration Registered Owner Officer of Registrar
Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119
• 3.02. The City Manager is authorized and directed to obtain a copy of the
proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and cause the opinion to be
printed on or accompany each Bond.
Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants.
4.01.. (a) The Bonds are payable from the Taxable General Obligation
Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C Debt Service Fund (Debt Service
Fund) hereby created, and all tax increments (Tax Increments) received by the City
pursuant to the Pledge Agreement described in Section 1.01 hereof are pledged to
the Debt Service Fund.
(b) The debt service fund, if any, heretofore established for the
Refunded Bonds as defined in the resolution providing for the issuance and sale of
the Bonds, is terminated, and all monies therein are hereby transferred to the Debt
Service Fund herein created. If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds
becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay
the same, the City Finance Manager will pay such principal or interest from the
general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for those advances
out of the proceeds of the Taxes levied by this resolution and tax increments when
collected.
(c) There is hereby appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i)
capitalized interest financed from Bond proceeds, if any, (ii) any amount over the
• minimum purchase price of the Bonds paid by the Purchaser and (iii) the accrued
interest paid. by the Purchaser upon closing and delivery of the Bonds.
4.02. It is determined that estimated collection of Tax Increments for the payment
of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at least five percent in excess of the
amount needed to meet when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds and
that no tax levy is needed at this time.
• 4.03. The City Manager is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate
required by Section 475.63 of the Act.
4.04. It is hereby determined that upon the receipt of proceeds of the Bonds
(Proceeds) for payment of the Refunded Bonds that an irrevocable appropriation to the
debt service fund for the Refunded Bonds will have been made within the meaning of
Section 475.61, subdivision 3 of the Act and the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to certify such fact to and request the Taxpayer Services Division Manager to
cancel any and all tax levies made by the resolution authorizing and approving the
Refunded Bonds.
Section 5. Refunding Findings; Redemption of Refunded Bonds.
5.01. The Refunded Bonds are the Taxable Variable Rate Demand General
Obligation Bonds (Richfield Rediscovered Project), Series 1999, of the City, dated
November 18, 1999, of which $1,570,000 in principal amount is callable on January 1,
2003. It is hereby found and determined that based upon .information presently available
from the City's financial advisers, the issuance of the Bonds is consistent with covenants
made with the holders thereof and is necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt
service cost to the Municipality.
5.02. It is hereby found and determined that the Proceeds will be sufficient to
prepay all of the principal of, interest on and redemption premium (if any) on the Refunded
Bonds.
• 5.03. The Refunded Bonds maturing on November 1, 2019 and thereafter will be
redeemed and prepaid on January 1, 2003. The Refunded Bonds will be redeemed and
prepaid in accordance with their terms and in accordance with the terms and conditions set
forth in the forms of Notice of Call for Redemption attached hereto as Attachment B which
terms and conditions are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. The
Registrar for the Refunded Bonds is authorized and directed to send a copy of the Notice
of Redemption to each registered holder of the Refunded Bonds.
5.04. When all Bonds and all interest thereon, have been discharged as provided
in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the
holders of the Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City
for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in
full force and effect. The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by
depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment
thereof in full. If any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be
discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full
with interest accrued to the date of such deposit.
Section 6. Authentication of Transcript.
6.01. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to
the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings
and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the
City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the
facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and
• under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds and such
instruments, including any heretofore furnished, will be deemed representations of the City
as to the facts stated therein.
6.02. The Mayor, City Manager and Finance Manager are hereby authorized and
directed to certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated
in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and
belief the Official Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and
representations made therein as of the date of the Official Statement.
6.03. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds
allocable to the payment of issuance expenses (other than amounts payable to Kennedy &
Graven, Chartered as Bond Counsel) to U.S. Trust Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota on
the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City's financial adviser, Ehlers &
Associates, Inc.
Section 7. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City.
7.01. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten
or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof.
Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration
books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The
Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC).
Except as provided in this section, all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the
registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of
DTC.
7.02. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and
the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and
other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities
depository. (Participants) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an
interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with
respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with
respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any
other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books
kept by the Bond Registrar), of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice
of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a
registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on .the Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and
consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration. books kept
by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of
payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of
registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying
Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the
order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the
Bond Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and
discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a
registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,
will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery
by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to
substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co.," will refer to
such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will
promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent.
7.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to
DTC a Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which will govern
payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with
respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the
City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all representations
of the City in the Representation .letter with respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying
Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times.
7 04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of
the City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial
interests in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC,
whereupon DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond
certificates. In such event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as
requested by DTC and any other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of
this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to
the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with
respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities depository
is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates
in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer,
exchange and method of payment thereof.
7.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Resolution to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as
nominee of DTC, payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the
Bond and notices with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively. in the
manner provided in DTC's Operational Arrangements as set forth in the Representation
Letter.
Section 8. Continuing Disclosure.
8.01. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out
all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure
Certificate will not be considered an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however,
any Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including
seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with
its obligations under this section.
8.02. "Continuing Disclosure Certificate" means that certain Continuing Disclosure
O Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and dated the date of issuance and
delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time
in accordance with the terms thereof.
2002.
PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November,
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
ATTACHMENT B
NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION
$1,570,000
TAXABLE VARIABLE RATE DEMAND GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
(RICHFIELD REDISCOVERED PROJECT), SERIES 1999
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and
prepayment on
JANUARY 1, 2003
all outstanding bonds of the City designated as Taxable Variable Rate Demand General
Obligation Bonds .(Richfield Rediscovered Project), Series 1999, dated November 18,
1999, having stated maturity date of November 1, 2019, totaling $1,570,000 in principal
amount, and with the following CUSIP numbers:
Year Amount CUSIP
2019 $1,570,000 763325 C62
The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to January 1,
2003, on which date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds
hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the main
office of Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., in the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, on or
before January 1, 2003, at the following address:
Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.
Attention: Corporate Trust Operations
255 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55479-0113
In compliance with the Interest and Dividend Compliance Act of 1983 and Broker
Reporting Requirements, the redeeming institution is required to withhold a specified
percentage of the principal amount of your holdings redeemed unless they are provided
with your social security number or federal employer identification number, properly
certified. This Compliance should be fulfilled through the submitting of a W-9 Form which
may be obtained at a Bank or other Financial Institution.
The Registrar will not be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number,
nor is any representation made as to the correctness indicated in the Redemption Notice
or on any Bond. It is included solely for convenience of the Holders.
Dated: November 12, 2002.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By /s/ Nancy Gibbs
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
AGENDA SECTION: Resolution
AGENDA ITEM # ]
REPORT # ~ 7 ~
•
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIlZECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
..CHRIS REGIS, .FINANCE -MANAGER
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution awarding the sale of $2,495,000 Taxable G.O. Tax
Increment Refundin Bonds, Series 20026.
I. RECOIVIMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approval of the attached resolution awarding the sale of
$2,495,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Bonds, Series 20026; Fixing
their form and specifications; Directing their execution and delivery;
and rovidin for their a ment.
III. BACKGROUND ~
In 1996, the City issued the $5,075,000 G.O. Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series
1996 for the purpose of financing various redevelopment and housing projects in
the City. Tax increments from the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet (LHN) and Interstate-
Lyndale-Nicollet (ILN) supported. debt service on these bonds.
With the decertification of the LHN District, tax increments collected from the ILN
Tax Increment District will service the refunded debt.
Accordingly, at the October 22, 2002 City Council meeting, the City Council
approved a resolution authorizing:the refunding of the $5,075,000 G.O.. Taxable Tax
Increment Borids, Series 1996, with $2,495,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 20026.
11222002Refunding Bonds2.4
Increment Bonds, Series 1996, with $2,495,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 20026.
Bids on the bonds are due in the offices of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. on November
12, 2002 at 12:00 Noon. Mr. Sid Inman will be at the City Council meeting to
recommend the successful bidder and review the attached documents, and provide
information that is absent from the resolution and available only after the bidding on
the bonds has closed.
Following Mr. Inman's recommendation it would be appropriate for the City Council
to award the bond sale to the qualified buyer and undertake other related actions as
necessary and delineated in the approving resolution. The closing on the Taxable
G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, is scheduled December 5, 2002.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council approved the refunding of the $5,075,000 G.O.
Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1996 on October 22, 2002.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The sale of the refunding bonds at the same time as the $1,065,000
Taxable G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002C will
allow the City to save on costs of issuance.
• The closing on the bond sale is scheduled for December 5, 2002.
C. FINANCIAL
• It is projected that at the current interest rates the refunding would
save the City roughly $103,000 after fees are subtracted.
• The True Interest Cost on the remaining principal of the current issue
is approximately 6.8454%, while the True Interest Cost of the new
refunding issue would be 5.4724%.
• The source of funding for the debt service on the refunded bonds will
be the tax increments collected from the ILN Tax Increment District.
• The maturity date of the new refunding issue will be the same as the
current outstanding issue.
D. LEGAL
• Legal counsel has been involved with the refunding transaction as
bond counsel to the City.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVIENDATION(S~
• Disregard the current refunding option, continue to retire the bonded debt as
presently scheduled, and forego the projected savings.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution Awarding the Sale of $2,495,000 Taxable G.O. Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 20026; Fixing Their Form and Specifications;
Directing Their Execution and Delivery; and Providing For Their Payment.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Sid Inman, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
• Rebecca Kurtz, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $ TAXABLE
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING
BONDS, SERIES 20026;
FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Richfield, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (City) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. It is hereby determined that:
(a) the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act)
and Section 475.67, Subdivision 3, of the Act to issue and sell its general obligation
bonds to refund obligations and the interest thereon before the due date of the
obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof, when
determined by the City Council to be necessary or desirable for the reduction of
debt service cost to the City or for the extension or adjustment of maturities in
relation to the resources available for their payment;
(b) Section 475.67, subdivision 4 of the Act permits the sale of
refunding obligations during the six month period prior to the date on which the
obligations to be refunded may be called for redemption;
(c) it is necessary and desirable to reduce debt service costs that
• the City issue approximately $2,495,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 20026 (Bonds) to refund certain outstanding general
obligations of the City;
(d) the outstanding bonds to be refunded (Refunded Bonds)
consist of the $5,075,000 General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment Bonds, Series
1996, dated December 1, 1996, of which $2,430,000 in principal amount is currently
outstanding and is callable on February 1, 2003.
(e) the Tax Increment Pledge Agreement, Series 20026 between the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City (Authority) and the City (Pledge
Agreement) is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to
execute the Pledge Agreement on behalf of the City in the form on file with the City on
the date hereof, with such modifications as are approved by such officials,- whose
approval shall be conclusively evidenced by their execution of the Pledge Agreement.
(f) the Authority has requested the City to issue and sell its general
obligations to refund the Refunded Bonds.
1.02. The proposal of
(Purchaser) to purchase $ Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds: Series 20026 (Bonds) of the City described in the Terms of Proposal
thereof is determined to be a reasonable offer and is accepted, the proposal being to
purchase the Bonds at a price of $ plus accrued interest to date of delivery,
for Bonds bearing interest as follows:
•
Year of Interest
Maturi Rate
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
True interest cost:
Year of Interest
Maturi Rate
2009
2010
2011
2012
1.03. The sum of $ being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in
excess of $2,457,575 is credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created. The City
Finance Manager is directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser, pending
completion of the sale of the Bonds, and to return the good faith checks of the
unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute a
contract with-the Purchaser on behalf of the City.
1.04. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) in the total principal amount of $ ,originally
dated December 5, 2002, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple
thereof, numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and which mature
serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
2004 2009
2005 2010
2006 2011
2007 2012
2008
1.05. Optional Redemption. The City may elect on February 1, 2010, and on any
day thereafter to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2011. Redemption may be in
whole or in part and if in part, at the option of the City and in such manner as the City will
determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify
DTC (as defined in Section 7 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be
prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in -such
maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial
ownership interests in such .maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par
plus accrued interest.
1.06. Term Bonds. (To be completed. if Term Bonds are requested by the
Purchaser.)
Section 2. Reaistration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The
interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is
payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Pa rLment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last
interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond
has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an
interest .payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in
which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of
authentication is prior to the first interest payment date, in which case the Bond will be
dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds is payable on February 1
and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2003, to the registered owners of
record as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month,
whether or not that day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint, and will maintain, a bond registrar,
• transfer agent, authenticating agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of
registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto are
as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate
trust office a bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of
ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds
entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly
endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of
transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner
thereof or by an attorney duly. authorized by the registered owner m writing, the
Registrar will authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or
transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and
maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the
books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding
each interest payment date and until that interest payment date.
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the
registered owner for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or
more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by
the registered owner or the owner's attorney in writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange
will be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by
the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented
to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the
Registrar is satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of
transfer is valid and genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized.
The Registrar will incur no liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers
which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized.
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may
treat-the person in whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the
absolute owner of the Bond, whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of
receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and
for all other purposes, and payments so made to a registered owner or upon the
owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon
the Bond to the extent of the. sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a
charge .upon the owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds sufficient to
reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be
paid with respect to the transfer or exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes
mutilated or is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like
amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon
cancellation of the mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any Bond
destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the payment" of the reasonable expenses and
charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond
destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it
that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership thereof, and upon
furnishing to the Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and
amount satisfactory to it and as .provided by law, in which both the City and the
Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will
be cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to
the City. If the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or
been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue
a new Bond prior to payment.
(i) Redemption. In the event any of the Bonds are called for
redemption, notice thereof identifying the Bonds to be redeemed will be given by the
Registrar by mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first class mail (postage
prepaid) to the registered owner of each Bond to be redeemed at the address
shown on the registration books kept by the Registrar and by publishing the notice if
required. by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail to any registered
owner, or any defect therein, -will not affect -the validity of the proceedings for the
redemption of Bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest
after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the redemption are
on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints Wells Fargo Bank
Minnesota, National Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The
Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City,- a
contract with the Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another
corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to
conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to act as successor
Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar
for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30
days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the
predecessor Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor
Registrar and must deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each
principal or interest due date, without further order of this Council, the City Finance
Manager must transmit to the Registrar monies sufficient for the payment of all principal
and interest then due.
2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under
the direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of
the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that all signatures may be panted, engraved or
lithographed facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of
whose signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of any
Bond, that signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes,
the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such
execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security
or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on the Bond
has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the
Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the
same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive
evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the
Bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager will deliver
the same to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance-with the
contract of sale heretofore made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see
to the application of the purchase price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive
Bonds one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in
Section 3 with such changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a
. single temporary bond. Upon the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary
Bonds will be exchanged therefor and cancelled.
Section 3. Form of Bond.
3.01. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the following form:
• [Face of the Bond]
No. R- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF RICHFIELD
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX
INCREMENT REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2002B
Rate Maturi Date of
Original Issue CUSIP
December 5, 2002
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of Richfield, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal
corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and
for value received promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered
assigns, the principal sum of $ on the maturity date specified above with
interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable
February 1 and August 1 in each year, commencing. August 1, 2003, to the person in
whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the fifteenth day (whether
or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon
presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the
United States of America by check or draft by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National
Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent
and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor under the Resolution described
herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same
respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City have been
and. are hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City may elect on February 1, 2010, and on any day thereafter to prepay Bonds
due on or after February 1, 2011. Redemption may be in whole or in part and d m part, at
the. option of the City and in such manner as the City will determine. If less than -all Bonds
of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify Depository Trust Company
(DTC) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC_ will determine by lot
the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each
.participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be
redeemed. Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $ all of
like original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege,
and interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on
November 12, 2002 (the Resolution), for the purpose of providing money to refund, the
outstanding principal amount of certain general obligation bonds of the City, pursuant to
and in full conformity with the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws
of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.67 and the principal
• hereof and interest hereon are payable primarily from tax increments resulting in increases
in the taxable value of real property in tax increment financing districts in the City as set
forth in the Resolution to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers
thereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment
of this Bond and. the City Council has obligated itself to levy ad valorem taxes on all
•
•
taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency in tax increments pledged, which
taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. The Bonds of this series are
issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple
thereof of single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this
Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar,
by the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in
writing, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to
the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and
may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon
such transfer or exchange the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the
name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount,
bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to
reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to
such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name
this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not,
for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor
the Bond Registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts,
conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution
and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed
preliminary to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding
general obligation of the City in accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have
happened and have been performed as so required, and that the issuance of this Bond
does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional, statutory or
charter limitation of indebtedness.
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled
benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication
executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one
representatives.
to any security or
hereon has been
of its authorized
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its
City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual
signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the
date set forth below.
Dated:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
(Facsimile) f Facsimile)
City Manager Mayor
C
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
• WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA
National Association
By
Authorized Representative
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond,
will be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT Custodian
in common (Gust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or
by entireties Transfers to Minors
Act............
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and
not as tenants in common (State)
• Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
the within Bond and all rights
thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
attorney to transfer the said Bond on the books kept for
registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name
as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
• NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of
the Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program ("STAMP"), the Stock Exchange
Medallion Program ("SEMP"), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion .Signatures
Program ("MSP") or other such "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by
the Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance
with the Securities Exchange-Act of 1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information
• concerning the assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this
Bond is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
•
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been
registered on the books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Date of Registration
Reaistered Owner
Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119
Signature of
Officer of Re_ isa trar
3.02. The City Manager is authorized and directed to obtain a copy of the
proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, which is to be complete except as to dating thereof and cause the opinion to be
printed on or accompany each Bond.
Section 4. Payment: Security; Pledges and Covenants.
4.01. (a) The Bonds are payable from the Taxable General Obligation
Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 20026 -Debt Service Fund (Debt Service
Fund) hereby created, and all tax increments (Tax Increments) received by the City
pursuant to the Pledge Agreement described in Section 1.01 hereof are pledged to
the Debt Service Fund.
•
(b) The debt service fund, if any, heretofore established for the
Refunded Bonds as defined in the resolution providing for the issuance and sale of
the Bonds, is terminated, and all monies therein are hereby transferred to the Debt
Service Fund herein created. If a payment of principal or interest on the Bonds
becomes due when there is not sufficient money in the Debt Service Fund to pay
the same, the City Finance Manager will pay such principal or interest from the
general fund of the City, and the general fund will be reimbursed for those advances
out of the proceeds of the Taxes levied by this resolution and tax increments when
collected.
(c) There is hereby appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i)
capitalized interest financed from Bond proceeds, if any, (ii) any amount over the
minimum purchase price of the Bonds paid by the Purchaser and (iii) the accrued
interest paid. by the Purchaser upon closing and delivery of the Bonds.
• 4.02. It is determined that estimated collection of Tax Increments for the payment
of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at least five percent in excess of the
amount needed to meet when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds and
that no tax levy is needed at this time.
4.03. The City Manager is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
Taxpayer Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate
required by Section 475.63 of the Act.
4.04. It is hereby determined that upon the receipt of proceeds of the Bonds
(Proceeds) for payment of the Refunded Bonds that an irrevocable appropriation to the
debt service fund for the Refunded Bonds will have been made -within -the meaning of
Section 475.61, subdivision 3 of the Act and the City Manager is hereby authorized and
directed to certify such fact to and request the Taxpayer Services Division Manager to
cancel any and all tax levies made by the resolution authorizing and approving the
Refunded Bonds.
Section 5. Refunding; Findinas: Redemption of Refunded Bonds.
5.01. The Refunded Bonds are the General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 1996, of the City, dated December 1, 1996, of which $2,430,000 in principal
amount is callable on February 1, 2003. It is hereby found and determined that based
upon information presently available from the City's financial advisers, the issuance of the
Bonds is consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof and is necessary and
desirable for the reduction of debt service cost to the Municipality.
• 5.02. It is hereby found and determined that the Proceeds will be sufficient to
prepay all of the principal of, interest on and redemption premium (if any) on the Refunded
Bonds.
5.03. The Refunded Bonds maturing on February 1, 2004 and thereafter will be
redeemed and prepaid on February 1, 2003. The Refunded Bonds will be redeemed. and
prepaid in accordance with their terms and in accordance with the terms and conditions set-
forth in the forms of Notice of Call for Redemption attached hereto as Attachment B which
terms and conditions are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. The
Registrar for the Refunded Bonds is authorized and directed to send a copy of the Notice
of Redemption to each registered holder of the Refunded Bonds.
5.04. When all Bonds and all interest thereon, have been discharged as provided
in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the
holders of the Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City
for the prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in
full force and effect. The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by
depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment
thereof in full. If any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be
discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full
with interest accrued to the date of such deposit.
•
Section 6. Authentication of Transcript.
6.01. The. officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to
the Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings
and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and .affairs of the
City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the
facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and
under their .control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds and such
instruments, including any heretofore furnished, will be deemed representations of the City
as to the facts stated therein.
6.02. The Mayor, City Manager and Finance Manager are hereby authorized and directed
to certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with
the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official
Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as
of the date of the Official Statement.
6.03. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds
allocable to the payment of issuance expenses (other than amounts payable to Kennedy &
Graven, Chartered as Bond Counsel) to U.S. Trust Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota on
the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City's financial adviser, Ehlers &
Associates, Inc.
Section 7. Book-Entry System: Limited Obliaation of Ci
7.01. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten
or printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof.
• Upon initial issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration
books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The
Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC).
Except as provided in this section, all of the outstanding Bonds will be registered in the
registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of
DTC.
7.02. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and
the Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and
other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities
depository (Participants) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an
interest in the Bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with
respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of .DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with
respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any
other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown by the registration books
kept by the Bond Registrar), of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice
of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other person, other than a
registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on the Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and
consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept
by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of
payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of
registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying
Agent will pay all principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the
. order of the respective registered owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the
Bond Registrar, and all such payments will be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and
discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of principal of, premium, if any, or
interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No person other than a
registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the. registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,
will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery
by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to
substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co.," will refer to
such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will
promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent.
7.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to
DTC a Blanket Issuer .Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which will govern
payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with
respect to the Bonds. Any Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the
City with respect to the Bonds will agree to take all action necessary for all- representations
of the City in the Representation letter with respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying
Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times.
7 04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of
the City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the -persons having beneficial
interests in the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC,
whereupon DTC will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond
certificates. In such event the City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as
requested by DTC and any other registered owners in accordance with the provisions of
this Resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to
the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with
respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no successor securities depository
is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will authenticate Bond certificates
in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the transfer,
exchange and method of payment thereof.
7.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Resolution to the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as
nominee of DTC, payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the
• Bond and notices with respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the
manner. provided in DTC's Operational Arrangements as set forth in the Representation
Letter.
Section 8. Continuing Disclosure.
8.01. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out
all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure
.Certificate will not be considered an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however,
any Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including
seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with
its obligations under this section.
8.02. "Continuing Disclosure Certificate" means that certain Continuing Disclosure
Certificate executed by the Mayor and City Manager and dated the date of issuance and
delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time
in accordance with the terms thereof.
2002.
PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November,
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
• Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION
$5,075,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SERIES 20026
CITY OF RICHFIELD
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City. Council of the City of
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and
prepayment on
FEBRUARY 1, 2003
all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Taxable Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 1996, dated December 1,.1996, having stated maturity dates of February 1
in the years 2004 through 2012, both inclusive, totaling $2,430,000 in principal amount,
and with the following CUSIP numbers:
Year Amount CUSIP
2004 $200,000 763325 ZWO
2005 215,000 763325 ZX8
2006 230,000 763325 ZY6
2007 245,000 763325 ZZ3
2008 265,000 763325 A23
2009 285,000 763325 A31
2012 355,000 763325 A64
The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to February 1,
2003, on which date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds
hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the main
office of Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., in the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, on or
before February 1, 2003, at the following address:
Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.
Attention: Corporate Trust Operations
255 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55479-0113
In compliance with the Interest and Dividend Compliance Act of 1983 and Broker
Reporting Requirements, the redeeming institution is required to withhold a specified
percentage of the principal amount of your holdings redeemed unless they are provided
with your social security number or federal employer identification number, properly
certified. This Compliance should be fulfilled through the submitting of a W-9 Form which
may be obtained at a Bank or other Financial Institution.
The Registrar will not be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number,
nor is any representation made, as to the correctness indicated in the Redemption. Notice
or on any Bond. It is included solely for convenience of the Holders.
Dated: November 12, 2002.
• BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By /s/ Nancy Gibbs
City Clerk
City of Richfield, Minnesota
•
AGENDA SECTION: public Hearin
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT # 2 7 2
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
Academy of Holy Angels to reconstruct and expand their gymnasium, add classroom space,
and complete site improvements to the school campus at 6600 Nicollet Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the
requested amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
Academy of Holy Angels to reconstruct and expand their
gymnasium, add classroom space, and complete site improvements
to the school campus at 6600 Nicollet Avenue, with those stipulations
listed under the Legal Basis of Recommendation.
IL BACKGROUND
The Academy of Holy Angels was granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in 1979
fora `physical education facility addition'. Richfield's City Code section 546.07,
Subdivision 10 states: "Holders of a conditional use permit may propose
amendments to the permit by following the procedure set in this subsection for
issuance of a new permit. Significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the
use shall require approval of the Council."
1112-Am e n d C U P-A H A. d o c
NAME, TITLE
The Academy of Holy Angels has requested an amendment to its CUP to allow it to
take down the current physical education facility and replace it with a larger
gymnasium facility and additional classroom space. As part of this project, the
Academy will enlarge the internal driveway area to improve pick-up and drop-off
efficiency and decrease any traffic backing-up to Nicollet Avenue. The Academy
also proposes to add landscaping on the site to accommodate the proposed
changes.
• The Academy currently includes 156,000 square feet of space, including
classrooms, the gymnasium, and other school-related uses such as cafeteria,
theater, and chapel space. The proposal is to demolish the existing gymnasium
(loss of 14,500 square feet) and add 71,500 square feet of new gymnasium, weight-
room, classroom, and lobby/entrance space, for a net increase of 57,000 square
feet, or 213,000 square feet in total.
• Impervious lot coverage before the proposed changes is 36%; after the
proposed changes impervious lot coverage will be 39%. Non-residential uses in the
`R' district are allowed a maximum of 50% impervious lot coverage.
• The new gymnasium and additional classroom space will be in roughly the
same location as the current gymnasium, but will extend further north and closer to
66th Street. All set-back requirements are met, however.
• The height of the new buildings will be similar to the existing buildings-the
gymnasium will be approximately 36 feet tall. The classrooms will match the
current 3 story classroom buildings at approximately 40 feet in height. Non-
residential buildings in the `R' District are allowed to be up to 42 feet in height. All
architecture is designed to match as closely as possible the current exteriors of
existing brick buildings.
• Landscaping is adequate and appropriate for the proposed expansion. The
developer is making every effort to save as many existing trees as possible;
however, 14 trees that are 12" in diameter or larger will be cut down to
accommodate the proposed expansion as follows: 1 ash (21"); 5 elm (12", 18", 24"
24", and 31 "); 2 cottonwood (36" and 42"), and 6 oaks (21 ", 24", 24", 24", 24", and
31 "). The proposal calls for 46 new trees plus significant ground-cover and other
landscaping. Landscaping will be primarily added to the north side of the site (to
buffer the new gymnasium), around the proposed bus parking area (also as a
buffer), and on the interior courtyard.
• This proposal does not affect the athletic `dome' that the Academy uses
during the winter months.
III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION
• A. POLICY -
• The Academy of Holy Angels is located in the `R Residential' zoning
district. Public and private high-schools are conditional uses in the `R'
District. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are
as follows:
a) The proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. This requirement
is met. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a school at this
location.
b) The proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted
redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines. This
requirement is met. There are no adopted redevelopment plans
for this area. The proposed changes have been reviewed by
city staff and meet city design guidelines.
c) The proposed use is or will be in compliance with the
pen`ormance standards specified in Section 541 of this code.
This requirement is met with one modification. The initial plans,
which were reviewed by the Planning Commission on October
28, 2002, included a windowless north wall for the new
gymnasium. Section 541.13 Subdivision 2 specifies that
windows are required for exterior walls that face a street. The
Planning Commission asked the applicant to revise the north
wall of the gymnasium by adding features such as vertical
elements to `soften' its appearance and break-up the monotony
of such a large wall. The applicant has submitted revised plans
as requested showing 8 piers, each 8 feet wide, spaced 26 feet
apart and projecting 4" from the north wall. Ivy will be planted
and maintained between these piers to visually divide the wall
into sections. One stipulation for approval will be that the
applicant must maintain the ivy in such a fashion that the vertical
piers remain free of ivy so the wall does not become completely
covered in ivy.
d) The proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on
governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed
improvements. This requirement is met. With the proposed
building additions and site reconfigurations, traffic circulation
internal to the site will be improved, which will greatly decrease
the possibility of traffic backing-up to Nicollet Avenue. Also, the
Public Works Department has required the applicant to submit
plans for storm water management for their review and
approval.
e) The use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public
health, safety, or welfare. This requirement is met. Currently,
the Academy has gymnasium and classroom facilities. The
Academy is requesting approval to expand both of these
facilities to better serve their students, and the expansion
presents no adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare.
f) There is a public need for such use at the proposed location.
This requirement is met. The Academy must improve and
upgrade its gymnasium and classroom facilities to better serve
its students, many of whom are Richfield residents.
g) The proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions
set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit.
This requirement is met, as explained below.
Public and private high schools are a conditional use in the `R' district, as specified in
section 521.07, Subdivision 11 of the zoning code. This section of the zoning code
specifies 4 requirements for a conditional use permit to be issued for a high school. These
4 requirements are:
1. Pick-up and drop-off areas shall be designed to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety;
2. Outdoor recreational facilities designed for group activities shall be set back at
least 40 feet from any lot line;
3. Buffering shall be provided to mitigate noise and adverse visual impacts on
adjacent properties; and
4. Lighted playing fields shall be permitted only upon demonstration that off-site
impacts can be substantially mitigated.
Only the first and third conditions are directly affected by the proposed expansion of the
gymnasium and classrooms. For the first item-pick-up and drop-off areas-the
Academy proposes increasing the length and improving the configuration of their internal
driveway to better accommodate parents dropping-off and picking-up students. For the
third item-buffering-the Academy will provide significant amounts of landscaping around
the new gymnasium and bus parking area to provide a visual buffer. The remaining two
requirements for a Conditional Use Permit for a high school in the `R' District are not
affected by this request.
B. CxiTTCAL ISSUES
• The Academy conducted public open houses on September 9th and
September 12th with neighbors to inform them of their proposed
expansion. The Academy sent mailed notices to all neighbors within
350 feet notifying them of these open houses. City staff attended one
of these open houses. No complaints, concerns, or opposition was
expressed by neighbors at either of these meetings.
• Currently, the school has a student body of 800. After the addition of
the proposed classroom space, the school will be able to serve 860
students; however, the school is not planning to increase enrollment to
860 immediately.
• Parking facilities for the Academy are adequate for use of this site as a
school. After construction, the Academy will provide 162 student
parking spaces on site and make available another 360 spaces through
a shared parking agreement with St. Peter's Church, for a total of 522
spaces. While the city does not have specific parking requirements
for high schools, standards in other cities typically require one space
per faculty member plus between 1 space per 4 students to 1 space
per 10 students. The school anticipates having 75 faculty and 860
students. Using the higher requirement of one space per 4 students,
the Academy would need to provide 290 parking spaces (75 + 215).
Lastly, the Academy will provide a screened parking lot for its buses at
the west end of the new gymnasium.
i • The Academy has submitted a letter from St. Peter's Church specifying
that 360 parking spots from the church are available for use by the
Academy.
C. FnvANC1AL
• The estimated cost of the project is approximately $7 million. The
Academy is asking for City Council approval to use the City's remaining
annual limit of bank qualified financing for 2002, which is approximately
$8.5 million. This financing will be used to cover project costs and to
refinance as much as possible an existing debt of $2 million. (The
existing taxable debt is at a higher rate of interest.)
By virtue of IRS rules, cities are authorized to issue up to ten million
dollars of bank qualified financing per year. The interest cost of the
financing is tax exempt to the. buyer of the debt, which means a lower
cost to the borrower.
•
The City has approximately $8.5 million available in its annual limit of
bank qualified financing with no other external or internal requests for
its use. It must be used prior to January 1 or it will be lost (a new limit
of $10 million will be available in 2003). The City would function as a
conduit for this financing and it does not create any financial liability for
the City.
LEGAL
• 60-DAY RULE: 60 day clock `started' when complete application was
received on October 11, 2002. Decision must be given to applicant by
December 10, 2002 OR the Council must notify the applicant that it is
extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60 additional days or 120
days total) for issuing a decision.
• The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on
October 28, 2002 and recommended approval.
• Zoning:
• Land Use:
• Comprehensive Plan:
• Notification:
•
R-Single Family Residential
High School
School
Neighbors and property-owners within 350 feet
Legal notice appeared in the Sun Current on
October 31, 2002.
• Stipulations of Approval:
That the Academy of Holy Angels must maintain the ivy along the north
wall of the new gymnasium in such a fashion that the protruding piers
along the wall are not covered with ivy. The intent of this stipulation is
to insure that the visual distinction between the 8 vertical piers and the
ivy-covered areas between these piers is maintained.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECONIlVIENDATION~S~
• Deny the requested amendment to a Conditional Use Permit allow the
Academy of Holy Angels to complete a building reconstruction/expansion and
site improvements to the school campus at 6600 Nicollet Avenue.
V. ATTACPIlVIENTS
• City Council Resolution
• Site Plan and Landscaping/Planting Plan
• Revised elevations for the north-facing wall of the proposed gymnasium
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
• Applicant- Ms. Jill Reilly, President, Academy of Holy Angels
• Developer- Mr. Craig Larson, Opus
•
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
6600 Nicollet Avenue
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit for a private high school on land
generally located at 6600 Nicollet Avenue, legally described as:
The north % of the northeast'/ of the southwest'/ of section 27, township 28,
range 24, excluding roads and excluding the west 25 feet thereof.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Richfield has recommended
approval of this requested amendment to a Conditional Use Permit at 6600 Nicollet
Avenue at its October 28, 2002 meeting, so long as the north-facing wall of the proposed
gymnasium is modified to include architectural features such as vertical elements to
`soften' the wall's appearance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed north-facing wall has been modified as requested; and
WHEREAS, this requested amendment to a Conditional Use Permit at 6600 Nicollet
Avenue meets those requirements necessary for issuing a CUP as specified in Richfield's
Zoning Code, section 546.05, Subd.6; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered- the request for approval of the
amendment to the conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Richfield, Minnesota, as follows:
1. An amendment to the conditional use permit is issued for the expansion of
gymnasium and classroom space at a private high school, as described in City
Staff Report No. 272, on the Subject Property legally described above.
2. This amendment to the conditional use permit at 6600 Nicollet Avenue is
subject to completing the following conditions before a building permit will be
issued:
• That the Academy of Holy Angels must maintain the ivy along the north
wall of the new gymnasium in such a fashion that the protruding piers
along the wall are not covered with ivy. The intent of this stipulation is to
insure that the visual distinction between the 8 vertical piers and the ivy-
covered areas between these piers is maintained;
• That the recipient of this amendment to the conditional use permit record
this resolution with the County, pursuant to Minnesota statutes section
462.36, Subdivision 1 and Richfield Zoning Code 546.05, Subdivision 7.
• • That the recipient of this amendment provide those items identified in the
October 1, 2002 Administrative Review Report.
3. The amended conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as
conditions regulating it are observed, and the amended conditional use .permit
shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more
months, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 546.05, Subd. 9
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
November, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
•
I
I
~!
~ ;
t
_.... \
+ I
+ I ~
i
' 1
l
~_
-- _
m ~, ~('.
a . ,. ~
i
~ ii
r r ~ h
~:- fir::
UI ry{
-. .. l-~.
i, i r
~~ ~ i.
.... ~~
_ h /
~_
a
t _.... ~ i` _._.~
1 )( - ( _
~ i .... ~ ... [ +~
" ~. t
t
! f
.. hl
..... .. ~ ~., ~" I
'}~~~ ~'~
>. '
f. ~ _,, ~ ~
~a , ~c
'~~~~ ~r
g ? Z~
~~. ~ , ~
9 ~
I II ;~ 3,_ - ~ ~
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~
- ; y-
~ -- ~ ~ \ ~ '
~~~. ,~~ r ~~ ~ ~ t
•; \ .
// } a
I .; ~; Er ~yg - t - -
i iti 6-
~.
3
~.. LI ~ ~ ~ lr=~~ ~ m
K ~ ~.
,k
` '. ~~ I \ ~
[ y ....
__ sf J I
_.. _.. ~ I
~. ~ ~ _
~, ~ ~ ~
z ~\ rcl~
~ 1
~+ ~.~'. ~!~ ~~ .- .. ~ ~ ! ~ ~ n r r ~ - -
' - ll
i
.`
f
~ ~,.~, r~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~; o ~ i : f
~:
•k ~; -l /
_ .._..... tr ., ._.\ i
~ :\~ ~. , ;
~._ ..
. .
._ __. .... 4 ..- i 1 i+
,
.. . .
.. _
., - - -
~;
~ ~ r : ..
.. .._ ~ '~. _ .^t
~ ,
y ~'•w
G
~}) `a' f4
`'a 's t
~i
....
V .:~ E +' t
Z , '
4 R , ~
.. - ~ mow.... ~ ~ ~
S -{ -_
o ~ ..... ~ .. ~ '
~ ~
m
,. '
~.:
y h~
,+
~:' ... ~
,. a ,
__. ... ..
~~,3~ ~ ~;
~ ~ r ,y~
*-
6 ~
tt, ~
`~
. ~
NICOLLET AVENUE
~
fTl
D ~ r D
~ -< ~
ttUg~ o ° ~
® ;. _. c ~ n. 3
~ sn g 3 ~ ~ ~ z:" 2s
Sn gg
z s ~ N ~
z ° ~ ° k g ~ ~ ®I
ug- m
.~ ~ rzz, z ~ P'f p's~ 2z ~ z o3 - `~~ °$o ~S ~S~g ~°~
~ O a
C ~ ~
o n ~
(n 3 c~~
b - _° ~
~3s
8 ~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ _~
g
¢g
3
0 ~ m
,
d
•
:,~'
IO
~' I-,-
-'_
~_
~,~ __-
~~~
~~(\ \)
~ ~~-
~`~~'
-_~ -{
;~ O o
-z-
S
<<< ~-,
~~ii ~{
~~ ~1
"(il
~~, j\l
~1~
p n
~ 0
Z ~
~ ~
rnp
r -n
8; o A
~~~ ~ C
• •
•
0O
r
~~
0
~N ~' ~ (1'
N ~^ _~
o -,
~~ __ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
-z.
~~
1~4 -~
~,
~« -r--
~~ U ~.
~`~,
~~ ~n~
D ~~~ ~~.~~
~ ~ ~~
~ ¢~ Os
~
~~
~
•0
~
m
0
T
0_
--
0
~G
O
L
(~~
~ •
• •
•
~- ~~ .~.
• • i
~~
w
~~
~_
n
-~
--~
n
--i
.~
~~
w
L
~~
C~i3~~ ~~ A~ ~~~A~ ~q ~ ~e. ~t
E77~~~~~ ~~~~ €~~Y~~ ~~~~ i~~ ~~§}L~~
~~;~~ j~~ 9 ~Fa g~~~ ~~~ ~9¢ps
~~~~~ ~~~~ ~aA~ i~~ ~~ ~i~
~~~~A ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~€
~ ! ~> ~
a~~~
~~~6~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~.
~~~~~~~~~~A ~;~~~~ ~ ~~~~~
~~~~l~~~~A 9dR~~ ~ i~~~~a
ppa
~T 9~~E ~E ~~~€~ i Fp~~a~
4~ ~` + A ~ ~ tl ~e g F ~ ~3 9 ~~, 999 ~
i ~r ~ ~~ €~~ ~~d~~ ~~~D ~ 9~ 3c a ~ 9~ a ~ E~
4~ ~ lA 9 A , ~aER ~ ~A~ ga ga a~ •a y=y ,~~9 ~ ~ ga
~~~ ii ~# ~ ~ vA 9 ~S fg~~ £~ ~A ~ a~~, !~ ~~~ ~A 3~a 9 ~ ~~~ a g~
~~~ ~g ~~~ $~op~ ~~~a~~ ~g~$ Rid ~~~ ~~~~y ~~ °~~ ~ gi~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~
a
X_ A _A_ _~-N - _ -
-I N
Z ~ ~ ~ (( ~uy i i ~ NN rn
WAN NQ~W?O+N A;T
D
~ 1
~
3
~
D
~ 333
X7
c 7c~~
~
o
0
z
~
~ ~
~ m _'+ n ~
~ ~ z z
~ ~
z 333
~~~ ~ [[~~
a
~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1i
Z O
~ TI "'~
~
~ ~ ~~~~~
uE$ ~
~
~ ~
® _ ~
'
J
~~
•
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
~,~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
r~
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Consent
40
271
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for 2003
for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. and Ca ital Cash, LLC d/b/a Hy's Pawn.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held December 10, 2002,
for the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses
for 2003 for Metro Pawn and Gun, Inc. and Capital Cash, LLC d/b/a
Hy's Pawn.
II. BACKGROUND
The pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses will expire on January 1,
2003.
Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
•
The renewal process has been initiated.
Holding the public hearing on December 10, 2002 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process before January 1, 2003.
1112Set PH Metro Pawn & Hys Pawn
• III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public
hearing to consider all pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer
license renewals.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing
process.
• V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
AGENDA SECTION: (',nascent
AGENDA ITEM # [,~
REPORT # 2 ~ 0
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
BETSY CxIUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATNE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
® ~~~6
~~ SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Set date for the public hearing to consider the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday
liquor licenses for 2003 for: Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant; The Ground Round; Khan's
Mongolian Barbeque; Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435; Fred Babcock VFW
Post No. 5555, d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation, d/b/a
Don Pablo's; Champps Operating Corporation, dba Champps Sports Cafe; Wiltshire
Restaurants, LLC dba Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar; The Frenchmans, and Taco Morelos.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held December 10, 2002,
for the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for
2003 for: Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurant; The Ground Round; Khan's
Mongolian Barbeque; Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post
435; Fred Babcock VFW Post No. 5555 d/b/a Four Nickels Food and
Drink; Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablo's,
Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Sports Cafe;
Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar; The
Frenchmans, and Taco Morelos.
1112Set Hearing to Renew OnSale & Sunday Liquor Licenses
II. BACKGROUND
The on-sale liquor licenses for restaurant establishments will expire on January 1,
2003.
Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
The renewal process has been initiated.
Holding the public hearing on December 10, 2002 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process before January 1, 2003.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
City ordinance provides that the City Council conducts a public
hearing to consider all liquor license renewals.
$. CRITICAL ISSUES
N/A
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing
process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
r~
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4M
REPORT # 269
~~ STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATNE
SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, T/TLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ® ~^ ~~
~l SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ /2~~/ . n
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Set public hearing date to consider the renewal of on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt
liquor licenses for 2003 for Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant and
Thom son's Fireside Pizza.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a public hearing to be held December 10, 2002,
for the renewal of on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor
licenses for 2003 for Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, Ketsana's Thai
Restaurant and Thompson's Fireside Pizza.
II. BACKGROUND
The on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for restaurant
establishments will expire on January 1, 2003.
Hearings must be scheduled and held before a renewal license may be considered.
•
The renewal process has been initiated.
Holding the public hearing on December 10, 2002 will provide ample time to
complete the licensing process before January 1, 2003.
1112 Set PH Wine Malt Liquor Renewal
• III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City ordinance provides that the City Council conduct a public hearing
to consider all on-sale wine and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license
renewals.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• N/A
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• Schedule the hearing for another date; however, this may delay the licensing
process.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• None
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
The terms of the contract provide for the contract to be terminated upon the •
expiration of 30 days after the service of written notice upon the other party, if there
should be a need to terminate it before it expires December 31, 2004.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement
services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning for
many years.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a
professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. Annual
evaluations of their services have shown that they are providing
efficient services in a very cost-effective manner.
C. FINANCIAL
• The cost of this contract will be recovered by permit fee revenue.
D. LEGAL •
• N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own plumbing, heating
and air conditioning services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to
provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more
than current expenditures and would require a budget increase.
• The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower
rate, which would require designated reduction in services or programs.
V. ATTACHMENTS
• 2003-2004 City of Bloomington Inspection Contract
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this _ day of January, 2003, by and between the City of
Richfield (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield") and the City of Bloomington (hereinafter referred
to as "Bloomington")
WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of building
inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare and safety; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this agreement that certain of
such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
below, the above parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The term of this agreement shall be from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004,
subject to termination as provided in paragraph 7.
2. For the term of this agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with. the following
services, in and, on behalf of Richfield:
a. Plumbing inspections, plan review and code enforcement as necessary.
b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections, plan review and code
enforcement for new residential structures and commercial/industrial applications.
3. Bloomington shall have- control over the manner in which the inspections, plan review
and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement
action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 400 and other policies as
established by the City of Richfield.
4. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code
enforcement.
5. In 2003, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND
AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($74,000) for services provided pursuant to this agreement. One-half of
this arnount shall be due on June 30, 2003, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2003.
6. In 2004, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-SEVENTY
THOUSAND AND FORTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($77,040) for services provided pursuant to
this agreement. One-half of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2004, and the remainder shall be
due on November 30, 2004.
7. This agreement shall terminate as follows:
a. Upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party; or
b. At any time, upon agreement of the parties; or
c. In any event on December 31, 2004.
8. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2004, a prorata reduction of the
compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on
the agreement at the time of termination.
9. Bloomington agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Richfield, and its officials,
agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising
out of or resulting from Bloomington's performance of the duties required under this Agreement,
provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury,
sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use
resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful
misconduct of Bloomington. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either party of
any defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties.
i 0. Richfield agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Bloomington, and its officials,
agents and employees from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses arising
out of or resulting from Richfield's performance of the duties required under this Agreement,
provided that any such claim, action, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury,
sickness, disease, or death or to the injury to or destruction of property including the loss. of use
resulting therefrom and is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission or willful
misconduct of Richfield. This provision shall not be construed as a waiver by either parry of any
defenses, immunities or limitators on liability with respect to claims made by third parties.
11. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per
individual and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability •
insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a
certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's
Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 (1997) and
further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to the Richfield.
12. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall
remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to,
wages, salary and employee benefits.
13. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon
request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield:
1) Electrical inspection and code enforcement services;
2) Inspection of replacement residential heating and air conditioning equipment;
3) Building inspection and code enforcement services.
14. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $53.00 per
hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by
Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with
respect to the electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning inspection services being
provided.
15. In addition to the services listed in Paragraph 2 above, Bloomington shall, upon
request, also provide building plan checking services for and on behalf of Richfield. Such services
shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at a rate of $56.00 per hour, and said hourly rate
shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Paragraph 5 of this
Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the
building plan checking services being provided.
16. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any
manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as
constituting the persons employed by Bloomington as the agent, representative or employee of
Richfield for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington is to be and shall remain an
independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this contract. Bloomington
represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing
services under this contract. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged
in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this contract, shall have
no contractual relationship with Richfield and shall not be considered employees of Richfield ,and
any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of •
Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims
whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged
employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its
officers, agents contracts or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and
Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees
harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal,
agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be
entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including,
without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers'
Compensations, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA.
17. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of Bloomington relevant to
this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield and either the legislative or state auditor as
appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5.
18. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield
and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the
parties relating to the subject matter hereof, any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications
to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties.
19. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act
and not to discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of
employment in its services, programs, or activities. -Upon request, accommodation will be provided
to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs, and activities.
Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice
regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations.
For information contact Human Services Division, City of Bloomington, 2215 West Old Shakopee
Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431; telephone: 948-8700; TDD: 948-8740. Richfield agrees to
hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, i
attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by
Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but
not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a
violation of ADA by Bloomington.
20. The City of Bloomington and the City of Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes
and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to
mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1536 Hewitt Avenue,
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55104. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or
non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event
mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may
commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.
21. Both parties agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and
regulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth their hands on the day and year first
written above.
Upon proper execution, this CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
Agreement shall be a legal
and binding obligation upon
the City of Bloomington
City Attorney
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By:
Its Mayor
By:
Its City Manager
•
5
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4L
REPORT # 2 6 $
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: RICHARD REGNIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL
NAME, TITLE
•
REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
NAME, T/TLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~~~ <~ , _~~_~,~~ 4 ~ Q
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the continuation of the contract with the City of Bloomington for provision of
ins ection services for Richfield for the ears 2003 and 2004.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the continuation of the attached contractual
agreement with the City of Bloomington to provide various types of
building inspections and code enforcement for the City of Richfield
for the years 2003 and 2004.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the
areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning for many years.
The proposed contract for 2003 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning
inspection services will be $74,000, compared to the 2002 contract amount of
$75,125.
The proposed contract for 2004 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning
inspection services will be $77,400, compared to the 2003 contract amount of
$74,000.
•
11121nspections Contract with Bloomington 2003-04
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
4K
267
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached indemnification and cooperation agreement regarding the Wold-
Chamberlain Field Joint Airport Zoning Board and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Air ort zonin ordinance.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve the attached indemnification and cooperation
agreement regarding -the Wold-Chamberlain Field Joint Airport
Zoning (JAZ) Board and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
MSP zonin ordinance
II. BACKGROUND
Representatives from each of the cities surround the MSP airport have been part of
JAZ Board for over a year. The purpose of the Board was to update the Airport
Zoning Ordinance, taking into consideration the expansions of current runways, the
construction of 17-35 Runway and the implications of the impacts to surrounding
community zoning.
The Board has prepared a draft ordinance and completed the public hearing on the
draft ordinance.
• During the course of the Board's review of the relevant data relating to the safety of
the airport operations and the safety of the areas surrounding the airport, the
question arose as to the legal-protections afforded the members of the Board, their
communities and the one citizen member of the Board. As the Metropolitan Airports
1112JAZB
Commission (MAC) did not immediately step forward to indemnify the Board
. members, all Board actions were suspended until an agreement was developed by
the legal staff of the MAC and the participating cities.
The agreement is attached for consideration. Several cities have approved the
agreement.
III. BASIS OF RECONIl~IENDATION
A. POLICY
• The agreement is consistent with all relevant laws and City policies.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The agreement provides the desired level of indemnification sought by
JAZ Board members for themselves-and their individual municipalities.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• City Attorney Corrine Thomson was involved in the drafting of this
agreement and will be available for questions at the Council meeting
on November 12.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMNIENDATION~S~
• Take no action. This could, however, put the JAZ members and .the City at
some risk.
Make revisions and request the MAC and the JAZ rd members to consider
the revisions.
V. ATTACFIlVIENTS
• Indemnification and Cooperation Agreement
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
C7
Kennedy
Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http:/lwww.kennedy-graven.com
COxx~E H. Txo~>~soiv
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-921'7
Email: cthortuai@kennedy-graven.com
Real Property Law Specialist, Certified by Minnesota State Bar Assn.
•
•
October 18, 2002
Ms. Pam Dmytrenko
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Indemnification and Cooperation Agreement
Dear Pam:
Enclosed please find Indemnification and Cooperation Agreement. Please arrange for Mayor
Kirsch and Samantha Orduno to execute the Agreement. Please then return the Agreement to me.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~',c;~-c,c-~~
Corrine .Thomson
T:jms
Enc sure
~. ~~rL~~
CAH-222184v1
RC 14599
•
INDEMNIFICATION AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN FIELD
JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD AND THE
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE
This Agreement is -made this day of , 2002, by and between .the
Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC"), the Cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota,
Mendota Heights, Minneapolis, Richfield and Saint Paul and the County of Hennepin
(collectively "the Entities") and Mary Hill Smith, an individual ("M. Smith").
RECITALS
A. The parties to this Agreement are all of the members of the Wold-Chamberlain
Field Joint Airport Zoning Board ("the JAZB") formed pursuant to the authority of Minn.
Stat. § 360.063. M. Smith was appointed by the other members as Chair of the Board
pursuant to the authority of Minn. Stat. § 360.063, subd. 3(b).
B. In 1984 the JAZB adopted the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
(Wold-Chamberlain Field) Zoning Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to govern land use and the
permitted height of structures, vegetation and other potential obstacles in areas proximate to
the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport ("the Airport") and under the approach and
departure paths for flights to and from the Airport.
.J
• C. Under the provisions of the Ordinance, an employee of each of the Entities is
designated as the Zoning Administrator who is responsible for administering and enforcing
the Ordinance for lands located within each respective Entity.
D. In connection with construction of a new runway at the Airport and with other
changes made at the Airport since 1984, the JAZB is considering certain Amendments to the
Ordinance ("the Amendments") that, if formally proposed by the JAZB, must be approved
by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("the Commissioner")
and adopted by the JAZB before they become effective.
E. If the Amendments are adopted by the JAZB in a form acceptable to MAC,
MAC desires that each of the Entities amend its respective comprehensive plan and zoning
code to require compliance with the Ordinance as amended by the Amendments ("Amended
• Ordinance') and to include the Amended Ordinance as an appendix to its zoning code. MAC
also desires that an employee of each Entity act as the Zoning Administrator to administer
and enforce the Amended Ordinance within its respective boundaries.
F. The Entities are willing to amend their respective comprehensive plans and
zoning codes and to administer and enforce the Amended Ordinance within their respective
boundaries. The Entities desire, however, to be protected against possible legal liability that
may arise from their doing so.
G. M. Smith desires to be protected against possible legal liability that may arise
from serving as Chair of the Board, from actions taken by the Board and by actions taken by
the Entities to amend their respective comprehensive plans and zones codes and to
administer the Amended Ordinance.
2
AGREEMENT
• In consideration of the mutual promises and consideration set forth herein and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:
1. Adoption Of Amendments And Effectiveness: After the second public
hearing on the Amendments, the JAZB shall send its proposed final version of the
Amendments to MAC. The MAC Board of Commissioners shall either approve the
proposed final draft or respond by stating the changes to the Amendments needed for this
Agreement to be acceptable to the MAC. If the JAZB changes the Amendments as set forth
by the MAC Board of Commissioners and adopts the Amendments as changed, and if such
Amendments are acceptable to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, this Agreement shall become effective immediately; provided it has been
executed by MAC and the Entities.
2. Indemnification Of Entities: In consideration of an Entity's (i) amendment
of its comprehensive plan to show the areas affected by the Amended Ordinance and to guide
land uses in those areas in conformance with the Amended Ordinance, (ii) amendment of its
zoning code to incorporate therein a provision requiring compliance with the Amended
Ordinance and to add thereto as an appendix the Amended Ordinance and (iii) designation of
one of its employees to act as the Zoning Administrator to administer and enforce the
Amended Ordinance within the Entity's boundaries, MAC agrees that, subject to the other
provisions of this Agreement, it will indemnify and hold harmless:
•
3
C
a. the Entity;
b. any person who serves or has served as the Entity's representative at
meetings of the JAZB; and
c. any officer, employee or agent of the Entity, other than an attorney
employed or retained by the Entity, who may hereafter be responsible for or
participate in administering or enforcing the Amended Ordinance within the Entity's
boundaries,
•
(collectively, "Indemnified Parties" and individually "an Indemnified Party") from and
against any and all losses, liabilities, obligations, costs, expenses, judgments, settlements or
other damages (including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and reasonable costs of
investigating or defending any claim, action, suit or proceeding or of avoiding the same or
the imposition of any judgment or settlement) suffered by the Indemnified Party resulting
from or arising out of any act of that Indemnified Party in connection with the consideration
and adoption of the Ordinance and Amendments by the JAZB, the amendment of its
comprehensive plan to show the areas affected by the Amended Ordinance and to guide land
uses in those areas in conformance with the Amended Ordinance, the amendment of its
zoning code to require compliance with the Amended Ordinance, the incorporation of the
Amended Ordinance as an appendix to its zoning code and administration or enforcement of
the Amended Ordinance by the Entity.
3. Indemnification Of M. Smith: In consideration of M. Smith's service as the
•
Chair of the JAZB, MAC agrees that, subject to the other provisions of this Agreement, it
will indemnify and hold harmless M. Smith from and against any and all losses, liabilities,
obligations, costs, expenses, judgments, settlements or other damages (including reasonable
4
• attorneys' fees and expenses and reasonable costs of investigating or defending any claim,
action, suit or proceeding or of avoiding the same or the imposition of any judgment or
settlement) suffered by M. Smith resulting from or arising out of any act of M. Smith as
Chair of the JAZB, in connection with the consideration and adoption of the Ordinance and
Amendments by the JAZB or out of the acts of the Entities to amend their comprehensive
plans to show the areas affected by the Amended Ordinance and to guide land uses in those
areas in conformance with the Amended Ordinance, to amend their zoning codes to require
compliance with the Amended Ordinance, to incorporate the Amended Ordinance as an
appendix to their zoning codes or to administer or enforce the Amended Ordinance.
Therefore, for the. purposes of this Agreement, M. Smith shall also be an Indemnified Party.
4. Limitations And Exclusions: MAC will not indemnify an Indemnified Party
with respect to liabilities or costs resulting from or arising out of
a. a failure by the Indemnified Party or an official, employee or agent of the
Indemnified Party to follow the procedures established by the Amended Ordinance,
by the comprehensive plan or zoning code of the respective Entity or by applicable
state law in performing any act as to which indemnification would otherwise be
available under this Agreement;
b. the gross negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party or an
official, employee or agent of that Party in performing any of the acts as to which
indemnification would otherwise be available under this Agreement;
c. actions involving self-dealing or conflict of interest by the Indemnified
• Party or an official, employee or agent of that Party; or
5
• d. actions of any individual (whether or not that individual is an
Indemnified Party) not performed in an official capacity as a representative of the
Entity of which the individual is an official, employee or agent and in direct
performance of the individual's duties.
5. Notice Of Claim: If an Indemnified Party receives notice of a claim or of the
commencement of an action or proceeding with respect to which the Party believes MAC is
required by this Agreement to provide indemnification ("Claim"), the Party must give
written notice thereof to MAC within 21 calendar days if the Claim is not asserted in a
formal complaint in a legal proceeding, or within 10 calendar days if the Claim is asserted in
such a formal complaint ("Notice of Claim"). The failure to give Notice of Claim within the
time specified in this section shall relieve MAC of its obligations under this Agreement if in
MAC's reasonable judgment the failure is materially prejudicial to MAC's ability to
negotiate, settle or defend the Claim.
6. Assumption Or Rejection Of Defense: Within 10 days after receiving a
Notice of Claim in accordance with section 5 of this Agreement, MAC must notify the
Indemnified Party providing the Notice of Claim either:
a. that MAC will assume complete control of the negotiation, settlement
and defense of the. Claim and will be responsible for the entire amount of any costs
incurred in negotiating, settling and defending the Claim, including any amount
required to be paid in ,settlement of the Claim or in satisfaction of a final judgment,
after the conclusion of any appeals, in a lawsuit based on the Claim. MAC must also
• notify the Indemnified Party of the name and address of the counsel whom it has
assigned or retained to perform MAC's duties under this section.. Thereafter, except
6
• with the consent of-the Indemnified Party, MAC may not enter into any settlement of
the Claim that does not include, as an unconditional term of such settlement, receipt
from the claimant of an unconditional release to the Indemnified Party from all
liability with respect to such Claim; or
b. that the Claim is not a claim for which indemnification is required under
this Agreement and that MAC therefore declines to provide indemnification. In such
a case, the Indemnified Party may itself control the negotiation, settlement and
defense of the Claim at its own expense and may select counsel of its own choice for
that purpose, and MAC must cooperate with the Indemnified Party in the respects
described in sections 7.a, 7.b and 7.c of this Agreement as if MAC were an
Indemnified Party.
7. Cooperation Of The Indemnified Party: As a condition of MAC's
obligation to indemnify and hold harmless, an Indemnified Party and any Entity with which
an individual Indemnified Party is associated:
a. must make available to MAC and its counsel all of its books, records and
documents that MAC or its counsel determines to be necessary for the defense of any
Claim for which indemnification is sought;
b. must cooperate fully with MAC to secure any information or testimony
that MAC or its counsel determines to be relevant or material to the Claim;
c. must execute all necessary pleadings or other documents in any litigation
arising out of, or with respect to, any Claim when requested to do so by MAC or its
counsel; provided however, that an Indemnified Party may have counsel of its own
choice review any such pleadings or documents, provided that MAC will not be liable
7
for any expenses relating to an Indemnified Party's consulting such separate counsel;
and
d. must not settle or compromise any Claim for which MAC has undertaken
the Indemnified Parry's defense without the prior written consent of MAC.
S. Termination Of Indemnification Obligation: MAC's obligation to provide
indemnification pursuant to section 2 of this Agreement will terminate:
a. as to an Entity and any Indemnified Party associated with that Entity, if
the Entity, having amended its respective comprehensive plan and zoning code as
required by section 2 of this Agreement as a condition of its becoming eligible for
indemnification, thereafter further amends its comprehensive plan or zoning code so
as to change materially the provisions previously adopted pursuant to section 2 of this
Agreement;
b. as to any Indemnified Party, if the Indemnified Party or an Entity with
which an individual Indemnified Party is associated fails to perform any of its
obligations under section 7 of this Agreement and does not correct such failure within
30 days after being given notice by MAC that MAC will cease to provide
indemnification if the failure is not corrected;
c. as to any Indemnified Party, if the Indemnified Party or an Entity with
which an individual Indemnified Party is associated fails to perform its obligations
under section 5 of this Agreement and if such failure is materially prejudicial to
MAC's ability to negotiate, settle or defend the Claim; or
• d. as to any Indemnified Party, if, after MAC has assumed responsibility for
a Claim under section 6.a of this Agreement, MAC or a court or other adjudicating
8
entity subsequently determines that the Claim is of a type described in section 4 of
this Agreement, as to which no indemnification is required, in which case MAC must
promptly notify the Indemnified Party that it will no longer provide indemnification.
MAC agrees to notify an Indemnified Party promptly if MAC determines that one of
the Limitations or Exclusions in section 4 may apply. In the case of a termination
pursuant to section 8.d of this Agreement, MAC shall be entitled to reimbursement of
its costs incurred pursuant to section 6.a of this Agreement, and upon receipt of an
itemized bill for those costs from MAC, the Indemnified Party shall promptly
reimburse MAC for the billed costs.
9. Separate Representation Of Indemnified Party: If an Indemnified Party
reasonably determines that there may be a conflict between the positions of MAC and the
Indemnified Party in connection with the defense of a Claim, or that there may be legal
defenses available to the Indemnified Party different from or in addition to those being
asserted on its behalf by MAC, counsel for the Indemnified Party may conduct, at the
Indemnified Party's own expense and at no expense to MAC, a defense to the extent that the
Indemnified Parry's counsel believes necessary to protect the Indemnified Party's interests.
In any event, the Indemnified Party shall be responsible for all fees and expenses of its
separate counsel arising from or related to the defense of a Claim for which MAC has
assumed responsibility under section 6.a of this Agreement.
10. Resolution Of Disputes Between Parties: If a dispute arises between MAC
and an Indemnified Party concerning either party's compliance with or obligations under this
Agreement and the parties are unable to resolve the dispute by negotiation or other procedure
• (including mediation or arbitration on which the arties ma a ee at the time an lawsuit
P Y 1~ ~ Y
9
arising from the dispute must be filed in the Minnesota District Court for the Fourth Judicial
District (Hennepin County).
11. Notice: Any notice, direction, or instrument to be delivered hereunder shall be
in writing and shall be delivered to the following:
To MAC: Metropolitan Airports Commission
Attn: Thomas W. Anderson, Esq.
General Counsel
6040 28`~ Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450-2779
To City of Bloomington: City of Bloorington
Arin: Mark Bernhardson
City Manager
2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431-3096
To City of Eagan: City of Eagan
. Attn: Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
To City of Mendota: City of Mendota
PO Box 50688
Mendota, MN 55150
To City of Mendota Heights: City of Mendota Heights
Attn: Mayor Charles E. Mertensotto
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
To City of Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis
Attn: Charles D. Ballentine
Director of Planning
350 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1385
~1
U
10
• To City of Richfield: City of Richfield
Attn: Samantha Orduno
City Manager
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
To City of Saint Paul: City of Saint Paul
Attn: Mayor Randy Kelly
390 City Hall
St. Paul, MN 55102
To County of Hennepin: .Office of the Hennepin County Attorney
Attn: Mark Chapin
Managing Attorney
A200 Government Center
Minneapolis, MN 55487
To M. Smith: Mary Hill Smith
515 North Ferndale Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
Such notice shall be either (i) personally delivered (including delivery by Federal Express or
other overnight courier service) to the addresses set forth above, in which case it shall be
deemed delivered on the date of delivery to said offices, or (ii) sent by certified U.S. Mail,
return receipt requested, in which case it shall be deemed delivered on the date shown on the
receipt unless delivery is refused or delayed by the addressee, in which event it shall be
deemed delivered on the 3ra business day following deposit in the U.S. Mail.
Parties may change to whom notice shall be given by giving notice in accordance
with this section, provided that no party may require notice to be sent to more than two
addresses.
Any individual who claims entitlement to indemnification under this Agreement must
include with the Notice of Claim required by section 6 of this Agreement the address to
n
U
11
• which any notice, direction or instrument under this paragraph should be delivered to that
individual.
12. .Captions: The section headings in this Agreement are for convenience of
reference only and shall not define, limit or prescribe the scope or intent of any provision of
this Agreement.
13. Construction: The rule of strict construction shall not apply to this
Agreement. The Agreement shall not be interpreted in favor of or against either MAC or any
Indemnified Party merely because of their respective efforts in preparing it.
14. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State .
of Minnesota.
15. Complete Agreement; Amendment: This Agreement sets forth the complete
agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter. It may be amended, modified or
waived as between MAC and any Indemnified Party only by a writing signed by both of
them.
16. Signatures: This Agreement maybe executed in any number of counterparts,
each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such
counterparts together shall constitute and be one and the same instrument.
Each signatory below represents and warrants that he or she is expressly
authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the Party for which that
person is signing.
Twanders/miscagrcements/MAC-IAZB - Indenmification Agreemrnt FINAL 9-I 1.02.doc
•
12
• INDEMNIFICATION AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE WOLD-CHAMBERLAIN FIELD
JOINT AIRPORT ZONING BOARD AND THE
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT ZONING ORDINANCE
SIGNATURE PAGE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Indemnification and
Cooperation Agreement to be executed for the City of Richfield.
•
Dated: October , 2002. By:
Witness:
Title:
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Martin Kirsch, Mayor
Dated: October , 2002. By:
r1
LJ
Witness:
Title:
Samantha Orduno, City Manager
cai-i-zzzzoz~i
RC 145199
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4 J
REPORT # 2 6 6
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
JIM OLSON, PROJECT ENGINEER
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
•
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consider payment for appraisal services provided by Roger Skare, Colliers Towle Real Estate,
in the amount of $28,954 on the Fountainhead property acquisition needed for the widening of
76th Street.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve payment in the amount of $28,954 to Colliers
Towle Real Estate for services provided in the acquisition of Parcel 5
- 7601 Knox Avenue -Fountainhead Apartments as part of the 76th
Street Widenin
II. BACKGROUND
The 76th Street Widening Project from I-35W to Penn Avenue required right of way
acquisition from 14 parcels.
The City and its attorneys have successfully negotiated the acquisition of 4 of the
parcels with permanent takings while the other two parcels remain in condemnation.
• One of those parcels, Parcel 5, is located at 7601 and 7611 Knox Avenue and is
known as the Fountainhead Apartments.
1112SkarePayment
The City Council has previously passed two resolutions related to the right of way
acquisition on the 76th Street Widening Project. On February 12, 2001, Council
• approved a resolution providing just compensation and authorizing purchase of the
partial acquisition on Parcel 5 in the amount of $411,100. On March 12, 2001,
Council approved a resolution authorizing the condemnation of Parcel 5 and other
parcels if those properties could not be acquired voluntarily.
The City has followed through the condemnation process using the Quick Take
Method. The City has deposited with the Courts $411,100 for the takings on Parcel
5. The City was unsuccessful in negotiating the purchase of the necessary
easements with the owners of Parcel 5. As a result, the City went through
condemnation hearings with the owners of Fountainhead Apartments.
To prepare for the hearings, the City Attorney determined it would be necessary to
upgrade the City's limited appraisal of the property to a full appraisal. The City
obtained a quote of $12,500 to update the appraisal for Parcel 5. In preparing for
the condemnation hearings, the City Attorney determined that additional services
were required from the appraiser since it was discovered that there would be a large
disparity between the City's appraisal and the owners' appraisal. As a result, the
City Attorney requested further assistance from the appraiser to assist in his rebuttal
to the owners' appraisal.
The additional services provided by the appraiser were submitted in an invoice with
the original appraisal report upgrade of $12,500. The invoice includes an additional
• $16,454 in services making the invoice total of $28,954. Staff recommends
payment for the additional appraisal services provided.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• City Staff has reviewed the additional appraisal services provided for
this right of way acquisition according the City's purchasing policies.
This requires Council approval of purchases in excess of $25,000.
• Right of Way acquisition procedures set forth by Minnesota
Department of Transportation are being followed.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES --
• Staff was unable to get prior Council approval in a timely manner for
the additional services provided by the appraiser. As a result, his
charges exceeded $25,000. Condemnation hearings had been
scheduled and staff felt it necessary not to delay the hearings. On
advice of the City Attorney the additional appraisal work was
considered necessary.
• C. FINANCIAL
• Funding for these right of way expenses are eligible for
reimbursement from the City of Richfield's Municipal State Aid
account.
D. LEGAL
• The City's legal counsel, Robert Lindall, has advised staff in all of right
of way actions associated with the 76th Street Widening Project.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~
• Council may choose to request additional information before approving this
payment for work already performed.
V. ATTACHIVIENTS
• Correspondence with City attorney, Robert Lindall of Kennedy & Graven,
regarding payment of the invoice from Roger Skare.
• Invoice and description of additional services provided by appraiser.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None expected
•
Kennedy
Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
ROBERT J. LINDALL
AttomeyatLaw
Direct Dial (612) 337-9219
*Certified Real Property Law Specialist
October 4, 2002
Jim Olson
Department of Public Works
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: City of Richfield v. The Church of St. Richard's of Richfield, et al.
Hennepin County District Court File No. CD-2632
Parcel s - 7601 Knox Avenue South -Fountainhead Apartments
Dear Jim:
Enclosed herewith is the invoice of Colliers Towle Real Estate dated September 24, 2002, in the
amount of $28,954. Attached to the invoice is a detailed description of the dates, services and time
spent on each date in relation to that service, supporting the total invoice. Certainly the charges are
significant but they do include substantial time assisting counsel by reviewing the owner's
appraiser's report and the owner's mazket feasibility expert's report, as well as prepazation of
discounted cashflow analyses of the property value both before and after the taking. The owner's
appraiser's opinion is approximately $1,300,000 greater than the- City's- appraiser's opinion,
necessitating substantial effort to respond and defend the City. Please arrange for payment of the
invoice.
If you have further questions about the invoice, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Lindall ~~~! ~'~- ~~'
RJL:peb ~ ~C-~ .7 2002
Enclosure
RJL-221158v1
RC 145-448
*Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association
•
INVOICE
COLLIERS TOWLE REAL ESTATE
330 Second Avenue South, Suite #800
Minneapolis, MN 55401
(612) 341-4444 ^ FAX (612) 347-9389
Report to: Mr. Robert J. Lindall Bill to: (Same)
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
DATE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES FEE
9/24/02. Appraisal services rendered by Rodger L. Skare, MAI, regarding the
Market Value Appraisal of:
Fountainhead Report Upgrade and Update, Additional Time Spent on
Requested Work and Testimony at Commissioners' Hearing.
.Fee for Report Upgrade and Update $12,500
Additional Work Requested b C
Additional Work by Roder L. Skare, MAI
63.9 Hours @ $190/Hour = $12,141
Hearing Testimony by Rodger L. Skare, MAI
11.9 Hours @ $220/Hour = $2,618
Additional Work by Scott E. Neu
7.3 Hours @ $150/Hour = - $1,095
Three Additional Copies of Report @ $200/Report 600
Total Additional Work Requested by Client $16,454
TOTAL AMOUNT:DUE: .:$28,954 •,
•
UPON RECEIPT, PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF THIS INVOICE
WITH YOUR REMITTANCE TO:
COLLIERS TOWLE REAL ESTATE
AppraisaVConsultation Services
330 Second Avenue South, Suite #800
Minneapolis, MN 55401
THANK YOU!
Additional Time Spent by Rodger L. Skare, MAI
Fountainhead Apartments Project -File No. 2604A
Date Description of Services Hours
5/3 Phone calls with Bob Lindall on dates of Conunissioners' Hearing and additional issues 0.4
affecting the taking
5/3 Call from Bob on Hearing Dates 0.1
5/8 Review of letters from Lindall 0.1
6/10 .Call to Jim Olson on revised scope of taking issues 0.4
6/14 Call to Bob Lindall on scope of appraisal 0.3
6/14 Review of letter from Olson on scope of taking issues 0.5
6/26 Voice mail messages from and to Bob Lindall regarding scheduling for hearing 0.1
6/28 Voice mail messages from and to Bob Lindall regarding scheduling for hearing 0.1
7/17 Phone call with Lindall on scheduling and appraisal issues 0.2
7/17 Call from Eric Bjorkland on appraisal issues 0.3
7/17 Search for negatives and prints sent to Bjorkland 0.3
7/18 Meeting with Lindall and Messner on appraisal approach 0.3
7/19 Conference call on interior inspection of Fountainhead and on requested financial 0.4
information with Lindall, Messner and Chris Hayhoe
7/ 19 Fax from Lindall on hearing dates 0.1
8/12 Call from Lindall to schedule preparation meeting and discuss timing issues 0.2
8/19 Meeting with Lindall to discuss final findings 0.8
8/21 Review of Owner's Exhibit Book 2.5
8/21 Voice mail left with Lindall on receiving Scott Ruppert report 0.1
8/21 Meeting with Lindall to discuss Mary Bujold's Maxfield report 2.9
8/21 Discussion with Scott Neu on Bujold review 0.2
8/22 Review of News analysis of Bujold report 1.3
8/22 Phone calls to Lindall 0.2
8/22 Revisions to RS report suggested by Lindall 0.5
8/23 Review of information from Messner on GVA Marquette survey 0.2
8/23 Further revisions to RS report 1.0
8/26 Review of Ruppert report 2.5
8/26 Calls to Messner and Lindall 0.2
8/28 Meeting with Lindall on Ruppert Report and preparation -for RS testimony, including 3.5
suggested revisions to RS report
. 8/28 Phone call from Lindall 0.1
8/28 Investigation on lease renewals 0.2
Date Description of Services Hours
• 8/28 .Call to Messner 0.1
8/29 Call from Messner 0.2
8/30 Review of Ruppert Report and memo to Lindall 3.5
9/2 Continued review of Ruppert report and memo to Lindall 3.7
9/3 Call from Lindall on Ruppert Review 0.2
9/3 Review of memo to Lindall on Ruppert Report 0.5
9/3 Re-analysis and corrections and revisions to RS report incorporating suggested changes 3.0
by Lindall
9/4 Call to Lindall reminding him to provide us with a written legal instruction on Best Buy 0.1
project influence-
9/4 Re-analysis and corrections and revisions to RS report incorporating suggested changes 6.0
by Lindall
9/4 Review of RS report after incorporating suggested revisions by Lindall to RS report 2.0
9/5 Continued corrections and revisions to RS report and preparation for meeting with 1.5
Lindall and Jim Olson
9/5 Meeting with Lindall and Olson 5.2
9/6 Further revisions to RS report based on meeting with Lindall and Olson 2.5
. 9/6 Review and final corrections to RS report 1.2
9/6 Phone calls from Lindall on status of hearing 0.3
9/6 Compilation and oversight of final reports 3.0
9/8 Preparation for testimony at hearing 5.0
9/9 Final revisions to RS report and final preparation for testimony at hearing 2.3
9/9 Travel time to and from hearing 0.8
9/9 Meeting with Lindall prior to RS testimony at hearing 0.5
9/9 RS testimony at hearing 2.7
9/9 Follow-up call from Lindall on hearing 0.2
9/10 Travel time to and from hearing 0.8
9/10 Meeting with Lindall before hearing 1.0
9/10 RS testimony at hearing 2.6
9/10 Analysis of garage cost estimates and comparison -- "original" report to "update" report 1.5
9/10 Research on GVA Marquette Advisors/Lori Hoffman, background 0.2
9/11 Travel time to hearing 0.8
9/11 Meeting with Lindall before hearing 0.7
9/11 Testimony at hearing 2.0
9/11 File organization 1.0
Date Description of Services Hours
9/12 Invoice preparation 0.7
Total Additional Hours *by RLS, MAI May 3, 2002 through September 12,2002 75.8
* Over and above fee for completing a "typical' before and after appraisal of Fountainhead Apartments
Property.
Breakdown of Roder L. Skare, MAI Hours
Additional requested work and preparation for Commissioners' Hearing
Hearing Attendance/Testimony
•
Total
Hours
63.9
11.9
75.8
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4I
REPORT # Z 65
~- STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER
NAn~ TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: (~/ /~; /J~~
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the Stipulation of Settlement with respect to Bloomington Parcel 4
(Rosenberg) of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project (C.P. 401-30-521).
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approve a Stipulation of Settlement for Bloomington
Parcel 4 (Rosenberg) of the Penn Avenue Bridge Project subject to
City Attorney review and approval.
III. BACKGROUND ~
The City is nearing completion of the land acquisition process for the Penn Avenue
Bridge Project. In this process, the City needed to acquire the necessary right of
way for the construction of the new bridge. Those parcels in Bloomington have
been acquired by Bloomington pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement under which
Richfield is obligated to reimburse Bloomington for damages and costs incurred by
Bloomington for the acquisition process. Bloomington acquired the necessary right
of way through the 90-day condemnation process as outlined by Minnesota
Statutes. On June 28, 2001, the City of Bloomington deposited $663,000 with the
District Court as the approved appraised value for the total acquisition of
Bloomington right of way Parcel No. 4 of the project. The Rosenberg family that
owns the property is not. related to Council Member Rosenberg.
040902-TCFStipAgrmt
• Rosenberg has two appraisers who have prepared written reports estimating that
the Rosenberg parcel is valued at $1,510,000 and the fixtures were valued at
$80,000. Bloomington has three independent real estate appraisers who have
prepared written reports that the parcel is valued at $715,000, $730,000 and
$690,000, respectively. In addition, Bloomington had a fixture appraisal that
indicated the fixtures on the Rosenberg parcel had a value of $31,820. Attorneys for
Mr. Rosenberg and Bloomington have negotiated a proposed amount of $900,000
plus interest and appraisal fees in settlement of all Rosenberg claims (less amounts
previously paid). This $900,000 settlement amount is essentially the same as if the
condemnation commissioners were to award to Mr. Rosenberg 16.7% of the
$828,180 difference between the City's high appraisal opinion and Rosenberg's low
appraisal opinion.
A proposed settlement has been reached between Bloomington and the Rosenberg
family. Approval of this settlement by the Councils of both Bloomington and
Richfield will avoid going further through the condemnation process. The attached
copy of correspondence lays out the agreements and contingencies between the
parties.
A stipulation of settlement is being drafted for signature by the appropriate
representative of the Rosenberg family. The form of the stipulation of settlement will
be subject to approval of the Richfield City Attorney.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• On behalf of the City of Bloomington, the City of Richfield deposited
funds with the District Court to acquire property needed for right of
way under the quick take condemnation procedures.
• The Replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over I-494 is consistent
with the proposed reconstruction of 1-494 and has been identified as a
high priority capital improvement in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
• The Developer's Agreement between Richfield and Best Buy contains
language that commits the City to replace Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-
494.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Rosenberg agreed to a settlement amount of $900,000 plus appraisal
fees and interest for all claims relating to the acquisition of the
Rosenberg parcel in Bloomington. Bloomington City Council has
already approved the settlement agreement.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City has already deposited with the Courts an amount of
$663,000. Additional money needed for this right of way acquisition
will come from Best Buy funds held in reserve by the City for the Penn
Avenue Bridge Project.
D. LEGAL
• The City Attorney must still review and approve the stipulation of
settlement on behalf of the City.
• The City Attorney will be available to answer questions relating to the
proposed settlement.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council may choose not to approve the proposed settlement. However
this requires the City to continue with the condemnation process and risk the
possibility that the Rosenbergs will be awarded a higher amount in the
condemnation proceeding. If the case is not settled, Bloomington estimates
that it will incur approximately $100,000 in legal, appraisal, expert witness
and commissioners costs through approximately 30 half-day hearings
involving an estimated 10 witnesses for each party.
V. ATTACHIVIENTS
• Correspondence dated October 7, 2002 from Robert Lindall of Kennedy &
Graven regarding terms of settlement on Bloomington Parcel 4 Rosenberg.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None anticipated.
1 l
Kennedy
Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612 337-9310 fax
http://www kennedy-graven.cotn
ROBERT J. LINDALL
Attorney at Law
'Certified Real Property Law Specialist
Direct Dial (612) 337-9219
October 7, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE
AND U.S. MAIL
Eric Berg
Associate City Attorney
City of Bloomington
2215 West Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington, MN 55431
Fax: 952-563-8754
Samantha Orduno
City Manager
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423.
Fax: 861-9749
Re: City of Bloomington v TCF National Bank, et al.
Hennepin County District Court File No. CD-2634
Parcel 4 -Rosenberg
Dear Eric and Samantha:
This will confirm my telephone conversations with each of you on October 6, 2002. As you
know, the commissioners' hearings were to begin in this matter on October 7, 2002. The owner,
the Rosenberg Family Trust, has been represented by Bruce Malkerson. He intended to present
the testimony of Ellen Herman, an MAI real estate appraiser, whose opinion of value was
$1,510,000. In addition, he intended to present the testimony of Anthony Speiker, fixture
appraiser; whose opinion was that the fixtures at the property had a value of $80,000. As a result,
the owner's total claim was $1,590,000.
On behalf of the City of Bloomington, we intended to present the testimony of three MAI real
estate appraisers, Jason Messner with an opinion of $715,000, Brad Bjorklund with an opinion of
$730,000 and Rodger Skare with an opinion of $690,000. In addition, we intended to present the
testimony of Steve Wall, fixture appraiser, whose opinion was that the fixtures had a value of
$31,820. As a result, the sum of the highest of the City's real estate appraisers plus the fixture
value of Wall was $761,820, meaning that the difference between the highest City testimony and
the lowest owner testimony was $828,180.
After a series of telephone conversations between me and Bruce Malkerson, the owner agreed to
• accept a total of $900,000, plus -interest and appraisal fees. This is the equivalent to the owner
._ ~_.
RJL-221495v1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~"
BL130-76 Q
0 C T 8 ~~ ~2 'Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association
yam`
Berg/Orduno Ltr
October 7; 2002,
Page 2
•
obtaining an award for the City's testimony plus 16.7% of the spread between the City's position
and the owner's position.
I recommend the settlement. If we had received an award from the commissioners in this
amount, I would have been -quite pleased. After discussing this with each of you on Sunday,
October 6, 2002, it is my understanding that each of you are satisfied with this settlement and
prepared to recommend it to your respective City Councils for approval. Because. this parcel is
.subject to a cooperative agreement between Richfield and Bloomington both must approve the
settlement.
The commissioners' hearings of October 7 and 8, 2002, have been canceled and those of Gctober
16,.21 and 23 remain scheduled until the City Councils have each had an opportunity to consider
the settlement.
I am in the process of preparing a proposed Stipulation of Settlement for consideration of you
and the owner to memorialize the settlement. Please let me know if you have any questions and
..let me know .the outcome of your City Council deliberations. Please let me know if you need
further information or wish to have me attend the City Council meeting at which the settlement
will be considered. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in obtaining this settlement.
. Ve ly yours
Robert J. Lindall
RJL:peb
cc: Brian Gust
Jim Olson
•
RJL-221495v1
BL130-76
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDAITEM# 4H
REPORT # 264
STAFF RETORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
•
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TiTI.~
STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE
SER ES DIRECTOR
N , TITT.E
1
~\ SIGNATURE
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution designating City's contribution toward health, term life
and dental insurance remiums for General Services and Mana ement em to ees.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution designating City's
contribution toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums
for General Services and Manaaement employees.
II. BACKGROUND
At the present time, the City contributes to the cost of premiums for four kinds of insurance
coverages available to City employees. Full-time Management and General Services
employee contributions are discussed within this staff report as well as contributions
toward health insurance for part-time regular General Services employees. Other
employees are covered under terms of labor agreements.
LIFE
A $25,000 term life insurance policy is currently provided for all full-time Management and
• General Services employees. The City pays the full premium for this insurance, which is
$4.88 per month per employee. This rate will not increase for 2003.
11-12-02 Benefits
DENTAL
• The second type of insurance provided to full-time Management and General Services
employees is aself-funded group dental insurance. In 2002, the City contributed $26 per
month per employee for the total cost of employee (not dependent) coverage. In 2003, the
City would contribute $27. Employees who desire dependent coverage must pay the full
cost of such additional premium, which for 2002 was $32. This rate will remain the same
in 2003. Inasmuch as dental insurance is self-funded, the City establishes the dental rates
from year to year internally, based upon administrative and benefit payout cost data.
HEALTH INSURANCE FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
The third type of insurance coverage available to full-time Management and General
Services employees is group health coverage. The Local Government Information
Systems Association (LOGIS) group will again offer the Medics High Option Plan, Elect
Plan and the deductible MIC1000 plan.
In an effort to remain flexible and keep rate increases as low as possible, LOGIS offers a
four-tier system, giving employees the choice of employee only, employee plus spouse,
employee plus child(ren) and family option. By providing this four-tier rating system some
employees are able to benefit by choosing the employee plus spouse option or employee
plus child(ren) option.
The City will continue to pay the full individual employee premium (for employees choosing
the Medica High Option Plan this has increased by 13.6%) and provide an additional
contribution toward dependent coverage up to a specified maximum insurance premium.
. In 2003, the City's monthly contribution for Management and General Services employees
would be increased from $495 to $515 for the employee plus spouse and employee plus
child(ren) tiers and increased to $530 for the family coverage tier. The City's contribution
for Management and General Services employees as a percent of premium over the past
ten years is shown in Attachment 1. Full-time employees have the option to waive health
insurance coverage through the City if they prove they have coverage elsewhere.
Employees electing to waive coverage will receive an additional $50 per month on their
pay check. This $50 will be taxed as regular income.
The 2002 and 2003 monthly premium costs of the health plans are:
2002 Medics 2003 Medics 2002 Medics 2003 Medics
Hi h 0 tion Hi h O tion Elect Elect
Employee
Onl $297.79 $329.83 $272.02 $301.29
Employee Plus
S ouse $636.00 $704.43 $580.96 $643.47
Employee Plus
Child ren $600.81 $665.46 $548.80 $607.85
Famil $785.25 $869.74 $717.28 $794.46
•
•
2002 Medica 2003 Medica MIC100
Low O tion deductible Plan
Employee
Onl $250.15 $277.07
Employee Plus
Spouse $534.24 $591.72
Employee Plus
Child(ren) $504.68 $558.98
Famil $659.61 $730.58
HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PART-TIME REGULAR EMPLOYEES
The City will continue to contribute 75% of the single health care premium for part-time
regular employees and increase the dependent coverage contribution to $257.50 per
month for the employee plus spouse and employee plus child(ren) tiers and $265 for the
family coverage tier. Part-time employees may opt out of health insurance altogether.
LONG-TERM DISABILITY (LTD)
The fourth type of insurance provided to all employee groups, except Firefighters, is long-
term disability insurance (LTD). LTD is provided through a group policy secured by the
City. The premium rate for 2003 has increased from 24 cents per $100 to 29 cents per
$100. The City's contract with our LTD provider guarantees this rate for atwo-year period
• ending April 1, 2004.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City is a LOGIS boardmember and has participated in the process
of receiving the best possible health insurance rates.
• The City continues to provide adequate insurance protection for the
Management and General Services employee groups, which are
comparable to other City employee groups, as well as employees
performing similar jobs in comparable communities.
• By providing the same coverages, greater benefit equality is achieved
between female classes found in Management and General Services
groups and male classes found in the contracted labor units.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City should implement the premium increases for coverages by
December 1, 2002. Payroll deductions for January insurance
payments, the beginning of the new insurance period, are calculated
in December.
• C. FINANCIAL
• The 2003 Budget includes the funding necessary to provide for the
premium contributions as recommended.
I~. LEGAL
• In order to provide the requested insurance benefit changes, the City
Council must approve the resolution designating the City's contribution
toward health, term life and dental insurance premiums for General
Services and Management employees.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond
the current 2002 funding level.
• Defer discussion to another date.
V . ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
The City's Contribution Toward Dependent Health Insurance as a Percent of
Total Premium Cost
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None
•
n
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION
• TOWARD HEALTH, TERM LIFE AND DENTAL INSURANCE
PREMIUM FOR MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, the hospital-medical/surgical group health insurance plan is available
from the LOGIS Health Insurance program for City employees and their families; and
WHEREAS, a term life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plan is
available from the Local Government Information Systems Association (LOGIS) for City
employees; and
WHEREAS, aself-funded group dental insurance plan is available to City
Management and General Services employees and their families; and
WHEREAS, a group short-term and long-term disability program is available to City
Management and General Services employees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to determine by resolution the City's
contribution toward the premium for employee group insurance coverages:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall contribute a'maxirdum of
$530 per month for family health insurance to full-time employees, and in any event, -said
contributions shall not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option.
. The City shall give to full-time employees not participating in the City's health plan, a sum of~
$50 per month, which-will be taxed as regular income. For all full-time Management-and
General Services employees, the City shall also pay the $27 monthly premium for the offered-
dental insurance plan, and the $4.88 monthly premium for the term wife and accidental death
and dismemberment insurance plan for, for a total possible maximum 2003 insurance
premium contribution of $561.88 per month. The City shall contribute 75% of they Ingle health
care premium for part-time regular employees and a maximum of $265 per month towards
.dependent coverage. Part-time employees shall also receive a portion of short-term disability
insurance dependent upon hours worked. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective
January 1, 2003.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City shall contribute the full cost of'long-term
disability insurance for full-time Management and General Services employees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council shall determine the City's
contribution toward insurance premiums for all organized employee groups by the adoption of
the appropriate resolutions concerning labor contracts with the respective organized
employee groups.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
November 2002.
• Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
Attachment 1
• The City 's Contribution Toward Dep endent Health Insurance as a Percent of Total. Premium Co
YEAR HEALTH DEPENDENT CITY CONTRIBUTION CITY CONTRIBUTION
PLAN PREMIUM MGMT./GEN. SVCS AVERAGE % OF
COST PREMIUM
1994 MEDICA $449.05 $315.00
MCHP $478.35 $315.00. 69.5%
.GHI $431.44. $315.00
1995 MEDICA $449.05 $335.00
MCHP $478.35 $335.00 72%
GHI $465.86 $335.00
1996 MEDICA $449.03 $345.00
MCHP $464.63. ~ $345.00 76%
GHI $443.32 $345.00
1997 MEDICA $490.85 $365.00
MCHP $451.86 $365.00 81%
GHI $417.43 $365.00
1998 MEDICA $544.00 $395.00
MCHP $484.67 $395.00 79%
GHI $466.74 $395.00
'1999 MEDICA
High Option $524.92 $415.00 79%
Low Option $480.31 $415.00 86%
2000 MEDICA
High Option
* Employee +
Spouse $524 $435 83%
* Employee +
Children $495 $435 88%
* Family $646.96 $435 67%
Elect Option
* Employee +
Spouse $469.87 $435 93%
* Employee +
Children $443.87 $435 98%
* Family $580.13 $435 87%
Low Option
* Employee +
Spouse $479.46 $435 91
* Employee +
Children $452.93 $435 96%
* Family $591.97 $435 73%
2001 MEDICA
High Option
* Employee +
Spouse $586.98 $455 78%
* Employee +
Children $554.50 $455 82%
* Family $724.72 $455 63%
.~ Elect Option
* Employee +
Spouse $536.18 $455 85%
* Employee +
Children $506.50 $455 90%
* Family $661.99 $455 69%
Low Option
* Employee +
Spouse $546.93 $455 83%
* Employee +
Children $516.66 $455 88%
'` Family $675.28 $455 67%
2002 MEDICA
High Option
* Employee +
Spouse $636.00 $495 78%
* Employee +
Children $600.81 $495 82%
* Family $785.25 $495 63%
Elect Option
* Employee +
Spouse $580.96 $495 85%
* Employee +
Children $548.80 $495 90%
• * Family $717.28 $495 69%
MIC 1000
* Employee +
Spouse $534.24 $495 93%
* Employee +
Children $504.68 $495 98%
* Family $659.61 $495 75%
2003 MEDICA
High Option
* Employee +
Spouse $704.43 $515 73%
* Employee +
Children $665.46 $515 77%
'` Family $869.74 $530 61
Elect Option
* Employee +
Spouse $643.47 $515 80%
* Employee +
Children $607.85 $515 85%
* Family $794.46 $530 67%
MIC 1000
* Employee +
Spouse $591.72 $515 87%
• * Employee +
Children $558.98 $515 92%
* Family $730.58 $530 73%
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4G
REPORT # 2 6 3
~' STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
STEVEN L. DEVICH
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
STEVEN L. DEVICH
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
SIGNATURE
r~
LJ
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution amendments to the Flexible Spending Account Plan
Benefit.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving amendments to
the Flexible S endin Account Plan.
II. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield provides City employees a Flexible Spending Account Plan
benefit that is regulated by federal law. The Flexible Spending Account Plan allows
employees to designate and set aside a biweekly deduction that may be used on a
pre-tax basis for IRS approved medical, insurance and childcare-related
expenditures. The Stanton Group, which administers the City's Flexible Spending
Account Plan, ensures strict adherence to current federal law.
Changes in federal guidelines for Flexible Spending Account Plans deem it
necessary to make changes in the City's Plan Document. In order to incorporate
these changes into the City's Plan Document, it is necessary for the City Council to
adopt a resolution formally modifying the Plan.
Following is a summary of the changes to the City's Plan Document:
•
• Participants who have overspent their health care reimbursement account at the
time of termination are not offered COBRA. COBRA is offered to a terminating.
participant through the end of the Plan year if they have underspent their
account at the time of termination.
• Legal separation and annulment were added to the "types of marital statuses."
• Placement for adoption was added to~the "change in the number of tax-
dependents."
• Strike, lockout, beginning or returning from an unpaid leave of absence, change
in worksite were added to the "employment status change for employee, spouse,
former spouse or dependent."
• Residence change for employee, spouse or dependent was added as a
permissible change. However, the change must effect eligibility.
• Adoption assistance, commencement or termination of adoption proceedings
was added as a permissible change.
• Mid-year changes in cost or coverage of allowable premium charges.. This only
applies to group health plans.
• An employer must allow an employee going on unpaid FMLA leave the right to
revoke or continue their Flexible Spending Account coverage during the leave.
• Updated claims appeal process.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City offers a Flexible Spending Account Plan to eligible City
employees.
• The Plan should follow federal regulations for such plans.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Federal law has changed to make the plan more user friendly to
participants.
• The City should make any changes in early November to coincide with
the City's Open Enrollment period.
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no cost to the City for the Plan modifications.
D. LEGAL
• The proposed changes conform to federal law for such plans.
TERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
The City Council could decide not to adopt the proposed changes and leave
the plan as it is.
The City Council could choose to review this matter at a later date.
V. ATTACFIMENTS
• Plan amendment resolution
• Stanton Group email identifying Plan changes
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
• None.
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY OF RICHFIELD HEALTH CARE AND DEPENDENT DAY CARE
FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT PLAN
WHEREAS,. the City of Richfield previously adopted the City of Richfield Health
Care and Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan (Plan) January 1, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to amend and restate such Plan as
presented to the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Richfield Health Care and
Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan be and the same is amended,
restated and adopted in the form presented to the City Council, effective as of January 1,
2003.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any authorized persons of the City are hereby
authorized to make such contributions from the funds of the City as are necessary to carry
out the provisions of said Plan at any time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event any conflict arises between the
provisions of said Plan and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(FRIBA) or any other applicable law or regulation (as such law or regulation may be
interpreted or amended), the City shall resolve such conflict in a manner which complies
with ERISA or such law or regulation.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
November 2003.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy,Gibbs, City Clerk
•
From:
~ent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:58 PM
o:
Subject: Changes to FSA Plan eff 1/1/03
Here is a recap of the changes to the City of Richfield FSA Plan:
1. Final COBRA Regs - if a participant has overspent his health care
reimbursement account (HCRA) at the time of termination, then he is not
offered COBRA. If the participant has underspent his HCRA at the time of
termination, then he is offered COBRA but only through the end of the Plan
Year (which for Caswell is Sept 30). In the past the participant was always
offered COBRA and if the participant elected COBRA, he would have 18 months
of coverage.
2. final Change in Status Rules -Legal separation & annulment were added
to the "types of marital statuses." Placement for adoption was added to the
"Change •in the number of tax dependents." Strike, lockout, beginning or
returning from an unpaid LOA, change in worksite were added to the
Employment status change for employee, spouse, former spouse, or dependent'
Residence change for employee, spouse or dependent was added as a
permissible change. The change must effect eligibility. Adoption
assistance -commencement or termination of adoption proceedings was added
as a permissible change. Changes in cost or coverage -this is for mid-year
premium changes. A plan may allow election changes when the employee cost
of coverage changes mid year. This only applies to group health plans and
~he dependent care reimbursement account. The final regulations also allow
ew coverage elections to correspond with a spouse or dependent's election
under their employer's plan with a different coverage period or plan year.
This means that families who want to move from individual coverages under
separate employer's plans may do so without having to either double up on
coverage or have a member go without coverage until an open enrollment
period occurs.
3. Updated Claims Appeal Process -The current guidelines for appealing a
claim allow for a participant to send in additional appeal documentation up
to 60 days from the date the claim was denied. Stanton Group's appeal
process is as follows:
1) We will process all claims received by the final deadline.
2) Reimbursement claims for questionable items will be denied and
notification will be mailed to the participant. All approved items on the
claim will be processed for payment. The participant has 60 days from the
date of the denial letter to submit any additional receipts or documentation
to validate the request.
3) .After the final processing, employers will receive a report that
indicates which participant claims were denied along with the dates of the
denials.
4) The plan year can be closed out 60 days- from the date of the last
denied claim, or the date the denied claim is resolved, whichever date is
earlier. As we receive the additional documentation from employees, we will
complete a special processing.
New Regulations Regarding the Appeals Process
Effective July 1, 2002, new claims regulations go into effect. A significant
l~hange affects the appeals process as it extends the appeals period from the
current 60-day period to 180 days from the date the claim was denied and
notification was sent to the participant.
4. Final FMLA Regulations - An employer must allow an employee going on
unpaid FMIA leave the right to either revoke or continue health coverage
(including health FSA coverage) during the leave (but if the employee elects
to continue, the employee must also have the option of suspending payment
Sfor such coverage during the leave. If the employer continues coverage.
during an unpaid leave, the employer may recover the employee's share of the
premiums when the employee returns to work. The employee has the right to
be reinstated in group health plan coverage upon returning from FMI.A leave
is such coverage terminated during the leave (either by revocation or due to
non-payment of premiums). The reinstatement of rights includes being
reinstated on the same terms as before the FMI.A leave, subject to any
changes in benefit levels. The employee's reinstatement right includes the
right to revoke or change elections under the election change regulations on
the same terms as employees who are working and not on FMt.A leave. An
employee who elects to continue health coverage while on unpaid FMLA leave
may do so in on of three ways: pre-pay, pay-as-you-go, and catch-up. An
employer must apply detailed special rules for administering health FSA
coverage during and after an employee's unpaid FMLA leave.
Michelle L. Conger
Benefits Administration
Implementation Specialist
(763) 278-4278 (ph)
(763) 278-4279 (fax)
www. sta n to n -g ro u p. co m
•
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4F
REPORT # Z 6 2
•
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 1~2, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: KATHY FARRIS, HUMAN
SERVICES/PLANNER COORDINATOR
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER: .SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER
~- NAME, TITLE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution appointing John Bjostad, a member of the Richfield
Community Human Services Council (RCHSPC), as the City's representative to the Hennepin
South Services Collaborative (HSSC) Collaborative Advisory Team (CAT) to serve the
remainder of a two-year term beginning February 12, 2002.
~~ I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ~~
By Motion: Approve the attached resolution appointing John Bjostad, a
.member of the Richfield Community Human Services Council (RCHSPC),
as the City's representative to the Hennepin South Services Collaborative:
(HSSC) Collaborative Advisory Team (CAT) to serve the remainder of the
two-year term beginning February 12. 2002.
III. BACKGROUND
The City of Richfield has had a joint and cooperative agreement with the cities of
Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina for the past 28 years to provide human service
planning in South Hennepin, and with the four cities and school districts for the past
eight years to provide family services collaborative activities.
•
On June 6, 2001, the HSSC Board approved the adoption of a new HSSC model. The
mission of this model is to, within the South Hennepin region: provide research and
planning to identify emerging needs and gaps in human services and to coordinate
existing services and develop potential resources to facilitate solutions. Research,
planning and coordination goals and objectives are developed bi-annually through a
Strategic Planning process that includes broad representation throughout the HSSC
partner community. This strategic planning process determines the HSSC two-year"
work plan, which is carried out through the work of Coordination Teams. The
Collaborative Advisory Team (formerly called Coordination Advisory Team) .provides a.;
link between these coordination teams and ensures community, accountability and
coordination; realizes the HSSC mission and work plan; and serves as the family
services commission. The HSSC Board has determined that each City, School,
mandated Family Services Collaborative partner, Community Council, and Coordination
Team appoint a representative to serve on the CAT.
The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC), a City
Commission,. was developed in 1991 as a result of its relationship to the regional
human services planning agency (formerly SHeRPA, and now the HSSC). The
RCHSPC advises the City Council on issues related to human services, assesses
human services issues and needs within the City of Richfield, works with human service
liaisons on local planning issues and work plans, serves as a community resource to
HSSC, and is a fundamental link #o the community human service planning process.
The City Council approved a resolution designating a member of the Richfield
Community Human Services Council (RCHSPC) as the City's representative to the
Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC) Coordination Advisory Team (CAT)
and appointing a member of the RCHSPC to a two-year term on February 12, 2002.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• A resolution designating a member of the Richfield Community Human
Services Council (RCHSPC) as the City's representative to the Hennepin
South Services Collaborative (HSSC) Coordination Advisory Team;
renamed the Collaborative Advisory Team, and appointing a member of the
RCHSPC to a two-year term, was made on February 12, 2002.
• John Bjostad is a member of the RCHSPC.
• The RCHSPC recommended of its October 28, 2002 meeting that John
Bjostad serve as the City's representative to the HCCS Collaborative
Advisory Team.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The current City CAT representative has resigned.
• The next CAT meeting is November 14, 2002.
C. FINANCIAL
• The City of Richfield provides in-kind personnel services to HSSC and the
City Council approved the contribution of $20,910 to HSSC in 2002 for
research, planning and coordination functions.
D. LEGAL
• None
IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION S
• The Council may decide to appoint another member of the RCHSPC to the HSSC
CAT.
V. ATTACFIMENTS
• Proposed Resolution _
• February 12,.2002 Resolution
• HSSC CAT Overview-
• RCHSPC Member List
• VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIE EXPE TED
S C AT 1VIEETNG
• RCHSPC Member List
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF JOHN BJOSTAD, A MEMBER
OF THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL, AS THE AS
THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE'TO THE HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES
COLLABORATIVE COLLABORATIVE ADVISORY TEAM TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF
THE TWO-YEAR TERM BEGINNING FEBRUARY 12, 2002.
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield. is a member of HSSC through a joint and cooperative
agreement with the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina for the purpose of providing
human service planning and family services collaborative activities in South Hennepin; and
WHEREAS, the HSSC: Board created -the Collaborative Advisory Team and directed
that each. joint powers. member appoint a representative to the Collaborative Advisory Team;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield has established that the City's
representative to the CAT shall be a member of the RCHSPC, a City Commission, which
advises the .City Council on issues related to human services and human service planning and
research.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield,
appoint John Bjostad, a member of the Richfield Community Human Services Council
(RCHSPC), as the City's representative- to the Hennepin South Services Collaborative (HSSC)
Collaborative Advisory Team (CAT) to serve the remainder of a two-year term beginning
February 12, 2002.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
November, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City- Clerk
•
RESOLUTION NO. 9150
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL (RCHSPC) FOR ATWO-YEAR
TERM TO THE HENNEPIN SOUTH SERVICES COLLABORATIVE (HSSC)
COORDINATION ADVISORY TEAM AND APPOINTING A MEMBER OF THE RICHFIELD
COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL TO A TWO-YEAR TERM
WHEREAS, The City of Richfield is a member of HSSC through a joint and cooperative
agreement with the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Edina for the purpose of providing
human service planning and family services collaborative activities in South Hennepin.
WHEREAS, the HSSC Board has, as a result of reorganization of the agency, created
the Coordination Advisory Team and has directed that each joint powers member appoint a
representative to the Coordination Advisory Team.
WHEREAS, the RCHSPC, a City Commission, advises the City Council on issues
related to human services and human service planning and research issues.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield
establish that the City's representative to the CAT shall be a member of the. RCHSPC.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the member of the RCHSPC shall be appointed to
the HSSC's CAT for atwo-year term beginning in 2002.
•
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12t" day of February,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs City Clerk
•
•
0
N
L
Q~
.fl
C
a~
U
O
O
c
=v
O
O
V
_
~ ,. ~
L d
w
N C
H CEO
R N A
c w d ~ a= c
v n
a
~
L E ~
7 4, ._
w
" s
i C m
°
Y E
'c
c ~~
~
v ~~
W n'
N
d
L w N C
W d
~
~
E ~
~ o ~
~ O
~
Q V V
V
L
O
C
(6
a
a~
w
to
C
f~
C otS
t4 N
a .~ ~
C
o
3
U c
N
~
w N
U C
C
N
~
~ ~
N ~ N C
E ~ N C ~ N
G1 ~ U ~ a L c
~ ~
°~ °
C
~' c 2 E ~ N
~ '
«s cn o
o
. co o
~ ip
~ ~ O U 0 0 0
~ p ~ ~ C ~ C}
O
~
O $
U ~
C =p
C N ~
aiS U C U 'd
C,
C
+~ f0 ~ otS Q. N ~ = N
C ~ U ~ ~ otS N ~ '~.
o ~
~~ ~
2
~ c ~ ~ ~
o rn ~ N
'
O
O ~
~
N ~ ~ N
O N
-
N
N C
O N ~
O ~.
= j N 7
N
?. p O U p~ O
w Q' ~ N ~
E U ~ ~ ~ ~ O otS ~ O
w 0
U1 ~ N ~ w Z~ O ~
0 o e.
N :
O v a~
o~
o a~
E
~ C
m> c o
~
E
m
..
G7='v~
-'c V! ~
atSO
~ ~
c,
>~ v
~ ~ o O
o
O yO~Q ..
occ°i N
a~ Ut~n~t° ~
E as
fl.
C ~ d ~..
U C a,
O
~ -
Q
O N V Z cC
'C > N
fa
~ O .
~ ca
.
a~ y~ N
_> N
C y O
~ N O~ O
N
~ C .h+
~yu.w~ O '.~
Uw N O
~~ N O U O
ga`5~ V
~
~ ~ ~
. .
C
O
V
RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMANS SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL (RCHSPC)
2002 Member List -November 2002
Ir 1
U
John Bjostad
Planning Commission
7016 Harriet Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-869-5669
Jbiostad~mn.rr.com
Camillo DeSantis (Acting Chair)
Community Representative
6508 Newton Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-866-5171
Sally Parsons (Alternate)
Advisory Board on Health
6637 Sheridan Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
Manytracks2(c~aol.com
Susan Rosenberg
City Council Liaison
6633 Thomas Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-866-2683
Rrosenberq~mn.rr.com
Cindy Dubansky
Advisory Board on Health
7214 Pleasant Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-866-2297 (h)
612-866-2297 (fax)
651-232-6253 (b)
CdubanskvCc~juno.com
Beth Fagin
Richfield Community Council
6425 Nicollet Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-798-8174
612-861-3446 (fax)
Bfagin _storefront.org
Joan Helmberger
HRA Commission
6914 Park Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-869-8057 (h)
952-922-6521 (b)
Joanhelmbergert~yahoo.com
Jeanette Lofstrom
League of Women Voters
7325 5th Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-869-3772 (h)
Sandra Levine
Human Rights Commission
• 6414 Upton Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-869-1339 (h)
612-287-2425 (b)
sblevineCa~gwest. net
Linda Slocum
Community Services Commission
6421 12th Ave/
Richfield, MN 55423
612-866-3962
Gertrude Ulrich (Alternate)
City Council
7601 Aldrich Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
612-866-8171
Executive Director
HSSC
5701 Normandale Road, #302
Edina, MN 55424
952-922-5999
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4E
REPORT # 261
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH
ADMIlVISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, T/TLE
REPORT PRESENTER: STE N L. DEVICH
AD ISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
NAME, ~(TLE /~
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ '~~~~
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution regarding an appointment to the Richfield Tourism
Promotion Board.
L RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution appointing Rebecca. Ortega
to the. Richfield Tourism Promotion Board for the unexpired portion a
three-year term ending December 31, 2003.
~ II. BACKGROUND
On June 25, 1990 the City Council approved an ordinance to levy a 3% tax on gross
receipts of lodging from Richfield Hotels and Motels pursuant to Minnesota Statutes.
The establishment of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc. (RTPB) and the
appointment of directors were also a part of the resolution. Currently there are five
director positions on the Board. The term of each appointment is for three years
and terms are staggered to maintain Board continuity.
r~
L~
The current appointments to the Tourism Board and the ending dates of their terms
are as follows:
1. Cathy Sulla, representing the Richfield Chamber of Commerce, term ending
December 31, 2002. -
1112Tourism
2. -Erika Hiestand, General Manager of Candlewood Suites, term ending
December 31, 2003.
• 3. Shelly King, General Manager of Americlnn, term ending December 31, 2003.
4. Robyn Goolsbey, Hampton Inn, term ending December 31, 2003.
5. Jerod Endersbe, General: Manager of Motel 6, December 31, 2004.
Erika Hiestand, the former General Manager of Candlewood Suites, holds a
position on the RTPB, which is set to expire on December 31, 2003. However,. Ms.
Hiestand is no longer with Candlewood Suites and has been replaced by Rebecca
Ortega, the new General Manager. Ms. Ortega has expressed an interest in being
appointed to fill the unexpired term of Ms. Hiestand. Moreover, in a letter from the
Human Resources Manager of Candlewood Hotel Company, Inc.,. they: requested
that Ms. Ortega be appointed to the RTPB to represent the Candlewood.
Ms. Ortega was appointed as the General Manager of the Richfield Candlewood
Suites in April 2002. Prior to that time Ms. Ortega worked for four years at hotels in
the Milwaukee.area serving in positions such as Rooms Division Manager and
Operations Manager.
Candlewood Suites has been represented on the RTPB for the past few years and
their representative has been very active on the Board.
III. BASIS OF RECONIlVIENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council has the authority to make appointments to the RTPB.
• • Since inception, the RTPB has included hotel/motel: representatives.
• Ms. Ortega, the General Manager of the Candlewood Suites, is
interested m an appointment to the RTPB
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• A vacancy on the RTPB exists and should be filled as soon as
possible.
C. FINANCIAL
• There is no cost to the City.
D. LEGAL
• The appointment conforms to City Ordinance and bylaws of the RTPB.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMI~~NDATION(Sl
• The City Council could decide not to appoint Ms. Ortega to the RTPB.
• The City Council could choose to review this matter at a future date.
~ V . ATTACFIMENTS
• Resolution.
• Candlewood letter.
~ Vl. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
• rceoecca ~rteaa
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO
THE RICHFLELD TOURISM PROMOTION BOARD, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has levied a 3% tax on the gross receipts of
lodging from hotels and motels in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 169.190;
and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Section 169.190 authorizes the proceeds of the tax
to fund a Tourism Promotion Board for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as
a tourist or convention center; and
WHEREAS, the articles and bylaws of the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board, Inc.
provide the City Council of the City of Richfield appoint five (5) directors to the Board
representing the Richfield hotel-motel properties and the Richfield Chamber of Commerce;
and
WHEREAS, each director shall serve as a director until his or her successor has
been appointed and has qualified, or until his or her earlier disqualification, death,
resignation, or removal; and
• WHEREAS, the term of Erica Hiestand, the representative for the Candlewood
.Suites has been vacated due to her employment separation from the Candlewood Suites,
and
WHEREAS, Rebecca Ortega has replaced Ms. Hiestand as the General Manager
of the Candlewood Suites and is interest in appointment to the unexpired term.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota, that the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board directors be modified as follows:
Appoint Rebecca Ortega, Candlewood Suites; to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board
for the remainder of a three-year term ending December 31, 2003, replacing Erica
Hiestand.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
November 12, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
Where VitI=te Stays
September 16, 2002
Cathy Sulfa
6700 Portland ,A,ve_
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Ms. Sulfa:
This letter is to inform. you. that. Rebecca Ortega is currently the General Manager of our
CandlewoQd Suites in Richfield, MN, replacing Erika Hiestand. We would like Rebecca
to represent our Company on the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board.
Please contact me at 316-630-5675 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
• ,~
~3'h
Pam Kaaagy
Human Resources Dizector
NA710NWICw NSwwwr~T~ON•
Cand{ewood Hou1 Comp~nv. lmc. • 8624 E 2 kat Suer, N., Ste. 200 • VVickits.KS 67246 • f ~ O / e - C A N D L t W O O O
P~ot3e:3}6~631.13~-Fex:3t6.63i-2333 WWw.oANSLSwooowlT~w.eor
•
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # !~
REPORT # 260
r
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT PREPARED BY:
NANCY GIBBS, CITY CLERK
NAME, TITLE
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIIZECTOR REVIEW:
GIBBS, CITY CLERK
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution determining results of City General Election held on
Tuesda ,November 5, 2002.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution determining the results of
the Ci General Election held on Tuesda ,November 5, 2002.
II. BACKGROUND
The City General Election was conducted on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 in
conjunction with the State General Election. The City General Election included
contests for the offices of Mayor and Council Member At Large.
The Richfield City Charter states that the Council shall meet and canvass the
election returns at the next regular or Special Council meeting immediately
following any regular, primary or special election, but in no event later than the
Monday next following. Next Monday, November 11th is Veteran's day, a legal
holiday.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 205 also governs the conduct of municipal elections.
Section 205.02 states that all City elections are governed by the provisions of
1105ELECTIONS
Chapter 205 as far as practicable. Section 205.185 sets the date for canvassing
any city general election as "within seven days after an election." Moreover, the
provisions of Chapter 205 preempt the City Charter; therefore the canvassing of
election results is scheduled for the November 12, 2002 regular City Council
Meeting.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Charter provides that the City Council declare the results of
the election.
• The Regular City Council Meeting of November 12 provides a timely
opportunity to canvass the election results in accordance with State
Statutes Chapter 205.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• The City Council must take action by November 12, 2002.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• • City Charter Section 4.07 provides that the City Council declare the
results of the Election. State Statute Chapter 205 sets the date for
canvassing the election and controls over the charter provision.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMIVIENDATION~S~
• N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution determining the results of the November 5, 2002 General
Election.
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• N/A
C
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION DETERMINING RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF THE CITY
OF RICHFIELD HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2002
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the Council,
having received and considered the tally of votes by the election judges of the General
Election held November 5, 2002, the results are determined to be as follows:
Votes cast for Mayor: Marty Kirsch
Four Year Term Robert L. (Bob) Hall
Write -Ins
Votes cast for Council Member At Large Sue Sandahl
Four Year Term Woody Duvlea
Write Ins
Total number of voters in this election: 15,515
Attached Attachment A is complete tabulation of results.
7721
6448
77
9160
4319
58
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following list of judges were those certifying returns
of said election:
James Alagna H. Duane Edberg Betty Kamps
.Clyde Anderson Marlys Bergstrom Lillian Carlson
Carol Mortenson Bernt Houghland Joan Olinger
Kathryn Breeggman Erva Brown Elaine Carlson
Phil Mortenson Bunkhean Chhur~ Kathleen Barta
Jeff Rundgren Kenneth Vevea Emily Day
Virginia Quist Marilyn Randle Liz Ekholm
Martha Obenchain Connie McDonald Veronica Fashant
Bev Kenealy Donna Fischer Rosemary Koelln
Jette Floberg Claire Larson Beatrice Frankus
Ernest Ackerly Adrian Athey Elaine Wetsch
Nancy Garwick Beverly Gerber Betty Elenbaas
Gregory Frost William Grampre Allan Henjum
Donald Houlding Vernon Knudsen Don Ludwig
Eleanor Maanum Jerald Quist Mae Hermansen
June King Donna Mercer Ilene Holen
JoAnn Holt Fern Oreck Jill Horowitz
Mary Swanson Claire Todd Pearl Weitbrecht
Ray Johnson Elaine Kaibel Danette Kamrath
Pat Steller Marion Thompson Carolyn Ring
Martha Prottengeier Richard Morey Dorothy A. Peabody
Joseph Kovach Lois Kovach Marilyn Nienkerk
Patricia Medley Robert O. Olson Bernadette Lais
-~ Dorothy Lace Ruth Pafko Susan Lewis
Doris Liedtke Nancy Lindberg .Jeanne Lindstrom
Jeanette Lofstrom Dorothy B. Lowe Lorraine Maki
Carolyn Moe Janet Oldowski Norman Johnson
Ralph Anderson Bernice Utter Delores Armstrong
Kris Dahl
•Elayne Gilhousen Brian Kroulik
Helen Hillstrom Betty Peltola
Evelyn Johnstone
John Power Sunny Ray Joann Schuldt
Phyllis Unger Rebecca Guarinc Becky Spitzack
William Stixrud Patricia Bailey Pat Cantin
Lee Ohnesorge Sheila Fitzgerald Arne Garvander
Kathryn Hinton Cynthia Mandl Arloueen McGuire
Fiona Payne Earl Kommerstad Belen Andrada
Anthony Bowen Elaine Wetsch Judy Shuneson
Faye Sprecker Linda Nemitz Sandra Schmidt
Carol Devries Norma Martin Dorothy Wulf
Cynthia Davy Diane Healy Nancy Hoon
Mary Lou Janco Allan Parker Kathryn Voigt-Johnson
William Andersen Cheryl Avenson Gladys Hamernes
Sue Blumberg Geraldine Cooper Joanne Dentinger
Denise Eckerman Peg Gallagher Helen Volz
Betty Harrington Marilyn Jackola-Roetman Judy Schultz
Jim Butler Joan Helmer Thomas D. Keegan
Cindy Prince Monica Ann Mullerleile Gladys Denesen
Jenee Honnigford Robert Doebler Marion Horning
Reed Harms Bob Houlton Emil Koebnick
Karin McComb Dawn Nilsen Ernest Ackerly
Jeffrey Wood
.Myrtle Thom Charles Bauer Jr.
Loretta Root Stanley Cromer
Geraldine Nachicas
Katherine Nordquist Doug Lund Virginia Keough
Doris Arnold George Larson Claire Larson
Barbara Peterson Betty Elenbaas Pat Toney
Helen Peterson Glady Rudy Carol Athey
Lorraine Schanzenbach Darlene Colbenson Marie Dallager
Beatrice Batchelor Delrose Desrosier Charles Devries
Marguerite Dozois Catherine Donoho Sheila Duscher
Dee Ann Edlund Cherill Lindquist Mary Jo Fadell
Harriet Ring Lester Loney Charlene Swanell
Marlene Odegard Lois Omlie Dorothy Stinger
Jean Swenson Ed Thom Jason Stroth
Lee Ann Thomas James Weeks Roger Guarinc
Jon Schoonmaker Carol Brochu Cari Henschel
Susanne Erickson Robert Volsted Diane Henjum
June Dorothy Houlding
PASSED by the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of November,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
• ATTEST:
.Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
~~~~ City of Richfield
November 5, 2002 General Election .Unofficial Results
Precinct
Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(rounded)
FEDERAL OFFICES
United States Senator
Ray Tricomo 65 0.4% 7 7 11 7 4 10 4 8 7
Jim Moore 253 1.6% 23 25 32 40 23 45 11 26 28
Norm Coleman 6835 43.8% 613 1018 969 710 595 1107 420 725 678
Walter Mondale 8045 51.6% 695 1234 1083 776 676 1324 496 918 843
Miro Drago Kovatchevich 16 0.1% 1 1 3 2 3 4 0 0 2
Paul Wellstone 81 0.5% 10 31 12 4 7 0 1 9 7
Write-Ins, Mondale 217 1.4% 24 108 52 1 16 0 15 1 0
Write-Ins, Other 20 0.1% 1 5 2 3 1 1 3 1 3
Under Votes 49 0.3% 3 10 11 4 4 8 1 4 4
Over Votes 7 0.0% 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1
U.S. Representative - Dist. 5 2175 1547 1329 2499 952 1695 1573
Tim Davis 611 3.9% 60 74 81 74 62 87 37 64 72
Daniel Nielsen Mathias 5148 32.5% 430 787 736 536 465 931 284 519 460
Martin Olav Sabo 9400 59.3% 833 1433 1268 863 751 1579 589 1114 970
Write-In Candidates 18 0.1% 2 0 2 3 2 4 0 2 3
Over Votes 4 0.0% 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 678 4.3% 49 138 88 74 49 103 42 65 70
STATE OFFICES
State Senator -Dist. 63
Edwina Garcia 3730 23.5% 331 530 514 321 318 615 260 435 406
•
Vern Wilcox 4977 31.4% 425 732 713 524 444 910 278 480 471
Jane Ranum 6562 41.4% 576 1061 872 646 520 1079 380 775 653
Write In Candidates 12 0.1% 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 2 2
Over Votes 5 0.0% 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
Under Votes 571 3.6% 41 108 76 58 45 95 34 71 43
State Representative -Dist. ti3A
Ron Lischeid 428 4.2% - 89 91 74 59 115 - - -
Tim Erlander 4250 41.7% - 917 920 674 607 1132 - - -
Paul Thissen 5043 49.5% - 1278 1069 737 614 1345 - - -
Write In Candidates 3 0.0% - 0 0 0 1 2 - - -
Over Votes 1 0.0% - 1 0 0 0 0 - - -
Under Votes 466 4.6% - 149 96 65 48 108 - - -
State Representative -Dist. 636
Mark Sullivan 2107 37.2% 527 - - - - - 369 629 582
Dan Larson 3174 56.0% 759 - - - - - 514 1013 888
Write In Candidates 13 0.2% 4 - - - - - 2 3 4
Over Votes 2 0.0% 0 - - - - - 0 1 1
Under Votes 370 6.5% 85 - - - - - 67 118 100
Governor 8~ Lieutenant Governor
Pentel & Gilman 367 2.3% 43 56 41 31 41 65 13 37 40
Penny & Robertson 2161 13.6% 172 295 298 243 192 352 140 252 217
Pawlenty & Molnau 6236 39.3% 546 940 853 636 534 1097 362 673 595
Moe & Sabo. 6819 43.0% 588 1098 947 615 542 1143 422 777 687
Aeshliman & Houle 17 0.1% 2 1 1 2 1 6 1 2 1
Hodges IV & Buchanan 66 0.4% 10 8 6 8 6 7 2 5 14
Sachs & Farley 15 0.1 % 1 4 3 1 1 2 1 2 0
•
Write In Candidates 10 0.1% 0 0 2 1 1 3 1 1 1
Over Votes 29 0.2% 1 7 5 0 0 7 2 3 4
Under Votes 137 0.9% 12 25 20 13 11 20 8 12 16
11/6/02 5:03 PM Page 1 of 7
City of Richfield November 5, 2002 General Election
Unofficial Results, continued Total % 1 2 3 4
(rounded)
~TATE OFFICES, continued
Secretary of State
Andrew S. Koebrick 449 2.8% 55 63 58 31
Dean Alger 805 5.1 % 64 122 102 100
Mary Kiffmeyer 6545 41.3% 546 988. 946 655
Hubert H. "Buck" Humphrey 7472 47.1% 660 1154 993 712
Write In Candidates 8 0.1% 1 1 0 1
Over Votes 7 0.0% 0 3 3 1
Under Votes 571 3.6% 49 103 74 50
State Auditor
Dave Berger 447 2.8% 65 58 48 49
Dave Hutcheson 1143 7.2% 87 158 164 137
Patricia Anderson Awada 5919 37.3% 500 879 856 588
Carol Johnson 7278 45.9% 620 1171 963 681
Write In Candidates 10 0.1% 1 2 0 1
Over Votes 5 0.0% 0 0 2 1
Under Votes 1055 6.7% 102 166 143 93
Attorney General
Dale Nathan 659 4.2% 53 90 81 79
Tom Kelly 5384 34.0% 454 837 784 523
Mike Hatch 9179 57.9% 812 1408 1226 879
Write In Candidates 15 0.1% 4 0 1 4
Over Votes 4 0.0% 1 1 0 0
Under Votes 616 3.9% 51 98 84 65
COUNTY OFFICES
County Commissioner -District 5
Randy Johnson 10730 67.7% 955 1617 1464 1037
Write In Candidates 164 1.0% 16 21 20 20
Over Votes 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 4963 31.3% 404 796 692 493
Suburban Regional Park Commissioner -District 4
Larry R. Blackstad 4315 27.2% 437 559 546 485
George Watson 5139 32.4% 422 848 707 446
Write In Candidates 93 0.6% 8 14 11 13
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1
Under Votes 6309 39.8% 508 1013 912 605
County Sheriff
Juan Lopez 3263 20.6% 304 452 435 356
Pat McGowan 9445 59.6% 820 1437 1277 891
Write In Candidates 51 0.3% 5 3 7 3
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 1 0
Under Votes 3097 19.5% 246 542 .456 300
County Attorney
Amy Klobuchar 11913 75.1 % 1063 1814 1604 1145
Write In Candidates 150 0.9% 15 17 22 19
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 3793 23.9% 297 603 550 386
Soil 8 Water Conservation Supervisor -District 2
David Donnelly 3176 20.0% 306 503 397 278
Craig Larson 3306 20.8% 302 471 389 369
Joe Newberg 1517 9.6% 138 188 227 150
Robert B. Schmid 1200 7.6% 102 201 184 110
Write In Candidates 86 0.5% 5 8 16 11
Over Votes 45 0.3% 4 15 7 1
Under Votes 6527 41.2% 518 1048 956 631
Precinct
5 6 7 8 9
42 68 42 41 49
70 135 43 85 84
568 1151 377 681 633
600 1256 455 901 741
1 2 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0
48 90 35 56 66
34 72 33 40 48
113 187 59 123 115
531 1065 350 608 542
564 1199 446 882 752
0 3 0 0 3
0 0 0 1 1
87 176 64 110 114
64 105 33 83 71
471 959 307 541 508
749 1533 571 1072 929
0 1 0 2 3
1 1 0 0 0
44 103 41 66 64
888 1824 647 1192 1106
13 22 10 23 19
0 0 0 0 0
428 856 295 549 450
348 774 241 544 381
427 824 337 521 607
4 17 7 9 10
0 0 0 0 0
550 1087 367 690 577
263 534 209 377 333
781 1630 561 1081 967
4 6 3 11 9
0 0 0 0 0
281 532 179 295 266
985 2022 727 1348 1205
10 26 10 14 17
0 0 1 0 0
334 654 214 402 353
224 552 191 383 342
272 515 202 408 378
121 272 106 162 153
130 184 69 109 111
7 16 3 7 13
0 10 4 3 1
575 1153 377 692 577
11/6/02 5:03 PM Page 2 of 7
City of Richfield November 5, 2002 General Election
Unofficial Results, continued Total
(rounded)
OUNTY OFFICES, continued
Soil 8~ Water Conservation Supervisor -District 3
Dick Brown 1659 10.5%
Karen S. Johnson 5448 34.4%
Jerald Ostvig 1171 7.4%
Curtis A Stephan 1038 6.5%
Write In Candidates 74 0.5%
Over Votes 11 0.1
Under Votes 6456 40.7%
Soil ~ Water Conservation Supervisor -District 4
Justin L. Blum 4769 30.1
Sever Peterson 4240 26.7%
Write In Candidates 86 0.5%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 6761 42.6%
Hennepin Conservation District Referendum
For terminating 3114 19.6%
Against terminating 8778 55.4%
Over Votes 5 0.0%
Under Votes 3960 25.0%
CITY OFFICES
Richfield Mayor
Robert L. (Bob) Hall 6448 40.7%
Marty Kirsch 7721 48.7%
• Write In Candidates
Over Votes 77
9 0.5%
0.1
Under Votes 1602 10.1%
Richfield Council Member At Large
Woody Duvlea 4319 27.2%
Sue Sandahl 9160 57.8%
Write In Candidates 58 0.4%
Over Votes 2 0.0%
Under Votes 2318 14.6%
SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 280
Approval of Revenue Authorization
Yes 8920 56.2%
No 5791 36.5%
Over Votes 7 0.0%
Under Votes 1149 7.2%
JUDICIAL OFFICES
Supreme .Court
Associate Justice 3
Paul H. Anderson 7184 45.7%
Jack Baker 3429 21.8%
Write In Candidates 52 0.3%
Over Votes 4 0.0%
Under Votes 5068 32.2%
Court of Appeals
Judge 1
Edward Toussaint, Jr.
Write In Candidates 8716
109 55.4%
0.7%
Over Votes 3 0.0%
Under Votes 6909 43.9%
Precinct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
150 196 217 152 126 314 86 216 202
492 836 721 546 438 893 328 622 572
111 181 153 132 115 179 68 113 119
102 172 131 93 77 165 80 122 96
7 8 13 11 6 12 3 5 9
1 0 5 0 0 4 1 0 0
512 1041 936 616 567 1135 386 686 577
451 674 602 480 -391 796 300 553 522
391 647 579 418 330 697 259 482 437
5 12 13 11 7 13 4 13 8
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
528 1101 982 641 601 1195 389 716 608
263 436 425 313 262 559 173 354 329
802 1343 1165 858 735 1482 532 990 871
1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
309 655 585 378 332 660 247 420 .374
546 945 769 721 529 1130 382 722 704
695 1195 1167 656 659 1304 469 853 723
10 12 12 5 5 12 2 12 7
1 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 2
123 280 227 168 136 255 99 175 139
380 535 519 494 375 855 250 443 468
815 1483 1315 824 747 1461 564 1057 894
10 7 7 8 3 6 1 9 7
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
170 408 335 224 204 380 137 254 .206
732 1362 1290 797 818 1527 565 991 838
548 850 738 639 405 987 331 665 628
2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1
93 222 146 113 106 187 56 118 108
621 1089 1016 647 593 1219 432 827 740
354 494 415 327 285 555 244 383 372
7 3 9 5 2 14 3 5 4
0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
391 843 672 560 444 903 275 527 453
798 1272 1192 786 712 1472 554 986 944
12 13 11 12 12 14 9 10 16
0 2 0 1_ 0 0 0 0 0
563 1143 909 742 600 1205- 392 746 609
11/6/02 5:03 PM Page. 3 of 7
City of Richfield November 5, 2002 General Election
Unofficial Results, continued Total
(rounded)
•
Court of Appeals, continued
Judge 5
Bruce D. Willis 8564 54.4%
Write In Candidates 93 0.6%
Over Votes 2 0.0%
Under Votes 7078 45.0%
Judge 8
Thomas Kalitowski 8419 53.5%
Write In Candidates 100 0.6%
Over Votes 3 0.0%
Under Votes 7215 45.8%
Judge 9
Roger M. Klaphake 8303 52.8%
Write In Candidates 107 0.7%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 7326 46.6%
Judge 10
Harriet Lansing 8360 53.1
Write In Candidates 95 0.6%
Over Votes 3 0.0%
Under Votes 7279 46.3%
Judge 15
Robert H. Schumacher 8329 52.9%
Write In Candidates 90 0.6%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 7317 46.5%
Judge 16
Jeffrey A. Sloan 3620 23.0%
Terri Jean Stoneburner 6269 39.8%
Write In Candidates 40 0.3%
Over Votes 9 0.1
Under Votes 5799 36.8%
4th District Court
Judge 3
Pamela G. Alexander 8436 53.6%
Write In Candidates 98 0.6%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 7202 45.8%
Judge 4
Ann Leslie Alton 8275 52.6%
Write In Candidates 84 0.5%
Over Votes 2 0.0%
Under Votes 7376 46.9%
Judge 9
Philip D Bush 8125 51.6%
Write In Candidates 95 0.6%
Over Votes 4 0.0%
Under Votes 7513 47.7%
Judge 10
Kathryn L. Quaintance 8203 52.1
Write In Candidates 93 0.6%
Over Votes 4 0.0%
•
Under Votes 7437 47.3%
Precinct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
790 1252 1166 753 696 1452 549 974 932
8 8 13 10 8 14 6 9 17
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
575 1169 933 777 620 1225 400 759 620
786 1232 1140 740 689 1416 537 966 913
10 10 12 10 10 14 8 9 17
0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
577 1187 960 789 625 1261 410 767 639
777 1215 1128 731 676 1392 530 945 909
11 9 15 13 10 17 7 9 16
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
585 1206 969 796 638 1282 418 788 644
783 1224 1139 733 681 1410 534 955 901
7 10 12 11 8 13 9 8 17
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
583 1195 961 796 635 1268 412 779 650
777 1222 1133 729 680 1397 535 946 910
6 8 12 8 8 14 9 9 16
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
590 1200 967 803 636 1280 411 787 643
339 445 425 409 351 553 202 434 462
577 1013 902 501 462 1097 416 704 597
5 2 5 4 3 9 3 4 5
0 1 0 3 2 1 1 1 0
452 969 780 624 506 1031 333 599 505
783 1247 1143 743 689 1420 538 959 914
8 10 13 12 11 17 7 5 15
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
582 1173 956 785 624 1254 410 778 640
768 1221 1121 730 681 1387 532 941 894
6 7 11 12 7 13 9 5 14
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
599 1202 980 798 636 1291 414 796 660
754 1189 1103 718 666 1357 532 920 886
10 8 10 11 7 16 7 9 17
0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
609 1233 998 811 651 1317 416 813 665
764 1211 1110 723 670 1376 526 934 889
8 6 12 14 8 17 8 6 14
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
601 1213 989 803 646 1298 421 801 665
11/6/02 5:03 PM Page 4 of 7
City of Richfield November 5, 2002 General Election Precinct
Unofficial Results, continued Total % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(rounded)
4th District Court, continued
•
Judge 11
Mary E. Steenson 8177 52.0% 759 1194 1103 726 671 1363 525 937 899
Write In Candidates 82 0.5% 5 6 11 10 9 14 9 5 13
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 7477 47.5% 609 1230 998 804 644 1314 421 800 657
Judge 12
Harry Seymour Crump 5413 34.4% 467 849 756 459 430 953 338 630 531
Kevin J. Kolosky 4465 28.4% 429 603 586 430 395 707 284 511 520
Write In Candidates 41 0.3% 5 3 6 5 1 7 2 3 9
Over Votes 9 0.1 % 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 1
Under Votes 5809 36.9% 472 972 764 644 498 1022 331 598 508
Judge 14
George F. McGunnigle 7969 50.6% 733 1171 1084 698 652 1338 517 906 870
Write In Candidates 100 0.6% 7 10 13 9 10 16 9 7 19
Over Votes 2 0.0% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 7666 48.7% 633 1249 1015 833 661 1337 429 829 680
Judge 15
Tony N. Leung 8004 50.9% 736 1172 1091 697 655 1344 518 916 875
Write In Candidates 80 0.5% 8 5 9 10 10 12 6 5 15
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Under Votes 7652 48.6% 629 1253 1012 834 659 1334 431 821 679
Judge 25
Robert A. Blaeser 7960 50.6% 737 1171 1085 688 647 1336 519 909 868
Write In Candidates 93 0.6% 7 7 10 13 13 13 8 8 14
Over Votes
Under Votes 2
7682 0.0%
48.8% 0
629 1
1251 0
1017 1
839 0
664 0
1342 0
428 0
825 0
687
Judge 31
Margaret A. Daly 8061 51.2% 744 1183 1097 713 655 1355 516 926 872
Write In Candidates 85 0.5% 5 8 11 9 11 11 7 7 16
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 7590 48.2% 624 1239 1004 818 658 1325 432 809 681
Judge 32
Robert H. Lynn 7966 50.6% 739 1173 1084 693 651 1330 518 908 870
Write In Candidates 89 0.6% 7 5 10 12 12 14 7 8 14
Over Votes 3 0.0% 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
Under Votes 7679 48.8% 627 1252 1018 834 661 1346 430 826 685
Judge 33
Jack Nordby 7988 50.8% 740 1187 1077 697 653 1342 520 908 864
Write In Candidates 100 0.6% 6 6 12 13 12 17 8 9 17
Over Votes 1 0.0% 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Under Votes 7648 48.6% 627 1237 1023 830 659 1332 427 825 688
Judge 36
John L. Holahan, Jr. 7946 50.5% 733 1165 1084 693 648 1338 510 908 867
Write In Candidates 95 0.6% 9 6 8 15 10 13 9 8 17
Over Votes 4 0.0% 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1
Under Votes 7692 48.9% 631 1258 1020 831 666 1340 436 826 684
Judge 37
Richard S. Scherer 7971 50.7% 738 1172 1075 698 647 1341 519 909 872
Write In Candidates 88 0.6% 7 5 10 9 12 13 9 8 15
Over Votes 2 0.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
. Under Votes 7676 48.8% 627 1253 1027 833 665 1337 427 825 682
11/6/02 5:03 PM Page 5 of 7
City of Richfield November 5, 2002 General Election
Unofficial Results, continued Total
~ (rounded)
•
4th District Court, continued
Judge 38
Beryl A. Nord 8003 50.9°/a
Write In Candidates 91 0.6%
Over Votes 6 0.0%
Under Votes 7637 48.5%
Judge 42
Charles A. Porter, Jr. 8008 50.9%
Write In Candidates 94 0.6%
Over Votes 2 0.0%
Under Votes 7633 48.5%
.Judge 43
Janet Nordell Poston 8121 51.6%
Write In Candidates 84 0.5%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 7531 47.9%
Judge 46
Stephen C. Aldrich 6331 40.2%
Judd Edward Gushwa 3344 21.2%
Write In Candidates 39 0.2%
Over Votes 8 0.1
Under Votes 6015 38.2%
Judge 47
Tanya M. Bransford 5777 36.7%
Joseph (Pat) McCormick 4256 27.0%
Write In Candidates 34 0.2%
Over Votes 5 0.0%
Under Votes 5665 36.0%
Judge 51
Stephen D. Swanson 7917 50.3%
Write In Candidates 88 0.6%
Over Votes 2 0.0%
Under Votes 7730 49.1%
Judge 53
Jill Clark 4895 31.1
Thomas W. Wexler 4960 31.5%
Write In Candidates 37 0.2%
Over Votes 11 0.1
Under Votes 5834 37.1
Judge 56
Herbert P. Lefler 4952 31.5%
Liz Pierce 4969 31.6%
Write In Candidates 35 0.2%
Over Votes 8 0.1
Under Votes 5773 36.7%
Judge 57
Diana Standahl Eagon 7982 50.7%
Write In Candidates 85 0.5%
Over Votes 2 0.0%
Under Votes 7668 48.7%
•
Precinct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
747 1179 1084 702 652 1339 514 917 869
8 6 10 11 11 15 10 5 15
0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0
618 1244 1016 826 661 1336 431- 820 685
746 1177 1087 704 654 1346 513 915 866
9 5 10 13 9 12 11 9 16
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
618 -1247 -1015 823 661 -1333 431 818 687
758 1197 1094 716 663 1362 523 930 878
8 7 10 12 9 12 8 5 13
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
607 1226 1008 812 652 1317 424 807 678
559 933 825 568 547 1045 374 782 698
335 490 470 313 260 575 247 321 333
5 2 4 2 3 7 3 5 8
0 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 0
474 1005 812 656 514 1061 331 632 530
507 875 825 498 473 990 369 661 579
412 590 540 427 359 695 259 491 483
2 3 4 3 2 6 3 4 7
1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
451 960 743 611 490 1000 324 586 500
731 1156 1079 694 647 1329 516 907 858
8 5 10 9 9 18 7 7 15
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
634 1269 1023 837 668 1344 432 828 695
484 735 682 451 370 830 355 504 484
426 731 680 426 451 822 268 609 547
3 2 4 4 1 8 3 6 6
0 2 1 3 0 1 0 2 2
460 960 745 657 502 1030 329 621 530
444 749 734 388 397 895 305 558 482
465 729 606 511 431 754 322 578 573
3 1 4 5 2 7 3 3 7
0 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0
461 950 767 633 493 1034 325 603 507
740 1169 1081 705 656 1344 510 911 866
5 6 11 9 11 14 8 5 16
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
628 1254 1020 826 657 1333 437 826 687
11/6/02 5:03 PM Page 6 of 7
City of Richbeld November 5, 2002 General Election
Unofficial Results, continued Total
(rounded)
•
4th District Court, continued
Judge 58
Robert D. Schwartz 3591 22.8%
James T. Swenson 6054 38.5%
Write In Candidates 48 0.3%
Over Votes 4 0.0%
Under Votes 6040 38.4%
Judge 59
Warren R. Sagstuen 7868 50.0%
Write In Candidates 85 0.5%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 7783 49.5%
Judge 60
Julie Delgado O'Neil 4784 30.4%
Lloyd Brian Zimmerman 5129 32.6%
Write In Candidates 39 0.2%
Over Votes 4 0.0%
Under Votes 5781 36.7%
Judge 61
Jeanne J. Graham 7982 50.7%
Write In Candidates 99 0.6%
Over Votes 1 0.0%
Under Votes 7655 48.6%
Precinct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
340 468 450 373 305 564 239 433 419
548 943 867 492 499 1038 377 681 609
5 4 5 7 2 10 3 4 8
1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
479 1015 790 666 518 1079 336 624 533
733 1145 1065 684 647 1324 512 898 860
9 6 11 8 9 11 9 7 15
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
631 1279 1036 848 668 1356 434 837 694
457 641 592 494 418 716 311 590 565
459 801 751 409 409 943 311 558 488
2 5 5 5 2 7 3 4 6
0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1
455 982 764 631 495 1025 330 590 509
740 1163 1095 702 645 1338 512 916 871
7 10 11 13 12 15 8 8 15
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
626 1257 1006 825 667 1338 435 818 683
C J
VOTER TURNOUT Total
(rounded)
Precinct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Registered at 7AM 20317 1738 3147 2672 1998 1821 3295 1179 2379 2088
+ Registered on Election Day 2262 225 350 272 262 212 421 117 188 215
Total Registered Voters 22579 1963 3497 2944 2260 2033 3716 1296 2567 2303
Persons Voting at Precinct 14734 1298 2141 2015 1475 1256 2483 903 1637 1526
+ Regular Absentee Ballots 1125 77 293 161 75 73 221 49 127 49
+ Federal Absentee Ballots 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Voting 15859 70.2% 1375 2434 2176 1550 1329 2704 952 1764 1575
70.0% 69.6% 73.9% 68.6% 65.4% 72.8% 73.5% 68.7% 68.4%
•
11/6/02 5:03 PM Page 7 of 7
U
AGENDA SECTION:
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
J STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
•
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
CONSENT
4~"
259
BRUCE SYLVESTER,
REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NAME, TITLE
BRUCE PALMBORG,
REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
NAME, TITLE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
SIGNATURE
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~'s~ ~ ~ C. Q
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached subdivision waiver for 7309 Grand Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
By motion: Adopt the attached resolution, approving the subdivision
waiver for 7309 Grand Avenue.
III. BACKGROUND ~
The applicant, Ms. Cathy Branch, is seeking to split the 100 foot wide parcel at 7309
Grand Avenue into two 50 foot wide lots. The current parcel consists of two 50 foot
platted parcels, and the requested subdivision waiver will allow Ms. Branch to
separate these parcels.
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.
1112-SubWaiver-G rand. doc
• B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• Approval of the subdivision waiver will not create an unusable parcel, but
will result in two 50 foot wide lots.
• 7309 Grand Avenue is in the R (Single Family Residential) zoning
district. The area of the proposed parcels will be 5,966 and 5,954 square
feet after the lot split. The minimum lot size requirement in the R District
is 6,700 square feet unless a parcel was a `lot of record' prior to June 1,
1995, in which case the minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. Both of
the proposed 50 foot parcels were lots of record prior to June 1, 1995
and therefore meet the minimum lot size requirements.
• 5 abutting .parcels are 50 feet wide, while one abutting parcel is 75 feet
wide.
• The existing house on the parcel has a garage that is attached to the
house via a breezeway. The applicant will remove the garage and
breezeway so that the existing house will meet all setback requirements
after the lot is split. The applicant will then construct a new detached
garage behind the existing house and serviced by a driveway. The
applicant will also construct a new house on the new parcel (HRA
programs are not part of this project).
• The applicant has been informed that water and sanitary sewer services
will be necessary to the new parcel.
C. FINANCIAL
• N/A
D. LEGAL
• No legal or mailed notice is required; however, Community Development
staff did send a mailed notice to neighbors within 100 feet to inform them
of this requested subdivision waiver.
• 60 DAY RULE: The 60 day `clock' started when a complete application
was received on October 25, 2002. A decision must be given to the
applicant by December 24, 2002 OR the Council must notify the
applicant that it is extending the deadline (up to a maximum of 60
additional days or 120 days total) for issuing a decision.
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMI~~NDATION(S~
• Deny this subdivision waiver if a finding of fact determines that the proposal
would have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
V. ATTACPIMENTS
• City Council Resolution
• Certificate of Survey
• • Land-use and zoning maps for properties within 350 feet of the subject parcel
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• Ms. Cathy Branch, applicant and owner of 7309 Grand Avenue South.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER
7309 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the City of Richfield which requests
approval of a subdivision waiver for the division of certain parcels of land located at 7309
Grand Avenue South, legally described as:
Parcel A: Lots 10 and 11, Block 8 IRWINDALE
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to divide the above-described Parcel A into two
parcels, legally described as:
Parcel B: Lot 10, Block 8, IRWINDALE
Parcel C: Lot 11, Block 8, IRWINDALE
WHEREAS, Parcels B and C were lots of record before June 1, 1995; 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. 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 12th day of November,
2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Nancy Gibbs,- City Clerk
• ~ ~
~ --- -- //9.~- - _ e
~rre~ ~ ^
3~yo - ~ ml '
~ rti x ~_ ~r; w 1 `~
vl « ~
u .~ ~ ~ d
~ ~ ~
X
GIs'"~'~ ,~1~' 1~A
~\ t y' "'
~ ~ i i ~
~` ~ ~ o ~ 1~' 10 gN~ y'~ r ~' ~ 3 ~ I ., ,3'B9~AF'/7'E ®~~ ~ ~ o "
I o ~ l,~
~ ~ ,~' ~ 1h
vl `J x ~
o'~o ~, ®Bfj3 BYO c J ~ \
1a ~~ t' I
~1 ~~4
~ __ ~• 3S , , , c d,
Sca/e: /"=/6~
•
tano svavsroas
~~
_. CATHY BRANCH
aas I - 163rd Saeet aeu
lalterille. MN ssaa
Tel. No. n3-a91-iso3 -
ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: (Area is 11,920 Sq.Ft.)
Lots 10 and 11, Block i, IRWINDALE _
DESCRIPTION FOR NORTH PARCEL: (Area is 3,966 Sq.Ft.)
Lot 11, Bbelt 8, IRVVINDALE
DESCRIPTION FOR SOUTH PARCEL: (Area is 5;954 Sq.ft.)
La 10, Block 8,1RWINDALE
I hereby artily that this survey was prepared by me or trder my direct supmision
atd that i am a teiiuered hmd surveyor carder the hws of the Stsu of Miroresota.
Dated this 24th dry of October, 2002.
Carhnu dt Carlson, foe.
- 1713 Dupau Avanre Soralt'
Bloomington, MN 35420 .
el. No. 952-fiE-20
R. Carpme, land Stoveya
haresata License No. 901i
SUBDIVISION VWAIVER REQUEST -7309 GRAND AVENUE
~anmusesof aao~nESVHniN~o~r
L~
r~~w~r ~a
7~~
~ RES .E
RES
RES
RES
REs
REs
~ REs
a REs
s
RES ~
RES RES RES
RES RES RES
RES RES RES
RES RES RES
73RD S T. 3~
RES ~;
RES
RES RES
73Q9
RES
RES
REs REs
RES REs
RES a RES RES
0
RES ~ RES REs
RES RES REs
74TH sT,
RES
RES
RES
REs
~~
1 100 0
~aND usE sYnnso~s
RES = SINGLE FANpLY RESIDB~TIAL
RR =RAILROAD
100 200 300 400 Fed
N
1a2>~o2
SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUEST - 7309 GRAND AVENUE
ZOMNG OF PROPERTIES iMTHIN 350 FEET
PIFASASNTLA
ZOPBNG SYN~OLS
R = SINGLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL
N
100 0 100 200 300 400 Feet 10-Z8-02
•
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4B
REPORT# 2,5$
J STAFF REPORT
REPORT PREPARED BY:
CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, TITLE
•
REPORT PRESENTER:
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER
NAME, E
//w.L/~ I
~~
•
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of the attached resolution approving procedures for private activity revenue
bond financin .
L RECONIlVIENDED ACTION:
By Motion: Approval of the attached resolution approving
Procedures For Private Activit Revenue Bond Financin .
II. BACKGROUND
Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, the City of Richfield has
authority to issue revenue bonds or notes to attract or promote economically sound
industry and commerce to the City, including the development of facilities by
qualified organizations.
As part of this authority, the City of Richfield has adopted certain guidelines to aid
the City in the issuance of revenue bonds or notes. The City Council had originally
adopted "Guidelines for the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for the City of
Richfield, Minnesota," in October 1980 and modified in November 1983. These
guidelines are now in need of updating once again. Consequently, staff is
recommending the City Council to review and revise its guidelines for the issuance
of private activity bonds.
11122002HABond
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION ~
A. POLICY ,:
• Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.1651, the City of Richfield has
authority to issue revenue bonds.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
• It is important to review and revise procedures and guidelines for the
issuance of private activity revenue bond financing in order to keep
them current.
• The City is being approached by the Academy of Holy Angels
concerning the issuance of this type of financing.-This item will be
considered by the City Council at the second meeting in November.
C. FINANCIAL
The proposed guidelines provide that:
• The City will receive anon-refundable application fee in the amount of
$2,500, which must be submitted with the application.
• The applicant will be charged an annual administrative fee in the
amount of 1/8t" of 1 % (.125%) of the outstanding principal balance of
the bonds.
• 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.
• These type of bonds would be issued in the City's name, but not be a
charge against the City's general credit or taxing powers. The City
would act as a conduit for the financing of a project. However, it does
not create any financial liability to the City.
D. LEGAL
• Kennedy & Graven has prepared and reviewed the proposed
guidelines and application.
ALTERNATIVE KECOMMENDATION(S) ~
• Forgo approving the attached resolution and not proceed with the review and
revision of the procedures for private activity financing.
I V . ATTAC~IlVIENTS I
• Resolution Approving Procedures-For Private Activity Revenue Bond
Financing.
• Procedure for Application to City of Richfield, Minnesota for Private Activity
Revenue Bond Financing.
PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~
• Michael Schaefer, Catholic Finance Corporation
• Paul Tietz, Briggs and Morgan
U
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROCEDURES FOR
PRIVATE ACITIVTY REVENUE BOND FINANCING
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield is authorized under various provisions of
Minnesota Statutes to issue bonds the proceeds of which are loaned to private entities,
referred to as "private activity bonds;" and
WHEREAS, the Council has adopted certain "Guidelines for the Issuance of
Industrial Revenue Bonds for the City of Richfield, Minnesota," originally approved in
October, 1980 and modified in November 1983; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined to revise it's guidelines for the issuance of
private activity bonds (which term includes industrial revenue bonds), and to that end has
reviewed a document titled "Procedure for Application to the City of Richfield, Minnesota
for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing," referred to as the "Private Activity Bond
Procedures."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
as follows:
1. The Council approves the Private Activity Procedures in the form on file in City
Hall.
2. The Private Activity Procedures supersede in all respects the prior Guidelines
for the Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds, and are effective for any private
activity bonds issued after the date of approval of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 12th day of
November, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk
•
PROCEDURE
FOR
APPLICATION TO
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
FOR
PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND FINANCING
•
Effective as of , 2002
Finance Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
SJB-221408v1
RC145-501
. PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATION
TO THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR
PRIVATE ACTIVITY REVENUE BOND FINANCING
Table of Contents
Page
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
• Part VI
Part VII
•
General ..........................................................................................:...............................1
Guidelines ................................................................:....................................................2
Miscellaneous Matters ..................................................................................................4
Application for Tax-Exempt Financing
(Commercial, Industrial or Health Care) ......................................................................6
Application for Tax-Exempt Financing
(Multi-Family Housing) ............................................................................................... 9
Addendum to Application ..........................................................................................12
Indemnification Letter ofAgreement .........................................................................13
SJB-221408v1
RC145-501
• PARTI
GENERAL
Under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152
to 469.1651 (the "Industrial Development Act"), the City of Richfield has authority to issue revenue
bonds or notes to attract or promote economically sound industry and commerce to the City,
including the development of facilities by qualified 501(c)(3) organizations.
Under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Housing Act") the City is authorized to issue
housing revenue bonds to finance multi-family residential housing projects for low and moderate
income persons and elderly persons. Projects must be consistent with the City's Housing Plan and
must be embodied in a Housing Program as these terms are defined in the Housing Act.
The Council is aware that such fmancing for certain private activities may be of benefit to the City
and will consider requests for tax exempt financing subject to these Guidelines. The Council
considers tax exempt financing to be a privilege, not a right.
It is the judgment of the Council that tax exempt fmancing is to be used on a selective basis to
encourage certain development that offers a benefit to the City as a whole, including significant
employment and housing opportunities. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the benefit
to the City, both in writing and at the required public hearing. The applicant should understand that
. although approval may have been granted by the City for the issuance of fmancing for a similar
project or a similar debt structure, that is not a basis upon which approval will be granted. Each
application will be judged on the merits of the project as it relates to the public purposes of the
Housing Act or the Industrial Development Act and the benefit to the City at the time the request for
financing is being considered.
.7
1
• PART II
GUIDELINES
1. The Council will consider tax exempt financing for manufacturing and health care facilities,
and other facilities operated by qualified 501(c)(3) organizations, under the Industrial
Development Act; and housing projects under the Housing Act. An applicant for tax
exempt financing pursuant to the Industrial Development Act must submit to the City the
application contained in Part IV of these Guidelines. An applicant for tax exempt financing,
pursuant to the Housing Act, must submit to the City the application contained in Part V of
these- Guidelines.
2. Projects must be compatible with the overall development plans and objectives of the City
and comply with the zoning and land use regulations of the City.
An application will not be considered by the Council until tentative City Code findings and
requirements-have been made with respect to zoning, building plans, platting, streets, and
utility services. The application must be accompanied by the addendum contained in Part
VI of these Guidelines and must provide information as to the project's need for municipal
services including, but not limited to, street improvements, water and sewer services, and
police and fire protection.
4. The project must be a positive benefit to the City. The project must be of a nature that the
• City wishes to attract, or an existing business which the City wishes to retain or expand
within the City, considering employment opportunities, incentive for further development,
impact on City services, and support for the industrial, commercial or health care operations
currently located in the City. A housing project must provide significant housing
opportunities for low and moderate income persons or the elderly.
5. The Council will, if requested, grant anapplicant apre-application review. The purpose of
the pre-application review is to inform applicants of the possibility of rejection or the
possible bases for such rejection. The fact that the project is not rejected at the pre-
applicationstage is not to be construed as approval of the projector as an indication that the
project .will be approved upon formal request to the Council. Requests for tax exempt
financing may be rejected by the City whether or not the project was submitted to a pre-
applicationreview and regardless of the outcome or recommendation of that pre-application
review.
A request for pre-application review must be in writing, addressed to the City Finance
Director, and set forth the name of the project, the type of project intended and the name,
address and telephone number of the person who will be representing the applicant at the
pre-applicationreview, together with such additional information as the applicant desires to
submit.
6. The applicant must select a qualified financial adviser or underwriter to assist the applicant
• in preparing all necessary application documents and materials. The financial adviser will
submit a letter that establishes the financial feasibility of the project. Applications may, in
the alternative, include a signed letter from a responsible financial institution indicating that
2
the project is economically feasible and viable and stating that bonds can be successfully
sold for the proj ect or that an individual or institution intends to purchase all of the bonds.
The applicant must receive approval from the appropriate state agencies, secure fmancing
and commence construction within one year of the date of the resolution giving preliminary
approval to the projector the housing program. Upon application, the Council may approve
an extension of the preliminary approval.
The City will appoint bond counsel for the bond issue, which will normally be the City's
regularly retained bond counsel.
7. Pursuant to the Industrial Development Act and the Housing Act, consideration of an
application for tax exempt financing must be done at a public hearing held by the Council.
Modifications to the project after the public hearing and preliminary approval must be
consistent with the scope of the project as proposed at the time of preliminary approval.
8. The City is to be reimbursed and held harmless for and from any out-of-pocket expenses
related to the tax exempt fmancing including, but not limited to, legal fees, financial analyst
fees, bond counsel fees, the City staff s expenses in connection with the application, and any
deposits or application fees required under state law in order to secure allocation of bonding
authority. The applicant must. execute a letter to the City undertaking to pay all such
expenses. A form of the required letter is set forth as Part VII of these Guidelines. Anon-
refundableapplication fee in the amount of $2,500 must be included with the submission of
• the application.
9. Prior to closing and delivery of the bonds for the project, the applicant must pay, or commit
to pay an annual administrative fee in the amount of 1/8th of 1 % (.125%) of the outstanding
principal balance of the bonds. At the City's discretion, the bond documents may provide
that the administrative fee will be paid in a lump sum at closing on the bonds, or annully or
semiannually at the times specified in the bond documents. The administrative fees required
by this paragraph will be adjusted at or paid prior to delivery of the bonds if necessary to
ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations.
10. Applications for financing must be made on the forms attached to these Guidelines. In
addition, the applicant must furnish a description of the project, a plot plan, elevation of
proposed buildings, landscape, lighting, and site preparation, together with a brief
description of applicant and the proposed fmancing in such form as required at the time of
application.
1 1. The Council may, in its sole discretion, impose conditions exceeding those required under
the City building code in respect to exterior building materials, landscaping, signage
lighting, and such other aspects as the Council may consider appropriate on acase-by-case
basis.
12. The Council may, in its sole discretion, withdraw its preliminary approval of a project any
• time if in its judgment the purposes of the Act will not be served by going forward with the
project and its financing.
3
• PART III
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
1. Ratin s. The City will give its most favorable consideration to proposed tax exempt bond
issues that have the same rating as the City's obligations by Moody's Investment Service or
Standard & Poor's Corporation. Issues carrying lower ratings or non-rated issues may be
sold only to institutional or other investors on a private placement basis and must be in
denominations of at least $100,000. The Council may depart from this guideline when in its
judgment the project is of a level of merit and public purpose to justify the departure; and in
case of such a departure the Council must state its reasons therefor in the resolution
awarding the sale of the bonds.
2. Refundinas. The Council will normally approve the refunding of atax-exempt issue but
only upon a showing by the applicant of (i) substantial debt service savings, (ii) the removal
of bond covenants significantly impairing the financial feasibility of the project, or (iii) both
(i) and (ii). In the case of refundings of bonds for which the administrative fee listed in
paragraph 9 of Part II have been paid in full, no new administrative fees are required; but the
non-refundable application fee must be paid together with all City expenses in excess of that
fee. If the administrative fees for the refunded bonds are not paid in full upon closing on the
refunding bonds, such fees must continue to be paid for the refunding bonds.
• In the case of refundings of bonds where no administrative fee has been paid, the
administrative fees listed in paragraph 9 of Part II must be paid. The application form is to
be appropriatelymodified.
3. Subsequent Proceedings. Where changes to the underlying documents or credit facilities of
outstanding bond issues are to be made and require Council action (including changes that
area "deemed reissuance" under Internal Revenue Service regulations), no administrative
fee is charged but anon-refundable fee of $2,500 must be deposited with the City to cover
administrative costs. No formal application form is required.
4. Issue by Another Political Subdivision. The City will consider requests for tax exempt
financing of projects in the City by other political subdivisions. In these cases the non-
refundable application fee must be paid and all procedures through the approval of the
preliminary resolution followed. No administrative fee is charged.
5. Citv Contact. Initial contacts about tax-exempt financing are made by contacting:
Finance Director
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
n
U
4
• 6. Deadlines. The Council conducts all tax exempt fmancing matters at regularly scheduled
Council meetings held on the first and third Monday of each month. Documents for Council
consideration must be at the City office on the Monday preceding the next regular Council
meeting at which the matter is to be considered. In the case of a publicly offered bond, issue
the documents, when submitted, may specify a maximum price and maximum effective
interest rate if prices and rates have not yet been established.
r:
•
5
•
•
•
PART IV
APPLICATION FOR
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
(Manufacturing, Health Care or Qualified Other Nonprofit)
1. APPLICANT
a. Business Name:
b. Business Address:
c. Business Form (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, etc.):
d. Authorized Representative:
e. Principal contact person and telephone number:
2. PURPOSE OF REQUESTED FINANCING:
a. New Facility (describe):
b. Expansion (describe):
c. Refunding (attach explanatory letter)
3. GIVE BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NATURE OF BUSINESS, PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS,
ETC.:
4. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: (Not required for refunding)
Land $
Building
Equipment
Architectural, Engineering
Costs of Issuance
Capitalized Interest,
including discount
Other
5.
Total Financing Requested
AMOUNT OF FINANCING REQUESTED: $
6
(_% of proj ect costs)
• 6. TYPE OF FINANCING PROPOSED:
Bonds Tax Exempt Mortgage
Expected Term of Financing Years
Security:
Mortgage
Letter of Credit
Guaranty (third party)
Guaranty (personal)
Unsecured
' Other (specify)
7. BUSINESS PROFILE: (Not required for refunding)
• a. Is the business located in the City of Richfield now?
b. Number of employees in City:
1) Before this project:
2) After this project:
c. Approximate annual sales:
d. Length of time in business:
Length of time in business in City:
e. Do you have facilities in other locations? If so, where?
8. NAMES OF:
a. Underwriter (name and contact person):
b. Corporate Counsel:
• c. Underwriter's Counsel:
7
. 9. WHAT IS YOUR TARGET DATE FOR:
a. Construction start:
b. Construction completion:
10. Attachments:
a. Project description:
b. Draft application to Department of Trade and Economic Development -together
with necessary attachments
c. Initial application fee
d. Indemnification Letter of Agreement
I certify that the information provided above contains no misrepresentations, omissions or
concealments of material facts and that the information given is true and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I have been furnished a copy of the Procedure for Application to the City of Richfield
for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing and is aware of its content and agree to be bound by
its terms and the terms of the indemnification letter.
•
Signature
Title
•
Date
8
-PART V
• APPLICATION FOR TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING
(Multi-Family Housing)
DATE OF APPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
TITLE:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (~
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT LOCATION:
PROJECT INFORMATION
RENT
UMTS
Efficiency
One Bedroom
Two Bedroom
Three Bedroom
Parking (included in rend
not included in rent)
• Laundry
9
. Utilities included in monthly rent:
OPERATING EXPENSES
%of Gross (Annual)
TOTAL PROJECT COST: $_
DEBT SERVICE: $
DEVELOPER EQUITY: $
*HARD COSTS: $
LAND VALUE: $ SOFT COSTS: $
*(Hard Costs are all project costs the IRS has determinedto be eligible items for depreciation.)
ANTICIPATED INTEREST RATES: AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE:
If the project were convention-
allyfinanced, what interest
• rate would you expect to pay?
SALES ASSUMPTION:
-Year Amortization Schedule
DEPRECIATION METHOD:
How many years do you plan to
hold the property before you
sell?
years. At what percent do you
feel the value of the project
will appreciate?
EQUIPMENT:
Years:
Type:
Amount of Total Basis: $
$ of project cost is for equipment (e.g., washers/dryers)
ANTICIPATED INCREASES: ANTICIPATED VACANCY RATE:
Revenue: % per year First Year:
Expenses: % per year After First Year:
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
• Anticipated construction commencement date:
10
• Anticipated construction completion date:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
C]
•
I certify that the information provided above contains no misrepresentations, omissions or
concealments of material facts and that the information given is true and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I have been furnished a copy of the Procedure for Application to the City of Richfield
for Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing and is aware of its content and agree to be bound by
its terms and the terms of the indemnification letter.
Signature
Title
Date
11
• PART VI
ADDENDUM TO APPLICATIONS
The following items must be attached to each application:
APPENDIX A
A brief description of the organizational structure of Applicant, including parent subsidiary and
affiliate organizations (if applicant is other than an individual).
APPENDIX B
Statement of Applicant's business history, including any multi-family rental projects.
APPENDIX C
The name, address, and telephone number of:
1. The Applicant's legal counsel
2. The Applicant's accountant
3. The architect of the proposed Project
i 4. The engineer of the proposed Project
5. The general contractor of the proposed Project
APPENDIX D
1. Present ownership of the proposed Proj ect site and Applicant's interest therein.
2. Present zoning of the Project site and a description of what city land use approvals are needed
for this project.
3. The prof ected number of new employees to be added to the Applicant's permanent work force
because of the Project (for Commercial, Industrial or Health Care only).
4. Other financing attempted or available to the Proj ect including any interim fmancing.
5. Statement regarding whether or not this project has all required city approvals. If the project
does not have all of the required approvals, list the approvals still needed and a tentative time
schedule.
APPENDIX E
IndemnificationLetter ofAgreement.
APPENDIX F
• Proforma Analysis of the Project
12
•
•
PART VII
1NDEMNIFICATIONLETTER OF AGREEMENT
The Mayor of the City of Richfield
and Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue
Richfield, MN 55423
RE: Application of
Richfield
for Tax Exempt Revenue Bond Financing by the City of
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This letter of agreement is given by , a under the
laws of Minnesota ("Applicant") as required by the City of Richfield, Minnesota in connection with
its consideration of an application for tax exempt revenue bond fmancing for the project described
in the application.
Applicant agrees as follows:
1. Applicant agrees to pay or reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses which the
City may incur in connection with its consideration of the project and the granting of tax
exempt revenue bond financing therefor, whether or not the prof ect is preliminarily approved
by the City, whether or not the project is approved by the State of Minnesota, whether or not
revenue bond financing is finally approved by the City, whether or not the bonds are issued
and sold, and whether or not the prof ect is carried to completion.
2. Applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its officers, employees and agents harmless
against any and all losses, claims, damages, expenses or liabilities, including attorneys fees
incurred in their defense, to which the City, its officers, employees and agents may become
subject in connection with the City's consideration, issuance or sale of the bonds for
Applicant's project and the carrying out of the transactions contemplated by this agreement
and any resolutions adopted, or agreements executed by the City in connection with the
issuance of its bonds for this project.
3. Applicant hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claims, causes
of action, losses, damages, or liabilities which it may have against the City, its officers,
agents, and employees or which it may incur in connection with: the City's consideration of
the application for industrial development revenue bond fmancing for Applicant's prof ect; the
failure of the City, in its discretion, to issue tax-exempt revenue bonds for Applicant's prof ect;
the issuance and sale of the bonds; the construction of the project; or any other matter or thing
of any type or nature whatsoever which may arise in connection with the foregoing.
13
4. Applicant is aware of the City's application and administrative fee structure for tax exempt
financing and agrees and covenants that all such fees will be paid in the amount and at the
times required.
Dated:
(Applicant)
By
Its
•
•
14
AGENDA SECTION: Consent
AGENDA ITEM # 4A
REPORT # Z S ~
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
BRUCE SYLVESTER, COMMUNITY
REPORT PREPARED BY: DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND BETSY
CxRISTENSEN, DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
First reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code to create Section 325 for the
Administrative Hearing Enforcement Program.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve first reading of an ordinance amendment to Richfield City
Code to create Section 325 for the Administrative Hearing
Enforcement Program and set December 10, 2002 as the date for a
second readina of the ordinance amendment.
n
U
I. BACKGROUND
Staff from the Environmental Health_ Division in the Public Safety Department, with
staff from the Community Development Department, has been working to create
procedures to assist the City in enforcing City Codes. While criminal fines and
penalties have been the most frequent enforcement mechanism for chronic
violations, there are certain negative consequences for both the City and the
accused, including: the delay inherent in the system does not ensure prompt
resolution; citizens resent being labeled as criminals for violations of administrative
regulations; the higher burden of proof and the potential of incarceration do not
1112- 1 st-Reading-Create325.doc
appear appropriate for most administrative violations; and the criminal process does
• not always .regard City Code violations as being important. Therefore, there is a
need for alternative methods for enforcing the City Code.
Accordingly, staff has drafted an enforcement procedure using administrative
citations and the imposition of civil penalties as an alternative method of
enforcement. This method of enforcement would be in addition to any other legal
remedy that may be pursued for City Code violations.
The administrative enforcement procedure would be as follows: violators will
receive two letters informing them of the violation and providing them with. time to
correct it. Only after receiving two such letters would an administrative citation be
issued. The citation would cite the violation and charge a fee. Violators would have
the option of either correcting the violation and paying the fee, or requesting a
hearing with a hearing officer to contest the citation and/or the fee. If the violator
corrects the problems and pays the fine, then the process is finished. If the violator
chooses to contest the charge and/or the fine, then he or she would request a
hearing with a hearing officer.
The City will establish a group of hearing officers that will be available to hear cases
and make decisions. These officers will need to meet minimum requirements to be
included in the pool of officers, and they will be paid a flat fee for each hearing over
which they preside. After a violator has requested a hearing, a date will be set and
a hearing officer will be selected from a pool of officers established by the City
Council. Violators will be informed of the date and time of the hearing, as well as
the identity of the designated hearing officer. Violators will have one opportunity to
contest the appointment of a hearing officer, if the violator feels that the selected
officer will not be impartial. The violator will only have this option once-any
subsequently designated hearing officer will decide if they are able to impartially
hear the case. Violators will not be allowed to contact officers directly prior to a
hearing.
After a hearing officer has been designated, and prior to the hearing, city staff will
provide the hearing officer with the case file containing details about the code
violation, including dates, locations, and the specific nature of the violation. The
case file will also include copies of the two warning letters that were sent out prior to
the issuance of the citation. At the hearing, the violator will be given the opportunity
to explain why they should not be required to comply with city codes and/or pay the
fine that was issued with the citation. Violators may bring witnesses and may have
legal counsel, but representation by a lawyer will be discouraged to keep the
proceedings as informal as possible. They will be allowed to attend the hearing,
but only to give advice to their clients. City staff will also be available to provide
information at the hearing. The hearing officer will not make a decision at the
hearing itself, but will instead close the hearing and notify city staff and the violator
of their decision within 10 days.
• If the hearing officer dismisses the charges and/or fine, then the case is done. If
the hearing officer maintains the charge and/or fine, the violator must then comply
with the requirement to fix the problem and pay the fine. Decisions of the hearing
officer may not be appealed to the City Council, but instead can only be appealed to
-the court of relevant jurisdiction as provided by state law. Failure to comply with the
decision of the hearing officer. could result in the City using the formal complaint
• process through the court system [Note: this process is the one currently used by
-the City. The City will also be able to collect unpaid fines through a special
assessment levied against the property owner's property taxes.
II. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
• The City Council has directed staff to prepare methods for obtaining
compliance with city codes other than through use of the court system.
• At the October 22, 2002 City Council study session the Administrative
Enforcement Program was reviewed and staff was directed to schedule a
first reading of the proposed ordinance.
• The City Charter was amended on January 8, 2002 to allow the creation
of this Administrative Hearing Enforcement Program.
• Staff will complete a draft of the proposed fee schedule for presentation at
the second reading of the proposed ordinance.
• Staff will complete a proposed list for the establishment of the hearing
officer pool for presentation at the second reading of the ordinance.
• .All fines received through the Administrative Hearing Enforcement
Program are retained entirely by the City of Richfield rather than a
"shared" situation with Hennepin County District Court through the current
formal complaint situation.
LEGAL
• The. City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached ordinance
amendment.
• Summary publication will be requested to save expenses that would be
required if the full ordinance text were to be published.
III. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~
• The Council could decide to reject the recommendation to amend. Richfield
City Code to create Section 325 for the Administrative Hearing Enforcement
Program. This would mean that the current formal complaint system used
through Hennepin County District Court would continue to be used and
delays would continue to occur in resolving property maintenance and zoning
violation issues.
I 1 V . ATTACFIMENTS I
• Draft Ordinance Amendment
V. PRINCIl'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
• None.
• BILL NO. 2002-
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM; ADDING
SECTION 325 TO THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE
THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 325 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a section
to read as follows:
Section 325 -Administrative Enforcement Program
325.01. Administrative citations and civil penalties. Sections 325.15 through 325.35
govern administrative citations and civil penalties for violations of the city code.
• 325.05. Purpose. The city council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of
enforcing the city code. While criminal fines and penalties have been the most frequent
enforcement mechanism, there are certain negative consequences for both the city and
the accused. The delay inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution.
Citizens resent being labeled as criminals for violations of administrative regulations. The
higher burden of proof and the potential of incarceration do not appear appropriate for
most administrative violations. The criminal process does not always regard city code
violations as being important. Accordingly, the city council finds that the use of
administrative citations and the imposition of civil penalties is a legitimate and necessary
alternative method of enforcement. This method of enforcement is in addition to any other
legal remedy that may be pursued for city code violations.
325.10. General provisions. Subdivision 1. Administrative offense. A violation of any
provision of the city code is an administrative offense that may be subject to an
administrative citation and civil penalties. Each day a violation exists,constitutes aseparate
offense.
Subd. 2. Exemption. Alcohol and tobacco license violations, and motor vehicle
violations are not subject to administrative citation under this ordinance.
Subd. 3. Civil penalty. An administrative offense may be subject to a civil penalty
not to exceed the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor violation under state law.
. Subd. 4. Schedule of fines and fees. The city council must adopt by resolution a
schedule of fines for offenses initiated by administrative citation. The city council may
adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing officers.
Subd. 5. Procedures. The city manager must adopt procedures for administering
• the administrative citation program.
325.15. Administrative citation procedures. Subdivision 1. Administrative Notice. Any
person authorized to enforce provisions of the city code may issue an administrative order
to correct condition or administrative citation upon belief that a code violation has occurred.
(a) After the first violation, the city will deliver to the violator, either in person or by
mail, the First Administrative Order to Correct Condition. The violator will have
seven (7) days to correct the violation after issuance of the First Administrative
Order to Correct Condition.
(b) After the second violation involving the same offense, the City will issue to the
violator, either in person or by mail, the Second Administrative Order to Correct
Condition. The violator will have seven (7) days to correct the violation after
issuance of the Second Administrative Order to Correct Condition.
Subd. 2. Citation. If the violator fails to correct the violation within the time period
provided in the Second Administrative Order to Correct Condition, the City may issue an
administrative citation. The City must issue the citation to the violator in person or by mail.
The citation must state the date, time, and nature of the offense, the name of the issuing
officer, the amount of the scheduled fine, and the manner for paying the fine or appealing
the citation.
• Subd. 3. Payment. The person responsible for the violation must either pay the
scheduled fine or request a hearing within 14 days after issuance. Penalties for failure to
correct the violation or late payment of the fine may be imposed as set forth in section
325.30, subdivision 4. The city may issue a second citation or take other legal action to
achieve compliance with the ordinances.
325.20. Administrative hearing. Subdivision 1. Hearing officers. The city council will
periodically approve a list of lawyers, from which the city clerk will randomly select a
hearing officer to hear and determine a matter for which a hearing is requested. The
hearing officer will be a public officer as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.415.
The hearing officer must not be a city employee. The city manager or their designee must
establish a procedure for evaluating the competency of the hearing officers, including
comments from accused violators and city staff. These reports must be provided to the
city council
Subd. 2. Notice of hearing. Within 10 days of the request for a hearing, the city
clerk will schedule the hearing and will notify the violator of the date, time and place for the
hearing. Parties are expected to be available for two hours. Notice of the hearing must be
mailed to the violator or the property owner, if different from the violator, and the hearing
officer at least ten days in advance of the scheduled hearing, unless a shorter time is
accepted by all parties. The notice must contain the names of the violator or property
owner, the identity of the hearing officer, the location of the alleged violation and the type
• of alleged violation.
Subd. 3. Removal of hearing officer. No later than five days before the date of the
hearing, the violator may make a written request that the assigned hearing officer be
removed from the case. The city clerk will automatically grant one request for removal. A
. subsequent request must be directed to the assigned hearing officer who will decide
whether they can fairly and objectively review the case. If the hearing officer determines
they cannot fairly and objectively review the case, the hearing officer shall notify .the city
clerk in writing at least one day before the scheduled hearing date. The city clerk will then
assign another hearing ofFcer.
Subd. 4. Continuance. A request for a continuance must be made to the city clerk
at least five days prior to the scheduled date. Continuances will be granted only for good
cause shown and for no more than ten days from the originally assigned date.
Subd. 5. File transmittal. Upon receipt of any request for a hearing the Public
Safety Director or their designee will compile a file on each case consisting of the
following:
(a) copy of the citation issues;
(b) copies of the two Administrative Orders to Correct Conditions, which
preceded the citation (one copy for each of the two orders);
(c) copy of any case history in the issuing employee's department;
(d) photographs and/or videotape of property where available;
(e) supplemental report detailing the facts in support of any determination that
the offense constitutes a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety, or
welfare; and
(f) proof of mailing and/or posting of notice on the property if citation was not
personally served on the violator.
The file must be ready for the hearing officer to pick up on the business day preceding the
scheduled hearing.
Subd. 6. Presentation of case. At the hearing, the parties will have the opportunity
to present testimony and question any witnesses, but strict rules of evidence will not apply.
The hearing officer must tape record the hearing and may receive testimony and exhibits.
The officer must receive and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, that
possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the
conduct of their affairs.
Subd. 7. Decision.
(a) The decision of the hearing officer must be in writing and contain findings of
fact, conclusions of law and an order. The decision will be mailed to the
parties within ten days after the hearing. The hearing officer has the
authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a citation, to
impose the scheduled fine, or to reduce, stay, or waive a scheduled fine
either unconditionally or upon compliance with appropriate conditions. When
imposing a penalty for a violation, the hearing officer may consider any or all
of the following factors:
• (1) the duration of the violation;
(2) the frequency or reoccurrence of the violation;
•
(3) the seriousness of the violation;
(4) the history of the violation;
(5) the violator's conduct after issuance of the Administrative Orders to
Correct Conditions;
(6) the violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing;
(7) .the good faith effort by the violator to comply;
(8) the impact of the violation upon the community;
(9) prior record of city code violations; and
(10) any other factors appropriate to a just result.
•
(b) The hearing officer may not impose a fine greater than the established fine,
except that the hearing officer may impose a fine for each week that the
violation continues if: (i) the violation caused a serious threat of harm to the
public health, safety, or welfare as determined by the hearing officer or that
(ii) the violator intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the
code requirement.
(c) The hearing ofFcer's decision and supporting reasons must be in writing.
r~
Subd. 8. Decision. Except as provided in section 325.25 the decision of the
hearing officer is final without any further right of appeal.
Subd. 9. Failure to appear. The failure to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of
the violator's rights to an administrative hearing and an admission of the violation. A
hearing officer may waive this result upon good cause shown. "Good cause" is limited to:
death in the immediate family or documented incapacitating illness of the accused; a court
order requiring the accused to appear for another hearing at the same time; and lack of
proper service of the citation or notice of the hearing.
325.25. Judicial review. An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of
the hearing officer as provided in state law.
325.30. Recovery of civil penalties. Subdivision 1. Non-payment. If a civil penalty is not
paid within the time specified, it will constitute:
(a) alien on the real property upon which the violation occurred if the property or
improvements on the property was the subject of the violation; or
(b) a personal obligation of the violator in all other situations.
Subd. 2. Lien. Alien may be assessed against the property and collected in the
same manner as taxes.
Subd. 3. Personal obligation. A personal obligation may be collected by
appropriate legal means.
Subd. 4. Late Fees/Charges.
(a) The fine will increase by 10% for each week, starting 10 days after the citation
was issued, that no action is taken to correct the violation.
(b) If payment. arrives. more than one week after_it was...due,..an.additional .10% of the
fine may be assessed, together with interest, for each seven-day period, or
part thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date.
Subd. 5. Unpaid civil penalty. During the time that a civil penalty remains unpaid,
the provisions of city code, section 1005 apply to a license, permit, or other city approval
sought by the violator or for property under the violator's ownership or control.
Subd. 6. License revocation or suspension. Failure to pay a fine is grounds for
suspending or revoking a license or permit related to the violation.
325.35. Criminal penalties. The following are misdemeanors, punishable in accordance
with state law:
• (a) Failure, without good cause, to pay a fine or request a hearing within 10 days
after issuance of an administrative citation;
(b) Failure, without good cause, to appear at a hearing that was scheduled
under section 325.20;
(c) Failure to pay a fine imposed by a hearing officer within 10 days after it was
imposed, or such other time as may be established by the hearing officer.
If the final adjudication in the administrative penalty procedure is a finding of no violation,
then the city may not prosecute a criminal violation in district court based on the same set
of facts. This does not preclude the city from pursuing a criminal conviction for a violation
of the same provisions based on a different set of facts. A different date of violation will
constitute a different set of facts.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of
December, 2002.
Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk