The URL can be used to link to this page

12-10-01 Agenda-CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Roll call Open Forum (7-7:15 p.m.) Each speaker is to .keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda. Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting. Notes: Adjournment Call to order Roll call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Worksession of November 13, 2001; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of November 13, 2001; (3) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of November 13, 2001; (4) Special City Council Meeting of November 15, 2001; (5) Special Concurrent City Council and HRA Closed Executive Session of November 19, 2001; (6) Special City Council Meeting of November 24, 2001; (7) Special City Council Worksession of November 26, 2001; (8) Regular City Council Meeting of November 26, 2001; (9) Special City Council Closed Executive Session of November 26, 2001; (10) Special City Council Meeting of November 29, 2001; and (11) Special City Council Meeting of December 4, 2001 PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation by Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney 2. Swear-in Richfield Police Officers, Jeff Cook and John Carnes 3. Richfield Foundation awarding of 2002 grants 4. Presentation of Richfield 2020 Project Report COUNCIL DISCUSSION Council attendance at upcoming community meetings Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 5. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which: are acted upon by the City Council in one motion.. -Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval A. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing revised Council Rules of Procedure and Decorum for City Council meetings S.R. No. 295 B. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Chapter 13 of Richfield City Charter by adding. new section authorizing administrative fines and penalties and scheduling public hearing and second reading for January 8, 2002 S.R. No. 296. C. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amending Section 7.1.3 of Richfield City Charter to establish June 30 deadline for submission of annual financial report and scheduling public hearing and second. reading for January 8, 2002 S.R. No. 297 D. Consideration of approval of canceling December 26, 2001 City Council meeting S.R. No. 298 E. Consideration of approval of resolution designating increase in City's contribution toward- health insurance premiums for International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 S.R. No. 299 F. Consideration of approval of first reading of ordinance amendment to City Code ' Section 405 regarding City's housing maintenance code and adding components related to provisional licenses and conduct issues on licensed premises and scheduling public hearing. and second reading for January 8, 2002 S.R. No. 300 G. Consideration of approval of resolution approving settlement of claim of Donald.. Morrow and Patrick Morrow for loss of going concern damages for Morrow Towing, 6429-6445 Cedar Avenue; 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 301 S H. Consideration of approval of condemnation commissioners award for 6511-Cedar Avenue in amount of $405;000; 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 302 I. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing execution of stipulation of final settlement for 6333 Cedar Avenue, Parcel 5; 66th Street/Trunk Highway. 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 303 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. -Public hearing and consideration of issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street Staff Report No. 304 Notes: 8. Public hearings to consider the,following 2002 ..liquor license renewals: A. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for Chi-Chi's, Inc., dba Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 305 B. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor, including outside service of alcohol, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC, dba Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 306 C. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for Don Pablo's Operating Corp., dba Don Pablo's, 980 West 78th Street S.R. No. 307 D. On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor for Champps Operating Corp:, dba Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street S.R No. 308 E. On-Sale Intoxicating and-Sunday Liquor for Paisan Inc., dba Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 309 F. On-Sale Cntoxicating and Sunday Liquor for The Ground Round, Inc:, .dba The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street S.R. No. 310 G. Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 555.5, dba .Four Nickels Food & Drink; 6715 Lake Shore Drive S.R. No. 311 >' H. Club On-Sale and Sunday Liquor for Minneapolis-Richfield American Liquor Post 435,6501 Portland Avenue S.R. No. 312 I. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., dba . Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue S.R. No. 313 J. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent fVlalt Liquor for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inca, dba Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street S.R. No. 314 K. On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor for Subeck, Inc., dba Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 315 Notes: 9. Public hearings to consider the following 2002 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer license renewals: A. Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue S.R. No. 316 B. Capital Cash LLC, dba Hy's Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue S.R. No. 317 Notes: 10. Continue to January 8, 2002, public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance to authorize conveyance of remnant parcel to Century Court Apartments i Staff Report No. 318 Notes: 11. Public hearing and consideration of 2001 Revised/2202 Proposed budget and tax levy and related resolutions Staff Report No. 319 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCE 12. Consideration of second reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative. Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.37 describing personal leave Staff Report No. 320 Notes: OTHER BUSINESS 13. Consideration of agreement for purchase of three parcels of land from Best Buy Company for future widening of I-494 Staff Report No. 321 Notes: 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 to -keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Comments are to be an opportunity to address the Council on items not on the agenda, Individuals who wish to address the Council must have registered prior to the meeting, Notes: 15.Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. 1 AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 321 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, T/T GC REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE [, DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration to purchase three Right of Way Acquisition Loan (RACE) parcels from the Best Buy Company for the future widening of I-494. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached agreement for the purchase of three parcels of land from the Best Buy Company for the future widenina of 1-494. III. BACKGROUND Under an existing development agreement between the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the Best Buy Company, the Best Buy Company agreed to sell land needed for the widening of I-494 to the City of Richfield for $7.0 million. Best. Buy, in turn, agrees to donate the entire $7.0 million to the City for constructing the Penn Avenue bridge. The City will use $7.0 million from the Right of Way Acquisition Loan (KALE) Program provided by the Metropolitan Council to purchase land from the Best Buy Company for the future :widening of I-494. The RALF Loan Program provides cities a zero-interest loan to purchase land for future highway projects. The Minnesota Department of Transportation will repay the principal when I-494 is rebuilt. 1210RALFparcels III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive plan identifies I-494 for reconstruction. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The RALF program ensures that land is reserved for future highway expansion while controlling the cost of acquiring land. C. FINANCIAL • The City will use azero-interest loan of $7.0 million from the Metropolitan Council's Right of Way Acquisition Loan Program to acquire the property. The Minnesota -Department of Transportation will reimburse the City for the $7.0 million in principal when I-494 is rebuilt. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will review all documents needed to purchase the Best Buy Company property needed for the future expansion of I-494. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Postpone action on purchasing the parcels from Best Buy. However, purchase of the property is needed to comply with the requirements of the RALF Loan Program. V. ATTACFIlVIENTS • Agreement regarding conveyance of land for future .right of way for Interstate 494 including legal descriptions of parcels to be acquired. • Map showing parcels to be acquired. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. AGREEMENT REGARDING CONVEYANCE OF LAND FOR FUTURE RIGHT (OF WAY FOR INTERSTATE 494 THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 2001 by BEST BUY CO., INC., a Minnesota corporation, and CITY OF RICHFIELD, a Minnesota municipal corporation. Recitals Best Buy is the owner of certain land located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the "RACE Parcels"). The RALF Parcels are needed for future right of way for Interstate 494, based upon the Official Map approved the City and filed as Document No. 3344046 in the Office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. The City has applied for a loan from the Right-of--way Acquisition Loan Fund to enable the City to purchase the RALF Parcels from Best Buy. Best Buy has submitted an application for plat approval that includes the RALF Parcels and adjacent lands owned by Best Buy. As a condition of plat approval, the City has required that Best Buy enter into this agreement for the conveyance of the RALF Parcels to the City. The conveyance of the RALF Parcels to the City is also contemplated in that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between Best Buy and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield, which contract is dated March 28, 2000, as amended. The City has undertaken a project known as the Penn Avenue Bridge Project, which involves the reconstruction of the Penn Avenue and I-494 interchange. Agreement Agreement to Convey. Promptly after demand by the City, Best Buy agrees to sell and convey the RALF Parcels to the City by quitclaim deed, together with all right of access to I-494 from the adjacent lands owned by Best Buy. If the conveyance is completed after the recording of Best Buy's proposed plat, the parties agree to amend the legal description of the RALF Parcels to conform to the platted legal description. Purchase Price; Donation. The City agrees to pay to Best Buy, and Best Buy agrees to accept, the sum of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00) as the purchase price for the RALF Parcels, or such lesser sum as the City may receive in loan funds through the Right-of--way Acquisition Loan Fund program. Best Buy agrees to donate the entire ' purchase price to the City on the express condition that the donated funds must be used CAH-205782v1 RC145-408 to offset City expenses in connection with the Penn Avenue Bridge Project, including without limitation costs related to design, engineering, utility relocation, land acquisition, and construction costs. In witness of the foregoing, this agreement is executed as of the foregoing date by the following authorized officers of the parties: BEST BUY CO., INC. i CAH-205782v1 RC145-408 By Its CITY OF RICHFIELD By Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor By Samantha Orduno, City Manager 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of RALF Parcels Parcel A (consisting of parts of tax parcel nos. 33-028-24-33-0011, 33-028-24-33-0013, and 33-028-24-33-0014) All those parts of the following described properties: All of Tract C and the West 30 feet of Tracts A, B, and D, as measured along the North and South lines thereof, Registered Land Survey No. 800, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; And The West 141.38 feet of the East 235.63 feet, as measured at right angles to the East line thereof, of that part of the following described tract of land lying South of the North 200 feet thereof and North of the North right-of--way line of Interstate Highway No. 494. That part of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 if Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing on the South line of said Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 at a ' point 328 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Section.; thence Northerly to the Southwest corner of McHARDY'S ADDITION; thence Easterly to the Southeast corner of McHARDY'S ADDITION; thence Southerly to a point in the South line of said Section 33, distant 656 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence West 328 feet to the point of beginning; And The East 94.25 feet, as measured at right angles to the East line thereof, of: that part of the following described tract of land lying South of the North 200 feet thereof and North of the North right-of--way line of Interstate Highway No .494. That part of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/ of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing on the South line of said Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 at a point 328 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Section; thence Northerly to the Southwest corner of McHARDY'S ADDITION; thence Easterly to the Southeast corner of McHARDY'S ADDITION; thence Southerly to a point in the South line of said Section 33, distant 656 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence West 328 feet to the point of beginning; And That part of the following described property lying West of the East 235.63 feet ' thereof as measured at right angles to the East line thereof: that part of the CAH-205782v1 RC 145-408 A-1 following described tract of land.lying south of the North 200 feet thereof and north of the North right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 494. That part of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section33, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing on the South line of said Southwest'/ of the Southwest'/4 at a point 328 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Section: thence Northerly to the Southwest corner of McHARDY'S ADDITION; thence Easterly to the Southeast corner of McHARDY'S ADDITION; thence southerly to a point in the South line of said Section 33, distant 656 feet East from Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence West 328 feet to the point of beginning; And The South one half of the following described tract of land: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/ of SW'/4) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Twenty eight (28), Range Twenty four (24), described as follows: Commencing at the. Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence running North 1313.33 feet; thence East 327.60 feet; thence South 1313.33 feet; thence West 328 feet to the point of beginning, excepting however; that part thereof. taken for State Highway No. 100, also known as Interstate Highway No. 494, and subject to all other public streets and highways; ' except all that part of the following described tract; that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of a line 33 feet East of and parallel with the West line of said Section and the Northeasterly right-of--way line of Trunk Highway No. 494 as defined by Document No, 3419310; thence North along the parallel Fine a distance of 175 feet; thence East at a right angle a distance of 164 feet; thence South at a right angle a distance of 232.80 feet, more or less, to a point of Northeasterly right-of--way line of Trunk Highway No. 494; thence Northwesterly along the North right-of--way line of Trunk Highway No. 494 a distance of 173.89 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies Southerly, Southwesterly, and Westerly of the following described Line A: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence Northerly along the West line of said Section 33 a distance of 501.24 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Easterly deflecting to the right at an angle of 88 degrees, 30 minutes, a distance of 125.65 feet; thence Southeasterly along the tangential curve, concave to the Southwest, radius 53 feet, delta angle 91 degrees, 20 minutes, a distance of 84.64 feet; thence Southerly along the tangent of said curve a distance of 180 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly right-of--way line of said Trunk Highway No. 494 as defined in Document No. 3419310; and there ' terminating; CAH-205782v1 RC145-408 A-2 And which lies Southeasterly of the following described Line B: Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and 33 feet Easterly from the West line of said Section 33 distant 30 feet Southerly from the point of intersection of said parallel line with Line A; thence Northeasterly to a point on Line A distant 30 feet Easterly from the point of intersection of said parallel line and Line A. All according to the United States Government Survey thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota; And All that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4 of SW'/) of Section Thirty-three (33), Township Twenty eight (28), Range Twenty four (24), described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence running North 1313.33 feet; thence East 327.60 feet; thence South 1313.33 feet; thence West 328 feet to the point of beginning, excepting however, that part thereof taken for State Highway No. 100, also known as Interstate Highway No. 494, and subject to all other public streets and highways; described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of a line 33 feet East of and parallel with the West line of said Section and the Northeasterly right-of- ' way line of Trunk Highway No. 494. as defined by Document No, 3419310; thence North along the parallel. line a distance of 175 feet; thence East at a right angle a distance of 164 feet; thence South at a right angle a distance of 232.80 feet, more or less, to a point of Northeasterly right-of--way line of Trunk Highway No. 494; thence Northwesterly along the North right-of--way line of Trunk Highway No. 494 a distance of 173.89 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Southerly, Southwesterly, and Westerly of the following described Line A: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence Northerly along the West line of said Section 33 a distance of 501.24 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Easterly deflecting to the right at an angle of 88 degrees, 30 minutes, a distance of 125.65 feet; thence Southeasterly along the tangential curve, concave to the Southwest, radius 53 feet, delta angle 91 degrees, 20 minutes, a distance of 84.64 feet; thence Southerly along the tangent of said curve a distance of 180 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly right-of-way line of said Trunk Highway No. 494 as defined in Document No. 3419310; and there terminating; And which lies Southeasterly of the following described Line B: CAH-205782v1 RC145-408 A-3 Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and 33 feet Easterly from the West line of said Section 33 distant 30 feet Southerly from the point of intersection of said parallel line with Line A; thence Northeasterly to a point on Line A distant 30 feet Easterly from the point of intersection of said parallel line and Line A. All according to the United States Government Survey thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota; Which lie southerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East along the westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 33 for 246.89 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East for 333.62 feet; thence South 00 degrees 18 minutes 54 seconds West for 3.00 feet; .thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East for 125.10 feet; thence South 85 degrees 28 minutes 56 seconds East for 180.90 feet; thence South 88 degrees 29 minutes 28 seconds East for 154.81 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 16 seconds East for 569.09 feet; thence easterly for 255.55 feet along a tangential curve concave to the south, radius 2322.83 feet and central angle 06 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds, to the westerly line of the 60 foot wide right of way of ' Knox Avenue South and there terminating.. Parcel B (consisting of parts of tax parcel nos. 33-028-24-33-0007, 33-028-24-33-0065, 33-028-24-33-0066, 33-028-24-33-0067, 33-028-24-33-0068, 33-028-24,33-0069, and 33-028-24-33-0070) All those parts of the following described properties: Tracts A, B and D, except the West 30 feet of said tracts, as measured along the North and South lines thereof; Tracts E, F and G, Registered Land Survey No. 800, Hennepin County, Minnesota; And That part of the Southwest'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point distant 820 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Section 33; thence North a distance of 656.28 feet; thence East a distance of 163.80 feet; thence South a distance of 656.28 feet; thence West a distance of 164 feet to point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota; CAH-205782v1 RC145-408 A-4 Which lie southerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East along the westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 33 for 246.89 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East for 333.62 feet; thence South 00 degrees 18 minutes 54 seconds West for 3.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East for 125.10 feet; thence South 85 degrees 28 minutes 56 seconds East for 180.90 feet; thence South 88 degrees 29 minutes 28 seconds East for 154.81 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 16 seconds East for 569.09 feet; thence easterly for 255.55 feet along a tangential curve concave to the south, radius 2322.83 feet and central angle 06 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds, to the westerly line of the 60 foot wide right of way of Knox Avenue South and there terminating. Parcel C (consisting of parts of tax parcel nos. 33-028-24-33-0093 and 33-028-24-34- 0013) All those parts of the following described properties: ' The South % of the West 5 acres of the Southeast'/4 of the Southwest'/ of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, except the North 120 feet of the South 'h of the West 5 acres of the Southeast'/4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, all in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota; And Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1037, Files of registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; And Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 618, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; And That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 28, Range 24, West of the Fourth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West 5 acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 33; thence North along the East line of said West 5 acres, a distance of 656.1 feet more or less, to the North line of the South '/ of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence East along said North line 79.5 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of the said Southeast CAH-205782v1 RC145-408 A-5 Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the South line of said Section 33; thence West along said South line 79.5 feet to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof; And Tract L except that part of the West 6 feet thereof lying North of the South line of Tract M extended Easterly; That part of Tract K lying East of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of Tract K, .47 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence running North to a point on the North line of said Tract K, .54 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof and there terminating, all in Registered Land Survey No: 800, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; And That part of Tract M lying South of the North 235 feet thereof, as measured along the East and West lines of said Tract M, That part of the West 6 feet of Tract L lying North of the South line of said Tract M extended Easterly, all in Registered Land Survey No. 800, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; ' And Tracts H, I and J, and that part of Tract K lying West of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of Tract K, .47 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence running North to a point on the North line of said Tract K, .54 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof and there terminating, Registered Land Survey No. 800, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; Which lie southerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 33, Township 28 North, Range 24 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds East along the westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 33 for 246.89 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East for 333.62 feet; thence South 00 degrees 18 minutes 54 seconds West for 3.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 07 seconds East for 125.10 feet; thence South 85 degrees 28 minutes 56 seconds East for 180.90 feet; thence South 88 degrees 29 minutes 28 seconds East for 154.81 feet; thence North 89 degrees 15 minutes 16 seconds East for 569.09 feet; thence easterly for 255.55 feet along a tangential curve concave to the south, radius 2322.83 feet and central angle 06 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds, to the westerly line of the 60 foot wide right of way of Knox Avenue South and there terminating. CAH-205782v1 RC145-408 A-6 I ~ II J • • ~f ' ~ I I I / I I 1 / t^' ~~ ~ I ' I l 1 ~\ \ ! _J -~. `\ _ PENN AVE. S. --- `^ ..I ~-, IJ -- ~. ._ ' .-r ~ i ; I I t, ~ j i~ II J ~ , ~~ ~ . II '. I I ~'~~ % ~ I ~ ,11~ I I ~ j I`~ / ~,` ~ 1 I it i i/ 1 I I ~,: ~ 3 I I /// I ; ~ ~< I I I , / / is I I ,~ %, ~:~: -'~~ ,; ;~., ~ I, i ~;. -i ~ ~. / ~ i// - i i i/% ~y ,/ j : i , / t~ / / `~~ \\, ;, j ~~ ~J ~L~ ~~~ i = " ;~ _ = x PENN AVE. S. a ~E J _ i~ ~` I ~ I ~ i I D T I I I ~ q _L __ --- a OLIVER AVE. S. a r i li I I I~ I I ( -, ~ I I 'I I ;' ~ I ~__~ ~ --- --- x -J s NEWTON AVE. S. a I . ~ -- i - i - i ~- ~ y I b I ~ ~ I - - - I ! I I ~-1 I I, I i i i - ~ '-- ~ i _ I _ ~ !__i s MORGAN AVE. S. $ -gyp ~-- ;- --- I ~ I II ; y ,I- y- i - ~-~' I I I ~ - I I '. I~ _ i ~ i _~I~ I I _ ! - _- I a LOGAN AVE. S. a f ~~--- '' -- ~--~ I I i I I .~ ~ I - - ~ --1 i I ~ ~ ~ ~ INTERSTATE HWY __~_JJ~ g>~~ bg~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~$~~ ~~~ y~~~~ ~~H =~ ~~~~ p N a~ a a s 4 0 ~ C~'J~'~ ~ "s ~ ' a AGENDA SECTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT# 320 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 r: REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: DAWN WEITZEL, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADdG~INIS7fRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Second reading of amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.37 describing. personal leave. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the second reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter III, Subsection 310.37 describing aersonal leave. III. BACKGROUND ~ In an effort to offer non-Union employees benefits already offered to Union members, a recommendation is being made to amend Section 1, Subsection 310.37, (Personal Leave) from an accrual rate of 2.55 hours to 2.77 hours of personal leave biweekly for those employees compensated under the Management or General Services compensation pay plans. These changes would affect those employees included in the General Services and Management Pay Plans and who are not represented by a Union. -The amendments are requested so that these employees a more equitable Personal Leave level as some Union employees. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • An amendment to Subsection 310.37, Personal Leave, aids in balancing some of the benefits already offered to some City employees. Those benefits offered to Union employees should not exceed those benefits offered to employees not represented by unions. Furthermore, most employees represented by collective bargaining agreements are males while unions do not represent the majority of female employees. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The first reading for this ordinance amendment was held on November 13, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • By amending Subsection 310.37, Personal. Leave, approximately 155 regular and ;part-time. General Services and Management employees would receive an additional 5.72 hours in 2002. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requestedadditional vacation leave sell back and personal leave accrual enhancement, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not approve the second reading of ordinance amendment and take no further action. • .Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance- VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • BILL NO. . AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 310.37 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 2. Subsection 310.37, Subdivision 1 of the ordinance code of-.the City of Richfield entitled "Personal leave" is hereby amended: 310.37. Personal leave.. Subdivision 1. Eligibility and accrual. A managerial employee, a regular full-time or full-time probationary employee, and a 'regular part-time or part-time probationary- employee, classified and compensated under -the management compensation plan or general services pay plan, as those plans have. been adopted and may be amended from time to time pursuant to subsection .310.17 of this code, is eligible to accrue and use personal leave. An eligible full-time employee shall accrue ~ 2.77 hours of personal leave biweekly and may accumulate such leave from year to year up to a maximum of 204 hours of .personal leave,. unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the department head and the city manager. Hours in excess of 204 hours shall be forfeited by the employee without compensation. Eligible part-time employees shall accrue personal leave on a proportional basis of the full-time accrual based on hours worked per payroll .period .and shall be limited to maximum accruals and extensions authorized for full-time employees. Section 3. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. . Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT# 319 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 1~, 201 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and adoption of the 2002 Proposed budget and final tax levy and adoption of related resolutions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolutions approving the 2001. Revised/2002 Pro osed bud et and tax lev and related resolutions. II. BACKGROUND In September 2001, the City Council approved and certified a preliminary tax levy of $10,435,421 to Hennepin County. The Minnesota Legislature made significant changes to the State's property tax system culminating. in August 2001. Thus, the preliminary budget and tax levy were presented to the City Council with a minimum of revenue information and tax implications available to City staff at that time. Moreover, the budget was prepared later than usual due to the lack. of information available. • The final proposed tax levy is now $10,198,785, a $236,636 reduction, and must now be considered and approved by the City Council. The final levy may be less but cannot be greater than the preliminary levy amount. . 1210budget III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • A revised 2001 budget and final 2002 budget and tax levy must be adopted on or before December 20, 2001. • Cities then have five working days after December 20 or no later than: December 28 to prepare all the documentation necessary to certify a final levy to the County Auditor and State Department of Revenue. • A proposed 2002 tax levy has been submitted to the City Council for consideration. • Several related resolutions included within the total budget document need to be considered. These related resolutions are itemized in the Attachment section of this staff report. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The original proposed levy has been reduced $236,636. • The gross tax levy for 2002 reflects a 21.2 percent increase over the previous year. • The large increase can be attributed to the passage of the Omnibus Tax Bill, which eliminates Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) and reduced the amount of Local Government Aid (LGA) received by the City. • The amount of HACA and tGA lost by the passage of the tax bill is approximately $2,500,000. • The Omnibus Tax Bill allows the taxing authorities to levy for lost aid. • Due to the lost aids from the tax bill and the City levying to make up for those aids, the local tax capacity rate for 2002 has increased to 51.68%. D. LEGAL • A public hearing for-the 2002 proposed budget and tax levy will be conducted in accordance with the City Charter and is scheduled for December 10, 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council could adopt a final 2002 budget and tax levy in any amount, which does not exceed the preliminary levy of $10,435,421. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution adopting a proposed budget and tax levy for the year 2002.. • Resolution authorizing budget revisions. • Resolution authorizing revision of 2001 budget of various departments. • Resolution authorizing annual adjustment to City's mileage. reimbursement rate to conform to Internal Revenue Service statutory mileage reimbursement rate. • Resolution establishing wastewater service rates and charges, water rates and charges, special water service charges, storm sewer rates and charges, and 6.5% penalty on past due accounts. • Resolution adopting the 2002 Capital Improvement Budget. • Resolution adopting the 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program. • Resolution establishing policies, procedures, and fees for the assessing division. • Resolution relating to purchasing practices in-the-City of Richfield. • Resolution relating to the 2002 General Services Salary compensation plan. • Resolution relating to the 2002 _Specialized Pay Plan. • Resolution relating to the 2002 Management Salary compensation plan. • Resolution establishing 2002 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to the provisions of appendix D of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield. • City Manager's budget message VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2002 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2001 and then recertified before December 31, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2002 is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Leg is lative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Services Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers. TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 763,780 1,087,630 7,220,920 2,398,300 284,990 3,386,460 1,582,410 15, 000 $16,739,490 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2002 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2002 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $16,.739,490 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2001, payable in 2002 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE General Fund' Debt Service PERA AMOUNT $9,404,5502 774,425 19,810 Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory. share to Public Employees' Retirement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution amounts. • 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2001 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2001, payable in 2002 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $263,964 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET REVISIONS WHEREAS, the City Charter and Minnesota Statutes provide for a process for adopting an annual budget and tax levy; and WHEREAS, the City Charter provides certain authority for the City Manager and/or City Council to revise the annual budget; and WHEREAS, it would be beneficial#o restate such authority: with the adoption of the budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City Manager may increase the budget by City Council action provided that unbudgeted receipts will be available to equal or exceed the increased expenditures. 2. The City Manager may authorize transfers between divisions within a department providing the transfers do not increase or decrease the department or total budget. 3. The City Manager may transfer budgeted amounts between departments only with the • approval of the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy .Gibbs, City Clerk • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2001 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution'No. 8977 appropriated funds. forpersonal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each- department of the City for the year of 2001; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section. 7.09, gives the Council- authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2001 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2002 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2001 appropriations for each department of-the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: n, U General Fund Legislative/Executive Administrative Services Community Development Public Safety Fire Services Public Works Recreation Services. Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND INCREASE $ 773,820 1,080,030 278,720 6,951,800 . 2,262,440 3,265,500 1,516,600 567,480 16,696,390 $ 742,140 2. Estimated- 2001 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same ,are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2002 budget, are hereby revised as follows: INCREASE $742,140 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December 2001. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. S RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT TO CITY'S MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE TO CONFORM TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE STATUTORY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service annually adjusts the business mileage reimbursement rate; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's present mileage reimbursement is in conformance with the. Internal Revenue-Service business mileage reimbursement rate; and NOW ,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota: 1. That the City .Manager of Richfield is hereby authorized and directed to annually adjust the City's mileage reimbursement rate to be in conformance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines. 2. That the City's mileage reimbursement rate is not to exceed the Internal Revenue Service guidelines. • A roved b the Ci Council of the Cit of Richfield Minnesota this 10th da of pp Y tY Y ~ Y December, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk C7 RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES, WATER RATES AND CHARGES, SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES, STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES, AND 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE. ACCOUNTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: SANITARY SEWER SERVICE RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2001 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.05 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for use-and service of the sanitary sewer system are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution which rescinds Resolution No. 8832` 2. Where the rate is not based upon the metered use of water, the following quarterly flat charges are established effective January 1, 2002 for each billing district as defined in paragraph 3 of this resolution. 2002 A) Residential per unit $ 45.90 B) Commercial - • For the equivalent of 10 or less persons $ 45.80 More than 10, less than 16 84.00 More than 15, less than 21 118.00 More than 20, less than 26 156.80 C) Institutional - For each public or private school the quarterly flat charge shall be charged whether the school is in session or not (rates being charged upon average yearly use); shall be based upon the number of students enrolled at the beginning of the quarterly billing period or the preceding period if school is not then in session; and shall be as follows: 2002 For each 100 grade school students or fraction $ 55.30 in excess thereof For each 100 junior high school students or high 138.90 School students. or fraction thereof D) In addition to the above flat rates there shall be a customer Charge on each invoice as determined in paragraph 4 of this Resolution and a certification charge as determined in Section 7.05 of the City Ordinance Code. ry p • 3. Where the rate for sanita sewer service is based u on the metered use of water on the premises, such rates shall be as follows: A) For all residential premises the rate shall be based on The actual use, or less of water for the preceding `• Winter quarter, per thousand gallons with a minimum of 7,000 gallons, effective January 1,2000, for each 2002 customer billing district and shall be as follows: $ 2.34 For the purpose of this paragraph A), the winter Quarter shall be the winter quarter as specified in Subdivision 3 of said section 7.05. B) For all commercial, institutional, industrial, and other Premises, the rate. per thousand gallons of water effective January 1, 2000, shall be as follows: $ 2.34 C) A customer charge shall be made for each invoice Rendered effective January 1, 2:000 as follows: $ 3.00 If the invoice is for water service, as well as sanitary Sewer service, the customer charge, when collected, shall be allocated proportionally between the City's. water fund, sewer fund, and its storm sewer fund based on the user fees billed for by each fund. • D) Where the metered use of water on the premises for the Preceding winter quarter was not normal, the rate may be adjusted as provided in Subdivision 3 of said Section 7.05. 4. The foregoing. rates and charges are in addition to, and not in lieu of, other rates and charges established by ordinance or resolution. WATER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2001 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the. City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City water and water service are hereby established to be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: The charge due and payable to the City by each water customer of the City, during any quarter shall be $1.69 per 1,000 gallons. Water charges shall be payable quarterly,. and all bills issued after January 1, 2002 shall be at this rate.. SPECIAL WATER SERVICE CHARGES FOR 2001 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15 of the Ordinance Code of the-City of Richfield, the. rates and- charges for special customer services are hereby established to • be those set forth in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The charge for establishing a new customer account shall be $13.50 per account. 3. The charge for installation of meters or outside meter readers shall be $19.50 per installation. • • 4. The charge to flush and maintain fire hydrants located on privately owned property within the City shall be $39.00 per hydrant per year plus any required parts.. 5. The charge to thaw and service water pipes on customer property shall be actual .cost to the City plus thirty percent. 6. The charge for any other services not covered by the above shall be based: on actual hourly cost to the City plus thirty percent. STORM SEWER RATES AND CHARGES FOR 2002 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.20 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield, the rates and charges for City storm sewer service are hereby established to- be those set forth. in the following paragraphs of this resolution: 2. The rates and charges for the use and availability of the system are determined through the use of a "Residential. Equivalent Factor" (REF). One REF is defined as the ratio of the average volume of surface runoff coming from one -acre of land and subjected to a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from- one acre of land subjected to typical single-family residential use. within the City during a standard one year rainfall event. The REF's for the following land uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows: LAND USES REF ...CLASSIFICATION Cemeteries .25 ~ 1 Parks and railroads .75 2 Two-family residential 1.00 3 Single-family residential 1.00 4 .Public and private schools and institutional uses 1.25 5 Multiple-family residential uses and churches 3.00 6 Commercial, industrial, and Warehouse. uses 5.00 7 3. The basic system quarterly rate for storm sewer service is $44.00 per acre of land. $8.80 is the quarterly rate for asingle-family residence, which is considered to have. an acreage of one-fifth acre. The charge made against each parcel of land is then determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage.times the basic system rate. 6.5% PENALTY ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS 1. Customers will have thirty (30) days to pay their water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer quarterly bills from the date of the mailing by the City. Any unpaid amount will be added to the next quarterly bill along with a 6.5% penalty on the delinquent amount. 2. The penalty charge when billed on past due accounts shall be allocated proportionally between the City's water fund, sewer fund, and storm sewer fund based on the user . fees billed for each fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2001. -Martin J: Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk [: • • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Budget for 2002 has been prepared and submitted for review by the City Council in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the-.Planning- Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2002 Capital Improvement Budget in the sum total of $10,405,000 is hereby approved as amended and adopted with full recognition of the fact that the cost. estimates are approximate and are subject to final cost estimates and that all awards of contracts for these projects are subject to necessary hearings and must be approved by the City Council in accordance with. established laws and practices governing such action, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned. laws and • practices. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 1 Oh day of December, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2003-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, a proposed Capital Improvement Program 2003-2007 has been prepared for review by the Planning Commission in accordance with charter requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendations and benefit of review of these proposed documents by the Planning Commission and has itself reviewed these proposals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved and adopted subject to annual review and revision; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that-the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to initiate the procedures which will lead to more formal and detailed consideration of these projects in accordance with the aforementioned laws and practices. Adopted by the,City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2001. • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND FEES FOR THE ASSESSING DIVISION WHEREAS, the City Assessing Division provides a variety of services to the public, to title companies and to realtors, relating to information necessary for sale and purchase of property; and WHEREAS, special assessment searches are requested when closing on .purchased U properties; and WHEREAS, listing information is requested when there is an interest in property sales. or purchases; and WHEREAS, residential property records are requested when comparing properties for market values; and WHEREAS, certain specific information, such as special assessment searches, property listing information, comparable residential property records and homestead information are regularly sought by realtors, title companies and homeowners in the sale and transfer of property within the City; and WHEREAS, the above list of requests for information constitutes a large portion of the work load of the City Assessing Division; and WHEREAS, said policies, procedures and fees must be reviewed and modified as needed NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby establishes the following policies, procedures and fees for dissemination of certain information in the City's Assessing Division. I. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES SEARCHES Provided, upon receipf or written request for multiple searches or phone request for same day pickup of a single search, by City Assessing Division identifying levied and pending assessments • Provide verbal update by phone of previously requested certified City special assessment searches. Provide written request and $12.00 fee per Property Identification Number (PID). Searches are normally in the mail 24 hours after receipt. FEES $12.00 per Property Identification Number (PID). The search is a billing statement. Provided the same day if a Provided free of charge single certified or if a certified City search non-certified search is is not requested. requested and if picked up at the City. I. (con't) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SEARCHES Do not provide additional billing statements for assessments. Provide, upon written request, a report (or run) of all properties affected by a levied or pending special assessment. II. LISTING INFORMATION Provide, upon multiple written or a single phone request printouts. Printouts include: PID number Estimated Market Value • Tax information Owner/taxpayer Legal. Description Special assessments (levied and pending) PROCEDURES Provided the following work day for multiple certified or non-certified search requests and will be available for pickup after 3:00 p.m. Verbal verification (update) of City certified levied and pending assessments before closing. After identifying self, caller will provide property address, PID .number, date and receipt number of search. Provided within a minimum of 48 hours if there is an existing program, additional hours. if more than one report is requested. Anon-existing program would require additional time. A program would be created on a priority basis and then printed.. Requesting party- would be notified as to fee and date report(s) can be picked up at the Assessing ofFice prior to printing. PROCEDURES A phone or written request and receipt of $3.00. Allow 1/2 hour before pickup for a single property request to prevent waiting for information. Allow 24 hours from receipt of request for pickup of listing information on multiple properties. FEES Homeowner may request a $12.00 search for closing. An initiation fee of $30.00 for each requested report. Plus, $.05 for each- Property Identification (PID) Number. A requested new program would require a minimum fee of $25..00. Fees would be based on time and materials to create and print the program. FEES $3.00 .per PID number or per printed sheet. Homeowners may request a free printout. Provided free of charge if printout is not requested. II (con't) LISTING INFORMATION Lot size Year built Square footage PROCEDURES FEES Give name, firm, address of property and PID number (if available for requests). Provide verbal updates by Three listing inquiries on the phone of previously following accessible requested City printouts. information will be provided by phone by the City: PID number Year built. Lot size School district Legal description Taxes Square footage Mill .rate for Richfield Estimated difference between homestead and • non-homestead tax amounts. Fee owner/taxpayer Market value Homestead status Inquiries by phone for square footage of buildings will be limited to two properties. Additional properties will require obtaining information in person at the City Assessor's office. Net rentable areas for income properties are protected under the Data Privacy Act; and therefore, will not be given.as listing information. Special assessments will not be given by phone. However, they will be given the City • office when requested. • • II. (con't) LISTING INFORMATION PROCEDURES Exception: Homeowners will be given special assessments by phone if they provide their social security numbers. Otherwise, the owner can request a free complete listing printout. Give name, firm, property address, PID number, date of printout and receipt number when updating printouts. Requested complete listing information, without a requested printout, will be partially supplied verbally by the Assessing Division. The Division will orally supply special assessments, next year's market value (when available), and homestead status. Requesting party will be allowed to use the County's terminal screen for additional information (only screens 101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 120, 275 and 282). Interruptions will occur for City use. Time limits on the County's terminal will be set based on City's immediate needs. III. REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RECORDS Provide a field card record of a Request for more than subject property and five properties must be comparable properties. submitted in writing and include individual property addresses FEES FEES May request $1.00 per copy for up to five comparable properties. Certified copies $5.00. III. (cont.) REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY RECORDS • • (PID numbers will help cut response time). The individual must allow the City to set the time convenient for the City to supply information on a one-on-one basis. More than five comparable properties, will be allowed to view and record information under strict supervision of the Assessing Division. The City will not assemble or analyze data. Certified copies will state: "This is a true and correct reproduction of the original on file at the City Assessor's office" IV. REVIEW OF COMPARABLE PROCEDURES COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND APARTMENT PROPERTY RECORDS Provide partial field card record of a subject property and comparable properties. Request for more than five properties must be submitted in writing and include individual property addresses (PID numbers will help cut our response time). Because of the data privacy act, viewing the .property field cards will be prohibited. FEES Free of charge when personally writes information supplied by the Assessing Division. FEES May request $2.00 per copy. Certified copies $5.00. Free of charge when .personally writes information orally supplied by the Assessing Division. IV. (con't) REVIEW OF COMPARABLE • COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND APARTMENT PROPERTY RECORDS • PROCEDURES Confidential ,private or nonpublic data is protected under the data privacy act. The following confidential data is recorded on the properly field cards: a. Detailed income and expense figures: b. Average vacancy factors; c. Verified net rentable areas or net usable areas; d. Anticipated income and expenses for the current year; and e. Projected vacancy factor for the current year. The above confidential information will be blocked out when photocopying field cards. The individual must allow the City to set the time convenient for the City to supply information on a one-on-one basis. The City will not assemble or analyze data. Certified copies will state: "This is a true and correct reproduction of the original on file at the City Assessor's office". FEES Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, this 10th day of December, 2001: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PURGHASING PRACTICES IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELd AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. $298 WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Richfield has purchasing authority pursuant to the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code; and WHEREAS, the City Charter and Administrative Ordinance Code expressly state a purchasing authority limit for the City Manager, and WHEREAS, all non-budgeted purchases in excess of $25,000 will require approval by City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the C'rty of Richfield as follows: That the City Manager of the City of Richfield is hereby granted the authority to en#er into contracts or approve purchases on behalf of the City of Richfield up to, but not to exceed $25,000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 20Q1. Martin,!. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk n LJ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2002 GENERAL SERVICES SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for General Services ~mployees from time-to-time, and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2002 pay plan for position classifications for General Services employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2002 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2002, the first full pay period in 2002 and subject to all applicable provisions of the City Code: 2002 GENERAL SERVICES COMPENSATION PLAN 4 RAN E GS1 YR 24,585.60. 26,041.60. 27,518.40 28,995.20 30,721.60 31,636.80 MO 2,048.80 2,170.13. 2,293.20' 2,416.27 2,560.13 2,636.40 BW 945.60. 1,001.60. 1,058.40 1,115.20 1,181.60 1,216.80 H R 11.82 12.52 13.23 13.94 14.77 15.21 GS2 YR 27,084.60 28,475.20 29,868.80 31,387.20 32,968.00 34,632.00 MO 2,256.80 2,372.93 2,489.07 2,615.60 2,747.33 2,886.00 BW 1,041.60 1,09.5.20` 1,148.80- 1,207.20. 1,268.00 1,332.00 H R 13.02 13.69 14.36. 15.09 15.85 16.65 GS3 YR 29,868.80 31,387.20 33,009.60 34,632.00 36,358.40 38,35.5:.20: MO 2,489.07 2,615.60- 2,750.80 2,886.00. 3,029.87 3,196.27 BW 1,148.80 1,207.20 1,269.60 1,332.00 1,398.40 1,475.20 H R 14.36 15.09 15.87 16.65 17.48 18.44 GS4 YR 33,009.60 34,632.00 36,400.00 38,230.40 40,123.20- 42,224.00. MO 2,750.80 2,886.00 3,033.33: 3,185.87 3,343.60.: 3,518.67. BW 1,269.60 1,332.00 1,400.00 1,470.40 1,543.20 1,624.00 HR 15.87 16.65 17.50 18.38 19.29 20.30 GS4E YR 35,464.00 37,190.40 39,124.80 41,121.60 43,160.00 45,364.80 MO 2,955.33 3,099.20 3,260.40 3,426.80 3,596.67 3,780.40: BW 1,364.00 1,430.40 1,504.80 1,581.60 1,660.00 1,744.80 H R 17.05 17.88. 18.81 19.77 20.75 21.81 GS5 YR 36,400.00 38,230.40. 40,123.20 42,224.00 44,345.60 46,571.20 MO 3,033.33 3,185.87 3,343.60 3,518.67 3,695.47 3,880.93 BW 1,400.00 1,470.40 1,543.20 1,624.00 1,705.60 1,791.20 HR 17.50 18.38 19.29 20.30 21.32 22.39 GSSE YR 39,124.80 41,121.60 43,118.40 45,364.80 47,611.20 50,003.20 MO 3,260.40 3,426.80 3,593.20 3,780.40 3,967.60 4,166.93 BW 1,504.80 1,581.60 1,658.40 1,744.80 1,831.20 1,923.20 HR 18.81 19.77 20.73 21.81 22.89 24.04 GS6 YR 40,123.20 42,224.00 44,345.60 46,571.20 48,921.60 53,976.00 MO 3,343.60 3,518.67 3,695.47 3,880.93 4,076.80 4,498.00 BW 1,543.20 1,624.00 1,705.60 1,791.20 1,881.60 2,076.00 HR 19.29 20.30 21.32 22.39 23.52 25.95 GS6E YR 43,118.40 45,364.80 47,632.00 50,003.20 52,520.00 57,990.40 MO 3,593.20 3,780.40 3,969.33 4,166.93 4,376.67 4,832.53 BW 1,658.40 1,744.80 1,832.00 1,923.20 2,020.00 2,230.40. . HR 20.73 21.81 22.90 24.04 25.25 27.88 a. Step 1 -Start b. Step 2 -One year from anniversary date. c. Step 3 -One year since last increase. • If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 3 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. d. Step 4 -One year since last increase. If an employee is rated Needs Improvement, the employee may not advance to Step 4 until performance is rated Satisfactory or higher. e. Step 5 -One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to' Step 5. f. Step 6 -One year since last increase. An employee must achieve a Satisfactory rating or better in all areas of responsibility before advancing to Step 6. Employees whose competency level and/or performance are rated Unsatisfactory may not advance to the next step until their performance improves. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December 2001. Martin J. Kirsch ATTEST: ~ancy Gibbs City Clerk Mayor • GENERAL SERVICES POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE GRADE POSITION TITLES CLASS • 1 Clerk Typist Data Entry Operator Non-Exempt Non-Exem t p Switchboard-Receptionist Non-Exempt 2 Community Development Technician Non-Exempt Community Service Officer Non-Exempt Custodian Non-Exempt Finance -Clerk Non-Exempt Lead Liquor Clerk Non-Exempt. Licensing Clerk Non-Exempf Police Cadet Non-Exempt Senior Clerk Typist Non-Exempt Senior Clerk Typist/Investigative Clerk Trans ortation S ecialist Non-Exempt N E t p p on- xemp 3 Accounting Clerk Non-Exempt Arena Operations Assistant Non-Exempf Code Compliance Specialist Non-Exempt Community Develo ment Technician II F I o Non-Exempt orestry nspector/ perations Assistant Non-Exempt Health/Licensing. Specialist Non-Exempt Leased Housing Assistant. Non-Exempt Secretary Non-Exempt 4 Assessment Clerk Non-Exempt Information Technologies Technician Non-Exempt Housing Inspector I Non-Exempt . 4E Administrative Aide Exempt Enterprise Facilitator Exempt Payroll Accountant Exempt Project Assistant Exempt Records Supervisor Exempt 5 Assistant Building Maintenance Supervisor Non-Exempt Engineering. Technician Non-Exempt Facility Maintenance Supervisor Non-Exempt Housing Inspector II Non-Exempt 5E Administrative Assistant Exempt Assistant Liquor Store Manager Exempt Civilian Crime. Prevention Specialist Exempt Community Center Programmer Exempt Community Development Accountant Exempt Community Development Specialist Exempt Human Services Planner/Coordinator Exempt Leased Housing Specialist Exempt Motor Vehicle Licensing Supervisor Exempt Planning and Research Specialist Exempt Recreation Supervisor Exempt Redevelopment Specialist Exempt Rehabilitation Specialist Exempt Youth Resource Specialist Exempt Zoning Administrator Exempt 6 • Electrical/Buildin Trade Inspector Network Administrator Non-Exempt Non-Exempt 6E Accountant Exempt (Rev. 12-01) r~ U U RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2002 SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 310.17 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield provides that the pay grades, the number of steps or range of each pay grade, the compensation rates in each pay grade and the method of normal progression through the pay grade be established by Council resolution; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2002 pay plan for the positions for which there are no essentially similar position classification in other regular pay plans. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2002 the following pay plan which is to be effective on January 1, 2002, the first full pay period in 2002 and subject to the provisions of the personnel rules and regulations ordinance: SPECIALIZED PAY PLAN INTERMITTENT AND SEASONAL Pay Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 SP1-E/NE HR 5.95 6.26 6.52 6.86 SP2-E/NE HR 6.58. 6.89 7.22 7.59 SP3-E/N E H R 7.09 7.45 7.82 8.21 SP4-E/NE HR 7.67 8.06 8.45 8.88 SP5-E/NE HR 8.25 8.69 9.12. 9.57 SP6-E/NE HR 8.96 9.40 9.85 10.35 SP7-E/NE HR 9.63 10.14 10.64 11.16 SP8-E/NE HR 10.42 10.95 11.49 12.06 SP9-E/NE HR .11.24 11.83 12.41 13.02 SP10-E/NE HR 12.18 12.78 13.43 14.11 SP11-E/NE HR 13.10 13.80 14.49 15.18 SP12-.E/NE HR 14.19 14.87 15.61 16.42 SP13-E/NE HR 15.20 16.02 16.85 17.72 Instructor's Range: $5.75 - $50 Election Judge: $7.25 Election Assistant Chair Person: $7.50 Election Chairperson: $8 • Normal Progression Through the Specialized Pay Plan Individual employees will be eligible to received increases to the next higher-grade step based on • individual performance and the following progression: Step 1 -Start Step 2 -One year from anniversary date Step 3 -One year from last increase Step 4 -One year from last increase Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs City Clerk • 1 E Pool Attendant E Maintenance Technician E Student Intern E Tennis Coordinator 2 NONE 9 NE Community Development Tech. 3 NE Bike Patrol Officer E Special Facilities Coordinator • NE Concession I (all sites EXCEPT Pool, 10 NE Adult Sports Coordinator Vet's & Taft) NE Engineering Aide NE Scorer/Timer E Pool Supervisor NE Recreation Attendant I E Playground Coordinator E Concession I (Pool, Vet's & Taft only) 11 NE Community Relations Coordinator E Facility- Rental Attendant 12 NONE 4 NE Arena Attendant 13 NE 911 Dispatcher NE Dance Coordinator & Skate Coordinator Instructors NE Recreation Attendant II (Men's Open NE Building. Inspector Gym & Sports Attendant) NE Figure Skating E Concession II NE Hockey (Arena) E Facility Cashier NE Housing. & Redevelopment Tech. E Mini Golf Attendant NE Sports Official E Recreation Attendant II (Parks Water NE Substitute. Naturalist Slide Attendant) NE Dance. 5 NE Adaptive Assistant E Cross Country Ski NE Custodian E Golf Professional NE Professional Intern- E Hockey (outside) NE Substitute Van Driver E Tennis NE Survey Crew Person E WSI NE Winter Sports Attendant OTHER E Warming House Attendant Election Judge $7.25 NE Adaptive Leader/Specialist Election Chair Person $7.50 NE Concession III (all sites EXCEPT Pool) Election Chairperson $8 NE Receptionist E Concession III NE=Non-Exempt, may work up to 40 hours per E Lifeguard week witho ut overtime pay. E Outdoor Skating Supervisor E-Exempt may work up to 48 hours per week E Playground Leader without overtime pay. E Warmin House Su ervisor g p All Pool positions are exempt from overtime, even Concessions. All Golf positions, except Concessions/Pro Shop positions, are E Mini Golf Supervisor exempt. 7 NE Accounting Clerk All Playground and outdoor Rink positions are exempt. NE AdaptlVe Program SUperVISOr All Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center, Ice Arena and Maintenance positions are non-exempt. NE Building Attendent (Revised 7-00) NE Concession Supervisor (all sites EXCEPT Pool) NE Construction Specialist NE Liquor Sales Associate NE Maintenance Laborer NE Naturalist I NE Zamboni Operator NE Video Production Assistant E Concession Supervisor E Pool Night Watch 8 NE Adaptive Coordinator • NE Administrative Services Clerk NE Clerk Typist -Int. & Substitute NE Construction Inspector NE Farmers Market Coordinator NE Publication Supervisor RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE 2002 MANAGEMENT • SALARY COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the municipal code of the City of Richfield provides for the adoption of a pay plan for Management employees from time-to-time; and WHEREAS, the City administration has prepared a 2002 pay plan for position classifications for Management employees. The City Manager is authorized to add or reclassify positions as necessary. Examples of positions in each pay grade are attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council do and hereby does establish for the year 2002 the following pay plan, which is to be effective January 1, 2002, the first full pay period in 2002 and subject to alf applicable provisions of the City. MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION PLAN PAY GRADE MINIMUM MID-RANGE MAXIMUM M-1 YR 46,467.20 53,102.40 59,737.60 MO 3,872.27 4,425.20 4,978.13 BW 1,787.20. 2,042.40 2,297.60 HR 22.34 25:53 28.72 M-2 YR 55,286.40 63,190.40 71,094.40 • MO 4,607.20: 5,265.87 5,924.53 BW 2,126.40 2,430.40 2,734.40 HR 26.58 30.38 34.18 M-3 YR 60,278.40 68,889.60 77,480.00 MO 5,023.20- 5,740.80 6,456.67 BW 2,318.40 2,649.60 2,980.00 HR 28.98 33.12 37.25 M-4 YR 62,379.20 71,281.60 80,204.80 MO 5,198.27 5,940.13 6,683.73 BW 2,399.20 2,741.60 3,084.80 HR 29.99 34.27 38.56 M-5 YR 74,235.20 84,843.20 95,430.40 MO 6,186.27 7,070.27 7,952.53 BW 2,855.20 3,263.20 3,670.40 HR 35.69 40.79 45.88 • c a~ aS ~ N cn ~ . ~ C ~ (6 N > ~ I- __ ~ Z O ~~ a ~ c~ ~ .~ ~ ca a~ u. ~ `" U O ° o ~+ \ \° ° O to f6 O) ~ c ^ ~ r C .~ _ ~ O O ~ ~ O O (fl O cv a O o ca ~ ~ W "'' cow > ~- ca .~. ~ m ~n~ O°.~~:. o m " ~_ y O ~ ~ d _ ~ O ~ ~ Z C. ~ • N - C .~ H ~ Z p v O N o ~' ~ . ~ a c ~° a d d L ~ ~ C- N C O ~ N ~ Z LL ~ ZDo o :.O-+~ ~ ~ N 'Q ~ ~ ~~ M ~~ r - ~~ ~~ m ~ ~ o °.~~ a~ n c ~ ~, L ~ .~ E .~ ~ f0 Q. ~ U O 'y C °c~~ Z ~ ca E ~ 7 ~ ~ ,~; a O ~ ~ ~ ~ m o ~ a _ ~ ~ N ~ _ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~o~nQ rn ~ Z (6 U O ~ ~' (M ~ ~ N N G 'L Z~(O~ (NO ~~ ~ ~ M ~ y ~ y r 1.1~ ~ ~ 'j N ~ - Q O . O. C to v~ W ~ ~>_ ~ ~ v Z ~ o ~•s~ "' ~, a~ Z' a~ Q a~ o ~ Z ~ • i ~ :~~-, v S O N p ~ ~ ~, LL~ O) N ~ O ~~a> W ~cao~~ !~ O 2, O .Q a O V N ~ N `~ N '''' " ~ N - ~ ~ O t6 fn > ,tq +r O ~. N M (n-oa ~ ~ ~ N N C OQfoZ~ 0 O N N .O U a~ 0 0 >, f~ 0 0 C a~ _U O U N L ~U C 7 O U U a~ t .n N N N f~ d O O U Y ~_ f~ N U ~ ,. U ~ ~ ~1 U r C I - ca Q Z MANAGEMENT POSITION CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE RANGE POSITION TITLES CLASS • M-1 Assistant to the City Manager Exempt Building Maintenance Supervisor Exempt City Clerk Exempt Facility/Program Manager Exempt Supervisor Exempt Health Administrator Exempt Liquor Store Manager Exempt Engineer -Project Exempt M-2 Chief Building Official Exempt Community Development Manager Exempt Information Technologies Manager Exempt Engineering Supervisor Exempt Housing & Redevelopment Manager Exempt Transportation Engineer Exempt M-3 Asst. Fire Chief/Fire Marshal Exempt Finance Manager Exempt: Human Resources Manager Exempt Operations Superintendent Exempt Utility Superintendent Exempt M-4 None Exempt M-5 Department Director ~ Exempt (Rev. 12-01) • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2002 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: SECTION 1. ESTABLISHING FEES A. License, permit and miscellaneous fees required under the ordinances of the City of Richfield shall be as stated in the sections of this Resolution. B. A period of no less than 30 days will be allowed for the remittance of City Business license renewal fees contained in Sections 5,7, 8 and 9 of this resolution. C. A 10% administrative surcharge will be assessed upon all renewals contained in Section 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the resolution if not received by the City on or before December 31st of each year. The 10% surcharge will be based upon the cost of the license. D. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the City to issue or renew any license for which the fee has not been paid in a timely manner. SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE (1) Building 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $23.50 Permits $501 to $2,000 $23.50 for the first $500 plus $3.05 each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000. $2,001 to $25,000 $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000. $25,001 to $50,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000. $50,001 to $100,000 $643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000. $100,001 to $500,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000. $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000. 1,000.001 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000,or fraction thereof. D-1 SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED ) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $47.00 per hour (minimum charge -two hours) (b) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8 $47.00 per hour (c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge - one-half hour) $47.00 per hour (d) Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revision to plans (minimum charge -two hours) $47.00 per hour *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of he employee involved. (2) Driveway, Parking Area Permits 515.05 (no permit fee for sidewalks) $ 25.00 (3) Fire Extinguishing System Permit 400.03-400.09 Based on Building Permit fee schedule with a minimum of $ 23.50 (4) Swimming 420.00 Permanent above or below ground pools are based Building Permit. Portable Pools $ 23.50 (No fee shall be charged for construction or erection of any pool 24 inches or less in depth at its deepest part and not exceeding 177 sq ft in water s urface) (5) Public Swimming 420.10 1st Pool $ 85.00 • Pool Inspection Each Additional $ 45.00 (b) Plan Review Fee 400.03-400.09 65% of building permit fee, except no fee for the foll owing: and State Building Code (a) Existing single family dwelling alterations when habitable area is not enlarged. (b) Single and two family dwelling repair and maintenance work. (c) .Commercial and industrial repair and maintenance work not exceeding $1,000 or where plans are not required. (d) Residential garages and storage buildings. (7) Contractors License Verification Fee Charged once each time a contractor applies for permit(s) $ 5.00 (8) Moving Dwellings 845 Pre-inspection Fee: IN Richfield $ 35.00 and Buildings other than Dwellings OUTSIDE Richfield $ 70.00 Moving Permit Fee: WITHIN Richfield $ 35.00 INTO Richfield $ 70.00 Moving Out of City $ 35.00 (9) Garage 845 Pre-inspection Fee: Moving (if relocated in City) $ 23.50. Garage Moving Permit Fee $ 16.00 (10) Structure Demolition 400.00-400.09 (a) Commercial Demolition cost as per Building Permit Schedule with a minimum of $ 23.50 (b) Dwelling 1. One or two story $ 23.50 2. Residential -Garage and lesser structure $ 11.50 D-2 SECTION 2 CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE • (1 1) Excavation in 800.01-800.15 For each transverse excavation and $100.00 Public each 100 feet or portion thereof longitudinal Right of way excavation and for each curb and gutter section installed or driveway apron installed, except when survey and grade stakes are set by City (12) Utility 700.05 (a) Sewer $ 20.00 Abandonment 710.01 (b) Water $ 20.00 (13) Certification Charge 705.03-705.21 (Delinquent) $ 25.00 • (14) (a) Sewer 700.05 Residential $ 35.00 Construction Industrial/Commercial $ 50.00 (b) Water Service 715.01. As per Ordinance - To connect to existing Service Connection water service leads at the curb box $ 35.00 To connect to main where a curb box and service lead is not installed the fee is the actual cost of material and estimated cost of labor. To turn on water after discontinuance of service $ 35.00 For raising or lowering stop-box tops to correspond with ground level change made by property owner. Cost plus 30% material and labor.: (15) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Residential (a) Minimum Fee 2% of Total Job cost with a minimum of $ 30.00 (b) Work required to comply with minimum Housing Code Provisions $ 18.00 (16) Plumbing Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial -Based on Total Job cost 2% of Estimated Job cost with a minimum of $ 40.00 (V) Electrical Permit 400.03-.400.09 Residential (a) Minimum Fee $ 30.00 (b) Complete Wiring Fee: Single Family Residence $ 55.00 Two Family Residence $106.00 (c) New Service - up to 200 amps $ 13.50 (d) Temporary Service - (for construction) $ 19.00 (e) Installation or replacement of each major appliance during or after completion of building $ 9.00 (f) Swimming Pools $ 25.00 (g) Wiring of Addition or rewiring: First Room $ 13.50 Each Additional Room $ 6.50 (h) Furnace or Air Conditioning: Per Unit $ 9.00 (i) Electrical Heating System: 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 19.00 (j) Electric or base board (Infrared Heaters): Per Circuit $ 9.00 (k) Work required to comply with minimum Housing Code provisions other than new service - 2% of contract cost with minimum of $ 1.8.00 (18) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Commercial, Industrial and multiple dwellings Commercial (more than two units) Minimum Fee $ 40.00 (a) Based on total job cost - 2% of estimated job cost with a minimum of $ 40.00 - Over $50,000 -Fee/ $1,000.00 plus 1 1 /2% of cost over $50,000.00 (b) Traffic Signals: Per Intersection $185.00 D-3 SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES (CONTINUED • • TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION .FEE (19) Electrical Permit 400.03-400.09 Based on 2% of cost of electrical job to customer with a minimum of $ 40.00 Signs (separate electrical permit required for signs) (20) Heating, 400.03-400.09 Central Systems and Additions, Alterations and Repairs Ventilating, Air 1 1 /2% estimated cost with a minimum of $ 30.00 Conditioning and Refrigeration (21) Heating, 400.03-400.09 (a) Fuel storage Tanks (Underground or Enclosed) Ventilation, Installation to be used with oil burner only. Air Conditioning, R efrigeration Per tank not exceeding 1,000 gal. $ 10.00 Storage Tanks Per tank exceeding 1,000 gal. $ 20.00 (b) Fuel Storage Tanks (Above.ground or not enclosed) Installation to be used with oil burner only. Per tank $ 10.00 (c) Other Tanks (Installation modification, removal, abandonment) Each above ground tank $ 30.00 Each below ground tank $ 80.00 For installation or alteration of piping $ 15.00 (22) Benches 805.01-805.27 First Year $ 75.00 Renewal $ 50.00 (23) Fire 400.21-400.29 For initial fee required under code Per year $ 25.00 Prevention Code For each additional fee required under code Per year $ .10.00 If not renewed within 2 months of notification add penalty of $ 15.00 (24) Sign 415.01-415.1 1 50 sq. ft. or less per sign $ 25.00 Installation Each additional 50 sq. ft. or less -per 50 sq. ft. $ 15.00 (a) Temporary sign permit $ 25.00 (b) Sign support structures based on building permit fee schedule (25) Parking Areas 800.15-800.23 $ 8.00 (26) Housing 400.11-400.17 First Unit $ 75.00 Inspection Fee Additional Unit $ 25.00 This fee should apply to each inspection when: l . Seller calls for minimum housing inspection 2. Homeowner calls for minimum housing inspection 3. House industry calls for minimum housing inspection 4. Government agencies call for minimum housing inspection 5. Private lending institution calls for minimum housing inspection • SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED LICENSE FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Heating and 400.07 Ventilating Installer (2) Sign Installer 16.01-416.13 (3) Electrical Installer 00.03-.400.09 State License Required (4) Plumber 400.03-400.09 State License Required (5) Well Driller 620 State License Required FEE 1 Year $ 60.00 1 Year $ 60.00 D-4 .] • SECTION 4. ZONING, LAND USE AND RELATED CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1)* Planned Unit 536 (a) $450 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a Development maximum fee of (2)* C-3 Zoning District .526.39 Site Plan Review Transitional Activity permit 526.63 (b) PUD Plan Amendment fee (a) $400 plus $5 / $1,000 of project value to a maximum fee of (b) Plan Amendment Fee $300 plus $5/ $1,000 of project value up to a maximum fee of (3)* Variance 546.09 Residential Non Residential Variance Appeal Residential and Non Residential (4)* Conditional 546.05 (a) change in use Use Permit (b) new construction or building addition up to 20,000 sq. Ft. (c) new construction. or building addition over 20,000 sq. Ft. $550 + $.50/$1,000 of construction value up to a maximum fee of (5)* Zoning District FEE $3,000.00 $ 500.00 $3,000.00 $ 500.00 $3,000.00 $ 225.00 $ 400.00 $ 75.00 $ 350.00 $ 550.00 $3,000.00 Change 546.07 $ 450.00 (6)* Subdivision Approval 500.01-500.05 $ 500.00 Subdivision Waiver 500.05-Subd.2 $ 300.00 * Any additional exp ense of notification necessitated by applicants request for continuance will be charged to the applicant. (7) Off-street Parking Permit 541.07 (a) As part of conditional use permit process No Fee 800.15-800.23 (8) Street Vacation 820 (9) Forestry Permit 810 (10) Conditional Activity Permit 521.103 (1 1) Nonconforming Use Permit 521.105 (12) Boulevard feature 81 1.07 Permit (b) In conjunction with permitted use (a) Application to place a privately owned feature in the boulevard SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Arcade 1 105 (2) Amusement 1 100.01 (a) Mechanical Amusement Device (Pinball) Device (b) Mechanical Music Box (c) Video Games $ 300.00 $ 350.00 $ 20.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 20.00 FEE 1 Year $ 300.00 1 Year $ 15.00 1 Year . $ 15.00 1 Year $ 15.00 D-5 SECTION 5. AMUSEMENT AND RECREATION LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION . (3) Lawful Gambling 1 100.13 Bingo, Tipboard, Paddle Wheel, Raffle, Pull Tabs (a) Lawful Gambling Permit (those exempt from State Licensure) (State Statute 349.213). (b) Lawful Gambling Investigative Fee (State. Statute 349.16) STATE LICENSE REQUIRED (4) Itinerant Place of Amusement (5) Public Dance {6) General Amusement 1 100.05-1 100.1 1 1 1 10.03 1 100.03 (7)Musical Concert 1 1 10.01 (8) Theatre Cinema 1 120 • (9) Roller Rink 1 1 15 (10) Commercial Adult- 605 Oriented Enterprises (1 1) Masseur/Masseuse 605 (12) Public Baths 610 (13) Fortune Teller 1 130.05-1 130.07 and related trade FEE 1 year $ 100.00 1 year $ 100.00 1 day $ 160.00 For each day dances are held - $2 1 month $ 25.00 No fee for locations holding tavern licenses. (a) Billiard, Pool or Pigeonhole table (each) 1 year $ 15.00 1. Coin operated 1 year $ 15.00 (b) Bowling Alley (per Idne) 1 year $ 25.00 (c) Circus 1 year $ 129.00 (d) Dance Hall 1 day $ 129.00 (e) Golf 1. Miniature 1 year $ 30.00 2. Driving Tee 1 year $ 30.00 (f) Mountback 1 day $ 124.00 (g) Rides, mechanical/animal of any kind (ea) 1 year $ 15.00 (h) Shows, any kind 1 day $ 124.00 (i) Shuffleboard (each lane) 1 year $ 14.00 (j) Other games 1 day $ 15.00 Per event $ 25.00 Plus a notice publication fee 1 year or portion thereof Investigation fee Certificate fee Investigation fee Investigation fee (actual cost minimum) (14) Adult Establishments 1 196 Annual license Investigation fee (new license) SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION 1 year $ 124.00 $ 6.50 $ 124.00 1 year $1,500.00 1 Year $1,500.00 1 year $ 50.00 1 year $ 124.00 1 year $1,737.00 $ l , 737.00 1 day $ 100.00 1 week $ 300.00 1 month $ 600.00 1 year $1,000.00 1 year $1,500.00 $1, 500.00 OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Animals 905.01-905.29 (a) Animals (Spayed or Neutered) 1 year with option to purchase amulti-year license (b) Animals (Not Spayed or Neutered) 1 year (c) Duplicate Animal License (d) Late Penalty • 905.31-905.33 (e) Commercial Kennel l year (f) Residential Kennel 1 year (g) Veterinary 905.37-905.39 (h) Pigeons 1 year 905.41 (i) Non-domestic Animals (Temporary Permit) FEE $ 8.00 $ 12.00 $ 5.50 $ 5.00 $ 150.00 $ 85.00 $ 150.00 $ 30.00 $ 20.00 D-6 • • r-~ SECTION 6. ANIMAL LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) 905.01-905.29. (j) Impounding (each animal) 1st time 2nd Time 3rd time (each impound after) SECTION 7. VEHICLE AND TRANSPORTATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Bicycle 1335 Minnesota State. Registration (2) Aircraft 1340 (3) Food Vehicle 615. (a) Bakery vehicle (4) Garbage and Refuse Collection 601.01-601.33 (5) Motor Vehicle Dealer 1 155 (b) Motor Bicycle Business 1 160 (7) Sound Truck 1 165 (8) Taxicab 1170 (9) Taxicab Driver 1 175 (10) Rental or Utility 1 185 Trailers and Trucks (b) Catering -for first food vehicle Second vehicle Each .additional vehicle (c) Readily perishable (Same as (b) above) Commercial and Residential First vehicle Each additional vehicle Per place of business Each additional place of business Per place of business Per place of business to sell, rent or lease Per vehicle Per vehicle First vehicle or auto livery Each additional vehicle or auto livery operated at any time within license period Each place of business $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 75.00 FEE 1 day $ 30.00 1 year $ 75.00 1 year $160.00 1 year $ 65.00 1 year $ 35.00 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 day 1 year 1 year 1 year $150.00 $ .32.00 $225.00 $ 85.00 $129.00 $ 65.00 $129.00 $ 20.00 $325.00 $ 40.00 $ 30.00 1 year $ 65.00 $ 80.00 $ 80.00 $ 20.00 $210.00 SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION (1) Firearms Dealer 920.01-920.05 (2) Itinerant Food 615 Establishment (3) Retail Candy 615 First facility Shop Each additional on same premises (4) Food Establishment 615 FEE 1 year $1,000.00 1 year 1 year 1 year (a) Retail or Wholesale Food Sales (Grocery) 1 year (b) Restaurant (Prepackaged food only sold for consumption) 1 year (c) Restaurant (Prepared food sold for consumption) 1 year (d) Plan Review Fee (New/remodeled food preparation facility/veterinary clinic/daycare facility/public swimming pools) (e) Additional Food Facilities (Baked goods, meat, produce, microwave ovens) Each D-7 $210.00 $395.00 $200.00 $ 1.00 SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUE TYP E OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (5) Vending Machine 615 (a) Food vending machine requiring coin or token (excepting those machines dispensing bottled or canned soft drinks) 1 year $ 15.00 (b) Other food vending machines (excepting those dispensing bottled or canned soft drinks) 1 year $ 15.00 (c) Ice vending machine 1 year $ 15.00 (6) Automobile Washing Establishment 1 125 Per calendar year or fraction thereof $ 100.00 (7) Scavenger 600.25 Each vehicle 1 .year $ 30.00 Permit fee for opening cesspool or dumping contents of each cesspool into City sewer $ 15.00 (8) Incinerator 600.01-600.23 1 year $ 30.00 (9) Tobacco 1 146.01 (MS 461.12) Retail Sale and Distribution -License issued on $ 250.00 calendar year (cigarette vending machines prohibited) (Bill No. 1998-19) (10) Soft drink 1 145.01 (a) Cans, bottles from shelf or cooler, fountain service $ 25.00 (b) Vending machine dispensing bottles or cans -0- (c) Other vending machines Per year or fraction thereof $ 25.00 Per each additional machine $ 25.00 (1 1) Transient Merchant 1181.01-1181.09 1 day $ 60.00 (12) Wagon Peddler 1181 1 year $ 150.00 (13) Christmas Tree Sales 1 130.03 1 year $ 80.00 (14) Motel 1 190 First Unit $ 140.00 Per year each additional unit $ 9.00 (15) Outdoor Merchandising 1135 Permit $ 65.00. (16) Storage Enclosure 1 135 Per Enclosure $ 56.00 (17) Pawnbroker 1 187 (a) Pawnbroker 1 year $2 ,500.00 (b) Owner investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $1 ,500.00 (c) Manager investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $ 500.00 (d) Employee investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1 year $ 50.00 (e) Transaction fee -per transaction $ 1.50 (18) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 186 (a) Secondhand Goods Dealer 1 year $ 300.00 (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) $1 ,200.00 actual costs in excess of above with total not exceeding • Applicant shall deposit $1200.00 with Licensing Clerk along with application. Amount in excess of actual application costs shall be refunded. D-8 SECTION 8. COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND TRADE LICENSES AND PERMITS (CONTINUED) (19) Auto Detailing 1 195.01 Establishment 1 year $ 225.00 • (20) Tattoo, Body Piercing, 630 (a) Tattoo, body piercing, body painting Body Painting or Body or body branding 1 year $ 500.00 Branding (b) Initial investigation fee (nonrefundable) 1-year $1,500.00 (21) Temporary Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body 630 per booth $ 30.00 Branding and Body painting events (22) Massage 1188 Annual license 1 year $ 500.00 Therapy Enterprise Investigation fee (new license) $ 500.00 License (Business license) Massage Therapist Annual license 1 year $ 50.00 License (Individual li cense) Investigation fee (new license) $ 50.00 Temporary Massage Per temporary location $ 100.00 Therapist License SECTION 9. LIQUOR AND RELATED LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING DESCRIPTION FEE (1) Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor 1210 (a) On-Sale 1 year $ 550.00 (b) Tavern (dance) 1 year $ 450.00 (c) Wholesale 1 year $ 21.00 (d) Off-Sale 1 year $ 160.00 (e) Club (Bottle Club) 1 year $ 365.00 (2) Liquor. 1200.01-1200.25, 1200.29-1200.39 (a) On-Sale 1 year $11,200.00 1215 (b) Sunday (Fee set by state law) 1 year $ 200.00 1225 (c) Wine 1 year $ 800.00 1200.01-1200.25 (d) Veterans' Organization (Ex-Sunday) I year $ 520.00 1200.29-1200.39 (3) Employee License 1200.01-1200.25, Effective 10/1/95 all licenses issued shall be valid On-Sale Liquor 1200.29-1200.39 for a period of two years from the date of initial Establishments application $ 21.00 (4) Investigation 1200.01-1200.25, (a) On-Sale liquor including Veterans' Organizati on Fee 1200.29-1200.39 each person shown on application $500.00 and actual costs in excess of above. Each additional investigation for each person not listed on original or renewal application. $ ~ 150.00 1225 (b) Wine - Original Application initial Fee $275,00 and actual costs in excess of above with total fee not to exceed $2,107.00 Renewal Application Initial Fee $62.00 and actual costs in excess of above with total cost not to exceed $2,107.00 1200.09 Additional Investigation under 1200.09 Subd. 3 $124.00 and not to exceed $2,107.00 Investigation of substitute manager $ 62.00 r~ U D-9 SECTION 10 -MISCELLANEOUS FEES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING • (1) Registration 1 181 (2) Permit to reside 1 190 (3) License for 405.25 Apartment Houses and Rental Homes • (4) Certificate of Housing mainter Compliance (5) Permit Fee for Rooming House (b) Permit to Carry a Gun DESCRIPTION (a) State hawker or Peddler license 6 month/per person covered (b) Canvasser or Solicitor 6 month/per person covered In motel for more than six months (a) Apartment House (includes first 4 Units) 1 year each additional unit in excess of 4 (b) Rental Home -single family dwelling 1 year (c) Duplexes/double bungalows, triples and quads First unit 1 year Each additional rental unit 1 year (d) Late Fee 10% penalty for each month or portion thereof during which said fee remains unpaid. (e) License Transfer Fee (f) Reinstatement of suspended license 50% of license fee (g) Reinstatement of Revoked license 100% of license fee 405.26 Dance (a) Single family home or owner/occupied portion of a 2-family home 405.19 Iv1n Uniform Crime Bill (a) Processing Fee Chapt 636 Article 3 FEE $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 15.00 $ 60.00 $ 8.50 $60.00 $60.00 $21.00 $10.00 $60.00 1 year $75.00 $10.00 Per load $20.00 $75.00 $25.00 (7) Seasonal Load Limit Exemption (8) Antenna 426 (a) CWTS antenna permit application fee Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Service (b) Antenna permit fee for additional antennas (CWTS) added to an existing antenna location Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of December, 2001. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch Mayor Nancy Gibbs City Clerk D-10 . December 10, 2001 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Budget Message for the 2002 Fund Budgets and the 2001 Revised Fund Budgets Council Members: In accordance with the Charter of the City. of .Richfield, submitted for your consideration are the recommended budgets for the City of Richfield for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 and for the remainder of the calendar. year 2001. Hearings on the proposed .budget will be scheduled for December. 2001. Pursuant to law, the City Council must certify the .new budget and the revenue required to be raised by ad valorem tax levy to the County Auditor. The deadline for the certification is December 29, 2001. A proposed 2002 ax levy must be submitted to the County Auditor on ich wou d increatsemther property ~ax levy, • amendments to the proposed budget, wh must be made prior to the September 15, 2001 proposed levy certification deadline. No increases in tax levy are permissible after that date, only reductions. The resolution required to certify the 2002 Budget and the levy has been prepared based on the proposed budget. This resolution, together with the proposed budget resolution revising the 2001 Budget, may be found in the last section of the Budget Document. The Budget Document includes the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Internal Service Funds, Enterprise Funds, Debt Service Funds, and Capital Improvement projects. A diagram of GeneralnFund and the Spelc al Revenue Introductory Section. .Budgets for th Funds are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Budgetary control for Capital Projects Funds is accomplished through the use of project controls, and for the Debt Service Funds by bond indentures.. An administrative organization chart, which summarizes all departments and divisions in the City, is included. in the Introductory Section. This chart indicates the divisions for which each department is responsible. The 2002 Proposed Budget includes total appropriations of $53,230,630 including all capital outlay, inter-fund transfers, and bond payments. • OVERVIEW PROSPECTIVE The 2001 Minnesota Legislature, with the passage of the Omnibus Tax Bill, has enacted a property tax reform program. The new tax bill is expected to provide property tax relief to property owners, compress tax rates, reduce levies, change the state-local fiscal relationship and take over payment of transit operating costs and general education. The planned effect of these changes should be a reduction in the total tax levy for property owners, with the amount of levy attributable to each unit of local government changing. For example, school district levies will fall, while City and County levies will rise. Finally, the Legislature re- established levy limits on local municipalities. The effects of the new tax laws on the City of Richfield are dramatic. Richfield has always been one of the communities in the metropolitan area most heavily dependent on revenue sharing programs such as Local Government Aid (LGA), Homestead and .Agricultural Aid (HACA) and Fiscal Disparities. With the passage of the new laws, there will be significant changes in the levels of aid received by Richfield. LGA, which consists of sales and income tax revenue collected by the State and redistributed to local governments to reduce the property tax burden, will decrease an estimated $530,000 or 14%. Moreover, HACA was eliminated by the Legislature, which translates into a loss of state aid to the City of $1.9 million.. The Fiscal Disparity program is a mechanism for tax base sharing for new commercial/Industrial property development. Under the program, a certain percentage of new commerciallindustrial growth in the metropolitan area is contributed to a pool. The tax base growth is then redistributed to all cities in the seven county metropolitan area based upon a needs formula. The compression of tax rates will have the effect of reducing the amount of fiscal disparities received by the City. In view of the changes brought by the new tax laws, Richfield was faced with the challenge to present a tax levy that remained within levy limits while trying to counter the loss of at least $2.5 million in state aids and maintain the level of services that residents expect and appreciate. As a result, a gross tax levy increase of 11.77%, which includes a levy :for the lost LGA and HACA, was presented to the City Council for the next budget year. In addition, in an effort to meet the challenge of the new laws, Richfield will issue Equipment Certificates, a form of short-term debt, supported by a special tax levy and a levy to meet the PERA increases in addition to the general tax levy. The effect of these two additional levies to the general levy is a total levy increase of 21 %. As a consequence of the new laws, Richfield must reform itself and examine the services it provides to determine if the services can be provided in a more efficient cost effective manner. The commitment will always be to provide superior, basic services, however, any expansion in services must be met with reduction of services in other areas or implementation of user fees. In light of this, the focus of the 2002 budget will target a number of issues. First, the City again will continue an aggressive street maintenance program to extend the useful life of the City's streets. The .program includes a computer based pavement management system, crack sealing and seal coating. Without these maintenance programs, a number of City streets would begin to deteriorate beyond a point which would render them unrepairable. A significant portion of the funding needed to implement the program will be provided through matured debt service funds from the. original permanent street assessments of the early 1970's. The remainder of the funds will be provided through the general tax levy. Second, staff continues to look at reallocating human resource costs to provide the most cost effective service delivery model wherever such an opportunity may present itself. Positions may be left vacant or be replaced with either. first. line or non-supervisory level positions. Staff will ~ontinue to explore opportunities to make such adjustments.: Third, close attention must continue with respect to the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport. The following is a synopsis of the City's position with regards to the airport and it's affect. .During 2001, the City has spent approximately $144,573 year to date on efforts in the 87 dBp w noise mitigation funding and proceed with the acquisition of residential prop rty frequency noise contour. The following is a summary of these efforts: The City utilized the $5 million in state funding from the 2000 Legislature to acquire 25 single- family homes on 18th Avenue, north of 66th Street. The acquisition and relocation process was extremely successful and marked .the beginning of efforts to take care of the residents most adversely impacted by the new North/South Runway. Although some of the homes had to be demolished, the majority are being removed and resold. The City has been working collaboratively with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) staff to develop a strategy to use the $10 million in federal funds secured by Congressman Sabo for noise mitigation in .Richfield. The funds will allow the City to continue with. the residential acquisition process in the 87 dB. Despite intensive efforts to secure additional state funding, the 2001 Legislature did not provide any new money for noise mitigation in Richfield. The City had introduced two bills before the Legislature:.. • One requested an additional appropriation of $30 million. to continue the buyout of homes in the 87 dB noise contour. • The second bill was a collaborative effort with other airport-affected communities, requesting an identified funding stream to be available to those communities to implement noise mitigation projects. Richfield would have been able to access the first $30 million in funds. This bill survived until the last da s t xhon rental Icaes from 6T g%•evenue would have been generated by increasing the sale The City visited with its legislative delegation and FAA officials in Washington D.C. to push for a quick review of the Low Frequency Noise Report and the development of national standards to address low frequency noise impacts. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) reviewed the report in June 2001 and two of the 3-member expert panel presented testimony on the contents of the report. The FAA has not indicated when their final determination will be made. The City- continued. to participate on the Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) as part of the Municipal Caucus after the airline members withdrew from the organization in October 2000. The City was active in the Part 150 Update process and., • specifically, in extending the sound insulation package to the 60 DNL contour. The City has continued to communicate airport updates in Your City and created a special insert on the Low Frequency Noise Report in the November 2000 issue. The City was nationally recognized by the N.O.I.S.E. organization .for its significant contributions in addressing airport noise issues. Fourth, Richfield continues to encourage commercial redevelopment within the City. However, a major obstacle to this is that over 99% of the land area in Richfield is already developed. Therefore, commercial redevelopment within the City can be a very complex process. Accordingly, to assist with commercial redevelopment the City has used tax increment financing to facilitate this development. In response to this need, the City has created twenty tax increment financing districts. Two examples are the Lyndale/Hub/Nicollet (LHN) and the Interstate/Lyndale/Nicollet (ILN) districts, both are successful and-well established districts. Presently, the City has 3 major redevelopment projects in varying stages: • Lyndale Gateway -The Lyndale Gateway redevelopment is a three- phase project. The first phase, Mainstreet Village Senior Apartments, includes 160 units of senior housing plus 25,000 square feet of office space. The second .phase is the Casteel Place townhomes. Casteel Place consists of 40 townhomes, all of which have been pre-sold and are due to be completed by the end of 2001. Plans for the third phase are unknown at this time. Proposals from potential developers are being solicited. • Interchange West -The Best Buy "Corporate Campus" will contain about 1.6 million square feet of office space and will house up to 7,500 employees. Best Buy has purchased all properties and began construction in August 2001. Best Buy employees should begin moving into the completed. Corporate Campus at the end of 2002. The Cedar Avenue Airport Redevelopment Area -The City will utilize $10 million in federal funds o purchase properties impacted by airport activities. Most of the properties that will be acquired are residential uses. However, some commercial uses may also be purchased in order to facilitate redevelopment for land uses that are more compatible with the airport activities. The redevelopment of the area will be staged and will take at least ten years to accomplish. • City Bella -City Bella is a mixed-use development at 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue being proposed by the Gramercy Corporation.. The project was introduced and approved by the City and HRA in 2000. Due to the restructuring of the private project financing and recent changes in state property tax laws, the City Bella proposal has been revised. Reintroduced in July 2001, the development includes a 125-unit, 18-story non-age restricted for sale cooperative building at the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street; 30,000 square feet of commercial and restaurant space on Lyndale, a 34-unit, three-story senior cooperative building on Lake Shore Drive just west of the new Gramercy Cooperative building; and a public plaza at the center of the development. Construction is anticipated to start in the Spring of 2002. The City's efforts in commercial redevelopment have .been complemented by a strategy to upgrade the City's housing. The strategy involves three programs currently in use: Richfield Rediscovered Program - This program provides for the replacement of substandard houses within residential neighborhoods and is funded through tax increment financing. Richfield Remodeling - This program .helps residents perform improvements on their houses. Since the program began, over 1,000 homes have undertaken remodeling projects valued in .excess of $10,000. New Home Program -This program is similar to Richfield Rediscovered in that the goal is to replace deteriorated, substandard structures. The difference is that the tax increment financing is not used and it is set up as an opportunity to provide home ownership for low to moderate income families. Participants in the program include Habitat for Humanity, Hennepin Technical College and Affordable Suburban Housing. GENERAL FUND The General Fund is established for the payment of all general government expenditures and obligations of the City as the Council may deem proper. The General Fund accounts for all • monies not required to be accounted for in any other fund type. Revenues The City's General Fund, which provides for essential and other City services residents have come to expect, receives it's funding from a number of sources. The two greatest sources of revenue for the General Fund are property taxes and state aids. However, as previously mentioned, with the passage of the new tax laws, the amount of state aids received will be reduced by over $2.5 million. The dramatic reduction of state aids put pressure on other sources of general fund revenue as well as, and most importantly, the general fund tax levy. It is expected that the proposed tax levy will increase significantly as a result of levying to make up for lost state aids. However, the increase will be limited to statutorily imposed levy limits, which will make it difficult for the City to fund its commitment to provide basic services to its residents. For 2002, the City's proposed gross tax levy has increased 21 % over the prior year. The gross tax levy is made up of three elements: The General Fund Base Levy which is limited to the statutorily imposed levy limits. The Equipment Certificates which are to be used to purchase capital equipment. • A levy to cover additional costs due to increased contribution rates from PERA. The estimated effect of the 2002 City tax levy on a $140,000 properly in Richfield, excludin4 market value growth, is an increase of $254.19 per year. The reason for the. increase relates directly to the Omnibus Tax Bill, which shifts school district costs to the State of Minnesota and cuts LGA and HACA aid for cities. As a result, cities have been forced to levy for lost state aids. However, with the state taking responsibility for all education costs, except for special education levies, a Richfield property owner will see a significant reduction in school district taxes paid. It is hoped that the net effect of an increased City levy and a decreased school district levy will result in an overall decrease in taxes paid for 2002. The 2002 budgeted General Fund revenues of $16,739,490 represents a 4.92% increase over the 2001 Adopted Budget. The increase is comprised primarily of a 44.76% increase in property taxes and a 56.5% increase in transfers in. :The large increase in property tax revenue is an effort to make up for lost state aids and to offset a 36.43% decrease in intergovernmental. revenues where LGA and HACA are reported. A comparison of actual General Fund revenues for 1997 to adopted 2002 General Fund revenues is shown in figures 1 and 2 below. 1997 GENERAL FUND REVENUES •10% d% 4: 3% ~% ^ Taxes ^ License & Permit Olntergov't Revenue p Charge for Service ^ Fines 8~ Forteit ^ Misc. Revenue ^ Transfers Figure 1 2002 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 1% 7% 25% 5°k ~% ^ Taxes ^ License & Permit ~ Intergov't Revenue ~, D Charge for Service I, ^ Fines & Forfeit ', ®Misc. Revenue ^ Transfers Figure 2 Expenditures The City's General Fund is used to account for most of the City's general government operations. such as police. fire. public works. narks. recreation and aeneral administration. Richfield's General Fund is organized into .seven major departments, Legislative/Executive, Administrative Services, Public Safety, Fire, Community Development, Public Works, and Recreation Services. Each department, in turn, encompasses divisions that provide an array of services, either directed to the public or in support of other City services. A General Fund organization chart, which includes all departments and divisions, is shown in the General Fund section of the document. City policy requires that all budgeted expenditures must be approved by a Division Manager, Department Director, and the City Treasurer. Any expenditures over $1,000 must be approved by the City Manager and expenditures over $25,000 must be approved by the City Council Figure 3 1992 GEL\E}~t- FIND ©CPEI~DIII~ES ~~a pia ^ ^ Actrin Svcs p Public Safely ~ Carrrn Dev ~ ComnSvcs Figure 4 1997 GENERAL. FUND EXPENDITURES ..s. 10% 5'~O 7°k ^ l~egauF~cec. ^Admin. Svcs. ^ Public Safety ~ Comm. Dev. ^ Maintenance p 1J61ities 8~ Eng ^ Recxeation • Figure 5 2002 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 9% 2°/ 74% o~ ^ l.egaUExec ^Admin Svcs D Public Safety O Fire ^ Comm Dev ^ Public Works ~ Rec Svcs ®Transfers It is logical that over a period of years, the types and mix of city services would likely change as the community changes. However, in a mature community such as Richfield, it is also important that a consistent balance of services be maintained, even in the face of budgetary constraints. Richfield's mix of services as seen through an expenditure analysis of the seven major departments reflects a stable, consistent approach. As can be seen, the 2002 expenditures are consistent with the expenditures from 1992 and 1997 (Figures 3, 4, and 5). In the 2002 Budget, 58% of the total expenditures are designated for Public Safety and Fire department operations, while an additional 20% is designated for Public Works operations. As a comparison, the 2000 actual expenditures reflected 56% and 21 % of total expenditures for the Public Safety, -Fire and Public Works departments, respectively. Thus, while there have been minor adjustments, the balance of services provided by the major departments remains relatively constant. While some new programs have been added, others have been eliminated or reduced. City staff limited 2002 expenditure increases for all departments of the General Fund in an effort to maintain the current level of City services and in response to the Omnibus Tax Law changes. As a result, -each department was affected both for the 2001 and 2002 Budget years.. The most significant issues for the 2001 Revised and 2002 General Fund Budgets are summarized in the following section. 2001 REVISED AND 2002 PROPOSED BUDGETS Multi-department Considerations In an effort to present a balanced budget. and remain within statutorily imposed levy limits, the City is issuing Equipment Certificates to purchase capital equipment. These certificates are short-term borrowing supported by a separate tax levy above imposed levy limits. The use of certificates will have the effect of reducing charges from Internal Service Funds to General Fund departments. In .addition to the equipment certificates, the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA), has increased contribution rates .35%, .which amount to another $26,000 in costs. State Statutes provide for the City to levy for this additional cost above imposed levy limits. ~% rJ% 6% Leg islative/Executive No significant changes from the 2001 adopted budget are contained in either the 2001 revised or 2002 budgets. The overall budget increase for 2002 is 2.01 %. Administrative Services The Administrative Services department. budget for 2002 reflects a 5.67% decrease from 2001 adopted. This was achieved through keeping expenditures .down, transition in the City Clerk division and not filling a vacated position. Community Development No significant changes from the 2001 Ado title b dueg ncrease fora2002 is 2 25%. the 2001 revised or 2002 proposed budgets. The ove 9 Public Safety The Public Safety department shows a 3.61 % increase in the 2002 proposed budget over the adopted 2001 budget. The Inspections division within the department shows an 19% increase in 2002 as compared to 2001 adopted. This increase is offset by an increase in building permit revenues received in 2001 but carried over to 2002. ' Fire The Fire department. budget for 2002 reflects a 14.80% increase over 2001 adopted. The cause for the increase is a combination of charges that were previously paid by Public Safety divisions and are now passed on to Fire, plus 800 MHz costs for dispatching services. Public Works The 2002 Public Works department budget reflects a 6.51 % increase over the 2001 adopted. The majority of the increase is a result of increased personnel and consultant costs to be experienced by the Engineering division associated with development projects in the City. Recreation Services There were no significant changes. in the Recreation Services Department from the 2001 adopted to the 2002 proposed. The overall increase in the budget is 4.02%. The 2001 Revised General Fund Budget includes three transfers out that amount to $567,480. The transfers include $15,000 to the elections fund, $191,900 to fund airport mitigation expenditures and $360,580 of building permit fees to be carried over to 2002. The $191,900 transfer for airport mitigation, is funding for 2001 and 2002 budgeted expenditures. The 2002 Budget reflects the annual $15,000 transfer to the Elections Fund. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Community Development Block Grant The Community Development Block Grant Fund is funded by grants administered by Hennepin County. One program funded for 2000/2001 is the Greater Minneapolis Day Care Program, which provides a sliding fee subsidy of childcare for Richfield residents when a family is not able to obtain other funding. The Home Program provides maintenance services to low and moderate income elderly households. This fund also accounts for the purchase of homes with CDBG funds under the HRA New Home Program. In the near future, use of some of these funds should be considered for an elevator at City Hall to meet accessibility standards. Liquor Contribution Fund The Liquor Contribution Fund receives profits from the municipal off-sale liquor operations. Expenditures from the fund are restricted in use to financing capital improvements of the type which would be otherwise financed by a general obligation bond issue. In 2001, projects totaling $625,000 are planned. Some of the planned projects are park playfeature replacement, park maintenance, second ice. sheet loan repayment, and park shelter replacements. In 2002 $545,000 of project costs are planned. .Planned projects include Community Center renovation, Tri City Skate Park, general park maintenance, and refurbishing of ice arena air conditioning. Transfers of $600,000 will be made from the Liquor stores in 2001 and $500,000 in 2002 to fund the projects. Drug/Felonv Forfeiture The Drug/Felony Forfeitures Fund receives its revenues as a result of cash and property seized related to drug and/or felony criminal activity. The 2002 budget reflects the costs of providing money to the Special Investigation Unit to purchase narcotics and pay informants in narcotic investigations. The legislature has not provided funds for this purpose in recent years. Contribution Funds Recreation programs, Community Center, Nature Center, and Veterans Memorial Park, Funds all receive contributions from a variety of contributors throughout the year. Funds will only be expended from these accounts if the contributions are received. Tourism Administration This fund accounts for the collection of lodging tax revenues and the pass-through of these funds to the Richfield Tourism Promotion Board.. The Tourism Promotion Board .plans activities to promote the City as a tourist or convention center and to promote civic activities, which enhance the City's positive image.., Cable TV The Cable Television Fund is maintained to account for the quarterly cable franchise fees received and cable television and community communication. activities. The fund provides 60% of the cost of the Assistant City Manager position. to .assist in cable activities, the City's newsletter and other communication activities such as the Community-wide visioning process, payment of cable news broadcast capital outlay and related activities. Community Center - Davs Out This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures relating to the Days Out Program administered by the Richfield Community Center.: A committee of Community Center participants meets to provide direction for planning one day to two week trips for individuals over 55 years of age. .The cost of the programs vary depending on the destination and duration of the trips. 911 Fees The 911 Fees Fund is used to account for the 911 fees distributed monthly to the City from the State of Minnesota. The fees can only be used to-help cover the costs of implementing and maintaining enhanced 911 systems. The total fees expected to be received in 2001 and 2002 are $21,000 and $23,000 respectively.. In 2001, $77,000 is budgeted to ofFset the cost of upgrading the dispatch center to the 800 MHz system, and other 911 system upgrades. Recovered Property Fund The Recovered Property Fund is used to account for proceeds received from vehicles sold that were seized as a result of DUI arrests. These funds must be used for alcohol related education and enforcement. Election Fund. The Election Fund was established to isolate the large fluctuation ime-in election costs from year to year. The fund provides voter registration services, voter information services and election administration. Pension Refund Fund This fund accounts for a refund of over funded. assets from the terminated Police and Fire Consolidation Fund (PFCF). The refund was received in 1999 and amounted to $7,621,322. The use of the funds is restricted to interest earnings on the principal amount received and to only public safety and fire expenditures.. In 2001 and 2002 $382,330 .and $266,750 is planned for public safety and fire expenditures- respectively. ENTERPRISE FUNDS Liguor_Stores The City of Richfield operates four municipal liquor stores. Total sales for the existing four liquor stores for 2001 are projected to be to $9.3 million and grow to $9.8 million in 2002. Operating expenses budgeted for 2002 for the four stores total $1.4 million. Increases in operating-expenses reflect an increase in personnel costs for full and part-time employees and an increase in utility expenses. For the four stores, profit before transfers for 2002 is expected to be $795,900 with budgeted transfers to the Special Revenue Fund of $500,000 and $198,320 to the General Fund. Water and Wastewater Utility Fund The Water and Wastewater Utility Fund accounts for the operation and maintenance of the City's water plant and the maintenance of 120 miles of sanitary sewer lines. Revenues reflect a slight increase for 2002 due to an increase in water and sewer rates from 2001 to 2002. In 2002, water rates are proje ~eas °eseonse to an ncrease of 4 2%antMetropolitan are projected to be increased by 2.18 p Council Environmental Services (MCES) charges for 2002 The Wastewater Utility Fund provides collection of sanitary wastewater from approximately 11,500 accounts in the City. The 2002 sanitary wastewater expense budget is approximately $2.5 million. The most significant expense included in this total is the wastewater treatment charges paid to MOLE ncreased in hesponse to MCES increases?oThe .2002. Sanitary wastewater rates for 20 graph below shows a history of MCES charges since 1997. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIROMENT~-L SERVICES CHARGES W $2,000,000 $1,500,000 ~ $1,000,000 °z $500,000 W a x W $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 YEAR Storm Sewer Utility Fund The Storm Sewer .Utility Fund provides for the disposal of storm water for the City and is funded through user fees. In 1994, the City's Storm Water Capital Improvement Policy was reviewed and revised. As a part of this process, several storm water improvement projects were identified, including seven homes impacted by storm water. The fund provides for maintenance improvements to the system. The outstanding debt of the fund was refunded in August 2001. The debt service of the refunded bonds will continue to be paid from net revenues of the fund. Storm sewer rates will remain flat in 2002. Recreation Fund The Recreation Fund includes the Ice Arena, Swimming Pool, and Special Facilities (miniature golf, picnic shelter rentals, Veterans Memorial Park concessions) operations... The loss of the Golf Course operation and its revenues have exposed the financial. condition of the remaining three operations. A funding plan, using interest. earnings from residual cash of the golf course operation, has been put in place to offset operating losses of the fund. The City's swimming pool is in dire need of significant repairs or a complete makeover. The City is in the process of developing a plan to address the future of the municipal pool INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Central Garage Fund The Central Garage Fund accounts for the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of all motor vehicles and motor-driven equipment used by the City and is funded by user fees charged to other City funds. Beginning in 2002, the role of the Central Garage Fund will change slightly. In response to the Omnibus Tax Bilt, equipment to be purchased by the Central Garage Fund in 2002 and beyond will be funded by Equipment Certificates. These certificates are a form of short-term debt which are supported by a special tax levy. The effect of using certificates will reduce user fees charged by the fund to other City funds. The fund is scheduled to make capital purchases of $656,380 in 2001 and $367,000 in 2002. The significant purchases planned for 2001 and 2002 are a sidewalk plow, five new police sedans, new fire pumper, and a grader. Information Technologies Fund The Information Technologies (IT) Fund's primary purpose is to provide computer hardware and software support, programming and. training to City staff. As with the Central Garage Fund, the IT Fund will also use equipment certificates for the purchase of computer equipment in 2002. Again, the -use of equipment certificates will have the effect of reducing user fees charged to other City funds. In addition, the IT Fund also provides office supplies and copying services to staff. Self Insurance Fund The Self Insurance Fund accounts for all of the City's costs for claims related to Workers' Compensation, unemployment insurance benefits, flexible benefits, dental insurance, and all other City self insurance costs. The Self Insurance Fund has continued to perform strongly in 2001 and this is projected to continue in 2002. A fund balance of approximately $4.6 million is forecasted for the end of 2002. For 2002, base rates to City departments for all workers' compensation, liability, and property insurance coverages remained at the 2001 premium level. Building Services Fund The Building Services Fund was created in the 2001 budget year. The purpose of the fund is to provide the maintenance needs of City Hall and other certain government buildings. DEBT SERVICE FUND The Debt Service Fund is used to record financial operations from special assessments, :tax increment, and as necessary, property taxes to meet debt service payments and outstanding bond issues. General obligation improvement bonds are payable through 2013, with outstanding principal at the beginning of 2002 of $3,110,000. The fund balance in the fund, along with tax debt service levies, special assessment collections and interest earnings are pledged to service the debt. The general obligation redevelopment bonds are retired from tax increment collected from the project area and interest earnings. Redevelopment bond principal of $15,040,000 are payable through 2024. In early 2001 the City issued $8,350,000 G. O. Tax Increment Bonds for the purpose to finance a portion of the cost of constructing the Penn Avenue Bridge Project. The debt service on .the outstanding general. obligation redevelopment bonds is provided through the collection of tax increments. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET The Capital Improvements Budget recommends $10,405,000 of expenditures in 2002. The major projects contained in the 2002 budget are the new City. maintenance facility, the I- 494/Lyndale Avenue bridge and the reconstruction of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. These three projects account for $8,150,000 of the budgeted $10,405,000. The projects are planned to be funded by Federal and State grants, State Aid monies, land sale proceeds "and user fees. The City will also continue with improvements for various City parks in 2002 with funding of $545,000 from the Liquor Contribution Special Revenue Fund. CONCLUSION The City of Richfield continues to be a financially sound operation. The projections for revenue in the future indicate a need in 2002 to continue to -focus on basic programs and services. City staff is prepared for the likelihood that even further reductions could occur toward the end of 2001 and in 2002. A response to any further cuts will be felt in program reductions or elimination. The information presented in this budget should provide a background for decisions relating to the future direction of the City. My gratitude is expressed to all those employees who worked very hard to prepare the budget, and a special thanks to the Administrative Services department for their work in preparing this document. Respectfully submitted, Samantha Orduno City Manager AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 10 318 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: TOM FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER Nauc, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~~~ ~~-- ~~' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER; ~~~ ~~ _ ~ 1 ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading regarding a transitory ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a remnant parcel to Century Courts Apartments. I. RECOMMENDED Conduct continued public hearing and by motion: Continue until the Council meeting on January 8, 2002 the public hearing and second reading of the attached transitory ordinance to authorize the conveyance of a remnant parcel to Century Court Apartments. • III. BACKGROUND I At the November 26, 2001 Council meeting, Council conducted a public hearing and approved Transitory Ordinance No. xxxx agreeing to the transfer of land to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for future I-494 improvements. However, Council chose to continue the public hearing to December 10, 2001 related to a transitory ordinance to transfer a remnant parcel to Century Court Apartments. The changes needed. to clarify the need for public right of way along the east side of the 78th Street frontage road will require a revision in the Stipulation Agreement with Century Court Apartments. 1210PHconvey Therefore, staff is recommending that the public hearing again be continued to the January 8, 2002 Council meeting so that the issue of public right of way can be resolved. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • First reading of the proposed transitory ordinance was held and approved on October 22, 2001. • Notice of the November 26, 2001 Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun-Current on November 14, 2001. The Open Meeting Law indicates that if a public hearing is continued, with the time and place of the continuance recorded in the minutes, then no further published or mailed notice is necessary. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The remnant parcel to be transferred to Century Court Apartments is considered to be too small for redevelopment. The City and State of Minnesota have no need for the land. • Century Court Apartments donated the land that the Racquet Club used to occupy to the City. The remnant parcel to be transferred by the City is less than the size of the parcel that was donated to the City. • The remnant parcel needs to reflect adequate public right of way remains along the east side of the 78th Street frontage road. C. FINANCIAL • The City acquired the property using Best Buy Company funds committed to the Penn Avenue Bridge project. D. LEGAL • City attorneys have drafted the proposed transitory ordinance on transferring the land to the Century Court Apartments. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Postpone approval of the ordinance. According to the City's Stipulation Agreement with Century Court Apartments adopted by the City Council on October 8, 2001, the remnant land should be transferred by December 31, 2001. This deadline will have to be renegotiated with the owners of Century Court Apartments. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed transitory ordinance (including map) for remnant parcel to be conveyed to Century Court Apartments. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. BILL NO. ~~ TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SALE TO CENTURY COURT APARTMENTS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY AT PENN AVENUE SOUTH S.P. NO.2785-328 S.A.P. NO.27-632-22 CITY PROJECT N0.401-30-521 THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following property of the City is hereby authorized to be sold to the Century Court Apartments A portion of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28 Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota as shown on the attached map. Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to sign all documents necessary to effect the sale contemplated by this ordinance. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this day of January, 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Date of Publication January 23, 2002 Effective Date February 22, 2002 • ... MITIGATIVE PARCEL i~ BUIE.DING S~ SCR ~ ~F 7g~M ,.---.- BRIIK Inc T00 TAlra avwt BapA MtiwOOM. W ~6iM N#.?T0.0T00 TN gaJT0.t3T{ Fut V W Z Z W °z i INCH = 100 FEET 33$9703fi MI?-PAR.DWG BJY • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 9B REPORT # 317 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Ca ital Cash LLC, d/b/a H 's Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Capital Cash LLC, d/b/a Hy's Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On November 8, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Capital Cash LLC, d/b/a Hy's Pawn, 6414 Nicollet Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Jory Herman is 40% owner of the business and acts as chief executive officer. Michael Strauss is also 40% owner of the business and is the acting chief financial 1210 Hy'sPawnRenewal officer. Andy Strauss and Daniel Berdass are each 10% owners of the business. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. Michael Strauss and Jory Herman currently own Hy's Pawn & Jewelry; 1025 Currie Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN. Michael Strauss currently acts as president and chief financial officer of the establishment. A copy of the Articles of Incorporation has been provided and is on file with the City. A $1500 bond has been submitted. Public Safety had six police and/or fire contacts for this location in the past year. This compares to four contacts from the previous year. Three of the contactswere received while the business was still owned by Hal and Dorothy Kreiger and operating as Plaza Pawn. The remaining three contacts were received since August 2001, which is when the business was sold to Hy's Pawn. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have not received any complaints regarding. this location in the past year. The most recent complaint received was in November of 19.99 and was regarding graffiti. The owners of the business agree to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Current newspaper on November 21, 200.1. III. ~ BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions. of the City codes pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Jory Herman, Owner • Michael Strauss, Owner ~, Capital Cash, LLC d/b/a Hy's .Pawn Officers Jory Herman Owner/Chief Executive Officer Michael Strauss Owner/Chief Financial Officer Daniel Berdass Owner Andy Strauss Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 4 6 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 4 6 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics). (3) (2) Alarm (1) (4) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 0 0 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: one theft, one received stolen property, and four burglary alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 9A REPORT # 3 I C ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 L ndale Avenue South. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. • II. BACKGROUND On November 19, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licenses for Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., 7529 Lyndale Avenue South. The applicant has paid the required license fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mark Nichols is the owner of this establishment; James Thomas Blanche is the General manager; and John Alan Kunst is the acting Manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. 1210MetroPawnGunRenewal Mr. Nichols also owns Nichols Electronics, 1511 South Fourth Street in Minneapolis, MN, and he and his wife own Metro Pawn and Jewelry, 8820 Lyndale Avenue, Bloomington, MN. A copy of the Articles of Incorporation has been provided and is on file with the City. The $1500 bond will be submitted as soon as possible. Public Safety had nine contacts with Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc., from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with 24 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff have received no complaints regarding Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. The owner of the business continues to act in a cooperative manner with the Public Safety Department on the recovery of stolen articles. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the City codes • pertaining to pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirement to provide a $1500 bond must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting a temporary license to allow the applicant to continue the pawnbroker and secondhand goods dealer business until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. V. ATTACHMENTS • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. • List of officers. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mark Nichols, Owner • James Thomas Blanche, General Manager • Metro Pawn & Gun, Inc. Officers Mark Nichols Owner James Thomas Blanche General Manager John Alan Kunst Store Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 2000 2001 24 9 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 22 8 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) 11) (2) Alarm (11) (6) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 2 1 Assists (2) (1) Traffic (0} (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: one domestic, one warrant arrest and six burglary alarms. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) U • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 8K REPORT # 315 ~i STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, T/TLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~` ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Subeck, Incorporated, d/b/a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Subeck, Incorporated, d/b/a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant, 7545 Lyndale Avenue South. • II. BACKGROUND On November 16, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Subeck Incorporated, d/b/a Ketsana's Thai Restaurant. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Scott Bechtel and Ketsana Bechtel are the owners of the establishment. Ketsana Bechtel continues to 1211 Ketsana's Liquor Renewal serve as the General Manager. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal • history. The building and property continue to be owned by JSB Corporation, and the lease between the applicant and the landlord continues to be in effect with all payments current. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing General Star Indemnity Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 97.5% of the sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on- sale wine sales accounted for 2.5% of the total sales. Public Safety had two contacts with Ketsana's Thai Restaurant from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with three contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 2001 regarding Ketsana's Thai • Restaurant. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of an on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In March and July 1999, Ketsana's Thai Restaurant was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. For their first offense, they paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. For the second offense, they paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. They have received no other violations. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Scott and Ketsana Bechtel, Owners of the establishment • Ketsana's Thai Restaurant • Ketsana Bechtel Scott Bechtel Owner and .Manager Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 • TOTAL CONTACTS CRIMINAL CONTACTS Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) Alarm MISC. NON-CRIMINAL Assists Traffic Inspections/Licensing Medical/Fire 2000 2001 3 2 2 2 (2) (2) (0) (0) 1 0 (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: one suspicious vehicle and one check forgery. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures} r~ LJ .7 AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING 8J 314 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE t. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close. the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. • II. BACKGROUND On November 21, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Kiang's Red Pepper, Inc., d/b/a Red Pepper Chinese .Restaurant, 2902 West 66th Street. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged. Ricky Kiang is serving as President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer. Mr. Kiang continues 1210RedPepper Liquor Renewal to serve as the General Manager of the restaurant. Mr. Kiang has no known • criminal record. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Carlson Real Estate Company, continues to be in effect with all payments current. The required proof of liquor liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage has been received showing Truck Insurance Exchange as affording the required coverage. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 99.16% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine sales accounted for .84% of the total sales. Public Safety had eight contacts with Red Pepper from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares to two contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received two complaints in 2001 regarding Red Pepper. Both complaints were regarding food-related matters. Duane Hudson from the Bloomington Health Department and Red Pepper management were notified and no further complaints have been received. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. Red Pepper has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City • Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. • B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety Contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Ricky Kiang, Owner of the establishment Kiang's Red Pepper Inc. Red Pepper Chinese Restaurant Directors and Officers Ricky Kiang President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer Public Safety Contacts October 2000 through September 2001 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 2 8 CRIMINAL CONTACTS. 1 5 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (0) (4) Alarm (1) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 3 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (1) (2) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) • Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: one burglary alarm, two vandalisms, one suspicious vehicle, and one property damage hit and run accident. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • 1r ~, u AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # $ I REPORT # 'i 1 'i J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, Tir[,s REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TirtE U DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc., d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 9, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses for Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. d/b/a Fireside Pizza, 6736 Penn Avenue South. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged.. Richard Bruce Thompson continues to serve as President, and Richard Orville Thompson serves 1210Fireside Pizza Liquor Renewal as Vice-President. Michelle Thompson serves as Secretary and Treasurer. Richard Bruce Thompson continues. to serve as General Manager of the restaurant. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. All general real estate taxes, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, David Miller, continues to be in effect with all payments current. Proof of liquor liability insurance will be provided as .soon as possible. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has been submitted. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 92% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine sales accounted for 8% of the total sales. Public Safety had four police and/or fire contacts with Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with ten contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints regarding Thompson's Fireside Pizza in 2001. On-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. Thompson's Fireside Pizza has received no violations for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION !~. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor licensing. . • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Proof of liquor liability insurance must be submitted. • The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider the granting of license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Bruce and Michelle Thompson, Owners of the establishment Thompson's Fireside Pizza, Inc. J Fireside Pizza Directors and Officers Richard B. Thompson President Richard O. Thompson Vice-President Michelle Thompson Secretary and Treasurer Richard B. Thompson General Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 through September 2001 • 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 10 4 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 9 4 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (9) (4) Alarm (0) (0) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 0 Assists (0) (0) Traffic (1) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: two thefts, one vandalism, and one domestic. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures} • • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # $g REPORT # ~ 1 ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~"~~~ ~ ("1 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minnea olis-Richfield American Le ion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis- Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avelnue South. II. BACKGROUND ' On October 19, 2001, the City received the application and other required documents for the renewal of the club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Minneapolis-Richfield American Legion Post 435, 6501 Portland Avenue South. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The structure of the organization has changed from last year. Don Southerton now serves as President. James Morris serves as Vice-President; and Mervyn Becker serves as Treasurer. Roger Wysong continues to serve as the Club Manager. 1210Legion Liquor Renewal None of these individuals has'any known criminal record. A copy of the list of • officers is attached to this letter. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property and building continue to be owned by the American Legion. The $10,000 bond will be submitted as soon as possible. The required proof of liquor liability insurance has been submitted showing TIG insurance affording the coverage. Workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been submitted. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 26% of the total sales while liquor sales accounted for 74% of the total sales. Public Safety had 31 police and/or fire contacts with the American Legion from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with 33 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. There were no Environmental Health complaints received for the Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 during this past year. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with resolution No. 8808, which outlines the discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In July 1999, the Richfield American Legion was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. The Mpls-Richfield American Legion Post #435 has received no further violations. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY . The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Receipt of the $10,000 bond. • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that • the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • American Legion club officer Mpls -Richfield American Legion • Don Southerton James Morris Mervyn Becker Roger Wysong President Vice-President Treasurer Club Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 .2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 33 31 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 27 25 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (20) (19) Alarm (7) (6) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 6 6 Assists (1) (2) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (5) (3) The criminal contacts .from October 2000 through September 2001 were: one suspicious activity, three suspicious persons, one domestic, three drunkenness, one disturbance, six burglary alarms, five suspicious vehicles, one trespassing, one vandalism, one follow-up investigation, one Detox commitment, and one weapon violation. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) ~J • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # gG REPORT # ~ 1 1 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 lake Shore Drive. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink, 6715 Lake Shore Drive. II. BACKGROUND On October 18,.2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses for Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.5555, Inc., d/b/a Four Nickels Food and Drink. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from the previous year. Boyd Tate serves as Commander; Pat McNamee serves as Sr. Vice Commander; 1210VFW Liquor Renewal and Gerald Hager serves as Quartermaster. The on-premise manager is Gin Ng. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The property is owned by Gramarcy Park Cooperative. The $10,0000 bond issued by Old Republic Surety Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing TIG Insurance as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been submitted covering the period October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 58.9% of the total sales, while alcohol accounted for 40% of the total sales. Miscellaneous sales accounted for 1.1 % of the total sales. Public Safety had seventeen police and/or fire contacts with Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No.5555 from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with two contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health has received one complaint regarding the V.F.W. in 2001. The complaint was regarding afood-related matter. Duane Hudson from the Bloomington Health Department and Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 were notified and staff received no further complaints. Club on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy has been given to the establishment. There are no distance requirements for notifying neighbors of the issuance or renewal of a club on-sale and Sunday liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In July 1999, Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They were also cited in August 2000. This was their second violation. They paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Fred Babcock V.F.W. Post No. 5555 has received no violations in the year 2001. n U III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to club on-sale and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL D. LEGAL IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Gin Ng, Manager of establishment V.F.W. 2001 Post Officers Boyd Tate Commander Pat McNamee Sr. Vice Commander Gerald Hager Quartermaster Gin Ng On-premise Manager. PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 2 17 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 1 11 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (1) (5) Alarm (0) (6) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 6 . Assists (0) (1) Traffic (0) (0) Inspections/Licensing (0) (2) Medical/Fire (1) (3) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 200 1 were: one suspicious vehicle, two drunkenness, one suspicious activity, six burglary alarms, and one property damage accident. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • t AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # $F REPORT # 310 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, T/TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Ground Round Inc., d/b/a The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Ground Round Inc., d/b/a The Ground Round, 1500 East 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 30, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for the Ground Round Inc., d/b/a The Ground Round. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Thomas J. Russo serves as President; and Mark Lawless serves as Vice President and Treasurer. Eric Krejcha continues to serve as the on-premise manager. None of 1210Ground Round Liquor Renewal these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is • attached. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, A.G. Bogen Company, is in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Royal Indemnity Insurance Co. of America as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance has also been submitted. A financial statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 61 % of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 39% of the total sales. Public Safety had 33 police and/or fire contacts with The Ground Round from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with 40 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint in 2001 regarding a food related issue. Duane Hudson from the Bloomington Health Department and The Ground Round management were notified and no further complaints have been received. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license. The notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In March 1999, The Ground Round was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They have not been cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth in the years 2000 or 2001. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The Ground Round staff. THE GROUND ROUND Officers and Directors Thomas Russo President Mark Lawless Vice President & Treasurer Vacant Secretary Eric Krejcha On=Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 through September 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 2000 2001 40 33 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 28 26 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (22) (24) Alarm (6) (2) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 12 7 Assists (4) (3) Traffic (0) (3) Inspections/Licensing (2) (0) Medical/Fire (6) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001-were: four thefts, six disturbances, two suspicious persons, one burglary alarm, one drunkenness, one follow-up investigation, two theft no-pay, two property damage hit and run accidents, one welfare check, one domestic, one check forgery, one warrant arrest, one detox commitment, one fire alarm, and one threat. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) C AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC::HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 8E REPORT # 309 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mon olian Barbe ue, 500 East 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque, 500 East 78th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Paisan Inc., d/b/a Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: • The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from last year. Mitchell Law continues to serve as the General manger of the restaurant. Mitchell Law and Sherri (Paisan) Law are sole owners of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. 1210Khans Liquor Renewal The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Roy A. Bogen, is in effect with all payments current. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The $10,000 Bond has been received showing Old Republic Surety Company affording the coverage. The required proof of liquor liability insurance will be submitted as soon as possible. Proof of workers' compensation has been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 93.5% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 6.5% of the total sales. Public Safety had nine police and/or fire contacts with Khan's from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with nine contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received three complaints this past year regarding Khan's Mongolian Barbeque. Two of the complaints involved long grass and weeds, and an inoperable vehicle. The third complaint was food related. Duane Hudson from the Bloomington Health Department and Khan's Mongolian Barbeque management were notified and staff received no further complaints. On-sale and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements in which to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In July 1999, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days for their first violation. In July 2001, Khan's Mongolian Barbeque was cited for their second violation. Since this second violation occurred just two days prior to the two-year time frame established in resolution no. 8808, the owner of the establishment requested that the violation be considered a first violation with the agreement that the fees and suspension period remain that of a second violation. Council approved the request and Khan's Mongolian Barbeque received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Proof of liquor liability insurance must be submitted. • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Mitchell Law KHAN'S MONGOLIAN BARBEQUE Officer and Directors Mitchel Law President Sherri (Paisan) Law Vice President PUBLIC SAFETY-CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 9 9 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 8 8 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (4) (4) Alarm (4) (4) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 1 Assists (1) (0) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) ~ (0) Medical/Fire (0) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: one suspicious person, two follow-up investigations, four burglary alarms, and one miscellaneous City ordinance violation. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • AGENDA SECTION: pUBLTG HEARING AGENDA ITEM # gD REPORT # 3 ~ g STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE SIGNA REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for 2002 for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant, 790 West 66th Street. II. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Champps Operating Corporation d/b/a Champps Restaurant. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1210Champps Liquor Renewal The corporate structure of the organization has not changed from last year. William • Baumhauer still serves as President and CEO; Donna Depoian serves as Vice- Presidentand Secretary; and Frederick Dreibholz serves as Vice-President and Treasurer. Jeff Kippels now serves as the on-premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Market Plaza Commercial, LTD., is in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 68% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 32% of the total sales. • Public Safety had 57 police and/or fire contacts with Champps restaurant from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with 48 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received four complaints this past year regarding Champps. Two of the complaints involved garbage and debris on the dock with black "soot" on the walls. Duane Hudson from the Bloomington Health Department and Champps management were notified and staff received no further complaints. The other two complaints involved odor. Champps was notified and staff received no further complaints. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday Liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of an on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. • In July 1999 and November 1999, Champps Restaurant was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days for their first violation. For their second violation, they received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. They have not received any violations in the years 2000 or 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Champps staff • Champps Operating Corporation r~ U Champps Restaurant Officers and Directors William Henry Baumhauer Donna Louise Depoian Frederick Jon Dreibholz Jeff Kippels President .Vice-President & Secretary Vice-President & Treasurer On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 • 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 48 57 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 32 44 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (27) (33) Alarm (5) (11) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 16 13 Assists (4) (3) Traffic (1) (2) Inspections/Licensing (4) (6) Medical/Fire (7) (2) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were. four disturbances, one property damage accidents, three thefts, one suspicious person, three suspicious vehicles, six noise complaints, eleven burglary alarms, five drunkenness, two check forgeries, one domestic, one trespassing, two malicious mischief, one vandalism, one property damage hit and run, one suspicious activity and one miscellaneous City ordinance violation. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # $ C REPORT # 3 0 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC. SAFETY NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ' REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's O eratin Cor oration d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale intoxicating .and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos, 980 West 78th Street. • II. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Don Pablo's Operating Corporation d/b/a Don Pablos. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Robert Andreottola now serves as CEO; Margaret Waldrep serves as President and Treasurer; and Percy Williams II now serves as Vice-President and Secretary. 1211DonPablo Liquor Renewal Matthew VanVoltenberg is serving as the on-premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate and withholdin taxes have been aid and are current. 9 p The lease between the applicant and the property owner, CSM Investors, Inc. is in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by Great American Insurance Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from October 2000 through September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 72% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 28% of the total sales. Public Safety had 48 police and/or fire contacts with Don Pablos from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with 45 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received two complaints regarding Don Pablos during the past year. The complaints were regarding health-related issues. Duane Hudson from the Bloomington Health Department and Don Pablo's were notified and no further complaints have been received. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In July 1999, Don Pablos was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They received their second violation in October 2000. They received a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Don Pablo's has received no violations in 2001. LJ III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Don Pablos staff • Don Pablo's Operating Corporation Don Pablos Officers and Directors Robert Andreottola Margaret Waldrep Percy Williams Il Matthew VanVoltenberg CEO President and Treasurer .Vice-President and Secretary On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 2000 .2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 45 48 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 39 43 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (29) (25) • Alarm (10) (18) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 6 5 Assists (0) (3) Traffic (1) (2) Inspections/Licensing (1) (0) Medical/Fire (4) (0) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: nine thefts, seventeen burglary alarms, one fire alarm, two property damage accidents, one no-pay, one check forgery, two suspicious persons, one narcotics, one welfare check, two drunkeness, one outside fire, and five disturbances. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures). • AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # ~$ REPORT # 3 0 6 ~~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: BETSY CHRISfiENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME. TITLE DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, including the outside service of alcohol, for Wiltshire Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 L ndale Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses, including the outside service of alcohol, for Wiltshire Restaurants; LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, 6601 Lyndale Avenue South. • II. BACKGROUND On October 26, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Wiltshire Restaurants,. LLC d/b/a Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: 1211 Houlihans Liquor Renewal The corporate structure of the organization remains unchanged from the previous year. Lucius Fowler is the President of the organization. Joseph L. Martin serves as the Secretary and Treasurer. The on-premises manager is Kim Zeigler. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. A current list of officers is attached.. The property being leased by Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar is owned by Richfield State Agency, Inc. The lease between the applicant and the landlord are in effect with all payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by Travelers Casualty and _Surety Company of America has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Legion Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. The Environmental Health staff have received no complaints for Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar in 2001. Public Safety had 15 police and/or fire contacts with Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar in 2001. There are no previous figures to compare this with, as Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar has only been open since the first part of 2001. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance of an on- sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In July 2001, Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. This was their first violation. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and . Sunday liquor licensing. • Based upon the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the .hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting a license extension to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the. licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative . Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Houlihans Staff • Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar C7 Officers Lucius Ludlow Fowler Joseph L. Martin President Secretary &`Treasurer Kim Richard Zeigler On-Premises Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS JANUARY 2001 through September 2001 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 15 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 11 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (10) Alarm (1) ~~ MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 4 Assists (0) Traffic (1) Inspections/Licensing (1) Medical/Fire (2) The criminal contacts from January 2001 through September 2001 were: four thefts, one burglary alarm, one disturbance, two miscellaneous City ordinance violations, one noise complaint, one suspicious person, one and one drunkeness. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 T/TLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the renewal of 2002 on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi-Chi's, Inc., d/b/a Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. PUBLIC HEARING. 8A 305 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY a ~.. S~~- RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi- Chi's, Inc., d/b/a Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On October 15, 2001, the City received the renewal application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi-Chi's, Inc., d/b/a Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante. The applicant has paid the required fees. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: The corporate structure of the organization has changed from last year. Kevin Relyea now serves as President; Robert Trebing, Jr. serves as Vice-President and Treasurer; and Michael Rule serves as Secretary. Michael Blecman now serves as 1210ChiChi's Liquor Renewal the on-premise manager. None of these individuals has any known criminal record. . A current list of officers is attached. All general sales, real estate,- and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The lease between the applicant and the property owner, Maro-Max Company, continues to be in effect with all lease payments current. The $10,000 bond issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company affording the required coverage. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement covers the period from September 2000 through August 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 67% of the total sales, while liquor sales accounted for 33% of the total sales. Public Safety had 72 police and/or fire contacts with Chi-Chi's from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with 81 contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received one complaint regarding Chi-Chi's in the past year. The complaint was in regards to an inoperable vehicle in the parking lot. Chi- Chi's staff was notified and Environmental Health staff received no further complaints. On-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this Resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In April of 1999, Chi-Chi's was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. They were cited again in July 1999. They paid a $1500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for five days. Chi-Chi's received their third violation for the sale of alcohol to underage youth in August 2000. They paid a fine of $1750 and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for ten days. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and SundayJiquor licenses. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the licenses requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements of Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. • Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Chi-Chi's Staff Chi-Chi's, Inc. Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante Directors and Officers Kevin Stuart Relyea President Robert Thomas Trebing, Jr. Vice-President & Treasurer Michael Anthony Rule Secretary Michael Blecman On-Premise Manager PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 -September 2001 • 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS. 81 72 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 52 53 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (48) (49) Alarm (4) (4) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 29 19 Assists (3) (2) Traffic (1) (2) Inspections/Licensing (21) (10) Medical/Fire (4) (5) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: eight disturbances, three suspicious persons, three suspicious vehicles, four burglary alarms, eleven thefts, one order for protection, two check forgeries, one welfare check, five property damage accidents, three follow-up investigations, five drunkenness; one assault, one shoplifting, .one DWI, two vandalism, one suicide attempt, and one miscellaneous City ordinance violation. (Numbers in parenthesis are included in total contact figures) • • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING 304 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, C7 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing for consideration of the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's,1400 East 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve the issuance of new on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's, 1400 East 66th Street. IL BACKGROUND On September 13, 2001, the City received a new application and other required documents for on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for The Frenchman's. The Public Safety background investigation has been completed and reveals the following: Mary Christine Blake and Dean Robert Blake are the current owners of the establishment. Mary Blake serves as the General Manager of the restaurant. Neither of these individuals has any known criminal record. 1210 Frenchman's Liquor Mary Blake was born in Liverpool, England. She received her Alien Registration Card when she came to the United States in August 1980. She has since been married and has misplaced her original card causing her to have to apply for a replacement of her Alien Registration Card. Staff has been made aware that the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service does not accept application to replace an Alien Registration Card if one_has never been issued. Mary has been able to provide proof that she has applied for this replacement card with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, therefore proving her current alien status. The Frenchman's .currently holds licenses to sell wine and 3.2 percent malt liquor; however, they are requesting their licenses be changed. to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. A 10-year contract for deed with William and Joan Snyder continues to be in effect with all payments current. All general real estate, state sales and withholding taxes have been paid and are current. The $10,000. bond issued by Hartford Fire Insurance Company has been submitted. The required proof of liquor liability insurance coverage has been received showing American Country Insurance Company as affording the required coverage. Proof of workers" compensation insurance has also been supplied. An accountant's statement has been prepared and submitted. This statement . covers the period from October 2000 through. September 2001 and indicates that food sales accounted for 63% of the total sales, while 3.2 percent malt liquor and on-sale wine sales accounted for 37% of the total sales. Public Safety had six contacts with The Frenchman's from October 2000 through September 2001. This compares with seven contacts for the previous year. A breakdown of these contacts is attached to this report. Environmental Health staff received no complaints in 2001 regarding The Frenchman's. On-sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses require owners of these establishments to comply with Resolution No. 8808, which outlines discipline they can expect if any ongoing problems occur. A copy of this resolution has been given to the owner of the establishment. There are no distance requirements to notify neighbors of the issuance. or renewal of on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on November 21, 2001. In July 1999, The Frenchman's was cited for the sale of alcohol to underage youth. They paid a $500 fine and had their license to sell alcohol suspended for two days. The Frenchman's has received no further violations. III. .BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of both City Codes and State Statutes pertaining to on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licensing. • Based on the information supplied by the applicant and the investigation conducted, there appears to be no reason to deny the issuance of the license requested. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The requirements in Resolution No. 8808 must be met. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Continue the hearing. However, if the hearing is continued beyond .January 1, 2002, the Council should consider granting license extensions to allow the applicant to continue to sell liquor until the rescheduled hearing can be conducted. Suspend or revoke the licenses. Any suspension or revocation must, according to Minnesota State Statute 340A.415, be based upon a finding that the licensee has failed to comply with an applicable statute, rule or ordinance relating to alcoholic beverages. The Council must also note that no revocation or suspension takes effect until the licensee has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under Section 14.57 to 14.70 of the Administrative Procedure Act. V. ATTACHMENTS • List of Officers. • Breakdown of Public Safety contacts. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dean and Mary Blake, owners of the establishment • The Frenchman's r: Directors and Officers Mary Blake Owner and General Manager Dean Blake Owner PUBLIC SAFETY CONTACTS October 2000 through September 2001 2000 2001 TOTAL CONTACTS 7 6 CRIMINAL CONTACTS 6 3 Incidents (see bottom of page for specifics) (5) (2) Alarm (1) (1) MISC. NON-CRIMINAL 1 3 Assists (1) (0) Traffic (0) (1) Inspections/Licensing (0) (1) Medical/Fire (0) (1) The criminal contacts from October 2000 through September 2001 were: one burglary alarm, one Disturbance, and one 911 hang-up. (Numbers in parenthesis are~included in total contact figures) • • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # ( I REPORT # Z n ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6333 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 5) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6333 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 5) (66th Street /Trunk Hiahwav 77 Interchange Project). • II. BACKGROUND The City acquired 6333 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 5) (Larson Brothers Building Co.) through aquick-take condemnation action in January 2001 for the realignment and expansion of the Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange. The "quick take deposit" made by the City with the District Court was $458,830 for real estate and fixtures. Robert Lindall, City's legal counsel, has reached a proposed settlement with the property owners in the amount of $518,000 including fixtures, interest and appraisal fees. Mr. Lindall has recommended that the City Council approve this settlement. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) concurs with this settlement amount. 1210Larsonstip III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • The subject property has been identified for purchase for the project. • The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the MAC, approved by the Council on February 28, 2000, outlines the responsibilities for each participating agency. • An agreement between the City and the MAC, dated February 28, 2000, allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of acquiring property. • In accordance with the agreement, the MAC is responsible for approving and recommending to the City just compensation and condemnation settlement payments with property owners. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval of the Stipulation of Final Settlement for the property with Larson Brothers Building Company should essentially complete . condemnation proceedings for this property. C. FINANCIAL • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. • MAC has approved this final settlement amount. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will prepare the Stipulation of Final Settlement pending City Council approval of this matter. E. TIMING • If the negotiated settled is approved by the City Council, no further proceedings before the condemnation commissioners will be required for this parcel. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not accept the final settlement amount. However, this will impede all negotiations made to date and continue costly condemnation proceedings. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing execution of a Stipulation of Final Settlement for 6333 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 5) (66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Pfoject) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A STIPULATION OF .FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR 6333 CEDAR AVENUE (PARCEL 5) (66TH STREET/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT), WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (the "City") acquired the property located at 6333 Cedar Avenue in eminent domain proceedings in furtherance of the 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project (the "Project"), said property being described as follows (the "Subject Property"): Lots 9 and 10, Block 15, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (the "MAC") is initially funding the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has negotiated a settlement in the amount of $518,000 for the subject property including fixtures, interest and appraisal fees; and WHEREAS, MAC staff concurs with the amount of the settlement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the proposed settlement amount of $518,000 is hereby approved. 2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the Stipulation of Final Settlement and take all other actions necessary to complete the obligations of the City pursuant to its terms. 3. That the City Attorney is authorized to take all actions necessary to complete the obligations of the City pursuant to the Stipulation of Final Settlement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • ~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 6H REPORT # 302 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of .the condemnation commissioners award of $405,000 for 6511 Cedar Avenue Parcel 19 Ran 66th Street /Trunk Hi hwa 77 Interchan a Pro'ect . I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the condemnation commissioners award of $405,000 for 6511 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 19) (Ryan) (66th Street / Trunk Highwav 77 Interchange Project). II. BACKGROUND The City acquired 6511 Cedar Avenue (Parcel 19) (Ryan) by eminent domain proceedings. in January 2001 for the realignment and expansion of the Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange. The building was mainly used as office space. The City's appraiser established a value of $365,000 for the real estate while the condemnation commissioners established a value of $405,000. The property owner agreed to the City's fixture appraisal value of $5,655. City Attorney, Robert Lindall, is recommending that the City of Richfield accept the condemnation commissioners award. The Metropolitan Airports Commission 1210RyanAward.doc (MAC) has reviewed the award and the City Attorney recommends that the City accept the award. MAC concurs with the City Attorney to accept the award. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject property has been identified for purchase for the project. • The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the MAC, approved by the Council on February 28, 2000, outlines the responsibilities for each participating agency. • An agreement between the City and the MAC, dated February 28, 2000, allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of acquiring property. • In accordance with the agreement, the MAC is responsible for approving and recommending to the City just compensation and condemnation settlement payments with property owners. • It has been the policy of the City Council to accept the value set by the condemnation commissioners if the City Attorney recommends doing so. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This award may be appealed by either party. C. FINANCIAL • The MAC is paying for the acquisition of property along Cedar Avenue and has approved the settlement. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney recommends the acceptance of the award. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not accept the condemnation commissioners award and instruct the City Attorney to appeal the award. V. ATTACHMENTS • There is no resolution for this matter. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 6G REPORT # 3 ~ 1 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE r: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: KATIA MEDVETSKI, REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DLRECTOR NAMC TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution approving settlement of claim of Donald Morrow and Patrick Morrow for loss of going concern damages for Morrow Towing, located at 6429-6445 Cedar Avenue (Parcels 13-16) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving settlement of claim of Donald Morrow and Patrick Morrow for loss of going concern damages for Morrow Towing, located at 6429-6445 Cedar Avenue (Parcels 13-16) (66th Street /Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project). • III. BACKGROUND ~ In furtherance of the realignment and expansion of Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street Interchange, the City acquired the Morrow Towing property at 6429-6445 Cedar Avenue (Parcels 13-16) through condemnation proceedings. The property was owned by Donald Morrow and Patrick Morrow and was occupied by Morrow Auto Body Specialty, Inc. The Morrows held an exclusive towing service contract with the City of Richfield that required an impound yard to be within three miles of the City and the ability to respond to towing service calls within a 20 minute time period. In search of a replacement site, neither the City nor the property owners could locate a suitable site that could maintain the requirements of the towing 1210morrow.doc service contract. As a result, the Morrows notified the City that the towing service • contract would be need to be terminated due to their inability to perform. Following a court trial, the District Court determined that the going concern value (or the business itself) was also acquired by the City as a consequence of the City's condemnation of the property. Condemnation commissioners and experts hired by both the City and the property owners reviewed pertinent information related to the .business and expressed their respective opinions of value. Recently, the City's Attorney, Robert Lindall of Kennedy & Graven, negotiated a settlement with the property owners for the taking of the business in the amount of $185,000 plus interest. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has reviewed the matter related to the going concern value and. concurs with the City Attorney's negotiated settlement amount. It needs to be noted that the settlement for the going concern value in the amount of $185,000 will be in addition to the settlement for the City's taking of the real estate. The matter regarding the real estate has not yet been settled. On September 10, 2001, the City Council approved the condemnation commissioner's award in the amount of $350,000. The property owners did not accept this award. A pre-trial conference has been scheduled to be held with a Hennepin County District judge as a means of attempting to settle the matter and avoid going to a jury trial. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject property has been identified for purchase for the project. • The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and MAC outlines the responsibilities for each participating agency. The MOU was approved by the City Council on February 28, 2000. • An agreement separate from the MOU between the City and MAC, dated February 28, 2000, allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of acquiring property. • In accordance with this agreement, MAC is responsible for approving and recommending to the City just compensation and condemnation settlement payments with property owners. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The taking of the going concern value by the City is a consequence of the City's condemnation of the property and the inability to find a replacement site for the business that would have met the requirements of the towing service contract with the City. • C. FINANCIAL • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. • MAC approved the going concern value damages. • D. LEGAL • The City Attorney was able to negotiate a lower going concern value than the property owners' expert valuation of the business. E. TIMING • The-terms of the settlement are final. Payment to the Morrows will be made in January, 2002. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Reject the proposed settlement, but that would increase costs. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approving settlement of claim of Donald Morrow and Patrick Morrow for loss of going concern damages. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A n U RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM OF DONALD MORROW AND PATRICK MORROW FOR LOSS OF GOING CONCERN DAMAGES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota ("City") acquired the property located at 6429-6445 Cedar Avenue in eminent domain proceedings in furtherance of the 66tH Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project (the "Project"), said property being described as follows ("Subject Property"): Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC") is initially funding the Project; and WHEREAS, the owners of the Property, Donald Morrow and Patrick Morrow and their spouses ("Owners") owned the Subject Property and Morrow Auto Body Specialty, Inc., a business which was operated on the Subject Property at the time the City acquired the Subject Property ("Company"); and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2001, the Date of Taking, the Company held a contract with the City as the exclusive towing contractor for the City, which contract required the Company to operate an impound yard within 3 miles of the City and to respond to all calls for towing service within the City, within 20 minutes following the request for service ("Contract"); and WHEREAS, neither the Company nor the City were able to find a relocation site suitable for the Company's impound yard within 3 miles of the City limits; and WHEREAS, as a consequence of the taking by the City of the Subject Property and of the inability to find a replacement site, the Company notified the City that the Company was no longer able to comply with the Contract and that the Company was obliged to terminate the Contract; and WHEREAS, the City staff would have recommended extending the Contract but for the City's taking of the Subject Property and inability to find a relocation site for the Company which would satisfy the Contract; and WHEREAS, following a Court trial, the Hennepin County District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, filed February 18, 2001, determining that the City had acquired the going concern value of the Company as a consequence of the City's condemnation of the Subject Property; and • WHEREAS, the Court appointed three condemnation commissioners to determine the damages caused to the Company and the Owners by the taking of the Company's going concern, which commissioners held evidentiary hearings for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the Company's expert witness (a lawyer and certified. public • accountant) testified that the Owners had incurred damages in the amount of $287,500 as a result of the taking by the City of the Company's going concern; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has negotiated a settlement of the Owner's claim of damages due to the taking of the Company's going concern for the amount of $185,000 plus interest at the judgment rate to November 10, 2001 (with payment to be made January 2, 2002), subject to the approval of the City Council; and WHEREAS, MAC staff concurs with the amount of the settlement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota s follows: 1. That the settlement amount of $185,000 plus interest from the date of taking of the Property to November 30, 2001 is hereby approved. 2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the Stipulation of Final Settlement and take all other actions necessary to complete the obligations of the city pursuant to its terms. 3. That the City Attorney is authorized to take all actions necessary to complete the obligations of the City pursuant to the Stipulation of Final Settlement. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 10th day of December, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk n LJ • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # F' REPORT # 3 Q Q STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATNE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an ordinance amendment to City Code Section 405. regarding the housing maintenance code and adding components to deal with provisional licenses and conduct issues on licensed remises. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of an ordinance amendment to City Code Section 405 regarding the City's -housing maintenance code and adding components to deal with provisional licenses and conduct issues on licensed premises. Schedule the public hearing and second reading for Tuesday, January 8. 2002. n U II. BACKGROUND At the November 26, 2001 study session, Dan Scott, Director of Public Safety and Julianne Schwietz, Community Apartment Program (C.A.P.) Director, along with Mary Tietjen of Kennedy and Graven presented an amended housing maintenance code ordinance for the Council's review and direction. 1210AmendHousingOrdinance-First Read Julianne Schwietz leads and coordinates the work of the members of the City's Livable Communities Team which represents the areas within Public Safety • (Inspections, Health, Police), Fire and Community Development. The Livable Communities Team has a primary goal of problem solving in order to assure that Richfield's multi-residential housing stock is safe, clean and well-maintained. The team has been hard at work over the last 18 months developing along-range plan that is intended to deal with the difficulties staff has encountered in gaining compliance with property owners who do not cooperate with the City. The long- range plan was presented to the City Council on August 14, 2000, and received the support of the City Council. The Livable Communities Team was given direction to proceed on a more detailed development of its various components. The team members decided the two primary objectives to include in the development of this amended ordinance were: 1) A behavioral piece, named "Conduct on licensed premises" (commonly referred to as "three strikes"), which relates to specific violations by an individual tenant(s) such as: possession of drugs, disorderly conduct, alcohol issues, gambling, prostitution, firearm or weapon violations, noise disturbances, etc.; and 2) a provisional license category for amulti- residential property that exceeds the number of behavioral calls for service based on the size of the complex. Public Safety staff has determined that if a multi- residential housing complex exceeds .5 calls per unit, it would justify the need for the complex to be put, temporarily, into a provisional license category. • The basic premise of the "three strikes" amendment is that owners of multi- residential property have a responsibility to provide safe, clean, and well-maintained housing for all tenants. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, some tenants cause behavioral problems that affect the remaining law abiding tenants and cause an excessive drain on City services. The property owner is ultimately responsible for tenants who repeatedly cause problems. If a tenant presents problems in the areas described above, the owner/manager of the property has three attempts to try to correct the problem with the individual tenant. The specific strike levels are defined below. If they fail to correct the problem after three attempts, the Public Safety Director will initiate an action to decide if the problem warrants the building being placed into a provisional licensing category, or if the license may need to be denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. In the cases other than going to a provisional license, a hearing with the City Council is necessary. First strike - When a licensed premise is used in a disorderly manner (behavioral issues by a specific tenant(s)), the Director of Public Safety will give written notice to the owner of the property and direct them to take steps to prevent further violations. Second strike - If a second instance of disorderly conduct (behavioral issues by that same tenant(s)) occurs within three months of an incident in which a first notice was given, the Director of Public Safety will give a second written notice to the owner of the property. The owner(s) will be required to submit a written report of the actions they will take to prevent further disorderly use of the property by the tenant(s). Third strike - If a third instance of disorderly conduct occurs within three months after any two previous instances of disorderly conduct by the same tenant(s), the Public Safety Director may use his discretion to impose a provisional license. • Otherwise, the owner/manager of the property will be required to appear before the City Council for discussion concerning the possible need to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew the license. There would be a difference in fees depending on whether a property owner qualifies for a regular license or if they are in the provisional license category. Calls for service for legitimate reasons (fires, domestics, medicals, etc.) would not be held against a complex in the formula to determine whether they should have a regular license or a provisional license. Fees fora' regular rental license are currently $60 per year for an apartment complex, which includes the first 4 units. Each additional unit in excess of 4 would have a license fee of $8.50 per additional unit. For example, a 200-unit complex would pay a regular license fee of $1,726 for all of its units. The provisional license fee would pay $160 per year for the first four units and $18.00 for each additional unit in excess of the first four. That same 200-unit complex could expect fees for a provisional license to be $3,688. These fees are intended to cover the increased cost of fire/police and other City services that are necessary when a building generates this amount of requests for service. At the point of scheduling a second reading and public hearing for this ordinance, there will also be a proposal to reflect these new fees in the City's Appendix D. There will also be a request to amend Appendix D to reflect a re-inspection fee for those multi-residential properties that fail to correct code violations by the time specified in the notice of violation or by the expiration of the extension granted by the enforcement officer. These re-inspection fees are intended to cover the cost of the inspector's time for having to be out again at the property beyond the normal need as a result of the property owner failing to make corrections within the specified time period. Considerations of time extensions are given to property owners if there are legitimate reasons for compliance not to be completed by the specified time. A total of three inspections could routinely be expected to be conducted without generating a re-inspection fee, but anything after the third inspection would result in that additional cost. A licensee with a provisional license will be eligible to apply for a regular license after police and fire calls are reduced to a level that quality for a regular license and have been maintained at that level for at least 12 consecutive months. Other requirements of a provisional license would be: 1) A mitigation plan must be submitted for Council review which should describe the steps proposed by the licensee to reduce the number of police and fire calls to a level that qualifies for a regular license; 2) the licensee must provide and maintain at least one resident manager or on-site manager who is trained and successfully completes the phase one portion of the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program (CFMH) provided by law enforcement. If there is not a CFMH certified on-site or resident manager, the license may continue in effect after the departure of a certified resident manager, on • the condition that a new resident manager or on-site manager register for and complete the training program within 90 days. All (approximately 460) property managers and owners of multi-residential property • in the City have received two invitations to attend a Richfield Apartment Manager Association (RAMA) meeting at which the ordinance has been discussed and reviewed. Many comments were received and considered by those in attendance at RAMA meetings and there is general overall agreement with the ordinance by that group of individuals. A member and representative of the Minnesota Multi Housing Association (MMHA) met individually with team members to raise some of his concerns with the draft and to have an overall discussion concerning revisions being made. One concern he raised was the need for-the City to know all of the names and addresses of each partner, if the applicant for the rental license is a partnership. He is also opposed to the City having knowledge of the names and addresses of the majority shareholder and names and addresses of the officers. if the applicant for the rental license is a corporation. These requirements have been in place in the .ordinance since its inception in 1990, but not enforced. However, recently, staff has been legally advised to request this information. of all rental-licensing applicants each year so there are accurate records. The City is now doing that in conjunction with the renewal process so that there are accurate and up-to-date records on property owners. Staff has already experienced a situation in one multi-residential complex that significantly delayed gaining compliance because some owners were aware of violations while others were not. This was a result of not having. had a .complete and accurate list of all owners of the property. • Other components of the City's current ordinance have been reviewed and updated in this ordinance amendment. Many of these changes are efforts to clarifyspecific areas within the ordinance, simplify language, place specific codes in their own . section, and merge all related sections into one area of the ordinance book. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The passage of this ordinance will be critical in addressing the non- compliance issues staff currently has dealt with in multi-residential housing stock as well as also provides a tool for staff to use in dealing with tenant behavioral issues that can affect an entire complex. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A member and representative of the Minnesota Multi Housing Association may be present in opposition to the ordinance requirements regarding the need to provide partnership/corporation owners and board members information. C. FINANCIAL • The passage of this ordinance will provide a resource in either re- inspection fees or through provisional license fees to cover the cost of the additional strain on City services as a result of continued non- . compliance or tenant behavioral issues. • D. LEGAL • Mary Tietjen of Kennedy and Graven has worked with team members over the last several months on the development of this ordinance and will be present this evening. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • No action would result in on-going problems in gaining compliance from uncooperative property owners/managers and would mean that City services will not be reimbursed for inspections, etc., beyond the normal number needed to gain compliance. V. ATTACHMENTS • City Ordinance 405 • RAMA meeting notices • RAMA newsletter, September 2001 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Dan Scott, Director of Public Safety • Julianne Schwietz, Community Apartment Program Director (CAP) • Mary Tietjen, Attorney -Kennedy and Graven • • Glenn Mork, Police Lieutenant • Rick Regnier, Building Official • Betsy Christensen, Administrative Support Services Manager • Possibly Tenants • Possibly Property owners/managers & RAMA members • Steve Schachtman, representative of Minnesota Multi Housing Association • • BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE HOUSING CODE; AMENDING SECTION 405 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 405.00 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a subsection to read as follows: 405.00. Purpose and policy. The purpose of this section, which will be known as the housing maintenance code, is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. This section a) sets minimum standards for basic equipment and facilities, light, ventilation and heating and minimum space, use and location requirements; b) determines the responsibilities of owners aerators, and residents of dwellings; and c) provides for enforcement and penalties. Section 2. Subsection 405.03 of the Richfield City Code is amended by to read as follows: 405.03. Application of section. Tlus section applies to all dwellings, dwelling units, rooming units, rooming houses, and temporary housing ~~ located within the city. Section 3. Section 405.00 is amended by adding subsection 405.04 as follows: 405.04. Conflict of provisions. Subdivision 1._Other city code sections. In any case where a provision of this section is found to be in conflict with any other provisions of this code the provision which establishes the higher standard for the promotion and protection of the health and safety of the people will prevail. Subd. 2. Minnesota state statutes. Nothing in this section is intended to modi or abrogate the rights of tenants or landlords granted by Minnesota Statutes, chapter 504B. The director of public safet~av designate, subject to citescouncil approval administrators to carry out the duties assi ngYed by the court pursuaizt to said stattrte. Section 4. Subsection 405.01 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 4A~8~ 405.05. Definitions. Subdivision 1. The terms defined in this subsection have the meanings given them. Section 5. Subsection 405.01, subdivision 8 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: • Subd. 8. "Enforcement officer" means the director of public safety: or the director's designee. Section 6. Subsection 405.01, subdivision 12 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. x.11. "Operator" means any person who has charge, care or control of a building, or part thereof, in which dwelling units or rooming units are let. Section 7. Subsection 405.01, subdivision 13 of the Richfield City Code is deleted in its entirety. Section 8. Subsection 405.01, subdivision 14 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Subd. 44 12. "Owner" means any person who, alone or jointly or severally with others: (a) has legal title to any dwelling or dwelling unit, with or without accompanying actual possession thereof; or (b) has charge, care or control of any dwelling or dwelling unit, as owner or agent of the owner, survivor of the owner, or as executor, executrix, administrator, administratrix, trustee or guardian of the estate of the owner. Any such person thus representing the actual owner ~e is bound t:, ~m~=~Ply~*di 1~ the provisions of this ewe section and by any of rules and regulations adopted under this section ~,,,.~„°H* *'~°r°*~ to the same extent as ;~~e the owner. Section 9. Subsection 405.01, subdivisions 15 through 20 of the Richfield City Code are amended to read as follows: Subd. 4-5 13. "Plumbing" means and includes all of the following supplied facilities and equipment: water pipes, garbage disposal units, waste pipes, water closets, sinks, installed dishwashers, lavatories, bath-tubs, shower baths, installed clothes-washing machines, catch basins, drains, vents and any other similar supplied fixtures, together with all connections to water or sewer lines. Subd. -1-1- 14. "E-ce~arrt" "Resident" means any person over one year of age living, sleeping, cooking or eating in or having actual possession of a dwelling unit or rooming unit. Subd. ~ 15. "Rooming unit" means any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for living or sleeping but not for cooking or eating purposes. Subd. ~ 16. "Rooming house" means any dwelling, or that part of any dwelling containing one or more rooming units, in which space is let by the owner or operator to three or more persons who are not husband or wife, son or daughter, mother or father, or sister or brother of the owner or operator. • Subd. -1-g 17. "Rubbish" means combustible and noncombustible waste materials, except garbage; and the term includes the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke, and other combustible material, paper, rags, cartons, boxes, wood, excelsior, rubber, leather, tree branches, yard trimmings, tin cans, metals, mineral matter, glass crockery and dust. Subd. -p9 18. "Supplied" means paid for, furnished, or provided by or under the control of the owner or operator. Subd. ~8 19. "Temporary housing" means any tent, trailer or other structure used for human shelter which is designed to be transportable and which is not attached to the ground, to another structure or to any utility system on the same premises for more than 30 consecutive days. Section 10. Subsection 405.05 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 405.05. Enforcement. Subdivision 1. Inspections. ^~ ~~~~°"~~^n a.,>°";.,^ , „:+n „;*., ^„a ~ Generally. The enforcement officer is authorized and directed to make inspections to determine the condition of dwellings, dwelling units, rooming units, rooming houses, and temporary housing °~a „r°~~n°n located within a the city in order t#at-k °~ ~ '~~n a~•*~~ ^~ to safeguarding the health and safety of the eEe-upa~s residents of dwellings and the general public. For the purpose of making such inspections, the enforcement officer may enter, examine and survey at all reasonable times all dwellings, dwelling units, rooming units, roomin hg Doses and temporary housing ~remi~es _affter obtaining consent from the resident of the premises or after the owner has liven the resident reasonable prior notice of the inspection. If there is probable cause to believe that an emergency or a serious health and safety issue exists the enforcement officer may ins >l eCt without notice to or consent from the owner., manager or resident. ~° ^~=m°~ ^r ^^°~~r~r* ^~ °-~°~~ b> > ~ f > > b b f > > > > > ~ ~ ~ , ,~,.,+;^...,v..-1 n ,.L.i°n++^ +l~c... ~.fn„1.rii..ini~.r. '2 va>uaauuuuvaa cuau viii v'~.~ , Resident to give access to owner or operator. Upon receiving reasonable prior notice, every eEC-~t resident of a dwelling or dwelling unit must s13a11 give the owner ~ereef, or l~s the owner's agent or employee, access to any part of such dwelling or dwelling unit, or its premises, at all reasonable trines for the purpose of making s~ repairs or alterations as are necessary to e€feEt brim the dwellin into compliance with ~e-p~ev~sie~s-ef this section or with any l~ rule or regulation adopted ~ ^y '~ ~ ~ ' a °a ~* *^ *~° ^~' +>,:n Vl Ull 1lA VY~1 U1 V1>aG'• °~~ under subdivision 4 of this subsection. ~'~~°M~ ^^^•~~°~* ^~ ° a..,°~~~„^ ^r a,.,°~~~~~- ~ ~~* i s ~ ? Search warrant. If consent is refused and if there is probable cause to believe a violation exists within the particular structure, a search warrant may be obtained. No warrant is needed for entry where an emergency condition or serious health and safety issue exists. and insufficient time is available to obtain a warrant and protect persons or property 7~x Entry under this section is subject to Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.211. Subd.2. Violations. (a~Notice. If a violation of this section has occurred or the enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation has occurred, notice will be given to the licensee, or if there is no license, to the owner, operator, or resident of the premises. Notice of the violation must be in writing and sent by United States mail to the last known address of such person. The mailed notice will give the licensee, owner, or operator a specified number of days, up to 30 days to correct the violation. The enforcement officer has the authority to extend the time period to correct a violation if, in the discretion of the enforcement officer, good cause has been shown. fib) Anneal. A licensee ma~ppeal a determination that a violation of this section exists. The licensee must submit a written request for an appeal to the director of public safety within ten days after receiving a notice of violation under paragraph (a). A request for an appeal must be based on a claim that the true intent of this section or rule adopted hereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; that the provisions of this section do not apply, that the requirements of this section are adequately satisfied by other means, or that strict application of a requirement under this section would cause undue hardship. A hearing will be held within 20 days after the director of public safety receives the written request for an appeal. The director of public safety will act as the hearing official and will consider all relevant evidence, documents, and verbal presentations submitted during the hearing by both the licensee and the building official. The director of public safety will issue a written decision to the licensee and the building official within 10 days of the hearing: ( c) Penalty. If a notice of violation has been given to the licensee under ~g~raph (a) and the violation has not been corrected within the number of da~pecified in the notice, the licensee may not let dwelling units then vacant, or which become vacant, until all violations within the same dwelling have been corrected. Subd. 3. Prosecution and reinspection fee. . ~ Prosecution for any violation of this section will not be commenced unless notice under subdivision 2 of this subsection has been mailed and the violation has not been remedied within the time specified to correct the violation or within the time granted under any extension of such period. Failure to receive notice is not a defense in an~prosecution under this section. A fee, as set in appendix D of this code, will be charged for all reinspections re~c uired because of violations that are not corrected either by the time specified in the notice of violation orb theme expiration of the extension granted by the enforcement officer. Subd. 4. ~ Adoption of rules and regulations by the enforcement officer. The enforcement officer may make and adopt written rules and regulations as are necessary for the proper enforcement of the provisions of this section subject to the-provisions for public hearing in subdivision 5 4; provided that the rules and regulations are not in conflict with the provisions of this section, this code or any other applicable law. Tl~e enforcement officer sl}all will file a certified copy of the rules and regulations with the city clerk. The rules and regulations mall will have the same force and effect as the provisions of this section, and the penalty for violation thereof sl~ll will be the same as the penalty for violation of the provisions of this section. Subd. 5. -4- Public hearing. Prior to the adoption of rules and regulations pursuant to subdivision 4 ~, a public hearing s-ha~l must be held before the bed-e~l~e city council for the presentation of any proposed rules or regulations. Notice of the public hearing sl~l must be published at least two weeks before the hearing. Section 11. Subsection 405.07 of the Richfield City Code is deleted in its entirely. Section 12. Subsection 405.09, of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 405.09. Minimum standards for basic equipment and facilities. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person may occupy as owner-occupant or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living, sleeping, cooking or eating therein, which does not comply with the requirements of this subsectiondi~ier~. Subd. 2. Kitchen sink. Every dwelling unit shall must contain a kitchen sink in good working condition and properly connected to a water and sewer system approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 3. Flush toilet. Every dwelling unit except as otherwise permitted under subdivision 5 sl~l-1 must contain a room which affords privacy to a person within said room and which is equipped with a flush water closet and a lavatory basin in good working condition and properly connected to a water and sewer system approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 4. Bath. Every dwelling unit except as otherwise permitted under subdivision 5 shal-l must contain, within a room which affords privacy to a person within said room, a bathtub or shower in good working condition and properly connected to a water and sewer system approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 5. Shared facilities. The eE~ants residents of not more than two dwelling units may share a single flush water closet, a single lavatory basin and a single bathtub or shower if: (a) neither of the two dwelling tuiits contains more than two rooms; provided that, for the purposes of this subdivision, a kitchenette or an efficiency kitchen with not more than 60 square feet of floor area sh-al-1 will not be counted as a room; and (b) the habitable area of each of the dwelling units sl}all equals not more than 250 square feet of floor area; and (c) the water closet, lavatory basin and bathtub or shower sl3all must be in good working condition and properly coruzected to a water and sewer system approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 6. Connections. Every kitchen sink, lavatory basin and bathtub or shower required under the above provisions sly must be properly connected with both hot and cold water lines-and in good working condition. Subd. 7. Rubbish storage. Every dwelling ,.,, must be supplied with adequate rubbish storage facilities, the type and location of which are approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 8. Garba e dis osal. Every dwelling unit shall must be supplied with adequate garbage disposal facilities or garbage storage containers, the type and location of which are approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 9. Water heating. Every dwelling slrall must have supplied water-heating facilities which are properly installed, maintained in safe and good working condition, properly connected with the hot water lines required under the provisions of subdivision 6, and capable of heating water to such a temperature as to permit an adequate amount of hot water to be drawn at every required kitchen sink, lavatory basin, bathtub, or shower. at a te.~~Yeru ~r° ^~ r^* '°~° *~°~ ~ ~n ~°^~-°°~ ~'r The supplied water-heating facilities shall must be capable of meeting the requirements of this subdivision when the dwelling or dwelling unit heating facilities required under subsection 405.11 are not in operation. Subd. 10. E ress. Every dwelling unit shall must have safe, unobstructed means of egress leading to safe and open space at ground level, as required by the laws of this state and this code. Section 13. Subsection 405. l l of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 405.11. Minimum standards for light, ventilation and heating. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person may occupy as owner-occupant or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein, which does not comply with the requirements of this subsection. Subd. 2. Windows, air and light. Every habitable room shall must have at least one window or skylight facing directly to the outdoors. The minimum total window glazed area for every habitable room ~ is eight percent of the floor area of such room. Whenever walls or other portions of structures face a window of any room and the light-obstruction structures are located less than three feet from the window and extend to a level above that of the ceiling of the room, such a window is shall not be deemed to face directly to the outdoors and shall will not be included as contributing to the required minimum total window area. Whenever the only window in a room is a skylight-type window in the top of such room, the total window area of such skylight shall must equal at least ~ fifteen percent of the total floor area of such room. Subd. 3. Windows: specifications. Every habitable room shall must have at least one window or skylight which can easily be opened, or other device which will adequately ventilate the room. The total of openable window area in every habitable room shall must be equal to at least 45 percent of the minimum window area size or minimum skylight-type window size, as required by subdivision 2, except where there is supplied some other device affording adequate ventilation and approved by the''°°'*'~ °~~°°r ° ~~*~~•~°". enforcement officer. Subd. 4. Bath: windows. Every bathroom and water closet compartment shall must comply with the light and ventilation requirements of habitable rooms contained in subdivisions 1 and 2, except that no window or skylight ~ is required in adequately ventilated bathrooms and water closet compartments equipped with a ventilation system which is kept in continuous operation and approved by the enforcement officer. Subd. 5. Electrical outlets. Where there is electric service available from power lines which are not more than 300 feet away from a dwelling, every habitable room of such dwelling shall must contain at least two separate floor or wall-type electric convenience outlets, or one such convenience outlet and one supplied ceiling-type electric light fixture frg~es; and every water closet compartment, bathroom, laundry room, furnace room, and public hall sl~ll must contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture. Every outlet and fixture shall must be properly installed, sl}all-be maintained in good .and safe working condition, and sl~al~e connected to the source of electric power in a safe manner. Subd. 6. Heating. Every dwelling sl}all must have heating facilities which are properly installed, are maintained in safe and good working condition, and are capable of safely and adequately heating all habitable rooms, bathooms and water closet compartments in every dwelling unit located therein to a temperature of at least 70 degrees Fahrenheit, at a distance three feet above floor level; ,r,a°,. ,,,.a;.,,,,.<, „ „~° .,a;t;,. Subd. 7. Stairways: lights. Every public hall and stairway in every multiple dwelling containing five or more dwelling units sl}all must be adequately lighted at all times. Every public hall and stairway in structures devoted solely to dwelling occupancy and containing not more than four dwelling units may be supplied with conveniently located light switches, controlling an adequate lighting system which may be turned on when. needed, instead of full-time lighting. Subd. 8. Insects: screening. r,,,,.;,,g ~~,,,~ ,.,.,~;,,,, „~ °,,,.~, . „i,°„ ~~,° °r~ ,.,.°.~.°~~ ,,~~,.°,. Eevery deems window or other device with openings directly from a dwelling unit to outdoor space or used or intended to be used for ventilation shall must be supplied with screens_ This subdivision applies only to apartment houses and rental homes. ; ~ , Subd. 9. Basements: screens. Every basement or cellar window used or intended to be used for ventilation, and every other opening to a basement which might provide an entry for rodents, insects or other pests, seal-1 must be supplied with a screen or such other device as will effectively prevent their entrance. Subd. 4. Bath: windows. Every bathroom and water closet compartment shall comply with Section 14. Subsection 405.13 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 405.13. Minimum standards for r'°•~°•-~' • ~*~ r°'°*~~~- *^ *'~° safe and sanitary maintenance of parts of dwellings and dwellin units. Subdivision 1. General rule. It is unlawful to occupy as owner-occupant or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein, which does not comply with the requirements of this subsection: Subd. 2. Structure. Foundations, floors, walls, ceilings and roofs sly must be reasonably weathertight, watertight and rodent proof; sh°'~ capable of affording privacy; and ~e kept in good repair: and sound working condition. Subd. 3. Windows, entries. Windows, exterior doors and basement hatchways sl~l-1 must be reasonably weathertight, watertight and rodent proof; and ~e kept in sound working condition and good repair. Subd. 4. Exterior structures. Inside and outside stairs, porches and appurtenances thereto shall must be so constructed as to be safe to use and capable of supporting the load that normal use may cause to be placed thereon; and ~ kept in sound condition and good repair. Subd. 5. Plumbing fixtures. Plumbing fixtures and water and waste pipes s#afl must be properly installed and maintained in good sanitary working condition, free from defects, leaks and obstructions: and in og_od repair. Subd. 6. Water closets, floor surfaces. Water closet compartment floor surfaces and bathroom floor surfaces s must be constructed and maintained so as to be reasonably impervious to water and so as to permit such floor to be easily kept in a clean and sanitary condition. and in og od repair. Subd. 7. Supply facilities. Supplied facilities, pieces of equipment or utilities which are required under this subsection sh-a-I-1 must be so constructed or installed that they function safely and effectively, and ~ maintained in satisfactory working condition. Subd. 8. Discontinued or removed facilities. No owner, operator, or e~ resident may cause any service, facility, equipment or utility which is required under this section to be removed from or shut off from or discontinued from any occupied dwelling let or occupied by that person, e~eepa . A temporary interruption ~~-~y-~ is permissible if it is necessary while actual repairs or alterations are in process, or during temporary emergencies, •~~'~°„ ~'~~°°N+~~~~~„°° ^~ ° ° •°a ~.<, *',° °~~ ,.,.°.,.,°~,* ^Er;,.°r. If the supply of heat is interrupted for more than 24 consecutive hours during the month of November, December, January, February, or March, the property owner operator or resident must provide an alternative heat source for the unit with the prior approval of the enforcement officer. Section 15. Subsection 405.15 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 405.15. Minimum space, use and location requirements. General rule. No person may occupy or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein, which does not comply with the following requirements: (a) every dwelling unit sl~l-1 must contain at least 150 square feet of floor space for the first sit resident thereof and at least 100 additional square feet of floor space to be calculated on the basis of total habitable room area; (b) in every dwelling unit of two or more rooms, every room intended as a bedroom for ' one ^^~~•"~„* °',~" resident must contain at least 70 square feet of floor space, and every room intended as a bedroom e~ for sleepi~pese~-by more than one sit shall resident must contain at least 50 square feet of floor space for each eee~tpant resident thereof; (c) no dwelling or dwelling unit. containing two or more sleeping rooms shall ~ have such room arrangements that access to a bathroom or water closet compartment intended for use by e~e~pa~s residents of more than one sleeping room can be had only by going through another sleeping room; nor shall will room arrangements be such that access to a sleeping room can be had only by going through another sleeping room. or a bathroom or water closet compartment; (d) at least one-half of the floor area of every habitable room sl~ll must have a ceiling height of at least seven feet; and the floor area of that part of any room where the ceiling height is less than five feet shall will not be considered as part of the floor area in computing the total floor area of the room for the purpose of determining the maximum permissible occupancy thereof; and (e) no basement space shall ma be used as a habitable room or dwelling unit unless: (1) the floor and walls are impervious to leakage of underground and surface runoff water and are insulated against dampness; (2) the total window area in each room is equal to at least the minimum window area sizes as required in subsection 405.11; and • (3) the total of openable window area in each room is equal to at least the minimum as required under subsection 405.11, except where there is supplied some other device affording adequate ventilation and approved by the enforcement officer. Section 16. Subsection 405.17 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 405.17. Responsibilities of owners and eEC~ts residents. (a) The owner of a dwelling containing two or more dwelling units is responsible for maintaining in a clean acid sanitary condition the shared or public .areas of the dwelling and premises thereof. (b) The eft resident of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall must keep in a clean and sanitary condition that part of the dwelling, dwelling unit and premises thereof occupied and controlled by the eE~tpant resident. (c) The ee-~pa~n~resident of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall must dispose of all l~s rubbish and organic waste in a clean and sanitary manner by placing it in the garbage disposal facilities or ag i~ba eg storage containers required by subsection 405.09, subdivision 8. ~t.J^ „~ V3 j~Gilllll~ G1331G ~3Z • ,7 ~ '/ enc no „~.,a;,,:.,;^., Q 37L ~c +'~° , ~~":~~+~~ ^~t The owner to must supply soh garbage disposal facilities or Barba e storage containers for all dwelling units in a dwelling containing more than four dwelling units and for all dwelling units located on premises where more than four dwelling units share the same premises. In all other cases it is the responsibility of the e~ resident to furnish facilities or containers. (e) The eec-~tpat~t resident of a dwelling or dwelling unit is responsible for hanging all screens and double or storm doors and windows whenever the same are required under t~iis p~~~isien-ef this section or under of any rule or regulation adopted under this section ~ t~erete, except where the owner has agreed to supply the service. (f) The eEt resident of a dwelling containing a single dwelling unit is responsible for the extermination of any insects, rodents, or other pests *ShG°Z~•'°G'iT„1""C7i on the premises_ ~• - ~µ;,,+,,;,, ° ,a,,,°,,;,, ,a°„+ „+• „~.~. °,.+ r ^~ „ .,,a;+;^ In every other case, 13 3 00033 3 K k v, Vlllllg 113 U 3 V ~, extermination is the responsibility of the owner. ~x"~°~°•~°r ~~~ ~+°*~^r ° ~°*° ~~ *~•~^ ^ ° ^~*~° _ , ,,.,^,.° a,,.°»;,,^ , ,,;+~ °.,+ +• +~ ° ^~;~ +~,° ~:~.;~;+, ^~+~, This paragraph does vav .. .. Vlllllb GL333 GJ, Vl1GV 3313111C3G1VII Cli . not prohibit the owner from char~in~ the resident of the dwelling unit if the owner deems the resident responsible for the infestation. 10 (g) The ec-expandresident of a dwelling unit shall must keep all plumbing fixtures n in a clean and sanitary condition and ~~~~ ~° r°~'-~~~~~-~° ~ *~- must exercise of reasonable care in their proper use and operation t~€r€e~ Section 17. Subsection 405.21 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 4A3~-1: 405.19 Security devices. Subdivision 1. Pub. The purpose of this subsection is to require security devices in ~ buildings throughout the city as a safety, burglary and theft prevention measure. Subd. 2. Definitions. der-~ke~~;e~~--Qf-t~ri~bseEtte~ A "dead bolt lock" means a locking bolt which, when in the locked position, can only be moved positively by turning a knob, handle, key, sliding bolt, or mechanism activated by working a combination. A lock bolt moved by a skeleton-type key is excluded from this definition. Subd. 3. Locks rewired: ~~*~~~-° r.,,;~,a;,,n~. Dead bolt locks shall must be installed on all buildings eked-a~e~~tly-~1~'~-2~~1~ie1~-=ire designed for occupancy as living quarters or as business or industrial establishments. > ; • ~El~i~ll-i~s~c~~s~-e~is-*~F~e T~~~'~- Subd. 4 ~. Place of installation. Dead bolt locks required to be installed under the provisions of this subsection shat-1 must be installed on all entrance doors to the particular unit or building involved. Where there is a double door at an entrance, one of which is a storm door, the dead bolt lock shall must be installed on the year-round door rather than the storm door. Subd. 5 g. Persons responsible. T?,° _ _ r __~:'~_h*~~ ~ _ _~_ ~'`..___ ..:*~ *~'„ „ ~-,,,,,,*~ ~ » °"r^ '-J "p"+ •••• ~+u ~,av Livia .~aiuaa ~° The owner and the manager, operator or agent in charge of any building or structure t,...... ..„+'''" +''° "M'~c...,f th=~ JRO~~~r is responsible for compliance with this subsection Subd.' 6 ~. Security enforcement The enforcement officer is authorized and directed. to administer and enforce the provisions of this subsection-fie and may disapprove dead bolt locking devices that do not meet the requirements of this subsection. ~~ ~~ Section 18. Subsection 405.19 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: :7 Sectio~i 406-Rooming houses 4A~1-9: 406.01. Rooming? houses. Subdivision 1. General rule. No person may operate a rooming house or occupy or let to another. for occupancy any rooming unit in any rooming house, except in compliance with the provisions of this s~section. Subd. 2. Permit re aired. No person may operate a rooming house without a valid rooming house permit issued by the enforcement officer in the name of the operator and for the specific dwelling or dwelling unit. The operator ~1-rall must apply to the enforcement officer for the permit, which shall will be issued by the enforcement officer upon. compliance. by the operator with the applicable provisions of this s~section and of any rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. This permit sl}all must be displayed in a conspicuous place within the rooming house at all times. Ne-p Permits ~e are not transferable. Every person holding a permit sl}aIl must give notice in writing to the enforcement officer within 24 hours after being sold, transferred, given away, or otherwise disposed of ownership of, interest in or control of any rooming house. The notice sl}aIl must include the name and address of the person succeeding to the ownership or control of the. rooming house. Every rooming house permit shad expires at the end of one year following its date of issuance, unless sooner suspended or revoked as hereinafter provided. Subd. 3. Appeal of denial of permit. A person whose application for a permit to operate a rooming house has been denied may peal the denial. A written notice of appeal must be filed with the director of public safety within ten days of the denial of the permit. If a notice is not filed with the director of public safety within ten days of the denial the council has the discretion to accept or reiect the appeal Appeals wider this section will be heard by the city council At a hearing under this section the enforcement officer and the applicant may present evidence including witness testimony relevant to the permit denial . The council may affirm or reverse the permit denial or issue conditions which must be met before a permit will be issued. Subd. 4. Notice of violation. Whenever upon inspection of any rooming house the enforcement officer finds that conditions or practices exist which are in violation of any provision of this s~section or of any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, the enforcement officer sl3all will give notice in writing to the operator of such rooming house that unless the conditions or practices are corrected within a reasonable period, to be determined by the enforcement officer, the operator's rooming house permit will be suspended. At the end of the period the enforcement officer sly will reinspect the rooming house, and if',n~~~~t the conditions or practices have not been corrected,l3e notice shall will be given =,~e in writing to the operator that the tatter's permit has been suspended. Upon receipt of notice of suspension, the operator sl~l must immediately cease operation of such rooming house, and no person may occupy for sleeping or living purposes any rooming unit therein. Subd. 5. Appeal of suspension of pei~l~it. A person whose permit to operate a rooming house has been suspended, or who has received notice from the'°~'*'~ °~~°°r enforcement officer that leis the permit is to be suspended unless existing conditions or practices at leis the rooming house are corrected ,may b 12 +l,°;« .]°~; „°° ..,,a°,- +L,° ,„-.,~°rl,,,-° ,~ V1F~E?.a L,<, ~°..+;.,,, 2'x!1 ,~«.,.,;.a°.a +1,.,+ ; f ... +'+' F L. D f fihall he-d~~mea ±o ?~a._ bc__y »~,*~__~~'.;_..11J ._..,h_~?. appeal the suspension. The appeal will be made in the manner provided in subdivision 3 of this subsection. Subd. 6. Bathroom requirements. At least one flush water closet, lavatory basin, and bathtub or shower, properly connected to a water and sewer system approved by the enforcement officer and in good working condition, sl~al-1 nn>st be supplied for each eight persons ^r ~-~°+~^^ *'~°r°^~residing within a rooming house, including members of the operator's family wherever they share the use of said facilities; provided that in a rooming house where rooms are let-only to males, flush urinals may be substituted for not more than one-half the required number of water closets. The facilities shall must be se located within the dwelling as to be reasonably accessible from a common hall or passageway to all persons sharing such facilities. Every lavatory basin and bathtub or shower sl~alll must be supplied with hot water at all times. No facilities shall may be located in a basement except by written approval of the enforcement officer. Subd. 7 ~. Sleeping room floors >> ace. Every room intended as a bedroom for o~ "'°°"'"^ „~•~^°°~'~<~ one person sl~l-1 must contain at least 70 square feet of floor space, and every room intended as a bedroom for o:,c«pied .~ •• ~~°°~~„~- ,,,,,....^°°~ ~<~ more than one person shall must contain at least 50 square feet of floor space for each eE~ resident. Subd. 8 ~. E reg ss requirement. Every room unit shal•1 must have a safe, unobstructed means of egress leading to safe and open space at ground level, as required by the laws of this state and this city. Subd. 9 ~-8. Maintenance. The operator of a rooming house ~e is responsible for the sanitary maintenance of all walls, floorsz a~ ceilings, doors and windows and for maintenance of a sanitary condition in every other part of the rooming house; and lze ~'~~"''° ~<~-*'~°r is responsible for the sanitary maintenance of the entire premises where the entire structure or building is leased or occupied by the operator. .,n',.. .y ,, a Fl ~ Section 19. Subsection 405.25 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: • 13 • Section 407 -Inspection and licensing of apartment houses and rental homes 407.00. PLS. It is the purpose of this section to assure that rental housing in the city is decent safe and sanitary and is so operated and maintained as not to become a nuisance to the neighborhood or to become an influence that fosters blight and deterioration or creates a disincentive to reinvestment in the community. The operation of rental residential p~erties is a business enterprise that entails certain responsibilities. Operators are responsible to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to assure that the citizens of the city who occupy such units may pursue the quiet enioyment of the normal activities of life in surroundings that are• safe secure and sanitary; free from noise, nuisances or annoyances• and free from unreasonable fears about safety of persons and securit~of pro~~ • Section 20. Subsection 405.23 of the Richfield City Code is deleted in its entirety. Section 21. Subsection 405.25 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: 407.03. n nom. ~5p~t}Ate-and ' ~ ~ ° ~r + '~ ~ + ~ ~ c i.a. .. 'Ti Ti7~ LTI2rTI~fT~~~-artcrrcncurzzOrrr~a-v ccoari~rOirr- Definitions. For the purposes of this subsection ana ~•~'~~°~+~~~ Inc ~ti the terms defined herein have the following meanings: (a) "Apartment house" means a building containing three or more dwelling units. (b) "Apartment", "apartment unit" or "dwelling unit" means a room or group of rooms located within a building and forming a single habitable unit with facilities which are used or intended to be used for living, sleeping cooking and eating by persons other than the owner. (c) "Rental home" means a one or two-family dwelling which is occupied by persons other than the owner. (d) "Family" means one or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single, nonprofit housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house. The term "family" does not include a group of individuals, exceeding three in number,. not related by blood, marriage or adoption. The term "family" includes necessary employees. (e) "Housing maintenance code" mea~ZS subsections 405.01 through 405.19 of this code _ ,and sl~ll also means all other codes and regulations of the city pertaining to the occupancy and habitability of the licensed premises. (fj All other definitions contained in subsection 405.01, subdivisions 1-~A 19 are incorporated in this subsection by reference and made a part hereof. • 14 • (g) "Owner" means, with respect to all matters involving the making of applications and the giving of notices, the individuals or entities holding legal and equitable title to the premises, or the legally constituted agent designated by the owner for such purposes. 407.05. ? License required. (~-} r°r°r.,1 D.,1°. It is unlawful for any person who is an owner of an apartment house or an owner of a rental home to operate such apartment house or rental home without first having obtained a license under the provisions of this s~section. There are two types of licenses: regular and provisional. Provisional licenses are defined in subsection 407 13 All references to licenses in this section are references to regular licenses unless otherwise stated ~ b in.,,°~,a^a Da1 T~T., loo n ~~ ~a aaaavlll.~V,A, Lll 407.07. ~~. Licensing_procedure. ,~~- ~niEati-e~1=-~A~~t~-Pt4a£l~~~el.°,• i i oon ~1, ~ ..,._,. . L > > i to ~°f"ui vv^"~" j of uuy ur~cir'tF3~°~-crii-i=r~6i~~6i~3~. ~xclzuc'acrn111 TAT 1 Onl1 '2\ Subdivision 1. (~ Application: contents. The application sl~l must contain the following information t^^°*',°~~ .<.;*1, ~~~~~ and any other information as that the director of public safety may require to assess compliance with the housing maintenance code and this s~section. (a) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and addresses of each partner,-, (b) If the applicant is a corporation, the names and addresses of the majority shareholder, and the names aid addresses of the officers. (c) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of individuals responsible for the maintenance and management of the premises. (d) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals responsible for keeping and maintaining the tenant registers. (e) If the applicant is an owner of multiple dwellings multiple apartment houses, or multiple rental homes the leC7a1 address of each dwelling apartment house or rental home owned by the applicant located within the city of Richfield Subd. 2. {~-} Issuance of licenses. 15 ~ If the director of public safety concludes as a result of the information contained in the application a~ or other available information ,that an apartment house or rental home appears to comply with requirements of the housing maintenance code and this subsection, the director of public safety s will issue the license. If the director of public safety concludes as a result of the information contained in the application or other available information ,that an apartment house .-or rental home appears not to be in compliance with the housing maintenance code and this section the director of public safety. skull will order an emote inspection to determine compliance. The licensee or applicant must notify the residents of the apartment house or rental home of the inspection and must permit the director of public safety to enter u op n the premises for the purpose of conductin~> the inspection to verify compliance with the housing maintenance code. If the i~r~Rt~ inspection discloses noncompliance, the applicant sl~ll will have a 68-d~y designated time period, to be determined by the director of public safety from receipt of notice of noncompliance to correct the defects specified in the notice, but only if the defects do not create an imminent hazard. The director of public safety may ~„ '~~~ a' ^r°*~°~, authorize additional time for compliance. ~ From the date that the director has ordered an mediate inspection under paragraph ~, no occupancy of dwelling units then vacant, or which become vacant, is permitted until a license has been issued. Apartment units within an unlicensed apartment house for which a license application has been made and which units are determined, bred upo : µ :.,.~; ~+~,° ~' +' ""' "+''° ~ .~~t:.,~~ a ''o R~, l~~1~-to l~ the director of public safety, to be in compliance with the housing maintenance code may be occupied provided that non-complying units within the apartment house do not create an imminent hazard to the health and safety of persons in occupied units. Such occupancy may continue until a final determination on the granting or denial of the license is taken by the city. Subd. 3. Denial, suspension revocation non-renewal (a) The council may revoke suspend deny or decline to renew any license issued under this section u on any of the following_grounds: (1) false statements on any application or other information or report required by this section to be iven b the a plicant or licensee (2) failure to pay any application penalty reinspection or reinstatement fee required either by this section or city council resolution (3) failure to correct deficiencies noted in notices of violation in the time specified in the notice. (4) failure to comply with the provisions of an approved miti ation plan in the case of provisional licenses. ~5) any other violation of this section. 16 • (b) Revocation, suspension. and non-renewal may be brought under either this subsection or under subsection 407.15. (c) Regular licenses will be revoked, if at mid term, or not renewed, if at the end of a term, upon a finding that the premises are on1Y eligible for a provisional license as provided in subsection 407.13. ~d) Before a decision to revolve, su~end, deny or not renew a license is made, the council must provide written notice to the applicant or licensee setting forth the alleged grounds for the potential action. Before final action. to revolve, suspend, deny or not renew a license is taken the applicant or licensee may appeal as set forth in subdivision 4 of this subsection. A decision to deny not renew, suspend or revolve a license may only be made upon written findings. The council may consider the frequency and seriousness of violations, the ease with which such violations could have been cured or avoided and food faith efforts to comply. fie) The council may suspend or revoke a license or not renew a license for part or all of a facility. Upon a decision to revolve, deny or not renew a license, no new application from the current owner for the same facility will be accepted for a period of time specified in the. council's written decision, not exceeding one year. New applications must be accompanied by a reinstatement fee, as specified in al~endix D of this code, in addition to all other fees req-uired by this section. fig) A written decision to revolve, suspend, deny or not renew a license or application will speci the part or parts of the facility to which it applies. Until a license is reissued or reinstated, no rental units becoming vacant in such part or parts of the facility may be relet or occupied. Revocation, suspension or non-renewal of a license will not excuse the owner from compliance with all terms of this section for as lop ag s any units in the facility are occupied. (h) Failure to comply with all terms of this section during the term of revocation, suspension or non-renewal is a misdemeanor and ~;rotulds for extension of the term of revocation, suspension or continuation of non-renewal of the license. Subd. 4. ~n~ Appeal. In any instance where the director of public safety has denieds revoked, suspended, or not renewed an-~~~ietrfer a license, the applicant or licensee may appeal the decision to to the city council by delivering to the city clerly a notice of appeal within ten days of receipt by the applicant or licensee of notice of the cit-y-n~~ decision by the director of public safety. The applicant or licensee will be liven an opportunity for a hearing before the city council. The decision of the city council or any decision by the director of public safety °~''° ^~'~~ m^r^~-°r which is not • appealed in accordance with this paragraph ~ is deemed a final determination by the city. 17 • Subd. 5. C~~'~-~--~e-en~ Reriewal:~~. The term of a license granted under this subsection is one year from the date of issuance. -rt,°';°°~~°° °~,^" r°~^,.++^ +r,o ,a;,.°,.+^,. ^~..,,~.';^ ^''^r°'~~'a°r ° ~'~^r°'~°'''°~•~ ^"'' °F{~^°~•~ ~ , *',° ^ ^~ ^ N^+~^~^ The license must be renewed annually thereafter. As a requirement of renewal of a license, the enforcement officer ma d that all dwellings owned by the licensee be inspected to ensure compliance with the housing maintenance code. The licensee must ~~ive notice of the annual inspection to all residents of dwellings owned by the licensee. Subd. 6. Transfer. A ~ license is transferable upon application to the director of public safety, and payment of the license transfer fee by the prospective owner, ~° „ °„+^' ~,,,,,..° : „';.,.,,.° ..;+', +',° i,„„~;,,,, ^^,a°. The license shall- terminates if renewal or application for transfer is not made within 30 days after transfer of ownership of the apartment house or rental home. , b , ~ b ~ , • +l,° .,,.,„1;...,+;1,,,. A°;,,~+.,+°,,,°„r .,f-'., ~ „.a(.,a T ; ~° ~l,.,lt 1,.Q ., ° °.a l.<, .,,, ^,v,« ,,,+ ° ,.,1 +., ~v°~ee~-tl~e-~tEexse~° T~~,,,,,,,,° °+• ., T ; „~°,. ~ ,.^+;,,,, ^~,^ii i.° ,,.,^,a° ; "~~ 407.09. Obligations. of licensee. Subdivision 1. Re ort char es in ownershi . The licensee must report to the director of public safety an~~es in the identit~of the owner, including a change in the majority shareholder or shareholders and officers in the case of corporations. The licensee must report a change in ownership at least 30 days before closing. Subd. 2. ~~~'~~' ~. T ~°°"~°°: Display. Licenses issued under this subsection sl}alI must be displayed on the premises of the apartment house or rental home, wherever feasible and produced upon demand of a prospective tenant; or the director of public safety. ^~~t1-x~aed Subd. 3. ~ Tenant register. The licensee must sl~l, as a continuing obligation of its license, maintain a current register of tenants and other persons who have a lawful right to occupancy of apartments within the apartment house or rental home. In its application, the licensee sl}a1-1 must designate the person or persons who will have possession of the register; and sl~l must promptly notify the director of public safety of any change of the identity, address or telephone numbers of such persons. The register must be available for inspection by the director of public safety, °,. r,;~ ~°°~?~~^*°, at all times. • 18 "+;~~~ rr 0 u ~ ~~-Si-bl3~at~-iv--c-rii~ +1, 1' ~°.a ~.,ll.,,:n,. +l ~ • + E` L, ~" ~ t ~r 1, + • ~ a ~ i7 ,.uN. t .1 ~ ~ J a Subd. 4. ~ Fees. The fees for licenses required by this subsection as well as any penalties, are in the amounts established in appendix D of this code. ~~ ~ °~ - ''"°"°° r +l +' tl f rl h nh O9au i """tea • •~ +" 407.11.. Penalt . c 1-'' . " n ~' ~ ~° ~ Any person. who violates the provisions of this sl.~section or who makes a materially false statement in t-1~ a license application, is guilty of a misdemeanor. ~ ,.a,l.„~t The city may enforce the provisions of this section in any court of competent jurisdiction in law or equity. • b ~ ~ ~ !'tuv ~ ~ Section 22. Subsections 407.13 and 407.15 of the Richfield City Code are added to read as follows: 407.13. Provisional Licenses. Subdvision 1. When required Licensed multiple dwellings that have generated an average of over S~olice or fire calls per dwelling unit in a precedin¢ six month penod as ~ecified below are eligible only for provisional licenses. ~a) Police and fire calls that are counted in deternuning whether a provisional license is rewired include the followin<7 types of calls or events: calls or events listed in subsection 407.15, subdivision 1; calls or events categorized as part one crimes in the Uniform Crime Reportin~7 System, including homicide rape robbery asgravated • assault burglary theft auto theft and arson; 19 . 3 calls or events categorized by the police department as: miscellaneous juvenile status crimes, liquor offenses or curfew violations disturbing the peace or harassing communications; property damage• criminal damage to property or trespass• fire alarms as des~nated by the fire chief; public disturbance or disorderly conduct• loud p_arty or noise complaints; disorderly ,juveniles' assault in the fifth degree or non-domestic related assaults. The director of public safety will maintain for public inspection a description of the coding system and a list of the codes and crimes included within each. of these categories of calls or events; The director of public safety has the discretion to count multiple incidents as a single call and to exclude certain incidents in appropriate cases. (b) Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining whether a provisional license is required where the victim and suspect are "family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act Minnesota Statutes section S 18B.01, subdivision 2 (b) and where there is a report of "domestic abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, section S18B.01, subdivision 2 (a). (c) Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining whether a provisional • license is required where calls are made as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section SO4B.20S. (d) The citesprovide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of calls described in subdivision 1 (a) above. fie) A provisional licensee will be eligible to apply for a regular license after police and fire calls are reduced to the level that qualify for a regular license and have been maintained at that level for at least l2 consecutive months. Subd. 2. Mitigation clan. al The ar~blicant for a i~rovisional license must submit for council review a mitigation plan for the license period The miti aig .ion plan must describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of ,police and fire calls described in subdivision 1, paragraph (a), to a level that qualifies for a regular license. The miti~7ation plan may include, but is not limited to, such steps as: changes in tenant screeniniprocedures changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct and security persomlel. bl The application with a »rooosed mitigation plan will be presented to the city council together with a recommendation by the director of public safety as to the disposition of the plan. After iving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence the council will approve disapprove or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the • council disapproves an application and mitiQation~lan or approves it with conditions it will state its reasons for so doing in writing. 20 • ~) The licensee must comLy with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the council No later than the tenth da~after each- calendar month the licensee will mail or deliver to the Richfield director of public safety a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the miti atg ion flan during tl~e preceding month. Subd 3. Manager certification. ~) To qualify for a provisional license the applicant must provide and maintain at least one resident manager or on-site mana;~er who is trained under this subsection. To qualify for a provisional license the applicant must also provide the name of at least one responsible party who will be available as a contact 24 hours a day. fib) Persons maybe trained as a resident manager or on-site manager who successfully completes the phase one~ortion the Crime Free Multi-HousingLPro~ram provided by a certified law enforcement agency ~) Provisional licenses n~ay bedranted to applicants who are not currently providing a certified resident or on-site manager and licenses may continue in effect on the departure of a certified resident manager on the condition that a resident manager or on-site manager register for and complete the training program within 90 days. • 407.15. Conduct on licensed premises, Subdivision 1. Disorderly conduct. ~) It is the responsibility of the licensee to see that persons occupyin~ the licensed premises conduct themselves in such a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly or to take reasonable remedial action when disorderly conduct does occur. For purposes of this subsection a premises is disorderly at which any of the following activities occur: (1) Violation of laws relating to the possession of controlled substances as defined in Mirulesota Statutes section 152.01, subdivision 4. ~2) Violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.72 (disorderly conduct) and section 925 O1 subdivision 3 of this code (public nuisances). ~3) The unlawfi~l sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor. (4) Violation of Minnesota Statutes sections 609.755 and 609.76 (laws relating to g_amblin~). (5) Violation of laws relating to prostitution as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 609 321 and acts relating to prostitution. ~6) Unlawful use or~ossession of a firearm or weapon in violation of Miiulesota Statutes, sections 609.66, 609.67 624.713 or section 920 of this code. • (7) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 609.50 (interference with a peace officer . 21 • (8) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 609.705 (unlawful assemblyZ ~9) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 609.71 (riot (10) Violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 609.713 (terroristic threat (11) Violation of Miiu~esota Statutes, section 609.715 (presence at unlawful assembl (12) Violation of the following sections of this code: 930.13 (motor vehicles, 930.15 (does), 930.19 (horns), 930.21 (radiosLd 930.29 (noisy. atgi herings). Subd. 2. F,nforcement and administration. (a) The director of public safety is responsible for enforcement and administration of this section. The director of public safety ma~elegate authority to take any action authorized under this section. (b~ Upon determination by the director of public safety that a licensed premises was .used in a disorderly mamler, as described in subdivision (1), the director of public safety will give notice to the licensee of the violation and direct the licensee to take steps to prevent further violations. (c) If a second instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs within three months of an incident for which a notice in paragraph L was given, the director of public safety will notify the licensee of the violation and will require the licensee to submit a written report of the actions taken, and proposed to be taken, by the licensee to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. This written report must be submitted to the director of public safety within five days of receipt of the notice of disorderly use of the premises and must detail all actions taken by the licensee in response to all notices of disorderly use of the premises within the preceding three months. (d) If a third instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs within three months after any two previous instances of disorderly use for which notices were given to the licensee pursuant to this subsection. the rental dwelling license for the premises may be denied, revoked, suspended or not renewed. The director of public safety will initiate an action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license under this section. The director of public safety will give written notice to the licensee of a hearing before the city council to consider such denial, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal. Such written notice will specify all violations of this section and state the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing. The hearing will be held no less than ten days and no more than 30 days after i~c such notice. Following the hearing, the council may deny, rev. oke, suspend or decline to renew the license for all or any part or parts of the licensed premises or may_grant a license upon such terms and conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section. (e) After a third instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises as defined in • paragraph ~d), the director of public safet~a~place the rental dwelling license into provisional license status under section 407.13. A licensee may request the director of public safety to 22 • reconsider the determination to place the license into~rovisional status if the licensee disputes the occurrence of a third instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises. A rectuest for reconsideration must be submitted in writing to the director of pubhe safety wrtlun 10 days after the licensee has received notice that the license will be placed into provisional status. ~f) For purposes of this subsection second and third instances of disorderly use will be those which: occur at the same rental unit; or involve residents at the same rental unit; or involve guests oi• invitees at the same rental unit; or involve guests or invitees of the same resident; or involve the same resident. ~g,~ A license may not be denied revolted suspended or not renewed when the_instance of disorderly use of the licensed~nemises occurred during the pendency of eviction proceedm~s unlawful detainer) or within thirty day5 of notice ivg en by the licensee to a resident to vacate the premises when the disorderly conduct was by that resident or by other occupants or suests of the resident's unit. An action to deny ~•woke suspend or not renew a license based upon violations of • this section may be pos~oned or discontinued at any time if the director of public safety determines that the licensee has taken reasonable and appropriate measures in an attempt to prevent further instances of disorderly use. ~h~A determination that the licensed premises have been used in a disorderly manner as described in subdivision 1 will be made upon substantial evidence to support such a determmnation. It is not necessary that criminal char<res be brought in order to support a determination of disorderly use Dismissal or acquittal of a criminal charge is not a bar to denial revocation suspension or non-renewal of a license under this section. ~i) All notices given by the city under this section will be personally served on the licensee sent by registered mail to the licensee's last known address or if neither method of service effects notice by posting on a conspicuous place on the licensed premises. (j) Enforcement actions provided in this section are not exclusive and the city council may take any action with respect to a licensee a resident or the licensed premises as is authorized by this code or state law. Section 23. Subsection 405.26 of the Richfield City Code is amended to read as follows: Section_408 -Certificate of housing maintenance compliance for single and two family homes • 408.01 4~ ~ti r ~„ , ~a ,.., ~.,~,_~~~ ~cr;-r cu~~-~-i -i-r~ n-mrnr~c~c-com~rr~=r~ l~et~e~: Subdivision 1. Certificate required. 23 (a) No single or two-family structure or dwelling unit which is a part of a multiple dwelling located within the city may be voluntarily conveyed for consideration by deed or contract for deed after October 1, 1990, unless the person relinquishing ownership or the agent of such person has first applied for and secured a certificate of housing maintenance compliance. (b) This subsection shall does not apply to any apartment house or rental home licensed under subsection n n~ 407 of this code, and ''^'~-~-'~"-`P'e has no effect upon the provisions of law or other ordinances related to the issuance of building permits. Subd. 2. At~plication and inspection. (a) Application for the certificate of housing maintenance compliance sl~ll must be executed upon forms provided by the city and accompanied by the initial fee established in appendix D of this code. (b) Upon receipt of a properly executed application the director of public safety sl~l will cause an inspection to be made of the premises to ensure the structure is in compliance with applicable provisions of subsections 405.01 through 405.19 of this code (the housing maintenance code). Subd. 3. Issuance of certificate. If the structure is in compliance with the requirements of the • housing maintenance code, a certificate sk~l-1 will be issued to the person relinquishing ownership or the agent thereof stating that the structure has been inspected and is in compliance with the housing maintenance code. During the period of one year following its issuance, a certificate may be accepted by the city in satisfaction of the requirements of this subsection without the need for a second inspection. Subd. 4. A_;2~eal A determination that the structure is not in compliance with the housing maintenance code may be pealed in the manner provided in section 405.05, Subd. 2(b). Subd. 5 4. Occupancy prohibited. The person relinquishing ownership or their designated agent sl~ll must obtain the certificate from the city prior to transfer of ownership. The prospective owner sl~l may not occupy the structure prior to issuance of the certificate, except pursuant to subdivision ~6. Subd. 6 ~. Occupancy. A person may be granted permission to occupy a dwelling prior to issuance of the certificate upon the approval of the director of public safety. The approval sl~a~l may be based upon u~~due hardship or other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided that no such occupancy constitutes an immediate hazard. Approval sh~l will not be given until the prospective owner or designated agent has filed on forms supplied by the city, a statement of intent to comply with the housing maintenance code. Compliance dates in the statement of intent to comply sl~al-1 will be established by the director of public safety. Failure to make the required corrections by the compliance dates ' " *'+ + is a violation of this code and sl~l will render void any approval given pursuant to this subdivision. 24 the city finds by Subd. 7 ~. Additional inspections. If following the issuance of a certificate, complaint or otherwise that the structure may be maintained in a substandard manner, a new inspection will be required in order to satisfy the requirements of this section. Subd. 8 ~. No warranty by city. By enacting and undertaking to enforce this subsection neither the city nor its council, agents or employers warrant or guarantee the safety, fitness or suitability of any dwelling in the city, and any representation to the contrary by any person is a misdemeanor. Purchasers or occupants should take whatever steps they deem appropriate to protect their interests, health, safety and welfare prior to purchase or occupancy of the dwelling, without reliance on this certificate. A warnin<~ in substantially the foregoing language sl~l will be printed on the face of the certificate. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f nt~ ~ r *• t .a ~, ~orl 1~~Ltl?_ Subd. ). Remedies. Any person who violates the provisions of this s~section, or who makes a knowingly false statement in the application, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, the • city may enforce the provisions of this section in any court of competent jurisdiction in law or equity. Section 24. This ordinance is effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. • 25 Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk MDT203817v1 RC 145-212 • 26 Dear--RAMA Member, In.September, the RAMA coalition met to discuss potential changes to~the Rrchfeld ordinancesfor Multi-housing. Now that we have a DRAFT of these changes, I would like: to invite: your input orrce again. RAMA will meet on November 5, at7:00"in'the Council Chambers, at City Hall. -'After we have reviewed the draft, I will bring your ideas to the `Richfield Livable>Community Team. From there.; we are scheduled to bring ` the' document before>the City Council in December or January. A ~` `public hearing is always part of-this process.. Please call me with any questions:. 651-702-3247. I hope to see::you on ~NQ,Yernber 5., .If you would like~to see he drafk~before the. meeting;,. please. call'me. (It°is 22 pages'long.) Sincerely, Julianne Schwietz, CAP Director Mailed: October 29, 2001 • _J__------ - ~- Dear~RAMA Member, In'Septernber and November, the RAMA coalition met to discuss potential changes to the Richfield Qrdinance for Multi-housing. Now that we I'~~ve a FLNAL DRAFT of these changes, l would like to incite your input°une more time` before the City Council votes on changes. RAMA will meet on Tuesday, December"11, 2001 at 10::00 qM, in the Council'Ghambers, at City. Hall: From'.there we are scheduled~tti~ brirg.the document before-the City Council on Tuesday, January 8, 200F2. A public hearing is always part of this process. Please call me with anyquestions: -651 /702-3247. If you wowld: like a , copy of the.finaldraft before the meeting, I can mail, fax or a-mail :copi.es: Sincerely, Julianne Schwietz, CAP Director .: ~ ~ , Mailed: December`3, 2001 >~? z Y:e; s AGENDA SECTION:. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # 6E REPORT# 299 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: DAWN WEITZEL HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE C7 • REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving an amendment to the 2000-2001 labor~contract with the International Association of Firefi hters Local 1215. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution designating an increase in the City's contribution toward health insurance. premiums for the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215. II. BACKGROUND City staff has completed labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 for the contract re-opener (insurance) of its 2000 and 2001 contract subject to Council approval. The City pays the full individual employee premium for those employees choosing single coverage, and for employees covered under the Local 1215 contract, the City is currently contributing $455 for dependent care coverage. General Services, Management, Police Supervisors, 911 Dispatchers, and Police employees are currently receiving $475 for dependent health care coverage. It is recommended that the City increase its dependent coverage from $455 per month to $475 per month. These changes would affect those employees represented by the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215. The increase is requested so that STEVEN L. DEVICH these employees are offered the same insurance contribution levels already given to some union and non-union employees. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The. City is a LOGIS board member and has participated in the process of receiving. the best possible health insurance rates. • The City has met and negotiated with the Union and is bound. under the Public Employers' Labor Relations Act to meet and bargain over the terms and conditions of employment. The 2001 proposed settlement is similar to other City employee groups and is well within the range for firefighter bargaining groups in similar cities. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • In order to allow the City's accounting personnel to modify payroll records in a timely manner for 2001 wages and benefits, it is recommended that the City Council act on December 10, 2001 to adopt the attached resolution providing for contract changes, effective January 1, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • • 14 full-time employees would receive an increase in City contribution level to health insurance. This would cost the City approximately $3,360. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested health insurance contribution changes, the City Council must approve the resolution designating City's contribution toward health insurance premiums for employees covered by the International Association of Firefighters Local 1215. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council may take no action to increase the insurance premiums beyond the current 2001 funding level. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACFIMENTS • Resolution • Letter of Agreement VI. PRINCII'AL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 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, the City of Richfield and International Association of Firefighters Local 1215 have a signed bargaining agreement covering a two year period ending December 31, 2001; and WHEREAS, the labor agreement covers all terms and conditions of employment including the City contribution for health insurance benefits; and WHEREAS, the City has historically provided the same level of health insurance contribution to all eligible City employees, both union and non-union;.. and WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain such a position of equity; and WHEREAS, the current health benefit for International Association fo Firefighters Local 1215 is $20 per month below the $475 contribution given to most other employee • groups; 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 maximum of $475 per month for family health insurance, and in any event, said contributions shall- not exceed the cost of single coverage for employees selecting that option. Such contributions shall be for coverage effective January 1, 200.1. 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 10th day of December 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • LETTER OF AGREEMENT .BETWEEN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 1215 The above named parties hereby agree to administer the provisions of Article 22 - Insurance, in accordance with the terms set forth below. The terms of this Agreement are as follows: Section 1: Effective January 1, 2001 the Employer shall contribute up to a maximum of four hundred seventy-five dollars per month per employee for the calendar year 2001, including dependent coverage, towards an employee health insurance premium offered by the Employer. • Section 6: The Employer shall comply with Minnesota Statutes 471.61, Subd. 2b, allowing eligible Employees and their dependents to continue to participate in the Employer sponsored hospital, medical and dental insurance group insurance plan. The costs for such continued participation shall be the responsibility of the eligible Employee or their dependent. This section shall not obligate the Employer to any greater level of responsibility for such insurance continuation than those specified by M.S. 471.61, Subd. 2b. Th.e undersigned do .hereby agree this 6T" day of December, 2001. For the U~nio~ri: /d' ~~ -~~. • • AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CONSENT 6D 298 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASSISTANT NAME, TITLE U REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ORDUNO,-CITY MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of canceling the December 26 City Council meeting. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: ' B Motion: Cancel the December 26, 2001 Cit Council meetin . II. BACKGROUND ` The City Council regularly meets the second and fourth Monday evening of each month. The fourth Monday in December is Christmas Eve Day and Tuesday is Christmas Day so the Council is scheduled to meet on Wednesday, December 26, 2001. Items for the December 26 Council meeting can be carried over to January 8, 2002. Therefore, it is suggested that the regular Council meeting scheduled for December 26 be canceled. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Richfield City Code Section 205.01, Regular Meetings, states that if a regular City Council meeting date is a legal holiday, the meeting shall be held on the next following day at the same hour and place. • Past practice has been to cancel the Council meeting on the fourth Monday of December due to the Christmas holiday. 1211cancel . B. CRITICAL ISSUES • City Council business can be carried over to January 8, 2002. • This item has been placed on the December 10 City Council agenda so proper notification can be made if the meeting is canceled. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not cancel the December 26 Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM # ( C REPORT # 2 g 7 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CORRINE THOMSON, CITY ATTORNEY NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance amending Section 7.13 of the Richfield City Charter to establish a June 30 deadline for the submission of the annual financial. report and schedulin a ublic hearin and second readin for Janua 8, 2002. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading. of an ordinance amending Section 7.13 of the Richfield City Charter to establish a June 30 deadline for the submission of the annual financial report and set a public hearing and second reading for January 8, 2002. II. BACKGROUND Earlier this year, the City Council asked the Charter Commission to consider amending the City Charter with respect to the date on which the City Manager must submit the annual financial report to the City Council. The City Charter currently requires the financial report to be submitted by April 10. However, .audited. financial reports are generally not available by that date, which has resulted in the submission of an unaudited report by the April 10 deadline and an audited financial report no later than June 30. The City Attorney prepared a proposed ordinance and submitted it to the Charter Commission for consideration. On November 13, 2001, the Charter Commission approved the proposed ordinance and submitted it to the City Council for its consideration. Under the proposed ordinance, the deadline for submission of the financial report would be changed from April 10 to June 30. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The current City Charter requirement sets an unrealistic deadline for the: submission of an audited financial report. Compliance with this deadline results in the Council receiving two reports - an unaudited report and an audited report. • The unaudited financial report does not appear to provide added value to the Council's consideration of the City's financial status. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The current Charter requirement results in duplicative work for the City Council and City staff in presenting and considering an unaudited financial report, without any noticeable value in the unaudited report. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance. • This amendment is being proposed under the procedures at Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7. That statute requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed ordinance, preceded by two weeks' published notice that contains the text of the proposed amendment and that has been approved by the Mayor. • The ordfinance is not effective unless: (a) it is adopted unanimously and (b) the City does not receive a petition for referendum on the ordinance within 60 days after publication of the ordinance. However, only a majority approval is required on first reading. • If the proposed ordinance is ultimately approved by less than unanimous vote, the City Council may direct that the ordinance be submitted to the Charter Commission and then the. voters in accordance with Minnesota. Statutes Section 410.12, Subdivision 5. IV. ALTERNATNE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the first reading of the ordinance. In that event, the Charter Commission could require that the Charter amendment be placed on the ballot at an election. ATTACHMENTS ~ • Proposed ordinance. • Letter from Charter Commission President • Letter from City Attorney VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. Copy: Charter Commission President Paul Muilenberg 1210charterfinancialreport BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT; AMENDING SECTION 7.13 AND CHAPTER 7 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER; AMENDING DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF FINANCIAL REPORT BY CITY MANAGER THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings; authority. 1.01. The City of Richfield (City) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an Amendment to Chapter 7 of the charter and recommended to the City Council that the Amendment be adopted by City Council ordinance in the manner prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is set out in Section 2.02.. 1.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on by the City Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and .scope of the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment were heard at the public hearing.. • 1.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Cit and its Y inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted. Section. 2 Adoption; effective date; filing. 2.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Charter Commission is adopted. 2.02. The text of the Amendment is as follows: a. Section 7.13 of the City Charter is amended to read as follows: Section 7.13. Accounts and Reports. The accounts of the City shall be maintained on an accrual or modified accrual basis in accordance with generally accepted governmental accounting standards and procedures.. The City Manager shall submit such reports as will be necessary in order. to keep the Council fully informed of the financial condition of the City. Once.. each year on or before the a-9~' 30t" day of A-pr+l June, the City Manager shall submit a complete financial report of the City for the preceding fiscal year ending December 31, a summary of which shall be published in the official newspaper. Th/~e City Manager, under the direction of the Council, on or before June 30 of each year, shall prepare at least one . comprehensive public information report of the financial .affairs of the City. Said report shall be an informative type, and shall be distributed Citywide.:- 1210charterfinancialreport 2.03. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this ordinance, • signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council for that purpose. 2.04. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of. 2002. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • 1210charterfinancialreport Paul W. Iyluilenber~ 6707 Second Avenue South .(612) 866-5960 Richfield; Minne~Qla_55423 November 20, 2001 The Honorable Martin Kirsch City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Proposed Amendments to Richfield City Charter Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: Please find enclosed for the consideration by the Richfield City Council, two proposed amendments to the Richfield City Charter. The Richfield Charter Commission has reviewed both amendments and has voted to approve such amendments in accordance with our bylaws. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. • Sincerely, RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION aul W. uilenberg President • Kelllled~~ ' - ~iI'~~~ eIl 470 Pillsbury Cenccr 200 South sixth street iVlinnapolis MN 55402 (G12) 337-9300 telephone (G12) 337-9310 fax http://www kcnnedy-graven.com CoRRIIVE H. T~OMSOIV Attaneyaets~- Direct Dial (612) 337.9217 Errnil: cthorrsy.gtarp~,cam October 5, 2001 Paul Muilenberg Richfield Charter Commission 6707 Second Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Proposed Charter Amendments . Dear Paul: This follows our meeting recently regarding possible amendments to the Richfield City Charter. Enclosed are two amendments that the city council has asked the Charter Commission to consider. The first concerns an amendment to section 7.13 of the City Charter.. The charter currently requires a financial report to be submitted to the city council no later than April 10. Because an audited report is never available by the April 10 deadline, for the past several years the staff has presented an unaudited report to the council prior to April 10, followed by presentation of an audited report at a later date. Because .the first report is unaudited, it has limited usefulness to the council, and the council asked that the date be revised to later date. A proposed form of amendment is enclosed for the commission's consideration. The second arrlendment would add a new provision to the charter, authorizing the city to establish administrative penalties for violations of city ordinances. Several cities have adopted similaz amendments to their charters, including the Cities of Minnetonka, Bloomington, and Brooklyn Park, among others. Instituting an administrative penalty system has various advantages, including: 1. It de-criminalizes the violation of the city ordinances. Offenders are not required to appear at Hennepin District Court to respond to a criminal citation before a judge, but aze able to appeaz at city hall to have their matter heazd by a hearing officer. The process is less intimidating and stigmatizing. • CAH-203977c1 RCI~S-17 Paul Muilenberg October 5, 2001 Page 2 of 2 2. Matters are handled with the time and attention that they deserve. The county courts have crowded dockets, where zoning ordinance violations pale in comparison to more serious crimes before the court. While the courts understandably place a higher priority on violent crimes, ordinance violations are important matters to those who are directly impacted by them. The administrative hearing officer's attention is focused only on the ordinance matter that is before him or her. 3. Penalties are paid to the city. When criminal citations are issued, any fines imposed by the court are split between the county and the city. An ordinance amending the charter to add a new section 13.13 is enclosed for the commission's consideration. I have also enclosed for your information a sample copy of an ordinance (in this case, Brooklyn Park's) that implements the charter provision. If the charter amendment is adopted, the staff will ask the city council to consider an ordinance similar to the one enclosed. C The city council requested only the enclosed charter amendments. However, our office has identified other changes that the commission may want to consider. These include grammatical and . wording changes in Chapter 7, to clarify the charter and to bring the charter into conformance with the state Truth in Taxation requirements. If the commission is open to considering those types of changes, please let me know. I would be happy to meet with the commission to discuss further the matters raised in this letter. Sincerely, ~~Ls Corrine H Thomson CHT jms Enclosures cc: Samantha Orduno (wlencs) r~ U CAH-203977v t RC 115-17 ~J AGENDA SECTION: onsent AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # 2 9 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CORRINE THOMSOlV, CITY ATTORNEY NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: ORDUNO, .CITY MANAGER NAME, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an ordinance amendment Chapter 13 of the. Richfield City. Charter b addin anew section authorizin administrative fines and enalties. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion:. Approve first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 13 of the Richfield City Charter by adding a new section authorizing administrative fines and penalties and schedule the public hearing and second reading for January 8, 2002. II. BACKGROUND Earlier this year, the City Council asked the Charter Commission to consider amending the City Charter to allow the City Council to establish an administrative procedure and penalties for violations of City ordinances. The Council's request was based in part upon the satisfaction reported by other cities in the State, including the cities of Minnetonka and Bloomington, that have established administrative penalty systems. The use of administrative penalties provides the City with a means of enforcing City Code violations, in addition to the. issuance of a criminal citation or the initiation of a civil lawsuit. The City Attorney prepared a proposed ordinance and submitted it to the Charter Commission for consideration. On November 13, 2001„ the Charter-.Commission approved the proposed ordinance and submitted it to the City Council for its consideration. The proposed. ordinance would add a new Section 13.13 to the City Charter.. The Charter amendment would enable the City Council to adopt an ordinance that would • establish procedures for imposing administrative penalties against person(s) who violate specified provisions of the City Code. The ordinance could also provide for the assessment of unpaid administrative fines against the property that related to the code violation for which the penalty was imposed. The specific provisions of an administrative penalty. procedure will be set out in an ordinance that the City staff will prepare and present to the Council for future consideration. Adoption of this ordinance will only amend the Charter to provide authority for the future adoption of such an ordinance. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The addition of an administrative penalty procedure increases the City's tools for obtaining code compliance. • Under an administrative penalty system, property owners appear before a hearing officer at City Hall rather than a judge in the criminal courts, which both de-criminalizes the violation and requires the property owner to respond directly to-the City instead of responding indirectly through the court system. • The administrative hearing process is less formal and less intimidating. than the criminal or civil judicial system, which enables both the City and the violator to focus on resolution of the violation. • The use of an administrative hearing procedure reduces the City's criminal caseload, enabling the. City's prosecutor and the court system to focus their efforts on crimes that have greater or more immediate impact on public safety. • The criminal justice system does not always provide an effective remedy for code violations, where the City's ultimate objective is code compliance rather than a fine or imprisonment of the violator. The use of administrative hearings is better suited to achieving code compliance, because it requires the violator to respond directly to the City on noncompliance issues. B. .CRITICAL ISSUES • The use of criminal citations- has not been an effective and efficient means of obtaining code compliance in every instance. • The use of civil lawsuits to obtain code compliance is most effective in obtaining code compliance, but it involves significantly greater costs and lengthier delays than does the criminal justice system: • The use of administrative hearings provides a third tool for achieving code compliance, with limited costs and delays. • . C. FINANCIAL • Fines collected through an administrative penalty system belong entirely to the City, in contrast to fines collected through the criminal judicial ystem, which. are divided between the county and City. • The administrative hearing procedure is less costly than a civil lawsuit. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney recommends that the City Charter be amended to authorize the establishment of an administrative hearing procedure, before the City Council adopts such a procedure. • The City Attorney prepared the attached ordinance and will be available at the Council meeting to respond to questions. • This amendment is being proposed under the procedures of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7. That statute requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed ordinance, preceded by two weeks' published notice that contains the text of the proposed amendment and that has been approved by the mayor. • The ordinance is not effective unless: (a) it is adopted unanimously and (b)the City does not receive a petition for referendum on the ordinance within 60 days after publication of the ordinance. However, only a majority approval is required on first reading. • ` If the proposed ordinance is ultimately approved by less than unanimous vote, the City Councif may direct that the ordinance be `submitted to the Charter Commission and then the voters in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 410.12, Subdivision 5. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not approve the first reading of the ordinance. In that event, the Charter Commission could require that the Charter amendment be placed on the ballot at an electiori. U. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance. • Letter from Charter Commission President • Letter from City Attorney VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. Copy: Paul Muilenberg, Charter Commission President • BILL NO. • AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY GOVERNMENT; AMENDING CHAPTER 13.0E THE RICHFIELD CITY CHARTER; ADDING A NEW SECTION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE FINES AND PENALTIES THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Background; findings; authority.. 1.01. The City of Richfield .(City) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 1.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an Amendment adding a New Section to Chapter 13 of the charter and recommended to the City. Council that the New Section be adopted by City Council ordinance in the manner prescribed by Section 41.0.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment inset out in Section 2.02. 1.03: A public hearing on-the Amendment was- held on by the. City. Council. after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as required by the Act: The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of the Amendment.. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment were . heard at the public hearing. 1.04. The Council finds and determines. that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted. Section. 2 Adoption; effective date: filing, 2.01. The Amendment as proposed'by the Charter Commission is adopted. 2.02. Anew section 13.13 is added to the Richfield City Charter; the text of the Amendment is as follows: a. Section 13.13. Fines and Penalties. b. Subdivision 1. The council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing an administrative penalty for any violation of the City Code or a City ordinance. The procedure must provide that any person charged with an administrative penalty will receive notices ofviolations and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral party, which may be the city council. The procedure may authorize the City to use the services of a non-City employee to decide whether an administrative penalty should be imposed. • c. Subdivision 2. The City Council mayprovide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a special assessment against property which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity proposed use delivery of City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the penalty • The ordinance must provide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the penalty. The ordinance must also provide that notice and an opportunity to be heard will be given to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the penalty is assessed. 2.03. This ordinance is effective ninety (90) days after its publication, except that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by the Act is filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 % of the voters voting. on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council for that purpose. 2.04. On the effective date of the Amendment, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to file copies of the Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the certificate required by Section 410.11 of the Act. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2002. • ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Paul W. Muilenberg 6707 Second Avenue South (612) 866-5960 Richfield; Minne~ota_SS423 • November 20, 2001 The Honorable Martin Kirsch City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Re: Proposed Amendments to Richfield City Charter Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: Please find enclosed for the consideration by the Richfield City Council, two proposed amendments to the Richfield City .Charter. The Richfield Charter Commission has reviewed both amendments and has voted to approve such amendments in accordance with our bylaws. If you have any questions. or comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, RICHFIELD CHARTER COMMISSION ~./ aul W. uilenberg President • Kennedy Graven 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Screet Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http:l/www kennedy-graven.com CORRINE H. THOMSON AtOOmey at Law Dinxt Dial (612) 337-9217 Email: cthotmon a(,1~ cecvKdy-graven.cam October 5, 2001 Paul Muilenberg Richfield Charter Commission 6707 Second Avenue. Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Proposed Charter Amendments r~ 1~ Dear Paul: This follows our meeting recently regarding possible amendments to the Richfield City Charter. Enclosed are two amendments that the city council has asked the Charter Commission to consider. The first concerns an amendment to section 7.13 of the City Charter. The charter currently requires a financial report to be submitted to the city council no later than April 10. Because an audited report is never available by the April 10 deadline, for the past several years the staff has presented an unaudited report to the council prior to April 10, followed by presentation of an audited report at a later date. Because the first report is unaudited, it has limited usefulness to the council, and the council asked that the date be revised to later date. A proposed form of amendment is enclosed for the commission's consideration. The second amendment would add a new provision to the charter, authorizing the city to establish administrative penalties for violations of city ordinances. Several cities have adopted similar amendments to their charters, including the Cities of Minnetonka, Bloomington, and Brooklyn Park, among others. Instituting an administrative penalty system has various advantages, including: It de-criminalizes the violation of the city ordinances. Offenders are not required to appear at Hennepin District Court to respond to a criminal citation before a judge, but are able to appear at city hall to have their matter heard by a hearing officer. The process is less intimidating and stigmatizing. CAH-203977v 1 RC14~-17 • Paul Muilenberg October 5, 2001 Page 2 of 2 2. Matters are handled with the time and attention that they deserve. The county courts have crowded dockets, where zoning ordinance violations pale in comparison to more serious crimes before the court. While the courts understandably place a higher priority on violent crimes, ordinance violations are important matters to those who aze directly impacted by them. The administrative hearing officer's attention is focused only on the ordinance matter that is before him or her. 3. Penalties aze paid to the city. When criminal citations aze issued, any fines imposed by the court aze split between the county and the city. An ordinance amending the- charter to add a new section 13.13 is enclosed for the commission's consideration. I have also enclosed for your information a sample copy of an ordinance (in this case, Brooklyn Pazk's) that implements the charter provision. If the charter amendment is adopted, the staff will ask the city council to consider an ordinance similaz to the one enclosed. The city council requested only the enclosed charter amendments. However, our office has identified other changes that the commission may want to consider. These include grammatical and wording changes in Chapter 7, to clarify the charter and to bring the charter into conformance with • the state Truth in Taxation requirements. If the commission is open to considering those types of changes, please let me know. I would be happy to meet with the commission to discuss further the matters raised in this letter.. Sincerely, rC"l~ 8s~'~- Corrine HThomson CHT:jms Enclosures cc: Samantha Orduno (w/encs) CAH-203977v 1 RC145-17 U AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # ' REPORT # STAFF REPORT Consent 6A 295 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE .] REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution establishing Council Rules of Procedure and Decorum. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution and City Council Rules of Procedure and Decorum. II. BACKGROUND The Richfield City Council Rules of Decorum and Procedure were approved by the City Council on July 23, 2001. At a Worksession on November 13, 2001 the Council requested that the Public Participation, Open Forum, section be revised to include permitting persons to speak who complete a registration card prior to the commencement of the Council meeting. Previously, the only permitted way to speak at the Open Forum was for all persons to pre-register by contacting the City Manager's office no later than 4 p.m. on the day of the regularly scheduled Council meeting. Those who register with the City Manager's office will be allowed to speak first at the meeting, followed by those completing the registration card. Only Section 3 Council Meetings Subd. 9. Public Participation; Section (b) of the Rules of Procedure and Decorum is revised, as requested by the City Council. ~J 1210decorum . III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City Charter provides that the Council,. by resolution, may set their Rules of Procedure and Decorum. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The attached Rules of Procedure and Decorum have been revised to reflect the Council's,request regarding-public participation in the Open Forum portion of the City Council agenda. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be present to address any legal issues. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Revise the Rules of Procedure and Decorum as appropriate. • Defer action on this matter to a future Council meeting. V. - ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. • Rules of Procedure and Decorum VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • 1210Procedureanddecorum RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, it is appropriate for the City Council to establish rules of procedure and decorum for council meetings and Board and Commission meetings; and WHEREAS, the Richfield City Code, section 205.13, subd. 2(c) provides that the City Council may adopt such special rules by ordinance or resolution from. time to time as necessary; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is appropriate to adopt these special rules of procedure and decorum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Richfield, as follows: The attached rules of procedure and decorum are hereby established.. 2. These rules shall remain in effect -until modified by resolution of the City Council . 3. :These rules shall be interpreted, wherever possible, so as to be consistent with the rules set forth in the City Code. In the case of any irreconcilable conflict between these rules and the rules in the City Code, the rules in the-City Code shall prevail Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 10th day of December 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • 1210Procedureanddecorum RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL • RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DECORUM SECTION 1. PURPOSE Subd. 1. General. It is recognized that in order to enhance the concept of effective and democratic government, it is essential that a legislative body establish formal rules of procedure and decorum so that a true deliberative process will be observed and not disturbed. SECTION 2. GENERAL Subd. 1. Law. The City Charter, Ordinances and State Statutes governing the City Council shall be followed and supplemented by the Rules of Procedure and Decorum of the City Council. Subd. 2. General Rules. In all matters of parliamentary procedures, the Council shall be governed by the latest printed edition of the STURGIS STANDARD CODE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE as published from time to time except as modified by these rules and the rules set forth in Section 205 of the City Code. SECTION 3. COUNCIL MEETINGS Subd. 1. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Council shall be held, without necessity for notice, every second and fourth Monday commencing at 7:00 p.m. until December 31, 2001 and every second and fourth Tuesday commencing at 6:30 p.m. thereafter, in the City Council Chambers, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota. Subd. 2. Other Locations. The Council may, from time to time, elect to meet at other locations within and outside the City and upon such election shall give public notice of the change of location in accordance-with State law and the City Charter. Subd. 3. Location During Local Emergency. If, by reason of emergency, it shall be unsafe to meet in the City Hall, the meetings may be held for the duration of the emergency at such other place as may be designated by the Mayor or designate. Subd. 4. Special Meetings. The Mayor or any two members of the Council may call a special meeting of the Council upon at least 12 hours written notice to each member of the Council. The notice shall be delivered personally to each member or shall be left at the Council Member's usual place of residence with some responsible person. Special meeting notices will not be published, but will be posted at City Hall, the Hennepin County Library located within the City and the City's Community Center. SECTION 4. PRESIDING OFFICER Subd. 1. Who Presides. The Mayor shall preside at all meetings of the Council. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem shall preside. The • presiding officer shall have the power to preserve strict order and decorum at meetings, enforce the rules of procedure, and determine without debate, subject to the final decision of the Council on appeal, all questions of procedure and order. Subd. 2. Appeal of the Ruling of the Presiding Officer. Any member of the Council may appeal from a ruling of the presiding officer. If the appeal is • seconded, the member may speak once solely on the question involved and the presiding officer may explain the ruling, but no other Council Member shall participate in the discussion. The appeal shall be sustained if it is approved by a majority vote. Subd. 3. Rights of the Presiding Officer. The presiding officer may speak on any question and make motions and second motions. SECTION 5. AGENDA Subd. 1. Matters for Consideration. Matters for Council action-shall be submitted by members of the Council and residents to the City Manager. Subd. 2. Preparation. An agenda of business for each regular meeting. shall be prepared in the office of the City Manager and completed by 4:30 p.m. on the Friday preceding a meeting. Copies thereof delivered to each. Council Member as-far in advance of the meeting as time forpreparation will - permit. Subd. 3. Order of Business at Regular Meetings. At the hour appointed for the regular meeting of the City Council, the meeting shall be called to order by the presiding officer. If a quorum is present, the City Council shall then proceed with its business in the following manner: (a) .approval of minutes of previous meeting (c) (d) (fl) (g) (h) (i) U) presentations Council discussion agenda approval consent calendar public hearings proposed ordinances resolutions City Manager's report other business Subd. 4. Varying Order of Business. The presiding officer may vary the order of business. Subd. 5. Minutes. Subdivision 1. Approval of Minutes. The clerk shall provide a printed copy of the minutes of each meeting to each Council Member as soon as possible after each meeting. If such printed copies have been distributed to Council Members in advance of the next regular meeting of the Council the minutes may be approved without verbatim reading. Amendments or corrections proposed by any member of the Council shall be made by the clerk, but no amendment to which objection is raised by any member shall be made without the approval of a majority of the Council. Subd. 2. General Contents of Minutes. The clerk shall record all material matters considered by the Council in the minutes. Minutes shall be summary minutes. Ordinances, resolutions, communications and claims considered by the Council need not be recorded in full in the minutes if they appear in other permanent records of the clerk and can be accurately identified from the description given in the minutes. The Council may in its discretion direct that any one of the above be fully set out in the minutes. Subd. 6. Consent Agenda. In the preparation of the agenda for a meeting, the City • Manager may place certain items of business on a consent calendar. A member of the Council wishing to remove any item from the consent calendar may do so at the time that the consent calendar is reached on the general Council agenda. Any item removed from the consent calendar shall become one of the regular agenda items of the meeting.. All items not so removed from the consent calendar may be passed by a single, non-debatable motion. Matters proposed by the City Manager for the consent agenda shall be those that the Manager deems to be of a routine, non-controversial nature. Subd. 7. - Items Not on the Agenda. -The Council may consider items not appearing on the agenda as normal ,business if a Council Member does not raise. an objection. If a Council Member raises an objection, a vote of the majority of the Council .Members present shall determine the appropriateness of further consideration of the matter at that time. The Council may not take action on any item that. requirespublic notice or hearing. Subd. 8. Presentation of Agenda Item. The City Manager shall introduce each agenda item, unless done so by a Council Member, followed by the presiding officer's opening of the item for Council discussion. Oral summaries of Staff Reports on agenda items will not be given; but the .City Manager and appropriate staff will stand for questions and clarification on items. Subd. 9. Public Participation. Members of the public may address the City Council • during: (a) Public hearings. (b) Open Forum. Prior to the commencement of the official business of the Council at regularly scheduled Council meetings, members of the public will be afforded- the opportunity to address the Council on City business and items that are not on the meeting's agenda. Open Forum will be limited to a total of 15 minutes and each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes. Individuals will not be permitted to give their time to others. All persons wishing to speak during the Open Forum nit may register-either with the City Manager's office no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day of the regularly scheduled Council meeting or by Registration shall include their name, address and the topic on which they wish to speak. Staff will provide a list of the Open Forum speakers to the presiding officer at the start of each Open Forum. Those who registered with the City Manager's office will be allowed to speak first, followed by those completing the reaistration cards. The presiding officer will announce each name and their the topic. • If there are more people registered than time allows, the Council may, after a majority vote of the City Council, provide a second Open Forum limited to a total of 15 minutes directly before the adjournment of the meeting. Speakers will be restricted to 3 minutes each. • Speakers will not be permitted to make direct or inferred comments on personality conflicts with City Council, commission or staff members and speakers who make personal attacks, campaign endorsements or campaign statements will lose the opportunity of addressing the Council in Open Forum. City Council will not take official action on items discussed during Open Forum, except to refer items to staff or commission for future report. Council Members may ask questions for clarification purposes, _but they may wish to investigate or research issues before responding.. City Council or staff members will respond at a later date by letter,. telephone or in person. The Open Forum shall not be videotaped or cablecast. (c) Specific issues scheduled on the agenda, other than public hearings, if no Council Member raises an objection. If a Council Member raises an objection, a vote of the majority of Council Members present shall determine the appropriateness of accepting public comment. on the matter under consideration. (d) Items coming before the Council from the Planning Commission, HRA and other boards and commissions that do not require a . public hearing may. by a majority vote of the Council, be the subject for public discussion. SECTION 6. VOTING Subd. 1. Procedure. The votes of the members on any ordinance, resolution or motion pending before the Council shall be by voice vote, unless the Mayor or any Council Member requests that a roll call vote be taken. The presiding officer shall call for a roll call vote whenever a voice vote of the Council is not clear as to the disposition of the action before the Council. Subd. 2. Voting Order for Roll Call. The clerk shall call for the vote in consecutive order of wards. The presiding officer shall always vote last. Subd. 3: I Action Requiring a Vote. C:ounci~ members are encouragea to ~ express their reasons. for the vote that they will cast on any issue the Council requires a Council vote. -Subd. 4. Excused From Voting. A Council Member may be excused from voting on a matter properly before the Council only with the unanimous consent of the other members present, unless the member is required by law to abstain from voting. The Council Member must announce the member's intention to abstain prior to the vote being taken. The clerk shall record - the abstention as "Abstain-name.' • SECTION 7. RULES OF DECORUM Subd. 1." Council. While the Council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Council nor disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the presiding officer. • Subd. 2. Recognition. Members of the Council shall first be recognized by the presiding officer prior to addressing any other Council member, staff or member of the public.. First names will not be used to address Council Members, staff or members of the public. Subd. 3. Discussion. At the request of any Council Member or the Mayor, Council discussion shall be limited as provided in this subdivision. When the rules of this subdivision are invoked, no member of the Council shall speak. more than twice on any question, nor more than five minutes each time without consent of the Council Subd. 4. Staff. Members of the City staff shall observe. the same rules of order and decorum as are applicable to the City Council Subd. 5. Pertinent to Matter Under Debate: Members of the: Council, staff and public shall confine remarks to the matter under debate. Subd: 6. Addressing the Council. Each member of the public addressing the Council shall step up to the microphone provided for the use of the public and after being recognized by the presiding officer give his/her name and address in an audible. tone of voice for the records, state the subject to be discussed, and state who the speaker is representing if representing an organization or other persons. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having-the floor shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Council, without permission of the presiding officer. No question may be asked a Council Member or a member of the staff without the permission of the presiding officer. The presiding officer may impose athree-minute time limit on remarks by speakers, whenever in the presiding officer's judgment, a time limit is necessary in order to expedite the progress of the meeting or ensure the opportunity for other speakers to be heard. The City Council may by majority vote extend the time limit imposed by the presiding officer. Subd. 7. Spokesman for Group of Persons. In order to expedite matters and to avoid repetitious presentations, whenever any group. of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for he presiding officer to request that a spokesperson be chosen by the group to address the Council and,. in case additional matters are to be presented by any other member of said group, to limit the number of such persons addressing the Council. Subd. 8. After Motion. After a motion has been made or a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the Council from the audience on the matter under consideration without first securing the permission to do so by a majority vote of the City Council • -Subd. 9. Conduct. Any member of the Council, staff or person indulging in personal attacks or making impertinent, slanderous, or profane remarks or who willfully utters loud, threatening or abusive language, or engages in any disorderly conduct which would impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of any meeting, hearing or other proceeding, shall be called to order by the presiding officer and, if such conduct continues, may at the discretion of the presiding officer, be ordered barred from further audience before the Council during that meeting. Subd. 10. Members of the Audience. No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly conduct such as hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling, using profane language, yelling, and similar demonstrations, which conduct disturbs the peace and good. order of the meeting. If, after being cautioned to cease and desists from such behavior, the- behavior continues, the presiding officer may call a recess until such time that the members of the audience refrain from such conduct. SECTION 8. ENFORCEMENTS OF DECORUM Subd. 1. Warnin .All persons shall, at the request of the presiding officer, be silent. If, after receiving a warning from the presiding officer, a person persists in disturbing the meeting, said officer may order the person removed from the meeting. If the person does not remove himself/herself, the presiding officer may order that the Sergeant-at-Arms remove the person. Subd. 2. Sergeant-at-Arms. The Public Safety Director, or such member or members of the Police Department, shall be Sergeant-at-Arms of the Council meetings. The Public Safety Director or such member or members of the Police Department shall carry out all. orders and instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining • order and decorum at the. Council meeting. -Upon instruction of the presiding officer it shall be the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove from the meeting any person who intentionally disturbs the proceedings of the Council Subd. 3. Resisting Removal. Any person who resists removal by the Sergeant-at- Arms maybe charged with violating City ordinance. Subd. 4. Motions to Enforce. Any Council Member may move to require the presiding officer to enforce these rules and the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council shall require the presiding officer to do so. Subd. 5. Adjournment. In the event that any meeting is willfully disturbed by a person or group of persons so as that orderly conduct of the meeting is not feasible, and when order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are creating the disturbance, the meeting may be adjourned with the remaining business considered at the next regular meeting or at a special meeting called by the presiding officer. SECTION 9. WORKSESSION MEETINGS Subd. 1. General. Worksession meetings of the City Council may be held at the call of the Mayor. No official Council action will be taken at Worksession meetings. Subd. 2. Rules of Procedure and Decorum. The Rules of Procedure and Decorum • of the City Council shall be observed in Worksessions so far as they are applicable. Subd. 3. Audio Recordingof Worksessions. All Council Worksessions shall be audio taped and maintained. in the same manner used for recording and maintaining audio tapes for regular meetings of the Council. SECTION 10. CAMERA AND RECORDING DEVICES Subd. 1. Use of Cameras and Recording Devices Limited. Cameras, including television and motion picture cameras, electronic sound recording devices and any other mechanical,. electrical or electronic recording devices may be used in the Council Chamber, but only in such a manner as will cause a minimum of interference with or disturbance of the proceeding of the Council. SECTION 11. SEPARABILITY Subd. 1. General. If any section., subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of these Rules of Procedure and Decorum is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such. holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining .portions thereof. SECTION 12. ITEMS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL .Subd. 1. General. Any and all written materials,. documents and other materials presented to the City Council at a Regular, Special or Worksession meeting including but not limited. to maps, models, pictures and drawings shall become the property of the City. SECTION 13. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Subd. 1. Introduction and Adoption. All legislation of the City shall be by ordinance. Ordinances, resolutions and other matters requiring Council action shall be introduced by a member of the Council The Manager may present ordinances, resolutions and other matters for consideration. Subd. 2. Readings. Every ordinance shall- receive two readings before the Council prior to final adoption. An ordinance need not be read in full unless a member of the Council requests such a reading. Subd. 3. Emergency Ordinances. An emergency ordinance is an ordinance necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and: morals, safety, or welfare in which the emergency is defined and declared in the preamble. An emergency ordinance must be adopted by the unanimous vote of the Council Members present. Subd. 4. Amendments. Amendments may be made to a proposed ordinance after either its first or second reading. Subd. 5. City Charter Provisions. The procedure for the adoption of ordinances and resolutions shall conform to the requirements of the Charter. -Subd. 6. Public Hearing Requirements. Public hearings will be held only for • those matters required by State law or City Charter. SECTION 14. ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS Subd. 1. Attendance at Council Meetings. Attendance of Council Members at. meetings is one of the most important duties imposed by law on members. Member presence to participate in the hearings, delib- erations and decisions of the Council is essential to the proper discharge of the member's official duties. Recognizing that it is not always possible for a member to be present at all meetings, and that by reason of business demands, state of health, personal problems, vacations and other matters occasional absences are excusable, the following rules apply to absences of Council Members from meetings when invoked by resolution of the Council: (a) such rules shall remain in effect until the end of the calendar year - during which the resolution is passed unless revoked prior to that time by resolution of the Council; (b) unless excused. by a majority of the City Council, a member of the Council may not be absent from any regular meeting or from such special meetings. as the. Council may specify in the resolution; (c) for each unexcused absence from a regular or special meeting of the Council each Council Member may be penalized by a fine of not to exceed $75, and. the Mayor may be penalized by a fine of an amount not to exceed $100, but the resolution may specify a lesser penalty for absence from a special meeting than a regular meeting; (d) any member of the Council desiring to be excused shall insofar as possible give advance notice to the Manager, stating (i) the meeting. at which the member will be absent, (ii) the member'sreason.for being • absent and, (iii) the member's location during the meeting. SECTION 15. RULES OF ORDER Subd. 1. Suspension of Rules. The operation and effect of a rule set forth in this subsection may be suspended upon the unanimous vote of the Council. (Rev. 07/23/01) (Rev. 12/10/01) •