The URL can be used to link to this page

02-26-01 AgendaCITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001 RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM 5:30 P.M. Call to order Roll call 1. Discussion of current and pending litigation Adjournment REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance • Roll call Approval of minutes of (1) Special City Council Meeting of January 30, 2001; (2) Special City Council Study Session of February 12, 2001; and (3) Regular City Council Meeting of February 12, 2001 PRESENTATION Introduction of newly-appointed Richfield City Clerk, Nancy Gibbs • 2. Council discussion items Notes: 3. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes) Speakers are asked to keep their comment period to three minutes to allow sufficient time for others. Additional opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda will be at the end of this meeting. Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 4. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR • 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. Notes: A. Consideration of approval of resolution approving summary publication of ordinance amendment to Section 3.12 of Richfield City Code which pertains to cable television franchise for WideOpenWest S.R. No. 53 B. Consideration of approval of changing start time of April 30, 2001 Board of Equalization meeting from 7 p.m: to 5:30 p.m. S.R. No. 54 C. Consideration of approval of resolution requesting Commissioner of Transportation to revoke Municipal State Aid designation from 77 1/2 Street from Colfax Avenue to Lyndale Avenue, Aldrich Avenue from 78th Street to 77th Street, and Colfax Avenue from 78th Street to 77th Street S.R. No. 55 D. Consideration of approval of purchase order to Sweeney Brothers Tractor, Inc. for motor grader with snow wing in amount of $132,166.50 S.R. No. 56 E. Consideration of approval of new residential kennel license for 7308 Sheridan Avenue; three dogs and two cats S.R. No. 57 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 6. Receipt of City Clerk's certification of second petitions regarding Replacement Housing Stock Initiative and Traffic and Parking Requirements Initiative submitted February 13, 2001 by Sponsoring Committee of Dewayne Sietsema, Deb Nordmarken, Peggy Handt, Myrle Richter and Joseph Krzyzaniak Staff Report No. 58 Notes: 7. Consideration of actions related to second petitions regarding: • Initiative proposing ordinance to establish traffic and parking regulations to protect public health, safety and general welfare • Initiative proposing ordinance to preserve housing stock of City of Richfield Notes: Staff Report No. 59 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Cancellation of public hearing and second reading of ordinance amendment to Section 1200 of City Code allowing sale and consumption of liquor at Richfield Community Center Staff Report No. 60 Notes: 9. Public hearing and second reading of transitory ordinance authorizing sale of property at 6444 Clinton Avenue to HRA for rehabilitation Staff Report No. 61 Notes: 10. Public hearing and consideration of resolution authorizing use of funds for 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Staff Report No. 62 Notes: 11. Public hearing and second reading of revised amendment to Section 511 of Appendix B of Richfield Ordinance-.Code to allow reduction in required corner visibility -area for fully controlled intersections Staff Report No. 63 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 12. Consideration of resolution amending 2000 General Fund Budget by authorizing transfer of appropriations from Legislative/Executive Department, Administrative Services Department and Public Safety Department to Fire Department Staff Report No. 64 Notes: 13. Consideration of resolution authorizing transfer of $64,650 from- General Fund to HRA General Fund to fund 2000 airport mitigation and redevelopment expenditures Staff Report No. 65 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 14. Consideration of loan agreement between Metropolitan Council and City of Richfield to use Right of Way Acquisition Loan Funds to purchase land for reconstruction of I-494 from I-35W to Penn Avenue Staff Report No. 66 Notes: AIRPORT BUSINESS 15. Airport status report Notes: HRA BUSINESS 16. Housing and Redevelopment Authority report Notes: 17. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes) Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. COUNCIL CHOICE 18. Claims and payrolls 19. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at 612-861-9702. • AGENDA SECTION: Admin. Report AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ..FEBRUARY 26, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR C~ i .ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a loan agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Council to use Right of Way Acquisition .Loan (RACE) Funds to purchase land for the reconstruction of -494 I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached loan agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the City of Richfield for protective acquisition of highway right of way for the future reconstruction of 1- 494 from I-35W to Penn Avenue. C7 II. BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Council's Right of Way Acquisition Loan Fund (KALE) makes zero-interest loans available to assist in the purchase of land that is needed for roadway projects, such as the widening of I-494. The loan program is administered by the Metropolitan Council and is designed to reserve right of way in areas where the cost of land is escalating. To secure $7.0 million in RALF loan funds, the City needs to enter into a RALF loan agreement with the Metropolitan Council. 0226RALFagmt The RALF Program provides cities with interest-free loans to acquire property that is needed for future highway right of way from being used for inappropriate land uses that would raise the cost of acquisition considerably if the land were acquired at a later date. The loan is repaid by the Minnesota Department of Transportation at a time in the future when the land is needed for construction of a state highway. This agreement implements sections of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. If the land is ever deemed no longer needed for right of way, the land can be sold and the proceeds of the sale returned to the Metropolitan Council The funds will be used to purchase land identified in the City's adopted I-494 Official Map as needed to be reserved for the future widening of 1-494. The land to be purchased is shown on the attached map. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The purchase of land needed for reconstructing I-494 is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan to improve surrounding freeways to protect local streets from carrying regional traffic. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • • The purchase of the property using RALF loan funds reserves the land for future highway use and controls the cost of its purchase in an area where land values are nsmg. C. FINANCIAL • Adoption of an official map qualifies the City of Richfield to obtain a zero interest $7.0 million loan from the Metropolitan Council that can be used to purchase the land needed for reconstruction of I-494 and, in particular, the Penn Avenue Bridge. D. LEGAL • The City attorneys have reviewed. the RALF Loan Agreement and found it acceptable. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council could choose not to approve the RALF Loan Agreement. -This will delay the construction of the Penn Avenue Bridge. V. ATTACHMENTS • Map showing parcels to be -acquired using RALF loan funds. • Right of Way Acquisition Loan Fund loan agreement. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. ,r,,,a, ~, ,ptyrU+va~w~o~o(~an)ou~aaooMss`~jw'~1v/o}~v~ I~IY~I 'Q~I'3I~HJI2I •- K-il-lit[ ~Y1S ~COtO fiu)~ / 1 \Y V ~~ ~~~0 NMNq '111YM "J110 ~~~ - ~.:~~.~ ~~ ~s~ •oN ~x ~s~ssx~sxl ~~ ~~ c: • ~ 8 ~~gg~ 6 ~~~ z w= ° g R ~~~~~ ~~~: g ~~ 9 Mss 'ox •~H ~s~ssa~sxi ~ R „`g~~ Br g g ~@'~R a y 5.~ xbx p pp ~ ' ; :~~~ ~~£€ s e _ V \~~ bRSB~i ~ ~jL _ i j) ~`~ i ~/ ~ R~ R ~ . ~ x2~ez, _ ` _ L r~' k, ~ Ys»9~~ . ~ I '/. ~' ~ aa }}{yEg ~6n5ei r~ u: V p ~ R ~~± ~ - --r A ~ R s •sna xtl~0'I I I I I" I t I I~' _1_.~1_J~__L~l aL__ a 'S '~t1Y AIt~J2I0S4 a s I ~I ~~ I I I I I~ `~ ~' 's •~nv xor~xx B ~ ~~I,~II~~,.f ~-------1 ~ I~ ~I__1-.1.__l_L_~i__L_1 ~ ^ 's 'env a~nrio s , -7-~~-r~r-rn (---- i~ ~ LI_I~ ~~ ~~ us ~ I I I i I __.I ~~ ; . :gym 3„CLAL --- I I b '~" N I I 'Y //' l~~~ ' / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ J \ _ ~ 1. _-r~ ~ J_ 1 - ~j i Ij i I~ ~ 1 ~I I~ p~q ',a :~ 6 ~ FBI a; I{ ~' a li ~ II ~ II I~ F ~ ~ ~ b{ p A iF ~ p M % Li ' j ! ~ ~ ~ S` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R °r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M LI ~ b~ ~ ~ Di i5 ~ ~ ~ $¢ R 8q^ j d 1 A ~ j ~ i ~ 1. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . _ _ --~ U 1 _ ~" I ~ .- ~ ~~ I i ~ I B It ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ' ~.-~i 1 ~ 1 `\ ~, ~ C-- Il J ~z '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ v'L~~~ s •~nv xx~a _~ ~ ~ I; --- i`U ~~ ~I LOAN AGREEMENT NO. L-00-- {PRIVATE ) LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR PROTECTIVE ACQUISITION OF HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this _ day of February, 2001, by THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ("the Council"), and THE CITY OF RICHFIELD ("the Recipient"). WHEREAS, the Council is authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 473.167, subdivision 2, to make loans to counties, towns, and cities situated within the metropolitan area for the purpose of acquisition of property within a proposed state trunk highway right-of-way when acquisition is necessary to avert the imminent conversion of such property to a use which would jeopardize the property's availability for highway construction: and WHEREAS, the Recipient is an eligible governmental unit and has applied for such a loan to accomplish the acquisition of threatened right-of--way within the officially-mapped right of way of Interstate Highway No. 494 (as planned to be expanded); and WHEREAS, the Council has authorized that such a loan be made to the Recipient from the Metropolitan Right-of--Way Acquisition Loan Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants in this agreement, the Council and the Recipient agree as follows: I. LOAN FUNDS 1.01 Total Loan Amount. The Council shall loan to the Recipient, in accordance with the loan schedule set forth in paragraph 1.02, a total loan amount not to exceed $7,000,000. The total loan amount is reduced by a salvage value of $0.00. 1.02 Loan Schedule. Upon execution of this loan agreement, the Council will advance $7,000,000- ("Loan Amount") to the Recipient for .payment of the purchase prices (in the aggregate) of that real property described in Exhibit A, which is attached to and incorporated in this agreement. The purchase prices of the various parcels of real property include any buildings or structures located on the various parcels. Upon receipt by the Council of satisfactory and complete documentation describing the Recipient's actual appraisal, title evaluation, and other acquisition costs, the Council will advance to the Recipient its actual costs incurred in acquiring said real estate, in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000. 1.03 Authorized Use of Loan Funds. The parties agree that loan funds may be used only for the purchase prices of the properties described in Exhibit A, which amount of loan funds shall not exceed the acquisition costs actually incurred by the Recipient to acquire the properties • described in Exhibit A. The parties agree that. loan proceeds shall not be used to clean.. up contaminated soil or other pollutants, if any are discovered on the properties: RJL-193557v1 RC145-408 • II. ACCOUNTING, AUDIT, AND RECORDS REQUIREMENTS 2.01 Separate Account. The Recipient agrees to establish and maintain a separate account for the loan and to maintain accurate and complete records and accounts relating to the receipt and expenditure of all loan funds. Such accounts and records shall be kept and maintained for a period of at least three (3) years following discharge of the loan. 2.02 Audit. The above accounts and records of the Recipient shall be audited in the same manner as all other accounts and records of the Recipient are audited, and may be audited and/or inspected on the Recipient's premises or otherwise by individuals or organizations designated and authorized by the Council at any time, following reasonable notification, during the loan period, and for a period of six (6) years following discharge of the loan. 2.03 Acquisition Report. The Recipient agrees that upon completion of any acquisition, the Recipient will submit to the Council an acquisition report, in a format to be determined by the Council, summarizing the acquisition costs of the properties, including all eligible expenses and moving costs. 2.04 Annual Report. The Recipient agrees to submit, on or before June 30 of each year during which this agreement is_ in effect, an annual report on the status of the loan, in a form to be determined by the Council. III. INCOME FROM PURCHASED PROPERTY 3.01 Net Rents Defined. For purposes of this agreement, "net rents" means the total gross rent received by the Recipient from any and all tenants or users of the properties, less the Recipient's. actual costs for necessary maintenance, repairs, taxes, insurance, and operating expenses,. and attorneys' fees associated with preparing or terminating any lease with respect to the properties. 3.02 Transfer of Net Rents. The Recipient agrees to transfer to the Council, within forty-five (45) days of receipt, all net rents or other money received as a result of the Recipient's ownership of the properties. For any given payment to the Council, the Recipient may estimate the actual costs to be deducted from gross rent. 3.03 Adjustment for Actual Costs. Twelve (12) months from the commencement of receipt of any rent by the Recipient from any properties acquired with loan proceeds, the Recipient shall provide, in a form acceptable to the Council, documentation for all actual costs for necessary maintenance, repairs, taxes, insurance, and operating expenses, and attorneys' fees with respect to the properties. Upon verification and acceptance of the documentation by the Council, the Recipient .shall pay to the Council the amount, if any, determined by the Council to be necessary to adjust the estimated deduction from gross rent to reflect the actual costs. RJL-193557v1 2 RC145-408 • IV. LOAN DISCHARGE 4.01 Discharge Due to Conveyance to Highway Authority. If any parcel purchased with the loan funds is conveyed to a highway authority for construction of a highway, the Recipient shall repay to the Council, within thirty (30) days of receipt, the amount received from the highway authority for the parcel ("Resale Price"), together with such additional amounts as the highway authority may pay the Recipient in connection therewith as acquisition costs and or relocation expenses. Upon payment of the Resale Price, the Council will discharge the loan for that property and the restrictive covenant described in paragraph 5.03 hereof. 4.02 Discharge Due to Changes in Plan for Highway. If the Council notifies the Recipient that the plan to construct the highway has been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway has changed, the Recipient shall seek the prior approval of the Council to sell the acquired property. The Recipient shall repay to the Council, within thirty (30) days of receipt, the fair market value of the property as determined by sale of the property in accordance with the Recipient's procedures required for the disposition of real property ("Resale Price"). Upon payment of the Resale Price, the Council will discharge the loan and the restrictive covenant described in paragraph 5.03 hereof. 4.03 Discharge Due to Breach or Other Circumstances. If the property for any other reason is sold, or if the Recipient materially breaches any term of this agreement, the Recipient shall repay the remaining unpaid balance of the Loan Amount specified in paragraph 1.02 with respect to that property and the amount actually disbursed pursuant to paragraph 1.02 for • acquisition costs of that property. The Council agrees to notify the Recipient of any material breach of the agreement and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the Recipient to cure the breach. If the .Recipient fails to cure the breach, the Recipient will repay the amount specified within thirty (30) days. Upon payment of the specified amount, the Council will discharge the loan and the restrictive covenant encumbering that property, as described in paragraph 5.03 hereof. V. GENERAL CONDITIONS 5.01 Duration of Agreement. The agreement is effective on the execution of this agreement and remains in force and effect until. the loan and the restrictive covenants are discharged. 5.02 Interest. The loan made in this agreement shall bear no interest. 5.03 Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. The Recipient agrees that it will execute, and cause to be recorded at its own expense, a declaration of restrictive covenants with reference to each parcel of land in which an interest is acquired in whole or in part from loan proceeds. The declaration of restrictive covenants shall be substantially in the form contained as a sample in Exhibit B, which is attached to and made a part of this agreement. It is the purpose of such declaration of restrictive covenants to limit the right of the Recipient to convey or encumber land or interests in land acquired with loan proceeds without the consent of the Council, and to insure . that such lands and interests therein be devoted exclusively to the state highway purposes for which they were acquired. RJL-193557v1 RC145-408 • 5.04 Agreement to Convey. The Recipient agrees that upon the request of the authority authorized to construct the highway for which this right-of--way has been reserved, the Recipient will convey the property to the authority at the same price the Recipient paid for the property, including costs identified in paragraph 1.02 for acquisition costs. 5.05 Rights Reserved. If the Council finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this agreement, the Council reserves the right to take any and all actions as it deems necessary or appropriate to protect the Council's interest, provided that the Council agrees to notify the Recipient of any such failure to comply and to provide a reasonable opportunity to comply. The Recipient and Council agree that discharge of the loan does not invalidate continuing obligations imposed on the Recipient or Council by this agreement. Termination of this agreement does not alter the Council's authority to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review, and does not alter the Recipient's obligation to return any funds due to the Council as a result of later audits or corrections. 5.06 Amendments. The terms of this agreement may be changed by mutual agreement of the parties. Such changes shall be effective only upon the execution of written amendments signed by authorized representatives of the Council and the Recipient. 5.07 Compliance with Law. The Recipient agrees to conduct the activities contemplated by this agreement in compliance with all applicable provisions of Federal, state, and -local laws. The Recipient further agrees to comply with all applicable laws .relating to nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and public purchase, contracting, and employment. In particular, the Recipient agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local civil rights commission, or age, and to take affirmative action that applicants and employees are treated equally with respect to all areas of employment, rates of pay and other forms of compensation, and selection for training. .5.08 Insurance. The recipient shall list Council as an additional named insured on Recipient's liability insurance policy, and Recipient represents to Council that Recipient carries liability insurance with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) in an amount up to Recipient's statutory immunity. 5.09 Property Maintenance. The Recipient agrees to make reasonable efforts to maintain the properties acquired with loan funds provided under this agreement in a manner compatible with the surrounding environment, as appropriate. • RJL-193557v1 4 RC145-408 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: Lynn M. Belgea Office of General Counsel METROPOLITAN COUNCIL By Natalio F. Diaz Transportation Planning Director CITY OF RICHFIELD Approved as to form: City Attorney Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Samantha Orduno, City Manager BY. By. • RJL-193557v1 RC145-408 • EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel 1 (Part of former Walser Buick/Isuzu property at 2100 West 78th Street) (PIN # ) Parcel 2 (Part of former Walser Motorwerks BMW property at 2000 West. 78th Street) (PIN # ) • Parcel 3 (Part of former Wally McCarthy Oldsmobile/Aurora property located at 1900 West 78th Street) (PIN # ) • RJL-193557v1 RC145-408 • EXHIBIT B SAMPLE ONLY AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of February, 2001, between the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("the City"), and the Metropolitan Council, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, ("the Council"). WHEREAS, the City has acquired fee title in the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein: and WHEREAS, the Council has contributed funds toward the acquisition of the City's interest in said real property pursuant to the Council's Loan Program and a Loari Agreement between the Council and the City as authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 473.167; and WHEREAS, the Loan Program was established to provide for the acquisition of property within the right-of way of a state trunk highway shown on an official map when. necessary to [avoid imminent conversion of such property to a use which would jeopardize the property's availability for highway construction OR to avoid hardship for owners of homestead property located in a proposed state trunk highway right-of--way or project]. • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the loan made by the Council to the City and in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants, the Council and City agree. as follows: No sale, lease, mortgage, or other conveyance, nor the creation of any easement, restriction or other encumbrance against the real property described in Exhibit A shall be valid for any purpose unless the written approval of the Council, or its successors, is duly filed and recorded at the time of the filing and recording of the instrument to which such approval pertains. 2. The real property described in Exhibit A shall not be used for any purpose except the construction of the widening of Interstate Highway No. 494 unless. the Council, or its successors, shall consent to such other use or uses by instrument in writing duly filed and recorded and designating the nature, extent and duration of the use for which such consent is given. This Agreement and Restrictive Covenant may be enforced by the Council, its successors, or by any citizen residing within the metropolitan area as defined by appropriate action in the courts of the State of Minnesota. • NOTE: THIS FORM IS PROVIDED AS AN EXAMPLE. THE RECIPIENT SHOULD PREPARE A PROPER INSTRUMENT AND SUBMIT IT FOR SIGNATURE BY THE COUNCIL. RJL-193557v1 RC145-408 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed in their respective names all as of the above date. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL sy Regional Administrator • CITY OF RICHFIELD Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor By By Samantha Orduno, City Manager • NOTE: THIS FORM IS PROVIDED AS AN EXAMPLE. THE RECIPIENT SHOULD PREPARE A PROPER INSTRUMENT AND SUBMIT IT FOR SIGNATURE BY THE COUNCIL. RJL-193557v1 RC145-408 • AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT # 5 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER Nance, TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~ SIG aTURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ; ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the attached resolution to transfer $64,650 from the General Fund to fund 2000 airport mitigation and redevelopment costs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolution providing authorization to transfer $64,650 from the General Fund to the HRA General Fund to fund 2000 airport mitigation and redevelopment expenditures. • II. BACKGROUND III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The airport expenditures are necessary costs of doing business that the City has incurred and must incur to protect the residents and the -best interests of the City. • While these costs have been incurred in the HRA, it is necessary for .the City to provide the funding needed to cover the excess airport 0410-ArptTrf related costs incurred, since the HRA does not have sufficient funding to cover these costs. B. .CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • For the fiscal year ending December 31, 2000, approximate costs for airport mitigation were $441,410. • The City has budgeted. funding of $376,760. However, this leaves a funding deficit of $64,650. • The 2000 General Fund Budget has a-small surplus of funds available for a transfer to complete the funding of 2000 airport expenditures. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide to not use 2000 General Fund Budget surplus and seek other City funding sources to pay for airport expenditures. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing transfer of 2000 General Fund Budget surplus to the HRA General Fund. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF 2000 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SURPLUS FUNDS WHEREAS, the City has incurred significant expenditures related to airport mitigation and redevelopment in 2000, and additional funding is needed for these expenditures; and WHEREAS, the 2000 General Fund Budget has been identified as having a small surplus of funds available for a transfer to cover airport expenditures incurred in 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorize the Finance Manager to transfer $64,650 from the General Fund to the HRA General Fund, effective December 31, 2000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Resolution AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER N ,TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~ , SIGNATU l1 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Approval of a resolution amending the allocation of the 2000 General Fund Budget I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution amending the 2000 General Fund Budget by authorization of a transfer of appropriations from the Legislative/Executive Department, Administrative Services Department, and the Public Safety .Department to the Fire Department. III. BACKGROUND ~ During 2000, the Fire Department was short three shift positions for extended periods of time. The department was down one shift position for twelve months, a second for nine months and a third for six months. This shortage of shift positions led to an increase in labor and overtime costs. Therefore, after the compilation of the 2000 Revised Budget, the expenditures of the Fire Department have exceeded the appropriation contained in the 2000 Revised Budget,. resulting in the department's-total 2000 expenditures to exceed appropriations by approximately $60, 000. 02262001 BudgetAllocAmend III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate monies for operations of the City on a departmental level basis. • During the course of the year, the City Council amends the operating budget and it is referred to as the Revised Budget. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The amount exceeding budget for the Fire Department is approximately $60,000. • City staff is recommending that the 2000 Revised Budget be allocated between the following departments and divisions in order to balance all .City departments: INCREASED BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Fire. Fire Department $60,000 Total $60,000 DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURRES Legislative/Executive Legal Division $20,000 Administrative Services City Clerk Division $20,000 Public Safety Inspections Division $20.000 Total $60,000 Net Change to General Fund .Budget $ 0 D. LEGAL • City Charter provides that the City Council must appropriate funds at the department level of spending. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • .The transfer does not affect the annual General Fund. Budget; instead it provides that no department end the fiscal year overspent. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing revision of 2000 budgets of various departments. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2000 BUDGETS OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8827 appropriated funds for personal services, other services and charges, supplies and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year 2000; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8979 authorized revision of the 2000 budget various departments; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested a revision of the 2000 budget appropriations in accordance with charter provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, MN as follows: SUMMARY INCREASEBUDGETEDEXPENDITURES Fire: Fire Department $60,000 Total $60,000 S DECREASE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES Leg islative/Executive: Legal Division $20,000 Administrative Services: City Clerk Division 20,000 Public Safety: Inspections Division 20,000 Total $60,000 Net Change to General Fund Budget -0- Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT # 6 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BRUCE SYLVESTER, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME; TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~__._/~ ~, ~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL; CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of a revised amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding corner visibility regulations. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached revised amendment to Section 511 of Appendix B of the Ordinance Code of the City of Richfield to allow a reduction in the required corner visibility area for fully controlled intersections. • II. BACKGROUND Last summer, a resident asked the City Council to review the ordinance that restricts objects within a 50-foot corner visibility area. The resident was seeking to construct a fence in his front yard, and the 50-foot visibility area severely restricts the amount of yard that he could contain within a fence. The Council referred the item to the Planning Commission for review. The Zoning Ordinance currently prohibits objects from being placed within a 50-foot triangular area at all street corners. Fifty feet was established as the visibility area because it relates to the speed vehicles travel and the distance necessary for a 0226cornenrisibility vehicle to be able to see another vehicle coming on the cross street and stop in time to avoid a collision. Upon review of the current ordinance by City staff and the Planning Commission, the Commission determined that at fully controlled intersections, it may be appropriate to allow a reduction in the visibility area. An initial ordinance amendment was drafted which allowed the Public Works Director to grant a reduction in the visibility requirement at fully controlled intersections, provided that the reduction would not create a safety hazard. Immediately prior to the February 12, 2001 Richfield City Council meeting., the City Attorney advised against this initial ordinance amendment, stating that it would expose the City to liability risks should an accident occur at an intersection where a property owner had received a reduction in the visibility requirements. To address this liability risk, the City Attorney suggested, and the Public Works Director agreed with, a revised ordinance amendment which reduces the visibility triangle on corners of fully controlled intersections to 30 feet, rather than 50 feet. Fences, hedges, and walls would still be prohibited in the boulevard/public right-of- way. Approval from the. Public Works Director or the City Council would not be required. This item was continued from the February 12, 2001 meeting to the February 26, 2001 meeting so staff could rewrite the ordinance amendment. • III. BASIS OB RECOMMENDATION 1~. POLICY • There are existing corner visibility problems that led to the passage of this ordinance several years ago. Public Safety and Public Works staff are strongly in support of the corner visibility ordinance for safety reasons; however, they agree that some reduction in the visibility area may be allowable at fully controlled intersections. • The Planning Commission is in support of some flexibility at fully controlled intersections but does not recommend any further reduction in the requirement because of safety concerns. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C, FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the original ordinance amendment. • First reading of the original ordinance amendment was held on • January 8, 2001. • Notice of the public hearing for the original ordinance was published in the January 31, 2001 Sun-Current. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the revised ordinance amendment at second reading. V. ATTACHMENTS • Revised Ordinance Amendment • Attachment A: Illustration of corner visibility area • Attachment B: Illustration of corner visibility areas at fully controlled intersections VL PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The resident requesting the change was notified of the meeting and may be present. • BILL NO. REVISED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 511 OF APPENDIX B OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 511.15 of Appendix B to the City of Richfield is amended to read as follows: 511.15. Traffic visibility. On corner lots in all districts, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow in such. a manner as to obstruct vision between the height of 30 inches and ten feet above the abutting curb line of the intersecting streets within a triangular area defined as follows: "beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 50 feet along one curb line, thence diagonally to a point 50 feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning". On Corner lots in all districts where the intersection is controlled in all directions with the use of stop signs or traffic signals, nothing • shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to prow in such a manner as to obstruct vision between the height of 30 inches and ten feet above the abutting curb line of the intersecting streets within a triangular area as defined as follows: "beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 30 feet along one curb. line, thence diagonally to a point 30 feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of be. inq Wing". Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST:. Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk Attachment A: Illustration of corner visibility area (for intersections that are not fully controlled) • o~ .,yes Roadway eG'`~° ~~~~~ . tie~y ~eaG--'~ 50~ >i Curb '~ Right-of-way (Boulevard) ~ ~ ~ I Lot L-ne ~ ~~ cv~ e~( ° ~ ,~ ~ i G° ._ J O J .7 Attachment'B: Illustratcan of corner visibility areas of fully controlled intersections o~ ~y .\Q~ ~~~ SeG~ ~~~~ ~~~ 0a '~~` ~c~ ~ 30, Roadway 4~p \ ~ U J Right-vf-way (Boulevard) ~Ui'b Note: Attachment `A' was created several years ago using a software program we no longer use. Attachment `B' was created in 2001 by our Marketing Technician, using PageMaker software. Both attachments were imported into this document and therefore neither attachment can be modified in this (Microsoft Word) electronic file. BKS-2/15/01. • • AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PAMELA BOOKHOUT, REPORT PREPARED BY: REHABILITATION SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE • BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Lid ~~"-'1 REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: [~ ITEM FOR. IDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of resolution regarding the use of funds from the Community Development Block Grant allocation for Year 2001. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the use of funds for the 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing signature of a subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County and any reauired third warty agreements. IIL BACKGROUND ~ The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on February 26 to authorize Richfield's use of the 2001 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation of $245,905, as proposed. As in past years, Richfield proposes public service, home improvement, and substandard property acquisition components. • Richfield supports three public service agencies through the CDBG allocation: Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (H.O.M.E.), Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH), and Greater Minneapolis Daycare Association 0226cdbg (GMDCA). Third party agreements with these agencies are prepared annually. The • Richfield Community Development Department and Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) work collaboratively to address public service needs. RCHSPC makes recommendations to the City Council regarding .public service funding for CDBG funds. This year's recommendation by RCHSPC is attached. The recommendation for public service funding with the prescribed county guideline of 15 percent would provide a total allocation of $36,885.. Richfield supports two home improvement programs: rehabilitation of owner- occupied property (Deferred Loans) and acquisition of property on scattered sites (New Home Program). Through the Deferred Loan program, the CDBG Year 2001 funds will serve approximately 15 low-income households that need home repairs and improvements during the year 2001.. Currently, there are approximately ten homeowners going through the loan process and six homeowners waiting for funding. A total amount of $119,020 is requested for rehabilitation. The New Home Program allocation will remove a substandard property and increase the number of single family housing units constructed by one additional unit. The project request for 2001 is $90,000 for acquisition, demolition and site preparation. The chart below summarizes the recommended funding: • Project Allocation Total Per Project Recommendation 1. Public Service: a. H.O.M.E. $ 22,700 b. GMDCA or Other Child Daycare $ 12,390 c. CASH $ 1,795 $ 36, 885 2. Housing Improvements: a. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property $119,020 b. Acquisition of Property $ 90,000 $209,020 TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $245,905 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • The County's statement of objectives indicates that communities should limit the number of projects funded to three. The Richfield proposal is divided into two projects: public service and housing improvements, meeting the objective stated. • Public service funding is as recommended by the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council • Housing improvement funding has been allocated to housing rehabilitation (Deferred Loans) and acquisition of substandard property (New Home Program). • A. POLICY • Allocation of CDBG funds is an annual activity. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled for February 26, 2001. The deadline for submitting the 2001 CDBG application to Hennepin County is no later than March 9, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • The total Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program allocation from the federal government in 2001 is $3.582 million, approximately $115,000 more than last year. Richfield is receiving $1,967, more than last year. D. LEGAL • Notice of public hearing was published February 14, 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Modify the amount of funds allocated to each project in a way that still achieves funding guidelines.. • Fund other eligible projects, which have not been identified by staff for funding. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • RCHSPC recommendation VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A RESOLUTION NO. . RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2001 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and • WHEREAS, the City, of Richfield developed a proposal for the use of CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on February 26, 2001 to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities for the City's proposed use of $245,905 from the 2001 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED `that the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota approves the following projects for CDBG and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2000 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Project Allocation Total Per Project Recommendation 1. Public Service: a.~ H.O.M.E. $ 22,700 b. GMDCA or Other Child Daycare $ 12,390 c. CASH $ 1,795 $ 36,885 2. Housing Improvements: a. Rehab of Owner-Occupied Property $119,020 b. Acquisition of Property $ 90,000 $209,020 TOTAL CDBG ALLOCATION $245,905 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2001 CDBG Program. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor • ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM ~~10, ATTACHMENT RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES • PLANNING COUNCIL Memorandum Date:- January 23, 2001. To: Bruce Nordquist From: Tom Scaglia, RCHSPC Chair Subject: 2001/2002 Allocation for City Public Service Programs The Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council met on January 22, 2001 to make recommendations regarding 2001/02 CDBG Public Service allocations. It is the assessment of the RCHSPC that: • The three current applicant agencies, Community. Action for Suburban Hennepin, Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association, and Senior Community Services, are providing valuable and effective service to the people of Richfield. • All-three clearly meet the CDBG definition of Public Service. • In a variety of ways these programs support the City's housing goals by maintaining dwellings and contributing to the stability of the community. CDBG ALLOCATION FOR 2000/2001 Agency Recommendation Senior Community Services Home Program 22,700 Greater Mpls. Day Care Association 12,390 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin 1,795 • TOTAL $36,885 • AGENDA SECTION: I'tililic Hearina- AGENDA ITEM # ~ REPORT # ~ STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 PAMELA BOOKHOUT, REPORT PREPARED BY: REHABILITATION SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAA~ TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~j -f/~ -°~-~ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of the ordinance authorizing the sale of the property at 6444 Clinton Avenue to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for rehabilitation. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of the attached a transitory ordinance authorizing. and providing for the sale, transferor other disposition and conveyance of certain city- owned real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota (6444 Clinton Avenue South) for rehabilitation. II. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2001, the City Council authorized the acquisition of 6444 Clinton Avenue and held the first reading. of an ordinance authorizing sale of the property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be used to acquire the property. Upon sale to the HRA, the property would be rehabilitated under the New Home Program for sale to an income-qualified first time buyer. In order to fully utilize the federal funding for acquisition, the City must purchase the property and subsequently transfer it to the HRA to re-sell at the appropriate time. 0226-6444CIinton The City could acquire the property by the first week of March. Following • acquisition, the City and HRA would enter into a purchase agreement for $1.00. The purchase agreement would be contingent on publication of the transitory ordinance. Sale of the property to the HRA would occur 30 days after publication of the ordinance, on or after April 6, 2001. The HRA would be responsible for any holding or maintenance costs incurred at the property after acquisition by the City. The existing property is a 976 sq. ft. rambler that is in good structural condition. The owner of the property died in October 1999. The family has asked the City and HRA if the home could become part of a program to help out another person in need of affordable housing. A potential buyer has been identified who meets income requirements, and is seeking. an accessible home. Improvements are yet to be determined, but likely will include general updates such as new siding and electrical repairs, as well as remodeling the kitchen, bath and entrances for accessibility. Remodeling would begin this spring after the property is transferred to the HRA. Sale to the end buyer is anticipated by the end of 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council authorized the acquisition of 6444 Clinton Avenue on January 22, 2001 for conveyance to the HRA. • The HRA authorized staff to acquire the property on February 20, 2001. • City-owned property requires a public hearing and the adoption of a transitory ordinance to effectuate a sale. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A. C. FINANCIAL • Funds have been budgeted for acquisition and rehabilitation from federal CDBG funds and proceeds of sale to the end buyer. The CDBG funds must be utilized for these purposes, and the site must be used to provide a new home for an income-qualified buyer. D. LEGAL • Notice of public hearing was published on February 14, 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City can choose not to conduct the second reading of the ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE, TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA (6444 CLINTON AVENUE SOUTH) The City of Richfield Does Ordain: Section 1. The following described real property located in the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, is hereby authorized to be sold, transferred or otherwise disposed of and conveyed by the City as herein provided: Lot 6, Block 2, Ralph Milner's Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and having the street address of 6444- Clinton Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take all action as is required to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of and convey the real property described in the foregoing • Section 1, including, by way of illustration and not limitation, the execution of all documents, purchase agreements, deeds of conveyance, and other instruments connected with such sale, transfer or disposition and conveyance. Passed this 26th day of February, 2001 by the Richfield City Council. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • • • AGENDA SECTION: pub11C Haaring AGENDA ITEM # $ REPORT # c n STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING '~'~' FEBRUARY 26, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAn~, TITLE JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Nance, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ I I ~ Q ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR`COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Cancellation''of the public hearing and second reading regarding the attached ordinance amendment to Section 1200 of the City Code allowing for the- sale and consumption of liquor at the Richfield Community Center. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Cancel the February 26, 2001 public hearing and second reading of the. attached ordinance amendment to Section 1200 of the City Code allowing for the sale and consumption of liquor at the. Richfield Community Center. II. BACKGROUND Staff is: recommending an addendum to the City's liquor-use ordinance that would allow for the sale and consumption of liquor at the Community Center. The public hearing and second reading was scheduled for February 26 but is canceled. Staff will discuss this item and the rescheduling of the public hearing and second reading with the City Council at the March 12 Study Session. 0226 liquor III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Staff will approach the City Council at a future study session to discuss the item and determine a date to hold the public hearing and second reading. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • None IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACFIMENTS i Amendment to Section 1200 of the City Code. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING U BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1200 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE; ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION TO ALLOW THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AT THE RICHFIELD COMMUNITY CENTER BY PERMIT THE-CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 1200 of the Richfield City Code is amended by adding a new subsection as follows: 1200.22: Public Premises On-Sale Permit. Subdivision 1. Public Premises Permit. The city council may issue to the holder of an on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the city or a municipality adjacent to the city, a permit to allow the dispensing of intoxicating liquor at any convention, banquet, conference, meeting or social affair conducted on the premises of the Richfield.. Community Center. The licensee must be engaged to dispense intoxicating- liquor at an event held by a person or organization permitted to use the- premises and may dispense intoxicating liquor only to persons attending the event. The licensee may not dispense intoxicating liquor to any person.. attending or participating in an amateur athletic event held on the premises.::. Subd. 2. Application process. Applicants for a public premises permit shall be subject to the following process: a) Annual aoplication. Applicants for a public premises permit must apply annually to the city for a permit on a form provided. by the city. The application must identify the applicant, include. information concerning and a copy of the applicant's existing on-sale intoxicating .liquor license, and must contain a permit fee as established in appendix D. (b) No hearing- required. No public hearing is required for the .granting of an public premises on-sale permit. (c) Application approval. The city council may approve the application if it determines that the applicant has a duly issued on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the city or an adjacent municpality and if it further determines that the applicant has committed no violations of municipal ordinances regarding the applicant's on-sale intoxicating liquor license in the past -six months. d) Duration. A permit granted under this section expires on December 31 of the year in which. it is issued. (e) Automatic suspension or revocation. The permit granted under this subsection is subordinate to and dependent upon the applicant having a valid on-sale- intoxicating liquor license 0226 liquor issued by the city or by an adjacent municipality. If the ~plicant's existing license is suspended or revoked for any reason, the permit granted under this subsection shall be automatically .suspended for a similar duration or revoked, without the necessity of -any independent hearing or action by the city council. Subd. 3. Other conditions. In addition to requirements otherwise set forth in this section, licensees shall be subject to the following conditions' ~a) Event fees. In addition to the annual permit fee required at subdivision 2 of this subsection, a licensee shall pay a per- event fee at least 24 hours prior to the event. The per-event fee is fixed in appendix D. (b) Minnesota products. Any permittee that sells beer must make. provision for the sale of at least one Minnesota-produced beer at each station on the premises where beer is being sold.. (c) Events; speciaF conditions. Whenever the city council determines that a specific event for which the licensee will be providing on-sale intoxicating requires special or unique conditions. the city council may imaose such conditions and the permittee must abide by such conditions. Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 3:09 of the Richfield City Charter. Adopted this th day of , 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: ADMIN. REPORTS AGENDA ITEM # 7 REPORT # 59 REPORT PREPARED BY: CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE J STAFF REPORT ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER ., .. REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR~OUNCIL CO IDERATION: Council consideration of second set of itions fo itiative regarding replacement housing -and traffic. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion and second to render the following second set of petitions for initiative null: • Initiative proposing ordinance to establish traffic and parking regulations to protect public health, safety and general welfare • Initiative proposing ordinance to preserve housing stock of City of Richfield II. BACKGROUND At the February 12, 2001 Council meeting, two petitions for referendum and two petitions for initiative were certified by the City Clerk and presented to the Council for action. Based on the legal opinion of special counsel, Clifford Greene, that State law preempted the subject of both the referendum and initiative petitions, the Council voted 4-1 to render all four petitions null. The petitions presented to the Council tonight represent duplicate petition topics for the same initiative issue that the Council ruled on at the February 12, 2001 meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0226petitionaction A. CRITICAL ISSUES • The majority vote of the Council at the February 12, 2001 meeting defined-the Council's position regarding the issue of State preemption on the issues presented in this second set of initiative petitions. • The Council need only vote to declare that the second set of petitions are also null in accordance with the policy position regarding State preemption in matters of land use. B. LEGAL • The City Attorney will be present to respond to legal questions on this matter. IV. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • CARE Team members • Petition Sponsoring Committee • Interested parties • Legal Counsel for Sponsoring Committee -~ U • AGENDA SECTION: ADMIN. REPORTS AGENDA ITEM # 6 REPORT # S 8 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT PRESENTER: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR N TLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ' ATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ _ ~, _,~ ID ' n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Certification of second petitions regarding Replacement Housing Stock Initiative and Traffic and Parking Requirements Initiative. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No Action Required. Receive the City Clerk's Certification of the following two initiative petitions regarding: • Replacement Housing Stock • Traffic and Parking Requirements. III. BACKGROUND The Richfield City Charter, Chapter 5, establishes a procedure for Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Charter Section 5.04 provides the authority for five registered voters of Richfield to form a Sponsoring Committee for the purpose of submitting a petition to initiate an ordinance. The process for filing such an initiative petition provides that at least 5% of the total number of registered voters at the time of the last regular election sign such petition and that it be submitted to the City Clerk for examination to determine whether the petition has the sufficient amount of valid signatures. 0226initiative Once the City Clerk has completed the examination process, the Clerk is to notify the sponsoring committee of the findings and, if the number of signatures is found to be sufficient, certify the findings to the City Council at its next regular meeting. On February 13, 2001 a Sponsoring Committee consisting of five registered Richfield voters submitted two additional initiative petitions to the City Clerk. The language of those initiative petitions is the same as the two petitions previously submitted on January 19, 2001. One petition proposes an ordinance initiative that would require the replacement of displaced housing units for certain projects before the City approve such project. The second proposed ordinance initiative would create traffic and parking regulations for high-density office developments. The City Clerk has completed a preliminary examination of both petitions. Both petitions appear to be sufficient, in that they contain a number of signatures equal to at least 5% of the registered voters at the time of the last election. However, the total number of signatures do not equal 15% of the registered voters at the time of the last election. Further examination may result in disqualification of additional signatures prior to February 26. In addition, petition signers have the right to withdraw their names from the petition until the start of the City Council meeting on February 26. The City Charter provides that the City Clerk now certify these findings to the City Council at the regular meeting of February 26, 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The provisions of the City Charter guide initiative and referendum procedures for the City of Richfield. • The City Clerk followed those provisions after the petitions were received. B. CxITICAL ISSUES • The examination of the petition signatures and certification to the City Council are in compliance with the City Charter. • Since the City Clerk's examination of the petitions' signatures, the City has received several letters from individuals asking that their names be removed from the petitions. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • The City Charter requires the City Clerk to certify the findings of the examination of the petitions to the City Council at the February 26, 2001 meeting. • The City Clerk notified the petition Sponsoring Committee of the preliminary examination results. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • None. The City Clerk must certify the findings to the City Council V. ATTACHMENTS • Copies of the blank initiative petitions including proposed ordinance language. • The results of the City- Clerk's findings, of sufficiency. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • INITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to preserve the housing stock of the City of Richfield, a copy of which - ordinance is attached hereto This ordinance is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1. Dewayne Sietsema 6724 Vincent Avenue Richfield, MN 2. Deb Nordmarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue Richfield, MN 3. Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue Richfield, MN 4. Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue Richfield, MN 5. Joseph ICrzyzaniak 1920 West 76s' Street Richfield, MN The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached, petiti on the Council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the voters for approval. • NAME Si afore REGISTERED VOTING ADDRESS (Street, No PO Boxes) Zip Code NAME Printed or ed 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, ,being duly sworn, am the circulator of the foregoing Initiative Petition containing -signatures, and the signatures appended to this Initiative Petition were made in my presence and are the signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be. Signed: Street Address: City, State & Zip: Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of February, 2001. Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires ~ 2006204v3 • • ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City of Richfield's (the "City") Comprehensive Plan, which guides the present and future development of the City, states that. the City's goal is to achieve a standard of land use reflective of Richfield's "hometown" character, and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelop Authority of the City of Richfield has designated a majority of the City to be subject to redevelopment, and WHEREAS, since 1995 the shortage of housing that is affordable. to low and moderate income families has intensified in the Twin Cities for a variety of reasons, including the demolition of housing for redevelopment, and WHEREAS, the City supports a balanced housing supply, with housing available to individuals and families of all ages and levels of income in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the Richfield community, and WHEREAS, in order to preserve affordable housing and a balanced supply of housing for families at all levels of income, the residents of the City want to adopt an ordinance prohibiting City approvals and City-assistance for projects that will result in the net loss of fifty or more dwelling units unless the City can determine that the lost dwelling units will be replaced with comparable dwelling units within one year after such dwelling units are removed from the housing stock NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED: 1. All applicants for City approvals shall include in their applications for City approvals an analysis of the effect of the project on housing stock within the City. 2. The required analysis shall include a description of the total number of dwelling units to be demolished or converted to a use other than housing and a statement of the net gain or loss of dwelling units resulting from the project. If the analysis discloses a loss of fifty or more dwelling units, the report shall include the following additional information about each dwelling unit: i. number of bedrooms; ii. current gross rent (for rental units); iii. fair market value (for all dwelling units); iv. analysis of physical condition of each dwelling unit, including structural, mechanical and electrical systems, prepared by a licensed architect, engineer, or residential contractor; and v. probable replacement cost of each unit, including land costs. 2006204v3 2 3. The City shall not issue any City approval for any project that will displace fifty or more dwelling units until the City secures the replacement of each dwelling unit with a dwelling unit of equal or better quality at aprice that is comparable to the displaced unitwithin one year after the displacement of the residents for the project. The City shall secure replacement by identifying a site and reserving of a source of funds to pay the total development cost of the replacement housing. 4. For City-assisted projects, if the housing to be displaced is affordable housing, the source of funds for the replacement housing must be the developer of the City-assisted project. No City-assisted redevelopment project may proceed with demolition of housing until the City has secured replacement housing. • 5. Upon the approval of a plan and financing for replacement dwelling units, the Duector of the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority shall oversee and monitor the implementation of the plan. 6. This ordinance is effective upon the date of enactment and applies to all City approvals and all City-assisted projects, including City approvals and City assistance for projects for which the City has approved financial assistance or authorized or commenced eminent domain proceedings. DEFINITIONS (a) Affordable housing: Housing that is affordable to low or moderate income households, as those terms are determined by the federal .Department of Housing and Urban Development. (b) City: the City of Richfield, the Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and any other division or agency of the City of Richfield. (c) City approval: Any land use or development approval or permit required for development and construction of a project, including without limitation rezoning amendments, subdivision approvals, conditional use permits, variances, building permits, and certificates of occupancy; and any other approval the City is authorized to grant, including any license required for the conduct of a business in a project. (d) .City assistance: Public financial assistance or aid in securing public financial assistance, including any state or federal grants administered by the City, any bond financing for which the City is.the issuer, tax increment financing, tax abatement, tax levies, funds or revenues controlled by the City; exercise of the City's power of eminent domain to acquire land for a redevelopment project, or any other action undertaken by the City on behalf of a developer or an agency proposing a redevelopment project. (e) City-Assisted Project: a housing, commercial, office or industrial real estate redevelopment project to which the City of Richfield provides City-assistance. (f) Dwelling units: living quarters for one family only, including single family residences and apartments within multi-family residences and including rental units and owner-occupied units. 2006204v3 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is a member of the sponsorship committee "'~ for the foregoing Ordinance and the Initiative Petition to which it is attached, which are the Ordinance and Initiative Petition that the sponsorship committee prepared for filing with the City Clerk of the City of Richfield and for signature by registered voters. This verification is provided in compliance with Sections sota. 5.04 and 5.05 of Appendix A to the City Charter of Richfield, Minne ! 'j ~ „ J ~ _ . j V JZ~t.~'rtQ-i/7-11- Name: - Address: _ - ~'Yt~ - ~~~~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this _. /day of February, 2001. /' ~ ~ ~ _ C - .~r.r %~ i ~~ Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires ~~03/ o700`y m o f e `.~ FRANCES M. Ft.EfCHER NOTANYPUBUC-MINNESOTA MYCOMMISSIONEXPIRES :' JANUARY 31.2005 . ~NVarYJ+~-h e ~~~< - ~} aooe2oa~3 q TRAFFIC AND PARHING ORDINANCE INITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to establish traffic and parking regulations to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. A copy of which ordinance is hereto attached This ordinance is sponsored by the following committee of registered voters: Name Address 1. Dewayne Sietsema 6724 Vincent Avenue Richfield, MN 2. Deb Nordtnarken 6933 Sheridan Avenue Richfield, MN 3. Peggy Handt 7545 Colfax Avenue Richfield, MN 4. Myrle Richter 7615 Dupont Avenue Richfield, MN 5. Joseph Krzyzaniak 1920 West 76~' Street Richfield, MN 'The undersigned registered voters, understanding the terms and nature of the ordinance attached, petition the Council for its adoption, or, in lieu thereof, for its submission to the voters for approval. NAME Si afore REGISTERED VOTING ADDRESS (Street, No PO Boxes) Zip Code NAME Printed or T ed 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ]0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. J1 A l r; Ut• M1N N 1;JU t o ) SS.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, .being duly sworn, am the circulator of the foregoing Initiative Petition containing -signatures, and the signatures appended to this Initiative Petition were made in my presence and are the signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be. Signed: Street Address: City, State & Zip: Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of February, 2001. Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires ORDINANCE WHEREAS, increased traffic volume negatively impacts the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Richfield (the "City"); diminishes residential property values; diminishes the quality of life for all City residents; and creates hazards for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists; WHEREAS, traffic generated by high density office development may exceed the capacity of existing City streets, increase already high levels of traffic congestion on City streets that provide access to and from the Interstate 35W and 494 entrance ramps, and increase traffic on existing residential streets • by motorists seeking alternative routes to avoid the Interstate 35W and 494 entrance ramps; WHEREAS, the peak hours for traffic generated by office development coincide with the hours during which children travel to and from school and therefore increase the likelihood of traffic accidents involving children; and WHEREAS, City residents .want to amend Chapter XIII of the Richfield City Code to establish a traffic and parking regulations to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; to regulate development that increases traffic volume; and to prohibit the City Council from providing City approvals to any projects that will create unacceptable traffic conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Chapter XIII of the Richfield City Code is hereby amended to create traffic and parking regulations for high-density office developments. 2. All applicants for City approvals for office buildings within the City of Richfield for which the minimum off-street parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richfield equals or exceeds 5,000 parking spaces must satisfy the following requirements as a condition of the issuance of any City approval: • (a) All applicants for City approvals shall include in their applications for City approvals a travel demand management plan (TDM) prepared by a licensed traffic engineer in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering practice, which TDM shall address the transportation impacts of the development on air quality, parking and roadway infrastructure within the City. (b) The City manage shall review the TDM and shall recommend any mitigating measures deemed reasonably necessary, and the City manager or the party or body responsible for issuing the City approval shall include such recommendations as conditions of the issuance of such City approval. (c) Any TDM shall contain at least the following: (1) A description of the goals of the TDM and its relationship to applicable city transportation policies and programs. (2) A description of the transportation impacts of the development, including but not limited to forecasts of overall and peak period employment, forecasts of trips generated and mode splits, parking demand and parking 2019596v4 .; supply available, changes in levels of service at existing intersections and transit demand and transit supply available. J~ (3) A description of mitigating measures designed to minimize the transportation impacts of the development, including but not limited to on-site transit facilities, transit use incentives, preferential location of car - pool and van pool parking, on-site bicycle facilities including secure storage azeas and amenities, staggered starting times and telecommuting - opportunities. 4. The City shall not issue any City approval for any project that, (a) according to the approved TDM and the Institute of Traffic Engineers rating system, will result in the creation or continuation of (i) a Level of Service of E, or F at anytime at any intersection affected by the project or (ii) a Level of Service of D, E, or F at any intersection with a one mile radius of any public or private school for students in grades Kindergarten through 12; or (b) will locate an access to a public right-of--way from a pazking lot or pazking garage, or any combination of both, serving more than 5,000 cars within a one mile radius of any public or private school for students in grades Kindergarten through 12. • 5. With respect to any access to a public right-of--way from any pazking lot or parking garage, or combination of both, with a capacity of 5,000 cazs or more, existing as of the effective date of this ordinance that iswithin aone-mile radius of a public or private school for students in grades kindergarten through 12, the City shall, by exercise of its power of eminent domain if necessary, regulate or take such access to prevent excessive traffic during normal school hours, as such hours maybe established by the school district. 6. This ordinance is effective upon the date of enactment and applies to any City approval that has not been granted as of the effective date. DEFINITIONS (a) City approval: Any approval or permit required from the City for development, construction and - use of occupancy of an office building or office ,complex, including without limitation zoning amendments, subdivision approvals, conditional use permits, variances, building permits and occupancy permits, and any license required for the operation of such office building or office complex. • 2019596v4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) - ss.: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . _ The undersigned, being duly sworn, says that the undersigned is a member of the sponsorship committee for the foregoing Ordinance and the Initiative Petition to which it is attached, which are the Ordinance and Initiative Petition that the sponsorship committee prepared for filing with the City Clerk of the City of Richfield and for signature by registered voters. This verification is provided in compliance with Sections 5.04 and 5.05 of Appendix A to the City Charter of Richfield, Minnesota. /~ Name: ~~ d .t./'2 Address: c ` ~. Subscribed and sworn to before me this / day of February, 2001. Notary Public Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission Expires ~- ~ ~- a 00 o v FRANCES M. Fl_ETCHER NOTPAYPU&1C-MIN~TA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 31,2005 ^ V~vONIiMIt~"ft~e,. ,,,y6~'~gKiAMAAMNIAMNVS HOUSING STOCK INITIATIVE Reasons and totals for disqualifying Total signatures submitted: 4446 Signatures disqualified as of 2/21/01: Not Registered 792 Other disqualifying factors * 256 Total disqualified 1048 Signatures not disqualified as of 2/21/01 3398. 14.4081% *other disqualifications include: incomplete address, illegible name or address, duplicate, irregularity and the petition was not signed by the circulator. TRAFFIC AND PARKING INITIATIVE Reasons and totals for disqualifying Total signatures submitted: 4336 Signatures disqualified as of 2/21/01: Not Registered 819 Other disqualifying factors * 122 Total disqualified 941 Signatures not disqualified as of 2/21/01: 3395 .14.3954% *other disqualifications include: incomplete address, illegible name or address, duplicate and irregularity • AGENDA SECTION: . AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 2~, 2001 Consent 5E 57 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TIT/,F. DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: h ~ ~~ S/GN/AT~URE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~i~< \ _) ~t~t_--Y~ / D _ r1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request for a new residential kennel license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the request for a new residential kennel license for Reeta Lincoln, 7308 Sheridan Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On January 12, 2001, Reeta Lincoln submitted an application for a new residential kennel license. She owns three dogs and two cats. Ms. Lincoln's application contains the signatures of contiguous proper, owners. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on February 5, 2001. This property has no history of environmental health complaints and the animals appear healthy and well cared for. The Public Safety Department has not received any calls regarding this address. 0226LincolnKennelLicense Although this application is for three dogs and two cats, it does not exceed the • maximum number of six animals that was app ~~oved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received two phone calls regarding this application. Both calls were agreeable to the issuance of the requested license. Both callers stated that they never see the animals outside and that they weren't really even aware that the applicant had any animals. They never seem to be any sort of nuisance. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A • D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the request for a new residential kennel license for Reeta Lincoln. This would mean they would have to reduce the number of dogs they have from three to two. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Reeta Lincoln • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5D REPORT # 5 6 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • FEBRUARY 26, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: - -_ RICK BEANE, GARAGE AND PARK MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR NAME, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration to purchase a motor grader in excess of $50,000. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a purchase order to Sweeney Brothers Tractor Inc. in the sum of $132,166.50 for motor grader with snow wing. III. BACKGROUND Unit 178, a 1972 Caterpiller 12F motor grader, is fully depreciated and scheduled for replacement. Purchase of the new equipment has been coordinated through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Program. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • When the purchase of materials, merchandise, equipment or • construction exceeds $50,000, authority to purchase shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration. 0226grader • Sweeney Brothers Tractor Inc. was one of four bidders accepted by • the State of Minnesota for vehicles of this class. Base prices for this class of equipment range from $123,400 to $163,057. • The City of Richfield participates in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Program. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval at the February 26, 2001 Council meeting will facilitate delivery of the new vehicle: C. FINANCIAL • The approved 2001 budget contains $120,000 for this purchase. Total purchase price of the motor grader (base price $123,400.00), wing plow and other options ($23,265.00), and tax ($8,066.50) less trade in ($22,565.00) is $132,166:50, which is $12,166.50 above the budgeted amount. However, some other equipment purchases for 2001 have been under budget so there is sufficient funding in the adopted Central Garage/Motor Pool to afford this purchase. D. LEGAL • N/A • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Council may delay approval to a later meeting. However, delayed approval will result in delayed delivery. • Council may choose to deny approval and direct staff to obtain new bids for this vehicle. However, staff believes the best price(s) are available for the motor grader and wing plow through the joint purchase contract. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • C] AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # STAFF REPORT Consent 5C 55 CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS LINK, PUBLIC WORKS WORKER Na,~, .TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ wtn ~' `~:- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution requesting the Commissioner of Transportation to revoke Municipal State Aid (MSA) designation for 77 1/2 Street from Colfax Avenue to Lyndale Avenue, Aldrich Avenue from 78th Street to 77th Street, and Colfax Avenue from 78th Street to 77th Street (MSA route numbers 157-109, 157-110, and 157-111) I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution requesting that the Commissioner of Transportation revoke Municipal State Aid (MSA) designation from 771/2 Street from Colfax Avenue to Lyndale Avenue,. Aldrich Avenue from 78th Street to 77th Street, and Colfax Avenue from 78th Street to 77th Street. • III. BACKGROUND MSA rules state that 20% of city streets are eligible for MSA funding. With redevelopment changing many City streets, it is necessary to update the MSA system to stay within the allotted 20%. The streets that are to be revoked are part of the Shops at Lyndale redevelopment area and no longer exist. After these streets are removed from the MSA system there will be 0.21 additional miles to designate on the MSA system. 0226revocationofstreets-shops@lyndate III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY • A City Council resolution is required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) office of State Aid for requesting the revocation of Municipal State Aid designation from certain streets. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • None known at this time. C. FINANCIAL • When streets are revoked, staff is able to designate 0.21 miles of streets to be eligible for additional Municipal State Aid funding. • Staff will be asking the Community Services Commission to help determine if other changes to the MSA system are needed. D. LEGAL • None known at this. time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Council may choose to not adopt the attached resolution. However, that would result in the loss of some Municipal State Aid funding. • V. ATTACHMENTS Map showing streets to have MSA designation revoked. Resolution revoking Municipal State Aid designation from certain City. streets. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None known at this time. • • W ZO Z ~ r( 0 ~ ~AN ~ ~ 'S7 ~~ ~ ~L ~ ~y • • ~ W m ~~ ~ anuand a~epu~~ yy FI w J W ~ I,.~. .~ ~ Z ~. U -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L!_ ~ ~' ~ O ~ ~ U t RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REVOKING MUNICIPAL STATE AID DESIGNATION FROM CERTAIN CITY STREETS WHEREAS, it is deemed advisable and necessary for certain streets hereinafter. described as Municipal State Aid streets to be revoked and removed from Richfield's Municipal State Aid system under the provisions of Minnesota laws, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the streets described as follows: MSA Street # Street Name Limits 157-109 West 77-1/2 Street Colfax Avenue to Lyndale Avenue 157-110 Aldrich Avenue West 78th Street to West 77th Street 157-111 Colfax Avenue West 78th Street to West 77th Street be, and hereby are, revoked as Municipal State Aid streets of the City of Richfield, subject to approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the. State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two certified copies of this Resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his consideration. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day February , 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk n U 0226revocationofstreets-shops@lynda le AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CONSENT ~~ STAFF REPORT COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SER,(ICES DIRECTOR NAME, ~ZE SIGNATURE • • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of changing the 2001 Board of Equalization start time. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a .change in the start time of the April 30, 2001 Board of Review Meetin to 5:30 .m. II. BACKGROUND On January 8, 2001, the City Council voted to convene the year 2001 Board of Equalization on April 30 at 7 p.m. Since that time, staff has become aware that at least one Board of Equalization member has a scheduling conflict which would necessitate that the Board start time be moved to 5:30 p.m. The City Council has the discretion to convene the Board at any time it chooses. The Council -may act on this to honor the request to change the start time or keep the time as previously established. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0226Bd of Equal A. POLICY • The City Council is required to conduct a Board of Equalization meeting each year. • The start time of the meeting has typically been 7 p.m. However, the City Council has the authority to establish the start time when it deems appropriate, and at least one Board Member has a scheduling conflict with a 7 p.m. start time. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City has already reported its Board of Equalization meeting date and time to the County. It is .important that the County be notified of this time change as soon as possible. C. FINANCIAL • NA D. LEGAL • The City has the legal responsibility to schedule and conduct a Board of Equalization hearing each year. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council may leave the Board of Equalization start time as previously adopted by the City Council • The City Council may elect to establish a different start time than the one previously approved or the one proposed here. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • r~ U AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5A REPORT # 5 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: LJ STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAn~', TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the summary legal notice for the cable franchise ordinance for WideQpenWest. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolution approving. the summary publication of an ordinance amendment to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Code which pertains to a cable television franchise for WideOaenWest. II. BACKGROUND Chapter 3.12 of the City Charter authorizes the City to publish an ordinance by title and summary in certain circumstances. The primary circumstance where such a summary publication is intended is for lengthy ordinances, which would require .costly publication charges. Such publications would be deemed not to be cost effective. • In order to forego the publication of the entire ordinance, the City Council must determine that a summary of the ordinance would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The summary must then be approved by a City Council resolution. 0226 WOW Staff Rpt • The cable TV franchise ordinance for the WideOpenWest cable franchise is such an ordinance. Therefore, a resolution and ordinance summary has been prepared for City Council consideration.. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City uses Charter authority to publish ordinance summaries where such summary publications meet the requirements of the Charter. • The WideOpenWest cable franchise ordinance would be very. expensive to publish. • A summary has been prepared by Brian Grogan, Attorney for the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, and used in other municipal jurisdictions.. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • This- matter should be considered at the second meeting in February so that the publication in either format is not excessively delayed. C. FINANCIAL • The publication cost savings to the City for publishing only a summary would likely be well over $200. LEGAL • The authority to do summary publications is provided in the City Charter. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Require the City to place the full ordinance for publication. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution approve the WideOpenWest cable ordinance summary. publication. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. • RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.12 OF THE RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO A CABLE TV FRANCHISE FOR WIDEOPENWEST WHEREAS, the City has adopted the above referenced amendment to the Richfield City Code; and WHEREAS, the verbatim text of the amendment is cumbersome, and the expense of publication of the complete text is not justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the following summary is hereby approved for official publication: SUMMARY PUBLICATION BILL N0.2001-3 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA, LLC, ("GRANTEE" OR "WIDEOPENWEST ") TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AND PRESCRIBING .PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE • PROVISIONS HEREIN. This summary of the ordinance is published pursuant to Section 3.12 of the Richfield City Charter. The purpose of this ordinance is as follows: On February 12, 2001, the City of Richfield ("City") adopted a Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance for WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC. The Ordinance serves two purposes. First, it is intended to provide for and specify the means to attain the best possible cable television service for the public by providing requirements for cable television with respect to technical standards, customer service obligations, and related matters. Second, itgrants anon-exclusive cable television franchise agreement to WideOpenWest to operate, construct and maintain a cable television system within the City and contains specific. requirements for WideOpenWest to do so. The Ordinance includes the following: 1) requires WideOpenWest to construct and maintain an 860 MHz capacity cable system; 2) imposes a franchise fee of five percent (5%) of annual gross revenues; 3) establishes a franchise term which will expire on or about January 2012; 4) requires the provision of service to new developments making channels available for public, educational and governmental programming with WideOpenWest to provide support of such programming through the term of the • franchise; 5) requires an institutional network which will serve all schools and public buildings within the City consisting of two fibers which will be completely paid by WideOpenWest; and 6) requires aforty-eight (48) month construction schedule. It is hereby determined that publication of this title and summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of Bill No. 2001-3. A copy of the entire Ordinance shall be available at the Richfield City Hall. Copies of the ordinance are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office during normal business hours or upon request by calling 612-861-9731. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 26th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Nancy Gibbs, City Clerk r •