Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
01-08-01 Agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2001 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND,AVENUE . AGENDA INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of minutes of (1) Regular Council Meeting of December 11, 2000 and (2) Special City Council Meeting of January 2, 2001 PRESENTATIONS Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. 1. Annual meeting with local Legislators to discuss City of Richfield 2001 Legislative Initiatives and Policies 2. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Dr. Yang, Dao, Assistant Director of Communications, St. Paul School District 3. Presentation of Letters of Commendation from City of Richfield Public Safety Department to 9-1-1 Dispatcher Jay Burns and Police Officer David Thill 4. Council discussion items 5. 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. Notes: C, AGENDA APPROVAL 6. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed. on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval A. Consideration of approval of resolution approving stipulation of final settlement on • Parcel 11, K.E. Peters Billiards Supply, Inc., 6421 Cedar Avenue S.R. No. 6 B. Consideration of approval of execution of phase two environmental site assessment professional services agreement with Liesch Associates, Inc. for 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project S. R. No. 7 C. Consideration of approval of resolution relating to no parking on east and west sides of Lyndale Avenue from 76th Street to 77th .Street S.R. No. 8 D. Consideration of approval of continuation of agreement with City of Bloomington for provision. of public health services for City of Richfield for 2001 S.R. No. 9 E. Consideration of approval of continuation of agreement with City of Bloomington for provision of building. inspections and code enforcement services for Richfield for 2001 and 2002, under new, separate agreement S.R. No. 10 F. Consideration of approval of establishing April 30, 2001 as date for 2001 Local Board of Equalization S.R. No. 11 Notes: PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Disci lina hearing and consideration of resolution suspending on-sale intoxicating p rY and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi Chi's. Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue, and imposing civil penalty Staff Report No. 12 Notes: 9. Public hearing and second reading of ordinance amending Section 1200 of Richfield City Code; adding new subsection to allow sale of intoxicating liquor at Richfield Community Center by permit Staff Report No. 13 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 10. Consideration of resolution amending established 2001 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to provisions of Appendix D of City Ordinance Code, effective February 1, 2001 Staff Report No. 14 Notes: 11. Consideration of resolution approving 2001 social service agency funding recommendations Staff Report No. 15 Notes: PROPOSED ORDINANCES 12. Consideration of first reading of proposed cable television ordinance for Everest Connections Corporation Notes: Staff Report No. 16 13. Consideration of first reading of proposed cable television ordinance for WideOpenWest, LLC ~__,Staff.,Report.No..17 Notes: 14. Consideration of first reading of transitory ordinance to change name of 73-1/2 Street to Pillsbury Lane Staff Report No. 18 • Notes: 15. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment to allow reduction in required corner visibility area for fully controlled intersections Staff Report No. 19 Notes: 16. Consideration of first reading of ordinance amendment to City Administrative Code Chapter I I I, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave Staff Report No. 20 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS 17. Consideration of new residential kennel license for 7312 Harriet Avenue (continued from November 27, 2000) Staff Report No. 21 Notes: 18. Consideration of Council liaison. appointment for 2001 to various metropolitan agencies and City commissions _: _.Staff Report_No..22 Notes: 19. Consideration of approval of City of Richfield 2001 Legislative Initiatives and Policies Staff Report No. 23 Notes: C7 20. Airport status report Notes: AIRPORT BUSINESS 21. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda (Limited to 15 minutes.) COUNCIL CHOICE Notes: 22. Claims and payrolls 23. 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. ~, yu n ~ 1~eptt~ ~5 ov AGENDA SECTION: per- /K' SS AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # a 3 STAFF REPORT ,` t y CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASSISTANT NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: .ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of City of Richfield 2001 Legislative Initiatives and Policies. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the City of Richfield 2001 Legislative Initiatives and Policies. III. BACKGROUND On January. 5, 2001, the City Council and City staff conducted the annual goal setting session. Discussion included Richfield's 2001 Legislative Initiatives and Policies. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • For several years,-the City of Richfield has prepared legislative initiatives and policies based upon a combination of prior legislative initiatives and new issues identified by the City Council and City staff. 01081egislative.doc • Legislative initiatives of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities .are also included in Richfield's package. • Richfield's legislators are annually invited to a Council meeting to discuss the initiatives and policies. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Richfield legislators were invited to attend the January 8 Council meeting to discuss the City's 2001 legislative initiatives and policies. • The Council and City staff met on January 5 at the annual goal setting sessionao discuss the legislative initiatives and policies. • Many of the initiatives included will be priority items for the League of Minnesota Cities and Association of Metropolitan Municipalities as they have state-wide or metro-wide significance. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The City Council- may defer action on this item to another meeting. • .The Council may decide to approve all or part of the initiatives. • The Council may decide not to adopt any formal initiatives for 2001. • If the initiatives are not formally approved and adopted, they may not be considered official initiatives and policies for the City. V. ATTACHMENTS • Legislative Initiatives and Policies VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Local legislators • J 2001 • LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES POLICIES - Draft 01 /04/01 • CITY OF RICHFIELD 2001 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES DRAFT In January 2000, Council Member Suzanne Sandahl coined the phrase: "WHAT RICHFIELD DOES, IT DOES WELL." In keeping with that charge, the City has sought to streamline its legislative initiatives to focus first on the issues that will most dramatically impact the City's ability to serve its stakeholders and second, to support the initiatives of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities in their efforts to secure or oppose legislation that impacts all cities: The City of Richfield has a long history of partnerships with its neighboring cities,-its legislative and congressional delegation, the School District, the faith community, the airport, the Met Council, State agencies, and other governmental and private institutions. These partnerships have been based on dedication to cooperation and collaboration that has served well the City and the metro area. The City of Richfield presents, herein, its legislative priorities for the year 2001 with the understanding that each and every. success results in future successes that will enhance the City's ability to secure a safe and prosperous community for its stakeholders and strengthen the vitality of the metropolitan area and the state. The City's priorities are listed in the following manner: PRIORITY A These priorities consist of: • Legislation that is an initiative of the City of Richfield and/or an initiative of Richfield and other governmental entities. • Legislation that has significant and immediate impacts to the City. PRIORITY B These priorities consist of: • Support of continuation/expansion/funding of existing programs that impact the City of Richfield, other municipalities in the metro area and the state. PRIORITY C These priorities consist of: • Richfield's support of specific adopted positions of the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. • General quality of life issues that merit legislative and congressional consideration and action. • -1- PRIORITY A -INITIATIVES • A1. AIRPORT NOISE MITIGATION Legislation to secure additional State grant funds for noise mitigation, via acquisition, for the Airport Impact Zone as defined by the 2000 Legislature. In collaboration with other cities impacted by airport noise, introduce legislation recommended. by the 1999 Governor's Task Force regarding a dedicated revenue source for noise mitigation. A2. CONTROL OF ALCOHOL SALES Consistent with the City's. mandate-to protect the safety of its citizens and the City's program of effective alcohol sale control, oppose any legislation that would allow the sale of wine, wine coolers and associated products .intended for consumption off the licensed premises by other than municipal liquor stores. A3. MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION Legislation that will permit motor vehicle registrar offices to directly `issue license tabs over the Internet. A4. SALES TAX ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES The Legislature should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases without requiring a reduction in other aids. A5. FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION The City supports legislative efforts to increase long-term funding for the Moving • Minnesota Plan of MnDOT that will remove-bottlenecks on the 494-694-ring road around the Twin Cities area. Additional funding will accelerate reconstruction of I-494 from Highway 100 to 34th Avenue, especially the 35W/494 interchange that has been identified as a .major traffic bottleneck. A6. CITY SPEED LIMIT CONTROL Support legislation fora 25-mph urban speed zone. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation currently establishes speed limits on streets. The speed limit for residential streets is established at 30-mph. However, cities have developed variable land use patterns, street layouts, densities and also have varying topographical conditions. There are many local streets where 30-mph is not a reasonable nor a safe speed. Many .other cities in the area have a 25-mph speed limit for local streets. A7. RESOURCES FOR FAMILY SERVICES COLLABORATIVE The State Legislature should reaffirm its commitment to fund Family Services Collaboratives and consider an ongoing level of funding at a one-third level based on each collaborative's annual grant amount for the first three years of the five-year grant. The State Legislature should also review the functions and expectations of the State Family Services Collaboratives and their relationship to/with Revenue Enhancement/LCTS and determine how these two efforts can be more efficiently and economically connected, at the State and local/regional levels, for better service for families and children. • _2_ A8. DATA PRIVACY/CHILD PROTECTION The Legislature should revise data privacy laws or expand on the Community Case Consultation Team format (currently under the auspices of the County) to quickly bring the required resources together to resolve family situations where neglect/abuse are issues and the family resists outside help and refuses to sign data release forms. This would be helpful at the community level in dealing with neglect and abuse in community-based- approaches and. at the same time being sensitive to protecting people from public exposure.. PRIORITY B -CONTINUATION/EXPANSION/FUNDING OF EXISTING PROGRAMS 81.. LEGISLATIVE COMMISS/ON:ON MINNESOTA RESOURCES (LCMR) Support continued designation of the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Encourage the Environmental and Natural Resource Trust Fund to prioritize the following items for funding: • Expenditures support preservation management and restoration of natural. resources that encompass both,: urban .and rural environmental issues. • Trust Fund expenditures for trail connections and corridors throughout the state by building :trails that promote non-motorized transportation. • Support a state bonding bill for parks and trails that represents the level of funding appropriate to acquire, develop/redevelop, and protect parks. within the state, region and local jurisdictions. • Encourage Senators and Members of Congress to reinstate and fully fund Land and Water Conservation (LAWCON) funds. B2. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE Richfield- currently permits a system of open competition for residential waste haulers. Our perception. is that people of Richfield believe that the current system works well but that there is a need to increase the convenience of household hazardous waste disposal. We also agree that legislation should continue to fund educational and operational pilot program efforts on the subject of solid and hazardous waste-disposal including alternatives for the disposal of household waste such as those promoted by the Household Hazardous Waste Reduction Project. B3. FIREARM TRANSFER PERMIT FEES Continue to pursue ability to charge fees for gun transfers. 84. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Richfield is a prudent user of tax increment financing. The tool should continue and be deregulated. Although the narrative does not introduce the formation of new districts, a "smart growth district" with less regulation should be considered given our redevelopment emphasis on higher density housing/office/retail uses that include transit solutions. B5. LOW-INCOME HOUSING The Legislature should review and revise its definition and criteria of affordable housing to better identify the needs of low-income persons and develop policies .and resources to more clearly target vulnerable groups. Increase State funding for affordable housing needs, to increase the housing. supply, and assist. both renters and homeowners with grants, loans, and housing subsidies focusing on at-risk groups. -3- Work with the Minnesota Congressional Delegation to persuade the Federal Government to reinvest in meeting the housing crisis for the low-income and the poor. 86. WELFARE-TO-WORK INITIATIVE Carefully consider and address the needs and issues of families who are not participating in the Welfare-to-Work Initiative, with special attention to the impact on children of these families if they are cut off from financial aid completely. Examine the ongoing needs of families who have completed the five-year --.:program and provide resources which;can.enable-.counties,-commurnties, agencies, schools, etc. to meet these needs and continue to provide the necessary support services such as child care, transportation, job/work related activities and counseling, to name some. 87. CHILD CARE/DAY CARE Continue to increase funding for child care to .make it affordable to the working poor and families being required to enter the labor market as an alternative to public assistance. B8. HEALTH CARE Continue to provide and expand Minnesota Care coverage for people currently eligible and for those who will be required to go to work, often at lower paying jobs and possibly without health care benefits. • PRIORITY C: SUPPORT OF LMC AND AMM POSITIONS/QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES C1. LEVY LIMITS The City of Richfield also opposes levy .limits and urges the Legislature to not re- enact them for 2002. and. beyond. The AMM also opposes the imposition of artificial mechanisms such as valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse referenda, super majority requirements for levy, or other limitations to the local government budget and taxing process. C2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA) LGA returns a portion of statevuide resources to supplement local property taxes. The City and AMM support its continuation with an annual inflation index, along with additional State resources to further reduce the reliance on the property tax. In addition, any LGA formula changes considered by the Legislature must have a positive impact on the metropolitan area. C3. 'HOMESTEAD & AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AID (RAGA) The HACA equals about one-third of the total local aid and should be continued as part of the local fiscal relationship, with an inflation or increased household growth factor restored for cities. If HACA continues to be used to offset lower valued home tax increases as a result of class rate compression, the Legislature should provide an ongoing HACA index to offset continued tax shifts after the initial year. The AMM strongly opposes the conversion of city HACA to school aid. • -4- C4. FISCAL DISPARITY FUND DISTRIBUTION The City of Richfield also opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan programs since it results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the public. C5. HOUSING C5.1. HOMELESSNESS The City supports the AMM's position that the Legislature pay more attention to the issues of homelessness. The City also encourages permanent assisted housing for larger families. Reason: This item is important to the City of Richfield as it directly impacts low-income families' (especially the working poor) quality of life and family stability. The number one request to the Richfield Resource Center is for housing, averaging 30 calls/month. This does not include calls for financial assistance #o help with rent payments. Many of these requests cannot be met for the following, among other, reasons: low vacancy rate of rental units, decreasing number of apartment complexes that will accept Section 8 vouchers., poor or no rental history of applicants, few or no rental units that can accommodate a large family. In addition, there are no homeless shelters in South Hennepin, and persons who are suddenly homeless must uproot their families (e.g., children from school) to Minneapolis. C5.2 FAMILY & ELDERLY HOUSING The City supports the AMM recommendations. Reason: According to the. Hennepin South Services Collaborative, the fastest growing group in Richfield is women 75 years and older living independently. Because older women's median income is roughly 60% of men's, women also generally suffer more economic hardships later in life. They also have a greater frequency of multiple chronic health conditions. Therefore, social services (i.e., health care, financial assistance, nutrition and home care services, etc.) are needed in conjunction with a continuum of housing to prevent costly and premature institutionalization (nursing home care). According to the- Richfield Anonymous Response Team, an increasing number of older adults living. independently are experiencing losses of mental and physical abilities and are having difficulty in .maintaining their homes. Senior Community Services Senior Outreach Program has reported continuous increases in the number. of Richfield clients needing their services. C5.3 IMMIGRATION Richfield supports additional State funds for schools, early childhood and family education and other qualified providers to prepare preschool children for entrance into kindergarten with ESL education, socialization and other related pre-school preparation activities. C5.4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Richfield is an active leader in providing affordable housing programming and retaining an existing supply of affordable housing choices. More resources are needed to sustain this effort. New production resources are -5- encouraged. "Workforce Housing" (jobs, employees, housing) is a new way to better describe our affordable housing needs. The City of Richfield supports legislation that would provide incentives for live/work housing and other affordable housing opportunities to provide assistance to the "working poor." C6. TRANSPORTATION Transportation continues to be one of the most critical needs for people generally, and especially for those with low incomes, the working poor and Welfare-to-Work employees. It is important not only for daily living needs, but in ..getting to and from work.. - Recommendation for legislative action: • Provide incentives to local communities and regions to develop experimental transportation services while a broader solution is worked out. • Strengthen the Livable Communities Act by enabling more low-income people and others needing transportation to-live in outlying communities closer to the job sources thereby minimizing transportation needs. • Provide incentives to employers to create their own transportation service for affected employees beyond the car-pooling concept. C7. STREET AUTHORITY The City supports the legislation that would permit cities to establish a Street Authority as an optionalfunding source for streetmaintenance. The LMC and AMM have urged the Legislature to permit cities to create a transportation authority. Such authorization would address: • Reduced revenues available for local street and road improvements. • The benefits to all taxpayers of a properly maintained local transportation system. • The severe limitations of existing special assessment authority. C8. USE OF PHOTOGRAPHY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC LAWS Support legislation which would allow use of motion imaging detection (photography) for enforcement of traffic laws, specifically m violations of traffic signals, railroad crossing signals, construction work zones and excessive .speeding. Support legislative action authorizing utilization of motion imaging recording system technology for governmental units, including cities, on streets and highways to assist promotion of safety and traffic law compliance enforcement. The technology has been proven and is currently used for law enforcement by numerous states, municipalities and other counties. The State should consider a pilot project on municipal streets in the metropolitan area. C9. TRANSIT TRUST FUND The City supports legislation that would permit cities to establish a separate Transit Trust Fund to support transit operations statewide. -6- C10. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY The City supports the continued effort of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) to protect the authority of cities to maintain jurisdiction over municipal rights-of- way, to establish relevant criteria and to obtain reasonable compensation for its degradation. C11. SMART GROWTH INCENTIVES Richfield, a fully developed suburban core community, is aggressively pursuing mixed use housing/office/retailing development of greater density and with a priority on transit solutions. These are "smart growth" initiatives. Richfield supports legislation that would reward cities and further provide incentives for cities to establisfi and-maintain "smart growth°° development policies. -7- Q,`Qinln . l~e~oor~ ~ AGENDA SECTION: ~~ ~~~ lje,~ AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~„ • STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASSISTANT NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~' ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of designating representatives to serve as 2001 liaisons to various metropolitan agencies and City commissions. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Designate Council liaison appointments for 2001 to various metropolitan agencies and City commissions. ~ II. BACKGROUND ~ Members of the City Council serve as the City's representatives on various metropolitan agencies and City commissions. Each year, the Council appoints these representatives. This item has been placed on the January 8, 2001 Council agenda as requested by the Mayor. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Each year, the City Council appoints representatives to serve as liaisons on various metropolitan agencies and City commissions. 01081iaisons.doc B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The City needs representations on metropolitan agencies and commissions. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ , • Defer the designation to a future Council meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Liaison appointment list. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. r~ U AGENCY 2000 LIAISON ASSOC. METRO MUNICIPALITIES BUSS SUSAG, REP. • SAMANTHA ORDUNO, ALT. SOUTHWEST CABLE COMMISSION KRISTAL STOKES, DIR. STEVE DEVICH, DIR. SUE SANDAHL, ALT. SAMANTHA ORDUNO, ALT. NOISE RUSS SUSAG, REP. SUE SANDAHL, ALT. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES SUE SANDAHL, REP RUSS SUSAG, ALT. MASAC KRISTAL STOKES, REP. PAM DMYTRENKO, REP. RUSS SUSAG, ALT. SAMANTHA ORDUNO, ALT. RICHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION ~I-35W SOLUTIONS ALLIANCE 494 CORRIDOR COMMISSION ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH COMM. SERVICES COMMISSION HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION FRIENDSHIP CITY COMMISSION RICHFIELD COMMUNITY HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL FOWL BOARD C, SUSAN ROSENBERG, REP. SUE SANDAHL, ALT. DAN SCOTT, LIA. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. RUSS SUSAG, REP. MIKE EASTLING, ALT. RUSS SUSAG, LIA. TOM FOLEY, ALT. MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. SUSAN ROSENBERG, LIA. KRISTAL STOKES, ALT. RUSS SUSAG, LIA. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA. SUSAN ROSENBERG, ALT. MARTIN KIRSCH, LIA. KRISTAL STOKES, ALT. SUSAN ROSENBERG, REP. KRISTAL STOKES, ALT ROSS SUSAG, REP. SUE SANDAHL, ALT. 2001 LIAISON 01081iaisons.doc • ~lynln.~e~'~s~ AGENDA SECTION: (~JjP~ L~ 1~SI n ebS AGENDA ITEM # /7 REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2UU1 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, T/TLC REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE ~~ SlGNATURF ~~~- ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for a new residential kennel license for Peg Gallagher, 7312 Harriet Avenue South. This item was before the Council on November 27, 2000 but was continued by Council until Janua 8, 2001. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny the request for a new residential kennel license for Pe Galla her, 7312 Harriet Avenue South. II. BACKGROUND On August 8, 2000, Peg Gallagher submitted an application for a new residential kennel license. She owns three dogs. Ms. Gallagher's application contains the signatures of three contiguous property owners. It is City procedure that staff notifies surrounding neighbors of the request for a residential kennel license. Neighbors are then given a 10-day period in which they may respond, either for or against the requested license. Staff received three letters and four phone calls regarding this application. Of the responses received, one neighbor at 7305 Garfield was in opposition to the approval of the license because the neighbor thinks the neighborhood already has too many animals. No 0108GallagherKennelLicense specific problem with the applicant was stated, only the fear exists that more animals would be too overwhelming. A letter from a resident at 7309 Garfield Avenue was also in opposition to the requested license. That neighbor also did not have an objection to the neighbors requesting the license. The neighbor would have the same issue with anyone. The concern is simply with the request to have an additional animal. It is felt that two animals is a reasonable number for any household to maintain and any more than that can present more challenges in keeping the property clean, animals confined, and peace (quiet) in the neighborhood. The third letter received was from a resident at 7317 Harriet Avenue who was also in opposition to the issuance of the requested license. The concern was with the property. It is the opinion that the property is not suitable for a kennel and not large enough to properly exercise the animals. No specific problems with the applicant or the applicant's animals were stated. Of the four phone calls received, only two had concerns, which were in regards to the fence and animals at large. All four phone calls were in favor of the issuance of the residential kennel license. On September 28, 2000, staff received a phone call from a neighbor at 7327 Harriet Avenue, stating that she wanted her name removed from a "petition" letter. She went on to say that a resident in the neighborhood drafted a letter that was being passed around the neighborhood for signatures against the issuance of the residential kennel license. The caller said that she did not understand what she had signed and felt she had been mislead. In the beginning of October, staff received 11 of these "petition" letters in the mail. Because of the confusion this letter may have caused, staff tried to make contact with these residents to explain the City's policy on residential kennel licenses. Of the 11 "petition" letters received, staff was only able to make contact with six of the residents. After staff explained City policy, only one of the six was still in opposition. to the approval of the license. Because -staff was unable to contact all 11 residents by phone, staff mailed letters to the remaining five residents..This letter explained City policy and gave those residents an opportunity to respond either in approval or opposition to the requested kennel license. Staff received no phone calls from any of these residents in response to this letter. The Public Safety Department received four calls to the applicant's address in the year 2000. Calls were as follows: One fire alarm, one theft, and two animals at large. It is unknown whether the animals at large were animals owned by the applicant. There was no written police report. The Environmental Health staff received one complaint in May 2000 regarding animals at large. The resident was contacted and no further complaints have been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on September 14, 2000. The Community Service Officer observed that the fence was in need: of repair. The resident stated she was looking into having it replaced. This request for the Gallagher residential kennel .license was before the Council on November 27, 2000. Council decided to continue discussion of the request until January 8, 2001 to give the Gallaghers the opportunity to be present at the meeting. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received four phone calls and three letters regarding this application. The concerns included the number of animals and the size of the yard. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for a residential kennel license. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • None V. ATTACHMENTS • Application from Peg Gallagher. • Kennel License Application Inspection. • Letter sent to neighbors • Opposition Letters responding to Environmental Health letter • Four phone calls in response to Environmental Health letter • Eleven "petition" letters in response to Environmental Health letter • Letter dated October 30, 2000 sent by staff in response to."petition" letter VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Peg Gallagher • ATTACHMENT: 0108Ga11agherKennelLic~nse ~ ~ ~~ V" D~ ~~ [l ~i CITY OF RICHFIELD ~ 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE SOUTH ~ RICHFFELD, IvfN 55423 ~ ' ~ J RECEIPT NO. LICENSE NO. NEW RENEW '~ ~ ~ .~ ~ J,h .. APPLICATION FOR KENNEL LICENSE ~~~~ ~` July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 ~/~~ i n # of Dogs ~ # of Cats~_ FE)v Applicant's Name: V Residential_ $ 85.00 Applicant's Address: ~ ~ f ,..~ r ~J ~ :~ ~~ ,~, `~ Veterinary Applicant's Phone No: ~~ ~ ~ - v2 7 ~ -- f ,~`~~ ~ $ 150.00 Business Name: ~ !`-E- Commercial ~~ ~ $ 150.00 Business Address: Total Amount Due $~~ Business Phone No.: ~_J.--- I (we) hereby agree to operate in accordance with the laws of the State of iviinnesota and the ordinances of the City of Richfield. The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Authorized Signature: ~~ Date: ~~ a ~` ~ C APPROVAL OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS TO RESIDENTIAL KENNEL (A residential kennel is a place where more than two dogs or two cats are kept on premises which are zoned and qualified for residential purposes, and where the keeping of such dogs or cats is incidental to the occupancy of the premises for residential purposes. j (In July of 1991, City Council passed a policy that no resident may have,more than six animals (dogs & cats) in total.) • Ordinance Code Section 905.31, Subd. 3 -The application for a residential kennel license shall be accompanied by a petition showing the approval of the occupants of privately owned real estate abutting the premises on which the kennel is to be located. _.. .:.." ~~~~ ~m~ ~~ % ~ %~'iii^ ~3~fc~ ~~.mY ..~ J~,. hC:i'i~ ~ j t 7 f-~'irx.~ ~ 73z r ~~~r .~~~~ ~ 7.~ ~.% ~ ~3~ S ~c2' ~j~7 • ~- 1~ '' Whether or not tall of the occupants of abutting property approve the application, the council may grant or deny the license. The license may not be granted unless the council rinds that the use of the applicant's premises as a residential kennel will not have, or will not be likely to have any adverse effect upon adjacent properties or the occupancy thereof, and will not constitute a nuisance tot he neighborhood. The council may impose condition upon the granting of any residential kennel license. HEREBY APPROVE OF A RESIDENTIAL KENNEL ON THE PREMISES OF: ~J S S: Si Address: ~~ l ~ ~ ,~ . , m~ Address: ~,~/ G /fr-~~ ,~„~.. Address: ~ ~~' ~'~i~.R~~-~ Address: ~ ~ ~ ~`. ~f~~~ is % , ,~(~~ FOR CITY USE ONLY CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL: YES NO DATE i Applicant: ATTACHMENT. 0108GallagherKennelLicense KENNET T IC~j.~$F ADPf ICATT[1fj TI~TCDFCT7C~itit Name ~ ~ - • J ~L- Address ~ ~~~ ~~1~~ ~v~- S . - Number o(,f~ Animals: ~ dogs cats Breed : l ~) ~.~.~ 3 iC.~l~~ . ~ ~,~ j •, ~,~.~. 7evv i ~`-' Are animals currently. licensed? •~ yes no Number of residents occupying dwelling Is yard enclosed with a, fence in good repair? Gull fence keep animals on•owner's property? Is yard clean and free of animal feces, etc.? Is garbage stored in covered metal container? Are pets kept for breeding purposes? ' How are pryie~t~s exercits,~ed? (where - what area) -~- yes no ..~%' yes no yes no ,y~'yes • no yes ~,X no Are there unpleasant odors present? yes ~~ no nave ail abutting property owr.~ers signed a petiti.n of approval for a kennel license for this number of animals?yes no If not, why not? Additional comments and his to.~ ~: ~ a ~ , ~r 5 r' ~ l~ `i ~ (, , ~ r f, .r_spacted by ~C;.1 ~~°f"LC~(N7 ~ '.~~ ~ Dat- ~q !Y ~J~ "- V ~-`t o 3/69 jw ATTACHMENT : 0108GallagherKennelLlcense i e~c~~i~ic Safe~jr uepa~imen~ Suppo~ Services ~ev~si~n Dear Resident: MAYOR I am writing to you because your neighbor at ~~ ~ ~ YYi~~has MARTIN J. KIRSCH recently made application for a re~ential/commerci nnel license in the City of c~TY couNC~L . Richneld. They currently own ~ dogs and cats. I want to take this susAN RosENeERG opportunity to explain to you what that means and t e process that is involved. SUZANNE M. SANDAHL KRISTALSTOKES R ss sus A residential kennel License does not mean that your neighborwill be introducing a u AG commercial business in your neighborhood. It does no# mean that an unusually large structure .will be constructed for breeding purposes, etc. They may have an average size kennel on the property for their pet's exercise and shelter. It simply is the name we have given to the license that is to be obtained for anyone owning more than two dogs or two cats in a residential neighborhood. If you should have any concerns regarding these neighbors' animals, please call me at 86~-9870 or write a brief letter outlining those concerns and return it to us at 6700 Portland Avenue, Attn: Stephanie (P i Sar'e ). Either your telephone call or letter should be received in our ofi"ice by ~~ "' ~ in order to process their license requC~.st. If we should receive information indicating that there may be a problem with the animals,-you will be asked if you and others who may have similar concerns would be willing to attend a mediation session, at no cost to you. This would be conducted by a trained mediator who takes a neutral position on the matter. Hopefully, this mediation session will provide an opportunity for the problems between neighbors to be worked out. S if that process is unsuccessful or you choose not to participate in it at all, a public hearing will be held on the license request before the City Council. YGU will be contacted and made aware of this public hearing date. You may choose to attend in person to present your testimony (either for or against the license being issued) or you ...ay request that vlie in~iude your written letter in the City Council's information packets. The Urban Hon~etnwn. 6704 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 www.ci.richfield.mn.us AN EOUAL OPPOATUN(7Y EMPLOYER Page 2 I am confident that this process will provide the necessary information to make a recommendation to the City Council. I appreciate your willingness to participate and encourage you to contact me at 861-9870 if you should have any questions. SG:ttf s ATTACHMENTS: 0108GallagherKennelLicense SEP ~ 2 2Q00 Pichfield public Safety Department Support Services Division Attn: Stephanie Gillette PE: Kennel License .7312 Harriet five 5 Dear Stephanie: September 20, 2000 ...,.~ `°_ SEP 2 2000 ~ ~ ~~ In response to your letter regarding the issuance of a residential/commercial kennel license, received September 16, 2000, at 7312 Harriet Rve 5. am not in favor of processing of this request. The dogs, to date, have not presented a problem. However, the property itself, in my opinion, i5 not Suitable for a kennel(sj to be constructed to house andlor properly exercise the animals that currently reside at this residence. I understand that issu-ng this iicense does not mean that a structure wili be built for breeding purposes etc... but it also does not indicate that this will not happen either. The property is simply too small, and dogs of this size need more exercise and space then what this property can provide. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to matter and am requesting this letter be included in the City's Council's. information packet. Meg a rd s, ~~~~ Oscar Johnson 7317 Harriet Ave ~ichficld, MN 5423 • • September 21, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Busuzess Licensing 6700 Portland Avenue .Richfield, MN 55423 RE: 7312 Harriet Ave, Richfield °Dear Ms. Gillette: We have received your letter inforniing us about our neighbor at 7312 Harriet Ave request for a Residential Kennel license. We wish to formally present our objection to the licensing. First, tlzs is not an objection to our neighbors. We have no personal issues that forni this objection. We would object to this request regardless of the neighbor. We simply are objecting the request for an additional animal. Two anmals is reasonable number for a household to maintain. More animals can present more challenges to keeping an individual property clean, keeping animals confined and peace (quiet) in the neighborhood. not like to expose our curious child to the feces. In addition, there are personal concerns regarding animal safety our family. Should an animal gee Moose in tiie ~Ieig hborbiood they have a potentiai to cause harm. '1 he harm may result from a playful animal jumping, or an animal reacting to a situation and biting a person. The potential for feces on our property not being removed is a concern. This can present a health concern. We have a child that is crawling and finds the "odd" objects in the yard very interesting. We would Thank you for requesting our input and allowing us to express our concerns. Sincerely, ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. Solvei & Todd Wilmot 7309 Garfield Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 (612)861-79S4 7'35 Wield ~vesau~ ~®~s~h R,a~a~ld, 1V1~ ~5~23 Tel: 612.869.6738 a-mail: wseall4746®@aol.eom September 23, 2000 Dear Director: The purpose of this letter is to indicate our opposition to the city issuing a commercial kennel license for our neighbor at 7312 Harriet Avenue South. We think our neighborhood is now nearly overrun with dogs. There currently are nine dogs living within 50 yards of our home. That's a bit many. We fear more would be • overwhelming. Thank you for requesting our opinion on this matter. . Sincerely, n ` Ivlary J. Sul Ivan W' am B. Sullivan P.S. We don't feel that attending a mediation session would cause us to modify our position. • ATTACHMENTS:0108GallagherKennelLicense Phone Messages (~i) - ~.___-_ • - ~~ ~,tS I~i~ ~n1s ~l~ _ ~,~_ X240 • • • ,\ ~~/m- 3V ~° d ~ o Qnn `134s i~ Ca,~u, ~s ae~ y~ ~ ~oN°p~~"w~~ C &~ • ~ 5lb Gkz~ (ncube ATTACHMENTS : 0108GallagherKennelLicense September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcommercial kennel license Properly Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, Iv1N 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: Petition Letters (11) ~~ ~~ ~'~ ,L . /~~. D~0"c~°",~' ~~ I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking • Again, we Live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls a;~d complair~~s to iiie iubiic Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, ~ ~~[~ Name I„`5~1 ~~/ . ~ ; ~~ ~av_e_ ~ a~~as~ ~~.e.~ ,~c~~ Z~ ,~ ,e r„au~' 7~ ~ ~~~V~ a~---/~~J~v-ee~c--~ ~a tee' ~~°r ro c~~f~ .C~c.~ -C~t~e ~da~ ~ ~~ °d" "~--~G~P~S gi p. 1~ . n ~ 9 ~ e .~.. ~i . ~~ . ~-- .o~ ~ _ 102,- vn'!r`°'`~l~l'o~hrac~i,~a ~m~e~~~ / t i ~~7 ~ ~'~ aL~ /~~r -tea Gb L~"a o~ y~y y~ ~ ~- -r Vic. ~~iJ UJOro~ M'" i I~ - ~a.r~ ~~pr • • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 'Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety De artmPnt regard;ng ±h~se dogs, p--- --- Sincerely, Name Addr s ~S a3 ~~~ ~~j ~~v~ (~C ~~~ ~J ~~~ r~'~ ~ ~y~' ~~ • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcommercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel license for the above subject properly foi• the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and coix~pl_a.i_nts to the Public Safe ,, r~epa*+unert regarding Wiese dogs. Sincerely, Name ~1,~ c Address ~n~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~s~„x ~S ~~ ~ f p c • ~~ • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcommercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, Ml~l 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking • Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the . potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints to the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, ~i~~~G ~~ Name Address • C September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 15ear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residential commercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking • Again, we Iive in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is therefor breeding purposes, more dogs runn?ng through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints io the Public Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, • AC1ClreSS f ~ /~~~~ r ~ ~ • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcommercial kennel Iicense Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, IvIN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. 'i he residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking • Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential. is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and compla;iats to take Puvifc Saity DeYCU I-'~LL1Filli r egardirig these dogs. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ G'~ . r J ` Nam ~ ~ ,Y )~ ~ ,~~, ~ . ill/// Addr s e • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcornmercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 ` Dear Ms. Gillette: • • I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel License for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhoati and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complaints io the rubiic Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely,. ~~ Name ~3~~~ h~ ~~~ ~ Address ' SS~~3 U • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcommercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking • Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls aiid CGiitpialittS to u1e P"ubiic Safely i~epar'unent regarding these dogs. Sincerely, Name '7333 ~~~ ~ess l~ t C~ - -e • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residential/commercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel License for the above subject properly for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we Iive in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding pu-poses, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls grid wrnpiaints io the Pubiic Safety Department regarding these dogs. Sincerely, _M~ ~ ~~~ ~~w ~ Name Address U ~~~~~' • • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcommercial kennel license', Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. ~ Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: 1. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking Again, we live in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs narmi_ng through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls and complain~c to the A,}Jlic Safe ,, Depa, uuert regardu,g uhese dogs. Sincerely, ~~ Name Address ~~15 V.r~S S ~I T1U~;(^~ ~~ ~~~ ~'i ~S. ~S~nS~A~ ~~' , ~\~~~ \\ ~~ ,~ ~;l „_~ ~> ~. ~„ ~~ .._._ _f- -- ,~~ ~~u . yes S a~ ~~, C(t.~ ~<~ , ~~ ~~ • September 19, 2000 Stephanie Gillette Business Licensing Public Safety Department 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423-2599 Re: Application for residentiaUcommercial kennel license Property Address: 7312 Harriet Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 `Dear Ms. Gillette: I am against the granting of a residentiaUcommercial kennel license for the above subject property for the following reasons: I. This is a residential neighborhood, not commercial, 2. The residents have not demonstrated the ability to properly take care of the animals they currently have, the dogs run freely through the neighborhood unleashed, 3. Constant barking • Again, we Iive in a residential neighborhood not a commercially zoned neighborhood. By granting this license the potential is there for breeding purposes, more dogs running through the neighborhood and more noise. I've been made aware by one of the neighbors on the block of 73rd & Harriet that there have been numerous calls grid wrnpiaints to the Pubiic Safety Department regarding these dogs. • Sincerely, "1 ~ 'C~ e ~~~ -~ r ~ e~ -~ ~f ~ C~1 Ll' 1 v ~ ty ~~~'~ i ~~~ ~,~ -~ ~ nof- o(~kc~ ~ -{~hrce homey ~n ~-~ t,~.~- mva-~ ~ do ffs - a- ~u~ Itx~,~e..F , r~, ~~ ~ ~ ~a , ~~ ~ ~ ~~/CC~~~ y~~~s, ~~ ~~,~~ ~~ ATTACHMENT : 0108GaI lagherKennelLicense RE: Kennel Application for 7312 Harriet Avenue South MAYOR MARTIN J. KIRSCH Dear Resident: CITY COUNCIL SUSAN ROSENBERG I am writing to you because your neighbor at 7312 Harriet Avenue South has made SUZANNE M. SANDAHL application for a residential kennel license in the City of Richfield. KRISTAL STOKES BUSS SUS;4G As you know, a "petition fetter" has been passed around the neighborhood for CITY MANAGER signatures from those of you who are in opposition of granting the requested license. SAMANTHA ORDUNO I have received a few telephone calls regarding this "petition letter" with questions as to what the City's policy is on kennel licenses. Because it seems as though there may be some confusion in what the City defines as a residential kennel license, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to you what that means. A residential kennel license does not mean that your neighbor will be introducing a • commercial business in your neighborhood. It does not mean that an unusually large structure wilt be constructed for breeding purposes, etc. They may have an average size kennel on the property for their pet's exercise and shelter. It is simply the name We I'1aVP. gl~//Pn $f~ t{'1e Itf_e11CP tl'1at is to N10 nhtainer~ for anyone v::~niny mnra 41~an tv~4~O dogs or two cats in a residentia{ neighborhood. City staff has tried to make contact with those of you who have signed a "petition letter" to explain this policy, to answer any questions you may have, and to find out if you are still in .opposition of the granting of the residential kennel License. We have been unable to contact you by telephone, therefore we are sending you this letter. Please call me at (612) 861-9870 between the hours of 8;30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. if you have any questions or comments. If I do not hear from you by Friday, November 3, 2000, I will assume you are .still in opposition of granting the residential kennel license for 7312 Harriet Avenue South. c~n,.~,-,.L, ~rl ~~~r wry, Stephanie Gillette Business licensing • Department of Public Safety Tlae Urban Ho~a7etol~~n 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE, RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA 55423-2599 NON-EMERGENCY 612.861.9800 EMERGENCY 911 www.ci.richfield.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PmPoSe~ AGENDA SECTION: DrC~ citGc.n GPr AGENDA ITEM # l REPORT # ~O STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, .2001 DAWN WEITZEL, REPORT PREPARED BY: HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH, REPORT PRESENTER: ADMII~TISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: I i/I~ / \ ~ ~ \ , / ~ •- REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~' ~~ J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading consideration of amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter II1, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Administrative Code Chapter I11, Subsection 310.33 describing vacation leave, and schedule the public hearing and second reading for February 12, 2001. III. BACKGROUND ~ Several situations have developed that warranted the evaluation of the "Vacation Accumulation" policy. The current policy stipulates that Vacation Leave may be accrued to a maximum of 240 hours unless written authorization extending this maximum is obtained from the Department Director and the City Manager. Hours in excess of 240 hours, if not approved, shall be forfeited by the employee. In more cases than not, employees have either forfeited the accumulated leave time or taken time off at the last minute -which may have interfered with the operations of the department. While the City encourages employees to regularly use vacation 0108 Vac Ord leave, demands of the job and short-staffed divisions do not always allow employees to take leave when wanted or needed. A recommendation is being made to amend Section 1, Subsection 310.33 to include the following language: Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Employees may sell-backup to 24 hours of vacation time between January 1 and June 1 of each year if they have accumulated vacation leave time in excess of 64 hours. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Subsection 310.33, Subd. 8, Sell-back of vacation, will enable employees to receive compensation for accumulated vacation time instead of forfeiting the time or scheduling. leave at inopportune times. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Several collective bargaining units have had this provision within their contracts since January 2000. • In order to meet publishing requirements for. the second reading of an ordinance amendment it is recommended that the second reading and public hearing be scheduled for February 12, 2001. C. FINANCIAL • None since the leave time has either already been banked (charged) to a previous-year or would have been charged to the current year if it was unused. D. LEGAL • In order to provide the requested vacation leave compensation enhancement, the City Council must approve an amendment to the City's personnel ordinance. • There is no other legal restriction prohibiting a municipality from compensating employees for accrued vacation leave time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Do not amend the ordinance. • Defer discussion to another date. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Amendment VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None BILL NO. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 310.33 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD THE .CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Subsection 310.33 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Vacation Leave " is hereby amended: Subd. 8. Sell-back of vacation. Employees may sell-backup to 24 hours of vacation ime between January 1 and June 1 of each year if they have accumulated vacation leave in excess of 64 hours Subd. ~9. Terminal vacation. Accrued but unused vacation will be paid upon separation except that employees separated prior to completing six months of continuous and active city service shall be ineligible for terminal vacation pay. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this th day of 2001. ~~ Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • • propas~~ AGENDA SECTION: (~~-~ I ~ QhC~ AGENDA ITEM # ~ S REPORT # j 9 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 • JULIE URBAN, REPORT PREPARED BY: PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~j ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding corner visibility regulations. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct first reading of an ordinance amendment to allow a reduction in the required corner visibility area for fully controlled intersections and set the public hearing and second reading for February 12, 2001. III. 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. Objects cannot be located within 30 inches and 10 feet in height within this area. 0108cornervisibility Fifty feet was established as the visibility area because it relates to the speed vehicles travel and the distance necessary for a 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. Specifically, the ordinance would allow 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. There is an existing Traffic Committee made up of Publics Works and Public Safety staff that could review requests for a reduction. III.. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. 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 • In the case of the resident seeking the change, the corner visibility area appears to fall completely within the City boulevard area. The Public Works Department sometimes grants boulevard permits to allow construction of items such as fences within the boulevard area if there are no safety concerns and sufficient snow storage can be maintained. The Department would consider the corner visibility ordinance to assist in determining whether or not a permit should be granted for corner properties. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • Public hearing and second reading would be scheduled for February 12, 2001. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Deny the ordinance amendment at first reading. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance • Attachment A: Illustration of corner visibility area VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • The resident requesting the change was notified of the meeting and may be present. • - BILL NO. 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 curbline 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". Where an intersection is controlled in all directions with the use of stop signs or traffic signals. the Public Works Director may approve a reduction in the visibilitkarea with a finding that the reduction will not create a safety hazard. (Figure 9) Passed by the. City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of , 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk `~ • • Attachment A: Illustration of corner visibility area . ~~~ ~~es Roadway SeG~~~ ~'~~°` ~ Curb .`,~tie~ yea ~< 50 I ti doe - ~ -- ---- ~ ~ Right-of-way (Boulevard) ~, ~ ~ ~ Lot L-ne 3 p'~ ~ ~ ~ e~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ G .~ J O J • STAFF REPORT p~..o~os-ecL AGENDA SECTION: Q/"~ I ~ Gt,~ Ge AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # I U CITY COUNCIL MEETING • JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~ ~~'~ r ~ s ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading of a transitory ordinance to change the name of 73 1/2 Street to Pillsbury Lane. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Conduct first reading of a transitory ordinance to change the name of 73 1/2 Street to Pillsbury Lane and set public hearing and second reading for February 12, 2000. ~ II. BACKGROUND Six households located on 73 1/2 Street, between Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues, have submitted a petition requesting that the name of the street be changed to Pillsbury Lane. The street is one block long and the residents have experienced difficulty with mail and other deliveries. There is a 72 1/2 Street one block to the north that was changed to Pleasant Lane several years ago, so the proposed name change. is consistent with that name. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0108pillsburylane A. POLICY • ~ It is generally appropriate to maintain a street name consistent with the City's current grid system; however, this particular street is one block long and renaming it would not have a major impact on the overall system. The name is also consistent with 72 1/2 Street which was changed to Pleasant Lane several years ago. • Public Works and Public Safety staff have reviewed the proposed name change and have no objections. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff has contacted Hennepin County regarding the change. The County has no objections and only asks to be notified once the change has been made. • City maps and 911 records would be updated once City Council approval is given. The post office would also be notified. • All residents located on the street have requested the name change. C. FINANCIAL • There are no provisions in City ordinance that provide for a fee to be charged to change the name of a street. Costs (e.g. staff time, legal notices, street signs) for changing the name will be borne by the general fund. D. LEGAL • Notice of the public hearing will be published in the Sun-Current. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Deny the requested name change. V. ATTACHMENTS • Transitory Ordinance • Attachment A: Map of 73 1/2 Street • Attachment B: Petition from Residents VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Residents of 73 1/2 Street have been notified of the meeting and may attend. BILL NO. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RENAMING A PUBLIC STREET (73 1/2 Street) THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1: Public right-of--way, located between 73rd and 74th Streets West and Pillsbury :and Pleasant Avenues South, as dedicated in the plat of NICOLLET TERRACE ADDITION, is named 73 1/2 Street ("Street"): Sec. 2: The property owners adjacent to the Street have requested that the name of the Street be changed from 73 1/2 Street to "Pillsbury Lane". Sec. 3: The City has reviewed the proposed name change and determined that the proposed name change will not adversely affect the. ability of the City or other public entity to provide public services to the area. Sec. 4: The Council finds that, given the request of the adjacent property owners and the absence of any negative impacts, it is appropriate to change the name of the Street to Pillsbury Lane. Sec. 5: The name of the Street described in Section 1 of this Ordinance is hereby changed from 73 1/2 Street to Pillsbury Lane. Sec. 6: The name change will be effective 30 days following publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • •i .I Proposed Street Name Change ~ o 72nd ST ^ ~ ~ o ^ a ^ ^ ~~ ~ a~ a C~ ° ~ 00 ~ W Q 73rd ST fl o o^ o~ 0 ~ a °a a o a ^ a ~ ^ 0 Z III W Proposed Change: Pillsbury Lan ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ D ° ° ~ ^ ~~ ~ PLEASANT LA [~ ° p 0 ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ^ ~ ~ o 0 0 ~ ^ ~ ~~ ~ W Q 73rd 1/2 Street Z Q W J a o a ~o ^ ^ Q m J J a o ~ 6 0 R Is' ^ o ~ Q ~ o ~ a o~ o~ ~ ^~ ~Q as ~ ^ ~^ ^ 74TH ST W Attachment A V 0 Q ~ D ~ Q ~ 0 W ~ ° Q o ~~ o a~ ~S ^ N January, 2001 Change Street Name: Page 1 of 2 Attn: Rick Regnier CITY OF RICHFIELD 6700 Portland Av S Richfield, Mn 55423 Sub: Change Street Name All Six Home-owners that Homestead on WEST 73 112 STREET between Pleasant Ave So and Pillsbury Ave So are requesting to have the existing 731/2 Street name CHANGED TO PILLSBURY LANE. All too often, mail to be delivered to 73112 Street is ending up on 73rd Street. Mail or package deliveries are often lost or delayed because of the "112" street designation . All homeowners on 73112 Street are in agreement and we expect this matter to be acted on as soon as possible. A response is requested. Thank you. William Grampre 208 Grampre ~ 4, 200 Mahan ~ ~ t 214 Johnson 209 Kiessling ~,,~ ~ 215 Towler ~.~ ••-r 201 Brekke~,~ ii~ ~ ~ Change Street Name: Page 2 of 2 208 West 73 1/2 Street ~ j ~ ~ William 8~ Joyce Grampre 869-1712 • 200 West 73 1/2 Street Elaine Mahan /~ 861-2941 214 West 731/2 Street Douglas W. Johnson 861-7581 209 West 73 112 Street ~c'~~ Herbert B. Kiessling '~~ 869-1023 215 West 73 1/2 Street Steve and !Cathy Towler .798-5939 j~<~ t%~ -z 201 West 73 1/2 Street .~~ ~~~~ e v dt~y-8~ Debbborah Brekken l 866-0845 • • STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • ' JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR Na,~, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Praposrc~ AGENDA SECTION: Qf~(/ZQ,p1CP~ AGENDA ITEM # J 3 REPORT # ITEM FOR COUNCIL TION: First reading consideration of a cable television ordinance for WideOpenWest, LLC and set public hearing and second reading for February 12, 2001. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed cable television ordinance for. WideOpenWest, LLC and set public hearing and second reading for February 12, 2001. III. BACKGROUND In April 2000, WideOpenWest, LLC (WOW) and Everest Connections Corporation (Everest) approached the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSC) regarding the process to be undertaken to obtain a cable television franchise in the five-city SWSCC franchise area. In compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, the SWSCC assisted its member municipalities in conducting the process for the granting of a cable television. franchise in each respective member city. The process consisted of the preparation of a Notice of Intent to Franchise and Official Application Form. These documents were published by the City and two proposals were received; one form WOW and one from Everest. The SWSCC, through its legal counsel 010801 WOW Moss & Barnett, conducted a review of the legal, technical and financial qualifications of both applicants and submitted a report to the City Council regarding these matters. The City then conducted a public hearing in compliance with Minnesota statutes to receive input from all interested parties. Following completion of the public hearing, the City adopted resolutions finding both WOW and Everest possessed the requisite qualifications to own and operate a cable television system within the City. The SWSCC was then instructed by the member cities to negotiate with WOW and Everest to prepare a Cable Television Franchise Ordinance that would be consistent with all applicable local, state and federal laws. In particular, the SWSCC was guided by the level playing field language contained within Time Warner's existing franchise and state law. That language requires that any franchise granted to a competitor of Time Warner must not be any less burdensome or more favorable than the terms and conditions applied to Time Warner. With those issues in mind, the SWSCC negotiated the attached ordinance with WOW. Generally, the franchise ordinance negotiated with the two providers contains. substantially the same language that is imposed on Time Warner, with a few exceptions. Time Warner's existing franchise,-which was renewed about four years ago, was granted for a term of 15 years and contains a requirement for system upgrading but no institutional network .provisions. WOW's Ordinance includes a requirement to build an institutional network that will serve all schools and public buildings within the City. This network will consist of two fibers that will be completely paid for by WOW. WOW's ordinance also contains a 48-month construction schedule and franchise term that will expire on the same date as Time Warner's franchise. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has followed the legal and procedural recommendations of the SWSCC legal counsel in completing the franchising process. • Providing an additional wired cable provider for residents of the City of Richfield will ensure competition among the providers and likely result in better service for resident customers. • City residents often have voiced a concern to staff about the lack of competitive cable services in Richfield. • The SWSCC has considered the terms of the franchise agreement, feels they are in the best interests of the member communities and has approved them. , • The proposed franchise agreements comply with the "level playing field" language contained within the-Time Warner agreement.. Further, Time Warner does not have a dispute with the SWSCC regarding the terms of the proposed new franchise language. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The cable. providers are seeking to complete this franchising process as soon as possible. To that end, it is critical that the first reading of this ordinance takes place at the January 8, 2001 City Council meeting. • The second reading and public hearing of the ordinance would be scheduled for February 12, 2001. • The other four member cities of the SWSCC are all on a schedule, which will result in Council consideration of their respective franchise ordinances on, or before the schedule set for Richfield. • Timing of these franchise approvals is a critical factor in WOW's build- . out schedule for the SWSCC. C. FINANCIAL • The City of Richfield will receive franchise fees identical to those paid by Time Warner. • The City will receive benefits of public and government access equal to those provided by Time Warner. D. LEGAL • Brian Grogan, the attorney for the SWSCC, has drafted and carefully reviewed both the process and the franchise agreement in the cable A franchising process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Consider the first reading at a different City Council meeting date. • Request different terms to the franchise ordinance agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS • First reading draft. of cable franchise agreement with WideOpenWest, LLC. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett, attorney for the SWSCC. • City of Richfield, Minnesota and WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance No. Prepared by: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Association 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 Telephone: (612) 347-0340 Facsimile: (612) 339-6686 With the assistance of: The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission f 384411/1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE ........................................................................1 SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE ..........................................................................................1 SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................................1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL ................................2 SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE .................................................................................2 SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS ............................................................................2 6.1 System Design .........................................................................................................2 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect ............................................................................... .2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings ............................................ .3 6.4 Parental Control Lock .......................................................................................... .3 6.5 Standby Power ...................................................................................................... .3 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions ...................................................................................3 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities .........................................................................................4 6.8 Verification of System Construction ....................................................................5 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement ........................................................................5 SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS • PROGRAMMING .....................................................................................5 7.1 Access Channels .....................................................................................................5 7.2 Studio/Facilities ......................................................................................................6 7.3 Funding for PEG Access .......................................................................................7 7.4 Regional Channel Six .............................................................................................7 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel ..................................................... 7 SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK ............................................................... 8 8.1. General ....................................................................................................................8 8.2 Design ......................................................................................................................8 8.3 Usage Fee ................................................................................................................8 8.4 Use of I-Net Capacity .............................................................................................9 8.5 Equipment Responsibility .....................................................................................9 8.6 I-Net Agreement .....................................................................................................9 SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS ....................................................10 SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY .................................................................10 SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS............11 11.1 Payment to City ....................................................................................................11 11.2 Bonds .....................................................................................................................11 • 11.3 Security Fund .......................................................................................................12 384411/1 SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT ......................................................................15 SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT ..........................................................15 SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE ........................................................................................19 14.1 Other Franchises ..................................................................................................19 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits ...............................19 EXHIBITS Exhibit A -Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet ......................................................................... A-1 Exhibit B -List of Public Schools and Buildings .......................................................................B-1 Exhibit C - WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC Initial Programming ............................................C-1 • • 384411/1 11 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCE This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, and WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC has requested that the City of Richfield, Minnesota, grant it a cable television Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate, construct, maintain and reconstruct a Cable Television System within the City; and WHEREAS, the City reviewed the legal, technical and financial qualifications of WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC and, after a properly noticed public hearing, has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to grant a Franchise to WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (hereinafter also known as the "City" or "Grantor") hereby grants to WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC (hereinafter the "Grantee") a cable television Franchise in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. _ and this Agreement. SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC is hereby granted a cable television Franchise. This Franchise shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance and shall be subordinate to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and all applicable federal, state and local law. SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE This Agreement shall be known and cited as the "City of Richfield, Minnesota Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance." Within this document it shall also be referred to as "this Franchise" or "the Franchise." SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in Ordinance Number of the City of Richfield, Minnesota are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as fully as if set out verbatim. 384411/1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL This Franchise shall commence on the effective date described in Section 13 and shall expire on January 1, 2012. SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE All notices, reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Manager of this Franchise or 48 hours. after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice is being given, as follows: If to City: City of Richfield, Minnesota 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 If to Grantee: WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC Two Carlson Parkway, Suite 350 Plymouth, MN 55447 Such addresses maybe changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this section. SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 6.1 System Design Grantee shall construct a Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) system to a capacity of 860 MHz. Grantee's system will be designed to support a forward bandwidth of SOMHz - 860 MHz and a return bandwidth of SMHz - 40 MHZ. As designed, the system will have a capacity of at least 300 channels. The system shall serve an average of 150 homes per node. System construction shall be completed and in use within forty-eight (48) months from the Effective Date of this Franchise. 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect Grantee will locate its "nodes" near schools where possible, without (in Grantee's opinion) compromising the engineering design of the System. The City will provide maps showing the location of the schools. 384411/1 2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings A. Service to Public Schools and Public Buildings 1. The Grantee shall provide one outlet of Basic Service, the Cable Programming Service Tier and one Converter, if needed, to those facilities provided in Exhibit B. Service to public schools and municipally owned buildings constructed or occupied after the effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject to the building being. located within 200. feet of the Grantee's then existing System. 2. If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing System, the school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment, construction costs and additional wiring beyond the first 200 feet that are the Grantee's responsibility. 3. All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality. 4. The financial responsibility for any additional Converters desired by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility. B. Service to Private Schools Grantee shall provide Installation to private schools within 200 feet of plant. A private school is defined as any private secondary school that receives funding pursuant to Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Installation and Cable Service (Basic Service and Cable Programming Service Tier) shall be provided for free to such private schools through the year 2011. 6.4 Parental Control Lock Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease, to Subscribers, upon request, a parental control locking device. 6.5 Standby Power Grantee shall provide standby power throughout the System capable of providing at least three hours of emergency supply. 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions The City may request aState-of--the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In 384411/1 conducting aState-of--the-Art review, the City shall undertake the following process: A. The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following: 1. Characteristics of the existing System; 2. The State-of--the-Art; 3. Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of--the-Art; 4. The market place demand for the State-of--the-Art; and 5. The financial feasibility of the State-of-the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. B. The City shall hold at least two public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence. C. For the purposes of this Section the term "State-of--the-Art" shall mean equipment or facilities that: 1. Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more sources of supply; 2. Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to, population, density, Subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual operating conditions for purposes other than tests or experimentation; and 3. Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term "State-of--the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City may not undertake a State-of--the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. E. As a result of any review based on this Section, City and Grantee may enter into good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as agreed upon. 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities The Grantee must make space available on its poles and towers, or upon timely request by the City, underground lines and conduit, for City wires, fixtures, or City utilities, whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities. by the Grantee or any other communication company. The City must pay for any added expense incurred by the Grantee because of such City use. saaai iii 4 • 6.8 Verification of System Construction The City may, in its sole discretion, retain a technical consultant to conduct an on- site review of Grantee's System to verify that construction has been completed in compliance with all requirements of this Franchise and Applicable Laws. All costs associated with a technical consultant for purposes described within this Section 6.8, up to a cap not to exceed $15,000, shall be borne by Grantee and shall not be deducted nor offset from any franchise fee payments which Grantee is required to remit to City under this Franchise. 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide City full reimbursement for all reasonable and necessary franchising costs not already covered by Grantee's application fee. Grantee's reimbursement of franchising costs shall not be deducted or offset from any franchise fees which Grantee is required to remit pursuant to this Franchise. SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING • 7.1 Access Channels A. Grantee shall provide four public, educational and government (PEG) Access Channels (the "Access Channels"). One channel shall be dedicated to public access, one channel shall be dedicated to governmental access, and two channels shall be dedicated to educational access. B. Grantee shall provide to each of its Subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on the System, reception of each public, educational and governmental Access Channel C. Grantee shall provide at least one specially designated access channel available for lease on a first come, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users. This Section is not applicable to Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at least one of the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channels required. D. Whenever any of the Access Channels are in use during 80 percent of the weekdays (Monday-Friday), for 80 percent of the time during any consecutive three hour period for six weeks running, and there is demand . for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, Grantee shall then 384411/1 have six months in which to provide a new specially designated access channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to Subscribers. E. Grantee must establish rules and regulations for the public, educational and leased Access Channels. The rules and regulations established by the Grantee are subject to approval by the City. F. Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special service channels without also receiving the regular Subscriber services may receive only one specially designated composite Access Channel composed of the programming on Access Channels. Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions shall not be included in this requirement. 7.2 Studio/Facilities A. Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee will provide one large facility containing one studio with square footage of not less than 1440 square feet for use by the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield ("Member Cities") at a location within the Member Cities mutually agreeable to Grantee and the Member Cities for public, educational and governmental access production. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation. The facility will include two separate editing suites, storage space and the entire studio facility will be wheelchair accessible. The facility shall be open during the hours of Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and regular weekend hours and some regular week night hours. B. Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal equipment necessary for the production of programming and playback of prerecorded programs for the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. The Grantee shall also make readily available upon need being shown, the minimum equipment necessary to make it possible to record programs at remote locations with battery operated portable equipment. C. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded programming on the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. Grantee can include any costs associated with production and playback for the noncommercial public Access Channel in the total sum allocated for public, educational and governmental access programming as stated in Section 7.3. Additionally, at the City's request, Grantee will work with the City to institute a nominal membership fee for users of the .PEG access facility. 384411/1 6 . D. Need within the meaning of this section shall be determined in the sole discretion of City or by Subscriber petition. Said petition must contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the Subscribers of System, but in no case more than 500 nor fewer than 100 signatures. 7.3 Funding for PEG Access Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee shall provide no less than $200,128 annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively for the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. After the first year of the Franchise, Grantee shall provide sufficient financial and in-kind support to maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and equipment in the remaining years of the Franchise Agreement Ordinance comparable to the services, facilities and equipment provided in the first year of the Franchise. These expenses will be itemized on customers' bills. This amount will provide the following services: (a) labor costs; (b) educational consultant; (c) facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; (e) educational expenses; (f) equipment maintenance; (g) technical support; and (h) replay expenses. This funding shall not be deducted from the Franchise Fee within the meaning of this Agreement. Grantee shall not calculate a Franchise Fee upon funds itemized on the customers' bills for public, educational or governmental access production and programming. 7.4 Regional Channel Six Under Minnesota Cable Communications Act, standard VHF Channel six has been designated for usage as the regional channel. Also known as Metro Cable Network, this independent, noncommercial, nonprofit channel shall be made available without charge. This provision shall remain in effect as long as a regional channel is required by the State of Minnesota. 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel Grantee agrees to provide the capability such that the City, from its City Hall, can switch its government Access Channel in the following ways: A. Insert live Council meetings from City Hall; B. Replay government access programming from City Hall; C. Transmit character generated programming; D. Schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes in pre-arranged time slot on the government Access Channel; and E. Switch to C-SPAN 2 or other comparable programming provided by 384411/1 7 Grantee at any time when not carrying live or taped government access programming. SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8.1. General. A. Grantee shall provide Grantor an Institutional Network ("I-Net") in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Section 8 and an agreement ("I-Net Agreement") entered into between Grantor and Grantee. B. Grantee shall build and maintain an I-Net consisting of one pair (two (2) dark fibers) of single-mode fiber optic cable. The I-Net will be of a Star or point-to-point configuration serving the I-Net user sites listed in Exhibit B of the Franchise. The I-Net user sites (as designated in Exhibit B), and any new public facilities constructed during the term of the Franchise Agreement, will be connected to the Grantee's hub site and an umbilical fiber cable which will be connected to the central hub site serving the Franchise Area. The I-Net fibers will be part of the Grantee's subscriber network maintained at the same level as the Grantee's active subscriber network. C. The I-Net will be connected, in the I-Net user sites, at apre-determined demarcation point chosen by the Grantor, with a rack or equivalent device installed to mount to Grantee's fiber optics connectors and patch panel. Fiber will be run to each designated building in conduit with locator tape as part of the standard installation. D. Grantee will provide professional engineering and consulting for the design and use of the I-Net. 8.2 Design. Within no more than three (3) months after the effective date of the Franchise Agreement, Grantee and its network consultants will provide a Design of the I- Net capacity requested by Grantor. The Design shall include the following: (i) a walkout of the I-Net. user sites to which I-Net capacity will be provided; (ii) a detailed network design; (iii) a breakdown of all material, equipment, labor and Facilities required to provide I-Net capacity and (iv) any material, equipment, labor and Facilities required to provide inter-City Connections as set forth in Section 8.7 hereof. Upon receipt of the Design, Grantor shall have one (1) month to enter into an I-Net Agreement. 8.3 Usage Fee. Throughout the term of the Franchise, commencing upon activation of the I-Net capacity, neither the City nor any I-Net user site shall pay Grantee a Usage Fee. 384411/1 8 Any costs associated with usage of the I-Net capacity, maintenance of outside plant and maintenance, replacement and diagnosis of electronic equipment necessary to provide I-Net capacity shall be borne by Grantee. 8.4 Use of I-Net Capacity. A. Grantor Use. Grantor may use the I-Net capacity set forth in the I-Net Agreement for those services which Grantee may legally provide under federal, State and local law. Grantee's provision of telecommunication services will be according to prevailing law. Grantor shall only use the I- Net capacity for noncommercial, governmental communication uses in accordance with this Franchise and the I-Net Agreement. B. Grantee Use. Grantee shall own all equipment and Facilities, outside the demarcation point used to provide the I-Net capacity to Grantor. Grantee shall have the right to use any bandwidth or I-Net capacity not specifically guaranteed to Grantor under the I-Net Agreement. The I-Net Agreement shall provide that in the event Grantee shall cease operation of the cable system during the term of the Franchise Agreement for any reason, without a transfer of the Franchise Agreement being approved by Grantor, the ownership of all equipment and Facilities comprising the I-Net (specifically including any I-Net equipment designated as owned by Grantee pursuant to this Franchise) shall transfer to the Grantor. 8.5 Equipment Responsibility. A. Grantor and Grantee will mutually determine a physical demarcation point. The fiber, coaxial cable, equipment and electronics outside the demarcation point will be owned and maintained by Grantee and will not be the responsibility of Grantor. This demarcation point will normally be located inside Grantor's public buildings, similar to the telephone company. Grantor will guarantee that Grantee will have unrestricted access to the demarcation point within such municipal buildings to provide adequate maintenance and technical support. B. All equipment related to the provision of I-Net capacity will be identified in writing with applicable technical descriptions and ownership designation. Grantor's equipment inside the demarcation point shall be purchased by Grantee, but selected in conjunction with Grantor. The Grantor shall make reimbursement for the purchase of the equipment inside the demarcation point to the Grantee. Ongoing maintenance of all equipment inside the physical demarcation point that interfaces with Grantee's equipment will be the responsibility of the Grantor. 8.6 I-Net Agreement. A. The I-Net Agreement between Grantor and Grantee shall be coterminous with the term of the Franchise Agreement, as set forth in Section 4 hereof. 384411/1 9 B. If at any time Grantor desires additional capacity or services, the I-Net Agreement will be amended. Payment of costs for any additional equipment necessary to increase capacity in the future shall be the responsibility of Grantor. C. At the termination of the Franchise Agreement, Grantor shall maintain the right to continued use of the I-Net under mutually negotiated terms. 8.7 Grantee shall provide at no charge, upon request and at the time necessary for use, modulators and associated fiber optic signal transmission and reception equipment for single channel return purposes for each public and private accredited educational institution, each city hall, as approved by the City. SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 9.1 The Grantee shall, upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by the parties, but no more frequently than once every three years, conduct a random survey of a representative sample of Subscribers. Each questionnaire shall be prepared and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure of customer satisfaction with: (1) audio and signal quality; (2) response to customer complaints; (3) billing practices; (4) programming; and (5) Installation practices; 9.2 The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard research procedures, including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the business of regularly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a sample size of 300 customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of error of plus or minus six percent or less of the total customer base. 9.3 The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may be taking in response to the survey within 60 days of the completion of the survey. 9.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Grantee shall be under no obligation to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition under then applicable state or federal law. SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 10.1 The Grantee shall, within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities. 10.2 .The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of private property owners to extend service to others who maybe interested in service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these needed permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from 384411/1 10 whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to extend service. SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 11.1 Payment to City A. Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of its annual Gross Revenues. B. The foregoing payment shall be compensation for use of Streets. C. Payments due the City under this provision shall be computed at the end of each calendar quarter. Payments shall be due and payable for each quarter not later than 60 days from the last day of the. quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a brief report showing the basis for the computation. At the end of each calendar year, Grantee shall complete a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet attached hereto as Exhibit A. Grantee shall file a completed Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet no later than 60 days after the last day of the calendar year. D. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City. E. In the event any payment is not made on the due date, interest on the amount due shall accrue from such date at the annual rate of 12%. 11.2 Bonds A. Prior to the commencement of System construction, and at all times thereafter until Grantee has completed the construction of the System in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the sum of $300,000.00 in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by City and upon the further condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation, there shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered by City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs (with interest at two percent in excess of the then prime rate), up to the full amount of the bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by ssaai lil 11 • Grantee of all claims and liens against City or any, public property, and taxes due to City, which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of the System. Upon completion of the System as described in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, the City may reduce the bond to the sum of $100,000. B. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond are in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law. C. City may, in its sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond. 11.3 Security Fund A. In the event the Grantee is given notice of a noncompliance pursuant to Section 34 of the Ordinance, the Grantee shall within ten (10) days thereof deposit into a bank account, established by the City, and maintain on deposit the sum of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20,000.00) or deliver to the City a letter of credit in the same amount as a common Security Fund for the faithful performance by it of all the provisions of this Franchise and compliance with all orders, permits and directions of the City and the payment by Grantee of any claim, liens, costs, expenses and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction, operation • or maintenance of the System. Interest on this deposit shall be paid to Grantee by the bank on an annual basis. The security maybe terminated by the Grantee upon the Resolution of the alleged noncompliance. The obligation to establish the security fund required by this paragraph is unconditional. The fund must be established whenever Grantee is given the notice required, even if Grantee disputes the allegation that it is not in compliance. If Grantee fails to establish the security fund as required, the City may take whatever action is appropriate to require the establishment of that fund- and may recover its costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and an additional penalty of $2000 in that action. B. Provision shall be made to permit the City to withdraw funds from the Security Fund. Grantee shall not use the Security Fund for other purposes and shall not assign, pledge or otherwise use this Security Fund as security for any purpose. C. Within ten (10) days after notice to it that any amount has been withdrawn by the City from the Security Fund pursuant to (A) of this section, Grantee shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such Security Fund to the required amount. D. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or damages to City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the 384411/1 12 Franchise, in particular Section 11(G) herein, City in its sole discretion may charge to and collect from the Security Fund the following penalties: 1. For failure to complete System construction in accordance with Section 6.1 hereof, unless City approves the delay, the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 2. For failure to provide data, documents, reports or information or to .cooperate with City during an Application process or System review, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 3. For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Paragraph C, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 4. For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System following a request by City, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 5. For failure by Grantee to provide additional services as negotiated between City and Grantee at a periodic review session within 45 days after a request by City the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 6. Forty-five days following notice from City of a failure of Grantee to comply with construction, operation or maintenance standards, the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 7. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including, but not limited to, the implementation and the utilization of the Access Channels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities to City, the penalty shall be $100.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 8. Each violation of any provision of this Franchise shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be imposed. E. Exclusive of the contractual penalties set out above in this section, a • violation of any provision of this Franchise is a misdemeanor. ssaai iil 13 F. If Grantee fails to pay to the City any taxes due and unpaid; or fails to repay to the City, any damages, costs or expenses which the City shall be compelled to pay by reason of any act or default of the Grantee in connection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty (30) days' notice of such failure by the City to comply with any provision of the Franchise which the City reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security, the City may then withdraw such funds from the Security Fund. Payments. are not Franchise Fees as defined in Section 29 of the Ordinance. G. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has allegedly violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee. The written notice shall describe in reasonable detail the alleged violation so as to afford Grantee an opportunity to remedy the violation. Grantee shall have 30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the violation before the City may require Grantee to make payment of penalties, and further to enforce payment of penalties through the Security Fund. Grantee may, within 10 days of receipt of notice, notify the City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has, in fact, occurred. Such notice by Grantee shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee and shall stay the running'of the above-described time. S 1. City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled or specially scheduled Council meeting. Grantee shall have the right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The City shall determine if Grantee has committed a violation and shall make written findings of fact relative to its determination. If a violation is found, Grantee may petition for reconsideration. 2. If, after hearing the dispute, the claim is upheld by the City, then Grantee shall have 30 days within which to remedy the violation before the City may require payment of all penalties due it. 3. The time for Grantee to correct any alleged violation maybe extended by the City if the necessary action to correct the alleged violation is of such a nature or character as to require more than 30 days within which to perform, provided Grantee commences corrective action within 15 days and thereafter uses reasonable diligence, as determined by the City, to correct the violation. H. If City draws upon the Security Fund delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within three days and shall deliver to City a like replacement Security Fund for the full amount stated in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Security Fund. ssaai iii 14 I. If any Security Fund is not so replaced, City may draw on said Security Fund for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds, without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that are not performed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto, including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in so performing and paying. The failure to so replace any Security Fund may also, at the option of City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Security Fund by City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. J. The collection by City of any damages, monies or penalties from the Security Fund shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall any act, or failure to act, by City pursuant to the Security Fund, be deemed a waiver of any right of City pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT Grantee shall provide free service connections, free on-line (i.e. high-speed cable modem • services) services and any required modem to all institutions identified in Exhibit B. SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 13.1 In consideration of Grantee's substantial investment to build its System for the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Richfield, Minnesota, the City agrees to include the following provisions. 13.2 Any additional or subsequent cable Franchise granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with Grantee within the Franchise area will be granted only on substantially similar terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome nor more favorable terms than those imposed on Grantee by this Franchise. 13.3 The City and Grantee agree that all Franchise provisions that Grantee is subject to are effective against the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well to any and all wired competitors of the Grantee within the Franchise area. For purposes of this subsection, a wired competitor is any video provider using Streets and offering at least 12 channels of video programming at least one of which is a broadcast signal, which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on Streets or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor does not include a Satellite 384411/1 15 Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private property within a building. 13.4 Any Franchise provision or other regulation enforced by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed upon Grantee(s) wired competitors within the Franchise area of the City, shall be void as to Grantee, subject to the following requirements: A. The. existence of a wired competitor in the Franchise area of the City shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum Franchise Fee of two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City, the State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than five percent of Gross Revenues, the City shall reduce Grantee's Franchise Fee to the same level, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity, then Grantee shall pay the same fee, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor is not required to pay a Franchise Fee or similar fee to the City or the State of Minnesota, then the two percent minimum Franchise Fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are passed by the wired competitor's system. If at any time a wired competitor with a cable Franchise pays a Franchise Fee of more than two percent, or if a wired competitor without a Franchise Fee pays a Franchise Fee or similar fee of more than two percent, Grantee shall pay the same Franchise Fee. In no event shall Grantee be required to pay more than a five percent Franchise Fee. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's Franchise Fee shall immediately return to its original level. B. The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, the City shall, upon the effective date of the subsequent Franchise, reduce Grantee's requirement to the same number of channels, but in no event shall Grantee provide less than one public, educational and governmental access channel. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public, educational or governmental Access Channels, then the City shall reduce the number of Access Channels required of Grantee as follows: ssaaivi 16 (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least three public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one public, educational and governmental Access Channel. If at any time, a wired competitor provides channels for public, educational and governmental access which exceed the channels provided by Grantee, Grantee shall provide the same number of channels as the wired competitor. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more public, educational or governmental Access Channels than it has agreed to in this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. . If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public, educational and governmental Access Channels shall immediately return to its original level. C. If a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access or less facilities and equipment than Grantee, the City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public, educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, including open video providers in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules, but it is required to provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental access or equipment or facilities, then the City shall reduce the Grantee's required funding as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to provide the same level of funding for public, educational and governmental access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance. 384411/1 17 (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall reduce the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee by 30%. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall eliminate the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational and governmental access. funding. It is not the intent of this section to reduce Grantee's funds, equipment and facilities requirements regarding public, educational and governmental access programming to an amount less than the amount provided by its wired competitors. If at any time a wired competitor provides funds, equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access that exceed the funds, equipment or facilities provided by Grantee under this paragraph, Grantee shall provide the same amount of funds, equipment and facilities. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more funds, equipment or facilities than it has agreed to provide in Section 7 of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and, equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its original level. D. For all other Franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which does not require it to meet the same Franchise provision, the City shall not require Grantee to meet that Franchise provision. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise and it is not required to meet the same Franchise provision, then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that Franchise provision as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with the Franchise provision. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall not require Grantee to meet the Franchise provision. 384411/1 18 r: If at any time a wired competitor provides a requirement contained originally in this cable Franchise, Grantee shall comply with that same requirement. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee shall be required to meet the Franchise provision. 13.5 If Grantee is aware of a Franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired competitor, it shall identify the wired competitor; including the basis for stating that the entity is a "wired competitor" as defined above; it shall identify the Franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City. Within 90 days, the City shall: (1) pass a resolution declaring that Grantee is subject to this section for that requirement; (2) declare why the entity in question is not a wired competitor; or (3) state that the "wired competitor" is subject to a requirement that substantially duplicates the Franchise provision. During the above process, the Grantee shall escrow any funds at issue in the above process that the Franchise requires be remitted during the time period of the above process and Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question. If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee, the City is not liable for Grantee's past compliance with the requirement, including any past fees remitted to the City. 13.6 If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of the Ordinance within 90 days after one party provides notice to the other party, the parties may agree to enter mediation. SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 14.1 Other Franchises A. The System intended for City, may be part of a joint system that serves the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota. B. Grantee will, in good faith, apply for and accept, if offered to it, a Franchise (similar Franchise) from each of the other cities on all the same terms and conditions herein provided, except provisions omitted as inapplicable. 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits • A. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to City by .Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of this Franchise for all purposes. ssaai lil 19 • B. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance No. ,also known as the Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance, and herein. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall obtain an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee, that this Franchise is enforceable against Grantee in accordance with its terms, and which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. C. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and authority referred to in the opinion of Grantee's counsel, certified as of a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and otherwise by an officer of Grantee. D. Ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of the operation of the System, Grantee shall provide a copy of its initial services which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C. E. The effective date of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance shall be S IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By City Clerk Its: (SEAL) WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA, LLC By Its: (Corporate Seal) 384411/1 20 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) C7 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on by ,the of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF COUNTY OF )ss: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on _ by ,the WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC, on behalf of the company. Notary Public 384411/1 of 21 EXHIBIT A FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET Revenue Percentages Based on Revenue & Bad Debt Total Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Payment 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Basic 0 Eden Prairie Additional Outlets 0 Edina Equipment Rent 0 Hopkins Pay TV 0 Minnetonka Pay Per Event 0 Richfield Transaction Fee 0 Advertising 0 TOTAL Shopping Service 0 Other 0 TOTAL REVENUE 0 LESS: Local Access 0 LESS: Bad Debt 0 CHARGEABLE REVENUE 0 X FRANCHISE FEE % 0 ~TAL FRANCHISE FEES TO BE PAID $0 • 3saai vi A-1 EXHIBIT B LIST OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BUILDINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS Centennial Elementary 7315 Bloomington Avenue Sheridan Hills Elementary 6400 Sheridan Avenue Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Avenue South Richfield Middle School 7461 Oliver Avenue Richfield Senior High School 7001 Harriet Avenue Elliot Education Center 7001 Elliot Avenue Lincoln Hills Center 7440 Penn Avenue South PUBLIC BUILDINGS City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Central Garage 7700 Pillsbury Avenue Water Plant 6221 Portland Avenue Fire Station #2 6401 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6600 Cedar Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Lyndale Avenue Liquor Store 7700 Lyndale Avenue Ice Arena 636 East 66th St. Garage 636 East 66th St. Swimming Pool 630 East 66th St. Community Center 7000 Nicollet Avenue Nature Center 735 Lake Shore Drive Park Shelter 200 West 72nd Street Park Shelter 6435 21st Avenue Park Shelter 6710 Portland Avenue Park Shelter 6300 1st Avenue Park Shelter 6244 Knox Avenue Park Shelter 6700 Thomas Avenue Park Shelter 428 East 77th St. Concession Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue Park Shelter 6500 Upton Avenue Park Shelter 6900 Bloomington Avenue Park Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue Storage Building 7434 Humboldt Avenue Park Shelter 6145 Bloomington Avenue Park Shelter 1710 East 63rd St. Park Shelter 7200 Washburn Avenue Park Shelter 6710 Irving Avenue Park Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue 384411/1 B-1 • • 384411/1 Park Shelter & Park Shelter Park Shelter Warming House Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Well House #1 & #2 Well House #3 Well House #4 Well House #5 Well House #6 Storm Lift A Storm Lift B Storm Lift C Storm Lift D 6335 Portland Avenue 7445 Fremont Avenue 7644 4th Avenue 77th St. & Knox Avenue 63rd St. & Colfax Avenue 69th St. & Humboldt Avenue 74th St. & 14th Avenue 62nd St. & Nicollet Avenue 6225 Portland Avenue 64th St. & Portland Avenue 636 East 66th St. 66th St. & 11th Avenue 6428 Irving Avenue 6430 22nd Avenue 926 West 73rd St. 7313 Xerxes Avenue B-2 EXHIBIT C WIDEOPENWEST MINNESOTA, LLC INITIAL PROGRAMMING To be provided ninety (90) days prior to System activation • • 384411/1 C-1 • ADDRESS CITY FACILITY 1. 6700 Portland Ave. City Hall 2. 7700 Pillsbury Ave. Central Garage 3. 6221 Portland Ave. Water Plant 4. 6401 Penn Ave. Fire Station #2 5. 6600 Cedar Ave. Liquor Store 6. 6444 Penn Ave. Liquor Store 7. 6444 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 8. 7700 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 9. 636 East 66th St. Ice Arena 10. 636 East 66th St, Garage 11.630 East 66th St. ~ ~ Swimming Pool. 12. 7000 Nicollet Ave. Community Center 13. 735 Lake Shore Drive Nature Center 14..200 West 72nd Street Park Shelter 15. 6435-21st Ave. Park. Shelter 16. 6710 Portland Ave. Park Shelter 17. 6300 1st Ave.. Park Shelter 18. 6244 Knox Ave. Park Shelter 19. 6700 Thomas Ave. Park Shelter 20. 428 East 77th St. Park Shelter 21.7500 Pleasant Ave. Concession Building 22. 7500PIeasant Ave. Building 23. 6500 Upton Ave.. Park Shelter 24.6900 Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 25. 7434 Humboldt Ave. Park Shelter 26. 7434 Humboldt Ave. Storage Building . 27. 6145- Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 28. 1710 East 63rd St. Park Shelter 29. 7200 Washburn .Ave. Park Shelter 30. 6710 Irving Ave. Park Shelter 31.7434. Humboldt Ave. Park Shelter 32. 6335 Portland Ave Park Shelter & Warming House 33. 7445 Fremont Ave. Park Shelter 34. 7644 4th Ave. Park Shelter 35. 77th. St. & Knox Ave. Lift Station 36. 63rd St. & Colfax Ave. Lift Station 37. 69th. St. & Humboldt Ave. Lift Station 38. 74th St.& 14th Ave. Lift Station 39. 62nd St. &Nicollet Ave. Well House #1 & #2 41.6225 Portland Ave. Well House #3 42. 64t St. & Portland Ave. Well House #4 43. 636 East 66th St. Well House #5 44. 66th St. & 11th Ave. Well House #6 45. 6428 Irving Ave. Storm Lift A 46. 6430 22nd Ave. Storm Lift B 47. 926 West 73rd St. Storm Lift C 48. 7313 Xerxes Ave. Storm Lift D AGENDA SECTION: • • JANUARY 8, 2001 (rte Sna..nceS /02 ~~ REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE STEVE DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ~ NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: First reading consideration of a cable television ordinance for Everest Connections Corporation and set public hearing and second reading for February 12, 2001. RECOMMENDED By Motion: Approve the first reading of the proposed cable television ordinance for Everest Connections Corporation and set public hearing anal second reading for February 12, 2001. III. BACKGROUND ~ In April 2000, Everest. Connections Corporation (Everest) and WideOpenWest, LLC (WOW) approached the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SWSC) regarding the process to be undertaken to obtain a cable television franchise in the five-city SWSCC franchise area. In compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, the SWSCC assisted its member municipalities in conducting the process for the granting of a cable television franchise in each respective member city. The process consisted of the preparation of a Notice of Intent to Franchise and Official Application Form. These documents were published by the City and two proposals were received; one form Everest and one from WOW. The SWSCC, through its legal counsel 010801 Everest Moss & Barnett, conducted a review of the legal, technical and financial qualifications of both applicants and submitted a report to the City Council regarding these matters. The City then conducted a public hearing in compliance with Minnesota statutes to receive input from all interested parties. Following completion of the public hearing, the City adopted resolutions finding both Everest and WOW possessed the requisite qualifications to own and operate a cable television system within the City. The SWSCC was then instructed by the member cities to negotiate with Everest and WOW to prepare a Cable Television Franchise Ordinance that would be consistent with all applicable local,-state and federal laws. In particular, the SWSCC was guided by the level playing field language contained within Time Warner's existing franchise and state law. That language requires that any franchise granted to a competitor of Time Warner must not be any less burdensome or more favorable than the terms and conditions applied to Time Warner. With those issues in mind, the SWSCC negotiated the .attached ordinance with Everest Connections Corporation. Generally, the franchise ordinance negotiated with the two providers contains substantially the same language that is imposed on Time Warner, with a few exceptions. Time Warner's existing franchise, which was renewed about four years ago, was granted for a term of 15 years and contains a requirement for system upgrading but no institutional network provisions. The Everest Ordinance contains an institutional network requirement where the City will pay the incremental costs associated with the provision of additional fiber cable and the cost for any extension of the fiber beyond those locations where Everest is installing fiber as part of its subscriber network. Everest has agreed to a 36-month construction schedule and will have a 15-year franchise term. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield has followed the legal and procedural recommendations of the SWSCC legal counsel in completing the franchising process. • Providing an additional wired cable providerfor~residents of the City of Richfield will ensure competition among the providers and likely result in better service for resident customers. • City residents often have voiced a concern to staff about the lack of competitive cable services in Richfield. • The SWSCC has considered the terms of the franchise agreement, feels they are in the best interests of the member communities and has approved them. • The proposed franchise agreements comply with the "level playing field" language contained within the Time Warner agreement. Further, Time Warner does not have a dispute with the SWSCC regarding the terms of the proposed new franchise language. $. CRITICAL ISSUES The cable providers are seeking to complete this franchising process as soon as possible. To that end, it is critical that the first reading of this ordinance takes place at the January 8, 2001 City Council meeting. The second reading and public hearing of the ordinance would be scheduled for February 12, 2001. The other four member cities of the SWSCC are all on a schedule, which will result in Council consideration of their respective franchise ordinances on, or before the schedule set for Richfield. Timing of these franchise approvals is a critical factor in Everest's build-out schedule for the SWSCC. C. FINANCIAL The City of Richfield will receive franchise fees identical to those paid by Time Warner. The City will receive benefits of public and government access equal to those provided by Time Warner. D. LEGAL Brian Grogan, the attorney for the SWSCC, has drafted and carefully reviewed both the process and the franchise agreement in the cable franchising process. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Consider the first reading at a different City Council meeting date. Request different terms to the franchise ordinance agreement. V. ATTACHMENTS First reading draft of cable franchise agreement with Everest Connections Corporation. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett, attorney for the SWSCC. • City of Richfield, Minnesota and Everest Minnesota, LLC Cable Television • Franchise Agreement Ordinance No. Prepared by: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Association 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 Telephone: (612) 347-0340 Facsimile: (612) 339-6686 With the assistance of: The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission • 384410/1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE ......................:.................................................1 SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE ..........................................................................................1 SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................................1 SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL ................................2 SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE .................................................................................2 SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS ............................................................................2 6.1 System Design .........................................................................................................2 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect ................................................................................2 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings ............................................. 3 6.4 Parental Control Lock ........................................................................................... 3 6.5 Standby Power ....................................................................................................... 3 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions ................................................................................... 3 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities ......................................................................................... 5 6.8 Verification of System Construction .................................................................... 5 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement ........................................................................ 5 SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS • PROGRAMMING .....................................................................................5 7.1 Access Channels .....................................................................................................5 7.2 Studio/Facilities ......................................................................................................6 7.3 Funding for PEG Access .......................................................................................7 7.4 Regional Channel Six .............................................................................................7 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel .....................................................7 SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK ...............................................................8 SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS ....................................................15 SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY .................................................................15 SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS............16 11.1 Payment to City ....................................................................................................16 11.2 Bonds.....~ ...............................................................................................................16 11.3 Security Fund .......................................................................................................17 SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT ......................................................................20 SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJiJSTMENT ..........................................................20 • 384410/1 • SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE ........................................................................................24 14.1 Other Franchises ..................................................................................................24 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits ...............................24 EXHIBITS Exhibit A -Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet .......................................................................... A-1 Exhibit B -List of Public Schools and Buildings ........................................................................B-1 Exhibit C -Everest Minnesota, LLC Initial Programming .........................................................C-1 Exhibit D -Minimum I-Net Performance Standards ................................................................. D-1 Exhibit E - I-Net User Sites ........................................................................................................E-1 • 384410/1 ii • FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ORDINANCE This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, and Everest Minnesota, LLC. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Everest Minnesota, LLC has requested that the City of Richfield, Minnesota, grant it a cable television Franchise; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate, construct, maintain and reconstruct a Cable Television System within the City; and WHEREAS, the City reviewed the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Everest Minnesota, LLC and, after a properly noticed public hearing, has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to grant a Franchise to Everest Minnesota, LLC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Richfield, Minnesota (hereinafter also known as the "City" or "Grantor") hereby grants to Everest Minnesota, LLC (hereinafter the "Grantee") a cable television Franchise in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. and • this Agreement. SECTION 1. GRANT OF FRANCHISE Everest Minnesota, LLC is hereby granted a cable television Franchise. This Franchise shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance and shall be subordinate to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and all applicable federal, state and local law. SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE This Agreement shall be known and cited as the "City of Richfield, Minnesota Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance." Within this document it shall also be referred to as "this Franchise" or "the Franchise." SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in Ordinance Number of the City of Richfield, Minnesota are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as fully as if set out verbatim. • 384410/1 • SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL This Franchise shall commence on the effective date described in Section 13 and shall expire on December 31, 2015. SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE All notices, reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Manager of this Franchise or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice is being given, as follows: If to City: City of Richfield, Minnesota 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 If to Grantee: Everest Minnesota, LLC 5555 Winghaven Boulevard O'Fallon, MO 63366 • Such addresses maybe changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this section. SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS 6.1 System Design Grantee shall construct a Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) System to a capacity of 860 MHz. Grantee's System will be designed to support a forward bandwidth of SOMHz - 860 MHz and a return bandwidth of SMHz - 40 MHZ. As designed, the System will have a capacity of at least 300 channels. The System shall serve an average of 150 homes per node. System construction shall be completed and in use within thirty-six (36) months from the Effective Date of this Franchise. 6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect Grantee will locate its "nodes" near schools where possible, without (in Grantee's opinion) compromising the engineering design of the System. The City will provide maps showing the location of the schools. 384410/1 2 . 6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings A. Service to Public Schools and Public Buildings. 1. The Grantee shall provide one outlet of Basic Service, the Cable Programming Service Tier and one Converter, if needed, to those facilities provided in Exhibit B. Service to public schools and municipally owned buildings constructed or occupied after the effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject to the building being located within 200 feet of the Grantee's then existing System. 2. If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing System, the school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment, construction costs and additional wiring beyond the first 200 feet that are the Grantee's responsibility. 3. All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality. 4. The financial responsibility for any additional Converters desired by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility. B. Service to Private Schools Grantee shall provide Installation to private schools within 200 feet of plant. A private school is defined as any private secondary school that receives funding pursuant to Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Installation and Cable Service (Basic Service and Cable Programming Service Tier) shall be provided for free to such private schools through the year 2011. 6.4 Parental Control Lock Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease, to Subscribers, upon request, a parental control locking device. 6.5 Standby Power Grantee shall provide standby power throughout the System capable of providing at least three hours of emergency supply. 6.6 Periodic Review Provisions The City may request aState-of--the-Art review at any time between the sixth year anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise. In ssaaioii 3 conducting aState-of--the-Art review, the City shall undertake the following process: A. The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following: 1. Characteristics of the existing System; 2. The State-of--the-Art; 3. Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of--the-Art; 4. The market place demand for the State-of--the-Art; and 5. The financial feasibility of the State-of--the-Art taking into account associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets. B. The City shall hold at least two public hearings to enable the general public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence. C. For the purposes of this Section the term "State-of--the-Art" shall mean equipment or facilities that: 1. Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more sources of supply; 2. Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to, population, density, Subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual operating conditions for purposes other than tests or experimentation; and 3. Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term "State-of--the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services. D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City may not undertake a State-of--the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law. E. As a result of any review based on this Section, City and Grantee may enter into good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as agreed upon. • ssaaioii 4 6.7 Shared Use of Facilities The Grantee must make space available on its poles and towers, or upon timely request by the City, underground lines and conduit, for City wires, fixtures, or City utilities, whenever such use will not interfere with the use of those facilities by the Grantee or any other communication company. The City must pay for any added expense incurred by the Grantee because of such City use. 6.8 Verification of System Construction The City may, in its sole discretion, retain a technical consultant to conduct an on- site review of Grantee's System to verify that construction has been completed in compliance with all requirements of this Franchise and Applicable Laws. All costs associated with a technical consultant for purposes described within this Section 6.8, up to a cap not to exceed $15,000, shall be borne by Grantee and shall not be deducted nor offset from any franchise fee payments which Grantee is required to remit to City under this Franchise. 6.9 Franchising Cost Reimbursement. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide City full reimbursement for all reasonable and necessary franchising costs not already covered by Grantee's application fee. Grantee's reimbursement of franchising costs shall not be deducted or offset from any franchise fees which Grantee is required to remit pursuant to this Franchise. SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING 7.1 Access Channels A. Grantee shall provide four public, educational and government (PEG) Access Channels (the "Access Channels"). One channel shall be dedicated to public access, one channel shall be dedicated to governmental access, and two channels shall be dedicated to educational access. B. Grantee shall provide to each of its Subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on the System, reception of each public, educational and governmental Access Channel. C. .Grantee shall provide at least one specially designated access channel available for lease on a first come, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users. This Section is not applicable to Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at least 384410/1 one of the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channels required. D. Whenever any of the Access Channels are in use during 80 percent of the weekdays (Monday-Friday), for 80 percent of the time during any consecutive three hour period for six weeks running, and there is demand for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, Grantee shall then have six months in which to provide a new specially designated access channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to Subscribers. E. Grantee must establish rules and regulations for the public, educational and leased Access Channels. The rules and regulations established by the Grantee are subject to approval by the City. F. Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special service channels without also receiving the regular Subscriber services may receive only one specially designated composite Access Channel composed of the programming on Access Channels. Subscribers receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for computer operated functions shall not be included in this requirement. 7.2 Studio/Facilities A. Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee will provide one large facility containing one studio with square footage of not less than 1440 square feet for use by the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield ("Member Cities") at a location within the Member Cities mutually agreeable to Grantee and the Member Cities for public, educational and governmental access production. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation. The facility will include two separate editing suites, storage space and the entire studio facility will be wheelchair accessible. The facility shall be open during the hours of Monday through Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and regular weekend hours and some regular week night hours. B. Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal equipment necessary for the production of programming and playback of prerecorded programs for the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. The Grantee shall also make readily available upon need being shown, the minimum equipment necessary to make it possible to record programs at remote locations with battery operated portable equipment. C. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded programming on the specially designated noncommercial public Access Channel. Grantee can include any costs associated with production and 384410/1 6 playback for the noncommercial public Access Channel in the total sum allocated for public, educational and governmental access programming as stated in Section 7.3. Additionally, at the City's request, Grantee will work with the City to institute a nominal membership fee for users of the PEG access facility. D. Need within the meaning of this section shall be determined in the sole discretion of City or by Subscriber petition. Said petition must contain the signatures of at least 10 percent of the Subscribers of System, but in no case more than SOO nor fewer than 100 signatures. 7.3 Funding for PEG Access Prior to the provision of Cable Service within the City, Grantee shall provide no less than $200,128 annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively for the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. After the first year of the Franchise, Grantee shall provide sufficient financial and in-kind support to maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and equipment in the remaining years of the Franchise Agreement Ordinance comparable to the services, facilities and equipment provided in the first year of the Franchise. These expenses will be itemized on customers' bills. This amount will provide the following services: (a) labor costs; (b) educational consultant; (c) facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; (e) educational expenses;. (f) equipment maintenance; (g) technical support; and (h) replay expenses. This funding shall not be deducted from the Franchise Fee within the meaning of this Agreement. Grantee shall not calculate a Franchise Fee upon funds itemized on the customers' bills for public, educational or governmental access production and programming. 7.4 Regional Channel Six Under Minnesota Cable Communications Act, standard VHF Channel six has been designated for usage as the regional channel. Also known as Metro Cable Network, this independent, noncommercial, nonprofit channel shall be made available without charge. This provision shall remain in effect as long as a regional channel is required by the State of Minnesota. 7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel Grantee agrees to provide the capability such that the City, from its City Hall, can switch its government Access Channel in the following ways: A. Insert live Council meetings from City Hall; B. Replay government access programming from City Hall; 384410/1 7 C. Transmit character generated programming; D. Schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes in pre-arranged time slot on the government Access Channel; and E. Switch to C-SPAN 2 or other comparable programming provided by Grantee at any time when not carrying live or taped government access programming. SECTION 8. INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK 8.1 Institutional Network Facilities and Capacity; Cost Recovery by Grantee. A. The Grantee shall construct an institutional network which at the outset, consists of the following infrastructure: (i) bi-directional minimum six (6) count fiber optic lines in a ring and/or a star architecture to the locations within the franchise area as listed in Exhibit E ("I-Net User Sites") as designated as primary sites by the City, (ii) bi-directional fiber optic lines in a stax architecture from certain primary sites to certain secondary sites, as designated by the City and in a minimum quantity consisting of a four (4) count fiber per site and (iii) a minimum of a two (2) count HFC network per node to certain other secondary sites, as designated by the City. Within the first twelve (12) months from the effective date of this franchise, Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee, with a complete, detailed design and cost estimate for the I-Net infrastructure described above. Within ninety (90) days thereafter, the City, or its designee, shall work with I-Net users to review the design and cost estimate, and provide changes to the Grantee for incorporation into the final I-Net design. Final architecture, site designation, fiber count of (i), (ii), (iii) subject to City or designee approval. Grantee shall not begin construction of the System prior to completion of the final I-Net design. Notwithstanding the timings indicated above, Grantee shall ensure that sufficient I-Net infrastructure is included incrementally within all necessary portions of its residential subscriber cable system construction, so that the I-Net can be achieved at the lowest possible cost to I-Net Users. Once final approval is received from the City, the Grantee shall complete I-Net construction within twenty-one (21) months from the effective date of this franchise. Some portions of the I-Net will be activated prior to final completion. The institutional network shall have the infrastructure (and, where noted, the equipment) that provides the capability to transmit any and all signals between the sites listed in Exhibit E. B. I-Net Users may not sell or resell services or capacity to any third party. However, I-Net Users may provide services to themselves, including those which the Grantee otherwise sells to others (for example, an institution may provide Internet service to itself or to other institutions that the Grantee sells to others). The limitations of this paragraph shall not prevent the City, or its designee, from subleasing, bartering, selling, reselling or giving away capacity on the Institutional Network to any other public or nonprofit entity for noncommercial 384410/1 purposes that do not directly compete with any products or services offered by the Grantee. C. The City or the institutions listed on Exhibit E ("I-Net Users") shall be responsible for reimbursing Grantee for its Actual Cost of constructing and maintaining all portions of the I-Net required by this Section 8. The institutions listed in Exhibit E (the "I-Net Users") shall not be charged by the Grantee for usage of the Institutional Network. The City or other I-Net users may elect to pay the Actual Cost of the I-Net on a monthly basis, appropriately amortized over the life of the franchise. The terms and conditions of such payment option will be reflected in an I-Net service agreement to be developed prior to construction of the I-Net. Such terms and conditions must be in accordance with the other provisions of this section and associated exhibits. If future I-Net sites are identified and activated under Section 8.3 below, Grantee shall submit an invoice for those construction costs in a manner similar to submission of the initial construction costs of the I-Net. D. "Actual Cost", as used in this section, means the incremental cost to the Grantee of materials and capitalized labor necessary to install and construct fiber optic lines, coaxial cable, and/or equipment together with any permitted return on investment authorized by the FCC. E. Except as provided in this Section 8, I-Net Users connected to the I-Net via fiber or HFC shall be responsible for any end-user or interface equipment needed for transmission or reception of signals. However, Grantee shall provide at no charge, upon request and at the time necessary for use, modulators and associated fiber optic signal transmission and reception equipment for single channel return purposes for each public and private accredited educational institution and city hall, as approved by the City or its designee. With respect to non-video end-user equipment, upon request by a designated institution, Grantee must either lease the equipment requested to the requesting institution or make reasonable efforts to arrange for the lease of such equipment. Within 30 days of a written request, Grantee must notify the requesting institution in writing of its ability or inability to lease the requested equipment and the terms of such lease. If requested by City, Grantee shall serve as purchasing agent for City allowing City the benefit of Grantee's purchasing power and Grantee shall at all times provide City with any requested assistance regarding the appropriate type of equipment. City, its designee, or the requesting institution may, however, purchase or lease the equipment from any vendor. F. All I-Net Users shall be connected via fiber optic lines or a combination of fiber optics and coaxial cable as determined by the City to a hub located within the System. The I-Net architecture shall facilitate transmission of all required signals within City boundaries, transmission of signals beyond City boundaries within the franchise area, and transmission of signals to other networks in the Twin Cities ;~ area. The Grantee shall provide and install all equipment and infrastructure 384410/1 9 necessary, which is reimbursable to Grantee under same terms and conditions set forth in Section 8.1(C), to achieve the required level of interconnection with other Twin Cities area I-Nets provided by Grantee. Specifically, this includes, but is not limited to, interconnecting the I-Net with I-Nets that have been or may be constructed in adjacent systems. Grantee shall also work with the City to establish interconnects with the Connecting Minnesota Network. G. I-Net equipment at the hub(s) shall be connected to a gas powered generator capable of providing continuous electrical power, or equivalent, and to an uninterruptiblepnwer supply that both conditions commercial power and provides for zero transfer time between normal commercial power and hub back-up generators. 8.2 Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial Portions of the Institutional Network. A. The hybrid fiber-coaxial ("HFC") portion of the I-Net shall provide 450 MHZ of activated capacity (5-42 MHZ for upstream channels and 54-450 MHZ for downstream channels) to the HFC I-Net Sites. The HFC I-Net shall have fiber introduced into it to limit amplifier cascades to no more than five (5). B. All I-Net distribution system power supplies shall have the standby capability of providing at least three (3) hours of backup power and shall have status monitoring installed in them. Prior to battery failure, the Grantee shall connect I- Net Node power supplies to portable generators capable of producing adequate electrical current until commercial power is restored. 8.3 Future Fiber to the Institution Requirements. A. The City, or its designee, may identify certain I-Net sites that will not be activated at the time the initial I-Net is activated. So long as such sites are located on the I- Net User Sites List, Grantee agrees to include splice points and splice point housings on those portions of the system where additional fiber will need to be deployed or additional connections will need to be made. Upon notification from the City, the Grantee will provide cost estimates within ninety (90) days of a request by the Grantor for I-Net extension to the additional sites. B. The City, or its designee, may also identify sites following completion and activation of the I-Net. Estimated costs for serving those sites will be provided within ninety (90) days of notification by the City. If an extension of the I-Net is required to serve the site, Grantee will make the I-Net available within one hundred twenty (120) days from the initial request. The fiber-optic lines required by Section 8 shall be passively terminated to standard connectors at the patch panel of the telephone equipment room of each site or at another designated location. 384410/1 1 ~ 8.4 Grantee's Use of I-Net Capacity. The I-Net shall be for the exclusive use of the City and I-Net Users throughout the term of the Franchise, or any renewal or extension thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee may use capacity on the I-Net, including for lease or other commercial purposes, provided that the City and I-Net Users are not using such capacity and further provided that the Grantee's use does not interfere with use of the I-Net by the City or I-Net Users. Upon receiving oral or written notice from the City, the Grantee or a lessee shall immediately cease using the I-Net for any purpose that the City, in its sole discretion, determines is interfering with I-Net Users' communications. The Grantee or a lessee may appeal any determination of City concerning I-Net interference to the City within ten (10) days of the date that the requisite notice is received by the Grantee. Any such appeal shall: (i) be in writing; (ii) list the reasons that the City's determination regarding interference with I-Net Users' communications is incorrect; and (iii) include any other information the Grantee or a Lessee wishes the City to consider. Within forty-five (45) calendar days of receiving a written appeal under this paragraph, the City shall: (i) determine whether the City's conclusion that the Grantee or lessee was interfering with I- Net Users' communications was justified; and (ii) inform the Grantee or lessee in writing of its findings. This provision shall not limit any other appeal rights of Grantee. Use of the I-Net by the City and I-Net Users shall, at all times, have priority over any use(s) by the Grantee or any lessee. The Grantee or a lessee shall terminate its use of any channel capacity on the I-Net within six (6) months after receiving notice from the City that the City or any I-Net User has determined to use such capacity. Any agreement entered into by the Grantee and a third party for the lease of I-Net capacity shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Franchise. 8.5 I-Net Performance Standards. A. The Grantee shall maintain the I-Net in accordance with technical and performance standards set forth in Exhibit D (Minimum I-Net Performance Standards). The Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee, upon request, with reports of the performance of the I-Net and the Grantee's compliance with the aforementioned technical and performance standards. B. If at any time, the performance of the I-Net is not in compliance with pertinent technical and performance standards, and continues to be in non-compliance for a period of fifteen (15) days after notice and opportunity to correct is given to Grantee, then affected City or other I-Net Users may cease payment until the non- compliance situation is resolved. C. City or I-Net Users may ultimately terminate their use of and payment for I-Net infrastructure based on repeated, demonstrated non-performance or non- compliance by Grantee with the terms of this Section 8 and the associated Exhibits, after giving Grantee notice and opportunity to correct the problem causing non-performance or non-compliance. Grantee will also be liable for all other applicable non-compliance penalties contained in the Franchise. ssaaioii 11 8.6 Completion of the Institutional Network. A. Construction of the Institutional Network pursuant to this Section 8 shall be deemed completed upon satisfaction of the following: B. The Grantee shall notify the City, or its designee, in writing at least ten (10) days in advance of completion of construction of each I-Net Node, I-Net site on the ring, I-Net star connection, and HFC end-of--line. The notice shall include the date the Grantee is prepared to conduct an OTDR test at 1550 nm and 1310 nm end-to-end, RF noise, distortion and peak-to-valley tests according to FCC rules, NCTA Recommended Practices. and other acceptable test methodologies and other applicable tests. The City, or its designee, shall have the option of attending any test conducted pursuant to this paragraph. All tests must be successfully completed. The fiber optic test shall be deemed successfully completed if the optical performance standards in Exhibit D are met or bettered. The coaxial tests shall also be deemed successfully completed if the specifications detailed in Exhibit D are met or exceeded. C. The City, or its designee, shall also have the option of conducting a physical inspection of the construction and connections to each I-Net site and each I-Net Node. This inspection shall be conducted no later than the date of the test in Paragraph A. D. After completing installation to each I-Net site or each I-Net Node, the Grantee shall provide the following documentation to the City, or its designee,: splice locations, panel numbers, cable numbering schemes, location of splitters, location of all RF actives and passives, OTDR, other optical, RF and coaxial test results and documentation, and any other pertinent documentation. 8.7 Institutional Network Security. The Grantee and the City shall at all times use reasonable efforts to protect the security of the Institutional Network. For purposes of this paragraph, "to protect security" means to protect those physical elements of the Institutional Network under the party's direct control from unauthorized intrusion, signal theft, tampering, wiretapping or other actions that might: (i) compromise the integrity of or degrade the signals carried over the Institutional Network; or (ii) result in the unauthorized interception and disclosure of information. Grantee's hub site shall be made available, upon request, for placement and operation of end user supplied equipment. 8.8 Institutional Network Repair and Maintenance. A. The Grantee shall maintain, repair, reconstruct and, as necessary, replace the fiber optic or HFC portions of the I-Net and shall recover the Actual Cost for such activities from the City and I-Net Users, as set forth in Section 8.1. w 384410/1 12 B. The Grantee shall maintain, repair, reconstruct, and, as necessary, replace portions of the Institutional Network plant, as described in subsection (i) and (ii) below, during the term of this Franchise or any extension thereof 1. Preventative and routine maintenance of the I-Net shall be performed in the same timeframe and in the same fashion as routine and preventative maintenance are performed for the Grantee's subscriber network. Actual or potential problems discovered during the course of preventative and routine maintenance shall be immediately reported to the City. After informing the City of an actual or potential problem, the Grantee shall, within a reasonable period of time, prepare and transmit a report to the City describing the corrective action, if any, that was or will be taken. 2. Within sixty (60) minutes of receiving notice or otherwise learning of a maintenance or repair problem, the Grantee's technicians shall begin actively working on the problem. The Grantee shall work on the problem continuously until it is resolved. Notwithstanding the above, the Grantee shall meet the network availability standard described in Exhibit D for each site on the I-Net. 8.9 Institutional Network Ownership. The I-Net is a dedicated transmission path owned and maintained by the Grantee and '~ governed by this Agreement. The obligations for provision of the I-Net will convey to all - successors and assigns. If at any time, the I-Net is considered abandoned as such is defined in this Franchise, ownership shall convey to the City at the City's discretion. The City and the sites to which infrastructure is provided via the I-Net will use the I-Net in accordance with the limitations of this Franchise. 8.10. In lieu of the design options described in Sections 8.1(A) and 8.2(A), the Grantee may provide an institutional network in compliance with this Section 8.10 as follows: A. A minimum of one pair (two (2) dark fibers) of single-mode fiber optic cable to each of the buildings in Exhibit E that the City will designate for the receipt of such infrastructure, and broadband data-over-cable connections to the buildings listed in Exhibit E that the City will designate for the receipt ofdata-over-cable services. The City may designate certain sites to receive an additional or two additional pairs of fiber (for a total of 4 or 6 fibers) for which the City or pertinent I-Net User, as determined by the City, shall pay the incremental cost. Specifically, the I-Net shall be of a Star, Ring or point-to-point configuration extending along pathways from the I-Net hub(s) to the I-Net User Sites, as determined by the City, serving public buildings, including, but not limited to, the municipal buildings, K-12 public and private non-profit schools, college(s) and library(s) listed in Exhibit E. Additionally, the City may subsequently designate new facilities or locations to be connected to the I-Net. 3saaioii 13 B. Concerning the broadband data-over-cable HFC connections, Grantee shall provide such connections to the facilities in Exhibit E as determined by the City. The broadband data-over-cable HFC connections maybe .enabled by a separate part of the residential subscriber cable system upstream and downstream spectrum, as determined by the City. Grantee shall provide all necessary Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) equipment, routers, switches, translators, hardware, software and other network components, such that each broadband data-over-cable system connection provides an aggregate data rate of at least three (3) MBPS in a downstream direction and an aggregate data rate of at least three (3) MBPS in an upstream direction at each site connected. The broadband data- over-cable system shall also enable the City, School District and other I-Net User organization locations to develop separate Virtual Private Networks (VPNS) that shall connect back to the respective City, School District or other organization's data center. Each broadband data-over-cable system connection shall also enable multiple 1P addresses and MAC addresses to be facilitated at each site. Grantee shall provide the number of cable modems required by the I-Net user at each HFC location. Grantee shall monitor the bandwidth usage of its data network to ensure available bandwidth for residential customers and I-Net Users. When I-Net Users cannot achieve the minimum rates specified above at least 90% of the time, or otherwise do not have sufficient bandwidth to support their data communications requirements (as determined by the I-Net User), the Grantee's engineering team will determine from where the traffic is originating, what kind of traffic is being transmitted and the best approach to add capacity. Upon approval of the approach by the City, additional capacity shall then be added to the network which may include provision of a separate bandwidth upstream and downstream for the I-Net users that would enable I-Net Users to achieve at least the minimum data rates specified above. A schedule will be generated to add capacity to the network; and, the additional capacity shall be completed and made available within 90 days from an I-Net User request. C. The City may identify HFC I-Net sites following completion and activation of the I-Net. Estimated cost for serving those sites will be provided within ninety (90) days of notification by the City. If an extension of the HFC system is required to serve the site, Grantee will make the I-Net available within one hundred twenty (120) days from the initial request. D. The data-over-cable system connections shall be installed complete with all necessary DOCSIS-compliant (latest version) cable modems at pre-determined demarcation points chosen by the I-Net User. As part of the standard installation, coaxial cable shall be run to each designated building to the demarcation points. 8.11 Design Within the first twelve (12) months from the effective date of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide the City, or its designee, with a complete detailed design and cost estimate for the I-Net infrastructure described above. Within ninety (90) days thereafter, the City, 3saaioii 14 or its designee, shall work with I-Net Users to review the design and cost estimate, and provide changes to the Grantee for incorporation into the final I-Net design. Final architecture, site designation and fiber count are subject to City or designee approval. Notwithstanding the timings indicated above, Grantee shall ensure that sufficient I-Net infrastructure is included incrementally within all necessary portions of its residential subscriber cable system construction, so that the I-Net can be achieved at the lowest possible cost to I-Net Users. Once final approval is received from the City, the Grantee shall complete I-Net construction within twenty-one (21) months from the effective date of this Franchise. Some portions of the I-Net will be activated prior to final completion. The Institutional Network shall have the infrastructure (and, where noted, the equipment) that provides the capability to transmit any and all signals between the sites listed in Exhibit E. SECTION 9. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS 9.1 The Grantee shall, upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by the parties, but no more frequently than once every three years, conduct a random survey of a representative sample of Subscribers. Each questionnaire shall be prepared and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure of customer satisfaction with: (1) audio and signal quality; (2) response to customer complaints; (3) billing practices; (4) programming; and (5) Installation practices; 9.2 The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard research procedures, including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the business of regularly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a sample size of 300 customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of error of plus or minus six percent or less of the total customer base. 9.3 The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may be taking in response to the survey within 60 days of the completion of the survey. 9.4 .Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Grantee shall be under no obligation to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective competition under then applicable state or federal law. SECTION 10. LINE EXTENSION POLICY 10.1 The Grantee shall, within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities. 10.2 The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of private property owners to extend service to others who maybe interested in service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these needed . permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from 384410/1 15 • whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to extend service. SECTION 11. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 11.1 Payment to City A. Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of its annual Gross Revenues. B. The foregoing payment shall be compensation for use of Streets. C. Payments due the City under this provision shall be computed at the end of each calendar quarter. Payments shall be due and payable for each quarter not later than 60 days from the last day of the quarter. Each payment shall be accompanied by a brief report showing the basis for the computation. At the end of each calendar year, Grantee shall complete a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet attached hereto as Exhibit A. Grantee shall file a completed Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet no later than 60 days after the last day of the calendar year. D. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall such acceptance of payment be construed as a release of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City. E. In the event any payment is not made on the due date, interest on the amount due shall accrue from such date at the annual rate of 12%. 11.2 Bonds A. Prior to the commencement of System construction, and at all times thereafter until Grantee has completed the construction of the System in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the sum of $300,000.00 in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by City and upon the further condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation, there shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered by City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee, including a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs (with interest at two percent in excess of the then prime rate), up to the full amount of the bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by sgaaioii 16 Grantee of all claims and liens against City or any, public property, and taxes due to City, which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance or use of the System. Upon completion of the System as described in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, the City may reduce the bond to the sum of $100,000. B. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond are in addition to all other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law. C. City may, in its sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond. 11.3 Security Fund A. In the event the Grantee is given notice of a noncompliance pursuant to Section 34 of the Ordinance, the Grantee shall within ten (10) days thereof deposit into a bank account, established by the City, and maintain on deposit the sum of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20,000.00) or deliver to the City a letter of credit in the same amount as a common Security Fund for the faithful performance by it of all the provisions of this Franchise and compliance with all orders, permits and directions of the City and the payment by Grantee of any claim, liens, costs, expenses and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction, operation or maintenance of the System. Interest on this deposit shall be paid to Grantee by the bank on an annual basis. The security maybe terminated by the Grantee upon the Resolution of the alleged noncompliance. The obligation to establish the security fund required by this paragraph is unconditional. The fund must be established whenever Grantee is given the notice required, even if Grantee disputes the allegation that it is not in compliance. If Grantee fails to establish the security fund as required, the City may take whatever action is appropriate to require the establishment of that fund and may recover its costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and an additional penalty of $2000 in that action. B. Provision shall be made to permit the City to withdraw funds from the Security Fund. Grantee shall not use the Security Fund for other purposes and shall not assign, pledge or otherwise use this Security Fund as security for any purpose. C. Within ten (10) days after notice to it that any amount has been withdrawn by the City from the Security Fund pursuant to (A) of this section, Grantee shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such Security Fund to the required amount. D. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or damages to City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the 384410/1 17 • Franchise in particular Section 11(G) herein, City in its sole discretion may charge to and collect from the Security Fund the following penalties: 1. For failure to complete System construction in accordance with Section 6.1 hereof, unless City approves the delay, the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 2. For failure to provide data, documents, reports or information or to cooperate with City during an Application process or System review, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 3. For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant to this Paragraph C, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 4. For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the System following a request by City, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 5. For failure by Grantee to provide additional services as negotiated between City and Grantee at a periodic review session within 45 days after a request by City the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 6. Forty-five days following notice from City of a failure of Grantee to comply with construction, operation or maintenance standards, the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 7. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including, but not limited to, the implementation and the utilization of the Access Channels and the making available for use of the equipment and other facilities to City, the penalty shall be $100.00 per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. 8. Each violation of any provision of this Franchise shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be imposed. E. Exclusive of the contractual penalties set out above in this section, a violation of any provision of this Franchise is a misdemeanor. 384410/1 18 F. If Grantee fails to pay to the City any taxes due and unpaid; or fails to repay to the City, any damages, costs or expenses which the City shall be compelled to pay by reason of any act or default of the Grantee in connection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty (30) days' notice of such failure by the City to comply with any provision of the Franchise which the City reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security, the City may then withdraw such funds from the Security Fund. Payments are not Franchise Fees as defined in Section 29 of the Ordinance. G. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has allegedly violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee. The written notice shall describe in reasonable detail the alleged violation so as to afford Grantee an opportunity to remedy the violation. Grantee shall have 30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the violation before the City may require Grantee to make payment of penalties, and further to enforce payment of penalties through the Security Fund. Grantee may, within 10 days of receipt of notice, notify the City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has, in fact, occurred. Such notice by Grantee shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee and shall stay the running of the above-described time. 1. City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled or specially scheduled Council meeting. Grantee shall have the right to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The City shall determine if Grantee has committed a violation and shall make written findings of fact relative to its determination. If a violation is found, Grantee may petition for. reconsideration. 2. If, after hearing the dispute, the claim is upheld by the City, then Grantee shall have 30 days within which to remedy the violation before the City may require payment of all penalties due it. 3. The time for Grantee to correct any alleged violation maybe extended by the City if the necessary action to correct the alleged violation is of such a nature or character as to require more than 30 days within which to perform, provided Grantee commences corrective action within 15 days and thereafter uses reasonable diligence, as determined by the City, to correct the violation. H. If City draws upon the Security Fund delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within three days and shall deliver to City a like replacement Security Fund for the full amount stated in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Security Fund. 3saaion 19 • I. If any Security Fund is not so replaced, City may draw on said Security Fund for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds, without interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee under this Franchise that are not performed or paid for by Grantee pursuant hereto,. including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in so performing and paying. The failure to so replace any Security Fund may also, at the option of City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Security Fund by City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. J. The collection by City of any damages, monies or penalties from the Security Fund shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City, nor shall any act, or failure to act, by City pursuant to the Security Fund, be deemed a waiver of any right of City pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. • SECTION 12. PUBLIC COMMITMENT Grantee shall provide free service connections, free on-line (i.e. high-speed cable modem services) services and any required modem to all institutions identified in Exhibit B. SECTION 13. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT 13.1 In consideration of Grantee's substantial investment to build its System for the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Richfield, Minnesota, the City agrees to include the following provisions. 13.2 Any additional or subsequent cable Franchise granted to cable or non-cable companies who may compete with Grantee within the Franchise area will be granted only on substantially similar terms and conditions as this Franchise and shall not contain less burdensome nor more favorable terms than those imposed on Grantee by this Franchise. • 13.3 The City and Grantee agree that all Franchise provisions that Grantee is subject to are effective against the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well to any and all wired competitors of the Grantee within the Franchise area. For purposes of this subsection, a wired competitor is any video provider using Streets and offering at least 12 channels of video programming at least one of which is a broadcast signal, which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on Streets or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor does not include a Satellite 384410/1 2~ Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private property within a building. 13.4 Any Franchise provision or other regulation enforced by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed upon Grantee(s) wired competitors within the Franchise area of the City, shall be void as to Grantee, subject to the following requirements: A. The existence of a wired competitor in the Franchise area of the City shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum Franchise Fee of two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City, the State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than five percent of Gross Revenues, the City shall reduce Grantee's Franchise Fee to the same level, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of Minnesota or any other governmental entity, then Grantee shall pay the same fee, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor is not required to pay a Franchise Fee or similar fee to the City or the State of Minnesota, then the two percent minimum Franchise Fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are passed by the wired competitor's system. If at any time a wired competitor with a cable Franchise pays a Franchise Fee of more than two percent, or if a wired competitor without a Franchise Fee pays a Franchise Fee or similar fee of more than two percent, Grantee shall pay the same Franchise Fee. In no event shall Grantee be required to pay more than a five percent Franchise Fee. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's Franchise Fee shall immediately return to its original level. B. The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, the City shall, upon the effective date of the subsequent Franchise, reduce Grantee's requirement to the same number of channels, but in no event shall Grantee provide less than one public, educational and governmental access channel. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access Channels, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public, educational or governmental Access Channels, then the City shall reduce the number of Access Channels required of Grantee as follows: 384410/1 21 (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least three public, educational and governmental Access Channels. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one public, educational and governmental Access Channel. If at any time, a wired competitor provides channels for public, educational and governmental access which exceed the channels provided by Grantee, Grantee shall provide the same number of channels as the wired competitor. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more public, educational or governmental Access Channels than it has agreed to in this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public, educational and governmental Access Channels shall immediately return to its original level. C. If a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access or less facilities and equipment than Grantee, the City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public, educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, including open video providers in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules, but it is required to provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental access or equipment or facilities, then the City shall reduce the Grantee's required funding as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to provide the same level of funding for public, educational and governmental access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance. 384410/1 22 (ii) If the wired competitor passes 25% or more but less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall reduce the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee by 30%. (iii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City. shall eliminate the funding, and equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational and governmental access funding. It is not the intent of this section to reduce Grantee's funds, equipment and facilities requirements regarding public, educational and governmental access programming to an amount less than the amount provided by its wired competitors. If at any time a wired competitor provides funds, equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access that. exceed the funds, equipment or facilities provided by Grantee under this paragraph, Grantee shall provide the same amount of funds, equipment and facilities. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more funds, equipment or facilities than it has agreed to provide in Section 7 of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and, equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its original level. D. For all other Franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which does not require it to meet the same Franchise provision, the City shall not require Grantee to meet that Franchise provision. If the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise and it is not required to meet the same Franchise provision, then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that Franchise provision as follows: (i) If the wired competitor passes less than 50% of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with the Franchise provision. (ii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall not require Grantee to meet the Franchise provision. 3saaioii 23 If at any time a wired competitor provides a requirement contained originally in this cable Franchise, Grantee shall comply with that same requirement. If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee shall be required to meet the Franchise provision. 13.5 If Grantee is aware of a Franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired competitor, it shall identify the wired competitor, including the basis for stating that the entity is a "wired competitor" as defined above; it shall identify the Franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City. Within 90 days, the City shall: (1) pass a resolution declaring that Grantee is subject to this section for that requirement; (2) declare why the entity in question is not a wired competitor; or (3) state that the "wired competitor" is subject to a requirement that substantially duplicates the Franchise provision. During the above process, the Grantee shall escrow any funds at issue in the above process that the Franchise requires be remitted during the time period of the above process and Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question. If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee, the City is not liable for Grantee's past compliance with the requirement, including any past fees remitted to the City. 13.6 If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of the Ordinance within 90 days after one party provides notice to the other party, the parties may agree to enter mediation. SECTION 14. ACCEPTANCE 14.1 Other Franchises A. The System intended for City, may be part of a joint system that serves the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Minnesota. B. Grantee will, in good faith, apply for and accept, if offered to it, a Franchise (similar Franchise) from each of the other cities on all the same terms and conditions herein provided, except provisions omitted as inapplicable. 14.2 Time of Acceptance; Incorporation of Offering; Exhibits • A. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to City by .Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed the grant of this Franchise for all purposes. ssaaioii 24 B. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in Ordinance No. ,also known as the Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance, and herein. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall obtain an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee, that this Franchise is enforceable against Grantee in accordance with its terms, and which opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City. C. .With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and authority referred to in the opinion of Grantee's counsel, certified as of a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and otherwise by an officer of Grantee. D. Ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of the operation of the System, Grantee shall provide a copy of its initial services which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C. E. The effective date of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance shall be, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement the date and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA By Its: (SEAL) (Corporate Seal) r EVEREST MINNESOTA, LLC By Its: 384410/1 2$ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on by ,the of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF ) ss: COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on by ,the of Everest Minnesota, LLC, on behalf of the company. Notary Public 384410/1 26 • evenue EXHIBIT A FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET Percentages Based on Revenue & Bad Debt Quarter arter uarter arter otal Pa ent Basic 0 Eden Prairie 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 AddirionalOutlets 0 Edina 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment-Rent 0 Hopkins 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay TV 0 Minnetonka 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Pay Per Event 0 Richfield 0% 0 0 0 0 0 Transaction Fee 0 Advertising 0 TOTAL 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shopping Service 0 Other 0 TOTAL REVENUE 0 LESS: Local Access 0 LESS: Bad Debt 0 CHARGEABLE REVENUE 0 X FRANCHISE FEE % 0 ~ TAL FRANCHISE FEES TO BE PAID $0 • ssaaioii A-1 • EXHIBIT B LIST OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND BUILDINGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS Centennial Elementary 7315 Bloomington Avenue Sheridan Hills Elementary 6400 Sheridan Avenue Richfield Intermediate School 7020 12th Avenue South Richfield Middle School 7461 Oliver Avenue Richfield Senior High School 7001 Harriet Avenue Elliot Education Center 7001 Elliot Avenue Lincoln Hills Center 7440 Penn Avenue South PUBLIC BUILDINGS City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue Central Garage 7700 Pillsbury Avenue Water Plant 6221 Portland Avenue Fire Station #2 6401 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6600 Cedar Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Penn Avenue Liquor Store 6444 Lyndale Avenue Liquor Store 7700 Lyndale Avenue Ice Arena 636 East 66th St. Garage 636 East 66th St. Swimming Pool 630 East 66th St. Community Center 7000 Nicollet Avenue Nature Center 735 Lake Shore Drive Park Shelter 200 West 72nd Street Park Shelter 6435 21st Avenue Park Shelter 6710 Portland Avenue Park Shelter 6300 1st Avenue Park Shelter 6244 Knox Avenue Park Shelter 6700 Thomas Avenue Park Shelter 428 East 77th St. Concession Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue Building 7500 Pleasant Avenue Park Shelter 6500 Upton Avenue Park Shelter 6900 Bloomington Avenue Park Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue Storage Building 7434 Humboldt Avenue Park Shelter 6145 Bloomington Avenue Park Shelter 1710 East 63rd St. Park Shelter 7200 Washburn Avenue Park Shelter 6710 Irving Avenue Park Shelter 7434 Humboldt Avenue 384410/1 B-1 • • 384410/1 Park Shelter & Warming House Park Shelter Park Shelter Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Lift Station Well House #1 & #2 Well House #3 Well House #4 Well House #5 Well House #6 Storm Lift A Storm Lift B Storm Lift C Storm Lift D 6335 Portland Avenue 7445 Fremont Avenue 7644 4th Avenue 77th St. & Knox Avenue 63rd St. & Colfax Avenue 69th St. & Humboldt Avenue 74th St. & 14th Avenue 62nd St. & Nicollet Avenue 6225 Portland Avenue 64th St. & Portland Avenue 636 East 66th St. 66th St. & 11th Avenue 6428 Irving Avenue 6430 22nd Avenue 926 West 73rd St. 7313 Xerxes Avenue B-2 • EXHIBIT C EVEREST MINNESOTA, LLC INITIAL PROGRAMMING To be provided ninety (90) days prior to System activation • 384410/1 C-1 EXHIBIT D MINIMUM I-NET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Signal Quality The Institutional Network shall achieve the performance standards listed below, where applicable for fiber and/or fiber/HFC-based transmissions, under worst-case conditions for communications occurring between: Any institution to any institution Any institution to hub or headend and vice versa Any institution to any subscriber and vice versa For Institutional Communications Incorporating HFC Infrastructure Noise and Distortion Performance -Under worst-case channel loading (including both analog and digital signals), the combined upstream and downstream performance of the system shall meet or exceed the following: - Carrier to noise ratio = 45 dB or better - Carrier to composite triple beat = 55 dB or better - Carrier to second order distortion = 55 dB or better - Carrier to cross modulation = 55 dB or better Data Communications -For any data communications link on the network, the Network shall provide the capability for a Bit Error Rate (BER) to be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 9, except where the link is 50% or more coaxial cable, the BER shall be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 8. This standard shall be met or exceeded under Normal Operating Conditions. Outage times shall not be considered for purposes of determining compliance with the BER prescribed in this paragraph. Network Availability -For each user of services on the network, network availability shall be equal to or better than 99.965% (no more than 184 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on an annual basis. Signal Level Variation -The worst-case signal level variation (peak to valley) shall be better than or equal to N/10 + 2 (where "N" equals the number of RF amplifiers in cascade from the HFC node). For End-to-End Fiber-Based Institutional Communications Optical System Noise Performance -Under worst-case link loss as measured for any voice, video or data service, the combined upstream and 3saaioii D-1 downstream performance of the system shall meet or exceed the following: - Signal to noise equals 60 dB or better for links that utilize Grantee supplied equipment. For all other links, the network shall be capable of providing a signal to noise of 60 dB or better, dependent upon end-user equipment. _Optical Received Power Level at the Institution For all links that utilize Grantee-supplied equipment, the optical power level for any service delivered to the designated demarcation point at each I-Net user location shall meet or be better than 0 dBm and shall, in all cases, enable operation within the equipment manufacturer's minimum specifications. For all other links on the network, I-Net users shall be able to satisfactorily employ non-custom network transmission and reception equipment, and the I-Net shall enable operation within the manufacturer's minimum specifications for such equipment. Network Availability -For each user on the network, network availability on the backbone or for fully redundant, diverse path connections from hubs to user sites, shall be equal to or better than 99.99% (no more than 53 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on an annual basis. For each user on the network, network availability for standard connections from the hub to the user site shall be equal to or better than 99.965% (no more than 184 minutes of network downtime per user) as measured on annual basis. For purposes of this Exhibit D, the network shall be defined as "unavailable" under the standards herein for any given user when such user: a. Cannot, because of a network problem, measured by SNMP software or other appropriate software and associated hardware, or through a failure of a Grantee- provided interconnect, transmit video, voice and/or data communications to, from, and/or on the network. Such problems shall be the result of a failure of one or more of the following: 1) the fiber optic cabling, connections and transmission equipment on the network and/or the coaxial cabling, connections and RF transmission equipment on the network; 2) the transmission equipment at Grantee's headend; 3) the transmission and network equipment at the customer's premise (if such equipment is provided by Grantee); 4) network powering systems; 5) the network equipment, connections and cabling, network management, hardware and software, and related equipment provided by Grantee at Grantee's headend; and/or 6) any other Grantee-provided transmission or network component; and or, b. Experiences, due to a network problem, video, voice and data transmissions that are below the standards set forth in this Franchise and/or this Exhibit; and/or, 384410/1 D-2 c. Experiences, due to a network problem, a data communication packet loss of greater than ten percent (10%). For purposes of this availability standard, network problems shall not be defined as: infrequent scheduled preventative maintenance as long as I-Net users are notified well in advance, according to the provisions of the Franchise. Except as otherwise provided for herein, network availability is subject to the force majeure provisions of the Franchise and those conditions which are not within the control of the Grantee. Network downtime shall include, but not be limited to, network failures caused by: third party actions; commercial power outages of a typical, non-catastrophic nature; and power failures and other disturbances caused by weather occurrences typical to the Twin Cities area. Grantee shall comply with the requirements of Demand Maintenance/Service and Repair to restore service following any of these occurrences. Grantee will give the City and affected I-Net users notice. in the event of any of the foregoing occurrences. Data Communications -For any data communications link on the network, the Bit Error Rate (BER) shall be equal to or better than 1 x 10 to the minus 9. This standard shall be met or exceeded under Normal Operating Conditions. Outage times shall not be considered for purposes of determining compliance with the BER prescribed in this paragraph. Service Response Network Maintenance -Grantee shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and performance of the I-Net from the demarcation point within a facility through the network, including the I-Net headend. Routine and preventive maintenance shall be performed continually on the network to ensure that it meets all performance criteria detailed herein. Specific Performance Oversight Responsibilities of the Grantee will include: (1) Monitoring the operation of the fiber based transport backbone in conjunction with I-Net users; (2) Performance and fault monitoring of the transport backbone and distribution system in accordance with same terms and conditions referenced in Section 8.1(C); (3) Monitoring of selected parameters and tables to allow for early identification of potential service problems; (4) Monitoring and analyzing I-Net performance; and (5) Logging and reporting, as required, of data gathered from above monitoring activities. ssaaioii D-3 Preventive Maintenance/Service Interruptions - I-Net users will be notified at least seven days in advance of any scheduled maintenance that may interrupt service on the I-Net, unless I-Net users agree to waive such time frame. Where possible, such maintenance will be scheduled at times of low usage. Demand Maintenance/Service and Repair -Response to all network problems shall occur at all hours (24 x 365). Specifically, when Grantee receives a trouble call or alarm, either by internal monitoring or by City, the Grantee's Network Operations Center will ensure that appropriate technical support shall respond within 10 minutes after receiving a call related to a network problem (under Normal Operating Conditions the initial page to the technician on call for I-Net problems will be within the 10 minute time frame). The Grantee shall then work continuously until the problem is resolved. Network Support -Grantee shall provide an appropriate complement of administrative, headend and field personnel at all times to meet the performance criteria detailed herein. Service Call Processing and Tracking -Grantee will establish mechanisms and procedures for all I-Net users to quickly and easily report System problems. All trouble or service calls will be documented, processed, and completed in an expedient manner. Documentation will include monthly I-Net service call reports, as required, which will include a breakdown of reasons and resolutions as well as call handling efficiency. Notwithstanding the staffing, testing and equipment and response requirements set forth herein, the Grantee will provide the in-house and/or contractor staff, spare and back-up equipment, test and maintenance equipment and additional steps necessary to ensure that the network performs reliably in accordance with all standards detailed herein. Network Performance Testing Proof ofPerformance - Proof of performance testing will be conducted on the I-Net two (2) times per year at the same time residential subscriber system testing is performed during the months of January/February and July/August. Several geographically diverse I-Net test point locations for each ring and an additional test point per node will be established which are representative of worst-case performance for the area. Testing shall be completed at the mutually agreed upon entry demarcation point at the institution. All active channels upstream and downstream shall be tested at each test point location. If the testing will subject such channels to service interruptions, Grantee will work with Users to schedule the testing so as to minimize its impact upon the Users. Testing shall be performed to ensure compliance with all the network performance specifications included in this Appendix and applicable Service Agreements. Tests shall be performed using standard test methodologies, as mutually agreed to by the City and Grantee. Power Supply Inspections .- All network power supplies and back-up devices will be continuously status monitored and manually inspected at least twice per year, which will include the following checks and tests: saaaioii D-4 Full load transfer and runtime test Battery condition and maintenance check, including replacement if required Status monitoring functional test I-Net User Location Performance Testing -All network performance specifications shall be met at each I-Net user location, and the network shall at all times enable I-Net user video, voice and data communications to be successfully transmitted in accordance with the reliability and availability standards incorporated herein. Grantee shall schedule with each user such testing as required to ensure successful network performance at each I-Net user location. Physical Network Characteristics -The physical and electrical configuration of the I-Net will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Local requirements. Inspections of all cable runs and components will be made by Grantee during the I-Net construction process to ensure the integrity of the network and Grantee shall keep records thereof. Performance Documentation -All tests and checks will be documented and, upon request, filed with the City. At the City's request, all testing processes maybe conducted under the observation of a representative from the City. All network. performance standards herein relate to Grantee-supplied transmission and network, facilities, infrastructure, equipment and other components. • 384410/1 D-5 EXHIBIT E I-NET USER SITES [to include all schools and public buildings located within each member city] 3saaioii E-1 s f • nnnRF~~ CITY FACILITY 1. 6700 Portland Ave. City Hall 2. 7700 Pillsbury Ave. Central Garage 3. 6221 Portland Ave. Water Plant 4. 6401 Penn Ave. Fire Station #2 5. 6600 Cedar Ave. Liquor Store 6. 6444 Penn Ave. Liquor Store 7. 6444 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 8. 7700 Lyndale Ave. Liquor Store 9. 636 East 66th St. Ice Arena 10. 636 East 66th St. Garage 11.630 East 66th St. ~ Swimming Pool 12. 7000 Nicollet Ave. Community Center 13. 735 Lake Shore Drive Nature Center 14. 200 West 72nd Street Park Shelter 15. 6435-21st Ave. Park Shelter 16. 6710 Portland Ave. Park Shelter 17. 6300 1st Ave. Park Shelter 18..6244 Knox Ave. Park Shelter 19. 6700 Thomas Ave. Park Shelter 20. 428 East 77th St. Park Shelter 21.7500 Pleasant Ave. Concession Building 22. 7500 Pleasant Ave. Building 23. 6500 Upton Ave. Park Shelter 24.6900 Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 25. 7434 Humboldt Ave. Park Shelter 26. 7434 Humboldt Ave. Storage Building 27. 6145 Bloomington Ave. Park Shelter 28. 1710 East 63rd St. Park Shelter 29. 7200 Washburn Ave. Park Shelter 30. 6710 Irving Ave. Park Shelter 31.7434 Humboldt Ave. Park Shelter 32. 6335 Portland Ave Park Shelter & Warming House 33. 7445 Fremont Ave. Park Shelter 34. 7644 4th Ave. Park Shelter 35. 77th St. & Knox Ave. Lift Station 36. 63rd St. & Colfax Ave. Lift Station 37.69th St. & Humboldt Ave. Lift Station 38. 74th St.& 14th Ave. Lift Station 39. 62nd St. &Nicollet Ave. Well House #1 & #2 41.6225 Portland Ave. Well House #3 42. 64t St. & Portland Ave. Well House #4 43. 636 East 66th St. Well House #5 44. 66th St: & 11th Ave. Well House #6 45. 6428 Irving Ave. Storm Lift A 46. 6430 22nd Ave. Storm Lift B 47. 926 West 73rd St. Storm Lift C 48. 7313 Xerxes Ave. Storm Lift D. • AGENDA SECTION: ~~(,L:T l OI7S AGENDA ITEM # / , REPORT # ~S STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: KATHY FARRIS, HUMAN SERVICES PLANNER/COORDINATOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: KATHY FARRIS, HUMAN SERVICES PL,gNNER/000RDI NATOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: J. ---_ SIGNATURE • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving the 2001 Social Service Agency funding recommendations and authorizing the City Manager to execute agreements for service with those agencies funded by the City. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution providing funding of certain human service agencies in the recommended amounts for 2001. III. BACKGROUND I A review committee has been formed comprised. of the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC). This committee serves as the review and recommending group for City Social Service Funds. The following process was used in making funding recommendations: • • The RCHSPC established the following priority areas for funding consideration: 1) Services for frail elderly persons; 2) services for physically and/or mentally disabled persons; or 3) services for families and children at risk. • An announcement was made soliciting funding proposals for service in the Richfield Sun and the City of Richfield S & 1. Applications were mailed to prospective agencies. • The Grant Review Committee met on November. 20, 2000 to review proposals from the applicant agencies and make recommendations for funding. The Grant Review Committee recommends the $93,570 of City social service- funds be allocated to the following agencies in the amounts indicated for 2001: 2000 1999 Actual 2000 Actual Recommended The Storefront Group $61,900 $62,000 $45,670 Cornerstone 13,060 14,553 15,000 Senior Community Services 8,890 9,157 9.400 VEAP 4,000 5,000 5,000 YouthNet 1,000 1,000 1,000 Lutheran Social Services 1,000 0 - Charaka - - 7,500 Community of Nations Initiative - - 10,000 Total $89,850 $91,710 $93,570 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • All funding recommendations meet the priorities established for 2001 as indicated above. • Agencies recommended for funding have met review criteria in the areas of service need and program management. • Agencies recommended for funding have stated service outcomes and have established methods for evaluating service results. • Agencies recommended for funding are receptive to collaboration and several participate in FamiLink and the Richfield Community Council. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Services are to be provided in calendar year 2001. C. FINANCIAL • Recommendations are based on the unallocated portion ($93,570) of the 2001 Division 105: Other Agencies budget. A City Council/Administration 2001 allocation of $20,910 of this budget is designated for the Hennepin South Services Collaborative/Research, Planning and Coordination Division (formerly SHeRPA). D. LEGAL • Agencies awarded funding will be required to sign a service agreement. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council could reject the recommendations of the RCHSPC Review Committee and make their own decisions regarding social service funding. V. ATTACHMENTS • ~ Resolution • Descriptions of Proposed Services VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Camillo DeSantis, RCHSPC Chair • Connie McDonald, RCHSPC Member Ci • RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2001 SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICE WITH THOSE AGENCIES FUNDED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, a review committee has been formed comprised of the Richfield Community Human Services Planning Council (RCHSPC) members to serve as the review and recommending group for City Social Service Funds; and WHEREAS, this committee reviewed applications from human service agencies for City Social Service Funds. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Richfield that the funds be allocated as follows: Storefront/Youth Action $45,670 Cornerstone 15,000 Senior Community Services 9,400 VEAP 5,000 YouthNet 1,000 Charaka 7,500 Community of Nations Initiative. 10.000 Total $93,570 BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute contractual agreements with the above-named agencies summarizing services to be provided to Richfield residents. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED SERVICES 2001 Social Service Funding Charaka - $7,500 The Charaka Community Support Program enables people with disabilities to achieve greater social and economic independence. Funds will be targeted to help purchase a vehicle to provide transportation to persons with mental disabilities, thereby increasing their integration into the community and improving their quality of life. Community of Nations Initiative - $10,000 This project will address the significant challenges that immigrants face in securing basic needs by creating a coordinated, responsive system of community supports and opportunities for immigrant individuals and families. This project is based on a service modality successfully piloted by Family & Children's Service in Eden Prairie, and will be adapted to include all four South Hennepin communities. The. project will staff a multi- cultural team of bilingual liaisons who will directly assist immigrant families in accessing community resources and work with local community institutions to respond more effectively to the needs of new immigrants. Cornerstone - $15,000 Cornerstone's mission is to prevent domestic abuse. This is done by supporting children and adults to live violence-free lives by offering the following services: 1) residential services: Emergency Services and Transitional Housing; 2) communitL services: Criminal Justice Intervention, Family Court Services, Juvenile Justice Intervention, Support - Services for Adults, Support Services for Youth; and 3) prevention and education services: Preventing Abuse and Violence through Education, Community Education, Volunteer Opportunities. Senior Community Services/Senior Outreach Program - $ 9,400 The Senior Outreach Program provides in-home counseling and case management to frail elders and their families to assist older people in remaining independent as long as possible. Staff persons meet with older adults in their own homes to assess their strengths and needs, identify and arrange for the most appropriate and cost-effective combination of services, provide supportive individual and/or group counseling to them and their families, monitor the services .received, and reassess needs. Storefront Group - $45,670 The Storefront Group programs provide counseling and support to families and children who are exhibiting risk behaviors or are experiencing life stresses that put them at risk. All services are strength-based, working to enhance family strengths while reducing or eliminating self-defeating behaviors and other barriers to success. The goals of service are to keep young people in their homes, schools and community and to increase positive pro-social behaviors while reducing or eliminating risk and self-defeating behaviors for both the youth and their families. Volunteers Enlisted to Assist People - $ 5,000 VEAP assists individuals who cannot financially, physically or emotionally provide for their own well being. VEAP's four main programs, Food Program, Transportation Program, Personal Support Program and Seasonal Programs, provide basic services that respond to the needs of hunger, poverty, disability, isolation and the ongoing effects of these conditions. YouthNet - $1,000 YouthNet is made up of volunteers from a "net" of organizations supporting and facilitating youth programs. Its purpose is to assist "at-risk" youth living in Richfield to become aware of and involved in safe places and structured activities sponsored by Richfield community organizations. Focus is primarily on youth living in Richfield apartment complexes and youth not currently involved in existing. programs. • AGENDA SECTION: ~e.~v ~C@v~_ ~C, AGENDA ITEM # ~Q REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING .TANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: RICHARD REGNIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL DAN SCOTT,. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: I, Consideration of a resolution amending established 2001 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to provisions of Appendix D of the City Ordinance Code, to be effective as of 'February 1, 2001. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution amending established 2001 license, permit and miscellaneous fees pursuant to the provisions of Appendix D of the City Ordinance Code, to be effective as of February 1, 2001. II. BACKGROUND As part of the budget adoption process each year, a resolution that incorporates license and permit fees for the coming budget year is adopted as part of the budget. During the course of the 2001 budget process, license and permit fee increases for building permits were inadvertently left at the year 2000 rates. The proposed increases for those categories of permits for year 2001 rates did not arrive in the Finance Division until after the adoption of the budget. Thus, there is a need to amend the resolution containing license and permit fees for 2001 to include the 0108LicensePermitFees fee increases for building permits. The proposed fees are within the average charged by other municipalities for the same permits. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • License and permit fee increases for building permit fees, were inadvertently omitted. • The information is now available and should be considered in establishing fees, which will recover the City's costs in making such inspections. • There is still ample time to amend the resolution and establish an appropriate 2001 fee schedule for these licenses and permits. • It is necessary for the City to recover all of its costs of inspections for each category of licenses and permits, especially in light of the: increase in the contract for plumbing and mechanical inspections with the City of Bloomington. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • See attached fee schedule. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The City Council could decide not to adopt the amended resolution, which would leave the 2000 rates in effect. However, the City would not recover the cost of inspections. V. ATTACHMENTS. • Resolution listing proposed building permit fees. • Listing of current building permit fees. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION 8891 ENTITLED "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2001 LICENSE, PERMIT AND MISCELLANEIOUS FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPENDIX D OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8836" BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: Section 2, paragraph 1 be amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION FEE OR LICENSE REQUIItING TOTAL VALUATION SCHEDULE (1) Building Permits 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $23.50 $501 to $2,000 $23.50 for the first $500 plus $3.05 each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000. • $2,001 to $25,000 $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000,or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000. $25,001 to $50,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000. $50,001 to $100,000 $643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to-and including $100,000. $100,001 to $500,000 $993.75 for the first. $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000. $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000. • 1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof. ' (a) Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge -two hours) $47.00 per hour (b) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8 $47.00 per hour (c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge -- one-half hour) $47.00 per hour (d) Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revision to plans. $47.00 per hour (minimum charge -two hours) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 2001. ATTEST: Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk CJ ATTACHMENT: 0108LicensePermitFees CURRENT BUILDING PERMIT FEES Richfield City Code Appendix D (current building permit fees) SECTION 2. CONSTRUCTION AND RELATED PERMIT FEES AND CHARGES TYPE OF PERMIT SECTION OR LICENSE REQUIRING TOTAL VALUATION FEE SCHEDULE (1) Building Permits 400.03-400.09 $1 to $500 $21.00 $501 to $2,000 $21.00 for the first $500 plus $2.75 each additional $100, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000. $2,001 to $25,000 $62.25 for the first $2,000 plus $12.50 for each additional $1,000,or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000. $25,001 to $50,000 ~ $349.75 for the first $25,000 plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000. • $50,001 to $100,000 $574.75 for the first $50,000 plus $6.25 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000. $100,001 to $500,000 $887.25for the first $100,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000. $500,001 to $1,000,000 $2,887.25 for the first $500,000 plus $4.25 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000. 1,000,001 and up $5,015.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus $2.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof. (a) Inspections outside of normal business hours $42.00 per hour (minimum charge -two hours) (b) Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.8 $42.00 per hour (c) Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge --one-half hour) $42.00 per hour (d) Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revision to plans.(minimum charge -- two hours) $42.00 per hour r 1 AGENDA SECTION: ~,h11G ~~o-I~GS' AGENDA ITEM # 9 REPORT # ~ 3 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL. MEETING JANUARY 8, 200.1 REPORT PREPARED BY: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: JIM TOPITZHOFER, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR NAn~, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ; l~~ / ~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an amendment to Section 1200 of the City Code allowing for the sale and consumption of liquor at the Richfield Community Center. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close public hearing and by motion: approve the attached 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. III. BACKGROUND ~ In an effort to expand rental potential of the Richfield Community Center, 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. By permitting a licensed on-sale liquor provider to serve liquor at the Center, staff could effectively market the facility to a new base of users, including wedding, birthday and anniversary parties and other receptions. i III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION 0108 liquor A. POLICY • On-sale liquor providers in Richfield and adjacent cities would apply for a Public Premises On-Sale Liquor Permit. Upon receipt of the permit application, staff will investigate license, dram insurance, and past violations. The permit would not be granted if the licensee committed a violation in the past six months. • Customers would then contract directly with one of the licensed on- sale providers. • Depending on the size of an event, a police officer would be required to supervise. • On-sale liquor providers would pay an annual application fee, as well as a per-event fee. This fee structure will be included in an amendment to the City License, Permit and Miscellaneous Fee Resolution at a later date. For Richfield on-sale liquor providers, the application fee will be approximately $100 and the per-event fee will be approximately $15. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • At the November 27 City Council meeting, a first reading of the ordinance amendment was held. • At their November meeting, the Community Services Commission voted unanimously to recommend- approval of the ordinance amendment. • Staff has also discussed the amendment with the Advisory Board of Health. C. FINANCIAL • Making liquor available to rental groups at the Community Center will greatly stimulate rental of the facility and generate new revenue streams for the Community Center. • Licensed on-sale liquor providers would be charged an annual permit fee and aper-event fee. D. LEGAL • This policy is structured to protect the City by requiring liquor to be served by trained and licensed providers who have given proof of adequate dram insurance and supervision by a police officer for larger events. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not conduct the public hearing/second reading of the ordinance revision. • Do not approve the ordinance revision. V. ATTACHMENTS Amendment to Section 1200 of the Citv Code. ~ VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING ~ ne n L~ 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 application 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. fib) 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 municipality 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 0108 liquor issued by the city or by an adjacent. municipality. If the applicant'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 aper- event fee at least:24 hours prior to the event. The per-event fee is fixed in aependix 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; special conditions. Whenever the city council determines that a specific evenf for which the- licensee will be providing on-sale intoxicating requires special or unique, conditions, the city council may impose 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 8th day of January, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • • AGENDA SECTION: ~,~'jC.~G~Y'j/1Cj$ AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # ~ a, STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CxRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME; TITLE i~1~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~_ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNT-EpNSIDERATION: Consideration of disciplinary hearing regarding civil enforcement for Chi Chi's in Richfield that recently underwent an alcohol compliance check, conducted by Public Safety staff, and failed by sellina alcohol to underage youth. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a disciplinary hearing and By Motion: Approve the resolution suspending the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante, 7717 Nicollet Avenue, for 10 consecutive days and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $1,760 for their third violation failing an alcohol compliance check, conducted by Public IIL BACKGROUND ~ On August 7 and 8, 2000, Richfield Public Safety staff conducted alcohol compliance checks at all of Richfield's alcohol establishments, assisted by five • underage youths between 15-20 years of age. These compliance checks, were the second round of checks conducted in the year 2000. On August 7 and 8, 2000, the police division made arrangements for the minors to enter the establishments with undercover police officers. In six instances, the youths were successful in being served alcohol. Five of the six businesses admitted to the violation before the City Council on September 25, 2000 and agreed to pay the predetermined fine and have their license to sell alcohol suspended for the appropriate number of days. The sixth business, Chi Chi's, chose to request a contested case hearing before an independent hearing examiner. The purpose of requesting the contested case hearing was not to challenge the violation itself, but rather to seek resolution. They had indicated that they wanted to meet with staff to discuss their on-going efforts in dealing with the illegal sale of alcohol and for general discussion with staff concerning the violation. A contested case hearing was scheduled for Monday, December 11, 2000. This is a third offense for Chi Chi's. They have previously been fined $500 and received atwo-day suspension of their license for the first offense which occurred in March of .1999. They were also previously fined $1500 and received afive-day suspension of their license for the second offense which occurred in July 1999. At no time did any of the minors consume any of the alcohol. The youth presented their personal valid ID's and at no time attempted to convince anyone that they were of legal age. Establishments were visited at a variety of times, busy and not busy, in an effort to determine if busy times produced more successful buys: It doesn't appear to have made a difference at either time. After each attempt, successful or unsuccessful, the officers identified themselves to the clerk and issued them a citation if they failed. If the underage youth were unsuccessful in securing alcohol, the clerk was congratulated by officers for doing a good job. The employee that sold alcohol will be charged criminally in court. The action being taken today is for civil enforcement and penalties against the businesses that hold a license to sell alcohol within the City. Chi Chi's eventually requested a meeting with Public Safety Director Scott and licensing manager Betsy Christensen on November 7, 2000, which was attended by an attorney representing Chi Chi's, and Chi Chi's Divisional Vice President, Bill Zavertnik. Jim Strommen of Kennedy and Graven was also present representing the City of Richfield. Chi Chi's' purpose in requesting the meeting was to review the efforts they have made to ensure that they don't continue to have problems. They also asked that staff consider either recommending to the City Council that this. not be a third violation for them but rather consider it to be a second violation. They asked that if staff wasn't comfortable making this recommendation that they at least hoped staff would not be opposed to Chi Chi's' request to the Council to consider it a second violation. They believe that they are doing everything possible to avoid i the sale of alcohol to underage youth but are being penalized because of an employee's carelessness. They intend to admit to the violation but are looking for special consideration on deeming this a second violation versus a third violation. They believe that because they have made this effort, it should be considered as a second violation rather than a third. As a result of Chi Chi's admitting to the violation, the contested case hearing scheduled for December 11, 2000 was cancelled. At an April 5, 1999 study session with the City Council, staff was directed to update Resolution 8808, which specifies certain improper conduct of alcohol license holders, and delineates the progressive discipline that. can be expected when violations occur. In the past, this resolution has not included progressive discipline regarding the sale of alcohol to minors.. This is the resolution that is referenced each year at the time that alcohol licenses are renewed. This resolution was updated a second time at a December 13, 1999 Council. meeting and included. some minor changes in language and fine structures. The fine being recommended at this time is intended to recover 100% of the costs for conducting the compliance checks-and to penalize the businesses punitively. Compliance checks will continue to occur during. 2001 of the rate of at least two to three. a year. Any establishments found guilty of selling again on a second; third or fourth check would receive progressive discipline in the way of license suspension and fines as outlined in a revised version of Resolution 8808. Public Safety staff is also recommending that 15% of the punitive fines be designated for future alcohol and tobacco education efforts within the community. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • It is a violation of Minnesota State Statute and City ordinance to sell alcohol to underage youth. • Staff recommends that the City Council suspend Chi Chi's license to sell alcohol for 10 consecutive days and to levy a fine against the establishment in the amount of $1,750 for their third violation. Staff is also proposing. that the Public Safety Director will select the ten consecutive days their license will be suspended. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Civil enforcement penalties taken in the past by the City Council against several establishments have been severe. This was done to send a message to the establishments and. the community that the Council will not tolerate this type of violation continuing in the community and that Richfield youth and their well-being are highly valued. • Citizen representatives of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health support severe actions against establishments in an effort to protect the youth of the community and to send a message that. youth and their well-being are a high priority in this City. C. FINANCIAL • All costs of conducting compliance checks will be reimbursed through the fines that are levied against an establishment for failing an alcohol compliance check. • Furthermore, 15% of the punitive fines are designated for future alcohol and tobacco educational efforts within the community. D. LEGAL N!A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to take no action against the establishment for the sale of alcohol to a minor, which would result in no disciplinary actions against the establishment. This would result, however, in sending a message to the community that children and their well being are not a priority in Richfield.' • .The Council may consider taking more or less severe action against the establishment that sold alcohol to an underage youth; however, that would deviate from the guidelines set for progressive discipline in Resolution No. 8808. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution 8808, which delineates the progressive discipline that a business can expect, will be taken when any of the noted prohibited conduct takes place. • Letter from Attorney William C. Griffith, Jr. (atty. For Chi Chi's). • Copy of Chi Chi's Alcohol Awareness Program. • Resolution imposing civil enforcement on Chi Chi's. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Representatives from Chi Chi's can be expected to attend the meeting as they were notified in writing of the need for someone to be present. Attachment: 0108ChiChi'sThird Vio@ation ~iT~` ~1i= i~@CHF@t='`~ I~ESQ~~T@~J@~ t~l®. 8~E38 RESOLlPTI~~! SPEC9i=~'IP~~ C_RT~@t'~ @61~PROPER C®P~~tl~T ®~ ~6~~S~~B @@~T~~@CATIN~ L@Qt.1~R, ~@r~E A~IQ 3.2 fN~l_T ~@Q@!4R ~@CER@SEBS A6~d STAT@@V~ REC©~~I@B~l3E~ ~@SC@PLI~lE RBPLA~I~4~ RBS~Ll~T@®~ l~~. 8714 Bc @T RES~~VE@~ by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: @. B~C@~e~R®E1N® STATE6V@E~1T The City of Richfield annually issues a number of licenses permitting the sale of on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor within the City. The conduct of the licensed activity is governed by the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code: Although, the provisions of that Section describe in a general way what is expected ofilicensees in the proper conduct of the licensed activity, the City Council is concerned that licensees should have a more specific understanding of the types of conduct, generally described in the Code, which ...ay subject their licenses to discipline; and further that they have a clear understanding of the .scope and nature of the discipline which may be imposed for certain specific conduct. The, levels of discipline described in this resolution will be imposed only in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. - he list of activities and conduct contained in this resolution is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the types of conduct most frequently observed at licensed establ:Shments. ~±her aCtiti'~}/ n. co,:dLC~ wh,'vl-I a detrimental to Tno p~~niir, v u ~ ~ u ~..+~ v safety, health, morals and welfare and which constitutes a violation of the provisions of Section 1200 of the City Code may also subject liquor licenses to discipline. The actions, which the City may take in accordance with this resolution, are not intended to preclude such further actions such as actions in law or in equity or criminal prosecution available to the City for the conduct described in this resolution. !@. SPEC.1~=@C Pia!-9@B@TBI~ Ct~~D~IC T FaR~a P@~JPf~Sc~ S~@,9C' T @Of~S. A. Noise and ~3ther ~3ista~~hing Conduct VU`ithin or 6~ear the ~ice~sed Pres~ises. Licensees are responsible for the conduct of their patrons while within the licensed establishment; and of individuals within the immediate vicinity of the establishment wham are either coming to or leaving the establishment. The City is unwilling to permit the COntlnued operation Of a IICenSed aiCOhol establishment in CirCUrilStanCBS vvhere It Is eVldent that the licensed aCtlVliy IS haVing a detrimental Impact upon the health, welfare; safety and morals of the community and patrons of th.e establishment. The following discipline .may be imposed.upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports of criminal misconduct occurring on or near the licensed premises and attributable to patrons of the establishment (including persons dntering or leaving): 1) For five (5) such incidents occurring within less than a 31-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such five incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 2) For ten (10) such incidents occurring within less than a 61-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents) -suspension of the license for up to 30 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. 3) For fifteen (15) such incidents occurring within any 91-day period (beginning with the date of the first of such incidents).- suspension of the license for up to 60 days and a civil fine of $2,000 for each incident. The discipline outlined above is intended to be cumulative in nature, and incidents which give rise to discipline (or the right to discipline) during a shorter period may be counted in determining whether discipline is appropriate during a longer period. The term "verified reports of criminal misconduct" means a report made to the Director of Public Safety by the licensee or a complaint made by others concerning an incident constituting a crime under the City Code of the laws of the State of Minnesota, which, in the opinion of the Director, is directly attributable to the licensed activity. Verified reports of criminal misconduct do not of necessity mean requests for service, and licensees shall not be required to make requests for services ih situations where the licensee is capable of resolving the incident without police assistance. However, it is necessary for the City to have an accurate measure of the level of criminal ~iiiiSCoiid'uct. TI ie Depaiiiii~ent Of ~ ublic Safety si ~aii establish standards and criteria for the making of such reports by the licensee. If the licensee faiiv~ to make the required reports of criminal misconduct in accordance with such standards and criteria, the following additional discipline may be imposed upon its on-sale. intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license: 1). For the first incident of failure to report criminal misconduct within any license year -suspension of license for up to five. days and a civil fine of $2,000. ~2) For the second such incident in any license year- suspension of license for up to 10 days and a civil fine of $2,000. 3) For the third such incident in any license year -suspension of license for up to 15 days and a civil fine of $2,000. B. Serving l~Icoholic Beverages Beyond the Interior of the Licensed Premises or Permitting Patrons to Leave such Licensed Premises with Aicoiiolic Beverages. .r Licensees must assure that the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined only to those areas permitted by the license. Failure to do so may have an evident and adverse impact upon other activities lawfully occurring within the area and creates a substantial risk of criminal behavior such as violation of the Open Bottle Law. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses: 1) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 2) The second incident during the license year-- up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth incident during the license year -.revocation of license. C. Permitting Occupancy t® Exceed the Limits Permitted Under~the Uniform Fire Code 25.114 (overcrowding) Licensees are absolutely bound to prevent situations in which the licensed premises .become overcrowded. The City finds that the opportunity to serve alcoholic beverages contributes to an environment wherein overcrowding, if not strictly controlled by the licensee, may occur. Each liquor license issued shaft state the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premises. The following discipline may be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for incidents of overcrowding verified by the City's Public Safety Director or their designee: 1) The first incident during the license year - up to a 10-day license suspension and $2,vvv Civil fine. 2) The second incident during the iicense year - up to a 30-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 3) The third incident during the license year - up to a 60-day suspension and $2,000 civil fine. 4) The fourth or subsequent incident during the license year -revocation of the license. D. Facilitating Gambling. Licensees must not permit or allow any condition to occur on the licensed premises, which would facilitate gambling activity. Licensees may not permit any device on the licensed premises, which could be used, for gambling. Such devices include blackjack tables, video games of chance, roulette wheels and any other amusement or gambling device as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 349 and 609, and Richfield City code Subsections 1100.13 and 1100.01. For any incident of facilitation of gambling, the on-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor license may be suspended for. up to a period of days equal in number to the period of days that such incident continued. r E. Effect of Suspension or Revocation of Food License. On-sale intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses which are issued to establishments because they qualify as restaurants shall cease to be valid for any period of time during which the establishment's food license is under suspension or revocation as the result of actions taken by the City Manager, enforcement officer or both pursuant to Subsection 615.05, subdivision 6 of the City Code. The on-sale sale of intoxicating liquor, wine or 3.2 malt liquor during such period shall constitute an unlicensed sale. F. The Sale, Consumption or Service to a Minor of Intoxicating Liquor, 1nline or 3.2 Malt Liquor. Licensees must assure that the sale, consumption or service to a minor of any alcoholic beverage is prohibited under any condition. Failure to do so will result in swift and severe progressive civil penalties. The following discipline will be imposed upon on-sale intoxicating, wine or 3.2 malt liquor licenses for verified reports or compliance checks of misconduct occurring at the establishment: 1) For a first offense, the establishment's license will be suspended for 2 days and a civil fine of $500 will be due and payable to the City. 2) For a second offense, (if within 2 years of the 1st offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for 5 days and a civil fine of $1500 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of 2 years of a 1st offense, it vviii be Ci~i Sidered a firStuffeiiSe. 3) For a third offense, (if within 3 years of the 2nd offense), the establishment's license will be suspended for 10 days and a civil fine of $1750 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of three years of a second offense, it will be considered a 2nd offense. 4) For a fourth offense, (if within 4 years of the 3rd offense), the establishment's license will be revoked and a civil fine of $2000 will be due and payable to the City. If the offense occurs outside of four years of a third offense, it will be considered a 3rd offense. G. General provisions regarding sanctians. In addition to the sanctions listed for specific offenses listed in paragraphs A through F above, the City Council may impose other mandatory requirements upon the establishment such as: meetings with the Public Safety Director to present a plan of action to .assure that the problem will riot continue; mandatory educational sessions with Crime Prevention staff; or other actions that the City Council deems appropriate. The City Council retains the right to modify the provisions of this resolution from time to time and to impose penalties greater than or less than those contained herein when in ATTACHMENT: 0108ChiChi!aTtiirdViolation ~~• ~~(~~~ ROBERT L. HOFFMAN FRIEDELL I:ARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, I,TD. GERALD H ANDREW F. PERRIN ' . EDWARD J. DRISCOLL GENE N. FULLER ATTORNEYS A T LAW - FREDERICK W. NIEBUHR '~ ~~ RENEE L. JACKSON WILLIAM G THORNTON JOHN D. FULLMER - - . n CHRISTOPHER K. LARUS FRANK I. HARVEY DOUGLAS M. RAMLER - CHR STOPIiERDDIETZEN 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA STEPHEN JVEKAMINSKI ~ LINDA H. FISHER THOMAS P. S70LTMAN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH THOMAS F. ALEXANDER DANIEL T. KADLEC MICHAEL C. JACKMAN SHARNA A. WAHLGREN JOHN E: DIEHL BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 ~ JGHN F. KLOS JON S. SWIERZEWSKt ADAM 5. HUHTA' 7HDMASJ. FLYNN TELEPHONE (952) 835-3800 NICHOLASA,J. VLIETSTRA JAMES P. OUINN GERA SECK~ ~ FAX (952) 896-3333 C. ERIK HAW ES JAMES M. susAc LD L. JOHN B. LUNDOUIST DANIEL J. BALLIN7INE JOHN A, MACK DAVLE NOLAN• JEFFREY D. CAHILL JOHN0. COTTER' SEAN D. KELLY PAUL B. PLUNKETT SONYA R. BRAUNSCHWEIG ALAN L. KILDOW JOSEPH J. FIT7ANTE, JR. KATHLEEN M. PIC077E NEWMAN JONATHAN J, FOGEL MICHAEL B. LEBARON CYNTHIA M. KLAUS GREGORY E. KORSTAD MARK D. CHRIS70PHERSON GARY 0. VAN CLEVE' NEAL J, BLANCHETi TIMOTHY J. KEANE TAMARA O'NEILL MORELAND ALAN M, ANDERSON JAMES A, MCGREEW, BI MICHAEL W. SCHLEY THOMAS A. GUMP' RONN B, KREPS TODD A. TAYLOR TERRENCE E. BISHOP CHRISTOPHER J. DEIKE GARY A. RENNEKE MARLA M. TACK CHRISTOPHERJ. HARRISTHAL ~ DIONNE M. BENSON KENDEL J. OHLROGGE JEREMY C. STIER BRUCE J. DOUGLAS WILLAM O GRIFFITH, JR. OF COUNSEL JOHN R. HILL JAMES P. LARKIN' PETER J. COYLE - JACK F. DALY LARRY D. MARTIN D. KENNETH LRIDGREN JANE E. BREMER - ALLAN E. MULLIGAN JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN JOSEPH GITIS MICHAEL J. SMITH ' ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN November 20, 2000 CIA MESSENGER Mayor Martin Kirsch Cotmcil Member Susan Rosenberg City of Richfield City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue S. 6700 Portland Avenue S. Richfield Minnesota 55423-2560 Richfield Minnesota 55423-2 560 , , Council Member Sue Sandahl .Council Member Kristal Stokes City of Richfield ~ City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue S. 6700 Portland Avenue S. R icl:field Mina esota Ss423-2550 R chfield P ~ir i esota 55423-25x0 . , < , ~ , ~ Council Member Russ Susag City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue S. Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2560 Re: Chi-Chi's Restaurant, Richfield, Minnesota Our File #21,878-01 Dear Mayor and City Cotuicil: This letter is written on behalf of Chi-Chi's, Inc., dba Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurant in the City of Richfield'(the Licensee). This letter is the Licensee's statement and request in light of the City's allegation of a liquor license violation at the above location. We have met with the City Attoniey, Public Safety Director and License Administrator to discuss and resolve this matter. At that meeting, we proposed that the violation be admitted, and requested that the City treat the violation as a second offense in light of the significant programs Chi-Chi's has put in place in response to earlier violations. Further, in ' response to our meeting with Staff, Chi-Chi's has committed to undertaking two additional programs (described in this letter) to again raise the level of compliance with City licensing requirements. LARKrN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Martin Kirsch November 20, 2000 Page 2 At the outset, I must assure you of management's resolve to eliminate violations and the seriousness with which they treat such violations. Mana~elnezzt has a policy ofzero tolerazzce for serving minors; employees are terminated immediately upon such violations. This letter contains background information, a description of programs and policies established to prevent such violations, and the basis for our request. Background Prior to the first violation, Chi-Chi's management conducted an initial training program for alcohol awareness, which includes an alcoholic beverage statement acknowledging the key elements of the program as contained in the enclosed manual (see attached). In addition, servers view a training video tape and are reminded, constantly, of their obligation to request a photo ID with proper age verification. Regular publications, such as "Traiiung Times" continually highlight the management's Alcohol Awareness Program to employees. Product specification cards also include the following statement regarding the strict policy of checking ID's: • Check ID's of anyone who appears 30 years of age or younger. • Never assume the guest has been carded by a previous server. • Only accept a driver's license, passport, State issued ID, or military ID (the ID checking guide should be used when presented with an out of State, or otherwise unfamiliar ID). • Make it clear this is the law and no exceptions will be made. Finally, the Alcohol Awareness Program requires that all servers wear a "We ID" button (copy enclosed). Following the first violation, Chi-Chi's management undertook specific changes at its Richfield location to prevent similar violations. Security personnel were lured to monitor the Cantina. Wrist bands were required in the Cantina by all patrons. Management worked with the Richfield Department of Public Safety to undertake additional trainng of all servers and purchased "The identifier" age verification system to eliminate human error in verifying the age of patrons. Following the second violation, Chi-Chi's management adopted a policy of requiring an ID of every patron, without regard for the patron's apparent age. Tlus has met with some resistance from patrons who are clearly seniors. However, given managernent's concern, every patron is required to show an ID verifying age. Six additional electronic age verification machines were purchased for the dining room so that every table is a few feet away from electronic verification: Finally, every pre-meal meeting includes a reminder that Chi-Chi's, Inc. has a strict ID verification program. Facts Re ag rding the Violation On Tuesday, August 8, 2000, at approximately 5:15 p.m. a Chi-Chi's food server explained Chi-Chi's policy to two plain clothes officers from the City of Richfield and a minor person in their company. He LAxxrN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Martin Kirsch November 20, 2000 Page 3 requested to see the ID's of all three. He checked the ID's of each of the members of the party but failed to run the ID's through the electronic ID verifier as required by restaurant policy. The Manager asked the server for an explanation since the Manager had just had apre-meal meeting in which they discussed the ID checking procedures. The server explained that since he had carefully explained the ID policy to the patrons, he assumed they would not hand him an invalid ID. The server's employment was immediately terminated by management. Following the third violation, we requested a contested case hearing for the purpose of allowing our office the opporhuuty to review the allegations, and to allow us to meet with staff to develop a response. The purpose of requesting the contested case hearing was not to challenge the violation itself, but rather to seek resolution. Since our meeting of November 7, 2000, Chi-Chi's management has reviewed two new programs recommended by Ms. Christensen: • Richfield managers will establish an incentive program by January 2001 in which all employees receive monetary incentives for consistent ID checking practices; and • Chi-Chi's guest quality program will include review of ID verification by anonymous patrons at least every two weeks. Chi-Chi's management is obviously frustrated that violations have continued after significant investment in new procedures and policies. While 100% compliance is the goal of both the City and the Licensee, it is clear that this may not be attainable in practice. We are concerned that this restaurant, or others, may simply be put out of business as a result of strict compliance. Accordingly, we request that the City treat this violation as a second offense in light of possible license revocation. Our reasons are as follows: 1. Even before the first violation, Clu-Chi's management practiced a consistent and coordinated Alcohol Awareness Program. 2. At each instance, Chi-Chi's management has met with City licensing personnel, and improved and increased its practices and policies aimed at preventing future violations. The City's goal of 100% compliance, while laudable, is most likely impossible. 4. The City's penalty of license revocation, which appears to be mandatory under its policy, is a severe penalty in light of management's efforts to eliminate violations. Based upon the factual background contained in this letter, we request the City treat this violation as a second offense for the purposes of license revocation; Chi-Chi's, Inc. will submit to ten days license suspension and a civil fine of $1,750, as required for a third offense. We will be prepared to address the City Council on this matter at its meeting of November 27, 2000. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request. • LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Martin Kirsch November 20, 2000 Page 4 s ~~ ~. Griffith, Jr., for HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Enclosures cc: Dan Scott, Public Safety Director, City of Richfield Betsy Christensen, Licensing Director, City of Richfield Bill Zavertnik, Divisional Vice President, Chi-Chi's Rochelle .Michel, Regional Manager, Chi-Chi's ::ODMA\PCDOCS\LIB 1\633046\1 • J • • Desc Tecate • Golden lagerbeer didonallywith ft and a time wedge Dos Equis Amber • The first dark Mexican beer introduced in the United States; brewed with European malt • Amberwlored lager beer • sweet,maity flavor, dry finish Dos Equis Lager I, • light golden lager beer • Medium-bodied flavor Corona • tight golden lager beer • Frill-flavored, but tight tasting Negra Modelo • Rich tasting. mellow darkale Qt has a higher almhol96 than beelj • :riptions... ~ • 11800 Reposado Rested in rrertch oak barrels for W to one year Pravides a smooth, brandy- like sweetness with a tingling aftertaste 1800 Anejo • Double distilled, aged for at leastoneyearin Frend~ oak barrels peep amber hue, complex oaky character and Cognac-, like flavor Santa Conmemorrtrro • Extended aging in the finest ,oakbarreLs • Subtle golden color, smooth taste and tezuue Sauna Tres Generaeiones Aged in oakbarreLs fora[ leasithreeyears • Anejo tequila with a ridvress . and smoothness to be sipped orsavored like a fine cognac Herradora Reposada • 10045 Agave • Aged in oakbarrels for eleven months • Siikysmooth feel, delicate floral aroma and seamy oak finish 'i EI Tesoro Anejo • Hand~aaRed • Golden straw in color Smells powerftil, but with a fruity balance and has the flavor of vanilla and agave Margarita Recipes ~.ia3Si~ GP&rilie =rinX7m::riS iO ea_ 16.715 oz. 21 oz Original T 6c 3.75 fl. oz. 15.25 fl. oz. I 75 fl. oz. Ic 5.5 oz. 9 oz. f 2 oi. Garnish ----------salted rim, lime wedge--------- Fruit Flavors T & 3 fl. oz. I 45 fl. oz. I 6 fl. oz. Pure 2 fl. oz. 4 fl. oz. 45 fl. oz. Ic 5 oz. 8 oz. 1 t oz. Garnish -------------sugared rim--------------••-- On The Rocks Rocks M• 4.75 fl. oz. 7 fl. oz. t 0 fl. oz. Ic fill glass I fill glass fill glass Garnish -------salted rim, lime wedge-.-------- Top Shelf: Gold Gold BuIkM 6.25 fl. oz. lc fill shaker/fill glass Garnish GIASS: salted rim, lime wedge SHAI~R: lime wedge Top She1f:1800 1800 Bu1kM 6.25 fl. oZ. Ic fill shaker/fill glass Gamis GL45S: salted rim, lime wedge SHAM ilme wedge . Margarita recipes differ in New York ` restaurants. ~raws are served only upon request • All beverage recipes can be found in the Bartender Guide. • Top Shelf Margaritas (Gold and1800) are served in an acrylic shaker. Brands Your Restaurant Carries Vodka Rum Tequla Gin Bourbon. Whiskey SCntCh Wines Imported Beer (bottled) Domestic Beer (bottled) Draft Beer Specialties Ser-1~ed ~^. a 15 oz. Cyclone Glass a.^.d gamished with a tall straw, and aChi-Chfs stir stick Strawberry Daiquiri 2 fl. oz. Sour Mor - 4 fl. oz. Puree 1.25 Fl. oz. Rum 6 oz. lce Las Brisas 3 fl. oz. Colada Mbc 3 fl. oz. Orange Juice 1.25 fl. oz. Rum 6 oz. Ice Coladas 6 fl, oz. Colada Mix 6 oz. Ice 1/2Sfl,oz'Alcohol -- 'Pins Colada=Rum 'Pepe Colada=Tequila 'Chi-Chi Colada Vodka Cabo coolers (Non A1coh®lic) Served in a 14 oz. Mixing Glass and gamished with a Mexican hat slaw Colada Las Brisas 8 fl. oz. Colada Ma 4 fl. oz. Colada Ma 7 oz. Ice ~ 4 fl. oz. OrangeJuice 7 oz. ice Margarita 4'fl: oz. Non Alcoholic: Strawberry Margarita Puree 4 fl. oz. Puree 2 fl. oz. Sour Mbc . 2 fl. oz. Sour MIX Z fl. oz. Sprite 2 fl. oz. Sprite 7 oZ. Ice 7 oz. Ice . © July 2000, Chi-Chi s, inc. Checking I.D: s . Check I.D's of anyone who appears 30 years of age oryounger. • Never assume the guest has been carded by a previous server. . only accept a driver's license, passport, state issued I.D, or military I-D. (fhe I.D. Checking Guide should be used when presented with an out of state, or otherwise unfam0iar I.D.) . Make it clear this is the law and no exceptions will be made. If 1 am 21 years old, 1 was born on or before Bulk Recipes ~'-'~-~~ ..e a.vaua nnx i°avv v'siGn n7in 3 cans Coco Lopez 25 fl. oz. Cuervo 1800 2cansPineappleJuice Tequila Yield = 1 gallon 10 fl. oz. Grand Mamier Shelf Life = 4 days 30 fl. oz Sweet & Sour Concentrate Santiba Sweet & 60 fl. oz. Water Sour Mix Yield =125 Fl. oz. (almost 1 gallon) 1 quart Sweet 6c Sour 'Concentrate 3 quarts Water Yield = i gallon Shelf Life = 7 days Sangria Mix 1 quart and 19 fl. oz. Burgundy 1 quartand 19 fl. oz. Water 12 oz. Crystal Sangria MQ Yeld = t gallon Shelf Life = 7 days Orange Juice i2 oz. can Orange Juice Concentrate 36 oz. (3 cans) Water Yield = 48 oz. Shelf Life = 4 days Gold Bulk Mix 25 fl. oz. Cuervo Gold Tequila 10 fl. oz. Cointreau 30 fl. oz. Sweet & Sour Concentrate 60 fl. oz. Water Yeild =125 fl. oz. (almost 1 gallon) On the hocks Mix 26 fl. oz- 92.4 proof T&T 23 fl. oz-Sweet 6c Sour concentrate 2 quarts and t6 fl. oz. water Yield =1 gallon SPEC CARD ... atachment RES?A~AIYTE STATEMENT FOR SERVERS, FOOD SERVERS AND COCKTAIL SERVERS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES To enforce our obligation to the public and to protect our license to serve liquor, Chi-Chi's wants to make absolutely certain that its bartenders, food servers and, cocktail servers do not illegally furnish intoxicating beverages to customers. The definition of.the term "illegally furnishing intoxicating beverages to customers" includes: A. The serving of customers under the legal state age limit-- even if accompanied by parents or other persons of legal drinking age. B. The serving of customers of questionable age withoutrequesting aphoto ID with proper age verification. C, The serving of customers possessing false identification or questionable age identification. D. The serving of customers entering our establishment whd appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. . E. The continued serving of customers approaching intoxication while on our premises. P, The sen,.ing of alcoholic ne~erages t9 customers desiring to take the alcohol off the .restaurant premises.- G. Knowingly permitting illicit activities to occur on premises, e.g., the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages by other than authorized employees, the sale or use of any form of drugs or the act or solicitation of prostitution or gambling or related activities. When confronted with any of the above circumstances, do not serve the customer alcoholic beverages, and in the case of item "G" immediately notify the manager on duty. When necessary, the manager should contact the local police, I have read and understand the definitions and procedures set out above, and have discussed them with my manager. EMPLOYEE: i i\/fAfJAGER: DATE: c-a7 _ .. _ {t. _ - ~ ~ , ~ ~ R ~ ~ .~ ~ u -~~ __ ;~_x ~_~ ~ - acs ,r~~~. _ t :~ .,.:_ .a ~.,:^"~' - ~= ==RESTAtfRA~i3'~ F ' : - - .. _ ,. ..... , . .. .. . rs. _ _ gip. ~ w ~. •<'Y _ F ~. _ ~'~~ _ k~ .may. ~ _~ > ,;, ' `~ __ ..F?>' ~;Y' '~^~ _ -~- ~- ~ _ .,~~ < ~L_ _ . ~ _F ~.li~'.: ice.".•'r.:~%.:... tir.` W.~.. y +"~•.Ys_ ~ _ _ _ _ y~`. .f,...: -fGr'~1.~~`. i,F=^"'E~'7 ai'EL`-:i~.:- ?t~F'~a-}.J `.^-'.'.,''~~''.~i+,~..' .. ,_ .. + ~ ! .~YlFNfi y • . i , 1 } ..... ~ ... .. .. -. ~ .~:. ~.'. .-;+ °r~' -lL: - _ ~Y' _ < .. . .~.: ~ a ^.., ... ~:::.. .. .. Y i .~ :: . :.. .:.rrs:....:+ ~- - ~w'~+ ,~.'• .. °% - '.: .p a=`~ '~~ . - •. ~ .. ~r. .. .~;:. ...~ ~r .i ice.: r'~: .v. i. .... .... ^~ _ • .. ..:.i .' .,. C ~_: ^.l. _ ~ ~.~ .. _ _ s .. ~...r.: ~ .::. '. _ ~_ .. , ' ~ ... ~ -_ 11 '~ ~e U ~~ Y } ~~ 4itiMs f - LLC`~~'~: OUTLINE FCR ALCJHOL ATr7ARENESS S~lII`3AR ;. ~: To the Manager/Presenter: Prior to giving the Alcohol Awareness seminar, you should read the ~ bocklet thoroughly and view toe videotape. Make enough cop~.es of the :'' Employee Guidelines, Some Common Myths, and Server's Statement to Pass out to -the seminar participants . Also scan through -t~~.is outline to _, familiarize yoursel= with the presentation. ' ~ect~re Out'ine: 1) Introduction - A. Explain the reasons for the meeting. ' B. Relate the DWI Statistics on .page 2 and any recent local Kentucky h i C ' n ras ~~. Bus ~• incidents ycu are familiar with ( 2~~ _ killing 27 children caused by a drunk driver - BAC was . C. .Review Company Statement, page 1 ' i~ 2) Review effects of alcohol, pages 3, ~, chart pg 5. 3) Review Liability , page g i:"" 4) View first page of videotape (with lawyer speaking} ~~ 5) Review videotape and discuss Maral Issues, pg. 5. Tc bring the would feel if they th ;~ ey point home,. ask the participants how when driving served someone too much to drink and that person,. ~ home seriously hurt a close relative. t: 6) Review Checking I.D.'s, page 7. - 7) Show second part of videotape and review. 8) Review Adults Sharing with a Minor, page 8'. . 9) ~ ~ Review S.I.R. program, page 8-Z0. ~, 10) Review: Signs of Intoxication, pg 10• II Effects of Alcohol, pg , Refusing Service, pg 11 Fight Prevention pg 12 i own words. 12) 13) l~) Pass out Employee del?nes. Have everyone sign Servers Statement. ~. Review in=iZOUSe policies :and open for discussion. • F• ~, , J T r - TA3LE OF CON'I'E~F'I'S . - - - Page - Cor~panyr Statement 1 --- Social Reaction 2 Af f ec ~s of Alcohol qn the Body 3 _ Blocd Alcohol Level 3 - - Liability c Moral Issues - . Lou~-s.ge Sales 6 Emplcyee Training 6 How tc Check I.D.'s - - - ~ Adults Sharing Drinks with a Minor 8 Ways to Monitor Guest Consumption 8 `s' Signs of Intoxication ~i0 Ef f ec ~s of Alcohol .10 Responsible Drink Pouring .11 '~ - Refusing Further Service .11 ..Fight Preventicn .12 ~~ Conclusion .12 Review .13 Employes Guidelines -''-a t, Management Guidelines .i~ f ~ . Common Myths - ~ ~ . s ~, t- :.:,~-. . _ ., . ., i • COMPANY STATEN ~It is our intent at Chi-Chi's to 'assure Guest Satisfaction to al cup Guests. Each Guest`s visit should be a mutually beneficial one; the Guest being served high quality alcoholic beverages in a pleasant surrounding, and the lounge developing good, regular Guests. However, serving alcoholic beverages is a serious matter. Irresponsible serving practices can result in dire cor_saquences for the company, it's Managers, it's Employees and it's Guests. a -- - ~-- -- +:aw. .. - 1 •`. `-. - SCCi al ReaCtiOil .+ It _s ~r~wortant for sc_l ~iange_s e. Ch.-Ch.`s to understand the S2r~OllS respCRS1b? 11t1eS Cf S2~ 77.nCj alCOriC? 1C beverages. We, as a company , must recognize that an attitude of ethical professional conduct is -~ required. Knowledge of how to mix alcoholic beverages is not a `' sufficient qualification for serving them to the public; one must .know when and in what amc~unts, alcc'~ol may be served. Social reactior. to r7 alcohol-related accidents is clear. Organizations like MADD (~icti:ers Against Drunk Drivers) and SADD (Students Against Driving Drur~~}, RIB (Reduced Intoxicated Drivers) are .nvclved in drafting legislation and the dramatic increase in Third Party Liability suits are of concern. .-- In each year-for the past 10 years.: - - 25,000 people per year have been involved in alcohol-related -- auto fatalities . - Every 23 minutes someone dies in a DWI (driving while __~ intoxicated) or DUI (cL iving under. the inf luence) accident. - Alcohol is involved in 53~ of .all highway deat`?s. - Problem dr inkers account for 70 to 80 a of arrests ard. 50 ~ of all fatal accidents on our highways. - The economic cost of drunk driving amounts to 5 billion !~ dollars per year. - For every one DWI arrest, 2,000. go unheeded. ~` ~;:~ _So, with alI the negatives, why do people drink? Tradition, `` environment,. taste, situation, and mood-are all reasons why people dr1nK. At Chi-C:l1Z°S, we Create an up-beat, festive atmosphere similar to that of an actual Mexican Fiesta. At these fiestas the ~ most common drink is the Margarita, for which Chi-Chi's is known.. Our Margaritas are one of the primary reasons our Guests come tc ~? Chi-Chi's. t~. Alcoholic beverages come in many flavors, brands and tastes. Alcohol, • is produced by fermentation. Alcoholic beverages can be produced from .. a variety of grains and fruits. The amount of alcohol. in a beverage ~~~ depends on the amount of sugar that is converted to alcohol during the { fermentation process. It also depends on whether the beverage was - distilled (separated)-. For example, whisky is a form of bee= in which ._. the alcohol is separated during distillation. Listed below is a chart which .shows different alcoholic beverages and t:~le percent of alcohol in them. ~s Beer - - - - - - - 3 to 6% Wines - - - - - - 9 to 14% Liqueurs - - - - - 20 to 40~ ~ Hard Liauor - - - 40 to 50% - X{In hard liquors, the proof is tG7ice the percentagett ,.:,„, 2 f... ~:. ~~ ~" F.,'~T=^- Oi ~ ~ COPl.O~ ^P_ the BCdV Whe:~ a person consumes an alcoholic beverage, a 4Q) of alcohcl is absorbed through membranes in abscrption occurs in the stomac:2, which will ab; alcohol. Once the alcohol has left the stomach small intestine, alcohol is absorbed easily and intestine absorbs 75-80% of the alcohol. sruall percentage ( 2 to the mcuth. More sorb 20-25 ~ of the and t~ aveled to the .quickly. The small -Many factors can effect the absorption of alcohol once it has reached the stomach. One such factor is how the alcohol is mixed with any food that the individual has eaten. Fatty foods such as .french fries, nuts and fried cheese sticks a;e harder to digest. Therefore,. the stou.ach must work much harder to digest these foods. In the process the alcohol is thoroughly mixed with the food, thus slowing the absorption rate. On_the other hand, a-large meal wit'1 a high amount of carbohydrates (pasta) are easily digested, thus speeding up the absorption. rate. .^ ~~ €£ _~ L.• There are numerous ether factors which can affect the way alcohol is distributed throughout the body. Same of these factors are: whether the individual is overweight or under*aeign.t, large or small build, a=~d whet~j2er the individual is male or .female. Blocd Alcohol Letrel Once the alcohol is in the bloodstream, a certain amau.*~t reaches tY~.e Lungs and. is expired through breathing. This is where the measuremer~ comes from that the police use to determine if someone is legally intoxicated. In some states a breathalizer test can be given to determine the individual's BAL• (Blood Alcohol Level) or BAC (Blood Alcohol Content). The alcohol which is expired through breathing is what is registered on the breathalizer test. In some cases, the individual can behave sober wi~~h a BAL up to .05. After the BAL has: reached .05 or higher certain areas of the brain are affected. Listed below are the characteristics of individuals as their BAL increases. SAL - ~FFECTS_ :05 to .10 Reasoning; thinking and decision~makir_g are affected. Increase ir. self-esteem. More sociable and exhilarated. In mcst states, .10 is legally intoxicated. .10 to .20 ~. :~ A loss of coordination, motor controls and door postdre. Behavior becomes uninhibited, boisterous, and aggressive. ~T_~e in ivi ua is wi irg ;o a e more r ~ s ks . - --- - - ~-- -- ~-- 3 ~:.,~. ~: .20 to .3C Above .30 As you can see th e FOr t h1S reaS~:P. TAe Serv1C2. i Emotions are changed . ( :~ccdy ) Fatig~~e , dizziness and the ability to stard are ~- affected.. Can cause serious medical conditions. Fi=st unconsciousness. Followed by slowed respiration which can Lead to a coma. Ti;e individual should be taken to a hospital as soon as possible_ effects of alcohol on the body can be very serious. all must kncw and practice respcnsible drink Why should you care how much someone drinks? You, as a manager, can be held responsible for that person's actions if they are intoxicated. So by knowing the signs of intoxication and by judging the perscn's body size, you should be able to make a knowledgeable decision on whether or not that person is capable of leaving the premises on their own. With the mcunting pressure from police and social organizations trying to combat DWI accidents, it is your resgcnsibility, alcng with the restaurant's, to insure that our Guests return home safely. -~ LiabilitV `~ Liability suits increase three fold every year. Ali told, ?0 states allow third party liability suits. These suits deal with ~ommor. Laws ~ and Dramshop Laws. In bath cases, the injured party is allowed to sue thcse who sold the drunken offender alcoholic beverages causing intoxication. In most eases the law favors the victim. Dramshop Laws and Common Laws are third party liabilities. They were created to help innocent victims of accidents caused by intoxicated persons. The "third party" is any innocent victim who is injured by~ ari intoxicated person (the second party) after being served alcoholic beverages in a lounge of (the first party). Under-these Laws, the intoxicated person cannot sue the drinking establishment cr it's : employees, for serving alcohol to the point of intoxication ,. but tie innocent victim is eligible for recourse. In most states .10~ is legally drunk. The exceptions are: . t38 ~ - - - - - - - - - Oregon _ Utah . ? 2 ~ - - - - - - - - - Georgia ;__~ ~.~ _ , 3 ; - - - - - - - _- - Iowa Mar ! ana ~ _.__. riissouri •..,~ - 4 i= ~_ - 'i The icllowing chart shows th_ approximate BAL w:nich corresponcs to :: each person's weight and how ouch they have consumed.~-~, BLCOD ALCOHOL LEVEL y BOD`~ rv~IGHT IN POUNDS ~~ ~ of 100 120 140 1'00 180 -200 220 2?0 DRIN'~S ~ ~ ~ . ,~ ~-- 4~ 3 4~ t. 1 - .04 .03 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 2 - .08 .06 .OS .05 .04 .04 .03 .03 3~ - .11 .09 . . .O8 _ .07 .06 .06 .05 .05 4 - .15 .12 .11 .09 .08 .08 .07 .06 5 - .19 .Z6 .13 .12 .11 .09 .09 .08 6 - .23 .19 .16 .14 .13 .11 .10 .09 7 - .26 .22 .Z9 .16 .15 .13 .12 ~' .I1 8 - .30 .25 .21 .i9 .17 .15 ,la .13 .` 9 - .34 .28 .24 .21 .19 .17 .15 .I4 10 - . .38 .31 .27 .23 .21 .19 .17 .16 **~E k9e*~e~r#3t:F~ieir~t~e~e~c~c~e~e~c~3e~E:~~c~e~*:F:E~e~e:h~~e~e:E~e:f;F:F:F~e9e7F:E kzx~e~rz~:~ k:E~xx:E?e~c;f~k * ONE DRINi~ = 1 1/4 ounces of 80 proof liquor, one 12 ounce beer * or 4 ounces of table wine. * ONE ;TDTMiBO :~.a~?G.a~ITA m TT.^;O ( 2 ) DRI1~dI{S ! ~'~~[:1[']~Gj[jfjG 71C 7t•*:F:E:E:t7~:~7~jC'~C 3i'7L'~C:E:~jC'7tj[7L':~~:`.~'7iC ~C:EjC:iG7E'~~"'Z"jC jC ~:~:L'~C:C:~'~7C :E Z'T :f ~C'7~";~X•~':E 7[7C'~[:{• Anything between .00 to .05 the person is rarely influenced. .Between .05 and .09 that person may possibly be under the influence. .Anything above .10 and the person is definitely under the influence. .. Moral Issues -- Although legal issues tend to get our attention faster than others, ~•. the moral aspects of -drunk driving and their effects on the public __~ are no less. important. We~must deal with the problem of those people _-_ who innocently become involved in an alcohol-related accident. If a drunk driver leaves our lounge and causes an accident, we are not looking out for the public's safety, we have become a public menace., or at least part of the problea. We also have a responsibility to the other Guests in our lounge. Drunk people tend to get irritated faster than most and can cause harp to other Guests. ~y When .working in the lounge or restaurant, our employees should act as ell as for us. ~,<,~.; 5 s • ~: Be friendly and conscious of our Guests' needs and actions. Ar. .. ~ important part of being friendly is how to handle a Guest who needs to €.` be cut off . If y cur employees have demonstrated to the Guest that '3 they want their business and are cou~~eous and friendly in doing so, the situaticn is infinitely easier to deal with. Most importantly, be ~ friendly, professiczal,. and firm when approaching these circumstances, NEVrrR embarrass anyone while ct~:tting them off . °~ Lourae Sales _ Lounge sales are ve.y important at Chi-Chi's. These sales can represent from 20 t:: 30% of the total-sales generated. ~~ The lcunge has an t::-~limited capacity to build sales. Responsible - promotions (where applicable) can bring in extra business durir_g the slow periods. These-promotions, plus the friendly service can help - attract regulars. During the past year all of Chi-Chi's lounges have received necn lights, pinatas, and other decorations which have helped create a more festive atmosphere.. This, along with radio and television. support has helped increase our lounge business. The sales in our lcunge help offset the cost of operating a- restaurant. Because liquor costs are lower than that of our focd cost, an increase in business in the lounge can mean a substantial increase in the.prefit the store generates. As we discussed earlier, Guest Satisfaction is the number Z pricrity at Chi-Chi's and one of the attractions our restaurants have is cur ~. atmosphere or ambience. Serving alcohol is one of the elements which contributes to that atmosphere and overall Guest satisfaction. But f~ when dealing with our Guest, we must not neglect our responsibility to ~~ deal with relevant issues which may impact our business. Employee Trainingt ,. As a manager, you should be knowledgeable of the responsibilities -- which come with serving alcohol. Part of that responsibility includes the Training of your Food Servers and lounge staff. They need to have a thorough understanding of each of the following: ~i - Hcw to check I.D.'s. ~' - Adults sharing drinks with minors. - Trays to uonitor Guest drinking. (Drink counting) LJ :,.;~. 6 i - Signs oi =ntoxlcat~on. - Effects of alcohol. __ - Responsible drink pouring. ~J _ - Refusing fur-~her service ( Cutti ng off ) - Fight Prevention. - Employee and Management Guidelines. once a new employee or manager has completed their training, then must sign the "Statement For Servers, Food Servers and Cocktail Servers, Alcoholic Beverage Statement" . This s~~eet should then be placed in the employee's file. she following pages ,are broken-down into sections about the subjects listed above. Parts of these are.alsc included in the Employee Alcohol Guideline,. which should be given to all new servers and _ bartenders. ~-iow to Check I . D . ' s - Check I.D.'s of anyone who appears ~ID years of age or younger. -Never assume the Guest has been. carded by a previous server cr the doorman. - only accept a driver's license, passport, state ligt;or control I.D., or military I.D. ,.,_ -Make it clear this is the .law and no exceptions will be made. - Dse the following guidelines if you suspect the I.D. is fake. 1. The counterfeit I.D: -phony I.D.'s obtained through mail ordering. -2f "Not a Government Document" is stamped on the I.D., do not accept it. These I.D.'s were purchased through."mail. ordering. -Never accept an expired I.D., as it may have been passed on by the real owner. -If someone has a temporary I.D. (on a sheet of paper) ask _ them for more identificaticn. _ 2.. , .The Altered I . D . -C-enerally the year cf birth has been changed. -Feel for bumps, where a typewriter may have typed in a new date. -See if the I.D. has the same type. of typing. ' -Feel the edges to find out if the lamination has been peeled off. ' s J ~f -. .. __ _- - __ ____ ___-.Insur~_ t~~?e photo matches the individual. -Ask questions: ,;,,;.. Y - 3. "^CW Old are you?" ~-- ~. -=, B. "Driver's License Number." C. "What is'~your address?" D . "what year did you graduate from high school?" -Have the Guest-sign a piece of pager a_c check r. ~ if the signatures match. -If you come across a fake I.D. ~., A. Take the I.D. from the server of bartender. B. 'T'urn the I.D. over to the police. C. Do•not=allow the Guest to stay in the 1ounGe. -Remember,.. when carding our Guest, be curteous • • but firm . Adul~s Sharma Dr; nks With a Minor The Management will make it clear that adults sharing drinks with - minors wi3.l nat be tolerated, even where state laws allow such action. The law in such states also grants us the right to fairly enforce stricter rules. - If an instance arises, the Manager will immediately tell the party that such practices are not permitted. - IKake it understood any alcoholic beverages in front of a minor will '~• be immediately removed. -if the party persists, the Manager will remove the alcoholic beverage froxa the adult acid reuse t0 accept ~ ~ her orders . b a _ ~! Wavs to Monitor Cuest Consumption (DZ;nk Countinal 2 The best technique for monitoring Guest consumption is the S.I.R. ~- process . S - Size them up. = i -.Interview them. R - Rate them. - If followed correctly, we can insure cur Guests never leatre -cur - restaurant legally intoxicated. FIRST: Size them up. z, ' Look at the Guest and answer the following questions: r ~, Male or female sou ar or pu gy __ . - ----._-- ~dzlr--meal-u_~ri,-or~~l-a~`ge~ight-aTrcr-wez-g~st~----- - a . i t'=~- ~ After these questicns have been answered, make a decision as to how `~ many drinks semecre can consume over a period of tiiae without becoming ;,; intoxicated. The= 'is no need to be a weight-guessing expert, simply classify each Guest .into one of the ~fellcwing categories: Small 1 to 2 drinks per hour "''' Medium 2 to 3 drinks per hour ~ Large,. 3 to 4 drinks per hour ! SECOND : Inte-rvi ew the Guest ~ ~ _ - . -- Once you have sized the Guest up,~ int~r-view them. See_ if there is any reason to change. your. mind. Several questions should be answered during this interview process., - - Has the Guest-been drinking before he entered our . restaurant? - Does the Guest appear to be on iuedication or d_~igs? - Does the Guest respond to your questions? - - Has the Guest eaten? Suggest,an appetizzr. t Remember to stay friendly and courteous to the Guest. 4 ~- THIRDo Rate the Guest. Once the Guest has been sized up and interviewed, the Server-must decide: '~~ - Does the Guest still fit into the size category you ~j selected? - Should the Guest be served? ~~ - How much? . `~ After the server has decided to serve-the Guest, he/she should have an .- ongoing rating system. The easiest system to remember is a traffic - light: green, yellow and red. Green - Everything is OK. Guest .can continue :drinking. ~~ Yellow.- Caution. The Guest is not yet intoxicated. Siow down the. drinks. Don't let the Guest get beyond this point. -, Red - Stop! No alcohol will be served to this Guest. The rating process is the most critical step. It calls for an understanding of hcw alcohol and food mixed together act on th :,~., 9 body. w ~--- i • =' r -- e .y The server must decade the amcunt and pace with which the Guest can consume alcoholic beverages. The server must re-rate the Guest before = serving him/her ancther-drink. ~ Remember to watc~~ ;o_ signs of intoxication. Always be friendly and :.# COU?'teat2S . s~:~ f, Signs of Intoxication ~ All service employees should be taught to-count drinks, but above all else Look for the following signs 'of intoxication. Being overly friendly (sociable ~` iJ ~- _~ - Loud speech - - Complaints of drink strength - Excessive foul language - Carelessness with money (buying rounds) - Eyes .glassy or bloodshot - - Inability to sit straight - Mood changes - Nausea - Inability to perfarm simple tasks (light a cigarette, pick up change) - Stumbling - Bravado - Annoying other Guests - Argumentative - - Silence or tearfulness - Slurred speech Weaving - Drink spilling - Drowsiness - Clumsy, uncoordinated - Ordering doubles If any of these .signs become apparent, employees should be-instructed ,-, to alert 'a manager immediately. _ Effects of Alcohol ' Alcohol effects the body in the following order 1. Inhibitions 2. Judgement 3. Reactions g. Coordination Th° ~ollo~ing_dar.~~e~_s_ignals_are_~ot meant to,_re~res~L dls -rV~~1Ll_~- signs but give you an idea of the many different typ~s. ~:,,; 10 9 ~• ~; >_ ~r--- T_'t111D1t1CIIS ~~ 1. ~= ~- ~ 2. Judgement s r 3. Reactions ~ - - loud speech, bravado, being overly friendly, drinking alone, changing from a loud voice to a Cui°t one and vice-versa. - complaints about the strength of drinks, changing consumption rate, ordering doubles, argumentative, using foul language, careless with. money, buying rounds for strangers or buying for ~_e house, irrational statements, belligerent. - unable to-light cigarette, lighting more than,one cigarette at a time, .eyes glassy or out of focus, loss of train of thought; slurred speech. 4. Coordination - unable to pick up change, spilling drink, ca_*~'t - _find mouth with glass, unable to sit straight on - chair or bar stool, swaying, drowsy, stumbling, has trouble moving around objects ir. path,. bumps .' ~ into things, falling. Resoonsib3e Drirk Pourinct - Always use a jigger. bl dine mar aritas ~cnly~fill the blender to the ~~ F~ f L i ~. - Wien en g g , appropriate line. - Never allow a Guest. to influence you on how much alcohol gees in a drink. - Always use a rolodex if you are unsure of the recipe -of a drink- Refusinct Further Service f Cutting Off ) You,. as the Front of the House manager, will make the decision to "cut off" a Guest. If a bar or service manager is not present, the bartender will make the decision, letting any manager know as soon as possible. If possible, arrange to have a witness who can attest to your action if the situation warrants it. Any instance in which you have to cut off a Guest should be recorded in the management Icg book. If it becomes necessary to discontinue service to a Guest, try to avoid a confrontation. The following may be helpful in easing the situation. _ Do not embarrass the person, talk softly but firmly. - Explain that what you are doir_g is company policy and that you must follow policy. _ - e em ~ ~ ' , -- -----trodb~e -a~1'~c~n~i-th er~ ~ .f us--T~aarrts--tha-t" ~ ------ _. - Offer non-alcoholic rinks or food. Do not offer coffee. . .;,,~;.. _ 11 x ::~:: f -~ ~~ ~; ~• ~. ~- ~, To avoid a scene: - Try to get the person alone to talk. -- _ m_y tc get a friend to talk to the Guest. - If above doesn't work, make it clear you will call police. Do not back down. ,. - Don.'t wait until the Guest becomes violent before calling police. - Do not become hostile; stay friendly, calm and professional. F~ cht ar C~JAT t~ pn Although fights do not break. cut in our lounges very often, it is important to know what to do i~ ane occurs. 90% of fights are caused by intoxicated Guests. It is very, important to stop fights before they have a chance to start. Listed below are some guidelines to follow if a fight should occur. - Call the police immediately. - Do not furnish the weapons - try to remove empty beer~~ ~~ bottles or mugs. Remove centerpieces, ashtrays, and ~~a~-s • if possible. - The doorman should try to stop the fight before it get started. - Move other Guests to safety. .- Do not take sides, stay neutral. - If weapons appear, stay away. ~ mh t, t,,,tT to n„i 1 vpu - Stay away once a fight is starteu. ~jey may ~S r -- in. -.Record the incident in the management log;bo.ck. Finally, as a manager of Chi-Chi's, you must be aware of local liquor laws, acceptable I.D.'s and the affect of alcohol on the body. We hope this booklet has helped to increase your knowledge=of alcohol awareness.. Now that you have the information it is your responsibility to pass_it on to the rest of your employees. Just remember,. at Chi-Chi's we don't just sell food and drinks, we sell an "experience" -- a dun, friendly,. exciting and a comfortable environment ,for our Guest. Alcohol is nice,. but not a necessary part of that experience. Many people these days. are choosing .not to drink alcoholic beverages -far any number of reasons, but they don't want to miss out on-the social experience Chi-Chi's has to etfthe samewant to insure that no matter what our Guests order, they g quality ser~.Tice experience. 12 ~,,,~:. ;. C ~. - s- a1 ~. F _t z. +. :. _" t ~; :, ~~ t Review: 1,~`~-Statement of Company Alcoholic Beverage practices needs to be discussed, signed, and dated by every service employee. 2. Identification must be checked on all persons wh.o appear to be 25 "or younger. Spot checks by management must be conducted ors a random, but regular basis. 3 . Servers cannot assume dooriaan, ~ previous server, or bartender has carded pat=-or.; IF IN~ DOUBT, Ch'ECR`IBENTIFICATION. 4. Accept only Lrc_er I.D.'s, preferably with pictures en'them. 5. Minors cannot be served alcoholic beverages.:. Adults sharing such drinks with miners will also not be tolerated. 6. Use doorman system during busy periods.. Doorman will check all I.D.'s. IMPORT~.NT: Servers are not relieved. of responsibility even if a doorman is used. All servers should wear 94we I.D." buttons, or. the like. 7. All service personnel must be trained to meritor the number of drinks consumed by those Guests they serve. S. In cases of intoxicated Guests, have a witness which can attest to management actions and efforts against the Guest. 9.. Know each state's.specific laws regarding serving of alcoholic beverages.. Also be aware of any local laws regarding happy hours, ID ret_ruirements, etc. Post all copies of such Iaw`s at each. unit so everyone is well•informed. 10. Have a statement prominently displayed which tells Guests we do reserve the right to refuse service, but also make it .clear that= we will assist in any reasonable way in getting an intoxicated Guest home. ~. . I1. Remember the server and the restaurant can be held responsible if the Guest is involved in an alcohol-related accident. _~.,;~.. - 13 • ~ ~' LOUNGE' ~daT.QV~ GUIDEL INES :~ - - ~.. s-~ - Ccur_t Drinks - Chat briefly with people ordering drinks. .See if they might al-"°-adY ~ be at t~-~e point c= intoxication. `` - Try not to serve Guests alveato se~-vedthem~othe_ server. Check ;~' _ with that server if you ha _ - only allow the Guest to.order::one drink at a time. .__ ~ - 1f someone needs to Le "cut off" let z manager k:~,ow. - When in doubt, do not serve the-Guest and get a manager. - - Let the manager know of any potential problems. - Bon°t allow yourself~to get so busy that you're not taking the time to evaluate if a Guest has had too much. ;~ - know the signs or" intoxication. ~' - Use a procedure such as S.I.R. to :ate C-nests. "~ ;~ - Police .Phone Number ~-? ~ ._ . ~.: - Lccal Cab Phone Numbers _ * Post where. all lounge-employees can read. a~= .. .. Z4 -, .. ~ -~~_ .. .. - • ~_ i. Qe -, ... ~1 Z 3 :?=N~G~?ENT GvID~'T.TNFC ^ ~ oY ^^ have "c:~t off" a Guest. - Bc...k 1p S...rV..._ S :J._.. - Fs_ablish house limits (i.e_ number of drinks to Ce served). - Keep a list of the signs of intoxication posted by the bar. - Make sure the police phone-number is posted at the hostess desk and O=1ce: _ - Pcst local taxi cab numbers. at desk. _ - Actively work t'~e bar as well as the floor, talking to Guests. Be alert for signs cf intoxication.- - Encourage employees to come to you if there could be a potential problem. - Train the Host/~iostess staff to let you know if they see an intoxicated Guest come in. - Develop a rapport with your local police. Let them know that your intention is to run a "responsible" bar. - Establish a training program for employees. in the lounge and dinir~q areas. Make.s':re all tHPse employees have completed the program and. have been certified. ~. d - Police Phone Number:. --Local Cab Phone Numbers: ~ Post in the office for all managers to see. ~, ~-- f i. 2 15 • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE ON-SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE FOR CHI CHI'S MEXICAN RESTAURANTE, 7717 NICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH; AND IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY WHEREAS, Chi Chi's Mexican Restaurante ("Licensee") holds an On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license from the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2000, the City of Richfield Public Safety Department conducted an alcohol compliance check of the Licensee's establishment; and WHEREAS, during the compliance check, an employee of the Licensee sold alcohol to a minor with the civil penalty being imposed on January 8, 2001; and WHEREAS, this is a third violation of the sale of alcohol to a minor with the first civil penalty being imposed on May 24, 1999, and the second civil penalty being imposed on October 11, 1999; WHEREAS, the Licensee appeared before the Richfield .City Council on January 8, 2001 and admitted the violation; and WHEREAS, the Licensee has stipulated to the suspension and penalty imposed by this resolution: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield as follows: 1. The licensee's On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday Liquor license is hereby suspended for a period of ten consecutive days, commencing on a date to be determined by the Public Safety Director, but commencing no later than February 8, 2001. 2. A civil penalty of $1,750 is hereby imposed. On or before February 8, 2001, the Licensee shall deliver a check or money order payable to the City of Richfield in the amount of $1,750. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 8th day of January, 2001. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk AGENDA SECTION: AGENDA ITEM # '7 ~ REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME Trrr,E REPORT PRESENTER: NAn~', TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: S/GNAT (IRE L • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR STEVEN L. DEVICH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Setting a date for the 2001 Local Board of Equalization. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Establish April 30, 2001 as the date for the 2001 Local Board of E ualization. II. BACKGROUND State statutes provide that each County Assessor establish a date for local Boards of Review each year, for the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property within each respective city in the county. These meetings are to be held between March 1 and May 31 and must be preceded by at least 10 days published notice before the date of the first meeting. The Board of Review (Equalization) must complete its work within 20 days of the first local board meeting each year, unless the Commissioner of Revenue approves a longer period of time. However, the commissioner will not issue an extension past May 31. Approximately a month prior to the Local Board meeting, the Administrative Services Director and staff of the Hennepin County Assessor's office assigned to Richfield will brief Council Members on the Board of Equalization process and of typical cases that may come before the Board. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City of Richfield has historically held its Board of Equalization meetings on either the last Monday of April or the first Monday in May of each year. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Richfield's date should be established by the City Council in January to enable the County Assessor to complete the scheduled calendar of local board dates as soon as possible. C. FINANCIAL • None D. LEGAL • Minnesota Statute 274.01 provides that County Assessors establish Board of Equalization dates for local boards within their respective jurisdictions. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Select a different date, if it is available. • Postpone consideration of setting a date to a future meeting. V. ATTACHMENTS • Memo from Hennepin County VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • ~ ~ Memo To: Thomas P. Ferber, Richfield City Clerk From: Thomas May, Hennepin County Assessor Date: December 21, 2000 Re: 2001 Local Board of Review .Dates Monday Apri130, 2001 Day ofthe Week Date Minnesota Law requires that I, as County Assessor, set the date for your Local Board of Review Meeting. After reviewing previous meeting days and your suggestions of last year, the above date was selected. I sincerely hope that it is agreeable with your council. As there must. be a quorum, I would suggest that an informal review of your members with a request that they mark their calendars would be appropriate. Please confirm the date set. out or call Bill Effertz at 348-3388 with your alternative date by January 19, so that our printing order can be completed on time. We suggest starting times of 6:30, 7:00 or 7:30 p.m., but will discuss it with you if you wish a different time. Your early completion and return of the attached tear off strip will be appreciated and we will send your official notice for posting as required by law. Please return to JoDee Schinkel, A-2103 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 CONFIRMATION Municipality: Date: Time: Place: ,,. - For selecting meeting dates in future years, the following information will be helpful AGENDA SECTION: (~~~~ AGENDA ITEM # ~'~ REPORT # l~~1 ~J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: RICHARD REGNIER, BUILDING OFFICIAL NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: Go SIGNATC/RE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of building inspections and code enforcement services for Richfield for the year's 2001 and 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of building inspections and code enforcement services for Richfield for the year's 2001 and 2002, under a new, separate agreement. II. BACKGROUND The City of Bloomington has provided inspection and enforcement services in the areas of plumbing, heating and air conditioning, food service and plan check for food services for many years under a single contract. New for 2001-2002 is the separation of this contract into two contracts with Bloomington for all of these areas. ~, The Inspections Division handles plumbing, heating and air conditioning, while food service and plan check food services are handled by the Support Services Division. 0108BIoomingtonlnspectionsContract As changes continue to occur in the level of services needed by Richfield via this contract, it made sense to split the one contract into two, each being negotiated and handled by the division manager responsible for that function area. The proposed contract for 2001 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning services will be $72,165, compared to the 2000 contract amount of $37,200. The increase is based on the number of inspections performed and time spent on plan review by Bloomington staff. The increased level of services provided by Bloomington is expected to continue for at least the next two years. The administrative costs contained in past contracts were lumped together into one amount for both divisions. This year's contract for the Inspections Division reflects the administrative costs provided by Bloomington as $8,565. The proposed contract for 2002 for plumbing, heating and air conditioning services will be $75,125 compared to the 2001 contract amount of $72,165. It is also being proposed that Richfield continue to enter into atwo-year contract with the City of Bloomington, therefore, eliminating the need to renew the agreement on an annual basis. The terms of the contract still provide for the contract to be terminated upon the expiration of 30 days after service of written notice upon the other party, if there should be a need to terminate it before it expires December 31, 2002. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of inspection services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluations of their services have shown that they are providing efficient services in a very cost-effective manner. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • Increase for this contract is occurring as a result of a higher level of services being provided by Bloomington staff than was originally expected due to the development projects occurring in the City. It is anticipated that, through increased permit fees, the City will be able to recover the cost of these contract increases. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own plumbing, heating and air conditioning services. The cost of hiring the staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than current expenditures, and would require a budget increase. • The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower rate, which would require designated reduction in services or programs. V. ATTACHMENTS • 2001-2002 City of Bloomington Inspection Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • Attachment: 0108BIoomingtonlnspectionsContract • AGREEMENT BETYJEEN 'Ti HE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT This Agreement is made this 8th day of January 2001, by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington") and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of building inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare, and safety; and • WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this Agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions as set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: I, TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2001 through December 31, ` 2002, subject to termination as provided in Article V. II. DUTIES OF BLOOMINGTON 1. For the term of this Agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in anal on behalf of Richfield: a. Plumbing inspections, plan review and code enforcement as necessary. b. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections, plan review and code enforcement for new residential structures and commercial/industrial applications. 2. In addition to the services listed above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide for and on behalf of Richfield: a. Electrical inspection and code enforcement services; b. Inspection of replacement residential heating and air conditioning equipment; c. Building inspection and code enforcement services. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at the rate of $52.50 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the . payment provided for by Article III of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the electrical and heating, ventilation and air conditioning inspection services being provided. In addition to the- services listed above, Bloomington shall, upon request, also provide building plan checking services for and on behalf of Richfield. Such services shall be paid for by Richfield on an hourly basis at a rate of $53.00 per hour, and said hourly rate shall be separate from, and in addition to, the payment provided for by Article III of this Agreement. All other provisions of this Agreement shall remain applicable with respect to the building plan checking services being provided. 4. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which inspections, plan review and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of • 2 what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent with Richfield City Code Section 615 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 5. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 6. Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's (including its officials, agents, or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury to or destruction of property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. 7. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per individual and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry Worker's compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, Subd. 2 and further agrees to provide a certificate of said insurance to Richfield. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. III. DITTIES OF RIC>IFIELB 1. In 2001, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($72,165.00) for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. One-half (1 /2) of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2001, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2001. 2. In 2002, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($72,125.00) for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. One-half (1/2) of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2002, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2002. 3. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2002, a prorata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the Agreement at the time of termination. IV. MISCELLANEOUS 1. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting Bloomington's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of Richfield for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under ibis Agreement. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this 4 Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with Richfield and shall not be considered employees of Richfield, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 2. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16B.06, Subdivision 4. 3. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and amendments, addenda, alterations, or modif cations to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing aild signed by both parties. 5 4. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with-the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time; in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 5. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and regulations. 6. Bloomington and Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non-binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non-binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may 6 exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. V. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement, for any reason, upon giving thirty (30) days' advanced written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the date and year first written above. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON DATED: DATED: By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager Reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Attorney DATED: • CITY OF RICHFIELD By: 7 Its: AGENDA SECTION: (~())Ln;1C~J~?/t-~ AGENDA ITEM # 7Q REPORT # J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER Nanic, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the rovision of ublic health services for the Cit of Richfield for the ear 2001. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the continuation of the agreement with the City of Bloomington for the provision of public health services for the City of Richfield for the year 2001. II. BACKGROUND In 1977, the State of Minnesota enacted the Community Health Services Act, which transferred the responsibility for the administration of public health programs to local jurisdictions. The State also provided funds for the programs and encouraged local jurisdictions to increase the efficiency of the programs by grouping together. Richfield and Edina entered into a joint powers agreement with Bloomington, and the program has been administered under that agreement since that time. 010861oomingtonHealthContract • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Bloomington has sufficient resources to provide a professional level of public health services to Richfield residents. Annual evaluation of their services has shown that they are providing effective services in a very cost-efficient manner. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • The contract amount for 2001 reflects a 3% increase over the 2000 contract amount due to increases in staff salaries. The 2001 contract amount will be $224,844 compared to the 2000 contract amount of $218,295. D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • The Council could decide to have Richfield provide its own public health services. The cost of hiring the nursing staff necessary to provide the same level of services and administrative support would be more than current expenditures and would require a budget increase. • The Council could decide to compensate the City of Bloomington at a lower rate that would require designated reduction in services or programs. V. ATTACHMENTS • 200.1 Bloomington Health Contract VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • • AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON AND THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INSPECTIONS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT This Agreement is made this day of January, 2001, by and between the City of Bloomington, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 2215 West Old Shakopee Road, Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (hereinafter referred to as "Bloomington") and the City of Richfield, a Minnesota municipal corporation located at 6700 Portland Avenue South, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as "Richfield"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Richfield is authorized and empowered to provide for various types of environmental health inspections and code enforcement to ensure the public health, welfare, and safety; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties and the purpose of this Agreement that certain of such services be performed by Bloomington on behalf of Richfield; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions as set forth below, the above parties hereto agree as follows: I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002, subject to termination as provided in Article V. II. DUTIES OF BLOOMINGTON For the term of this Agreement, Bloomington shall provide Richfield with the following services, in and on behalf of Richfield: a. Food service inspections and code enforcement as necessary (a minimum of two inspections will be done of all restaurants and at least one inspection will be done of all grocery stores). b. Plan Check for food services. c. Public swimming pool inspections as necessary. d. Lodging inspections as necessary. 2. Bloomington shall have control over the manner in which inspections, plan review and code enforcement activities are conducted and over the determination of what enforcement action is appropriate and consistent • with Richfield City Code Section 615 and other policies as established by the City of Richfield. 3. Bloomington shall assume the expense of performing the inspections and code enforcement. 4. Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Richfield, its officials, employees and agents, from any and all claims, causes of action, lawsuits, damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from Bloomington's (including its officials, agents, or employees) performance of the duties required under this Agreement, provided that any such claim, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, diseases or death or to injury or to destruction or property including the loss of use resulting therefrom and to the extent caused by an negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Bloomington. 5. Bloomington shall carry liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000 per individual and $1,000,000 per occurrence. Bloomington shall carry property damage liability insurance in the amount of $100,000. Richfield shall be named as an additional insured, and a certificate of said insurance shall be provided to Richfield. Bloomington shall carry workers' compensation insurance as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 176.181, subd. 2 and further agrees to provide certificate of said insurance to Richfield. 6. Any employee assigned by Bloomington to perform its obligations hereunder shall remain the exclusive employee of Bloomington for all purposes including, but not limited to, wages, salary and employee benefits. III. DUTIES OF RICHFIELD In 2001, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SIXTY-SEVEN THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED FIFTEEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($67,615.00) for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. One-half (1/2) of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2001, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2001. 2. In 2002, Richfield shall pay Bloomington the sum of SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($67,905.00) for services provided pursuant to this Agreement. One-half (1/2) of this amount shall be due on June 30, 2002, and the remainder shall be due on November 30, 2002. 3. In the event of a termination prior to December 31, 2002, a prorata reduction of the compensation owed by Richfield to Bloomington shall occur which reflects the period remaining on the Agreement at the time of termination. IV. MISCELLANEOUS 1. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between the parties hereto or as constituting Bloomington's staff as the agents, representatives or employees of Richfield for any purpose in any manner whatsoever. Bloomington and its staff are to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement.. Bloomington represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of Bloomington or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by Bloomington under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with Richfield and shall not be considered employees of Richfield, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Bloomington, its officers, agents, contractors or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of Richfield; and Bloomington shall defend, indemnify and hold Richfield, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from Richfield, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. 2. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures of the City of Bloomington relevant to this Agreement, are subject to examination by Richfield, and either the legislative or state auditor as appropriate, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16B.06, Subdivision 4. 3. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Bloomington and Richfield and supersedes and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and amendments, addenda, alternations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 4. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment of employment in its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all services, programs and activities. Bloomington has designated coordinators to facilitate compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as required by Section 35.107 of the U.S. Department of Justice regulations, and to coordinate compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as mandated by Section 8.53 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. Richfield agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Bloomington from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Richfield. Bloomington agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Richfield from costs, including but not limited to damages, attorney's fees and staff time, in any action or proceeding brought alleging a violation of ADA by Bloomington. 5. Bloomington and Richfield agree to comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws, rules and regulations. 6. Bloomington and Richfield agree to submit all claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement to mediation. The mediation shall be conducted through the Mediation Center, 1821 University Avenue, St. Paul, and Minnesota. The parties hereto shall decide whether mediation shall be binding or non- binding. If the parties cannot reach agreement, mediation shall be non- binding. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, either party may exercise its legal or equitable remedies and may commence such action prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. V. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement, for any reason, upon giving thirty (30) days' advanced written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the date and year first written above. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON DATED: BY: DATED: BY: Its Mayor Its City Manager CITY OF RICHFIELD BY: Its Mayor BY: Its City Manager Upon proper execution, this Agreement shall be a legal and binding obligation upon the City of Bloomington City Attorney AGENDA SECTION: ~~'~~~ j~, AGENDA ITEM # ~~' REPORT # • STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 • REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: PATRICK DOLAN, ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN NanrE, TITLE MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution related to parking prohibitions on Lyndale Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution relating to "No Parking" on the east and west sides of Lyndale Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street. III. BACKGROUND Existing traffic on the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue is 13,500 vehicles per day. The proposed redevelopment for this block will generate additional traffic in the future. The design of the new South Lyndale Gateway Project will eliminate the need for on-street parking by providing adequate on-site parking on both sides of Lyndale Avenue. City staff is recommending No Parking signs to be posted on the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. The loss of on-street parking for businesses, especially on the west side of Lyndale Avenue, is made possible by the proposed redevelopment of the west side of Lyndale Avenue. Removal of the on-street parking should improve the free flow of motorized traffic and safety of pedestrian traffic in the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. A restriction on parking in the 7600 block is consistent with the current No Parking Anytime parking restriction in the 7700 block of Lyndale Avenue. On Lyndale Avenue, north of 76th Street, on-street parking is allowed on Sundays. 0108LyndaleNoPark III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City of Richfield is concerned about motorized and pedestrian traffic in the immediate area and in the greater community that may be using City streets. • Improvements and redevelopment constructed and proposed in the area of Lyndale Avenue between 76th Street and 77th Street require a wider roadway for traffic that precludes the use of the street for on-street parking. The redevelopment plan for the west side of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue will be required to have adequate on-site parking. • Lyndale Avenue is part of the City's designated Municipal State Aid (MSA) system and so requires Council approved parking restrictions. • MSA standards of an arterial street with limited width require no parking restrictions. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue is scheduled for reconstruction in 2001. Council will be reviewing plans for the reconstruction in the near future. Posting of signs related to prohibition of on-street parking in the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue would be .delayed until the current businesses vacate the west side of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue. However, Council action is needed for plans for reconstruction of the 7600 block of Lyndale Avenue to proceed and continue through the State review process. If parking is allowed to remain in this block, the street will no longer meet MSA standards and the Minnesota Department of Transportation will withhold funding. C. FINANCIAL • .Costs associated with parking prohibitions are minimal. Signs would be purchased by street maintenance general fund monies. D. LEGAL • No issues are known at this time. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Permit parking at any time. However, the City's major roadways generally have some type of parking prohibition. The roadways for which parking restrictions are proposed are heavily traveled. Parking restrictions facilitate flow of motorized traffic and provide increased safety for pedestrian traffic. • Provide a different level of parking restrictions than that proposed; for example, allow parking on Sundays. However, it is the opinion of staff that the parking prohibitions outlined above and recommended in the attached resolution are reasonable for the specified roadway, the roadway usage and the provision of adequate off-street parking for businesses. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution relating to traffic control signs "No Parking" on the east and west sides of Lyndale Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street. • Graphic of South Lyndale Gateway Streetscape Improvements Paving Plan. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS "NO PARKING" ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF LYNDALE AVENUE FROM 76th STREET TO 77th STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City staff is hereby authorized and directed to erect the following signs at the following location: "No Parking Any Time" on the east and west sides of Lyndale Avenue from 76th Street to 77th Street. 2. That when the aforementioned traffic control signs have been so erected on said street, they shall be official traffic control signs of the City of Richfield and failure to observe such signs shall constitute a violation of the traffic ordinance of this City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 2001. • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • '-~~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~/"' ~~ ~~3 883 88 m ~~ .-,: ~ _,' ~ ~c yw~p2FggrNCp~ I ~r2y3 ..... 7 .' ~ I 1 f_ 1j~~~ 1 ^~~~~ -~ ~ :, ~, ~__ ~'; -( ;. ,1` ~; ~~. ... .. _. _. ~ __ _ ~= s ~ .. 0 o to ---. _. ~ r~ Crni7 C - ... ~;, ::. •-3 --3 _. ___._. ~ ~ .. mz ~d t a ,' t p ~ _ ~ ---.._ _ _- - _. -. ~~~ ~m gg • z ~ MC ~~~~ ~~ ~ C - ~ AGENDA SECTION: (~"~f(,n.~ AGENDA ITEM # '7g REPORT # ~~' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 i~ REPORT PREPARED BY: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~/~~~~~ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the execution of a Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment Professional Services Agreement for 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the execution of Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment Professional Services Agreement with Liesch Associates, .Inc. for 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project. • II. .BACKGROUND ~ The City of Richfield is in the process of acquiring right-of--way in the 66th and Cedar Avenue area for the realignment of the access ramps for Trunk Highway 77. Part of the acquisition process involves environmental site assessments to document any environmental contamination. There are two different kinds of assessments that can be done on a property: Phase One and Phase Two. The Phase One assessment involves awalk-over survey of the site and research involving the reporting of any spills or environmental pollution problems. A Phase Two assessment is warranted when the research in Phase One reveals that there 0108Liesch could be evidence of pollution. Phase Two work commonly involves soil borings and testing to measure the actual level of pollution on site. Liesch Associates, Inc. (Liesch) has completed most of the Phase One assessments. They recommend that Phase Two assessments be done on three more properties. These properties are 6345, 6445, and 6501 Cedar Avenue. The total cost of the work would be $9,230. More Phase Two assessments are likely. These assessments will be paid for by the City and reimbursed by the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC). MAC has found the assessment costs to be reasonable. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Entering into Professional Services Agreements with project consultants is a standard procedure. The City is bound by the MAC agreement to contract with the vendor of their choice. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Timing of the availability of this service is important to the schedule. C. FINANCIAL • The site assessment costs are reasonable based on experience in other projects and with the knowledge that these properties have been used for industrial purposes. D. LEGAL • Legal counsel has reviewed the proposed agreement. E. 'TIMING • Work will be initiated within two weeks of authorization. • The demolition of properties is scheduled to begin in May 2001. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S~ • Reject the proposal and direct staff to seek new proposals. V. ATTACHMENTS • Proposed professional services agreement (Attachment A) VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A Attachment A ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Richfield, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the Liesch Associates, Inc. hereinafter referred to as Liesch. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City wishes to purchase the services of Liesch; and WHEREAS, there are funds available for the purchase of these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the City and Liesch agree as follows: 1. TERMS AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT Liesch agrees to furnish services to the City as indicated on Attachment A for properties at 6345, 6445, 6501, Cedar Avenue. The total cost of this Agreement shall not exceed $9,230. All reports, memos, and other data produced by Liesch become the property of the City. 2. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Invoices may be submitted monthly. Payment for services shall be made directly to Liesch by check. Invoices shall be of sufficient detail for the City to determine the activity and personnel for which payment is being made. Payment shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice by the City. 3. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Liesch shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein in consultation with the City. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of copartners between Liesch and the City or as constituting Liesch as the agent, representative, or employee of the City for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever Liesch is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. Liesch represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of Liesch or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the City, and shall not be considered employees of the City. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Unemployment Compensation Act A-1 or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against Liesch, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the City. Liesch shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the City, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, disability, severance pay, and PERA. 4. NONDISCRIMINATION No person shall be excluded from or denied the benefits. of any service performance or contemplated under the terms of this Agreement on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status,. public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin.; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Liesch shall (1) furnish all information and reports which may be required by the City's Affirmative Action Policy, and (2) it shall comply with the City's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting. 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE Liesch agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability claims,-.damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney, fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of Liesch, its agents, employees, or assignees in performance of the services provided by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of Liesch to fully perform in any respect, all obligations under this contract. 6. DATA PRIVACY Appraiser agrees to abide by all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations concerning the handling and disclosure of private and confidential information concerning individuals and/or data including but not limited to information made non-public by such laws or regulations. Appraiser shall maintain all appraisal reports submitted to him on behalf of City as confidential until released by counsel for the City. 7. RECORDS -AVAILABILITY Liesch .agrees that the City, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of Liesch and involve A-2 transactions relating to this Agreement. Records shall be retained for three years from date of final payment with respect to the project. 8. NON-ASSIGNMENT Liesch shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this contract and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the City. 9. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 10. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If Liesch fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the default is excused, the City, may upon written notice, immediately cancel the Agreement in its entirety. b. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. c. This Agreement may be canceled without cause by either party upon twenty (20) days written notice. 11. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of Liesch with the activities of the City so as to accomplish the purposes of this contract, Perry Thorvig shall manage this contract on behalf of the City. A-3 12. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices shall be sent as follows: City of Richfield Perry Thorvig Community Development Department City Hall 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 Liesch having signed this contract, and the City having duly approved this contract on January 8, 2001 and. pursuant to such approval and the proper City officials having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. • Approved as to legality, form and execution. KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED City Attorney. Date: CITY OF RICHFIELD STATE OF MINNESOTA Liesch Associates, Inc. City Manager A-4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this- day of 2001, by Samantha Orduno, the City Manager, of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this day of 2001, by the of Liesch Associates, Inc. a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the corporation. Signature of Person Taking Acknowledgment Notarial Stamp Or Seal (Or Other Title Or Rank) • A-5 Exhibit A .Phase Two work to be provided by Liesch at 6345, 6445, and 6501 Cedar Avenue Work Scope a. Liesch will mobilize an environmental technician to and from the sites as necessary to perform field activities. Arrangements will be made to contact utility companies prior to performing any work to identify the locations of underground utilities. The current owner will be responsible for locating private utilities. b. Advance Geoprobes or hand- auger borings in appropriate locations on the property. c. Provide project management and evaluate the data collected and prepare a report presenting the results of the borings and Liesch's conclusions concerning the relative magnitude of the impacts to soil at the property. This report will include a site location map and site diagram. Based on the results of the investigation, additional work may be necessary to meet regulatory and/or development needs. Scheduling Liesch will begin fieldwork within two or three weeks upon receiving written authorization. The fieldwork on each property is scheduled to take one and one-half days depending on field conditions. Upon receiving the final laboratory chemistry results (two week turn around time), the final report will be submitted within one week for City review. If further investigation, a corrective action design or risk assessment is warranted, Liesch will provide. an additional cost estimate for completing this work. • A-6 • AGENDA SECTION: ~~~C~en~ AGENDA ITEM # "7~ REPORT # STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • JANUARY 8,.2001 REPORT PREPARED. BY: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME; TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ~ ~, REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ~~ ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution approving a Stipulation of Final Settlement on Parcel 11, K.E. Peters Billiards Supply, Inc., 6421 Cedar Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution approving the Stipulation of Final Settlement on Parcel 11, K.E. Peters Billiards Supply, Inc., 6421 Cedar Avenue. • ~ II. BACKGROUND The K.E. Peters Billiards, Inc. (Peters Billiards) parcel at 6421 Cedar Avenue is one of thirty parcels along Cedar Avenue and 66th Street that are being purchased for the realignment and expansion of the Trunk Highway 77 and East 66th Street interchange. This parcel was originally appraised at $343,370, including fixtures and real estate. The proposed settlement amount is $376,720. Robert Lindall, our legal counsel at Kennedy and Graven believes that this proposed settlement is reasonable and if not accepted the condemnation process could result in a higher number. Therefore, he recommends that the City authorizes payment to the owner of $370,000 and permits the owner to remove fixtures valued at $6,720. 0108peters stipulation III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject property has been identified for purchase for the project. • The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), approved. by the Council on February 28, 2000, outlines the responsibilities for each participating agency. • The Agreement between the City and MAC, dated February 28, 2000, (Agreement) allows the use of condemnation proceedings as a means of acquiring property. • In accordance with the Agreement, MAC is responsible for approving and recommending to the City just compensation and condemnation settlement payments with property owners. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Approval of the Stipulation of Final Settlement for the Peters Billiards property would prevent the need for further condemnation proceedings for this property. G .FINANCIAL • MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. • MAC has approved this final settlement amount. D. LEGAL • The- Stipulation of Final Settlement was prepared by Robert Lindall and approved by Peters Billiards Supply's legal counsel and MAC. E. TIMING: • Upon Council approval of the final settlement, payment will be made to the owner within ten days. The property has already been vacated. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION~S~ • Do not accept the final settlement amount. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the City to enter into a Stipulation of Final Settlement. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A STIPULATION OF FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR 6421 CEDAR AVENUE (66TH STREET/TRUNK HIGHWAY 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real. property pursuant to and in furtherance of the 66th Street/Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described as follows: Lot 6, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real property; WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is initially funding the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject property to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate and immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, a qualified fixture review appraiser has certified the fixture appraisal report as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, MAC has reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the .subject property and has recommended that the just compensation for the real estate be determined by the City Council to be $315,000, and that the just compensation for the immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto be determined by the City Council to be $28,370; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2000, the City Council approved just compensation for the real estate in the amount of $315,000, and for immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto in the amount of $28,370 and did make an offer to the property owner in said amounts; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized condemnation of the subject property on August 14, 2000, such proceedings were commenced on behalf of the City by the City Attorney, and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reached a settlement with the property owner in the amount of $370,000 with the right to remove fixtures valued at $6,720 and MAC has concurred with the terms of final settlement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the proposed settlement amount of $370,000 with owner's right to remove fixtures valued at $6,720 is hereby approved. 2. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the Stipulation of Final Settlement and take all other actions necessary to complete the obligations of the City pursuant to its terms. 3. That the City Attorney is authorized to take all actions necessary to complete the obligations of the City pursuant to the Stipulation of Final Settlement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 2001. r Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk r