The URL can be used to link to this page

09-11-00 agenda• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA _ MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11; 2000 RICHFIELD CITY HALL 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA NTRODUCTORY°PROCEEDINGS, • • Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Approval of minutes of Regular City Council Meeting of August 28, 2000 PRESENTATIONS 1. Consideration of resolution announcing debut of Richfield 2020: Focus on the Future Staff Report No. 219 2. Presentation of video: Richfield and the Airport: A Shared Destiny 3. Presentation of proclamation designating Constitution Week, September 17-23, 2000 Individuals who wish to address the Council are requested to print their name and address on the Speaker's Register for the record. 4. Opportunity for citizens to address the Council on items not on the agenda Notes: AGENDA APPROVAL 5. Council approval of agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 5. Consent Calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consideration of approval of resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance abatement and weed destruction `S:R 'No --22'0 B. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing subdivision waiver to create two lots for Woodlake Medical Clinic and commercial portion of Woodlake Centre, 6625 Lyndale Avenue and 407 West 66th Street S.R. No. 221 C. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of properties for 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 222 D. Consideration of approval of resolution authorizing condemnation of property located within 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project S.R. No. 223 E. Consideration of approval of resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of 16 single family homes located at-6321, 6327, 6333, 6339, 6345, 6401, 6409, 6415, 6439, 6445, 6501, 6509, 6515, 6521, 6527 and 6533-18th Avenue S.R. No. 224 F. Consideration of approval of community event celebration license with fee waiver and waiver of City sign ordinance allowing banner at Veterans Memorial Park for Richfield Visions, Inc. for Richfield Cattail Days on September 16, 2000 S.R. No. 225 G. Consideration of approval of veterinary license renewals: • Airport Pet Hospital, 6301 Cedar Avenue, veterinary clinic S.R. No. 226 • Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue, veterinary clinic S.R. No. 227 ?oElaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue, grooming purposes S.R. No. 228 H. nsideration of approval of residential kennel license renewals: • 7301 Wentworth Avenue, three dogs S.R. No. 229 • 7232-11th Avenue, four dogs S.R. No. 230 • 6428 Knox Avenue, four dogs S.R. No. 231 • 6844 Columbus Avenue; three dogs S.R. No. 232 • 7433 East Pleasant Avenue, three dogs S.R. No. 233 Notes: 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing and second reading of amendment to City ordinance code establishing separate fire service from Public Safety Department and establishing Fire Department Staff Report No. 234 Notes: 7. Public hearing and consideration of resolution adopting proposed 2001 levy certification tax rate increase -Staff Report No. 235 Notes: RESOLUTIONS 8. Consideration of resolution renaming Golf Course Fund to Recreation Reserve Fund and designating interest earnings of fund for Recreation Enterprise Fund • Notes: Staff Report No. 236 9. Consideration of resolution authorizing payoff of swimming pool and miniature golf internal loans from Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund and forgiving internal loans of Rich Acres Golf Course and miniature golf operation from Cable Fund Staff Report No. 237 Notes: 10. Consideration of resolution modifying effective dates of youth appointments to City's advisory commissions Staff Report No. 238 0 Notes: 11. Consideration of 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed budget resolutions adopting 2001 preliminary property tax levy, setting truth in taxation hearing dates, revising 2000 budget of various departments, canceling 2000 ad valorem levy for current special assessment bonds, and authorizing use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for police and fire expenditures Staff Report No. 239 Notes: 12. Consideration of resolution supporting`"Minnesdta'-Department.of Transportation submission of $8.5 million loan application to Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Program of State of Minnesota to finance replacement of Penn Avenue bridge over 1- 494 Staff Report No. 240 Notes: ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OTHER BUSINESS . 13. Consideration of request for renewal of residential kennel license for 7144 Oliver Avenue, three dogs Staff Report No. 241 Notes: 14. Consideration of appointments to Riverview Corridor Management Committee Staff Report No. 242 Notes: AIRPORT BUSINESS 15. Airport status report Notes: CORRESPONDENCE Notes: COUNCIL CHOICE 15. Council discussion items Notes: 16. Claims and payrolls 17. 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. • • Admin. Reports & AGENDASECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 14 REPORT # 242 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 0 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NA&', TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ? J" SIGGNATOREI REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: \ j ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of appointments to the Riverview Corridor Management Committee L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Appoint a member and an alternate to represent the City of Richfield on the Riverview Corridor Management Committee. III. BACKGROUND The Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority has invited the City of Richfield to appoint one member and one alternate to serve on a new group to oversee a study of possible transit improvements including light rail transit from downtown Saint Paul to the airport and the Mall of America. The meetings will begin this fall and be held twice monthly. The group will be known as the Riverview Corridor Management Committee and it will make recommendations to the Metropolitan Council on transit issues for the River Corridor, roughly the area along West 7th Street from downtown Saint Paul to the airport and on to the Mall of America. The Committee membership will include both elected and appointed officials from the following organizations: Ramsey County House and Senate delegations; Metro Council; Minnesota Department of Transportation; Metropolitan Airports 0911 RamseyCountyLRT Commission; Hennepin County; Ramsey County; City of Saint Paul; City of Bloomington; City of Richfield; and, the Saint Paul Port Authority. Jill BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Plan supports improved transit service to. serve the City's and the region's travel needs. The Plan also supports the City's participation in intergovernmental cooperative efforts. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • It is too early to tell if the transit study will have a direct impact on the City of Richfield. It is remotely possible that expansion of the Light Rail Transit network may benefit Richfield, especially if the study contemplates providing transit service to a new west terminal at the airport. C. FINANCIAL I • No impact on the City. D. LEGAL I • This is a transit study and does not involve any legal issues. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION S • Council may choose to not appoint anyone to the Committee. This is acceptable if the study will not have any direct impacts on Richfield. • Council may choose to have City staff monitor the agendas and minutes of the meetings to determine possible impacts on Richfield. This was done on the Hiawatha Avenue transit study. V. ATTACHMENTS • None. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING 0 None anticipated. • Admin. Reports & AGENDA SECTION: Other Business AGENDA ITEM # 13 REPORT# 241 m- STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CMUSTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE 9 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve or deny a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Suzanne and Thomas Erickson, 7144 Oliver Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2000, Suzanne and Thomas Erickson submitted an application for the renewal of a residential kennel license. They own three dogs. The application fee of $85 has been received. Mr. and Mrs. Erickson's application contains the signatures of two contiguous property owners; however, one property owner did not sign the application because of past history regarding barking issues. The neighbor that didn't sign indicated that the Erickson's have installed a privacy fence that may help with the problem. • On August 10, 2000, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. 0911 Erickson A mediation session was not initiated by staff because opposed neighbors were not • interested in mediating. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY I • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received a phone call from a non-contiguous neighbor that received a letter sent by staff to 15 residents in the neighborhood, regarding this application. The caller was opposed to the issuance of a license. • Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has previously issued a residential kennel license to Mr. and Mrs. Erickson. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Staff is not making a specific recommendation to either approve or deny the request for a residential kennel license. • Staff has been unable to determine if Mr. and Mrs. Erickson have proven that the keeping of two or more dogs would not have an • adverse effect on the neighborhood. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • 'None V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Suzanne and Thomas Erickson 0 AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 12 REPORT # 240 STAFF REPORT MWAM CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 0 REPORT PREPARED BY: THOMAS FOLEY, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MIKE EASTLING, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: NAME,, TITLE " SIGNAT RE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of submitting a Transportation Revolving Loan Fund application for financing the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Resolution in support of the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation's submission of an $8.5 million loan application to the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Program of the State of Minnesota to finance the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. H. BACKGROUND Financing of the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge will depend on three funding sources: • $7.0 million in Tax Increment Financing Bond Proceeds • $7.0 million loan from the Best Buy Company passed through the City of Richfield to the Minnesota Department of Transportation • $8.5 million loan from the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF) Program operated by the State of Minnesota 0911TRLF Loan An application needs to be submitted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for the TRLF loan program and applications are due on s September 15, 2000. If approved, funds will become available in January, 2001. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to rebuild 1-494 as a way to reduce traffic on local city streets. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • The Transportation Revolving Loan Fund is essential to complete the financing of the Penn Avenue Bridge. The existing bridge is already inadequate and regularly causes serious traffic congestion during rush hours. C. FINANCIAL • The City of Richfield will not be responsible for repaying the TRLF loan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has agreed to repay both the principal and interest on the loan. D. LEGAL • The City Attorney has reviewed all agreements and loan documents needed to obtain a. TRLF loan. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Council may refuse to approve the submission of a TRLF application. This would seriously jeopardize attempts to build the Penn Avenue Bridge as soon as 2001 and delay reconstruction for ten years. V. ATTACHMENTS I • Resolution supporting a Transportation Revolving Loan fund loan application for replacing the Penn Avenue bridge over 1-494. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None anticipated. 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPPORTING AIRANSPORTATION REVOLVING LOAN APPLICATION FOR REPLACING THE PENN AVENUE BRIDGE OVER 1-494 WHEREAS, the City of Richfield desires to have the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1- 494 rebuilt due to serious traffic congestion and an inadequate design of the existing bridge; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will be submitting an application for funds under the Minnesota Transportation Revolving Loan fund to assist in financing the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge; and WHEREAS, the funds from the Minnesota Transportation Revolving Loan Program will accelerate the replacement of the deficient existing bridge by approximately ten years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richfield is supportive of the Minnesota Department of Transportation in its application for funds to the Minnesota Transportation Revolving Loan Fund to finance the replacement of the Penn Avenue Bridge over 1-494. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 • 0 AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 11 REPORT# 239 J REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 111, 2000 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAW; TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR N 17M G( a SIGNATURE vl ,. 1 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed Budget resolutions adopting 2001 preliminary property tax levy, setting truth in taxation hearing dates, revision of 2000 budget of various departments, canceling 2000 ad valorem levy for current special assessment bonds and authorizing use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for olice and fire expenditures. 11. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: adopt the resolutions establishing the 2001 preliminary property tax levy and proposed dates for Truth in Taxation hearings, revision of 2000 budget of various departments, canceling 2000 ad valorem levy for current special assessment bonds and the use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund refund interest earnings for Police and Fire expenditures. 1111. BACKGROUND I Before the City Council takes action on these issues, a presentation and discussion of the 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed budget and 2001 preliminary property tax levy occurs at a Special City Council meeting. To that end, a special, televised City Council meeting was held, pursuant to the City Charter, for this purpose. City staff presented the budget and proposed tax levy to the City Council in a discussion format. This was similar to the budget presentation format that has been used in the past. 1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY 0 • • The City Charter establishes September 1, 2000 as the last day for City staff to present a 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed budget to the City Council. While the Truth in Taxation statute has overridden the Charter process for budget adoption, City staff still follows the Charter provisions which are not in conflict with the Truth in Taxation statute. • As required by the Truth in Taxation legislation (MS 275.065) each "taxing authority" must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2001 to the County Auditor on or before September 15, 2000. "Taxing authority" includes all counties, all school districts, all cities regardless of population, all towns and all special taxing districts. No local units of government are exempted from this requirement. • In addition, each "taxing authority" must certify to their County Auditor the dates that have been selected for the Truth in Taxation hearings by September 15, 2000. The date for this hearing must not conflict with the hearing dates of the county or of the school district in which the "taxing authority" is located. This Truth in Taxation public hearing must be held between November 29 and December 20, 2000. B. CRITICAL ISSUES I • Along with the 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed budget and preliminary property tax levy, City staff is also recommending dates for this year's Truth in Taxation public hearings. It is recommended that this year's hearings be set for 7 p.m. Monday, December 4, 2000 with a .continuation date of 6 p.m. Monday, December 11, 2000. As Council Members are aware, at these public hearings, the tax levy may be reduced from the preliminary tax levy, but not increased. All official action concerning the preliminary tax levy and setting dates for the Truth in Taxation hearings must be concluded before September 15, 2000. C. FINANCIAL • In addition to the proposed tax levy and Truth in Taxation public hearing dates, the County requests that the series of resolutions which cancel a portion of the ad valorem tax levy for current special assessment bonds be adopted with the preliminary levy instead of with the final levy at the end of the Truth in Taxation hearings. This assists the County in updating its records in a more timely manner. The City is canceling the 2000 ad valorem tax levy for current special assessment bonds; and therefore has no 2000 tax levy for special assessment debt. • A final resolution for consideration authorizes the revision of the 2000 budget to conform with the most recent 2000 revenue and expenditure projections. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council could adopt either a greater or lesser 2001 preliminary property tax levy, 2000 Revised/2001 Proposed budget or select other allowable Truth in Taxation hearing dates. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Adopting a Proposed Budget and Tax Levy for the Year 2001 • Resolution Authorizing Cancellation of Certain Ad Valorem Tax Levies on the Improvement Bond of 1980 • Resolution Authorizing Revision of 2000 Budget of Various Departments • Resolution Authorizing Use of Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund Refund Interest Earnings for Police and Fire Expenditures for 2000 Revised and 2001 Proposed Budget VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR THE YEAR 2001 WHEREAS, the Minnesota Truth in Taxation law provides for a proposed tax levy to be certified to the County Auditor by September 15, 2000 and then recertified before December 31, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The budget for the City of Richfield for the year 2001, is hereby approved and adopted with appropriations for each of the departments to be as follows: General Fund Legislative/Executive $ 748,710 Administrative Services 1,152,950 Public Safety 6,969,090 Fire 2,089,040 Community Development 278,710 Public Works 3,179,490 Recreation Services 1,521,260 Transfers U D 15,000 15 954 250 N TOTAL GENERAL F , $ , 2. The estimated gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, including general ad valorem tax levies as hereinafter set forth for the year 2001 which are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the 2001 budget, are hereby found and determined to be as follows: TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 15,954,250 3. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2000, payable in 2001 for the following purposes and in the following amounts: PURPOSE AMOUNT GENERAL FUND $ 28,414,500 Provision has been made in the General Fund for the payment of the City's contributory share to Public Employees' Retirement Association. 2 General Fund Levy included all fiscal disparities distribution and HACA amounts. 0 4. The budget for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Richfield for the year 2001 is hereby ratified and approved. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property in the City of Richfield a direct ad valorem tax in the year 2000, payable in 2001 for the following purposes: PURPOSE AMOUNT Housing and Redevelopment Authority $ 208,000 5. A certified copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the County Auditor. 6. The Truth in Taxation public hearings shall be set for 7:00p.m. December 4, 2000 with a continuation hearing at 6:00p.m. December 11, 2000 if necessary. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: • Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk is RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAX LEVIES ON THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 9980 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 provided for the sale of $6,100,000 Improvement Bonds of 1980 and provided for taxes to be levied for the payment of principal and interest thereon; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 6310 certified an ad valorem tax levy for 2000 of $449,800 for payment of principal and interest on the Improvement Bonds of 1980; and WHEREAS, it appears desirable to cancel certain ad valorem tax levies to be levied for 2001, due to substantial prepayment in previous years of special assessments and the investment return on these funds; and WHEREAS, there are presently funds available in the Improvement Bonds of 1980 Fund to pay current principal and interest on such bonds; and WHEREAS, the ad valorem tax levy requirement includes a 5 percent excess provision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the amount levied in 2000, collectible in 2001 on Resolution No. 6310 in the amount of $449,800 is hereby cancelled, 2. That a copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Hennepin County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF 2000 BUDGET OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8827 appropriated funds for personal services, other expenses and capital outlays for each department of the City for the year of 2000; and WHEREAS, The City Charter, Chapter 7, Section 7.09, gives the Council authority to transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one department to another within the same fund at the request of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, The City Manager has requested a revision of the 2000 budget appropriations in accordance with Charter provisions and as detailed in the Proposed 2001 budget document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the 2000 appropriations for each department of the General Fund be amended to establish the following totals: General Fund Leg islative/Executive Administrative Services Public Safety Fire Community Development Public Works Recreation Services Transfers TOTAL GENERAL FUND INCREASE $ 688,780 1,012,950 6,767,420 1,968,210 252,380 3,309,620 1,468,150 66,540 $15,534,050 $ 442,110 2. Estimated 2000 gross revenue of the City of Richfield from all sources, as the same are more fully detailed in the City Manager's official copy of the proposed 2001 budget, are hereby revised as follows: INCREASE $ 442,110 3. That the City Manager and the Finance Manager bring into effect the provisions of this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11 th day of September, 2000. 0 Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION POLICE AND FIRE FUND REFUND INTEREST EARNINGS FOR CERTAIN POLICE AND FIRE EXPENDITURES WHEREAS, the City of Richfield received a refund of overfunded residual assets from the closed Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Police and Fire Fund; and WHEREAS, the City adopted a plan where only interest earnings on the principal of the residual assets are to be used for eligible expenditures; and WHEREAS, all eligible expenditures be restricted to Police and Fire expenditures; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. Proposed 2000 Revised Police/2001 Proposed and Fire Expenditures using PERA funds 2000 2001 Capital Improvement . Budget 800 MHz Radio 107,000 68,000 Public Safety Remodel 50,000 Emergency Generator 175,000 Drua Forfeiture Fund Undercover Vehicle Undercover Body Mike General Fund ODeratina Expenditures Civil Engineering Costs 800 MHz Radio Shot Guns Tactical Vests for SWAT SWAT Foul Weather Gear SWAT Sub Machine Guns Lockers Dispatch Mobile Radio Motor Vehicle Training Mobile Radios Portable Radios Pagers Cell Phones Records Software 15,000 1,800 15,000 700 2,400 2,100 2,300 2,000 1,800 207,660 25,000 6,300 8,200 4,000 6,000 25,000 General Fund Capital Exoenditures Intranet License for Crime View 20,000 Air Conditioner for Dispatch 4,400 Carbine Cases, Ammo 14,300 Firing Range Upgrade 27,000 Undercover Car 15,000 Office/Receptionist Area Renovations 24,120 HP Autoload DLT Tape Drive 10,000 800 MHz Radio System 50,000 Civil Construction for 800 MHz 50,000 Fire Station 2 Remodeling 20,000 Fire Station Alerting System 20,000 Defibrillator Replacement 8,000 8,000 Hostage Phone 13,000 462.920 546.160 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor 0 ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 • AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # 10 REPORT # 238 ,ado STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHERYL KRUMHOLZ, ADMIN. ASST. NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: MARTIN J. KIRSCH, MAYOR NAME, TITLE • DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: C SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution modifying the effective dates of youth appointments to the City's advisory commissions. A I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the resolution modifying the effective dates of youth appointments to the City's advisory commissions. II. BACKGROUND Three City commissions, Advisory Board of Health, Human Rights Commission and Friendship City Commission, currently appoint youth members. These youth appointees are full participating members of their respective commission. Their participation and attendance are important. On May 9, 1994 the City Council approved Resolution No. 8142 establishing the term of appointment of one year from June 1 through May 31, and defining the youth appointment to advisory boards and commission. is During the past few years, the response to the recruitment for youth members has been very low. A change in the term of appointment for the youth representatives may be beneficial to both the students and the commissions. 0911youthappt The proposed modification would change the one year appointment to begin on • September 1 and end on August 31, instead of the current June 1 through May 31 appointment. The modified appointment would coincide with the normal school year and provide for better continuity. The definition of the youth appointment would not change. If the proposed resolution is approved on September 11, the recruitment for youth members would begin immediately. The length of term for 2000 would be from the date of the appointment through August 31, 2001. Any current youth members who were appointed earlier this year could be reappointed to the new term if they choose to seek such an extended appointment. 1111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Past practice has been for the Advisory Board of Health, Human Rights Commission and Friendship City Commission to have two youth members. • The proposed resolution modifies Resolution No. 8142 approved by the City Council on May 9, 1994. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Recruitment for youth commission members may improve with the change in the appointment term. • Restructuring the youth members' appointment may provide for better participation in commission activities. • • The City Council has requested consideration of this change in the term of appointment. C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council may decide to make additional revisions to the proposed resolution. • The Council may decide to defer action on this item to a future meeting. • The Council may decide not to make any changes to the current resolution V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0 RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT OF YOUTH TO ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has established from time to time boards and commission to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council; and WHEREAS, annually the City Council appoints one or more youth members to certain boards and commissions; and . WHEREAS, the current one year appointments for youth members do not coincide with the school year; and WHEREAS, this resolution modifies Resolution No. 8142 adopted on May 9, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the youth members of advisory boards and commissions be appointed for a one year term appointment commencing on September 1 and ending on August 31 of each year or until their successors are named and qualified. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the recruitment for youth members for 2000 will begin immediately and that the terms will be from the date of appointment through August is 31, 2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk is AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions SEPTEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: i ? SIGNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution to pay off PIR Fund portion of Swimming Pool and Miniature Golf internal loans, using golf course residual assets, and the forgiving of Cable Fund internal loans for Rich Acres Golf Course and the miniature golf operation. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve resolution to pay off Swimming Pool and Mini Golf internal loans from the PIR Fund and forgive internal loans of Rich Acres Golf Course and Miniature Golf from the Cable Fund. 111. BACKGROUND In August 1991, the Council approved an internal loan from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) of up to $250,000 for the construction of a waterslide feature at the Richfield municipal pool. The final actual loan amount was $242.806. Construction of the feature was completed in 1991. In September 1992, the Council approved the construction of a miniature golf course at Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield. The cost of the course was to be funded by internal loans from the PIR Fund and the Cable Fund. The loan amount was $353,323, split equally between the PIR Fund and the Cable Fund. 0911 ENTERPRISELOANS All payments through 1999 on the miniature golf internal loan total $145,000 and were applied to the principal portion of the loan. In addition, $135,000 of the payments was credited to the PIR Fund and $10,000 to the Cable Fund. With the closure of Rich Acres Golf Course, the revenue-generating portion of the Recreation Enterprise Fund is no longer available. Thus, it is important that actions be taken to attempt to bring the pool and mini-golf operations to a break-even point of operations. The pay-off and elimination of these respective loans is one step in that process. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY I • Funds were loaned internally to construct these recreation amenities. With the struggling financial position of these operations, closure to these loans would be beneficial. • If these remaining Enterprise Funds continue to operate at a deficit, other funds such as General Fund revenues will be needed to balance them annually. There are no such requirements with regard to the Cable Fund. B. CRITICAL ISSUES I While there is no critical timeline, it is logical to proceed with this item in conjunction with the budget process. C. FINANCIAL The principal balances remaining on the internal loans are as follows: PIR Fund Cable Fund Rich Acres Golf Course 90,000.00 Swimming Pool Waterslide 99,032.42 Miniature Golf 41.661.50 166.661.50 140,693.92 256,661.50 • The issue facing these operations, is that Rich Acres is now closed and the Swimming Pool and Mini Golf Operations do not generate enough cash flow to meet general operating costs and service these internal loans. The first recommendation presented is to use a portion of the residual assets remaining in the Golf Course Fund to pay off the Swimming Pool and Miniature Golf loans from the PIR Fund. • The second recommendation is to forgive the Golf Course and Miniature Golf loans from the Cable Fund. It is the hope that with these loans paid off and forgiven, that the cash flows of the Swimming Pool and Miniature Golf operations will improve. D. LEGAL • Consistent with City ordinance 315.07, subdivision 3, permits PIR Fund monies to be used for interim financing of City capital projects. The internal loans from the PIR Fund to the Swimming Pool Fund and the Miniature Golf operation at Veterans Park fall into this subdivision. Accordingly, these loans must be paid back to comply with the ordinance. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Decide not to pay off and forgive the loans and continue to have them paid off according to the established repayment schedules. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution approving the pay-off and forgiveness of certain internal loans. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING I • None. 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PAYOFF AND CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN CITY INTERNAL LOANS WHEREAS, the City constructed a Waterslide Feature at the Richfield Municipal Pool and used an internal loan from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) to fund the construction; and WHEREAS, the initial loan was $242,806 and the principal remaining is $99,032.42; and WHEREAS, the City constructed a miniature golf operation at Veterans Memorial Park and used internal loans from the PIR Fund and Cable Fund to fund the construction; and WHEREAS, the initial loan was $353,323 split equally between the PIR Fund and Cable Fund and the principal remaining is $41,661.52 to the PIR Fund and $166,661.50 to the Cable Fund: and WHEREAS, the principal remaining on the Golf Course internal loan from the Cable Fund that was used to defease bonds issued to construct Rich Acres Golf Course is $90,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the internal loans owed to the PIR Fund totaling $140,693.92 from the Swimming Pool Fund and Miniature Golf operation be paid in full, using residual assets from the Golf Course Fund. 2. That the internal loans owed to the Cable Fund totaling $256,661.50 from the Golf Course Fund and Miniature Golf operation be forgiven. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: of Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy, City Clerk STAFF REPORT mada CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER AGENDA SECTION: Resolutions AGENDA ITEM # g REPORT # 236 NAME, TITLE • REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ?l 1 NAME, TITLE A SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: a..CP ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution to rename the Golf Course Fund the Recreation Reserve Fund and to designate interest earnings of the fund for the Recreation Enterprise Fund. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution to rename the Golf Course Fund the Recreation Reserve Fund and designating interest earnings of the fund for the Recreation Enterprise Fund. II. BACKGROUND As the City Council is aware, due to the construction of the North-South Runway, the City's municipal golf course ceased operations on March 31, 2000. The municipal golf course was one of four operations in the Recreation Enterprise Fund. The three remaining operations of the Recreation Enterprise Fund; the ice arena, the swimming pool and the miniature golf operation all ended 1999 with operating losses. All three funds also are operating with deficit fund balances. • The Golf Course Fund ended 1999 with a positive fund balance and has operated consistently with positive operating results. This has resulted in the fund accumulating a fund balance as of December 31, 1999 of approximately $2,981,000, with the potential to generate over $150,000 of interest earnings 0911ragc annually from this balance. At the present time there is no policy or plan in place for the use of the assets in the existing Golf Course Fund. • In a continuing effort to find ways to improve the bottom line performance of the remaining Recreation Enterprise Fund operations, a designation of a portion of these interest earnings to assist the ice arena, pool and mini-golf operations would be very beneficial. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY I • The ice arena, swimming pool and miniature golf operations are valuable assets of the community and need to be maintained as such. • The City's auditors, as part of their examination of the City's financial records as of December 31, 1999, recommend the City develop a plan to address the deficits in the Ice Arena, Swimming Pool and Miniature Golf Funds. • The City's auditors have also recommended the renaming of the Golf Course Fund to more accurately reflect its potential future use. • The designation of these interest earnings does not preclude the Council from using the Golf Course Fund balance for other future purposes. • Interest earnings will be limited to either $100,000 or the amount needed to supplement the operations, whichever is less. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL I • The ice arena, swimming pool and miniature golf operations incurred operating losses of $139,315, $34,882 and $14,907 respectively in 1999. • It is estimated that the existing balance in the Golf Course Fund will generate interest earnings of at least $150,000 a year. • If in the future, the designation of $100,000 of interest earnings is not sufficient to supplement current operations, other sources such as the General Fund will be needed. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Decide to forgo the designation of interest earnings from the existing Golf 41 Course Fund at this time. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing the renaming of the Golf Course Fund to the • Recreation Reserve Fund and designating interest earnings of the fund for the Recreation Enterprise Fund. • December 31, 1999 operating statements of the Recreation Enterprise Fund. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None • is RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENAMING OF THE GOLF COURSE FUND THE RECREATION RESERVE FUND AND DESIGNATING INTEREST EARNINGS OF THE . FUND FOR THE RECREATION ENTERPRISE FUND WHEREAS, the Ice Arena, Swimming Pool and Miniature Golf of the Recreation Enterprise Fund are in a deficit position; and WHEREAS, the City's auditors have recommended to develop a plan to address the deficits of these operations; and WHEREAS, the Golf Course Fund has an existing positive fund balance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. by City Council of the City of Richfield Minnesota as follows: 1. That the Golf Course Fund be renamed the Recreation Reserve Fund. 2. That the interest earnings of up to $100,000 generated annually from the existing fund balance be designated for use in the Recreation Enterprise Fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA RECREATION FUND COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS For the Year Ended. December 31, 1999 and 1998 Municipal Swimming Special Total Goff Course Ice Arena Pool Facilities 1999 1998 Operating Revenues: User fees Sales of merchandise and concession Less cost of sales Net Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: Personnel services Other services and charges Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) Nonoperating Revenues: Investment Income Interest Charges Other Revenues Total Nonoperating Revenues Income (Loss) Before Operating Transfers Operating Transfers In (Out): Special Revenue Funds Capital improvement Fund Internal Service Funds Net Operating Transfers in (Out) Net Income (Loss) Retained Earnings (Deficit) - January 1 Prior Period Adjustment Retained Earnings - January 1 - Restated Retained Earnings (Deficit) - December 31 $ 1,444,646 $ 395,883 $ 158,841 $ 58,543 $ 2,057,813 $ 2,038,807 153,978 1,383 25,031 12,588 192,980 225,182 (78,097) (13,932) (13,063) (51816) (110,908) (116,263) 1,520,427 383,334 170,809 65,315 2,139,885 2,147,726 596,552 227,595 137,067 39,684 1,000,898 1,008,043 412,347 243,465 62,180 22,037 740,029 684,600 84,724 51,589 6,444 18,501 161,258 172,992 1,093,623 522,649 205,691 80,222 1,902,185 1,865,635 426,804 (139,315) (34,882) (14,907) 237,700 282,091 101,430 1,148 - - 102,678 106,543 (11,375) (54,894) - (66,269) (16,875) 5,185 51,053 (64) 11,770 $7,954 57,354 95,240 (2,693) (54) 11,770 104,263 147,322 522,044 (142,008) (34,936) (3,137) 341,963 429,413 - 100,000 - - 1001000 179,500 - (660,037) - - (660,037) - - 138,388 - - 138,388 - (421,649) - (421,649) 179,500 522,044 (563,657) (34,936) (3,137) (79,686) 608,913 2,458,917 7,533 (424,423) (343,712) 1,698,315 1,751,757 - - - - (662,356) 2,458,917 7,533 (424,423) (343,712) 1,698,315 1,089,402 $ 2,980,961 $ (556,124) $ (459,389) $ (346,849) 1,618,629 $ 1,698,315 • 0 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # 235 =99 'A REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE AA -3IGNATU .u ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and consideration of a resolution adopting the proposed 2001 levy certification tax rate increase. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Adopt the resolution for the proposed 2001 levy certification rate increase. • II. BACKGROUND As part of the 1999 Omnibus Tax Bill, all counties and all cities over 500 population must hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution before a "levy certification tax rate" increase may be allowed. This public hearing is in addition to and earlier than the Truth in Taxation hearing required for counties and for cities over 500 population. The City's proposed tax levy for 2001 is an increase over the previous year and requires the public hearing and resolution. The public hearing legal notice was published in the Richfield Sun Current on September 6, 2000. 0911 budget III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION • A. POLICY N/A B. CRITICAL ISSUES • A new requirement enacted as part of the 1999 Omnibus Tax Bill, requires counties and cities to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution before a "levy certification tax rate" increase may be allowed. This resolution must be submitted to the County prior to October 20. • The public hearing and accompanying resolution are scheduled for September 11, 2000. C. FINANCIAL N/a D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The City Council could not approve the resolution and direct staff to present a levy certification tax rate with no increase. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution Authorizing a Levy Certification Tax Rate Increase for the 2000 Tax Levy, Payable in 2001 VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A is RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LEVY CERTIFICATION TAX RATE INCREASE FOR THE 2000 TAX LEVY, PAYABLE IN 2001 WHEREAS, the County Auditor is required to provide information to affected cities and the county board that will allow the local government to calculate what its levy certification tax rate would be in the coming year if the levy was held constant; and WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt a resolution at a public hearing if its levy will result in an increase in the levy certification tax rate over the baseline tax rate; and WHEREAS, the resolution must be filed with the County Auditor by October 20 of each year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Richfield, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, as follows: That the County Auditor is authorized to fix a property tax rate for taxes payable in the year 2001 that is higher than the levy certification tax rate calculated pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 2046.135 for the City of Richfield for taxes levied in 1999, payable in 2000. 2. Adoption of this resolution does not prohibit the City from certifying a final levy that will result in no levy certification tax rate increase or a tax rate decrease. 3. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: \ SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: v ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Public hearing and second reading of an amendment to the City ordinance code regarding creation of a Fire Department, separate from the Public Safety Department 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct and close the public hearing and by motion: Approve second reading of an amendment to the City Ordinance Code by amending Sections 300.03 and 300.13 and adding Sections 300.14 and 105.11, Subd. 1 concerning City department organization. II. BACKGROUND During the 1970's, when the City combined its fire and police divisions into one Public Safety Department, it was the trend - Edina and Burnsville had just combined their departments and it was seen as an opportunity for cost saving, cross training advantages. It is also important to note that at that time, the Richfield Fire Chief was retiring, representing an opportunity to examine the new organizational structure. Some departments in the metro area eliminated police and fire fighter titles and renamed them public safety officers, providing comprehensive cross training so that each could perform the duties of both police and fire positions. 0911 firedept Realistically, the organizational structure has simply not worked as effectively and efficiently as originally believed. Burnsville eliminated the Public Safety Department in 1982, Edina followed in 1985. Today Richfield remains only one of two statewide Public Safety Departments in which police and fire remain under the same administrative command. The rationale used in 1970 for combining the two departments is no longer applicable or could function irrespective of a combined department: 1. Organizational framework would permit the coordination of police, fire and civil defense. There exists a significant history of coordination occurring in separate departments. A combined department does not, in and of itself, guarantee coordination. Public Works is a very active and important element of civil defense coordination, yet it remains a stand-alone department. Fire Departments serve as a city's "all hazard" response agency. Since the 1980's, emergency services throughout the nation, including Richfield's, have adopted a standardized, all-hazard response management system to address multi-agency incident orrdination. It is called the Incident Management System. This system provides a framework for all responders to operate under regardless of department structures. 2. A centralized administration of public safety related activities would ensure that supplies, equipment and facilities are used in the most economical and efficient manner. There is very little sharing of equipment, supplies are handled separately and all facilities are administered by an umbrella division that manages all public buildings. The dispatch system is the only shared operation, but that is true of the vast majority of departments, regardless of their organizational structure. 3. A centralized administration could comprehensively evaluate assignment of personnel to ensure that available manpower is utilized in the most efficient manner. The day-to-day operations run quite independently of one another. In times of emergency, the standardized Emergency Management System is initiated. There is no systematize, coordinated approach to training, so personnel can not be reallocated within the two divisions. 0 Training emphasis is entirely different and has not been integrated. Coordination takes place in inspection duties, but this occurs in other departments that are not combined. 10 4. A combined system would encourage a comprehensive review ofpolice, fire and civil defense budgets with the possibility of reducing certain costs through coordination. This has simply not occurred to the extent that would, in any way, warrant the continued combination of the two departments. There have been no significant cost savings that can be attributable to the combination of the two departments. 5. A Public Safety Director would serve as the common focal point for a community relations program for all public safety activities. Today's modern fire services have become highly technical in nature, providing fire prevention and protection, emergency medical service, hazardous material responses, technical rescues, education and investigation. The face of Richfield's core commercial areas is changing in size and scale. The City has many multi-storied buildings, a senior population now residing in residential "high rise" buildings and a commercial core that is far more sophisticated in architectural style with far more varied uses than ever before in Richfield's history. Now and in the future, fire suppression activities will change - which does not necessarily mean it will be more expensive, just more technical in nature. It is therefore critical that the chief administrative officer for the management of the fire service be a fire professional with direct fire education and experience. This will enable the chief to effectively monitor the ever-changing nature of the profession, techniques and most, importantly, safety issues. The very nature of the two organizations is dramatically different. Fire is more . consistently a team approach, while police service can be an individual service, backed up by other department personnel when the need arises. One police officer can manage a crisis effectively, a fire fighter cannot manage a fire alone. In the past, the City has had a Fire Chief who reported to the Public Safety Director. When Pat Coughlin left as Fire Chief, that position was not filled and instead a Deputy Fire Chief position was filled by the person serving as the current Fire Marshall who then assumed the additional duties of Deputy Fire Chief. Because it has been difficult to handle the administrative duties and Fire Marshall duties, investigations have sometimes been handled by fire fighters. This practice has been dependent on time and resources, both of which are in critically short supply during heavy call times. It is no longer prudent public policy to add an additional layer of administrative oversight to a department that so clearly dictates an administrative head that has the professional background, training and comprehensive understanding of the technical aspects of fire and hazard material suppression. While Richfield has been fortunate both in the past and now to have a dedicated Public Safety Director, the nature of police service is also becoming more technical in nature in addition to the ever- increasing laws and mandates that the department must incorporate into its operations. Any time there is a Public Safety Director; the various divisions divide his/her attention/ resources. In this case, it is divided between police, fire and inspections. No one division receives the same degree of management attention that would be the case in separated departments. There needs to be a Fire Chief that is, in all aspects, the administrative head of the department, one with fire background and experience who can address the long term and strategic needs and requirements of the department. It is important to separate the two departments so that they can function optimally. Each can then specialize and focus on their area of expertise, expand standards for public service and training requirements and opportunities. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • Current policy establishes a Public Safety Department. In order to separate the two divisions into independent departments, the Council must do so by ordinance. It is important to note that the action before the Council tonight is the first step in the process of code revision creating two separate departments. There are several mentions throughout the code that reference the Public Safety Department and staff will bring these minor revisions to the Council in the near future. The action tonight, however, is the critical and most important step in the process. • It is also important to note that with the retirement of Steve Sutter, Deputy Fire Chief, it had been the intention of management to fill the position of Fire Chief regardless of the reporting line of authority. The policy decision is based on the Fire Chief as the administrative head of a separate department. B. FINANCIAL • The 2001 Proposed Budget includes funding for a department level chief, a salary upgrade from the Deputy Chief position previously held by Steve Sutter and a separate position of Fire Marshall. The number and complexity of fire inspections can no longer be handled by fire fighters as resources and time allows. And history has certainly indicated that the person holding the command position for the department can not manage the department and conduct fire inspections at the level Richfield expects to be at for many years. • There is a cost increase to the City in that the pay scale for a department level chief will be higher than that of a chief that would not be the administrative head of his/her department. • The salary range was included in the previous staff report which is attached. • It is also important to note that recruitment of a department level chief will be easier than that of a chief under the Public Safety Director. • In discussions with several deputy chiefs and captains in the metro area, few were willing to serve in the capacity of a fire chief who must report to a Public Safety Director. • They also noted that if they did take such a position, it would be only to gain experience and then move on. • The cost of retention will most likely make-up for the increased salary. C. LEGAL • First reading of this ordinance amendment was held on August 14, 2000 and the public hearing and second reading were scheduled for September 11, 2000. The required legal notice of the public hearing was published in the Richfield Sun Current on August 30, 2000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Maintain current organizational system V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance amendment • August 14 City Council Staff Report VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None 0 BILL NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 300.03 AND 300.13 AND ADDING SECTIONS 300.14 AND 105.11, SUBDA OF RICHFIELD CITY CODE WHICH PERTAINS TO CITY DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION THE CITY OF RICHFIELD DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 300.03 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Departmental and divisional organization" is hereby amended by adding the following: 300.03. Departmental and divisional organization. The administrative service of the city is divided into the following departments and heads thereof: Executive Department - City Manager Administrative Services Department - Director of Administrative Services Fire Department - Fire Chief Public Safety Department - Director of Public Safety Public Works Department - Director of Public Works Recreation Services Department - Director of Recreation Services Community Development Department-Director of Community Development Legal Department - City Attorney Liquor Department - Liquor Operations Director (Amended, Bill No. 1997-5) Divisions within departments shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council with the recommendation of the manager. Sec. 2. Section 300.13, subd. 2 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Fire division" is hereby amended by deleting the following: Subd. 2. Fire division. The fire division is supervised by the director of public safety and who is assisted by a fire chief of the division. There may be one or more assistant chiefs in the division. (Amended, Bill No. 1988-8) Sec. 3. Section 300 of the ordinance code entitled "Administration; officers; departments" is amended by adding the following: Section 300.14. Fire department. The fire department is supervised by the fire chief. There may be one or more assistant chiefs in the deoartment. Sec. 4. Section 105.11 of the ordinance code of the City of Richfield entitled "Special definitions" is amended to read as follows: 105.11. Special definitions. Subdivision 1. Public safetv department or director. Wherever the term "oublic safetv department" aopears in this citv code. it shall mean either the oublic safetv department or the fire department as determined by the citv manaaer. Wherever the term "public safetv director" appears in the citv code it shall mean the city manaaer or citv manaaer's desianee. Subd. 2. Communitv services department or director. Wherever the term community services appears in this city code, it shall mean either public works or recreation services as determined by the city manager. Wherever the term community services director appears in the city code it shall mean city manager or city manager's designee. Sec. 5. This ordinance shall be effective in accordance with Section 3.09 of the Richfield City Charter. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: 0 Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: PROP. ORDINANCE AUGUST 14, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: STEVEN L. DEVICH, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of first reading of an amendment to the City Ordinance Code establishing a separate fire service from the Public Safety Department and establishing a Fire Department. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve first reading of an amendment to the City Ordinance Code by amending Sections 300.03 and 300.13 and adding Sections 300.14 and 105.11, Subd. 1 concerning City department organization and scheduling the public hearing and second reading for September 11, 2000. II. BACKGROUND Chapter III of the City's administrative code establishes the organizational structure of the City. Section 300.03 sets forth the departments and Department Directors. Sections 300.5-300.17 describe the general duties of each Department Director. Section 300.03, which establishes the City's departments and Department Directors now reads as follows: 300.03 Departmental and divisional oraanization. The administrative service of the City is divided into the following departments and heads thereof: 0814FireDept.doc • Executive Department - City Manager • Administrative Services Department - Director of Administrative Services • Public Safety Department - Director of Public Safety • Public Works Department - Director of Public Works • Recreation Services Department - Director of Recreation Services • Community Development Department - Director of Community Development • Legal Department - City Attorney • Liquor Department - Liquor Operations Director (Amended, Bill No. 1997-5) Divisions within departments shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council with the recommendation of the manager. During the first half of this year, the City Manager conducted a thorough analysis to identify the most effective means of structuring department-level supervision and direction for the City's fire service. This analysis included input from a wide variety of sources including employees, cities with comparable fire services operations, current management practices regionally and nationally, as well as previous personal municipal experience. Based upon this analysis, it is staffs' recommendation that the current Public Safety Department be restructured to remove the Fire Division and create a separate Fire Department. • After the restructuring, the Public Safety Department would include Police, Support Services, Emergency Services and Inspection. The Fire Department would include only the fire services function. The alignment of City services along these department lines appears to be the most effective way to provide these services to the public with the greatest customer service focus. It also maximizes the City's existing staff resources and expertise. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY I • The City Manager, under authority of the City Ordinance Code, may make recommendations to the City Council to establish or modify the administrative structure of the City. • In order to change the administrative department structure of the City, the City Council must amend the City Ordinance Code. B. CRITICAL ISSUES I • The process to amend the City Ordinance Code will require a first and second reading consideration, and if adopted, a time period of over 60 • days to finalize. • The City Manager believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to consider this potential restructuring at this time. C. FINANCIAL • • The department restructuring would require the hiring of an additional department head level position of Fire Chief. It is important to note that the retirement of Steve Sutter would have necessitated recruitment of a Fire Chief that, under the current structure, would have reported to the Public Safety Director. A Department Director level position will result in a slightly higher pay scale. Combined Structure I Separate Structure Fire Chief $56,971 to $79,726 1 Fire Chief $66,102 to $92,206 It is anticipated that this restructuring would have no effect on the compensation classification of the Public Safety Director position. D. LEGAL If this change is to be considered, the process for changing the City's administrative ordinance code must be followed. The City Manager and City Council have the full authority to make such changes. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The City Council could decide to keep the existing departmental configuration. • The City Council could decide to change to another departmental configuration than the one recommended. V. ATTACHMENTS • Ordinance Code amendments. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • None. 0 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5H REPORT # 233 =0' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 • REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ?.O SIGNATURE REVIEWED By CITY MANAGER: v ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Sharon and Steve Hallberg, 7433 East Pleasant Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a residential kennel license for Sharon and Steve Hallberg, 7433 East Pleasant Avenue. 111. BACKGROUND I On July 24, 2000, Mr. and Mrs. Hallberg submitted an application for the renewal of a residential kennel license. The application was complete and the $85 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 28, 2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Hallberg have been able to do this. 0911 Hallberg • I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no complaints regarding this application. • Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. The City has previously issued a residential kennel license to Mr. and Mrs. Hallberg. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL ® N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to deny the request for Mr. and Mrs. Hallberg's residential kennel license. This would mean that they would have to reduce the number of dogs they have from three to two. V. ATTACHMENTS None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Sharon and Steve Hallberg 0 • AGENDA SECTION: ConseMf AGENDA ITEM # 5H REPORT # 739 -Mdm STAFF REPORT, modsm CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 • BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 1 Consideration of the request for the renewal of a residential kennel license, for Mr. Gary Sutliff, 6844 Columbus Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a residential kennel license, for Gary Sutliff, 6844 Columbus Avenue. 1 I II. BACKGROUND 1 On July 17, 2000, Mr. Sutliff submitted an application and the $85 fee has been rece? endtiaf kennel license. The application was complete On July 21, 2000, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Sutliff has been able to do this. o814Woodlake I Ili. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY staff notifies neighbors surrounding The City has adopted a policy that the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no complaints regarding this application. Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. The City has previously issued a residential kennel license to Mr. Gary Sutliff. B. CRITICAL ISSUES J I N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A I D. LEGAL 1 N/A t IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The Council could decide to deny the request for Mr. Sutliff's residential kennel license. This would mean that he would have to reduce the number of dogs he has from three to two. V. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Gary Sutliff. • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5H REPORT # 231 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING • SEPTEMBER 119 2000 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER c. IL SIGNATURE Or 1 CZAe ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey, 6428 Knox Avenue. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a residential kennel license for Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey, 6428 Knox Avenue. II. BACKGROUND On July 9, 2000, Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey submitted an application for the renewal of a residential kennel license. The application was complete and the $85 fee has been received. On July 19, 2000, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Delong and Mr. Fahey have been able to do this. 0911 Delo • 1 111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no complaints regarding this application. Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. The City has previously issued a residential kennel license to Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL N/A • I IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) I The Council could decide to deny the request for Ms. Delong and Mr. Fahey's residential kennel license. This would mean that they would have to reduce the number of dogs they have from four to two. V. ATTACHMENTS I None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • Sarah Delong and Tim Fahey • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5H REPORT # 230 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 • BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ® CA SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Carolyn Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a residential kennel license for Carolyn Kretchmer, 7232 11th Avenue. 111. BACKGROUND On July 26, 2000, Ms. Kretchmer submitted an application for the renewal of a residential kennel license. The application was complete and the $85 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on August 2, 2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does • not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Kretchmer has been able to do this. 0911 Kretchmer • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received. no complaints regarding this application. • Although this application is for four dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. • The City has previously issued a residential kennel license to Ms. Kretchmer. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to deny the request for Ms. Kretchmer's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would have to reduce the number of dogs she has from four to two. V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Carolyn Kretchmer • • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5H REPORT # 229 ?Willa STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 0 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a residential kennel license for Jane Noll West, 7301 Wentworth Avenue. I 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a residential kennel license for Jane Noll West, 7301 Wentworth Avenue. 111. BACKGROUND On July 13, 2000, Ms. West submitted an application for the renewal of a residential kennel license. The application was complete and the $85 fee has been received. A Community Service Officer conducted an inspection of the property on July 19, 2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time. It is up to the animal owner to prove that the keeping of more than two dogs does not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Ms. West has been able to do this. 11 0911 West • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION I A. POLICY The City has adopted a policy that staff is to notify neighbors surrounding the area of the residential kennel license. Staff received no complaints regarding this application Although this application is for three dogs, it does not exceed the maximum number of six animals that was approved by the Council as policy on July 22, 1991. The City has previously issued a residential kennel license to Jane Noll West. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A I C. FINANCIAL N/A I D. LEGAL I' N/A • IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The Council could decide to deny the request for Ms. West's residential kennel license. This would mean that she would have to reduce the number of dogs she has from three to two. V. ATTACHMENTS None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Jane Noll West is AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5G REPORT # 228 J STAFF REPORT, CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 0 BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a commercial kennel license, for the purpose o grooming, for Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue. j, RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a commercial kennel license, for the purpose of grooming, for Elaine's Grooming, 7429 Humboldt Avenue. 1 II. BACKGROUND ? On July 12, 2000, Elaine Berquist submitted an application for the renewal of a commercial kennel license. The application was complete and the $150 fee has been received. An inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer on July 20, 2000. There were no apparent problems found at that time. 9 0814Woodlake • 1 111. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICE' i The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a commercial kennel license. The City has adopted a policy that staff notifies neighbors surrounding the area of the commercial kennel license when it is located in a residential neighborhood. Staff received no complaints from any of the other neighbors. The City has previously issued a commercial kennel license to Elaine's Grooming for the purpose of grooming. B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL .. N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The Council could decide to deny the request for a commercial kennel • license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. V. ATTACHMENTS None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Elaine Berquist. is • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5G REPORT # 227 STAFF REPORT, CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 • BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY: SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: /[ /1 JJJ IWWWI/? ??? IIIJJJ SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a veterinary license to operate a veterinary clinic for Woodlake Veterinanj Hospital, 6436 Lvndale Avenue. I, RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a veterinary license to operate a veterinary clinic for Woodlake Veterinary Hospital, 6436 Lyndale Avenue. i II. BACKGROUND i application for the On July 20, 2000, Woodlake Veterinary Hospital submitted an app renewal of their veterinary license. The application was complete and the $150 fee has been received. On July 27, 2000, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. R 0814Woodlake I III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION POLICY A. The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a veterinary license. The City has previously issued a veterinary license to Woodlake Veterinary Hospital. B. CRITICAL ISSUES j • N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) The Council could decide to deny the request for a veterinary license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for a denial. S I V. ATTACHMENTS 1 • None VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING j Woodlake Veterinary Hospital staff. 0 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5G REPORT # 226 REPORT PREPARED BY: REPORT PRESENTER: CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 NAME, TITLE J STAFF REPORT, DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY • REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE - Qo-A E SIGNATURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a request for the renewal of a veterinary license, to operate a veterinary clinic, for Airport Pet Hospital, 6301 Cedar Avenue. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the renewal of a veterinary license, to operate a veterinary clinic, for Airport Pet Hospital, 6301 Cedar Avenue. if II. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2000, Airport Pet Hospital submitted an application for the renewal of their veterinary license. The application is complete and the $150 fee has been received. On August 8, 2000, an inspection of the property was conducted by a Community Service Officer. There were no apparent problems found at that time. • The Public Safety Department has received no complaints during the past year for Airport Pet Hospital. 0911AIRP III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION l A. POLICY • The applicant has complied with the City codes pertaining to a veterinary license. • The City has previously issued a veterinary license to Airport Pet Hospital. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • N/A C. FINANCIAL • N/A D. LEGAL • N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council could decide to deny the request for Airport Pet Hospital's veterinary license; however, the Public Safety Department has not found any basis for denial V. ATTACHMENTS • None VI: .PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING 0 Airport Pet Hospital staff AGENDA SECTION: Consent SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: BETSY CHRISTENSEN, ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES MANAGER NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: DAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ?? /f ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of the request by Richfield Visions, Inc., for a community event celebration license with a request for a fee waiver for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 16, 2000, at Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue. Also approve a request for waiver in the City sign ordinance to allow the display of a banner announcing the event. 1. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a community event celebration license, for Richfield Visions, Inc., with fee waived, for Richfield Cattail Days events, September 16, 2000, 6400 Portland Avenue, and approve a waiver of the City sign ordinance, allowing the display of a banner at the park announcing the upcoming event. Ill. BACKGROUND On August 28, 2000, Richfield Visions, Inc. applied for a celebration event license and requested that the fee be waived for the activities that take place in Veterans Memorial Park, 6400 Portland Avenue, on September 16, 2000. Richfield Visions, Inc. has also asked for a waiver in the City sign ordinance so they can display their banner at the park to announce the coming of the event up to the 0911Catt date of the event on September 16, 2000. The City's Chief Building Official has approved the issuance of a temporary sign permit. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The applicant has complied with all of the provisions of the city application process and meets requirements for the fee to be waived. The City's Chief Building Official has approved the temporary sign permit request. The City has previously granted this license and fee waiver request to Richfield Visions, Inc. for Richfield Cattail Days celebration. B. CRITICAL ISSUES ! The committee has contacted food sanitarians from the City of Bloomington to ensure that proper food handling practices are followed. They will work with Bloomington sanitarians and follow their recommendations for safe and wholesome food handling. C. FINANCIAL I N/A D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Deny the request for a community event celebration license. This would result in the applicant not being able to conduct activities, especially those concerning food preparation, on September 16, 2000. V. ATTACHMENTS N/A VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A J • AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5E REPORT # 224 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 • REPORT PREPARED BY: PERRY THORVIG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAB', TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR.REVIEW: / SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: L!a J ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of sixteen single family homes located at 6321, 6327, 6333, 6339, 6345, 6401, 6409, 6415, 6439, 6445, 6501, 6509, 6515, 6521, 6527, and 6533 18th Avenue South. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve the attached resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of 6321, 6327, 6333, 6339, 6345, 6401, 6409, 6415, 6439, 6445, 65.01, 6509, 6515, 6521, 6527, and 6533 18th Avenue South. • II. BACKGROUND The 2000 Minnesota State Legislature appropriated $5 million for the City of Richfield to purchase residential properties (including all related costs) in the first two blocks west of TH 77. The purpose of these purchases is to remove these homes from the extreme low frequency noise that will be caused by the new north- south runway under construction at the airport. 0911 justcomp Appraisals have been completed on the first sixteen houses on 18th Avenue. The appraisals have been reviewed by the city's review appraiser. Staff is • recommending just compensation in the following amounts: Property Address I Fair Market Value 6321 18th Ave. S. I $155,000 6327 18th Ave. S. I $140,000 6333 18th Ave. S. I $141,500 6339 18th Ave. S. I $128,000 6345 18th Ave. S. I $122,000 6401 18th Ave. S. I $130,000 6409 18th Ave. S. I $130,000 6415 18th Ave. S. I $128,000 6439 18th Ave. S. I $147,000 6445 18th Ave. S. I $150,000 6501 18th Ave. S. ( $154,000 6509 18th Ave. S. I $156,000 6515 18tH Ave. S. I $169,000 6521 18th Ave. S. I $151,000 6527 18th Ave. S. I $140,000 6533 18th Ave. S. I $143,000 In addition to the above, the property owners may also be eligible for relocation . benefits. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately once an offer is made to the property owner in accordance wit the Uniform Relocation Act. Attached is the resolution for your consideration. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The City Council has identified these properties for purchase for the project. • The properties are within the 87dB contour. • Uniform acquisition procedures are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • An offer will be made to the homeowners upon the Council's approval by representatives of Conworth Inc. on behalf of the City. C. FINANCIAL I • The Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) must review the City of Richfield's application and transfer the $5 million to Richfield. The funding application will be submitted to the . DTED on October 2, 2000. D. LEGAL • Offers will be made contingent on receipt of the grant funds from DTED. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Delay approval of just compensation. • Do not approve just compensation and property acquisition. V. ATTACHMENTS I • The resolution establishing just compensationand authorizing the purchase of the 16 properties. • Map VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6321, 6327, 6333, 6339, 6345, 6401, 6409, 6415, 6439, 6445, 6501, 6509, 6515, 6521, 6527, AND 6533 18TH AVE. S. WHEREAS, the 2000 Minnesota State Legislature authorized the City of Richfield (City) to acquire residential property within two blocks of Trunk Highway 77 and within the 87d B; WHEREAS, within the aforenoted area the following real property is identified for purchase: Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, Block 3 Iverson's Third Addition Hennepin County, Minnesota Lots 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14, Block 2, Iverson's Third Addition Hennepin County, Minnesota Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 Block 1, Iverson's Third Addition Hennepin County, Minnesota Together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the application process with the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) funds in the amount of $5 million will become available to the City for the purchase of the real property and related expenses; and WHEREAS, the City has accepted a plan for the purchase of properties along 18th Avenue S. north of 66th Street; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes to acquire real property within its corporate boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City has caused appraisals for the subject properties to be made by qualified independent professional appraisers to determine fair market value of real estate; and WHEREAS, a qualified review appraiser has certified the appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and • J WHEREAS, those values are as follows: Property Address 6321 18th Ave. S. 6327 18th Ave. S. 6333 18th Ave. S. 6339 18th Ave. S. 6345 18th Ave. S. 6401 18th Ave. S. 6409 18th Ave. S. 6415 18th Ave. S. 6439 18th Ave. S. 6445 18th Ave. S. 6501 18th Ave. S. 6509 18th Ave. S. 6515 18th Ave. S. 6521 18th Ave. S. 6527 18th Ave. S. 6533 18th Ave. S. Fair Market Value $155,000 $140,000 $141,500 $128,000 $122,000 $130,000 $130,000 $128,000 $147,000 $150,000 $154,000 $156,000 $169,000 $151,000 $140,000 $143,000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the just compensation amounts in the table above are approved. 2. That performance on the offers to purchase and related expenses is subject to receipt by the City of the funds from DTED. 3. That the City's consultant is authorized to present offers of said amount to the respective property owners. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 00 62ND-STr I - ? d 113 OP d D o n Id o ? FC5 a -0 ? i EL I IL- 63RD ST. D l kQ F7 P n LJ Q 11 '? ZI C3 143 1 13- u, z w 0- D = 0 0 m Cko I ? O TF J13 Q P a ?.7 L ! v I EP d ? 0 I =p ?? ? o D O 0 cj- p 0 q 0 a °0 4 'D-- a a q ° D l 4] " 17 A 4 - II H iL ¦ JUS %/?Ai VROPE?TMS "saTror TAFT PARK iI i W GRANT Ci $ BE SPENT a J ?- - , , i i 1 I I i[W "THjsT. r-, ? L 1 1 AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5D REPORT # 223 • =O' STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 0 KATIA MEDVETSKI, REPORT PREPARED BY: REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: rill/ REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 13/ M7ITURE ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution authorizing condemnation of property located within the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution authorizing condemnation of property located within the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project. • III. BACKGROUND I Thirty (30) properties and three (3) outdoor advertising signs are located within the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project (Project). Eminent domain/condemnation is an integral part of the Project's acquisition schedule in order to obtain title and possession of all properties, including outdoor advertising signs, by December 31, 2000.. To ensure this, legal counsel, staff, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) have determined that all property for which just compensation. has been set will require condemnation action at this time. The condemnation petitions will not be filed with the District Court until property owners receive purchase offers and have at least 10 days to consider purchase offers. The attached resolution, Exhibit A, specifies the last ten properties necessary for condemnation action so as to ensure possession by December 31, 2000. 0911 condem66 III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • • The City has legal authority to acquire private property by eminent domain for a public purpose. • The properties within the Project have previously been identified for purchase. • The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the MAC outlines the responsibilities of each agency as to property acquisition and construction. • Right-of-way acquisition procedures set forth by MnDOT are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Council's approval of condemnation action at this time will allow the City to act in a timely manner based on the project schedule. • Condemnation action does not preclude the City and property owners from negotiating a settlement. C. FINANCIAL I • MAC is obligated to fund the purchase process, whether by outright purchase negotiations or condemnation action. • I D. LEGAL I • The City's legal counsel, MAC and staff have been coordinating efforts to ensure timely possession of the necessary properties for the Project. E. TIMING • Pending Council's approval of just compensation for properties on September 11, 2000, the condemnation petition will be filed after property owners have had ten days to consider purchase offers. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council can choose to delay approval of condemnation action, or to not approve condemnation action. However, this would be inconsistent with agreements in place with MnDOT and MAC. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution authorizing and directing the condemnation of certain property for street purposes. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING 0 N/A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR STREET PURPOSES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richfield is the official governing body of the City of Richfield; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, is authorized by law to acquire land needed for public use or purpose; and WHEREAS, according to the Environmental Impact Statement for the new North- South runway to be built by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the interchange of TH 77 and 66th Street requires upgrade; and WHEREAS, the layouts of the new interchange will accommodate the increased traffic generated by the new air cargo facility and the redevelopment planned for the east side of Richfield consistent with the City's Airport Mitigation Plan; and WHEREAS, the plan and design for the 66th Street and TH 77 Interchange Project (Project) require that the real estate described herein be acquired to implement the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is reasonable, necessary, proper and convenient, for a public purpose, and in the interest of the public health, safety, • convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City that title to and possession of the real estate hereinafter described be acquired in furtherance of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the funding and construction schedule for the Project make it necessary to acquire title and possession of the real estate hereinafter described prior to the filing of the final report of the condemnation commissioners to be appointed by the district court. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota, that it is the considered judgment of the Council that the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, be acquired in fee simple absolute for the stated public purposes, and that it be acquired, if necessary, through the exercise of the power of eminent domain. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the City Attorney determines that voluntary acquisition is not likely to be achieved upon terms substantially consistent with the City Council's determination of just compensation after the owner has had reasonable opportunity to consider the City's offer of just compensation, the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to acquire said real estate by use of eminent domain proceedings, negotiation of early entry authorizations, and the use of the quick take procedure as provided by Minn. Stat. § 117.042, pursuant to the City's approved appraisal of value for said real estate and outdoor advertising signs as determined in the City Council's resolution establishing just compensation for said property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. • Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk 0 EXHIBIT A ? - - s - -Pro Ad dres perty City and Parcel PID Number Legal Description 3 6315 Cedar Avenue Lot 5, Block 15, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-22-0003 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 7 6345 Cedar Avenue Lot 12, Block 15, New Ford Town, Hennepin 25-028-24-22-0008 County, Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 13 6429 Cedar Avenue Lot 9, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0143 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 14 6437 Cedar Avenue Lot 10, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0069 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 15 6441 Cedar Avenue Lot 11, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, • 25-028-24-23-0070 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 16 6445 Cedar Avenue Lot 12, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0071 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 17 6501 Cedar Avenue Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, New Ford Town, Hennepin 25-028-24-23-0001 County, Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 19 6511 Cedar Avenue Lot 4, Block 1 and the N. 20 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, 25-02&24-23-0003 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. 24 6537-39 Cedar Avenue Lot 10, Block 1, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0008 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 27 1720 E. 66"' Street Lot 2, Block 4, Iverson's V Addition, Hennepin 26-028-24-14-0119 County, Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5C REPORT # 222 0 -A? STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 KATIA MEDVETSKI, REPORT PREPARED BY: REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST NAME, TITLE BRUCE PALMBORG, REPORT PRESENTER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: 11 • ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of properties for the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project. 1. II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing the purchase of properties for the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project. BACKGROUND On February 28, 2000, the City Council approved a right-of-way agreement with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) which provides for the acquisition of properties impacted by the 66th Street and Trunk Highway 77 Interchange Project (Project). Under the acquisition process, MAC also reserves the right to. undertake final review of all appraisal reports and approve City staff recommendations of just compensation to the City Council for approval. On February 29, 2000, appraisal work began for all properties. Based on MAC's recommendations to date, the City Council has approved just compensation for 20 of 30 parcels and three (3) outdoor advertising signs required for the project. All necessary reviews of appraisal reports have been made. The current request for just compensation is for the last ten (10) parcels:` 091166th Properties • city Parcel 3 7 13* 14* 15* 16* 17 19 24 27 I *Common ownership PID Number I 25-028-24-22-0003 l 25-028-24-22-0008 25-028-24-23-0143 25-028-24-23-0069 25-028-24-23-0070 25-028-24-23-0071 I 25-028-24-23-0001 I 25-028-24-23-0003 l 25-028-24-23-0008 1 26-028-24-14-0118 As previously indicated to Council, in addition to the just compensation figures referenced in the approving resolution, the property owners may also be eligible for relocation benefits once offers are made to property owners. The relocation benefits will be calculated separately by the City's acquisition/relocation consultant, Conworth, Inc., in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act. • III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subject properties have been identified for purchase for the Project. The Memorandum of Understanding between the City, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (the "MnDOT"), and MAC outlines the responsibilities for each participating agency. The Agreement between the City and MAC further outlines the responsibilities of each agency as to property acquisition and construction. Right-of-way acquisition procedures set forth by MnDOT are being followed. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Offers will be made to the property owners upon Council's approval of just compensation and authorization to purchase. • Properties are being processed for Council's consideration for just compensation and purchase authorization as appraisals are received by staff. C. FINANCIAL MAC is obligated to fund this transaction. D. LEGAL Property Address 6315 Cedar Ave. 6345 Cedar Ave. 6429 Cedar Ave. 6437 Cedar Ave. 6441 Cedar Ave. 6445 Cedar Ave. 6501 Cedar Ave. 6511 Cedar Ave. 6537-39 Cedar Ave. 1720 East 66th St. • N/A E. TIMING I • Closings will be scheduled as negotiations are completed. • Based on other right of way acquisition projects, owners will be able to remain on the property for an interim period to help make moving as smooth as possible. Vacation, however, must be completed by December 31, 2000. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • The Council may choose to delay approval of the just compensation and authorization to acquire the project properties or not approve them at this time. However, this would be inconsistent with agreements in place with MnDOT and MAC. It would also place the property owners at a disadvantage, as they are the last of the entire group to be processed. V. ATTACHMENTS Resolution establishing just compensation and authorizing purchase of real property. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • N/A 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING • PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6315, 6345, 6429, 6437, 6441, 6445, 6501, 6511, 6537-39 CEDAR AVENUE, AND 1720 EAST 66TH STREET (66TH STREET/TH 77 INTERCHANGE PROJECT) WHEREAS, the City of Richfield, Minnesota desires to purchase certain real property and immovable fixtures and equipment, pursuant to and in furtherance of the 66th Street/TH 77 Interchange Project (Project) heretofore adopted by the City of Richfield (City) said real property being described on Exhibit A, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a layout for Project improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project improvements necessitate the purchase of real property and immovable fixtures and equipment appurtenant thereto; and 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 properties 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, qualified review appraisers have certified the real estate appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, qualified fixture review appraisers have certified the immovable fixtures and equipment appraisal reports as being in conformity with appraisal standards; and WHEREAS, MAC has reviewed all appraisal reports and review appraisal reports prepared for the properties and the City staff recommendations of just compensation for the real estate and immovable fixtures and equipment relating thereto, and concurs that such amounts should be determined by the City Council as the just compensation for such properties, as indicated in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, MAC has also recommended that the City proceed to make offers to the owners of the properties in the just compensation amounts as indicated within Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the just compensation amounts indicated within Exhibit A are consistent with said review appraisal reports. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the total just compensation for each of the individual parcels of real estate and immovable fixtures and equipment relating thereto, are found to be the amounts indicated in Exhibit A. • 2. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is authorized and directed to submit to property owners the City's offer to pay such just compensation amount for all interests in each such property and commence negotiations for the purchase of said property. 3. That the City's agent, Conworth, Inc. is hereby directed to notify, in writing, the owners of the properties that the City intends to acquire the property indicated in Exhibit A and establish eligibility for relocation benefits. 4. That the City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute purchase agreements in a form acceptable to them and take all other actions necessary to complete the purchase of the properties for the amounts of just compensation set forth in this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield., Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • • EXHIBIT A City Parcel 3 7 13 14 15 16 Property Address and PID Number Legal Description 6315 Cedar Avenue Lot 5, Block 15, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-22-0003 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 6345 Cedar Avenue Lot 12, Block 15, New Ford Town, Hennepin 25-028-24-22-0008 County, Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 6429 Cedar Avenue Lot 9, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0143 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 6437 Cedar Avenue Lot 10, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0069 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 6441 Cedar Avenue Lot 11, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0070 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 6445 Cedar Avenue Lot 12, Block 8, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, 25-028-24-23-0071 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. Real Estate $317,000 $280,000 $350,000 • Immovable Fixtures and Equipment Total $14,040 $331,040 $14,440 $18,255 $294,440 $368,255 091166`h Properties F Property Address Immovable city and Fixtures and Parcel PID Number Legal.Description Real Estate Equipment Total 17 6501 Cedar Avenue _ Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, New Ford Town, Hennepin _ $265,000 $44,690 $309,690 25-028-24-23-0001 County, Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 19 6511 Cedar Avenue Lot 4, Block 1 and the N. 20 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, $345,000 $5,655 $350,655 25-028-24-23-0003 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. 24 6537-39 Cedar Avenue Lot 10, Block 1, New Ford Town, Hennepin County, $213,000 $11,040 $224,040 25-028-24-23-0008 Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. 27 1720 E. 66`" Street Lot 1, Block 4, Iverson's 3`° Addition, Hennepin $255,000 $5,700 $260,700 26-028-24-14-0118 County, Minnesota, together with all abutting streets and alleys, vacated or to be vacated, and all easements, gaps, overlaps and gores, appurtenant thereto. AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5B REPORT # 221 J STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: JULIE URBAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR NAVE, TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: BRUCE PALMBORG, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver to create two lots for the Woodlake Medical Clinic and the commercial portion of Woodlake Centre, 6625 Lyndale Avenue South and 407 West 66th Street. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve a resolution authorizing a subdivision waiver to create two lots for the Woodlake Medical Clinic and commercial portion of Woodlake Centre, 6625 Lyndale Avenue South and 407 West 66th Street. III. BACKGROUND The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) authorized providing economic assistance to Richfield State Agency, Inc. (RSA) for development of the medical clinic project and adjacent parking at 66th Street and Grand Avenue. RSA has completed its obligations for the clinic according to the December 1993 Contract for Private Redevelopment with the HRA. The HRA has approved prepaying the remaining HRA obligations due to RSA in 2000 and 2001 totaling $66,706. As a result, project monitoring and financial management of the RSA's Urban Village Tax Increment District as it proceeds and Medical Clinic District as it is closed out will be distinctly separate. 0911 rsa The Richfield Urban Village plat has one lot for the bank building, the new commercial building and the clinic. The medical clinic must have its own tax identification number in order for the HRA to prepay the medical clinic note. A subdivision waiver is required to create a separate lot for the clinic and assign a separate tax identification number. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • The subdivision waiver is necessary in order to carry out prepayment of the medical clinic note. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • Requiring a replat would be onerous given the small size of the newly created parcel. • The HRA is obligated to satisfy the medical clinic note. • RSA concurs in the proposed prepayment. C. FINANCIAL I • There is no significant economic impact to the City or HRA in prepaying the note and it completes the HRH's obligation to RSA's Medical Clinic note in anticipation of beginning payments to RSA's Urban Village note. D. LEGAL • The resolution has been drafted by legal counsel. • Both lots will meet the City's lot size requirements. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Deny the subdivision waiver and require the property to be replatted. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution • Attachment A, site plan showing the lot split VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SUBDIVISION WAIVER TO RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY AND AUTHORIZING THE SPLIT OF TAX PARCEL 27-028-24 32 0128 WHEREAS, Richfield State Agency is the fee owner of certain real estate (the "Property") located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, having tax identification number 27-028- 24 32 0128 and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Property is located entirely within the tax increment financing district known as Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, a portion of the Property is occupied by a medical clinic, and the medical clinic portion was not intended to be included in the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Richfield (the "HRA") intends to take the necessary actions to remove from the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District that portion of the Property occupied by the medical clinic; and WHEREAS, the division of the Property into separate tax parcels is necessary in order to accomplish the removal of the medical clinic from the Urban Village Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, division of the Property into separate tax parcels would constitute a subdivision of land under the City's subdivision regulations; and WHEREAS, compliance with the subdivision regulations would impose an unnecessary hardship on the owner of the Property, because the owner was not aware of the need to exclude the medical clinic from the tax increment district at the time of platting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD: 1. The City Council finds that requiring compliance with the City's subdivision regulations would create an unnecessary hardship, within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subdivision 4b. 2. The City Council further finds that failure to comply with the subdivision requirements before dividing the tax parcel does not interfere with the purpose of the City's subdivision regulations. 3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, subdivision 4b and Section 272.162, subdivision 2, the City Council waives compliance with its subdivision regulations for the division of the Property into Parcels A and B as described on the attached Exhibit A. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT A • PARCEL A That part of Lot 2, Block 1, RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the north line of said Lot 2 from a point on the north line of said Lot 2, distant 126.70 feet west from the northeast corner of said Lot 2 PARCEL B That part of Lot 2, Block 1, RICHFIELD URBAN VILLAGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies westerly of a line drawn perpendicular to the north line of said Lot 2 from a point on the north line of said Lot 2, distant 126.70 feet west from the northeast corner of said Lot 2 • • RICHFIELD URBAN Ilo,m me .J IM epnllwet Cqn« s1 IM Senl..nl ?-Owrl« M S«lin tJ. Jo.naq M IMpr N - ""'• ' • VILLAGE R.T. WC. NO a N«I-n reeler N W 2.'Eleee t, N897J'35'E f 802.01 _ it • r - -J..w •^ ---- .r uw •rww lo?E-----____ PARCEL I : I 1 .it Atc ;In - / /? ;oiI I 11'y ?a I 3/ LIOT ^Ig' -? .? ? ssIJ ? ? I I 1 ,/S i?tll • / ?' %' _ ?"mr I ?`gI ? to O?• i, I I x a; .. ..lip, ....- .. I ?.I i_Z . -------------------- t*S7W 'Sr6J g? •' ? /? •Ir \-.- o ------- »J.L ____----7--_- e?. »rol I ? ?L J I I - .,.. t. , .... ......• 979'08°W 205.87 a 44by6'05?..• 58 .. _ t .ale .u .. $ S ZS If N8979'OWE 330.71 N8974131"Ee -321.1- D 00 Scale in Feet ais.?-d tlowm. a Oosw on on / / ' : Ire i I .. ......... .. .. I \ • D. at.. t arposilion .;loin ..4dnq `• / / I o I ........ .. .. .. ..... ... O t).role. iron an Teel art ••V •, ?• ••• ?•.. ... .. I ••W ( .•• e Denolee GK roil set Rehder and Associates, Inc. Z Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets --I I AGENDA SECTION: Consent AGENDA ITEM # 5A • REPORT # 220 STAFF REPORT mama CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 REPORT PREPARED BY: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NA&W TITLE REPORT PRESENTER: CHRIS REGIS, FINANCE MANAGER NAME, TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: ' ?GNATU REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: \1 ??d ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance abatement, and weed destruction. mass" ?. "• 9 111. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the attached resolutions levying special assessments for nuisance abatement, and weed destruction against listed roe owners. II. BACKGROUND The special assessment for nuisance abatement is for costs incurred by the City in connection with abatement for nuisances on certain properties in the City, which are not properly maintained. The owners of the subject properties are notified by the City to correct the nuisance and have failed to do so within a timely limit. The property owners were notified that if the nuisance is not abated within the proper time limit, the City would take the corrective action necessary and bill the property owner. Finally, each year the City hires contractors to cut weeds on certain properties in the City not maintained by the owners. If the owner fails to cut the weeds in a timely manner after notification by the City, the City undertakes the weed destruction and • bills the property owner for the service. In all cases, the property owners were notified that any unpaid charges of fees may be assessed against the property. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY I The nuisance properties were not maintained by the owners and the City incurred costs to abate the nuisance. One property was not maintained by the owner and the City incurred costs to abate the weed nuisance. Minnesota State Statutes provide that the City may levy a special one- year assessment for these costs. I B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL I • The proposed special assessment for nuisance abatement is $975.00. The proposed special assessment for weed destruction is $197.03 • with an additional 8% interest penalty. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Do not approve the attached resolutions and have the costs absorbed by the city. V. ATTACHMENTS 1 • Resolution levying special assessments for nuisance abatement and unpaid false alarm fees for one year at no interest. Resolution levying a special assessment for weed destruction for one year with $% interest. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING None. 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND FALSE ALARM FEES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1 The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT NUISANCE ABATEMENT: 29-02824-41-0125 49704 6732 Queen Avenue So. $800.00 27-02824-44-0108 49714 6945 Clinton Avenue So. $175.00 2. The above special assessments are to be spread over one year at no interest. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: 1. The following described properties are hereby specially assessed in the following amounts for expense incurred by the City in connection with abatement of a nuisance health hazard and a safety hazard pursuant to provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.101, to wit: PROPERTY ID ADDITION ADDRESS AMOUNT WEED DESTRUCTION: 26-02824-33-0103 49728 6856 Park Avenue. So. $197.03 2. The above listed special assessment will be spread over a period of one year at the rate of 8% interest per annum. 3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk • AGENDA SECTION: PRESENTATION AGENDA ITEM # 1 REPORT # 219 =09A REPORT PREPARED BY: NAME, TITLE • • REPORT PRESENTER: STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 119 2000 PAM DMYTRENKO ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER SAMANTHA ORDUNO, CITY MANAGER NAME TITLE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: X2/2 / n ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consideration of resolution announcing debut of Richfield 2020: Focus on the Future. L RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt a resolution announcing the debut of Richfield 2020: Focus on the Future. II. BACKGROUND An Initiating Committee, comprised of over 30 community members representing various Richfield organizations and groups was formed in August to organize and market the kick-off for the community-wide visioning process and forums. Four subcommittees have been created to accomplish the tasks needed to prepare for the visioning forums scheduled for the evenings of October 3 and 4. The four subcommittees include the: 1) Forum Organization subcommittee; 2) Public Relations/Media Campaign subcommittee; 3) School Contest subcommittee; and 4) Issue Project Team subcommittee. Because of the relatively short timeframe within which to work, the subcommittees have already begun to meet to formulate ideas and begin preparations. At its September 6 meeting, the Initiating Committee selected a name and logo for the visioning process: Richfield 2020: Focus on the Future. This name and logo ,A 0911 Visioning will be widely disseminated throughout the community and appear on all fliers, posters, banners and signs to build excitement for the process and encourage widespread participation. Additionally, a school contest is being organized to include Richfield students in the visioning process. Students will be invited to submit entries in the form of posters, drawings, essays or poems describing or depicting what they would like Richfield to look like in the year 2020. All participants will be recognized at a future City Council meeting and many of the entries will be featured in the final visioning document. Some Richfield high school students will also have an opportunity to go through a condensed version of the visioning process with Carl Neu as part of their classroom experience. All students will be welcome to participate in the evening forums. • The visioning forums have been scheduled for October 3 and 4 from 6-10 p.m. The meetings will have identical formats. The October 3 forum will be held in the Richfield High School lunchroom and the October 4 forum will be held in the Richfield Intermediate School lunchroom. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY • At the January Council/Staff Goalsetting Work Session, Council discussed the benefits of a community-wide strategic visioning process and decided to initiate such a process sometime during the year 2000. • Following discussion at its June 29, 2000 Council meeting, Council directed staff to move forward with plans to commence a community- wide visioning process. • The Initiating Committee, representing many community groups and organizations, has selected a name for the process that identifies it uniquely to Richfield. B. CRITICAL ISSUES • With the visioning forums scheduled for the evenings of October 3, 2000 and October 4, 2000, it is important to officially commence the process to get the publicity underway. • Subcommittees of the Initiating Committee have already begun to meet to plan the forums, organize the school contest and arrange for the publicity encouraging widespread community participation. I C. FINANCIAL • $10,000 has been budgeted for this year for expenses related to the community visioning process. • D. LEGAL • NA IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) • Do not approve the resolution. However, this action would delay the commencement of the visioning process and necessitate a rescheduling of the October 3 and 4 forums. Carl Neu, the consultant retained by the City to facilitate the visioning forums, has very limited availability for the remainder of this year. V. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution officially announcing debut of Richfield 2020: Focus on the Future. VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING • John Bjostad, Chair of the Public Relations/Media Campaign subcommittee, will give a brief presentation and other members of the Initiating Committee will be in attendance to unveil the visioning name and logo. 0 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION COMMENCING THE RICHFIELD 2020 COMMUNITY VISIONING PROCESS WHEREAS, community visioning offers an opportunity to develop a framework for goal setting and establishing priorities; and WHEREAS, community visioning provides a process that educates, informs, clarifies and challenges people to think beyond the short-term issues of the day and to focus on the long-term; and WHEREAS, community visioning is a process that unifies the community around commonly held goals generated from community members' participation, insight and informed decision-making; and WHEREAS, community-wide participation is essential in shaping the future vision of the City of Richfield. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota as follows: • The City of Richfield officially commence the adventure into the future through a yearlong community visioning process that will help to shape the future of the community into the year 2020. • The process hereafter be referred to as "Richfield 2020: Focus on the Future." • Anyone with an interest in the future of Richfield be invited to attend one of the two visioning forums officially set for the evenings of October 3, 2000 and October 4, 2000. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 11th day of September, 2000. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah J. Guiher, Deputy City Clerk